Misplaced Pages

:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 16:47, 4 November 2022 editNutez (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users600 edits →Personal attack at Talk:Aaron Maté: ReplyTag: Reply← Previous edit Latest revision as of 13:38, 27 December 2024 edit undo100.36.106.199 (talk) →Wikihounding by Awshort: ReplyTag: Reply 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Short description|Report incidents to administrators}} {{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.-->{{/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 = 1112 |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-->
== Disruptive editing and WP:TALKNO by ] ==


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 .
== User Doug Coldwell at ] and ] ==


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 .
In September after some talk page conversations () I boldly split off the page ] from the GA article ]. On 16 October ] made a cut and paste page move to ] without attribution and with other issues. I left a note on his talk page , reverted the redirect and tagged it for speed deletion (G6) and started a page move discussion .
<!-- 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)
On 16 October Doug Coldwell expressed support for the move and then made another 8 posts in support of the renaming. The move was closed as supported and actioned about 12 hours ago
::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)
then less than hour later Doug Coldwell created a new page called ] about the same building and added a merge template from the ] to the new page.
:::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)
I would normally have skipped ANI and left a note on his talk page about it being a duplicate page and either merged the new information into the existing page or suggesting that they do it except for the following timeline:
* The page was starting to be worked on by 18 October
* There is a note indicating that he was planning to create a new page with a merge request since at least 18 October (see top of ) whilst the recommended move discussion was still underway.
* The page ] is a cut and paste creation from the sandbox of their alternate account and has no attribution for any information. I believe that at least some of the information comes from other Misplaced Pages pages.
* He is arguing that the current name, Haskelite Building ''would not be appropriate'' when he said the opposite during the move discussion which was open until 1 hour previously to him making that statement.


:{{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)
Happy to provide additional context if required.
::], 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)
] (]) 06:06, 24 October 2022 (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)
::::::Think it's time to draft up a formal proposal at this point? ]<sup>] </sup> 18:29, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::I don't think that's necessary. The key isn't formally deciding the criterion for blocking (because that's obvious to everyone) but rather detecting the next incident. Best way to do that for everyone gathered here to watchlist ]. Sooner or later, futher trouble will show up there. ]] 21:31, 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)
::::::Not to mention it would STILL be supported these days. It's literally right there when you click wifi/network settings in Windows 10. ]<sup>] </sup> 18:20, 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)
*True - The section '''''' of ] was my work in the first place. Yes, that is correct Gusfriend then started a new article of ] from my work. True, I created new work on October 16 about the Haskelite Building which was an improvement on my previous work '''Haskell building'''. As you can see in "History" in the "Page statistics" that I have 56.1% authorship. Gusfriend has 27.6% authorship because that represents what he had taken of my work of '''Haskell building''' section of ]. Since the majority of the work (basically all) of ] is my work, then what I am doing is improving on my work with ]. You can see that ] is my work from the very start because on I added the four pictures of the 3 story brick building. Those pictures I took and uploaded to Commons on May 16, 2016. The article ] I created on May 15, 2016. So you can see it is ALL my work and all I am doing is improving on my work. Yes, that is true ] I created and is all my work (100% authorship). What I am doing is improving with this article from the article I created on May 15, 2016. Any information of ] is only information from ], which is information from Haskell Manufacturing Company, which is the information from my work of '''Haskell building''' from the article I created on ] on May 15, 2016. So all I am doing is improving on my own work. I would think it would be correct to improve on my own work. --] (]) 08:45, 24 October 2022 (UTC)


*If it's that much of a problem for his computer, go and buy a new computer. It would certainly be better than whining about how Misplaced Pages broke his ability to edit without screwing things up for other users.] (]) 07:06, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
I've redirected the new article to the older one, as its creation was a ] violation with severe ] issues, as highlighted in their above comment. ] (]) 10:39, 24 October 2022 (UTC)


:Meh. None of ''this'' matters. Signatures sometimes get accidentally fucked up. This is an encyclopedia, not a forum, and this signature thing is not a real disruption to the creation of encyclopedic content. <span style="position: relative; top: -0.5em;">꧁</span>]<span style="position: relative; top: -0.5em;">꧂</span> 07:21, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
*True, with the creation of '''Haskell Manufacturing Company Building''' that Gusfriend did on 22 September 2022 he used all my references I already had in the article 1 May 2020. So all he did is took all my work I did on '''Haskell building''' section of ] including pictures and references. In the process of doing this he made the mistake of saying the building was made for the Mendelson Manufacturing Company was in '''1982'''. If you will notice that in the section I wrote in '''Haskell building''' the correct date should be 1892. Notice also he said the company went out of business in '''1984''' which again is wrong - the company went out of business in 1894. Gusfriend made these mistakes since he did NOT do the research in the first place. He was just taking my research work and attempting to make it look like he had done the work. I corrected the dates when I made improvements the article. So all I am doing is improving on my own work. It would be a major improvement if ] were to be merged into '''801 N Rowe Street'''. I would know how to make the merge since I did most of the work in the first place and all of the research on these two articles. There is an ongoing discussion with merging '''Haskelite Building''' into '''''' which User:Fram just redirected into '''Haskelite Building'''. That should NOT be done with an ongoing discussion about the merge.--] (]) 11:25, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
::While true, it's still a violation of ], and if it's accidentally changing characters in signatures, who knows what ''else'' it might be doing that isn't getting caught or reported? - ] <sub>]</sub> 07:27, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
*:Yes, he wrote 1984 instead of 1894. That's a clear typo, and not an error in research. {{User|Andrew Jameson}} corrected it , over a month ago. This is trivial and irrelevant.
*:I'm much more concerned about what you write here: {{tq| So all he did is took all my work I did on Haskell building section of Haskell Manufacturing Company including pictures and references.}} Doug, you were a month ago over self-promotion and ownership concerns. The content split is correctly attributed on ] (something you have ''not'' done when you do copy/paste moves). Gusfriend is not claiming credit or ownership for the work you did. That's not how any of this works. ] ] 11:57, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
*::Some of Doug’s comments are bordering on personal attacks. Accusing Gusfriend of stealing his work is an outrageous comment, especially considering the amount of time and effort Gus has spent trying to repair Doug’s articles. ] (]) 12:34, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
*:I still remember when you accused me last month of starting an ANI thread about you out of "jealousy" over your articles (as if I could ever be "jealous" over articles full of copyright violations and factual errors). Here you go again throwing out unsubstantiated allegations against other editors. Your remaining time on this website will be very short if you continue down this path. You are demonstrating an inability to work collaboratively with other editors, which is a vital part of editing Misplaced Pages. This has all happened because you are so upset that another editor tried to fix your copyright violations and nonsensical page creations, you made a fork to try and make the article entirely your own writing again. You seem more concerned with who "owns" content than with building an encyclopedia, which is what we are here to do, not boost our own egos. You are already on a ''very thin leash'', Doug. This could easily escalate to you being blocked indefinitely. If I were you, I'd be changing my tune right now. ] (]) 16:02, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
* User:Fram removed the ''merge to'' and ''merge from'' templates of '''801 N. Rowe Street''' and '''Haskelite Building'''. Whatever happened to discussing the merge before anyone does anything. I believe an administrator should look at this.--] (]) 11:54, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
*:You created a content fork and it was boldly redirected. If you think the article should be at a different name then you should request a move. Creating a copy of the article and then proposing a merge with the original article is disruptive and not how our processes work. I see nothing controversial about how Fram handled this. ] ] 12:01, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
*'''INDEFed''', which arguably could/should have happened last time. There is no indication Coldwell has learnt from or will change his behavior. <span style="font-family:Calibri; font-weight:bold;">] ]</span> 18:25, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
*:Coldwell has a secondary account ], which remains unblocked ] (]) 10:49, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
*:Good block. Doug has been given multiple chances and far more leeway than most editors would get and he hasn't shown the slightest indication he is willing to edit collaboratively or address the issues with his conduct. It's a shame he decided to go out this way, but the blame is on nobody but him. You'd think after having a proposal to indefinitely block you narrowly defeated, one would change their behavior. I hope Gusfriend will continue to clean up Doug's articles. ] (]) 15:36, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
*:I was hoping that it wouldn't have to come to this point, especially after the indefinite block proposal last month. It's unfortunate that Doug had to go out this way, but with his unchanged behavior after his hiatus, a block was sure to come at one point or another. ] (] • ]) 16:08, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
*:Very good block. There was no indication last month either that DC felt the slightest degree of remorse or resolve to do better, but the apologists were out in droves all the same, making excuses for him all the same. I suppose we should count ourselves fortunate that it only took him several extra weeks to flame out, instead of several more ''years.'' ] 06:44, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
*] needs to be blocked as well. I echo everyone else's sadness. Most of me feels sorry for DC, but his steadfast IDHT leaves no way out. Since the last ANI thread I've had some further encounters with his articles, and things are definitely as bad, and probably worse, than it seemed at ANI: non-RS sources; sources abused for purposes they can't possibly serve; rampant OR; misinterpretation of sources leading to the assertion of ridiculous things; discursions into random miscellany apparently thrown in because they popped up in a keyword search of old newspapers; sources from 100 years ago used to make assertions about the state of the world today; and, of course, blatant copyvios.
:DC shows, and has shown, ''absolutely zero'' understanding of any of these problems, much less of how serious they are. He just keeps plowing forward like nothing happened. Even how he's been fiddling with his talk page to brag about how 97% of his articles became DYKs, how he's got <del>500</del> 550 DYKs, and how he set the record for quickest time from article creation to DYK appearance (36 hours). One fucking thing Doug Coldwell ''should not'' be bragging about is how fast he's been able to shovel crappy articles onto the main page. It's like when old-time surgeons used to pride themselves on amputating a leg in 45 seconds -- no thanks, Doc. ]] 21:35, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
::Blocked secondary account. Apologies for missing your first note @] <span style="font-family:Calibri; font-weight:bold;">] ]</span> 00:52, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
::I too am sad that it ended up like this as I do not like seeing any long term editor blocked but unfortunately I think that there was no other option. I will be leaving the Haskelite Building page to other editors for a while to avoid any perception of ownership of the page but I will be working on some of his other articles where I see something to be improved upon. For example, GA that says ''longest and heaviest grain-laden train ever put together'' which is supported by a reference from 1898. In fact a couple of minutes of searching found an article from 2020 about a 3km grain train called the longest ever. ] (]) 05:23, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
:::FTR, do you have a diff or link for the "biggest plywood sheet" goof? ]] 09:34, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
::::@] It's still in the lead of ]. In the body of the article it's sourced to a book from 1918. ] (]) 12:25, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
{{od|4}}
Thanks, mysterious IP editor! I feel I should add the following, for the record in case years later someone can't understand why all this happened. Bluntly, it's the only thing you need to know to understand why Doug Coldwell simply cannot be a productive editor here until he allows himself to be tutored in the proper use of sources. On May 31, 2016, he added the following to the article ''Haskelite Manufacturing Corporation'' :
:{{tq|The largest plywood panels ever made were manufactured by the Haskelite Manufacturing Corporation}}
This is cited to an article ''published in 1918'' and ''written by a Haskelite employee'' . What's going on here is wrong on so, so many levels:
*Even if the claim was "As of 1918, the largest plywood panels ever made had been manufactured by the Haskelite Manufacturing Corporation", we wouldn't accept that with a source written by the manufacturer itself -- we'd need a reliable and independent source.
*But the statement made in the article, in Misplaced Pages's voice, is that Haskelite made the largest plywood panels ever made, period. And it's cited to something more from more than 100 years ago. This is so monumentally stupid that even my very substantial powers of invective cannot do it justice.
*And to add the cherry on top, the cited article isn't talking about the largest plywood panels ever made -- it's talking about the largest ''waterproof'' plywood panels ever made. That qualifier just got left out.
It's just hopeless, and it's not occasional -- it's ''typical'' of DC's work. I'm really beginning to think we need a special process to deal with the stupefying amounts of crap he's woven into the fabric of the English Misplaced Pages -- a sort of nuke-on-sight authorization for deleting his articles, or reducing them to harmless stubs, without the usual ponderous processes. We did something like this, IIRC, in the Neelix situation. ]] 15:36, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
::I would absolutely support this. We have to go through over 200 GAs and look for issues like this; doing it the standard way will take years. We need an expedited process where if we find one or two glaring errors like this (or copyvio) the article is summarily delisted from GA status. ] (]) 16:38, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
:::GA delisting isn't enough. Really, GA-or-not-GA is a relatively minor issue. The real issue is the misinformation and copyvios in the articles themselves. To address that we need a process like you describe, except it ends with the article being stubified (or, in some cases) deleted. ], thou art wise -- can you suggest a rough outline of how such a process might work? ]] 21:42, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
::::@]; depending on how much copyvio we find and how little interest the community takes in crawling through every single one of DC's major contributions, we could probably apply ]; there's a significant amount of pure copyvio mixed in with PD copying that merely needs to be attributed though. CCI uses a nuke-on-sight principle on about ~4-5 cases off the top of my head, and that is after over a decade of having the case open. If we do something like this for DC, the community's most likely going to get pissed at us for the collateral. I think we'd need some kind of community consensus to actually do this; similar to the case that resulted in the mass bot blanking of pages back in 2010. ] (]) 23:08, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
:::::At least for the rail transport related DC articles, I'd be happy with committing to rewriting them from scratch if that will make people happy that we aren't "losing" anything (except for copyvio, of course). ] (]) 12:41, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
*Belated comment that this is a good block, and that it really should have happened earlier. ] (]) 07:07, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
*:Perhaps, similarly to Neelix, we need a list of articles to deal with, so it can be worked through in a similar manner. Having "good" articles which include total garbage is a serious issue, and needs to be dealt with ASAP (before the next slow news day). ]]] 🇺🇦 11:30, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
*::Absolutely. If the powers that be would prefer this be discussed somewhere besides ANI, we can start a discussion elsewhere specifically on this question. ] (]) 12:42, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
*::There's a list over at ] of a mix of his old contributions and some newer ones that MER-C grabbed during the September thread. We could expand that list (and the CCI size), or grab a query of every article DC's sent to DYK or GAN and create a checkpage elsewhere if people want to assess the articles out of what CCI normally does. We end up having to handle neutrality, verification, and copyright issues anyways fwiw. ] (]) 15:26, 27 October 2022 (UTC)


::It is safe to assume there more than a few of the editors taking part in this discussion have years and decades of technological experience under their belts, myself included. I do not think The Accused is straight-up lying about the technical hurdle, but clinging to the "I refuse to change my system of operation, therefore it's Misplaced Pages's fault for (6 years ago) making the change!" excuse is the real problem here - this is at the heart a ''behavioral'' discussion, not a technical one. Consistently violating the norms of the community is indeed a real disruption to the creation of encyclopedic content. ] (]) 16:29, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
:I would support a specialised process to deal with this. Based on what I have seen so far I believe that the majority of his GAs have enough issues to start a GAR which could easily overload the GA pages. ] (]) 08:20, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
::It's not inherently about the signatures. It's that he's stubbornly insisting on using an outdated system that introduces errors into ''other content''. — <b>]:<sup>]</sup></b> 17:40, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
*He has requested an unblock, which {{ping|Yamla}} has declined. I'm obviously going to stay away from it and defer to any admin to take whichever action they deem appropriate, but based on the content, he still does not understand why he was blocked going back to the original discussion that quantity of DYKs etc. is irrelevant. <span style="font-family:Calibri; font-weight:bold;">] ]</span> 10:43, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
:::agree on this. Incidental changing of signayures due to the tech issue is not a small problem itself but that clearly has potential to impact a much wider range of mainspace content. I have a hard time believing that there is not a browser that supports https and can run on a decade old computer (something like Opera even). Claiming inability to switch or upgrade needs to be explained in detail or otherwise this has potential to be a bigger problem. ] (]) 17:55, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
*:After reading his unblock request I will be doing my best to avoid any of the articles that he has had a significant contribution to for the next 4 weeks in order to allow time for things to settle down as I do not want to complicate (or be seen to complicate) matters further. ] (]) 11:01, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
===Where to now?===
So to recap, we now have a giant mess of copyright violations, improperly attributed sourcing, dodgy sources which don't properly verify claims, and outright tripe to clean up, and need to figure out how that will be done. That isn't exactly within the scope of ANI. So, the question now is, where does that discussion happen? ]]] 🇺🇦 12:00, 28 October 2022 (UTC)


== Disruptive editing by ] ==
:What about @]'s suggestion of the open CCI, or the Talk thereof? <span style="font-family:Calibri; font-weight:bold;">] ]</span> 13:29, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
{{atop|1=IP blocked 24 hours, and then ] and created an account to evade the block, which has now been indef'd. - ] <sub>]</sub> 22:43, 24 December 2024 (UTC)}}
::I would prefer for discussion to be on the talk page of the CCI, or on ] or ] even. Putting it on the CCI itself would be cluttering. CCI usually ends up cleaning serious verification and sourcing issues while also checking for copyvio, so if the community wants to look at other things or set up a space to check everything over, there's going to be anywhere from mild to serious redundancy. ] (]) 15:11, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
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.
:::This is NOT just about copyright problems. Somewhere in VP is probably a better venue. ]] 01:03, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
::::Agreed. Over 90% of my issues with their pages are not CV related and are based on:
::::* incorrect information
::::* poor use of sources
::::* mismatch between information on 2 related pages
::::* Some poor prose (which I actually suspect comes from CV issues)
::::* incomplete information in GAs
::::* DYK statements not supported by information included in articles (sometimes the issue is the DYK and sometimes it is the article)
::::* OR and irrelevant information to meet a specific narrative
::::Even just somewhere to list the discussions like ] and ]
:::: would be appreciated. ] (]) 06:22, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
:::::@]: I presume by VP, you meant Village pump, but I'm just not sure where on Village Pump you had in mind? Or were you thinking of a new subpage or something? ]]] 🇺🇦 07:34, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
:::::::I meant Kamala Harris should handle it. ]] 11:26, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
::::::::Then it might do to let Joe know that he'll need to find a stand-in VP for a few months. ]]] 🇺🇦 23:31, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
::::::Also pinging others who've participated above: @], @], @], @], @], @], @]. Any input would be welcome. ]]] 🇺🇦 08:01, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
:::::::I'm not sure of the best way to handle this. As others have noted, it's not just copyright issues. Any article to which he was a major contributor needs to go through a thorough reassessment. ] ] 11:45, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
:::::::We need a process that has authority to go through his articles with a chainsaw and cut out copyvios and factual errors with extreme prejudice. It's the only way this gets resolved in anything resembling a timely manner. I've brought a handful of his articles to GAR, and one was delisted the other day, but that's a slow process and doing all his articles that way would take a very long time. Not to mention the other issues beyond GA status that EEng mentioned. We need to compile a list of his articles and go through them one by one looking for issues. As much as I'd like to just wave a wand and say delist every GA he did, at least a few are likely ok. ] (]) 14:21, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
::::::::I might start something up myself, a list of every GA will be a start, plus all the DYKs, as there is a greater incentive to misuse sources to get a catchy hook. ]]] 🇺🇦 13:03, 1 November 2022 (UTC)


] (]) 20:52, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
== Racist comment by ] at ] ==


:@]: 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)
{{Userlinks|Sca}} recently added a comment at ] on a thread concerning the Chinese election that I believe used the racist stereotype that East Asians, when speaking English, confuse /l/ and /r/. I removed the comment, he restored it again, I re-removed it and left a note on his talk that I would block him if he restored it again. He is now asking that I apologise as it was a "joke", it wasn't racist and even that he had a friend that was Japanese-American so he can't be racist. Given that I'm one of the admins that regularly patrols the ] queue, where Sca contributes almost exclusively and often excessively, it's inevitable that I have to read his commentary whenever I'm here. I'd like an opinion on whether I'm being too sensitive. He refuses to discuss the topic on his talk page, and has moved the discussion repeatedly to mine. ]] 22:52, 25 October 2022 (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. ] (]) 01:10, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
:It's offensive. Restoring it after it was removed is bad judgement. ]&nbsp;] 23:02, 25 October 2022 (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)
::"I'm not racist, I even have black friends!" Yeah, that's a stereotype and a very bad joke to make. The fact it was restored, I almost would say was worthy of a block. You certainly do not need to apologize. ] (]) 23:03, 25 October 2022 (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)
:::Clearly and certainly. Why didn't they just think about it after Stephen reverted the comment? ] (]) 23:05, 25 October 2022 (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)
:Seconding the discussion above - It's a blatantly offensive comment, the restoration was bad judgement, and doubling down afterwards is even worse. Worthy of a temp block IMO. <span style="color:green">](he/him)<sup>]</sup></span> 23:09, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
:After he/she was blocked for 24 hours, this IP created an account as ] in order to evade the block and has resumed his/her POV pushing. ] (]) 16:51, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
*Can I ask Sca to explain further his claim that using <s>"erection"</s> "erected" instead of <s>"election"</s> "elected" ''was'' a play on words, but one that ''didn't'' play into that stereotype? Like, can he rationally explain how else to interpret it? Why the word erection? Or would that just be me disingenuously forcing him to dig a deeper hole when we all know he is lying? I find one of the most inexplicable things about the post-2016 world is that people no longer feel the need to figure out a ''plausible'' lie; any non-plausible lie is apparently sufficient. --] (]) 23:43, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
{{abot}}
*:Purely a joke related to a discussion about whether "elected" was a valid verb in describing a totalitarian leader whose third term had been meticulously pre-planned. No thought whatsoever in my part of any "racist stereotype," nor of any prurient innuendo re "erection," which I see now was an unfortunate word choice. -- ] (]) 16:08, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
*:At the risk of tarnishing my bleeding heart credentials - because I think I'm in the minority on this these days - I'm not sure "racist" is the best term to use; I've always felt that term should have a more specific, narrow meaning. "Mocking ethnic stereotypes" is maybe more accurate? Perhaps Sca would be willing to cop to that? Maybe he's just hung up on the word "racist", and being more accurate would give him a chance to think in a less reflexive way about what he said and realize he is in the wrong here? --] (]) 00:01, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
*::Yeah, we wouldn't want to offend Sca by using the wrong word... ] (]) 00:04, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
*:::Whereas Levivich wants to burnish his.--] (]) 00:07, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
*::::Say it loud and say it proud! ] (]) 00:09, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
*It's certainly true that Sca's contributions at ITN are excessive. He has a scarcely believable , an awful lot of them jokes and <small>asides in small text</small> that don't add much to the discussion. I can't say that I've noticed him say anything that could be called racist before, although like Floq it's hard for me to understand what the joke would be if it was not the pronunciation stereotype. Perhaps a temporary partial block from ] would give him time to reflect and go do something more productive. ] (]) 23:57, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
*You're not being too sensitive. Sca's explanation that it was intended as a run-of-the-mill boner joke and not a racist joke playing on the stereotype of Asians' pronunciation of l's as r's strains ] to its limit, but AGFing it's true, now that it's been pointed out, any reasonable person would've apologized for ''inadvertently'' making a racist joke. This is block-worthy. ] (]) 23:58, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
*Whether he meant it as an Asian l/r pronunciation joke or as a boner joke, it's inappropriate either way. In no way does that edit improve the project. &ndash;&nbsp;]&nbsp;(]) 00:08, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
*:*:Purely a joke related to a discussion about whether "elected" was a valid verb in describing a totalitarian leader whose third term had been meticulously pre-planned. No thought whatsoever in my part of any "racist stereotype," nor of any prurient innuendo re "erection," which I see now was an unfortunate word choice. -- ] (]) 16:08, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
*:You've made me realize I typed incorrectly in my comment above. It was "erected", not "erection". "Erected" makes zero sense as a phallic joke of any kind. This is not plausible as a phallic joke. --] (]) 00:15, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
*::Thank you. -- ] (]) 16:30, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
*So, "erected" can mean "put in power", ], and so if I crank my AGF meter all the way to 11 I can see this as a comment about the lack of democracy in China, as Sca it was. That said, making political remarks at ITN/C ''at all'' is ] (although Sca's far from the only ITN/C regular to run afoul of that), and restoring the comment after it was challenged shows particularly poor judgment. <span class="nowrap"> <span style="font-family:courier">-- ]</span><sup>]'']</sup> (she&#124;they&#124;xe)</span> 00:40, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
*:I think your AGF meter is miscalibrated; this is at least a 23. Sca is not using the word archaically. I'll stop harping on this now, though. It's just '''so''' annoying someone can blatantly tell an impossible lie and we're supposed to grit our teeth and chant AGF, AGF. Although looking ahead a few weeks, and a couple of years, I suppose I should just get used to it. OK, '''now''' I'll stop harping on it. ] (]) 00:55, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
*::No, harp away. I despise that it's become part of our cultural zeitgeist that as long as someone Denies! Denies! Denies! at the top of their lungs -- never wavering -- they can never be called on their bullshit, they're immunized against wrongdoing, and the rest of us are enjoined to bow our heads and mumble apologies for having doubted their inner good nature. '''AGF is not a suicide pact,''' and treating it as such only enables the edgelords in their bad faith. ] 01:19, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
*For the record, here's how DYK's acknowledged greatest hooker handles erection humor:
** ''... that ''']''', while in a missionary position, said that erections indicated apprehension and penetration was difficult?''
** ''... that erection engineer ''']''' had a business making rubbers, said bicycles stimulated ball development, and was elected to the screw committee?''
:]] 01:25, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
*after reviewing their comment, their ridiculous defense of it, and the fact that they were already p-blocked once before for using ITNC as a venue for idiotic humor, I've partially blocked them from Misplaced Pages:In the news/Candidates indefinitely. We don't need to decide here whether this meets the textbook definition of racism or is more of an ethnic slur as project pages are not for either of those things. ] (]) 02:36, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
*:Good block. Awful comment. Pathetic defense of it. <span style="font-family:Papyrus">] (])</span> 03:07, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
*:Good block, per Vanamonde93. The "jokes" and ongoing political commentary have got to be dealt with. ] (]) 03:27, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
*:Good block. ]. ] <sup>]</sup> 03:36, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
*:I can't say that I'm in a much better position than Sca as I have contributed heavily to ITN as well, at times not with the best decorum, but I agree that this was inevitable. Good block. ''']'''-''<small>(])</small>'' 12:32, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
* '''Response''' – Yesterday (10/25) I posted a reply to part of the relevant discussion on ]'s talk page:
:::Your "joke" was based on the racist stereotype that East Asians, when speaking English, confuse /l/ and /r/. ]] 23:38, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
:::: Not at all! That was ''your'' interpretation of it, not my intention or motivation. It was simply a play on a word to substitute for "elected" – which Xi wasn't, not really. (And BTW, one of my closest friends from junior high through college and beyond was a second-generation Japanese-American whose last name was Ujifusa, and whose parents were interned during WWII.) I never dreamed that anyone would interpret my comment as a racial slur. <br>I still think you owe me an apology. – ] (]) 11:56, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
:I am absolutely flabbergasted, and offended, that anyone would term me racist or view my purely joking post as a racist comment. Please note that Stephen specifically accused me of employing a "racist stereotype," which wasn't the case at all. In 16 years on Wiki no one has ever accused me of 'racism.' (Please note that my user page has long included a photo – by me – of statue of Anne Frank at the Idaho Human Rights Memorial. Also, I'm a former employee of the Idaho Human Rights Commission.)
*Racism aside; if one accepts the argument that the comment was not racist, it has no place here. It was deliberate vandalism either way, it is NOTHERE behavior. We don't need this editor, editors who behave this way keep good editors away.<span id="Jacona:1667224021565:WikipediaFTTCLNAdministrators&apos;_noticeboard/Incidents" class="FTTCmt"> —&nbsp;] (]) 13:47, 31 October 2022 (UTC)</span>


== Creating the need to make 400,000 unnecessary edits ==
:Never has Stephen offered an apology for his aggressive attack on me over what was a very small and insignificant post, not intended to engender controversy of any kind. Nor has he made any effort toward conciliation and mutual understanding. Instead, he responded with a threat to have me blocked, and has filed this spurious, nonsensical complaint at ], where no one ever has filed a complaint against me before.


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.
:Furthermore – and I'm reluctant to raise this point as I don't want to spawn some new proceeding – I've gotten the impression that ] <u>may</u> harbor some personal dislike for me, as he has opposed my comments many times over an extended period. Note that he claims I contribute "excessively" at ]. My <u>only</u> motive in contributing there is to offer information, mainly story links, or observations intended to help make ITN blurbs clear, accurate and reasonably concise.


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)
:I view Misplaced Pages as a tremendously positive player in the realm of information presentation, and I appreciate the opportunity it offers volunteer editors like me to participate in this important work. <small>(I say this as a former newspaper reporter, editor and copy editor.)</small>
: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)
::Hiding bot edits from watchlists is not a viable option for many editors, since it also hides any non-bot edits that predate the bot edit (], 2007, unassigned). Users ], ], ], ], {{lang|la|et al}} edit with such high frequency that hiding their edits leads to an unacceptable proportion of watchlist items not appearing. {{Small|(Also, Citation bot's edits should usually be reviewed, since it has a non-negligible error rate and its activators typically don't review its output, exceptions noted.)}}{{pb}}The code for maintaining two aliases for one parameter cannot possibly be so complex as to warrant a half million edits. If one of the two "''must''" undergo deprecation, bundle it into Cewbot's task. If the values don't match, have the banner shell template populate a mismatch category.{{pb}}In general, if a decision is made to start treating as an error some phenomenon that has previously not been a problem, and that decision generates a maintenance category with tens or hundreds of thousands of members, it is a bad decision and the characterisation of the phenomenon as "erroneous" should be reversed.{{pb}}At minimum, any newly instanced maintenance task scoped to over a hundred thousand pages should come before the community for approval at a central venue. ] (]) 15:19, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
:::{{Small|Also, like, if only one of {{para|blp}} and {{para|living}} {{tqq|gets updated}}, shouldn't the net result be pretty obvious? Valid updates should really only go one direction. ] (]) 15:24, 25 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)
:In view of what has transpired, '''I hereby withdraw my request for an apology''', as none seems likely to be forthcoming. However, I wish to state that I remain open to any effort on ]'s part toward conciliation. – ] (]) 15:54, 26 October 2022 (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)
::There's a lot of justification here - You're essentially saying "I can't possibly have had the impact you're saying I did, because I am exceptionally well qualified and know better than you." If you were formerly employed by the Idaho Human Rights Commission (an honorable career), then you should know that intent is not necessarily important - As multiple editors have explained above, it's a comment that can clearly be easily interpreted in a racist way. I really encourage you to take Levivich's words above, that {{tq|any reasonable person would've apologized for ''inadvertently'' making a racist joke}} to heart. A simple "I'm sorry that my comment was interpreted that way and I'll try and be more intentional with my language moving forward" would go a long way here. Instead, it seems you're intent on doubling-down. <span style="color:green">](he/him)<sup>]</sup></span> 16:46, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
* Where can I see the decision in this case? -- ] (]) 16:52, 26 October 2022 (UTC) *:The robot is in operation... ] (]) 09:09, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
*::yay! —usernamekiran ] 16:04, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
*:This isn't a "case," and you can see Beeblebrox's reasoning above in this very thread. &mdash; <b>]:<sup>]</sup></b> 19:15, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
* I wish to appeal my , but can't figure out from the guidance where one files an appeal. – ] (]) 16:58, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
**It's on your talk page. Just post <nowiki>{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}</nowiki> at your talk page and someone will review your block. I strongly suggest internalising some of the comments made here before doing so, if you wish it to be successful. FWIW I think the block was reasonable, given the behaviour and your response to it, but good luck anyway. ] (]) 17:07, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
**:I have the unblock request, in part because of the comments on this thread. ] (]) 11:20, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
*The cluelessness and doubling down on poor decisions continues on my talk page. I a duplicate discussion there, and Sca kept posting about it anyway and when I closed ''that'' discussion with an edit summary of they just kept posting in it anyway . I'm not asking for further action at this time as I've issued a warning to them already about this, just wanted it recorded ion this thread if and when this issue comes back here later. ] (]) 20:22, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
*I noticed that Sca seems to have the declined unblock request from their talk page in the name of archiving. I'm not entirely sure if ] applies here given that it is merely a block for editing certain pages rather than wikiwide, so I figured I'd report it here rather than restore it against their wishes if this is indeed permitted. ] (]) 13:35, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
*:By the letter of that guideline the notice should remain, however given the language has been unchanged since before partial blocks were enabled on the English Misplaced Pages it's clear that full blocks are what it is intended to refer to - and indeed that is still by far the most common usage of the unblock request template (Sca's case is the only time I've seen it used for a partial block). Guidelines explicitly note that exceptions may apply, and I think its fair for the appeal of a block from a single page to be one such exception. Ideally though the notice should have been properly archived rather than removed. ] (]) 12:13, 2 November 2022 (UTC)


:Meanwhile, the category has grown to over 800,000 pages. Perhaps next time an RfC to determine whether creating such a large cleanup task is warranted, would be better? ] (]) 16:34, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
== Aarp65 disruptively creating categories and pages about names ==
:{{re|Fram}} this is logical. We should also make it a policy (or at least a guideline), something along the lines "if change would lead to edits/updating more than XYZ pages, a consensus should be achieved on a venue with a lot of visibility". Like {{u|Silver seren}} mentioned above, sometimes a formal consensus/discussion takes place, but it happens on obscure talk pages. —usernamekiran ] 14:01, 25 December 2024 (UTC)


== User:ZanderAlbatraz1145 Civility and Content #2 ==
*{{userlinks|ZanderAlbatraz1145}}
This user has engaged in a lengthy display of disruption. Namely through incessant incivility I have noticed .


Instances such as , , on , etc. Users such as {{Ping|Waxworker}} and {{Ping|Jon698}} can speak to their experiences, I'll outline mine.
I became aware of ] just a few minutes ago when they added "Category:Surnames of Vanuatuan origin" to ]. I noticed that this category page was also added to ] and ] which are of biblical origin, and ] which states that it has many origins, none of them Vanuatuan.


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 .
I then noticed that Aarp65 had put "Category:Surnames of Marshall Islands origin" on ], ], ] and ].


This editor displays no interest in conducting themselves cordially or cooperatively on this website. ] 23:20, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
The next thing I noticed is that for the past two months, ]'s talkspace is filled with at least 25 mostly successful speedy deletion nominations for creating categories and other pages. More pages have been moved to draftspace as suitable and several disrupted editing warnings posted by ], ], ], ] and especially ].
: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)
:::This feels par for the course for Zander frankly. As noted with the bit about Zander reverting after an explicit edit summary saying not to and there being two days worth of me saying that edit would be made and they made no objections until the move was made. They disengaged from discussion but only re-engaged when the situation changed to their disliking. ] 02:07, 25 December 2024 (UTC)


== User:Glenn103 ==
As far as I can tell, Aarp65 does not state reasons or cite sources for the creation of so many of these pages. Probably because they are factually incorrect. In my opinion, this user is ] to create an encyclopedia. Warnings have already been given, so if the consensus agrees, I propose a discussion about the possibility of a ] on creating categories and pages having to do with names and surnames, etc. for this user. The exact topic could be decided later. I hope this makes sense. I'm open to suggestions. Thanks. ] (]) 17:39, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
{{atop|1=Glenn103 is now . - ] <sub>]</sub> 23:47, 26 December 2024 (UTC)}}
:Clearly, Aarp65 knows a lot about this topic and most of their contributions are very productive. I take back my ] accusation but these categories and 25 warnings in 2 months are genuinely concerning. I'm going to try to talk to them more about it in their talkspace. Nothing urgent needs to be immediately addressed by others here, but I don't think it should be closed until a response can be had. Again, suggestions welcome. Thanks. ] (]) 18:27, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
{{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)
::(non-admin comment) ] is a DAB page. <s>Regardless of the merits or otherwise of adding such a category to surname pages, it should not be added to a DAB page per ].</s> ] (]) 02:09, 27 October 2022 (UTC) It's either too late or too early. Origin-type categories are fine (indeed, recommended) on DAB pages also categorised as surname or given name pages. ] (]) 02:54, 27 October 2022 (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)
::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?
I have reverted a whole bunch of their recent edits, as they were indeed bizarre and non-constructive. Things like , , , or are just some samples of the type of edits. If they don't or inadequately reply, a topic ban from categorisation (or name categorisation) may be needed. I mean, on a long disambig where ''none'' of the entries are for Samoans, they still proclaiml that the name "Meredith" is of Samoan origin.... ] (]) 09:05, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
:I mean you might have a point, but wow. &ndash; ] (]) (]) 04:57, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
Similar behavior to {{checkuser|PickleMan500}} and other socks puppeted by {{checkuser|Abrown1019}}, which also made tons of drafts on Cyrillic characters that cited few sources (and none with in-depth coverage). Most drafts have been ]'d, of course, so only those with admin perms can verify the deleted contribs. <small>Since these socks have been banned (]), I haven't notified them of this discussion.</small> ] (] '''·''' ]) 17:08, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
:Good catch, and looking at the contribution histories it {{duck}}. Changing the block to indef as a sock accordingly. - ] <sub>]</sub> 07:22, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
{{abot}}


== North Korean involvement in Russian-Ukraine war discussion ==
Considering that this is continuing while this section is open, with ] created today and added to e.g. ] despite nothing on that page relating to Zimbabwe; can please some action be taken? Letting someone continue to add such fake information to Misplaced Pages while this iss being discussed at ANI doesn't look good (on us, and even less on them). ] (]) 14:03, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
:I've DABified ] (which was a needed page) and deleted the Zimbabwean category as unsupported. ] (]) 15:00, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
::Thanks. Any suggestions on how to avoid or minimize further such issues? The editor involved seems unwilling to join any discussion about it, giving little hope of improvemeñt. ] (]) 15:16, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
:::For a specific problem like this, the time-honoured solution is digging through contribs, and if necessary following the usual escalation procedures aimed at persuading or forcing nuisances to stop. I have no solution to the more general one of under-, excessive, or over-precise categorisation of DAB-with-surname and surname pages other gnomishly than fix when found. (A moderately common case of over-precision is labelling a Germanic surname as specifically Jewish/Yiddish when it is not specific to that community. ] and ] (an unusual case with two distinct etymologies) are models of how it should be done.) ] (]) 05:25, 28 October 2022 (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.
Another strange DAB creation: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Wodarz&oldid=1118543166 (current version) --] 16:48, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
:That was a weird one; notably in the mismatch between title (Wodarz) and lede (Holetschek). It has already, and correctly, been ]ed into an {{tl|R from surname}} page. ] exists, and is another recent creation by Aarp65; a good one, which I've minorly tweaked. ] (]) 05:36, 28 October 2022 (UTC)


'''Key Points:'''
I just added a before I noticed Fram's proposal below. He's definitely been warned. ] (]) 11:49, 28 October 2022 (UTC)


# '''Prolonged Discussions and RfC Closure:'''
And : ] was redirected to ], which itself is a redirect to ]. No reasons given. ] (]) 08:54, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
#* 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:'''
And ]: why does "Category:Malagasy given names" exist? Even if it had more than one entry, Aarp65 should at least give a reason for it? Every new page gets added to his ] of "Written pages" created on his username. ] (]) 08:59, 30 October 2022 (UTC)


I respectfully request that administrators address the following issues:
* It looks like ] . And a quick review of ], it looks like he has a history of ignoring ANI discussions as the discussion on his talk page from 18 days ago indicated. There is an active ANI discussion right now that has ] pinging Joe Roe to find out . Perhaps we should be exploring possibility of removing Joe's ability to grant autopatrol status. ] (]) 11:48, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
*:{{ping|Kire1975}} A "history"? ]. I am at ] (at times I've been the only person responding to request there), and I've granted autopatrolled . As far as I know, the three incidents you mentioned are the only problems that have arisen. I participated fully in the first ANI thread. I had no way of knowing about this one, since I wasn't pinged and I don't have ANI on my watchlist. The third thread, below, was started on Saturday evening in my timezone, and autopatrolled was pulled by Sunday morning (also when Bish pinged me). I have no problem with that "error rate", and in any case, I can only grant or refuse to grant autopatrolled based on the ], which I have ] for years. &ndash;&#8239;]&nbsp;<small>(])</small> 12:53, 31 October 2022 (UTC)


# Enforce the consensus reached in the closed RfC, as no new evidence significantly alters the previous conclusions.
===Proposal: topic ban (user:Aarp65) ===
# Discourage editors from rehashing resolved discussions, particularly when arguments have been repeatedly addressed and dismissed.
I propose that Aarp65 is topic banned from all name-related pages (articles, categories, templates...) broadly construed. Their recently granted autopatrolled right should also be removed again. They have been warned about their problematic edits in the past. During the above discussion, they created ], with 4 completely unsupported categories, created multiple unnecessary name disambiguation pages (with only one bluelink), added name categories unrelated to the contents of the page they were placed on (), and so on. They show no indication of changing their approach or participating in this (or any) discussion. Expecting other editors to check all their edits and revert this many of them is not useful. ] (]) 08:14, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
# 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.
: Their recently granted autopatrolled right was removed once before? I'm not sure what that is or where to find evidence of that. Can you put that in the discussion please? Thanks. ] (]) 11:54, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
::No, originally they (like everyone else) didn't have it, it was granted in June or so, and should now be removed again. ] (]) 12:11, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
UPDATE: I just noticed that North Korea was removed as a belligerent and added to the 'supported by' section, completely violating the consensus.
:::The "again" is the problem, it suggests that it has been removed before. ] (]) 12:59, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
] (]) 08:48, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
::::It's a ] in some American regional dialects. &mdash; <b>]:<sup>]</sup></b> 17:15, 2 November 2022 (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)
:::::Yes, I know -- Kire1975 misunderstood Fram, and Fram didn't understand the nature of the misunderstanding, but at this point I'm pretty sure everyone understands everyone else or doesn't care. ] (]) 19:48, 2 November 2022 (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)
:::::::::{{tq|you can put the U.S. constitution through one and it says 100% AI generated}}{{snd}}Well, I just put it through GPTzero and got ''97% human''. Might be best if you don't just make up random "evidence". ]] 17:25, 25 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)
::::::::I understood the material very well, its not like I just used 100% AI out of nowhere. I know the context. I have been involved in this discussion since September. ] (]) 16:43, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::It's a respect thing. It's disrespectful of other editors to make them read chatbot output rather than ''your'' words. ] (]) 16:49, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
{{external media|video1=}}
::::::::::Rc2barrington's user page says {{tq|This user believes in the bright future AI and robotics will bring}}, so there's probably no point in arguing here. However, I simply observe that in any kind of discussion where you're trying to convince other people, don't use a method that aggravates a significant number of readers (probably a significant ''majority'' of readers). It really is that simple. ] (]) 19:11, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::<p>Putting the use of LLM aside, however you compose your message you should comply with the basics of ANI. This includes not making allegations without supplying evidence. This would normally be in the form of diffs but in this case just links might be fine. But ] has provided none. </p><p>Probably because this is because their initial complaint appears to be unsupported by what's actually happening. They claimed "{{tqi|Despite the RfC's resolution, the same arguments are being repeated across multiple threads, often by the same editor}}". But where is this? I visited the talk page, and what I see is here ] there was a request for clarification from the closer, something which is perfectly reasonably and which the closer followed up on. The OP then offered an interjection which frankly seemed unnecessary. There was then a very brief forumish discussion. To be clear, AFAICT no one in the follow up discussion was suggesting any changes to the article. So while it wasn't he most helpful thing as with any forumish discussion; it's hardly causing that much disruption especially since it seems to have quickly ended and also cannot be called "the same arguments" since there was no argument. No one in that discussion was actually suggesting changing the article. </p><p>Then there is ]. There was again some forumish discussion in this thread which again isn't helpful but wasn't that long. But there was also discussion about other things like the name of the article and whether to restructure it. To be clear, this isn't something which was resolve in the RfC. In fact, the closer specifically mention possible future issues in a non close comment. </p><p>Next we see ]. Again the main focus of the discussion is in how to handle stuff which wasn't dealt with in the RfC. There is a total of 2 short comments in that thread which were disputing the RfC which is unfortunate but hardly something to worry ANI about. </p><p>Next there is ]. DPRK was briefly mentioned there but only in relation to a suggestion to change the infobox for other countries. No part of that discussion can IMO be said to be disputing the DPRK RfC. Next we have ]. Again DPRK was briefly mention but only in relation to other countries. No part of that discussion can be said to be disputing the RfC. AFAICT, the only threads or comments removed from the talk page since the closure of the RfC was by automated archival. The only threads which seem to be post close are on ] and none of them seem to deal with North Korea. </p><p>So at least on the article talk page I don't see what the OP has said is happening. The tiny amount of challenging of the RfC is definitely not something ANI needs to worry about. Even the other forumish or otherwise unproductive comments aren't at a level that IMO warrants any action IMO. If this is happening somewhere else, this is even more reason why the OP needed to provide us some evidence rather than a long comment without anything concrete, however they composed it. </p><p>] (]) 10:15, 25 December 2024 (UTC)</p>


== Concern About a New Contributor ==
:'''Support''': Aarp65 does seem to have some expertise in the field, or at least a lot of experience working on this topic, but the prominence of the multiple "Veteran Editor" badges in their infobox makes me think they might be just trying to create so many tiny little name pages and DAP's so they can bulk up their numbers to increase their "rank" like this is a video game. Of course, all we can do is speculate on what they're doing because they are ignoring so many warnings and invitations to participate in this ANI discussion. I don't want them to be TBAN'd but what else is there left to do? It's disruptive, not productive and makes a lot of work for other editors to fix. ] (]) 14:06, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
{{atop|Suspected editor was indeed a sock. Unnecessary drama created by all-too zealous reporting--let this be the end of it. ] (]) 21:19, 24 December 2024 (UTC)}}
{{userlinks|Kriji Sehamati}}


Dear Wikipedians,
== Undiscussed mass article merging and redirection by BilledMammal ==


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.
{{userlinks|BilledMammal}} has unilaterally decided to mass merge and redirect hundreds (perhaps thousands) of articles on insect species and genera to higher level ranks (i.e. genera and tribes) without discussion. Admittedly there are a lot of insect species stubs with very little content, but a mass action like this should have been discussed beforehand to gain consensus for it prior to implementation. This has been previously discussed at ] ] (]) 17:51, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
::Note: I have rolled back the lot as a highly disruptive and ill-advised (or rather, non-advised) mass change against established and well-known consensus. Not sure we need any ANI action here as the damage is undone and I assume BilledMammal will agree to discuss this kind of thing henceforward. --<span style="font-family:Courier">]</span> <small>(] · ])</small> 18:10, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
:Most or at least a lot of them seem to be sourced (only?) to Bezark, Larry G. A Photographic Catalog of the Cerambycidae of the World, which is now a deadlink. Is it considered unreliable? ] (]) 17:55, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
:No discussion at WikiProject insects that I can see. ] (]) 17:56, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
:: None at ] either. Bezark is an academic entomologist , so I would think he is reliable. ] (]) 17:59, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
:::Larry Bezark migrated the entirety of his site to a different URL (), but it is all still online, and all very authoritative. The dead URL is part of the text of several thousand articles, changing them all will take a very long time. ] (]) 18:15, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
::::Larry Bezark's site was used for long-horned beetle articles and I updated the refs for many of them when I went through them systematically earlier this year. ] (]) 18:30, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
::::: If there's a systematic correspondence between the two sets of urls ], can probably use a bot to fix all the links. ] (]) 18:33, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
:I will point out that BilledMammal has participated at an Arbcom sanctioned discussion at ], but that is still open as best I can tell, so any implication of taking mass action from that is not appropriate. I know there was a recent discussion on some page (can't find but was within last 2 months) about the mass creation of fish species articles which was pointing away from mass creation of similar articles (minimal facts, sourced to the same source), but I don't BilledMammal participated in that. --] (]) 18:12, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
::The discussion Masem refers to was on village pump (linked ]). That discussion was instigated by BilledMammal when they had suggested that a user "request permission" to continue their low rate production of stub fish articles (all notable species). ] (]) 18:38, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
*{{ec}}Two things 1) Someone doesn't need permission to follow guidance ''we already give'' in our ]s. ] or ] but "upmerging a bunch of stubby articles into a list" is quite literally the guidance we give people as part of ''normal editing practices''. 2) The OP is being a bit disingenuous when they say "this has been previously discussed". That thread was started ''less than 30 minutes'' before this one. That is not "has been previously discussed". Given that no attempt has been made to reach a consensus on this one way or another, and that the user being dragged here is quite literally ''doing what guidance tells us to do''. So given that A) No real attempt has been made to have a discussion and B) The user is LITERALLY DOING what the rules tell them to do, I am at a loss as to why you want to see them blocked, banned, or whatever. --]] 18:17, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
::It was my understanding that an article for a species was, by definition, notable, no matter how short. Species articles include unique features - especially categories they belong to - that are lost if they are merged. ] (]) 18:23, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
:::Consider just one example of one of the pages this user deleted: ]. It contains references, wikidata links, taxonomic synonyms, and categories, all of which should be maintained but would not appear in the genus-rank article. ] (]) 18:29, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
:::Not according to ]. ] (]) 18:42, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
::::Today I learnt {{tq|Their names and at least a brief description must have been published in a reliable academic publication to be recognized as correct or valid}}. -- LCU ''']''' <small>''∆]∆'' °]°</small> 19:16, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
:::::Not only does ] state that species articles are "generally" kept at AfD, in actual practice "all" (yes, 100% in the last 6.5 yrs) of the valid species articles nominated for deletion have been kept (see ). ] (]) 19:21, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
::::::Is this meant as a reply to me? I don't see the relevance. -- LCU ''']''' <small>''∆]∆'' °]°</small> 19:48, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
:::::::No, it was a response to Gråbergs Gråa Sångn, whose addition to Dyanega's comment seemed ambiguous, if not the inverse of what they might have intended to convey. Not sure of the connection of your original comment though, unless you are just trying to support the notability of all species articles based on what you have "just learnt today''. ] (]) 20:02, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
::::::::I meant nothing more or less than I said. Best way to avoid confusion is to reply to the right comment. -- LCU ''']''' <small>''∆]∆'' °]°</small> 22:07, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
::::::@] ...actually, I know of at least one beetle species article that was deleted 6 years ago (], if you must know), but it was not listed on the Organisms deletion sorting archive but only on the ]. Not sure if this might be an exception to the rule or not though. ] (]) 19:52, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
:::::::Interesting. The original description appears to have not been subsequently recognised by any other authority after Pic (self-) published it. As such, it was effectively not a valid species and not covered by NSPECIES. Even if it was kept, it is likely to have been synonymized with another species eventually and them turned into a redirect. (As an aside, this shows the value of sourcing to a taxonomic database that has sorted out what is recognised as valid or not.) ] (]) 20:44, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
:::::::And in 2019, Zoia finally published his revision of African Eumolpinae which reclassified ''Syagrus atricolor'' as ''Afroeurydemus atricollis'', facts that are now reflected in Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 21:04, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
::::::::Interesting as that may be (I don't want to go on a tangent), my point was that AddWittyNameHere (unless I am mistaken) appeared to have overlooked that the Animal archive has pages not covered by the Organisms archive ...and this may also be true for plants, bacteria and other organisms if they have their own separate deletion sorting archives. That's something to look through to confirm if species articles truly have a ~100% keep rate as per ]. ] (]) 21:47, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
:::::::::Yes, accurate stats over a wide range of kingdoms/phyla would be beneficial to inform other editors of the rate at which species articles are kept. (Sorry for going down the ''Syagrus '' sp. tangent, I find Misplaced Pages is full of such hidden rabbit holes.) ] (]) 22:41, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
::::::::::(No worries, I would have loved to talk a bit on it too, but then I remembered this was not the place for it) ] (]) 00:17, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
::::That is an essay, not a guideline. If the various species projects want it to be a guideline, they should make an RfC on it. ] (]) 21:03, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
::Given that ] has been treated as a ''de facto'' guideline encouraging the creation of individual articles for all recent species for at least a decade (probably further back) - this was an obviously controversial mass change. I don't advocate any action against BilledMammal but that was a dumb move that had no chance of going unchallenged and shouldn't have been implemented at this scale. For further attempts, get consensus. --<span style="font-family:Courier">]</span> <small>(] · ])</small> 18:31, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
:::For the record, when I suggested a block, I meant as a temporary measure to prevent ongoing merges until someone got their attention. ] (]) 18:41, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
::::There wasn't ongoing merges at the time that this was discovered by {{noping|Elmidae}}. BilledMammal had stopped editing close to 6 hours ago. ] (]) 19:49, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
:::OUTCOMES is absolutely not an allowance to create article on the belief they will be kept. OUTCOMES allows for existing article to be kept but still allows merges and AFD to be performed. ] (]) 19:59, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
:The rate at which this was done is impressive - for example, at 01:57 at 28 October 2022 they redirected 25 articles in one minute, or one every ~2.5 seconds. Is this an unauthorized bot run? ] (]) 20:10, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
::There is no record of 01:57 at 28 October. Perhaps you meant 01:37?<span id="Nythar:1666988520847:WikipediaFTTCLNAdministrators&apos;_noticeboard/Incidents" class="FTTCmt"> —&nbsp;] (]'''-''']) 20:22, 28 October 2022 (UTC)</span>
:::That's correct, sorry. ] (]) 20:25, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
::What you don't see is the time to set up those redirects before I press "publish changes" in rapid sequence. Entirely manually. ] (]) 20:23, 28 October 2022 (UTC)


I believe your experience could help address this situation effectively.
OUTCOMES in not a policy or guideline, it's just an observation of happenings at AFD. And such a summary is generally for ''individually created'' articles. Mass-creation or mass major modification of articles certainly needs prior discussion as a minimum. <b style="color: #0000cc;">''North8000''</b> (]) 20:26, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
:These mergers were appropriate per ]. Look at the last five articles I redirected (four created between 00:40, 3 May 2014‎ and 00:43, 3 May 2014‎, the other created at 22:58, 2 May 2014), for the reason {{tq|Duplicates content at ]}}:
:#]
:#]
:#]
:#]
:#]
:The only information these give is the name, that it was a species of beetle in the family Cerambycidae, and who by and when it was described. The same information that is given at Cotyclytus. How is removing the duplication of information controversial?
:The mergers are similar. The last five articles I merged (created between 23:30, 1 May 2014‎ and 23:34, 1 May 2014‎) are:
:#]
:#]
:#]
:#]
:#]
:These give the name, that it was a species of beetle in the family Cerambycidae, who by and when it was described, the range, and in one case a list of subspecies. The first three were already available at ], and I created a table to contain the rest. How is replacing boilerplate micro-stubs with a table containing all of the same information controversial?
:] (]) 20:37, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
::Because the merge destroys unique species-specific information that is not being exported to the genus page. For your last set of species, for example, for ] you deleted Taxonbar|from=Q16758751 and Category:Beetles described in 1870; for ] you deleted Taxonbar|from=Q14718823 and Category:Beetles described in 1852; for ] you deleted Taxonbar|from=Q14718824 and Category:Beetles described in 1995; for ] you deleted Taxonbar|from=Q14718821 and Category:Beetles described in 1824; for ] you deleted Taxonbar|from=Q14718818 and Category:Beetles described in 1892. By merging articles you are removing links to Wikidata, and wiping out members of viable categories. For other articles your bulk edits merged, you deleted lists of synonyms, you deleted categories defined by geographic distributions, and categories linked to authorships. In addition to removing synonyms, you also removed the parentheses around authors' names that indicate that a species was described originally in a different genus. That's a '''lot''' of valuable information being lost to your arbitrary merges. Please stop. ] (]) 20:56, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
::Other information removed included images of the the article subjects. Examples at '']'', '']'', '']'', '']'' '']'', '']'', '']'', '']'', '']'', '']'', '']'' and '']'') ] (]) 22:29, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
:::Valuable to species project editors and...who else? Misplaced Pages is not a directory/database, and even less so a meta-directory. ] (]) 21:11, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
::::It's valuable to the kind of people who would be looking up articles in the topic area. What more justification do we need? ] (]) 13:28, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
:::Working through that list:
:::*{{tq|parentheses around authors' names that indicate that a species was described originally in a different genus}} - I wasn't aware that was deliberate. They can easily be preserved in the merged articles.
:::*{{tq|wiping out members of viable categories}} - The categories could be left in the redirects
:::*{{tq|Taxonbar|from=Q16758751}} - ], and we are writing for the reader, who isn't going to benefit from having to go microstub by microstub to look at all species within a genus just so that we can include a few external links.
:::*{{tq|lists of synonyms}} - Can be included in the merged article.
:::I've done these for ]; given your concerns can easily be addressed, I believe the correct response would have been to ask me to address them, rather than misusing rollback and dragging me to ANI. ] (]) 21:16, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
::::No, the correct thing would be for you to discuss this sort of bulk editing and achieve consensus from - for example - the ] whose hard work you're deleting, BEFORE you go deleting it. Again, all species articles are considered notable, by definition. You'd find little support, as noted above, given several existing policies. Additionally, your tabular format only works when ALL of the species in a genus have limited amounts of information, including limited lists of synonyms. Look at ] for an example of just how impractical that sort of "one size fits all" approach is likely to get. ] (]) 21:27, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
:::::I didn't merge that article? No one is suggesting that every article on a species should be merged into its genus.
:::::I'm also not deleting anyone's hard work; the information is being kept? ] (]) 21:28, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
::::::You don't think it is a lot of work to find and attach the correct Wikidata links to articles? You don't think it's hard work to create redirects for long lists of synonymic names? One of the articles you merged had a pile of species-level redirects that suddenly pointed to a genus article instead of a species article (e.g. ). That's not trivial, and you STILL seem to be avoiding taking the responsible step and discussing this approach with the editors who are most directly involved and getting consensus that your approach is an improvement. ] (]) 22:02, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
:::::::Given that it took the creator approximately one minute to create each of these articles, no, I don't think {{tq|it is a lot of work}}. And we don't create articles just so that we can create redirects to them. ] (]) 22:05, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
::::::::When did I say I was talking about the creator? I'm talking about all the editors who worked to improve these crappy stubs AFTER they were created. A high proportion of the articles you merged were created by a single user, Wilhelmina Wil, who probably shouldn't have done bulk stub creation on that scale. But, instead of merging/deleting those stubs, many editors took the time and energy to do things like adding Wikidata links and lists of synonyms, and adding categories, and fixing spelling, and all sorts of other labor that you're wiping clean (e.g, ). If these had been articles created '''and never improved''' after their creation, maybe you could claim that no one's work was being lost, but that's simply not true for many of these articles at this stage of the game. ] (]) 22:24, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
:::::::::We've already established that we can keep all of that except the Wikidata, due to there being a consensus against including it, so what is your point?
:::::::::Also, the amount of effort that went into creating an article, regardless of whether you think it is {{tq|a lot of work}} or not, is irrelevant to whether it should exist as a stand-alone article. ] (]) 22:28, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
::::::::::No, we haven't, and you haven't - you ignored Loopy30's very valid point about losing species images when you merged pages containing them. I'm sure we can find other editor-added content that is being lost by bulk merges. ] (]) 22:36, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
:::::::::::Please ]. I missed Loopy30's point because they posted it out of order; I didn't ignore it. And we don't keep standalone articles to give us a place to use images any more than we keep articles to give us a place to include external links.
:::::::::::In addition, only a small minority of articles I merged include pictures; that argument cannot be used to suggest my up-merger of the rest, such as ], was inappropriate. ] (]) 22:44, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
::::@] I just wanted to add that I think you are underestimating the value of the wikidata in the taxonbar. They provide links to many different good external sites, such as GBIF or iNaturalist (many people, such as myself, use iNaturalist for taking pictures of animals they find). Those sites can provide more detailed range maps, for example, as well. And I guess I just don't understand the problem with having species stub articles. What is the harm? ] (]) 21:34, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
:::::{{tq|underestimating the value of the wikidata}} - that's a separate discussion about the use of wikidata generally.
:::::{{tq|What is the harm?}} - Because our goal is to benefit the reader. The reader receives more benefit from data being easily accessible by being up-merged rather than having to look at dozens of micro-stubs to gain the same understanding. This isn't controversial per ], particularly for the articles that currently only duplicate the content of the list. ] (]) 21:43, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
::::::Couldn't we just have both? Your "merged" genus-level articles are fine. But can't we keep the species-level stubs as well? ] (]) 21:47, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
:::::::When they are stubs I normally do keep them, as they normally contain information that cannot be merged into the genus level article, but for the sub-stubs like the ones I linked above, which duplicate the content either already or after the merge then ] tells us not to do that. ] (]) 21:51, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
::::::::Taking the first in your list, if someone were to do the work of looking in the ] for the reference , maybe they could add a redirect '']'', write the ] article , expand ] and end up with a bit of article prose and a figure. From seeing various Afd's this work looks sometimes pretty difficult and the existence of the species article might help. ](]) 22:13, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
::::This is an incorrect understanding of that RFC, the intent of which allows Wikidata for authority control, taxon bar, and similar, as well as infoboxes and a few other places (Template:Official as an example). What it bans is the use in article text-proper and I think it's been reasonably interpreted to list articles automatically updated by Wikidata changes (though I recall no direct RFC on that point). --]] (]) 23:56, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
:The relevant list of edits is . Now, BilledMammal, what you wrote above looks like the sort of proposal you could have put forward to the relevant wikiproject to see if there'd be consensus for it. Personally, I don't think there would be, and such a project would be impractical for a number of reasons (some of which have been listed in the two threads so far). All that is a content matter though, and what gets discussed in this board is instead behaviour. I join those above who have expressed the view that no sanctions are necessary, but it would really help if you could appreciate the reasons why what you did was a misstep. I'll just point out one thing. There's a stark contrast between, on one hand, your stance in ], where you demanded that one editor get community approval first before going back to creating 3-4 articles per day, and, on the other hand, your decision here to unilaterally redirect 459 articles in the space of 25 hours. – ] (]) 22:05, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
::]. The relevant wikiproject has no bearing on whether this is appropriate. Further, the difference between the fish species discussion is the existence of the policy ], which requires consensus to exist for their mass creation. ] (]) 22:07, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
:::So in your view, the bot policy, which you've just linked, prohibits one editor from making 5 article creations a day, but somehow also allows another editor, you, to remove 500 articles in the same period? I don't want to belabour the obvious anymore, but you really need to grasp the (very obvious) thing that you got wrong here. – ] (]) 22:32, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
::::{{tq|the (very obvious) thing that you got wrong here}} - Given that no-one took the creator of these articles to ANI when they created 201 sub-stubs in one day, I'm assuming that what I did wrong was to clean up a mess, rather than create one. ] (]) 22:38, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
*Seems like normal editing to me. Hundreds of bold edits were reverted; per ] they should be discussed before being reinstated. This is not ANI- or sanction-worthy. Also, editors who start ANI threads shouldn't advertise them off-wiki. ] (]) 22:44, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
::There's nothing "normal" about this. I've been around WP a long time, and as far as I'm aware the wholesale merging of several hundred articles on valid species has '''never''' happened before. Again, there is a vast community of people who work on taxonomic articles in WP, and none of this was ever discussed with any of them before the merges commenced. ] (]) 23:00, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
:::This was done during the late 2000s to topics of fictional nature. It was somewhat controversial then but a decade later and consensus is basically that the choice there was correct in the general. It took a particularly determined editor to see those changes through but I think that editor was vindicated by current attitudes.
:::Species are not all that dissimilar, and the path taken here was one prompted by actual guidelines on the point.
:::Anyway, the general discussion is soon to be had, but don't think species are special. ]] (]) 00:09, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
* Basically, this is not difficult. If you're going to start bot-like editing on large number of articles, it is always a good idea to gain consensus for those edits first. Otherwise, you may end up causing a problem, like we see here. I have no view on whether BM's edits were useful or not, but it is the concept of mass editing that is the issue. ] 23:23, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
**I agree completely with Black Kite. How can one go ahead and make so many edits that one could realize would not go unchallenged, without even trying to sense whether the community would agree with them? It just goes against the very spirit of everything. ] (]) 03:16, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
***The information was retained, in a format that is much more convenient for readers. I genuinely thought this wouldn’t be controversial - and looking at the AFD’s, where no one has objected on the grounds that it is not an improvement (except for one editor who has made the bizarre claim that a 6000 byte article is too long) I still don’t understand why it is, although I recognise that it is. ] (]) 03:48, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
***:You're experienced enough that you should have known that not everybody was going to be happy with 500 articles being turned into redirects. I hope that moving forward you'll start discussions with others in relevant WikiProjects prior to these types of mass changes. We're a collaborative effort and discussions help to bring out alternative points of view that others may not have considered. The longer I'm on Misplaced Pages the more I'm realizing just how useful starting discussions in the proper places can be in helping to guide what large scale changes I make or don't make. ] (]) 04:11, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
* It looks like BilledMammal has now gone ahead and nominated all the species articles for deletion at AfD. ] (]) 00:36, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
*:That is very much POINTy given they are involved in this conversation. ] (]) 00:45, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
*::Ive opened two AFD’s, at ] and ]. Given that this isn’t a content discussion, and editors are saying I should get consensus before repeating those edits, I don’t see opening them as pointy or in any way disruptive? ] (]) 00:53, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
*:::Nominating these for deletion looks pointy and, without a link to this discussion where the consensus is running against a merge, a lot like forum shopping. ] (]) 01:07, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
::::*] applies to "making edits with which they do not actually agree", not edits with which they agree, and sending a page to AfD after a bold redirection was rejected is the regular process at work, not forum shopping. ] (]) 01:18, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
::::*:Making an AFD when there is a large number of complains about previous merges (read: keeping the status quo until a discussion can be had) is definitely making such edits. Its clear the proper action is to open a discussion about how to handle these articles. I mean, I agree on the principle of merging, but ] is also required. ] (]) 01:28, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
::::*::'Its clear the proper action is to open a discussion about how to handle these articles'... which is exactly what he did? ] (]) 01:38, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
::::*:::Except that there were ''already'' two ongoing discussions, here and at ] going on about how to handle these articles. Since a merge discussion doesn't require posting to AFD (which is, in fact, not called "articles for discussion"), bypassing those discussions and creating two new ones without, initially, referring to either of them is ]. ] (]) 01:45, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
::::*::::WP Tree of Life can’t come a consensus on this, per ], and ANI only discusses behaviour, not content. ] (]) 01:54, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
::::*:::::There's nothing at ] that says that a merger discussion can't take place on a project notice board. The point is that a local consensus after a discussion at a project noticeboard can't overrule a consensus established project wide. In the absence of a project-level consensus on these though, there was no need to create another discussion and if you did want to create one, there were more appropriate venues. And per ], you should have notified interested wikiprojects (rather than accusing them of canvassing when they self-notified!). ] (]) 02:02, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
::::*::::::The notification posted at TOL was not neutral. ] (]) 02:08, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
::::*:It's not the regular process when you don't tell people that there's an extensive conversation about the topic going on somewhere else. And your reading of ] needs additional subtlety. WP:POINT specifically says that it's edits with which the person does not agree "as a rule," which means "usually, but not always." ] (]) 01:29, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
* POINTy actions like the AfD nominations do seem like they can and should have an actionable response at ANI. ]]<sup>]</sup> 01:38, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
* I have no dog in this fight but nominating an article for deletion and proposing a merge, after a bold redirection was reverted, is the right and proper course of action. It's not POINTy at all. It's the legitimate next step to gain consensus for a controversial change. ] ] 01:45, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
*:Not really, because while a merger can be an outcome at AFD, nominating dozens of articles for deletion isn't the right way to propose a merger. Proposing a merger is described at ] as an alternative to listing at AFD and the instructions say "Use ] for discussion of mergers." ] (]) 01:57, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
*For those who say "this is just normal editing", what would you say if someone did this for all species articles? Or every stub across the project that has a clear parent article? Just "normal editing"? The rate/quantity does matter. BilledMammal is one of the more active participants in the ongoing discussions about the rate of article creation. With so much of that predicated on when permission/discussion needs to happen before taking some sort of mass action, it's ... weird ... to see BM mass redirecting subjects (species) that have among the strongest consensus of ''any'' subject for having stand-alone articles. That's not to say that species articles can never be merged up, or even that these shouldn't (I'm not weighing in on that), but the number combined with absence of discussion ''does'' matter.<br/>It makes me feel old that I'm starting to feel like there's a relatively small but growing and very active group of people who are primarily here to cleanse Misplaced Pages of stubs and anything without inline cites. They used to call me a deletionist; maybe being around a while makes you a bit softer (or just me)... &mdash; <samp>] <sup style="font-size:80%;">]</sup></samp> \\ 02:11, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
::I see a difference between the two; ] doesn’t apply here, and my actions don’t create a ] situation as evidenced by the fact they have been reversed.
::{{tq|that have among the strongest consensus of ''any'' subject for having stand-alone articles.}} I would be interested to see if that was true; I would suggest TOL draft an SNG saying that species should almost always have a standalone article, and see if there is a consensus for it. ] (]) 02:19, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
:::Posh. Your redirects were reverted, then after you saw the concerns laid out here at AN/I, you tempted ] by going ahead and nominating some 30 of those stubs for deletion. ] ] ] 04:11, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
::::I don't really think there was any risk of ] here. Those articles were not going to change by AfD for at least a week, and it would notify lots of different people to its existence. BilledMammal was right in saying elsewhere in the discussion that the post to ] was not neutral. AfD is probably the most appropriate place for these kind of content discussions.
::::Whether BilledMammal should stir the pot while there is an ANI thread open, well, that's a different conversation. EDIT: Not to imply that creating upset was intentional: just that it is a bit escalatory and they could have maybe waited longer. ] (]) 10:25, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
*I think we would be well served by '''finally''' holding a general RfC that develops ] into a solid SNG, which may well turn out to be more restrictive than the current interpretation. As long as there is no more than a vague observation of "this is what usually happens with species articles" we will keep getting these issues (which admittedly don't normally extend to such an ...unwise 500-article chainsaw approach.) --<span style="font-family:Courier">]</span> <small>(] · ])</small> 09:07, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
*:I'm still very new to Misplaced Pages and basically only interact with parts related to taxonomy, and I think what Elmidae suggests would be very useful. Certainly there's a lot of "implied knowledge" when it comes to interpreting ]. It is a very short essay based on observation that is brought into AfD conversations as de-facto policy and it would be a great idea to hash out where everyone stands on the issue. ] (]) 10:03, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
*:I'm in agreement with {{u|Elmidae}}. We need more solid footing, even if it changes the scope of allowability. - ] ] 15:23, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
*: How would this address the current situation. I don't think that BM has actually asserted that lack of notability was the reason of these merges., Codifying long standing consensus, while possibly useful for other reasons, wouldn't do anything to prevent merges on the same basis BM based these on. &mdash; <samp>] <sup style="font-size:80%;">]</sup></samp> \\ 15:31, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
*These merges were legitimate BOLD edits and the use of rollback was inappropriate. AfD is a normal next step after a redirect is challenged. Tree of Life project participants are reminded that there is no requirement to consult Wikiprojects before making changes; disciplinary and anti-vandalism processes should not be misused to challenge edits that one disagrees with; and editors are expected to participate in content discussions in good faith without accusing others of misconduct. –] ] 17:59, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
**Where do you draw the line though? What is the upper limit on the number of established notable articles that an editor is free to boldly redirect each day without seeking consensus? – ] (]) 18:29, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
***Same as the number of articles an editor is free to boldly create each day without seeking consensus. ] (]) 18:32, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
****Isn't the entire point of the ArbCom discussion going on now about how there should be consensus made in both cases and trying to remove or create a large amount of articles without some form of community approval beforehand is disruptive? ]]<sup>]</sup> 18:35, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
****:And notice how that's ''not'' getting consensus in the ongoing discussion. The entire point is: anyone can make as many articles as they like as long as the articles are policy-compliant without having to ask permission first. There is no rate limit, nor is there consensus to implement one. Similarly, anyone can merge as many article as they like without having to ask permission first, as long as the merges are policy-compliant. Similarly, anyone can revert BOLD mergers without any rate limit. Similarly, anyone can nominate as many articles as they like for AFD with no rate limit, again, as long as it's all policy-compliant. This is ''normal'' editing, and people do it all the time (mass creations, mass moves, mass mergers, mass category changes, mass AFDs, mass this and mass that and mass everything else too), and they've been doing it for decades. We have no rule against it. We should, but there isn't consensus for it. This isn't directed at you, silver, but I notice that WikiProjects cheer and celebrate when someone mass-creates articles in-scope, then those same projects recoils in horror when anyone else mass-nominates them for AFD or mass-merges them, etc. This notion that, once created, a mainspace page is somehow "sacred" or "protected" from being "destroyed" by deletion or merger -- see above and in the WT:TOL discussion, how people are talking about information being "lost," "hidden," or "destroyed," as if ] isn't a part of encyclopedia building -- has no basis in global consensus. In fact, global consensus is the opposite, per ] and ]. ] doesn't just apply to content ''creation'', it also applies to content ''curation''. ] (]) 20:02, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
*'''Further action needed?''' I was just alerted to the <s>carnage</s> disrutption through the AfD alerts, and seriously? What sort of ] editor would even think this kind of behavior is ok on a mass scale?
:The mass redirects without any discussion when such structure is the norm was already bad enough. It's not quite the volume as when we had mass disruption of insect articles when I had to go back and fix 10k insect talk pages (something about insects sure attracts this behavior), but this is affecting actual mainspace. ], as someone who's had to do similar cleanup after mass disruption like that kudos to you. BilledMammal should have known better at that point, but doubling down with the mass AfD is definitely getting in to ] territory. They were already warned that species articles are inherently notable (not to mention guidance we have like ]), and instead they're trying to wikilawyer about it. It looks like BilledMammal is also like ] commenting on this ANI too.
:I'm not very familiar with BM, but given that they're causing major disruption in taxonomy articles, is that what a potential topic ban needs to be tailored towards? Based on the attitude and "warnings" they are giving out now, it's like they're just itching for a block they narrowly avoiding when they stopped making mainspace edits. Not sure on what action is best at this very moment, but hopefully this nth whack BilledMammal's noggin that they are on ridiculously thin ice sticks. I'm not up to speed on the ArbCom case, but usually continuing disputes related to the locus of the case are expressly forbidden during a case. Someone more familiar with it would know how/if clerks need to be involved. ] (]) 22:09, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
::{{tq| were already warned that species articles are inherently notable}} There is no guideline that says that, and in any case not every notable topic warrants an article, per ].
::{{tq|It looks like BilledMammal is also harassing editors like Hey man im josh commenting on this ANI too.}} That was related to them going through my contributions to find all the AfD's I had recently opened to oppose them, including those unrelated to species. I believe the warning about ] was appropriate. The fact that they ignored the warning and {{diff2|1118880218|instead used rollback to remove it was less appropriate}}. ] (]) 22:13, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
:::]. I did not respond to you because I did not believe it would be a constructive conversation given how you've been combative against others during this process. {{tq|That was related to them going through my contributions to find all the AfD's}} I voted in two additional AfDs (] and ]). Given the nature of your two species related AfD nominations, it's not inappropriate to question if there were other inappropriate nominations.
:::I used rollback as, per ] point #2, the edit was in my userspace and the reason for reverting I felt to be clear (point #1). The warning was retaliation and inappropriate. If you feel my behaviour was as well, then I do encourage you to open up an ANI because, while I believe my actions were not inappropriate, I'd adjust and learn from it others believed they were. But that should be its own discussion. To be honest this is why I usually don't participate in ANI, I'd rather be a no drama llama. ] (]) 00:10, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
::::None of the nominations were inappropriate; you can disagree with them, but that doesn't make them inappropriate. However, if you had stuck to the species nominations I wouldn't have objected; they are sufficiently related that I can see the argument that they are an appropriate use of an editors contribution history. What crossed over into hounding is when you used my contribution history to follow me into unrelated discussions and oppose my position there. ] (]) 21:46, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
:::::For those following along on the "none of the nominations were inappropriate" comment , this is part of the major problem with the disruption BM caused despite multiple cautions. They are basically ignoring their own behavior. They made mass nominations without following ], namely that they didn't try to improve content themselves even though the articles had sourcing to expand the articles when their complaint was that they were too short (not a reason for AfD), nor were they at individual talk pages trying to work details out or going to relevant Wikiprojects that BEFORE advises before even getting to the last step of doing merges/redirects. The mass article disruption only compounds that. To ignore that is clearly showing ] behavior (extreme lack of self correction in this subject).
:::::BM, you need to take your behavior seriously here. While it may be a red herring if you are going to make accusations against Hey man im josh, you need diffs. I don't see anything obvious in that would be to {{tq|follow me into unrelated discussions and oppose my position there}}. If there is, you really need a diff at this point that actually shows it. If not, that is a ] and is just giving the community another reason to block you. That is why I'm saying you need to take this seriously because it really comes across as you trying to escalate things more and more as we try to work with your behavior here. ] (]) 00:29, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
::::::The section of ] that recommends improving content through normal editing links ]. ]; when the redirect aspect of the bold merge was rejected the appropriate action, per ] and ] #4, is to open an AfD. You also misrepresent my nomination, which was on the grounds of ], ], and ].
::::::Hey man im josh {{diff2|1118823274|!voted}} at ] at 03:23, 29 October 2022. Two minutes later, they {{diff2|1118823468|!voted}} at ]. I consider both of these votes to be appropriate.
::::::What was inappropriate and a violation of ] is that they then went through my contributions to find and oppose other unrelated nominations which they did at {{diff2|1118824858|03:38, 29 October 2022}} and {{diff2|1118825053|03:39, 29 October 2022}}. ] (]) 00:47, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
:::::::BM, you're talking past again and ignoring what you're actually doing in your edits, that's becoming disrutpive. You're just ignoring what multiple people have told you should have done in terms of process and that ATD directly points you to and are instead cherrypicking. Not to mention you're edit warring at ] to add to your issues. This is not the time to joke around like that.
:::::::For for your actions with Hey man im josh, that's hardly harassment. When you had issues with disruptive use of AfD, of course someone is going to look in on other cases and comment independently if they notice something. In that case though, you aren't mentioned at all, and they are just reflecting what the rest of community is also saying at the AfDs. You on the other hand are adding to the case that you are treating AfD like a battleground the more you link to these interactions. ] (]) 04:24, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
::Can we assume good faith, please? I doubt BilledMammal has bad-faith intentions, and it doesn't appear to be good-faith disruption either. Okay, maybe it wasn't a great idea to unilaterally redirect hundreds of articles without prior consensus and many of you disagreed with the deletion nominations, but I don't see disruption or sanctionable behavior on BilledMammal's part.<span id="Nythar:1667082217190:WikipediaFTTCLNAdministrators&apos;_noticeboard/Incidents" class="FTTCmt"> —&nbsp;] (]'''-''']) 22:23, 29 October 2022 (UTC)</span>
:::I agree, I don't think their original edits to turn the pages into redirects were in bad faith. I just think they should have known better given their experience. ] (]) 00:12, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
:::When someone is engaging in patently disruptive behavior, especially given the battleground attitude they are injecting, we call a ] a spade, so it's rather oblivious to just reduce it down to name-dropping good-faith. That happens all too often with tendentious editing like this. Either way, it looks like ArbCom doesn't have an active case that would involve BM like I assumed from previous comments. Some have commenting on solidfying some taxonomy standards in guidelines, etc. to avoid wikilawyering that's going on, but that also seems somewhat independent of BM's attitude.
:::Given the ongoing pointy attitude I'm seeing on comments from BM though, it is increasingly looking like a sanction will be needed to prevent disruption at some point. Especially given the cluelessness above in their harassing of Hey man im josh above, it's really coming across as a how dare you clean up after my mess mentality while trying to use ] as a get of out jail free card as we commonly see with tendentious editors. They've been around long enough to know better. As I linked above, that's the opposite of ] when someone's behavior issues are brought up, so I'm increasingly convinced sanctions will be needed to curb disruption BM is injecting into the taxonomy subject. ] (]) 20:56, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
::] is closed and BilledMammal was not a party. There's currently a related ongoing RfC but creation/deletion tasks are continuing as usual. –] ] 22:32, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
:::Thanks for the link. Looks like this would be the appropriate venue then. ] (]) 20:58, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
I'm back and have a little time, so I have a number of things to point out, please bear with me. (1) BilledMammal accused me of canvassing. I originally posted to exactly one page - ]. Why? Because all of the merged/altered articles affected were WP:TOL pages, and because ] has, within it, ], and to which BilledMammal did not submit any such proposals. (2) Given that WP:TOL does, in fact, have space dedicated to approving/rejecting merge proposals, I think it is entirely understandable that I would be under the impression that the WikiProject does, in fact, have an established policy and legitimate claim to authority over such actions, and I acted accordingly, reacting to what I saw as a massive and unprecedented policy breach. Being accused by BilledMammal of acting in a non-neutral manner is predicated on his actions NOT being a breach of policy, and WP:TOL having no authority at all, and all the evidence I had in front of me is that it WAS a breach of policy. Others here and elsewhere have stated that WikiProject policies have no authority or enforceability at all, and I find this surprising, and apologize if I assumed too much. (3) Likewise, BilledMammal accused me of not assuming his actions were in good faith, but breaches of policy such as not getting approval for article merges, '''especially when they delete unique content''' do not appear to be good faith actions, unless an editor is acting in complete ignorance of policy. An editor acting in good faith who is bulk-deleting content, especially when all of that content is flagged as belonging to a specific WikiProject, should be consulting with that WikiProject in advance. Just because an edit is bold doesn't mean it isn't genuinely destructive, and I would argue that demonstrably destructive edits '''should''' be rolled back until they have been discussed and approved. (4) Policy and rules aside, BilledMammal admitted, directly, that they '''did not know what content in the articles being merged was or was not valuable''', as well as admitting, directly, that they '''did not look at each such article''' to assess whether there WAS any unique content that would be lost. That sort of bulk editing, when you don't understand what you're causing to be lost, is not just bold, it's reckless. If there's a fire, you don't adopt a neutral stance and wait to see if it will go out on its own; you call the fire department. (5) When it was pointed out what deleted content '''was''' valuable, and what '''was''' unique, BilledMammal dismissed the point, saying that once he was made aware of the problem, some of it could be salvaged, and the rest, like taxonbars with Wikidata links, was not worth salvaging. Again, the time to learn what content needs to be maintained is BEFORE one removes that content, not after. Second, despite attempts to dismiss things like Wikidata links as not worth salvaging, I would argue that for many of these articles the Wikidata links are the single most important '''and unique''' source of information in the article, and - most importantly - ONLY Misplaced Pages species-level articles contain and make use of the full cross-referencing capacity of Wikidata. (6) Consider just one of the articles BilledMammal has proposed deleting; '']'', containing only a single species. The taxonbar was added by an editor after the article was created, and via Wikidata it links this record to '''Wikimedia Commons, Wikispecies, BioLib, BugGuide, CoL, EoL, EPPO, GBIF, iNaturalist, IRMNG, ITIS, and NCBI'''. Not a single one of those linked sources crossreferences to the others. For that matter, Wikidata records '''themselves''' do not cross-reference to other Wikidata records; you cannot look at a species entry in Wikidata and determine from that how many species are in the same genus, or what family it is in. ONLY Misplaced Pages species articles serve to provide a reader with '''all''' of the information available for a species, and the information available through the Wikidata crossreferences is VAST - it includes not just the taxonomic information, but the geographic distributions, phenologies, host associations, biological notes, photographs, and records of actual physical specimens and their data. Just go to that '']'' article and click on those Wikidata links to see how much information is contained there - all of it lost if the article is deleted. It is precisely this information that BilledMammal has specifically stated is not worth including in Misplaced Pages, at the same time complaining about how these stubs contain nothing useful or unique. Misplaced Pages species articles that contain a Wikidata linked taxonbar do NOT simply "duplicate the content" of a genus-level article (because the genus-level articles do not contain those Wikidata links), and they contain far more than just what is immediately visible in the text of the article. Despite comments I've seen some people post, species-level articles do NOT simply duplicate or mirror what is found in Wikispecies, they do MUCH more, because they contain a Wikidata link, while Wikispecies cross-references to almost nothing, not to Wikidata, and not even to Misplaced Pages. (7) As others have noted, deleting or merging articles not only does nothing to improve them, but it makes it harder for anyone else to improve them, just like deleting the brackets from a redlink makes it harder for anyone to know that an article needs to be created. All existing redirects pointing to species articles will no longer have a proper target, because you can't target individual entries in a table. (8) Designing a table format that can accommodate for all the possible permutations is not practical; BilledMammal's initial attempt had only three fields - species name, "first described", and range. If you wanted to have an actual table that could accommodate existing species article stub content, it would contain (a) present species name, (b) past names/spelling variants/synonyms (of which there can be be 50 or more), (c) authorships and years for all these names, (d) the geographic distributions, (e) host associations, (f) existence of subspecies, (g) images, (h) descriptive notes, and (i) references, at a bare minimum (i.e., without having to omit existing content of merged/deleted stubs). Even for a small genus, nine columns, and the possible amount of content in some of them (especially considering how many would have to be left blank) would be unwieldy enough, but for groups like beetles, there are some genera with over 3000 valid species! Those genus articles are bad enough as just lists, they will become '''impossible''' to use if they are converted into tables, and the unfortunate truth is that all but a literal handful of the species articles for those enormous genera are stubs. We are MUCH better off with 3000 individual articles than a gargantuan table. (9) Something else that is overlooked is HOW DO MOST USERS ARRIVE AT WIKIPEDIA? To continue the example above, if you google "Knulliana" the #1 Google hit is the Misplaced Pages article - the same article that BilledMammal has just proposed to delete. Call me crazy, but you shouldn't go around deleting the #1 source of information on an organism on the entire internet just because you assert that species stubs are wasteful and inefficient. (10) For me, the bottom line is this: once a species article referring to an actual valid taxonomic entity has been created and crossreferenced, it should '''not''' be subject to arbitrary decisions to merge or delete it. If the name is synonymized, then it should immediately be changed into a redirect to the valid taxon name, but that's about the only way a species article should ever be made to disappear. BilledMammal has not engaged with the relevant Wikiproject, and has dismissed the concerns about the effort of editors who have helped to improve a page, as being irrelevant to whether a page should be maintained. Well, Misplaced Pages is a community effort, for one thing, and the community should have a say in the matter. The other side of this is that an editor who does not understand what the content is that they're removing should not be making such a decision unilaterally, especially when there are editors who DO understand what the content is, and how valuable it is. (11) I will echo the calls by others to establish, once and for all, an explicit AND OBJECTIVE policy regarding species articles, however high up it needs to go in the WP administrative hierarchy to make it enforceable. It is hard enough to keep the existing articles organized and curated without some existential threat that if an article does not have some arbitrary amount of arbitrarily-defined improvement by some arbitrary deadline, it can be wiped away by anyone who feels so inclined, without discussing the matter in advance. That's a recipe for disaster, and I don't regret categorizing it as such. ] (]) 22:17, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
: This is a little difficult to read, but three points:
:# I accused you of canvassing because you {{diff2|1118798988|posted}} a ] at ToL directing editors to the AfDs.
:# The only content whose value I missed was that parenthesis around authors' names had a specific meaning, a mistake that was easily corrected.
:# I did look at every article I redirected to see what content needed to be preserved.
: ] (]) 22:37, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
::::No, you missed images, you missed synonyms, and you missed wikidata links - all were excluded from the genus/tribe articles you merged to. These are all important, you apparently still don't accept that Wikidata links are important. ] (]) 22:56, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
::::You admitted that you did not look to see if an article had images, nor did you look for synonyms, until after it was pointed out that these were important. ] (])
:::::Please provide diffs for these admissions. ] (]) 23:04, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
::::::Your pre-rollback edit of ] is this one: showing that you imported no images, synonyms, or taxonbars, in addition to not importing the properly-formatted authorships, or recognizing that authorship is not at all the same thing as "first described". As for your comment admitting that you didn't pay attention to whether or not there were images, it was here: . If your comment means that you noticed that there were images, but decided not to use them, then that's effectively the same thing, if not worse. You continue to trivialize things that are not at all trivial. You even said that Misplaced Pages had no responsibility for giving external links a home, which ignores that the crossreferenced sets of links in a taxonbar '''can't be found anywhere else'''. ] (]) 23:39, 31 October 2022 (UTC)


Looking forward to your advice on how to proceed.
===Escalation and edit-warring by BilledMammal===
Despite warnings above, we're getting more pointy behavior by BilledMammal at ]. Without using the talk page at all until just a few minutes ago, they've tried to insert their preferred version three times now over a few days. They're basically trying to partially start the merge they're proposing in the AfD ahead of time. One diff is particularly odd where they try to reverse the burden for consensus: {{tq|Restore content while AfD is ongoing, to prevent disruption and confusion. If the AfD closes as "no consensus" or "keep", then please reinstate your reversion and I will open an RfC on the preferred content.}} Basically, they're trying to edit war in the new content for the page and trying to justify it because it would complicate their AfD if it wasn't there in some strange circular reasoning. More on that at the talk page.


Thankyou! ]] 15:21, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
This attitude is clearly wasting time at this point, so this is partly a request for admins to monitor for future edit warring, but to also indicate we're still dealing with timesink behavior issues even after the mass redirects stopped above. Too much battleground mentality being projected from this editor. ] (]) 05:11, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
:{{tq|try to reverse the burden for consensus}} - I asked you to delay your edit a few days, in order to avoid disrupting an ongoing AfD whose debate is related to the existence of the content you removed. That isn't an attempt to reverse the burden for consensus.
:I also find it surprising that you're accusing me of edit warring. While I have reverted twice, it was across several days, and the first was to restore content that appeared to have been unintentionally caught up in the rollback. Meanwhile, you've {{diff2|1119181101|reverted twice}} in a {{diff2|1119187037|single hour}}.
:Finally, while I didn't use the article talk page until after you opened a discussion there, I did {{oldid2|1119183622|Bothriospilini‎|try to open a discussion on your talk page}}; rather than engage with it, {{diff2|1119185796|you removed it}}. ] (]) 05:23, 31 October 2022 (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.
:KoA, could you explain how adding species tables to an article is ]y? Such tables appear to be a standard practice (eg. ]). ] (]) 07:15, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
: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.
::That's not really an accurate description just saying it's tables. For the article itself, BM has been repeatedly told that the species articles already handle the information they are trying to insert, and that sections were not helpful in terms of structure and prose. If they had simply engaged on the talk page and stopped edit warring from the start, that part of the behavior would not have been as pointy.
:By the way is forum shopping. Stop that. ] (]) 16:06, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
::I already mentioned it above, but repeatedly restoring disputed content is what is also pointy, especially when they are trying to edit war in the content merge they're trying to accomplish at the AfD before the close. It should be self-apparent when reading their edit summary I quoted or their comment just above this how much they are doubling down on abusing the process they've been blocked for before. It is literally wiki-lawyering to not get consensus on something only to start an AfD and accuse others of disrupting the AfD because those other editors won't let BM edit war in content they actively chose not to get consensus for. The short of it is that BM is just inflaming the topic independent of content that could be worked on and sucking time away from editors trying hold their behavior issues at bay. ] (]) 13:11, 31 October 2022 (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 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)
:::How would you describe it? It appears to be tables, or where the table would be one row, text that covers the same material. On disputed content, until now there has been no indication that the Bothriospilini content was disputed. The version you have chosen is literally a single sentence, I do not understand how that is an improvement. ] (]) 14:32, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
::I am concerned that ]’s actions, including unjustified deletion nominations and spamming, are disruptive and violate Misplaced Pages’s guidelines.
::::That is not addressing the behavior issues. ] (]) 14:41, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
::She seems to lack understanding of basic Misplaced Pages guidelines, particularly those related ] and ]. ]] 16:40, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::That may be so, it would nonetheless be helpful to get answers to my questions to understand what you feel is pointy (to be specific, disrupting Misplaced Pages to prove a point). I have asked because in the situation you raise I see one editor expanding an article and one reducing it back to a single sentence. An explanation for how the reduction is helpful to that article remains outstanding. ] (]) 15:00, 31 October 2022 (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).
::::::You are welcome to read this ANI and the relevant AfDs you're already at for that, but the disruption doesn't change based on what someone thinks of the content question, and that's really a subject for the other venues. BM was already alerted multiple times the content belongs at the species pages, not the tribe, and BM was well are of their approach to trying to merge that content in was disputed. You don't just keep charging ahead with edits then. Avoiding relevant talk pages and their onus to get consensus for the content even when pinged is already disruptive. Trying to do the mass merge through an AfD is one thing (not to mention the many comments on with their nomination there), but then insisting they get to start that merge ahead of time at the target articles and act like those trying to deal with BM avoiding getting consensus are somehow disrupting the AfD is just plain escalating and projecting. It's disruptive ] no matter how you cut it and why we are here rather than solely dealing with the content in the other venues. If it wasn't for that, we wouldn't see the basic non-responses like at ] when we finally got them to comment at an article talk page only yesterday.
:::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)
::::::At this point I'm spending time on this because whenever it looks like there might be a little reprieve, BM has another stunt that comes up, and that's reviewing what I've seen even before I stepped in here too. Given past ANIs and blocks on BM, it's clear that trend is just continuing even in their most recent comments. That's why we now have a section on escalation and starting to queue up preventative measures. We do have to respect the community that shouldn't have to deal with the behavior time-sink at some point. ] (]) 16:21, 31 October 2022 (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:
:::::::Having read the ANI and relevant AfDs, it is not explained anywhere how reducing ] to a single sentence benefits any particular editor, the relevant Wikiprojects, the reader, or Misplaced Pages. Given you also do not appear inclined to explain it here after being asked directly, I do not think your AN/I case on pointy editing will get very far. ] (]) 02:03, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
:::: •
::::::::Hi CMD, the reason that the Bothriospilini article was a single sentence is that often very little of the literature is written at that taxonomic level (tribe), and this is reflected on WP where we generally have articles at the species, genus, family, order, class (and higher) ranks, but not at any of the many "in between" ranks. Where these articles do exist, they are often placeholders to assist in navigation through very large taxonomic trees.
:::: •
::::::::KoA did not "reduce" the article to a single sentence, so much as to restore it to its pre-edit warring and pre-AfD launching state. Although BilledMammal failed to follow the prescribed sequence of gaining consensus for obviously contested moves (obvious to them because they had participated/instigated the fish stub "mass" creation discussion and recent RfC on the mass creation), they instead tried to back-door the process by filing two AfDs (one of which would have been enough for a test case) by requesting a merge as an alternative to deletion as a goal of AfD. Rather than wait for the AfD closing result, they then started their intended merge by moving material up to the desired target page and claiming that their AfD goal (ATD-M) was correct based on a supposed WP:CONTENTFORK, a duplication of material that was both their own creation and against consensus. This gaming of WP procedures without engaging other involved WP editors is neither collegial nor helpful to the encyclopedia. Seems POINTy enough to me. ] (]) 02:31, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
:::: •
:::::::::Articles should not exist to serve as categories, that's what categories are for. At any rate, this continues to not explain how having more detail on the members on the tribe page is bad for that article. The pointy edit here appears to be the blocking of the improvement of an article (in a way that reflects many other articles) because of an AfD for other articles. ] (]) 03:25, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
:::: •
::::::::::Tribes are less notable than genera. If low-notability taxonomy stubs are going to being merged, tribes would be better candidates than genera (in this paticular case, the next level up, Cerambycinae, has well over 600 genera, so there are some practical reasons for keeping tribe stubs). ] (]) 16:57, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
::::and many more
:::::::::::I think this is also a good point for a potential SNG. ] (]) 18:49, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
::::Thankyou! ]] 17:33, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
::::{{tq|On disputed content, until now there has been no indication that the Bothriospilini content was disputed.}} KoA, can you explain why you believe the content was disputed before your revert? This question is prompted by {{diff2|1119333968|your recent revert at Bimiini}} where your edit summary indicates that you also believe that content was disputed.
::::If you are referring to the rollback, the summary was focused on the redirects, and I don't think it is unreasonable to believe that it was not disputing the content at the target articles. ] (]) 01:08, 1 November 2022 (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)
:::::You've already been made aware you're making false statements. Elmidae reverted the entirety, not just the part you mentioned before I did the same at both articles. You knew it was disputed. Trying to wikilawyer basically saying you're sure they didn't mean to revert it all in order to say you should be able to edit war is just indicating you're trying to be disruptive at this point. You seriously need to step back from taxonomy articles if you intend to double down on tendentious editing like this at ANI of all places. Otherwise the community will be forced to do that for you at the rate you are going. ] (]) 01:33, 1 November 2022 (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 have seen species lists routinely included in the article about the genus that contains those species (the next level up the taxonomic hierarchy), and, much less commonly, at higher taxonomic levels (like ]). I do not recall ever seeing a species list, certainly not at a higher taxonomic level, that attempted to give more data than the name of individual species; in almost all cases, such a list or table would grow unmanageably large as it was filled out with information. To give an example, if someone created ] and started filling it with short entries about individual communities, we would (I hope) recognize that the article was too broadly scoped, and disperse it into sections of articles on individual counties, or narrower standalone lists like ]. This would be true even if many of the communities were deemed non-notable or at least not worthy of having a separate article.
::::::::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)
::My general impression of the situation, from the Village Pump discussion of fish stubs and the subsequent mass article creation RfC, is that BilledMammal favors a fairly aggressive upmerging of taxonomic stubs into larger higher-level articles. This is a defensible position, but has not yet obtained consensus and is a reasonably ] action, insofar as it prescribes a different interpretation of policy than has been conventionally accepted in this area, as described by ]. Again, re-examining these conventions is a legitimate activity (cf. NSPORTS), but I think they've shown increasingly poor judgment in how they approached it. I think we've reached the point where it would be better to see what position can gain consensus by discussing it with people familiar with this content (e.g., at the Tree of Life project) rather than by filing more AfDs and trying to judge the consensus position based on (possibly conflicting) outcomes there. ] (]) 17:03, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
:::::::::Please provide evidence of this. ] (]) 18:06, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Restricting notability consensus discussions to wikiprojects is ''exactly'' what caused all the problems with NSPORT, trains, GEOLAND, porn, etc. Notability/article creation conventions should reflect global community consensus, not LOCALCON. ] (]) 19:55, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
::::::::::Please check! ]] 18:07, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
::::JoelleJay, you had a clear chip on your shoulder attitude the way you came charging into those AfDs, but you need to slow down to avoid mistakes as I've repeatedly told you. No one is talking about restricting discussions to wikiprojects, but avoiding subject-matter experts entirely as has happened results in even more problems. Choess had a very even-handed summary, and launching into hyperbole after that isn't helpful. ] was very clear to do things like fix the articles yourself, use article talk pages, '''and''' consult with relevant Wikiprojects to get an understanding of how the nuances of a specific subject works rather than trying to steamroll the community. That didn't happen, which is largely in part due to the behavior issues we're focusing on at this ANI. ] (]) 20:20, 31 October 2022 (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)
:::::My comment was only in response to the suggestion to gain consensus at, e.g., the Tree of Life project. SCHOOLOUTCOMES, NSPORT, NPORN, NTRAINSTATION, etc. demonstrate the global community should decide consensus on inclusion criteria ''because'' subject matter experts/enthusiasts tend to develop walled gardens that contravene our broader P&Gs, in particular WP:NOT and WP:OR. ] (]) 20:59, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
:::{{Ping|Choess}} Here is one, ], where the table gives images, names, scientific names, synonyms, authority and dating of scientific name, similar info on subspecies, and ranges. The table for extinct taxa even has a notes section. ] (]) 03:31, 1 November 2022 (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)
::::The genus ''Panthera'' is vastly smaller than the majority of insect taxa, and given that the big cats draw much more interest and editorial attention, as well as being more taxonomically stable, the table there is easy. Comparing ''Panthera'' to insect taxa is apples and oranges. ] (]) 15:12, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
{{od}}
:::::In the particular insect taxa case in question, some of the genera were monotypic, so much smaller than ''Panthera''. At any rate, it is merely an example of practice; there are many more. ] (]) 16:16, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
:{{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)
:While I agree the prior AFD after the ANI thread was started dies fall into pointy behavior, this expansion of the lists to include relevant information pulled from the species articles seems wholly appropriate, regardless if the species pages are kept or not individually. I would expect a hierarchical list article like this to help guide me on going down the list in more than just name. That right now it seems to be repeating everything found on the species pages is a fault of the species pages being only stubs and not full articles. ] (]) 21:35, 31 October 2022 (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)
::{{Ping|Masem|Chipmunkdavis}} My perception of a modal species list is still "simple list in genus article", but paddling around a bit in mammals suggests that more complex lists are more common there (and I assume also in birds and some other charismatic and well-documented taxa), which I hadn't realized until now. I don't think species lists have to be bare lists of names, but I'd point out (from experience dealing with some articles in another content area) that the more material you add to these lists, the more maintenance burden you create to keep them synchronized with standalone articles. If someone cruises by and adds a newly published paper that updates the distribution of a species, they won't necessarily think to update summaries in articles two levels of taxonomy up. That's not to say that we can't have more expansive species lists–we are here to help the reader–but adding more information to the lists is not ''incontrovertibly'' a good thing. Plantdrew made a fairly succinct case on ] for why these actions were mildly disruptive, so I'll refrain from belaboring the point here. I do appreciate your bringing the more expansive lists in mammals, etc. to my attention. ] (]) 02:57, 2 November 2022 (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)
:::::When vertebrate genus articles include tables, existing species pages are kept, not merged - as such, these are much more obvious targets for criticism under anti-forking policies than articles that simply offer lists of species names. I have yet to see a single article anywhere within the WP:TOL sphere that has a genus-level article with a table containing multiple species all of which are '''only''' linked via redirects. Also, as noted earlier, much of the species-specific information linked to by the taxonbars is not duplicated in the genus articles with tables. That includes comprehensive geographic distribution data, host associations, phenology data, potentially hundreds of photographs, and up to several thousands of specimen records in museums, all linked to individual species and accessible only on the kinds of species pages BilledMammal has been trying to convert to redirects or calling to delete entirely. The accepted practice is to redirect only when a genus is monotypic (or a synonym), and then the general practice is to redirect to the species. The comments above about certain ranks (species, genus, family, order) being treated preferentially is also true: if a tribe contains only one genus, the redirect is to the genus article. If a subfamily contains one tribe with one genus, the redirect is to the genus. If a superfamily contains one family, the redirect is to the family, unless that family is monotypic (see, e.g. '']'') and so forth. In other words, monotypic taxon redirects generally go '''down''', rather than up. In the specific case BilledMammal has put up in the AfD, the tribal article is the one that contains the least information, and would, push comes to shove, be first to get deleted rather than adding genus and species article content '''to''' it and then deleting the sources of that content, as BilledMammal was trying to do. It is this behavior - taking articles that had no content forking and turning them into content forks - that BilledMammal has been engaged in, and which is the biggest concern. Take a look at the '']'' article, in the version '''immediately prior to his first attempted merge''': . Now, take a look at the Bothriospilini article, the version '''immediately prior to his first attempted merge''': . There is almost nothing in those two articles that was duplicated or redundant, and these articles were perfectly fine before he tried to merge them. One other thing that would have come up, had BilledMammal ever sought consensus over at ], is that tribal ranks are probably the least stable of the well-known taxonomic ranks; they are the most prone to being created, sunk, or redefined. As a general practice, then, most of us who are taxonomists avoid creating tribal articles entirely, because they will - over time - generally require more maintenance than they are worth, and almost never contain any content other than a simple list of constituent genera, so it makes more sense to let them linger as redlinks in automated taxoboxes, and not even include them in manual taxoboxes at all. Case in point, the subfamily ], to which Bothriospilini belongs, contains '''over 110 tribes''' at present. That number is in constant flux, with many of those tribes only having been established as tribes within the past decade or two. You'll note that many of them are redlinks, even though in a few cases one or more of their constituent genera have articles. Despite this, editors who work within WP:TOL will almost never delete or redirect an article once it has been created, until and unless it has been brought up on the project page. ] (]) 16:36, 2 November 2022 (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 agree that BilledMammal's actions were harmful and not in good faith. He should at the very least get a formal warning, or if enough people agree be taken to ANI. ] (]) 20:10, 2 November 2022 (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)
::@]: This ''is'' ANI. {{lol}} ] (]) 21:48, 2 November 2022 (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)
:::{{burma-shave|This is|ANI|layout=horizontal}} —&nbsp;]&nbsp;] 21:55, 2 November 2022 (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)
*:No personal hate intended, but I just found this and thought it would be worth checking. ]] 16:49, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
*::It would be nice if you could explain the significance for those who do not speak Hausa. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>]</span> 16:51, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::She had made contributions to pages in other languages a few months ago. I am attaching her contributions link. ]] 16:59, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
*::::How does this constitute evidence of sockpuppetry if we aren't to know what exactly happened? There's a reason we don't just automatically block anybody who is blocked on another language wiki, and I looked through the edits some and didn't find anything outrageous that made it past the language barrier. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>]</span> 17:01, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::::I agree that it’s important to ensure we have solid evidence before making conclusions. I appreciate your perspective on not automatically blocking users based on blocks from other language wikis. ]] 17:17, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
*::::::Please don't reply to me or others using ChatGPT. It is flat-out rude. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>]</span> 17:18, 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)
*This whole thread, but especially the 16:49, 24 December 2024 (UTC) comment, feels like the OP is just throwing literally everything at the wall to see what sticks. But, worse, what is being thrown at the wall lacks any significant body of evidence to support. I note that a personal attack warning has been given for the continued unfounded accusations being presented, which I think is a good move. I don't support a block at this point, although if I was the OP I would withdraw this complaint and/or drop the stick and walk away from this topic as a matter of urgency to avoid continuing to make the situation worse. ] (]) 17:41, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
{{abot}}


== Insults ==
I've read through this discussion and I fail to see why taking this matter to ANI was appropriate. The (very) bold merges have been reverted, and the discussions have been started. ANI doesn't need to be involved in this issue. --] (]) 01:33, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
:You literally were just at an AfD where more disruption had to be cleaned up.


*'''Still continuing.''' Now BM has taken to edit warring at ] to violate ] related to the edit warring that started this subsection. Editors were already complaining about their links misleading readers. We seem to be in a cycle of someone commenting at ANI that there's nothing to see here while practically each day we have a new issue with BM that just continues ] behavior. ] (]) 13:44, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
*:Revising the comment of someone who you're already in disagreement with seems like something that is only ever going to get a hostile reaction. Not commenting on the appropriateness of the edit, just that is hardly surprising that it wasn't warmly received. -- LCU ''']''' <small>''∆]∆'' °]°</small> 17:12, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
*::For anyone's reference appears to be BilledMammal original edit that modified the link. -- LCU ''']''' <small>''∆]∆'' °]°</small> 17:22, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
*:::I think everyone should take some steps back and do something else for a while. Nobody in this dispute looks very good in the above diff. Being right is not worth a ]. ] (]) 17:44, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
*::BM already established they're acting tendentious in most interactions, so it's also no surprise they'd act this way regardless. I think we need to be careful about the lashing out at those actual trying to hold BM's disruption at bay though. BM was the first one to modify the comment well after the start, and other editors including myself were simply restoring to the original due to complaints of BM actively misleading editors.
*::A few of us editors were alerted to issues with BM through this ANI, so while we're trying, we still need help given the constant doubling down on BM being disruptive. Until that happens, it's going to be the same trend of BM lashing out at whoever tries to deal with their tendentious behavior that day though, so all that us non-admins can do is try to clean up and report. It's a drain on the community when those reports aren't taken seriously and BM still thinks it's perfectly ok to ignore all the warnings they've been getting in the past few days about their behavior. The more editors try to stop disruption, the more BM escalates, which is why we're still at ANI asking for admin help. ] (]) 18:21, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
*:::KoA, what exception under ] do you claim as justification for repeatedly editing my comments? My justification for editing my own comment is to preserve context, by ensuring that the link continued to point at the same content. ] (]) 18:24, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
*:::Updating a link in one's own post in this fashion is not disruptive. Blowing it out of proportion, edit warring on that basis, and then coming back to ANI in a hyperbolic fashion with statements like {{tq|actively misleading editors}} might be, though. Please consider the damage you are doing to your own cause. ] (]) 18:32, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
*::::While the repeated reversion of Billed Mammals post is not great, I've never seen linking to old versions done in deletion nominations. It goes against what people generally expect to be happening in a deletion discussion, which has to do with the current state of the article, its potential for improvement, and whether it should be deleted. (Which is, I guess, yet another problem with misusing AFD to propose a merge.) This editing is, at best, ''very'' strange and unexpected, which is generally not a good way to handle a public process. I don't see what it overtly accomplishes that a comment wouldn't have done better. ] (]) 19:13, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
*:::::Indeed, BM had actually been warned at the about misleading at the AfD already, so it was very odd that they'd double down on it by changing the target to their diff. Plantdrew already summarized that well {{tq|It is disrupting the AfD, in that the AfD is predicated only on WP:CONTENTFORK. But I've never seen another AfD predicated on CONTENTFORK, where the content forking was performed by the AfD nominator shortly before opening the AfD. Nobody in the AfD has yet brought up the fact that the nominator did the forking (I plan to do so; I had started writing my !vote, but it referred to BilledMammal's version of this article, so now I need to rework it (but I don't mind the disruption)). Performing a content fork and then arguing for AfD based on the content being forked is an...interesting tactic.}} That context mattered a lot in how pointy the later AfD changes were and really came across as thumbing their nose at any cautions about behavior they were getting.
*:::::I still don't see any real acknowledgement of the problems they cause, just lashing out like above. BM had also been repeatedly warned that is was inappropriate to claim ] to avoid scrutiny on this to violate the rest of the ], namely ]. It's pretty standard to undo a major change like that to an active process like an RfC and pretty strange to see hyperbole calling it hyperbole. They had the option of outright saying, "Hey, here's a version I'd prefer" in a separate comment and being upfront about it, but BM should have known better to continue masking the state of the actual target considering the warning Plantdrew gave on the talk page about "tactics" shortly after the edit warring there. ] (]) 21:47, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
*:::This ANI thread, much like that AfD, is a mess that is unlikely to achieve any consensus. -- LCU ''']''' <small>''∆]∆'' °]°</small> 19:22, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
*:Yes, I was. That's how I found this. I don't see how that edit is disruptive; I would consider the constant interference with another user's comments to be more disruptive. I also don't see where users are being confused by the change in link targets. I strongly agree with NRBP when they say to take a step back for a while. From my reading, there are about 2-3 users who very strongly disagree with BM's conduct in this matter, and it's fine that they do, but I don't see any behaviour that requires ANI to be involved. It seems like BM is more than willing to follow the ], and it's time to move on to more productive things and let this matter go. --] (]) 20:53, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
*::+1 ] (]) 20:55, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
*::+1 –] ] 03:12, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
*::+1 ] (]) 03:24, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
*::+1 -- LCU ''']''' <small>''∆]∆'' °]°</small> 14:13, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
*'''Move to content discussion?'''<ec> I was going to suggest that given BM's recent declaration that they had ceased edit-warring on Bothriospilini () and their willingness to now engage in discussion on the WP:TOL project page to achieve consensus before continuing with any further merges of taxonomic articles (), that this is becoming less of a conduct issue and more of a content issue that could possibly be resolved outside of ANI. Or maybe not... ] (])
::I would agree. There isn't any need for this to be at ANI any more. ANI is for urgent issues, and chronic and intractable behaviour problems. None of those apply here. --] (]) 20:56, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
:::We've been discussing intractable behavior by BM throughout all the problems that came up, and most of those haven't been resolved, just us trying to hold the line against them. It's not helpful to just declare nothing to see here when we just had more edit warring break out yesterday. ] (]) 21:51, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
::::Which problems haven't been resolved? The bold edits have been reverted and discussion is taking place. The only possible issue I see at the moment is that BM and users who have very strong opinions on this matter are modifying BM's comment. --] (]) 22:52, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
::That was my hope originally, but the edit warring that revived this broke out just yesterday at ] and ] happened after that dicussion on El C's page. That's just to clarify compared to the earlier edit warring you mentioned at ] since it's easy to get lost in which was which. I'm hoping they knock it off and use talk pages collaboratively now. That said, I'm worried by the lack of self-examination and trajectory of ignoring cautions when editors have tried to work with them on behavior. A warning would help, but if there are future issues, it might help to summarize what happened above:
:#Mass redirects of beetle articles without discussion that had to be restored.
:#Followed by mass AfDs ] and ] to perform the redirects without following ] (all the numbers before #5 ]) by consulting on relevant talk pages or Wikiprojects
:#Edit warring at ] and ] described at the top of this subsection. They continued edit warring the content in despite multiple editors disputing it and didn't come to the talk page until well after. As part of this, BM insisted on focusing that they came to my talk page to discuss the content, but ignored cautions that it needed to be at a central location so those involved could comment. Little interaction at that talk page by BM.
:#Again at ], editors noticed that the edit-warred content above was ] that had been inserted just prior to the AfDs, AfDs that were predicated on the idea that redirects should happened because of the articles had content fork material (see at a talk page for more). In short, multiple complaints about that edit-warred material misleading editors at the AfD.
:#BM then changes the target link at their AfDs well after they had started in violation of ] and the expectation that you don't substantially change an RfC, AfD, etc. part way through, especially without notification.
:#Multiple editors tried to correct the violation and notify respondents at the AfD, resulting in BM edit warring at AfDs to restore the WP:TALK#REVISE violation and point editors solely at their preferred version rather than the current state of the articles. BM also tried to justify their reverts by claiming ] excludes anyone from correcting the WP:TALK#REVISE violation.
::That's the overall summary of what has happened and been linked/diffed at this ANI so far. Hopefully that finally gets BM to review what they were doing and we can move on, but if the same issues continue in the future, we at least have a summary here on top of BM's last block for disrupting wiki-process. It seems like we have the mass revert/noms somewhat under control now, so if the edit-warring and wikilawyering, etc. stop where they actually pay attention to issues brought up on talk pages to the point they self-correct blatant instances of ignoring guidelines, there may be potential we don't have to come back here at a later date. ] (]) 21:59, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
:::Then put forward a proposal on what should happen and see if there is an appetite for it. -- LCU ''']''' <small>''∆]∆'' °]°</small> 22:23, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
::::Uh, I suggest reading what I said at the end. It was an opportunity to move on if no further disruption continued as long as we had a summary of what happened so far. ] (]) 22:52, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
:::::What you wrote is that everything you've said was correct, many have disagreed with you so your summarisation is not correct. -- LCU ''']''' <small>''∆]∆'' °]°</small> 14:07, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
:::I disagree with almost all of this, for reasons already expressed elsewhere, but I want to point out that any accusation of edit warring at ], ], ], and ], is at best hypocritical; {{Diff|Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring|1119829962|1119808368|see my response to your post at EW3 for a fuller explanation|diffonly=yes}}. Further, while ] was not breached, due to my edits being to preserve context, ] was, per your failure to provide a justification under the listed exceptions. ] (]) 22:32, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
::::This is the example of wikilawyering I was getting to. You're still trying to fight tooth an nail about ] that AfD when you are not allowed to change your comments like that when editors had already substantially commented. Full stop. You were directing editors to an entirely different version of the article with that, and "preserving" it would continue the disruption discussed on the ] talk page. That's the tangled web you put together even if ] The correct thing to do at the AfD would have been to link correctly to the target articles, and then say in a later dated comment with the diff "Here's a version I want to see, but I haven't gotten consensus on the talk pages yet."
::::So again BilledMammal, please step back from the brink, take a breath, and sincerely review what issues you were causing instead of denying and lashing out. This is an opportunity to move on, and your opportunity to show you can self-correct through reflection. ] (]) 22:52, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
:::::I don't think BM has handled all this the best way, but I agree with them and several other people here, that you shouldn't have edited their comment. What exception at ] do you claim justifying those edits? Not only BM has handled this poorly. -- LCU ''']''' <small>''∆]∆'' °]°</small> 22:56, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
::::::What you're proposing is ], which is encouraging disruptive editing. If someone decides to violate ], especially at a wiki-process like RfC, AfD, etc. anyone can undo the disruption, and multiple editors have made it clear it was misleading and that the restoration of the original AfDs were needed. TPO is not a protection against that. In practice, it's fairly common to restore the original version when someone does this on talk pages. Otherwise I could ] alter any RfC, etc. I start and just claim TPO if someone rightfully cleaned up after my disruption in that example. ] (]) 04:38, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
:::::::I'm not proposing any sort of gaming, please don't evade having to answer questions by casting aspersions. -- LCU ''']''' <small>''∆]∆'' °]°</small> 14:08, 4 November 2022 (UTC)


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)
===Proposal: Close as No Action===
: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)
ANI is for cases where our normal discussion and dispute resolution processes have proven unsuccessful. Although the actions of several editors have been less than ideal, the conduct and content issues raised here are being resolved through discussion and there is no need to continue the play-by-play narrative that has emerged. Gentle reminder for all involved to focus on content and avoid personal attacks. –] ] 03:44, 4 November 2022 (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)
:::Normally this starts with warnings on the user's Talk page, but it seems you two have already hashed that out. So unless this account does it again, there's no further action to be taken. — <b>]:<sup>]</sup></b> 18:25, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
::::FYI, following , I have made ]. ] (]) 13:48, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::Of note, Hazar Sam has now accused Psychloppos of {{tq|engaging in defamatory edits}}, which smacks of a ] violation. — <b>]:<sup>]</sup></b> 18:09, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::And their response to being warned about that ]. - ] <sub>]</sub> 23:46, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::So apparently he was indeed the person insulting me under IP (which he calls having ""). ] (]) 08:21, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
=== Request for Review of Neutrality and Repeated Actions ===
{{Atop|This complaint has no merit and does not require administrative intervention.--] (]) 18:08, 24 December 2024 (UTC)}}


Dear admin,
:*'''Support''' per my comments above. There is no further need for this to be discussed here. --] (]) 05:03, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
I hope this message finds you well. I am writing to express my concern regarding Psycholoppos, who has repeatedly applied the neutrality dispute tag to content related to Randa Kassis. Despite previous clarifications, these actions suggest a potential bias, which could undermine the objectivity and integrity of the platform.
:*'''Comment.''' <ins>If it wasn't clear, this is a !vote to close, but with a short summary reminding BM that their actions were problematic.</ins> I think this is going to close without any additional <s>action</s> (edit: sanctions) as long as editors actually let the process wrap up, but we do need to be careful about wording the proposal as if there haven't been ongoing issues this whole time (and still are unfortunately in the section below). The main thing is to formally summarize the issues with BM's behavior in a no action close, and I took a stab at covering things the closer could choose to weigh in on in the section above with those 6 bullets. In multiple attempts from editors, much of the underlying behavior wasn't really resolved, but the one area there was progress is that BM will at least avoid mass redirects and use the relevant talk pages.
::The remaining attitude issues still leave major concerns about how behavior will be at talk pages for me though. That's why I'm hoping a decent summary close will get across to BM (the real purpose of a warning) so they can self correct rather than embolden them. Those of us who tried to stem some of the issues with BM put up with a lot of flak here, so if we can do our best to make sure BM gets that guidance with a close, that would go a long way to keeping them away from ANI again. ] (]) 06:11, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
:::At the risk of pointing out the obvious, the section below concerns a different editor and does not show ongoing disruption by BilledMammal. –] ] 12:33, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
::::When I mentioned that here, it was that the dispute was being continued by other editors regardless of who, and it was clear from the start of the text it was not BM. I updated that header to make it super super redundant though. ] (]) 15:07, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
*'''Oppose'''. There is a clear consensus here that BM's actions have not been appropriate, and these actions have apparently not yet stopped, so "no action" is very much the wrong outcome here. Whether this needs to close with a warning or something stronger is not yet clear (to me at least) but it definitely needs at least a warning. ] (]) 10:03, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
::It might help if you specify which actions are meant, because other than the claims of POINT and forum shopping, which have not been substantiated, you're basically left with a large-scale content dispute and a possible edit war over a diff. Your "clear consensus" is also clearly fanciful. ] (]) 13:41, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
::::I too fail to see any such consensus. Much less a clear one. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - 15:13, 4 November 2022 (UTC)</small>
:::There's a point where comments like this reach ] even with the sheer volume of issues we sorted through. I just posted a link summarizing it in my above comment, but even if you ignore the AfD edit warring, there was mass redirects, not following ] with their AfDs in a pointy manner to continue the mass redirects, and edit warring at the article pages claiming it was ok because they could restore anything not specifically mentioned in a revert edit summary rather than go to talk pages. Here's the summary again from that diff (collapsed) in case it was missed.
{{cot}}
:1. Mass redirects of beetle articles without discussion that had to be restored.
:2. Followed by mass AfDs ] and ] to perform the redirects without following ] (all the numbers before #5 ]) by consulting on relevant talk pages or Wikiprojects
:3. Edit warring at ] and ] described at the top of this subsection. They continued edit warring the content in despite multiple editors disputing it and didn't come to the talk page until well after. As part of this, BM insisted on focusing that they came to my talk page to discuss the content, but ignored cautions that it needed to be at a central location so those involved could comment. Little interaction at that talk page by BM.
:4. Again at ], editors noticed that the edit-warred content above was ] that had been inserted just prior to the AfDs, AfDs that were predicated on the idea that redirects should happened because of the articles had content fork material (see at a talk page for more). In short, multiple complaints about that edit-warred material misleading editors at the AfD.
:5. BM then changes the target link at their AfDs well after they had started in violation of ] and the expectation that you don't substantially change an RfC, AfD, etc. part way through, especially without notification.
:6. Multiple editors tried to correct the violation and notify respondents at the AfD, resulting in BM edit warring at AfDs to restore the WP:TALK#REVISE violation and point editors solely at their preferred version rather than the current state of the articles. BM also tried to justify their reverts by claiming ] excludes anyone from correcting the WP:TALK#REVISE violation.
{{cob}}
:::Thryduulf hit the nail on the head. I made it clear above that regardless of action, there's clear consensus there was disruption by BM that took awhile to sort out. That latter part is the thing that cannot be hand-waved away even if we decide to see how things go forward as opposed to sanctions. ] (]) 15:07, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
::::Only one editor has opposed closing this with no action, there is and never was any such consensus. And reposting your highly partisan "summarisation", will not change that in anyway. -- LCU ''']''' <small>''∆]∆'' °]°</small> 15:19, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
:::::On the other hand, there hasn't been a proposal against the user. I agree that BM should have known better given their experience. I don't want to see a ban, but a trouting at the very least feels necessary. ] (]) 15:20, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
::::::As AD said yesterday, put forward a proposal and see if it gains consensus. That would actually be a productive move forward--towards closure--rather than what's been going on so far, which is a bunch of bludgeoning in the hopes that some admin will act unilaterally. ] (]) 15:24, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
:::::::Levivich, you're in the proposal where exactly this is being discussed. ] (]) 15:53, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
::::::::This proposal is to close with no action. Josh pointed out that "there hasn't been a proposal against the user", and I'm saying: so go ahead and make one if you think there's consensus for action against the user. ] (]) 15:54, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
:::::::::Warnings and just saying that something was disruptive in the close are generally considered as no action. It's not uncommon to see confusion or disputes over what "action" means sometimes at ANI, but here is where we are discussing how it should be closed regardless of that. ] (]) 16:03, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
::::::::::No, warnings are not generally considered no action. Quite the opposite. I'm 100% sure that this proposal is not a proposal for a warning. ] (]) 16:06, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
::::::Indeed, I'm pretty sure everyone who has actually been actively working on the behavior issues here don't want to see them banned (I've made that clear multiple times). Something ] is needed, but most considering that need agree a basic "these things were problematic, knock it off" statement would go a long way instead of formal sanctions at this moment. ] (]) 15:53, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
:::::::"Most"? I think you should count again. ] (]) 16:00, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
::::::::This is the reason originally posted, KOAs summarisation of the situation posted above (twice) is so slanted as to have little to do with the thread that came before it. Apparently any who disagrees is deliberately ignoring their wisdom. -- LCU ''']''' <small>''∆]∆'' °]°</small> 16:05, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
:::::::::That's just KOA SOP, I've seen it many times before. ] (]) 16:06, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
:::::::::AC, the rhetoric isn't helpful, and please be mindful of ]. That you had to be corrected on some very straightforward mistakes as to how much edit warring occurred at an article is not an excuse to lash out derail an ANI peppering comments in like that. This ANI is big enough already, and I already cautioned you about ] when I was trying to draw back from the thread. ] (]) 16:37, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
::::::::Since you brought it up with {{tq|despite a few editors trying really, really hard to get BM sanctioned}} and it actually helps in assessing consensus, which of us that have been pushing for addressing their behavior are trying to get BM sanctioned? Even I've made it clear that a good summary of the problem issues would be best over blocks, etc., so that wouldn't be me obviously. At my count just ''maybe'' Thryduulf? They did say definitely at least a warning with uncertainty of possibly needing more, but that's about the most "extreme" I've seen.
::::::::The whole point is that embellishing and casting aspersions about the editors trying to get a pretty conservative resolution does not help, and only increases the likelihood that BM is given less leeway to improve instead. It just disrupts ANI and results in editors having to spend even more time clarifying what was actual said or done. You were already warned about this at an ANI about you. ] (]) 16:37, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
:::::Two when you count me when you actually read my ] above. AD, part of the problem I've been trying deal with now is your posts actively ignoring what happened at the articles (otherwise I wouldn't be posting so much) in your !vote below and elsewhere. Then you try to paint those who actually tried to deal with the disruption as "highly partisan" and we're getting into major cognitive dissonance territory. No one can reasonably call pointing out the mass redirects as highly partisan, nor the ] violations, nor the edit warring that resulted in page protection.
:::::Other casting aspersions about editors just being out to get BM just contributes to the disruption and is an indication we do need a close with a good summary/warning. Had it not been for that behavior, we maybe could have gotten away with just letting it go as an informal warning if BM took the comments to heart. Instead, those comments are creating the the necessity to be a bit stricter now. ] (]) 15:53, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
::::::I have '''not''' been {{tq|actively ignoring}} anything, I think your interpretation is wrong. Stop casting aspersions. If you don't agree with this proposal oppose it, and post you own proposal. -- LCU ''']''' <small>''∆]∆'' °]°</small> 16:01, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
::::::Im pretty sure the entire internet is aware you feel your actions are correct and BM's are disruptive, and repeating that position, at great length, more times does not make that position stronger. The only problem Ive seen in the entire time youve been spamming my watchlist is that youve been spamming my watchlist. Please stop. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - 16:01, 4 November 2022 (UTC)</small>
:'''Support''' ] is not against policy, AfDs and editing articles are normal pratice. The ''edit waring'' by BM at Bothriospilini was one revert. -- LCU ''']''' <small>''∆]∆'' °]°</small> 14:12, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
::More than one revert if you actually look at ]. Here was the initial edit followed by Elmidae reverting it was disruptive followed by BM reverting, my restoration of the status quo, and BM's additional revert. More than just one revert, and BM's actions resulted in page protection. Just trying to say it was one revert with edit war in quotes misrepresents what actually happened at the page. ] (]) 15:19, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
:::If you want a different proposal put one forward. Otherwise I'm not reading your replies any longer. -- LCU ''']''' <small>''∆]∆'' °]°</small> 15:47, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
*'''Support''' - I don't think there is clear consensus here at all, nor will it develop. This is and has always been a content dispute, and nothing productive is coming of this discussion, despite a few editors trying really, really hard to get editors on the other side of the content dispute sanctioned. '''Oppose warning''' or any other sanction. ] (]) 14:15, 4 November 2022 (UTC)


I kindly request that you review this matter and take appropriate steps to ensure that all users adhere to neutrality standards. If possible, I would also appreciate guidance on how to address such situations constructively in the future.
===Edit warring resumed by Avilich===
I thought editors were going to try to move on until I saw the pings and literally facepalmed, but now ] has resumed the edit warring at the two AfDs again<s></s> As already addressed above, it's a violation of ] to alter those comments from the originals. I don't know what's gotten in people's heads thinking it's ok it edit war at AfDs or alter them partway through.


Thank you for your attention to this issue. Please feel free to reach out if further clarification is needed.
It's probably best if an admin restores the original proposals of both AfDs since editors are being attacked for trying to clean up that up. I'd also just prefer to call it moot instead considering the status and time left of the AfDs, but I'm just astounded by the pointiness of other editors restarting at about the same time as Dlthewave's section above. There's just a cycle going on of someone at ANI saying nothing is going on and close this followed by another dispute being restarted shortly after. ] (]) 05:23, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
Hazar ] (]) 17:45, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
:@], whether the NPOV tag is needed or not should first be discussed on the article's talk page. Also, see the large notice at the top of this page: you are required to notify the editor you are reporting. ]&nbsp;] 17:53, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
::The editor is also called Psychloppos, not Psycholoppos. I have notified them for the OP. &ndash; ] (]) (]) 17:59, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
:I wouldn't give a chatbot-written thread the time of day. HS, ]. —] ] <sup><small>] ]</small></sup> 18:05, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
{{Abot}}


* Note: I moved this retaliatory post to be a sub-heading of the original issue. — <b>]:<sup>]</sup></b> 18:34, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
:Adding oldids to links is not a violation of WP:REDACT. While not always used, such links do the opposite of "deprive any replies of their original context". Much like returning ] to a single sentence, raising the use of oldids as an issue is not helping the behavioural case you are trying to make. ] (]) 05:32, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
::You keep repeating that, but adding the oldids changed the meaning of the proposal from the actual target ] (more than just a single sentence) to presenting something entirely different in the middle of the AfD while making comments as if their version was the established version. The background on that was pretty unanimous, and it doesn't help BM to encourage them that this was ok. The advice BM was already given would apply to you to. If someone wants to make a change to their comments, but WP:TALK#REVISE prevents it (i.e., you want to make a change to an already commented on AfD), make a new dated comment that says, "Here's a version of the page I would like to see, but I haven't gained consensus on the talk pages for it." You don't go back and alter comments like that to make it seem like that version is the actual target.
::Anyways, the point here in ''this'' section is that someone else has started up edit warring again away from what the original proposal was. If it's something to take action on is for someone else to decide, so I suggest dropping the ] as myself and others have been trying to do so this can wrap up. ] (]) 06:23, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
:::What am I repeating and from where? ] (]) 09:40, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
:::Just noticed the "more than just a single sentence" remark. For the record, it is where it was turned back into a single sentence, a nice example of the value of oldids. It is good that someone has taken the initiative to add more content to it since then, a positive content outcome to the dispute that had seemed at risk. Some small expansions have also been made to other articles involved in this, which has also been positive and seems an optimal result for such disputes going forward. ] (]) 10:23, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
:I think you have made your position on that already quite clear. --] (]) 07:35, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
*I went ahead and notified Avilich of this discussion. KoA, I think you've accidentally posted two copies of the same diff. Another editor repeating the disputed edit is not edit warring; has anyone reached out to the editor to try to resolve the dispute before bringing it to ANI? –] ] 12:25, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
::Avilich was already a participant here and was aware of the issues with their edits already based on warnings at the AfD. When someone tries to jump into edit warring related to an already open ANI, especially one looking to wrap, of course it's going to get brought up here as pointy editing as a sort of closing potshot. ] (]) 14:49, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
*The discussion isn't deprived of context because the article is still linked (if anything, whoever changed the article after the AfD started has altered the context); the idea proposed in the AfD remains the same regardless of the diff displayed. ] (]) 13:25, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
* Please answer my question above, under what exception are you editing of people comments? -- LCU ''']''' <small>''∆]∆'' °]°</small> 14:16, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
::There's a point ] applies when you've already been answered. Asking like that is ]/] of the ]. If someone violates ] and changes the meaning of a talk comment, much less a wiki-process, it also violates the spirit of ] that we don't change the meaning of comments. It's standard practice to undo such changes. If someone tries to claim a loophole that nothing can be done to correct violations, that's practically by definition wikilawyering.
::If editors don't like that multiple editors alerted to the issue at this ANI like myself did some standard cleanup, ANI probably isn't the best place for them. This is where we get alerted to disruption and try to fix the problems, not encourage them by denying that the disruption occurred. Continuing to try to rehash this just adds to the problems. ] (]) 14:49, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
:::tl:dr. That you mention ] is ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ -- LCU ''']''' <small>''∆]∆'' °]°</small> 14:56, 4 November 2022 (UTC)


==Nlkyair012 and LLM chatbots ==
== Utterly horrendously written articles from an auto patrolled user ==
*{{Noping|Nlkyair012}}
*{{userlinks|MoviesandTelevisionFan}}
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.
I have come across ] and they are horrendously written. The English is awful and completely broken. I am unable to even attempt to make corrections to some of these articles. Sure English isn't everyone's native language, but this user for some reason has auto patrolled rights, meaning the articles he's creating are not even being checked or reviewed properly. How Misplaced Pages can allow this is astounding, there should be a basic level of English required before such articles are published. Two examples of poorly written articles that I cannot even attempt to try and fix: ] and ]. The Hill article did not even correctly name the execution method which I had to correct: . There are many more. Please can an admin review. ] (]) 20:04, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
*FYI, you need to post a notice on a user's talk page when starting a discussion about them at ANI. I've posted the notice on MATF's talk page. ] (]) 20:15, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
:I usually find that the non-native English users are better than the native editors whose English is just bad. The former are usually happy to be corrected but the latter often take great offence at anything that could be construed as criticism of their writing. ] (]) 20:25, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
:Those are indeed practically unreadable and would definitely have benefitted from an NPPer tagging them with the copyedit template. ] (]) 20:30, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
: I agree that their prose is atrocious, and that their autopatrolled status should be revoked. ] (]) 20:45, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
: I agree - ]. Very inappropriate for them to be an auto-patroller. ] (]) 20:57, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
*{{U|Joe Roe}} gave the user the AP right last year. I'm reluctant to revoke the right without Joe's views.--] (]) 20:52, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
*Folks, before we discuss removing perms or any sanction, perhaps we could give our colleague the opportunity to respond first? AFAIK, this ANI thread is the first time these problems have been raised? It's kind of rude to jump straight to talk of sanctions without even talking to the user first, particularly when it's someone who has donated thousands of hours here. Before any of the rest of us give our opinion, shouldn't we hear what MATF has to say first? ] (]) 21:27, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
*Three comments. First, we should definitely allow MATF to respond before any further steps are discussed. Second, please remember that the AP flag isn't really a right; while some stigma likely attaches to its removal, fundamentally it exists to benefit reviewers and readers, and has ''no benefit'' to the holder. Third, I would like to hear from MATF whether they have used machine translation to assist them at any point; some of the phraseology strikes me as similar to the meaninglessness that google sometimes produces. <span style="font-family:Papyrus">] (])</span> 21:37, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
:*I agree that hearing from the editor for clarification is a good idea, but I also agree that revoking their autopatrolled status is called for and shouldn't be dependent on it. First stop the problem, then discuss with the editor. Their status can easily be changed back if it appears to be warranted. ] (]) 21:58, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
::*MATF has created . I just spent <s>a half-hour</s> 45 minutes fixing a relatively simple one, ]. If that's typical, we're talking about volunteers spending something like <s>500</s> 800 hours cleaning up after their mess. That's a problem that's significant enough to warrant acting first, and listening to explanations later. Please, would some admin remove their autopatrolled flag? ] (]) 22:30, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
::*:There appear to be some major content issues here. For example, the article ] states {{tqb|In 1983, Heflin won the election for the 149th district of the Texas House of Representatives. He was honored by the Alief Independent School District which it was renamed as the Talmadge L. Heflin Elementary School.}} The source however states {{tqb|Mr. Heflin served on the Board of Trustees of the Alief Independent School District from 1973 to 1980. In 1982, the district honored his service to the area with the opening of Talmadge L. Heflin Elementary School.}} The article implies that he was honoured for winning the election, rather than because he served on the board of trustees, falsely states that something was "renamed" when it was actually a new school being opened, implies the school naming occurred after the election in 1983 when it actually took place in 1982 and it confusingly suggests that the school district turned into a elementary school somehow. There are other examples of exceptionally poor writing, {{tqb|In 1980, Heflin was apart of an election, in which it had involved being unsuccessful against Georgia's United States senator Mack Mattingly.}} Is an extremely convoluted and confused way of saying he lost an election, which somehow avoids actually telling us what the election was. The article is also full of grammatical errors and nonsensical sentences, MOS issues ("politician" and "business" should not be linked), and a plethora of categories that are not ] in the article text - the article contains no information on his involvement in the energy business, his religious beliefs or his non-fiction writing.
::*:@] perhaps it would looking into running a bot to unpatrol their article creations after they were granted the right? ] (]) 23:33, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
::::*I'm continuing to look to their articles, and indeed you are correct that grammar and construction errors are the least of the problems; the information itself has in many cases been corrupted. I would suggest that all of their articles be moved to draftspace, where they can be worked on without being generally accessible to the public. ] (]) 23:40, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
::::*:{{re|Beyond My Ken}} Are they actively creating bad articles without responding here? If not, removal isn't urgent, though I agree it's likely to be warranted. AP removal isn't retroactive; any articles they've created would still need to be manually reviewed. <span style="font-family:Papyrus">] (])</span> 23:50, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
:::::::They don't seem to have edited since last night. I understand the principal of not acting unless there is a need to stop ongoing activity, but I think the need here is obvious enough (as I continue to review their articles) that lifting the flag is warranted. ] (]) 23:53, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
::::*I agree with the editors above that the issues here go beyond spelling and grammar errors. I attempted to copyedit ] before giving up in frustration. At the time I found it, the article stated {{tq|He had his own ] church.}} This was sourced to , which says {{tq|The Hills' Mormon church helped pay their mortgage, utilities and groceries}} - obviously that doesn't mean that he ran a church!{{pb}}The next paragraph is extremely convoluted, difficult to understand and leaves out important context: {{tq|Hill had began to act as a spree killer after receiving a notice from his wife to file a divorce against him. He was involved in some murders which had resulted three people being killed, in which he was suspected that Hill was the murderer since he had visited a department of social office. It was stated that he also assaulted a person which was his daughter. He killed them since it was for taking his children away from him, in which there was a restraining order against Hill.}} The actual story, from , is {{Tq|Hill went on the shooting spree in North Augusta after his wife asked for a divorce and a social worker accused him of molesting a child. He lost custody of his children and blamed state workers. Killed were case worker Jimmy Riddle, 52; Josie Curry, 35; and Michael Gregory, 30.}}{{pb}}I can understand why autopatrolled was granted because many of their articles are brief stubs where these issues with writing coherently aren't as apparent (e.g. ], ]). However, considering the factual errors and general incomprehensiblity of their longer creations I don't think it is appropriate for them to hold this right. ] (]) 00:21, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
:* Did the admin who granted them this permission actually review any of their work? Every single article I’ve checked so far has been plagued with the above mentioned content issues. Now I’m seeing that they’ve created over 1000 articles? This has the potential to be a massive problem. ] (]) 00:02, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
:*:I thought the same, but then looking at their page creations before they were granted the autopatrolled right, a lot were stubs with short sentences or lists of films/shows obscuring their language deficiencies. So if Joe just looked at a handful of the stubs on Academy Award winners he wouldn't have noticed anything egregious. The typos and sentence construction chaos are only really apparent when MATF attempts to expand beyond a stub. Perhaps in the case of serial (notable, sourced) stub creators AP grantors should look for any larger page creations/expansions by the user to make sure this kind of thing doesn't happen. ] (]) 00:26, 30 October 2022 (UTC)


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)
*'''Remove the user right'''. There is sufficient evidence presented here. Additionally require that all future articles from this editor are created as a draft. Per {{u|Beyond My Ken}}: {{tq|First stop the problem, then discuss with the editor}}. Donating thousands of hours here has never been a hurdle to stripping of special rights if the content quality is a serious problem and creating unnecessary work for others. Furthermore, ] is the one right that accords absolutely no benefits to the user whatsoever other than giving them another hat to wear. NPP has been acutely aware of the abuse of the auto patrolled right for a very long time. Their best suggestion to date is to deprecate this user right which having become a contentious issue has already been recently removed from the sysop bundle. To suggest that it would increase the workload of the reviewers (the usual contra argument) would be a ] - articles of the quality expected by auto patrolled users only take a second or two to review. ] (]) 00:25, 30 October 2022 (UTC)


:Hello @Ratnahastin,
*I agree with removal of AP as the first step. Per ], "Autopatrolled is a user right given to prolific creators of clean articles". It's quite clear that this editor is not producing "clean articles". I just spot-checked six very quickly and could not identify any major problem without comparing them with the sources. But 5/6 need a copyedit cleanup minimally, with things like {{tq|Born in Bentonville, Arkansas.}} (The sixth was a two-line stub). ] 01:14, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
: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.
::According the autopatrolled right based on a random look at a few stubs (''if'' that's what happened) is not the best way to go. Stubs, however clean they might be, are not sufficient to demonstrate a thorough knowledge of the requirements for producing a fully fleshed out article. I do recall that mass creating stubs to obtain the autopatrolled right has been deliberately used in the past by users with a ]. ] (]) 01:34, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
: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.
:::If there's an agenda here, I haven't glommed on to it yet. The articles I've reviewed and fixed so far are about minor politicians and officials, both Democrat and Republican; the encyclopedia would not be affected in any significant way if they were all moved to draft to be worked on.{{pb}}The problems I've seen are misrepresentation of what sources say (apparently because of misunderstanding), stilted writing, incorrect use of idiomatic constructions (especially in the use of prepositions), convoluted and awkward phrasings, use of infobox parameters that don't exist, nonsensical facts (such as a legislator being suceeded by three people), categorization not supported by text in the article (almost as if MATF has personal knowledge they're using), inclusion of unnecessary information, failure to update information from more recent sources (a person is reported to have 4 brothers, but a correction in the same newspaper changes it to 3 brothers; both sources are cited, but the article still said 4 brothers until I corrected it), etc., all of which are, I think, neither deliberate nor malign, but nevertheless result in sloppy articles that are well below the expected standard. ] (]) 01:43, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
: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.
::::They're also creating these articles pretty quickly - 7 articles yesterday, 10 articles on the 16th, 11 articles on the 15th. No indication of automation or anything like that, but from the results, they don't seem to be spending any significant amount of time crafting them. ] (]) 02:20, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
: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.
:::::So, is everybody waiting for the user and/or {{u|Joe Roe}} to weigh in here..? I've removed the autopatrolled right. ] &#124; ] 08:14, 30 October 2022 (UTC).
: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)
::::::Thank you. I hope we'll hear from the editor soon. ] (]) 18:24, 30 October 2022 (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)
:::::::There are two active ANI discussions right now regarding users granted autopatrol rights by ] making bizarre and disruptive edits. It also appears in his talk page from 18 days ago that he intends to ignore ANI discussions? Looks like he had a spot of trouble regarding a third autopatrolled user . ] (]) 11:58, 31 October 2022 (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)
::::::::I am not "ignoring ANI discussions". I haven't been editing for a few days, and by the time I saw the pings in this thread, it had already run its course and I didn't have anything to add. ], please. &ndash;&#8239;]&nbsp;<small>(])</small> 12:33, 31 October 2022 (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)
*Going to weigh in here briefly on some of the articles; I'm the one that's moved a few articles of MATF from a temp page to mainspace. However, I don't have AP, so all of those pages went through NPP regardless of MATF having AP at the time. The work I've seen from MATF is rewriting bad Billy Hathorn content; crap that's already got a plethora of issues beyond just copyright, and how copyright rewrites are usually done is by simply taking the content and rewriting it, not remaking an article entirely from scratch. We usually only check for copyright issues; we're not NPP 2.0. Regardless, I find the other problems troubling, but I don't think that we should be jumping to sanctions beyond AP revoking just yet. ] (]) 19:49, 30 October 2022 (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)
::If we just temporarily put aside the AI-generated comments, can Nlkyair012 accept the view of experienced editors on Raj era sources and not push any viewpoint on a particulary caste? Because, to be honest, editors who have done this in the past usually end up indefinitely blocked. There is a low tolderance here for "caste warriors". <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 19:27, 24 December 2024 (UTC)


== Potential vandal trying to start edit war on the page for Frisch's. ==
{{collapse top|Side discussion. ] (]) 18:24, 30 October 2022 (UTC)}}
{{atop|1=Page protected, and now this admin is flashing back to his youth going to Frisch's Big Boy in ]. - ] <sub>]</sub> 22:37, 24 December 2024 (UTC)}}
:::::Five questions: (1) Is some entity trying to use WP as an AI learning tool? (2) Is this an effort to discredit/disrupt WP? (3) What methods/tools can be used/invented to monitor these events (which will probably increase)? (4) Why did I receive and emailed link to this discussion? I am not an Admin and have no special privileges here (as far as I know). (5) Am I eligible for AP status? FINALLY: why did this page disappear a few minutes ago when I tried to post the above? WEIRD! ] ] 13:22, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
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-->
::::::If you received an e-mail with a link to this discussion, why don't you ask the editor who e-mailed you why. Your other questions make no sense.--] (]) 13:56, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
:::::::@]]: the sender was '''wiki@wikimedia.org'''! The other three questions make sense if you view this problem as a possible trend, not just an isolated incident, and make good sense in an era of 'fake news', 'fake images' etc. Misplaced Pages may be this planet's best source of free, relatively unbiased information, which some minds can't stand: it makes them vulnerable. The 5th question is now moot; I looked it up and don't want it. All the Best! ] ] 15:00, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
::::::@]: I can answer that last question: it's because to a version of this page from ~6 hours ago, effectively reverting to it. Then Beshogur . I'm guessing the email you received included a linked ] instead of a link to the current discussion, like this: ]. ] (]) 14:23, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
:::::::Thank you! Cheers! ] ] 15:01, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
::::::::Three answers: ''(1) Is some entity trying to use WP as an AI learning tool?'' No. It bears very few of the hallmarks of AI article writing; also you'd not teach an AI how to learn by having it do something else. ''(2) Is this an effort to discredit/disrupt WP?'' No. There are far better ways of doing both. Writing crappy articles is a function of this being an encyclopedia anyone can edit and goes with the territory. The ]. ''(3) What methods/tools can be used/invented to monitor these events (which will probably increase)?'' Very few, even assuming we ''could'' do anything. In this particular case, not granting the Auto-Patrolled right would've made discovering this annoying-but-minor (in the scheme of things) event happen earlier. It wouldn't've prevented it because anything that prevents this type of thing also prevents people from creating ''good'' articles too. — <span style="letter-spacing:-1pt;font-family:'Helvetica', sans-serif;">'''] has spoken'''</span> 16:27, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
{{collapse bottom}}
I know this is late but this is the evidence that I will provide: For Vanamonde's third comment, I write the articles in my own words and I don't use a machine translation unless I have to which I would use it for the articles that's in other different Misplaced Pages languages that included ]. I would say that with my writing, I would change up my words with searching up another word to "insert word here" in a website, where I would use that word instead. With the ], I didn't mean that the school was renamed after him when he won the election but I don't know since like sometimes I don't notice. I didn't see anything wrong with my writing. The article ] was a rewrite to get rid of ]'s ] along with ] and ]. You'll notice when I create them rewrites, I put recreated without copyright and what I do is I copy the categories from the archive version of Hathorn's to make it easier. Then I write it with using the cited sources in my own words. If I'm not editing in like a Saturday or for a few days then I'm like away from the computer since like I'm in somewhere else and while I'm away, I write articles in my ] and then when I finally come home, I would copy-paste then fix it and then make some changes but this is how I write and with Hathorn's writing I use them but I avoid its copyright and make it my own words, but I will mention that I am a Spanish speaker but I do better in English.


:Courtesy link ]. ] (]) 17:02, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
With the ] edit with the church removal I saw, it had said The Hills Mormon Church which would have meant he had his own church and with the Mormon church link it had redirected to the The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints article, in which its also known as Mormon church. With the sentence in the Talmadge F. Heflin article, "In 1980, Heflin was apart of an election, in which it had involved being unsuccessful against Georgia's United States senator Mack Mattingly" (which is already removed), well I didn't know what election it was but I included it since it was sourced but I don't entirely have access to newspapers.com articles but just stuff that's already clipped, like I clip another thing since there is something clipped in the article and so on, I only have the free version of it. That newspaper article came up while I searched up Talmadge Heflin and it had mentioned the surname Heflin and I just took it as a ref. I didn't mean to cause disruption with my writing but if the community says there are issues with my articles then I would like to fix it if the community gives me a chance to improve it and see what they think. I just include info that's already sourced and just add them, which I saw with the ] article.
:<del>This sounds a '''lot''' like the same edit warrer I dealt with on ], down to the false accusations of vandalism, removal of sourced information, and apparent use of proxies (all the IPs geolocate to different places). I wouldn't be surprised if this is the same person.</del> I've asked RFPP to intervene. ] &#124; ] 21:05, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
::NVM, checked MaxMind for geolocation and they all are in the same general area. ] &#124; ] 21:08, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
{{abot}}


== ] inaccurate edit summaries ==
With the ] article, I’m gonna revert some stuff until consensus is made because according to the Louisiana House Members source it says who preceded, served alongside and succeeded him but ] goes along with the obituary, but the Louisiana House Members verifies that he served as a member of the legislative with other info too. It didn't say he left office during 1942 other than the obituary, since it says his term ended in 1944 and the legislative keeps the correct track of the members and years when I see it and it's verifiable. Klock was succeeded by three people according to the Louisiana House Members pdf, even in the , it says that he was succeeded by three people and it was sourced so I added it and just went along with verifiable Louisiana Members pdf, this is an answer to the nonsensical facts thing that has "such as a legislator being suceeded by three people". With ], I’m gonna revert more stuff too until consensus is made since Hooks served along with ] for which they had both represented Lake. He and Wilson were succeeded by two people, according to the Florida House Membership. The one that Beyond My Ken decided that could stay is ], a politician who has a blue link and was succeeded by Hooker. Also there is this reason that they said was "They're also creating these articles pretty quickly - 7 articles yesterday, 10 articles on the 16th, 11 articles on the 15th. No indication of automation or anything like that.", well those articles were created normally, since it was because I created them in google docs when I didn't edit for a week so I copy-pasted them and made them into Misplaced Pages articles when I came back and had lots I made in google docs and I still have some leftovers that includes ], ], ] and many others too.


Well now I see Beyond My Ken states that "I created seven articles yesterday" which was the (27th-28th), well the first two were from Google Docs, the third-fifth were Billy hathorn's rewrites since I was gonna be gone and I took my time into writing them and the Georgia's politicians stubs were created easily since I couldn’t find anything else but I found information in the pdf so I used it since it was SOURCED. Then I left to go somewhere else. The 16th had ten articles they say and most of them were from my Google Docs and some like ] and ] were created instantly. The article ] was created when I woke up, since she won a medal in a notable event and had coverage too. The article ] was recreated since it was gonna remove lot of stuff except the beginning so I rewrote it without copyright, that I'm adding more info. The 15th is when I came back, since I started off with ] who I written in my google docs and then the rest I wrote in google docs mostly. This is all I could say if it makes sense. ] (]) 19:47, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
:I really hate to say it, but ], and MaTF's long comment above speaks volumes about their lack of competence in writing acceptable English (as well as some basic misunderstandings about American electoral procedures); I won't embarrass them by pointing out the many basic errors it contains.{{pb}}I believe that it is necessary for the following actions to be taken:
::1. Move all the articles listed to draft space. Editors who have fixed any of MaTF's creations can move them back into article space, and reviewers can whittle away at the rest of the list over time.
::2. Topic ban MaTF from creating articles more complex than the most basic stub (their stub articles seem to be OK) or extensively re-writing existing articles. I'm not quite sure how such a TB would be phrased, but I do think it's necessary. They can continue to do other non-textual work around Misplaced Pages - there's plenty of that to be done that doesn't require extensive ability to write acceptable English. ] (]) 19:58, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
But can I try improving my articles like I've seen many copyedits in my articles, but can I get a chance to fix them and then see what the community thinks. ] (]) 20:06, 30 October 2022 (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)
*MATF, that manner of paraphrasing sources is completely inappropriate. You need to understand what the source has said, and construct your own sentences summarizing that material. If you carry out word-for-word replacements, you're going to alter the meaning of the text and produce incomprehensible content, and you're also not avoiding copyright issues at all. If you're not using machine translation, and English is your native language, I'm sorry to say I don't know what advice to offer you; but you need to be able to understand the sources you're using, and if you lack the ability to do Misplaced Pages isn't the best hobby for you. {{pb}} I don't think a TBAN will achieve anything here: the issue appears to be with any non-trivial content. Either MATF can fix this approach; possibly be reducing the speed at which they work, and by taking the time to understand what they're reading and writing; or they can't, in which case, what are they doing on Misplaced Pages? I would suggest that MATF be required to work on and fix any five articles of their choosing from among their creations, and if they can address the issues here, we can work out a system of probation. If they're unwilling or unable to do so, we need to consider a site-ban. <span style="font-family:Papyrus">] (])</span> 20:44, 30 October 2022 (UTC)


== Lil Dicky Semi-Protection ==
I don't care about the AP role but I just want to still create articles, but I need to improve the others first. Can someone check how I did with ]. ] (]) 20:36, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
{{atop|1=] is thataway →. - ] <sub>]</sub> 22:34, 24 December 2024 (UTC)}}
::{{ping|MoviesandTelevisionFan}} Your changes to ] were improvements as far as they went, but another user (Larry Hockett) still had to make further changes, correcting some pretty basic errors in English phrasing. It doesn't speak well to your ability to fix the problems with the articles you created. ] (]) 01:22, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
] was semi-protected back in 2019. Now that five years have passed, could the semi-protection be lifted? ] (]) 16:25, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
::{{ping|MoviesandTelevisionFan}} If you'd like, take a look at the list on my talk page of your articles which I have worked on. While not perfect, they may give you more of an idea where your mistakes lie if you compare their condition now to how they looked when you stepped away from them. ] (]) 01:25, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
:::I will do that, thank you. ] (]) 01:32, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
:I moved ] to draft as some content was unintelligible, user has made numerous efforts to improve this with zero success “resigned for which he was probed from a reason" “"he was resigned due to being investigated from some issues” ”he was resigned from his duty due to being investigated from his fabricating hours" now “In 2003, he was resigned.” ] is appropriate. ] (]) 21:05, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
::That article has been worked on by several editors and is now fine. I've moved it back into mainspace. ] (]) 22:48, 31 October 2022 (UTC)


Is this a situation where, rather than a TBAN, having a mandatory AfC draft submission for all their articles would be appropriate instead? ]]<sup>]</sup> 21:56, 30 October 2022 (UTC) :Ask at ] ] ] 16:28, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
{{abot}}


== Disruptive behavior from IP ==
:As a reasonably active AFC reviewer, our workload is heavy enough without having more than the few mandatory AFC users we have already. All this would achieve is moving the problem around the various willing horses. Mentorship, assuming that still exists, would be a more immediate feedback and education loop. AFC has a large backlog and our role is to accept drafts that have a better than 50% chance of surviving an immediate deletion process. We are not meant to strive for perfection, though some reviewers do. 🇺🇦&nbsp;]&nbsp;]&nbsp;🇺🇦 22:07, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
For the past month, {{ip|24.206.65.142}} has been attempting to add misleading information to ], specifically trying to use the unofficial "777-200LRF" designation beyond first mention in the relevant section and passing it off as official (, , , , , , , , , , ). Their behavior died down for a few weeks, but restarted several days ago (, ), including that {{u|Fnlayson}} is "okay with it". They have been asked numerous times on ] to either stop or provide evidence of official use of the designation, but they have failed to do so and have continued their disruption. - ] <sub>]</sub><span style="color:#6B8E23">\</span><sup>]</sup> 19:51, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
*I've indefinitely blocked the user from article space. Frankly, I don't think that's sufficient because they will just create work editing badly in draft space. I would prefer a topic ban from article creation in any space, and if my prediction is valid, I can also add draft space to the pblock.--] (]) 22:35, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
*:{{u|Bbb23}}, I'm not sure there's consensus here for such a drastic action. Also, it does seem both unnecessary (given that the editor has accepted the criticisms here) and counterproductive (given that they've expressed the intention to go back and correct problems with their articles). – ] (]) 08:47, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
*::Admins can take actions on their own discretion, which I assume was the case here. As for MaTF's intention to fix the problems with their articles, given the nature of their comments here, I do not believe that the editor is '''''capable''''' of correcting the type of mistakes their articles are replete with. ] (]) 21:58, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
I want to get the attention of what I'm gonna say. In my opinion, I think that I should create articles in draftspace that way it could be reviewed by AFC reviewers. I will read the guideline correctly and take my time into creating articles in draftspace. I'm just asking for a second chance from the community and this will be all I will say. I will mention that I should get access to edit namespace again but I would mainly just edit a bit and also add refs. I would still like to improve my articles in namespaces so I can fix it, but I didn't mean to cause disruption. I'm gonna stay back and come back for a few days to see what happens. Thank you! Please ping me if necessary. ] (]) 23:14, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
:{{ping| MoviesandTelevisionFan}} Is English your first language? If not, how would you rate your proficiency in English? — <span style="letter-spacing:-1pt;font-family:'Helvetica', sans-serif;">'''] has spoken'''</span> 23:37, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
::English is my first language. This is how I write in English. I apologize if I'm not intelligent at it, but this is my English. ] (]) 23:46, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
:::Well then that is a very serious problem for us. ] (]) 01:14, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
::::: I don't believe English is MATF's native tongue. Sorry but... Just got through cleaning up some of their articles. I came across ] on my own. The others I sought out. I will clean up/clear up as many as I can. A list of articles MATF created or worked on is . ] (]) 19:24, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
:::@] {{non-admin comment}} Hi! I wanted to give a few suggestions to you since I was at one point in your boat with regards to newer articles. Firstly, I will not be making any comment about age or grade level but if you are under 18/21, I suggest you read ], it has a bit of guidance aimed at those under 18/21. Secondly, if you say that there are problems with your English, I'd suggest you find a wikitask that you can do that does not require making your own prose (like typo fixing or anti-vandalism work). If you are not comprehending a source then you should not be adding the content from that source. Some sources use extremely specialist terms that only a handful of people (like doctors, mathematicians, historians, etc.) understand, and no amount of reading those sources will make you suddenly understand them. Lastly, it is important that you understand your limits. From ]: {{tqi|Everyone has a limited sphere of competence. For example, someone may be competent in ] but incompetent in ] or vice versa. Some otherwise competent people may lack the skills necessary to edit Misplaced Pages.}} If one specific task you are doing is causing problems to the project, then you should cease such task and select another task that you would be able to help with. If you are unable to do that, I am afraid admins may come in and place sitewide blocks and bans. ] - ] ❄️ 18:47, 1 November 2022 (UTC)


I forgot to mention that this user has used at least two other IPs; {{ip|24.206.75.140}} and {{ip|24.206.65.150}}. 24.206.65.142 is the most recent to cause disruption. - ] <sub>]</sub><span style="color:#6B8E23">\</span><sup>]</sup> 20:10, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
===Consensus for mass move to draftspace?===


:"777-200LRF" is not misleading, some cargo airlines do use that designation. Today I reverted to a previous version that ] was okay with . I feel that ] is going overboard with charges of misinformation and disruptive editing. ] (]) 19:59, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Request''' - We've had numerous editors here examine MaTF's articles, and the consensus seems to be that, other than very basic stubs, their articles are in need of serious attention. Could an admin or page mover who has the ability to do bulk moves please move ? I am a page mover but I don't have the automation or semi-automation capability to do such a mass move. After it's done, I will move the 15 or so articles I worked on back to article space, and I hope other editors who fixed MaTF's articles will do the same.{{pb}}(If there's another method of accomplishing the same thing, then that's fine too.) ] (]) 01:33, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
::It is misleading to remove any mentions of it being unofficial. Boeing has never made a "777-200LRF", no aftermarket conversion has ever been offered under that name, nor has the FAA or any other regulatory agency ever certified such an aircraft. To pass such a designation off as official is by definition misleading and misinformation. Likewise, to continuously do so after you have been told to stop by multiple people and falsely claiming that others support your arguments is by definition disruptive. - ] <sub>]</sub><span style="color:#6B8E23">\</span><sup>]</sup> 20:06, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
*:@] there are userscripts to do mass moves. ]. ] (]) 02:59, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
::Of note is the fact that this is not the first time the IP has claimed to have Fnlayson's support. ] not to assume support without a specific statement, yet it seems they've also ignored that. - ] <sub>]</sub><span style="color:#6B8E23">\</span><sup>]</sup> 20:23, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
*::Thanks, I'll take a look tomorrow. ] (]) 04:09, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
:::Its not misinformation as here are the sources which use "777-200LRF", including GE Capital Aviation (the engine supplier for most Boeing 777) and Leeham News (to avoid confusion with the upcoming 777-8F). ] (]) 21:06, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::I don't see any consensus for a mass move to Draft. Your list has over 1,000 articles going back over a year. ] 14:35, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
::::I have asked you for sources from either Boeing or the FAA, yet you still either refuse to do so or (more likely) cannot because they don't exist. Only Boeing and the FAA can designate factory-built Boeing aircraft. Airlines and misinformed news websites have no authority to do so, and any alternative names they use are purely unofficial and should not have anything more than a single brief mention in the appropriate article section. Your ] to get that after numerous people have told you is disruptive. - ] <sub>]</sub><span style="color:#6B8E23">\</span><sup>]</sup> 22:14, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::::So it would be your preferred course to leave 1,000+ badly written and sometimes inaccurate articles (less those fixed by other editors already) in the encyclopedia, in the hope that editors will fix them randomly, as opposed to moving them to draft where editors actively vet possibly problematic articles? That hardly seems helpful to the project. ] (]) 21:58, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
::::None of those are ] suitable for sustaining the edit you want to make. #1 would only support that airline claiming to have that kind of plane. #2 is a model manufacturer, and #3 is a blog. — <b>]:<sup>]</sup></b> 18:37, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
*::::::Moving the articles to draft space to allow active editors to triage them seems sensible given the level of incompetence demonstrated in the creation of the articles. There are a number of editors currently working on mitigating the damage done and if moving them to draft space helps those editors willing to put in the hard work then I support the move. Not everything has to be complicated and bogged down in process, especially when the ultimate result will be better (comprehensible) articles for our readers. -- ]<sup>]</sup> 22:09, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
:Relevant range is {{rangevandal|24.206.64.0/20}}, in case somebody needs it. ] &#124; ] 21:02, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
*::::::BMK, with respect (I mean that), I don't think you need to be so hot and heavy with MB. A mass move of over 1000 articles needs a clear consensus - it's fine for someone to question whether that consensus is there yet. I looked at one of the articles today myself, and did some copy editing, which essentially involved restructuring every sentence. I agree that draftifying is probably a good idea. Let's just try to avoid snarling at each other while we discuss what the best course of action is. ]] 22:15, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
*Semiprotected ] for two days. - ] <sub>]</sub> 22:33, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::::::I think perhaps you read more into my comment than I intended, or I did not express myself well. If MB took offense at it, I apologize. ] (]) 22:22, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
*:::::::I've now hived off this section of the discussion to serve as a formal discussion of whether there is a consensus for a mass move of MaTF's un-fixed articles to draftspace. ] (]) 22:25, 2 November 2022 (UTC)


== Rude and unfestive language in my talk page ==
*To help coordinate efforts to improve MaTF's articles, I've created ]. Editors are encouraged to delete from the list any articles they have worked on which are of sufficient quality that they do not need to be moved to Draftspace. ] (]) 00:56, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
::{{ping|Larry Hockett|Brunton|Teblick|MurrayGreshler|Spicy|Girth Summit}} Please see my previous comment on this thread. Apologies to other editors whose efforts I missed. ] (]) 00:59, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
:::Thanks for the ping. I removed an article that I rewrote. If possible, it may be a good idea to introduce a length-based cutoff - I haven't seen any evidence that there's anything wrong with all of the basic substubs in the format " was an American . He won an Academy Award for ." ] (]) 01:06, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
::::I agree that the sub-stubs I've seen have been fine. ] (]) 01:08, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
:::::Urgh - I just looked at ], and it's not just poorly written, but it seems to be full of factual inaccuracies as well. The second sentence runs as follows: {{tq|He was nominated for an Academy Award for Lover Come Back and That Touch of Mink and a win for Pillow Talk, and Mink won him the Writers Guild of America Award win for Best Written American Comedy, which he shared with his partner Stanley Shapiro.}} At first, I thought this would just be a copy-editing job, but then I checked the sources - as far as I can make out, he didn't write on ''Lover Come Back'' or on ''Pillow Talk''. I can't read all of the sources, but the ones I can see only mention the nomination for ''That Touch of Mink''. In short - put me down as '''supporting''' a mass move to draft space. ]] 09:41, 3 November 2022 (UTC)


*'''Oppose strongly''' moving these articles to draft. NPP is the first port of call for every new article. The fact that this has been subverted by a holder of the AP right means that they should first be marked 'unreviewed' and put back in the ] where they will receive the appropriate first attention by vetted New Page Reviewers. Their ] will ensure their future destiny be it Draft, or any one of our deletion processes. Contrary to what is often misunderstood (including by the WMF to whom I had to explain this yesterday in a planning meeting with them), moving to draft does ''not'' automatically increase the workload at AfC; that only happens when the creator submits the draft. {{u|Beyond My Ken}}'s work on this delicate issue - where the creator should never have been accoderd AP - has been excellent, but mass moving to draft is not the immediate solution. With their backlock at an astounding low of around 500, the NPPers have more than enough time to process a 1,000 stubs and other inappropriate articles. ] (]) 05:53, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
:*{{Ping|Kudpung}} Thanks for that information. Can articles be mass-marked "un-reviewed" or does it have to be done one by one? ] (])
:::{{re|Beyond My Ken}} unless a bot or a script could do it, it would need to be done one-by-one. I know this means seeing the pages twice but it's the proper way to go and would avoid inviting any new precedents that we might regret later. So proper in fact, that I don't mind doing some of it myself. The NPPers could take care of the reviewing or I could even do that on the fly too while marking them ureviewed but the New Pages Feed has to the the first logical stop in the correct workflow. ] (]) 06:15, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
:::{{re|Beyond My Ken}} It's worth noting that Moving to draft will not give MTF the benefit of any doubt because he is blocked anyway. There is the possibility of a little known system at ]. If nothing comes of that, the articles can then be PRODed along with any other unsuitable ones. That would give them 7 days exposure to the wider community which they wouldn't get as drafts, and after that they would be deleted. That would also ward off any accusations that NPPers are using draft as a backdoor route to deletion. ] (]) 06:28, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
::::Does the article space block extend to drafts? If not, or if there was a way to make it so that it doesn’t, then moving the articles to draft would enable MTF to carry on working on them. ] (]) 09:38, 4 November 2022 (UTC)


== Abuse of application of Misplaced Pages policies to delete articles ==


My esteemed editor collegue ] just left on my talk page, on Christmas Day no less. Not really in the spirit of the season, I'd say. Considering that he was sagaciously advising me on the importance of tact and etiquette in the very same thread, he should be held to the same standard. ] (]) 17:54, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
:{{u|Vector legacy (2010)}} and {{u|Marcus Markup}}, you both should stop that childish behavior and disengage from one another. ] (]) 18:10, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
::Uh, “suck a bag of dicks” seems a cut above anything childish in VL2010’s conduct. <span style="position: relative; top: -0.5em;">꧁</span>]<span style="position: relative; top: -0.5em;">꧂</span> 08:05, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
:::True, and given a warning accordingly - but Vector legacy's user page is also...''interesting''. - ] <sub>]</sub> 09:31, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
::::Vector Legacy's comments in that discussion are clearly poking the bear, both should be warned. On top of that, Vector has broken the 3RR rule with these 4 reverts: , , , . They acknowledge in the edit summary of the 4th that they know of the 3RR rule and that their first edit was a revert. The last revert in particular, effectively saying "haha, you can't make any more reverts because you've already made 3" when the user themselves has made 4, is really not smart nor constructive/collaborative. ] (]) 10:12, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::I'm normally a stickler for civility, but frankly in this case I actually think Vector legacy (2010) is the bigger problem. Marcus's Markup comment is something they can hopefully easily learn not to do and could have been an extremely unfortunate one-off in a bad situation. By comparison it seems that Vector legacy (2010) is treating editing here as a game where they win edit wars rather than collaborate constructively. I have little hope this is an attitude easily changed so a ] block might be justified soon. ] (]) ] (]) 12:25, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::{{ec}} Yes. The idea of ] is that the protagonists should discuss things on the article talk page before that point is reached, not to use it as a stick to beat other editors with. I note that {{u|Vector legacy (2010)}}'s user page admits to a lot of edit warring, and it discloses a ] attitude. ] (]) 12:31, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::I think that it is safe to say that both these editors are skating on thin ice. ] (]) 17:02, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::To that point, Vector legacy (2010)'s userpage consists of a tally of "EDIT WARS WON". I doubt this is serious, but the optics of it, combined with the above 3RR vio + bragging about the other party being on the line, is not good. &#8213;] <sub>]</sub> 18:01, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::I've nominated that userpage at MFD as it's purely disruptive. - ] <sub>]</sub> 23:42, 26 December 2024 (UTC)


== User:Ryancasey93 ==
First of all, I want to apologise for my English. It's not my mother tongue so I hope I can explain myself here. There is an editor called ] who nominate for deletion the article of the ]. Despite several users had explain to her that the article was relevant (you can see that in the deletion discussion and in the edit history), she started an editing war by deleting almost everything of the article and then suggested that it should be removed from Misplaced Pages. The reason she states is an extreme interpretation of Misplaced Pages policies (i.e. that she considers the sources are not good), but with her attitude of deleting instead of improving the article she is also breaching another principle of Misplaced Pages which is to do positive things, to be helpful and try to do the best for this marvelous encyclopedia. When this happens, I started to see how this user behaves in Misplaced Pages and what she did in the Paraguayan Football Association article is her ''modus operandi''. Instead of improving articles that need work, she move them to drafts or ask for deletion. She also accuses the editors of those articles of having interests on those articles (as long as I see, most of us edit articles about things we consider interesting) and sees conflicts of interest everywhere. As she's been in Misplaced Pages for many years and has permissions and a deep knowledge of Misplaced Pages, she takes advantage of that and instead of being helpful with non experiment users, she destroys everything. It is very difficult to have a deep understanding of Misplaced Pages and it's a lot of work to write article right, so it is very sad to see how an editor instead of giving help, erases everything. The community should not allow this kind of abuse and I believe that should do something to avoid this kind of behaviour, How can be possible that one editor can take on her own the decision to delete, undo or move to draft an article? In other words, how can one user decide is an article is relevant or not? How can is possible to let her do that even when there are several users that are saying that she is not right? It's like she is more worried about respecting in an extreme way the policies of Misplaced Pages (because all she does is according to her sustained by a Misplaced Pages policy) -which are important-, instead of improving the articles and having more contents in Misplaced Pages. I hope the community can analyze this case and do something, but I believe this kind of behaviour doesn't help to make Misplaced Pages better. Many thanks.--] (]) 16:45, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
{{atop|1=31-hour block. - ] <sub>]</sub> 01:06, 26 December 2024 (UTC)}}
*{{userlinks|Ryancasey93}}
Over at ], a user by the name of {{u|Ryancasey93}} requested that their YouTube channel be cited in a passage about them () that was added by {{u|TheLennyGriffinFan1994}} (). The talk page discussion was removed by {{u|AntiDionysius}} as being promotional in nature. Ryancasey93 then decided to ] to cite their channel, which was declined by {{u|LizardJr8}}, who then proceeded to remove the passage as being unsourced.


I then brought up concerns with ] and ] with Ryancasey93, who then proceeded to respond in a needlessly confrontational and hostile manner, and pinging me and LizardJr8. Ryancasey93 then proceeded to where they said we were "very rude and belittling" to them, told us they sent an email complaint against us, called us "the most cynical, dismissive, greedy, narcissistic, and ungrateful people I ever met in my entire life", accused us of discriminating against Autistic people (I am autistic myself, for the record), and called us "assholes".
:The fact that someone has nominated an article for deletion is not a good reason to make a complaint about them on this page, especially when the article you mention is already under discussion and the consensus is to keep it. If you think that this user has done something else wrong, please give clear examples with ]. ] (]) 16:52, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
::Well, there has to be a point at which nominating an article for deletion is disruptive. I'll also note that MrsSnoozyTurtle edit-warred rather than post anything at ]. ] (]) 17:17, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
::: It was a ridiculous AfD nomination and it has been closed as a Keep already. I have no idea what MrsSnoozyTurtle (who is usually a sensible editor) thought they were doing here. ] 18:43, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
:::: This is not about the Paraguayan Football Association article but her kind of contributions. If you see her contributions ] all you can see are nominations for deletion,moving to drafts, unilateral reversions... There are very few improvements and creation of article. In my opinion, this kind of behavior is disruptive and in some cases very near to what can be considered WikiBullyng.-- --] (])
::::: Sorry, that's incorrect. I have looked at her previous AfD nominations and the vast majority appear to be completely reasonable, so would take this particular one as being an aberration. ] 20:19, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
::::::I've had some issues with move to draft from MrsSnoozyTurtle in the past. They're fairly deletion-friendly but I wouldn't say more so than the average NPPer who deals with articles on companies. ] <small>(])</small> 03:40, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
:::Agreed with @]. Furthermore as a relatively inexperienced editor - I'd like to support @] as have experienced similar with the same user, over the article ]. She draftified it with no attempt to improve it or clearly articulate reasons on the talk page - even though film clearly achieves ] via numerous ]. Following successful AFC - she then eviscerated the article reducing a start-class to a stub with this diff: ]. She made no attempt to improve, and then edit warred when I reverted her edits so I could improve the article. Requests for clear clarification on the ] page went unanswered. If this is indeed indicative of wider behaviour, particularly when interacting with newer and relatively inexperienced users, then there is some concern.] (]) 19:37, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
::::It does have a slightly promotional feel but I'm not seeing why it needed moving to draft nor tagging for notability; the film has clearly received independent coverage from respectable national newspapers et al. and much of the plot summary that MrsSnoozyTurtle appears to have objected to is present in the review from ''The Guardian''. ] <small>(])</small> 03:53, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
*Interested in what folk think of ]; moved to draft after Explicit declined G5 and I declined A7. Given the creator is blocked this is tantamount to deletion, but with no oversight. It's not the best article and would probably not survive AfD but I'm not personally comfortable with such an overt delete-by-draftifying approach. ] <small>(])</small> 04:10, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
::Also ], which is not great, but the subject I think is probably notable under ] as the Cullen Foundation Endowed Chair at the Baylor College of Medicine. And ], possibly notable author with a book that was a finalist in the ], and from last month ], another one certainly notable under WP:PROF as president of IUPAC and Fellow of the Royal Society of Chemistry & the American Chemical Society. It's hard to deal with undisclosed paid and COI accusations but Martinez is clearly notable under PROF and I think unlikely to be deleted at AfD. ] <small>(])</small> 04:29, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
::: I do wonder if this is the stuff of ANI? The editors working NPP make a lot of difficult, close calls. Dragging them to ANI over each of those calls seems unreasonable to me. That there Pankaj Choudhry article was indeed created by a blocked sock (although I note the contribution of others blows the G5 rationale) and is indeed promotional/COI stuff. The subject is not notable and I'd AfD it, personally. Joseph S. Coselli and Elissa Altman are both, IMHO, poorly sourced and arguably not WP:GNG or at very best borderline and in need of work - a move to draft is again, IMHO, appropriate. But this is really not "urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems" - this discussion, if it must be had at all (and I do wonder about that), should surely be at ]??? Best ] (]) 05:07, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
::::It's not particularly urgent, no, but it may speak to a pattern of behaviour that is at least not optimal in a fairly prolific patroller. Assuming Coselli falls under PROF the lack of GNG is not a problem and for Altman what's needed are book reviews. This would have been pointed out if either of them had been AfD'd. Martinez is notable, and needs cleaning up, but the accusation of COI & paid stultify anyone else doing so and taking responsibility for it. (And it seems a great deal more important than say someone complaining about someone else fixing their lint errors...) ] <small>(])</small> 05:31, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
:::::@], I'm sorry, but who is the patroller that you're referencing in this case? I feel it important to point out that {{noping|MrsSnoozyTurtle}} does not have NPP rights.
:::::As for the articles you're referencing;
:::::* ] - by NPP member {{noping|Onel5969}}. Later nominated for deletion by myself, based on it being from a now banned editor. This was declined, which was understandable and I left it alone. It was later moved by MrsSnoozyTurtle.
:::::* ] - by NPP member {{noping|Kj cheetham}}. It was later moved by MrsSnoozyTurtle.
:::::* ] - Does not appear to by a member of the NPP team. It was moved by MrsSnoozyTurtle.
:::::* ] - by NPP member {{noping|Kj cheetham}}. It was later moved by MrsSnoozyTurtle.
:::::The NPP team marked 3 of the articles as reviewed and 1 was apparently unreviewed. {{noping|MrsSnoozyTurtle}}'s behaviour in draftifying articles is not associated with any NPP activity. ] (]) 12:28, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
::::::Thanks for the clarification, {{u|Hey man im josh}}. I tend to use "patroller" generally to apply to anyone who gatekeeps based on the new articles feeds, with or without the NPP right. ] <small>(])</small> 12:44, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
:::::::Gotcha, thanks for the explanation, I was a little worried since I was a patroller in one of those action logs haha. ] (]) 12:49, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
:I stand by my original comments. For an editor (]) who's made fewer than 20 edits altogether to use a single example of silliness to make a whole list of accusations suggesting a general "abuse" of Misplaced Pages guidelines is bizarre. By all means look into ]'s record, but the eagerness to "pile" on in support of this report is rather surprising to me. ] (]) 08:40, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
* I started working on ], and after my initial review to remove BLP issues, promotional sources, apparent original research, and copyvio, the promotional tone still needs work. ] (]) 18:39, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
*I have encountered similar problems in the past with MrsSnoozyTurtle draftifying obviously-notable biographies including ] (February 25) and ] (April 2022). In the February case I had to remind MrsSnoozyTurtle not to repeatedly draftify the same article and not to draftify articles that obviously met ] notability criteria . She claimed to have been unaware of those guidelines but as I wrote at the time "It is difficult to tell what you might be aware of because of your habit of removing past warnings to pay more attention to the draftification guidelines such as the one at ". I am disheartened to see that these bad draftifications have continued and that in the recent cases of ] and ], MrsSnoozyTurtle has apparently forgotten what she was told about academic notability. Given that this is a long-term pattern, should MrsSnoozyTurtle perhaps be discouraged more strongly from draftification altogether? —] (]) 01:40, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
* I would like to hear from {{u|MrsSnoozyTurtle}} and other New Page Patrollers, and in the meantime, I revised and expanded the ] article from what it was at the time of draftification and moved it to mainspace. ] (]) 03:31, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
*:I'd like to point out that {{noping|MrsSnoozyTurtle}} does not have NPP rights. ] (]) 12:09, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
* The core part of the article wasn't sourced and there was no attempt to source it, even though there was numerous updates. Also a lot of references are absolutly routine coverage, copied and pasted, typical of a fan article, they are mostly primary. But they are not all primary. As a national organisation clearly named, I wouldn't have sent it to Afd but I would have probably copyedited it quite heavily. '''<span style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px black; font-family:Papyrus">]<sup>]</sup></span>''' 05:12, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
*:The existence of some references to routine and primary sources in new articles is absolutely not a problem, and not cause for draftifying anything, as long as "they are not all primary". They do not contribute notability but they can and often do contribute verifiability. —] (]) 16:02, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
*::I agree with that, absolutely. '''<span style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px black; font-family:Papyrus">]<sup>]</sup></span>''' 16:58, 2 November 2022 (UTC)


Simply put, I feel as if Ryancasey93 does not have the emotional stability required to contribute to Misplaced Pages, having violated ], ], and ], and a block may be needed. ]<sup>(])</sup> 19:47, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
== Sheep8144402 Changing signatures of other editors without their permission ==

:I just logged on while digesting turkey, and was alerted of the pings and this report. I don't really appreciate the messages from the user (I'm on the spectrum too, FWIW) but I think @] gave a good response, highlighting the need for secondary reliable sources. I should have done that better when I removed the unsourced information. I would like to see if there is any further activity from the user before getting into a block discussion. ] (]) 21:10, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
::Looks like they've been blocked for 31 hours by {{u|Cullen328}}. ]<sup>(])</sup> 23:15, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Yes, that last comment was unacceptable in several ways. ] (]) 00:57, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
{{abot}}

== User:24.187.28.171 ==
{{atop {{atop
| result = Blocked for 3 months for edit warring. ] (]/]) 23:32, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
| status = closing
| result = The tradeoff is that JOJ can't complain when others fix the signature they for whatever reason don't want to fix. ] (]) 16:08, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
}} }}
*{{userlinks|24.187.28.171}}
IP has been blocked before for previous infractions. Now, they continue to perform persistent disruptive edits contradicting the Manual of Style, either by deliberately introducing contradictions or undoing edits that resolve the issue. The user has also violated ] at ], though that remains unresolved for some reason. The IP has done all of this despite a backlog of warnings dating back to 2023. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 22:48, 25 December 2024 (UTC)</small>
:@]: could you please provide specific diffs? ] (]/]) 23:23, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
{{abot}}


== Incivility, aspersions, ] from ] ==
{{atop|I revoked TPA, applied 3 weeks semi to the article + AfD, indef for the SPI, and tagged ] (what a name!). Thank you. ] 11:44, 26 December 2024 (UTC)}}
{{userlinks|Cokeandbread}}


] is a few-month-old account whose area of greatest focus has been creating (and defending) two promotional pages for social media influencer-types: ] and ]. Cokeandbread has refused () to answer good-faith questions (, ) about whether they are operating as a paid editor ( to one of them with {{tq|Don't threaten me}}) and posted a copyvio to Commons (). Despite warnings (), the editor has been engaging in bludgeoning/disruptive behavior at the Jimmy Rex AfD (bludgeoning and attempting to !vote multiple times (, ) and has made uncivil remarks to other editors (, , ), while {{tq|respect}} in the other direction. Recently, Cokeandbread posted the following on their user page: {{tq|The way some people in AfD discussions move, you just know some people commenting are under demonic influence. Stay away from me and mine.}} (). Despite another warning (), which Cokeandbread removed when blanking their talk page (), this aspersion is still up. If we're at the point where an editor is accusing other editors of being demonically influenced, I think we're well into ] territory. Given the lack of response to non-admin warnings and requests, I'd ask for admin intervention here. ] (]) 23:34, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

*You're absolutely right. Editors should not be accusing other editors of being demonically influenced. They should ]. ]] 00:04, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
{{Userlinks|Sheep8144402}} Has been making changes to my signature without my permission. The editor did it twice and . I left a message at asking that editor to not make changes to my comments or signature again. That request was ignored and he again made changes to my signature and .
*I concur, and have accordingly blocked. - ] <sub>]</sub> 01:14, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

*Do have to wonder what's going on with that AfD given several accounts with only few contributions, contributions which themselves seem questionable, have somehow found it. But that's probably a question for ] or something. ] (]) 02:28, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
Sheep8144402 uses the guideline ] as justification for these changes. This section clearly states that '''When support is finally dropped, the tags will be ignored in all signatures; any properties such as color and font family will revert to their default values.'''. This implies that the support for the signature I am using has not been dropped and I am still allowed to use this signature as I see fit. But nowhere does it state editors have the right to make unilateral changes to other peoples signatures.
*:Suspicious indeed. There's ], although CheckUser did not confirm connections on the first batch of reported accounts. ] (]) 02:35, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

*:{{ec}} Actually see it's already been partly dealt with at ]. The geolocation point there is interesting, while I don't know what CUs are seeing it does seem likely given the other accounts wider interest these are editors from Nigeria which is another weird thing since there's nothing to suggest the subject is particularly known in Nigeria. ] (]) 02:37, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
I will also like to point out ] "Proposal" which is the genesis of ] which clearly states under the section titled ''Impact: Effects of changes'': that '''Any existing signatures that would become invalid under the new rules are still allowed (grandfathered in)''' and also under the section ''Font Tags:'' '''Specifically, obsolete HTML tags like ‎"tt"...‎"/tt" and ‎"font"...‎"/font" will not be banned at this time.'''
*::...after posting as the end of a series of "I won" edits, they blanked their user talk page. Appears to have been a troll from the start. - ] <sub>]</sub> 09:30, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

*:::Should have locked their TPA. ] (]) 09:49, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
There was no justification for User Sheep8144402 to make any changes to my signature whosoever and especially after I asked that user to not change my signature again in the future, which he ignored. ] ] 20:35, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
*:::On another note, I would like to flag ] with some COI-related tag in light of this but I couldn't remember the exact template. ] (]) 09:52, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
*@Jojhutton: There is a very reasonable message at ] which provides the solution. If you want technical advice regarding the change, ask at ]. This noticeboard aims to reduce disruption and the simple procedure for that would be for you follow the advice given. ] (]) 22:39, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
*:There is also the fact that the signature is not banned. If there was actual harm to Misplaced Pages then I ask that the evidence be presented. All I see is a guideline that allows me to use this signature and an editor who makes changes to other peoples posts, which is a violation of Misplaced Pages guidelines.--] ] 22:44, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
*::@], your signature displays the same before and after the change. Your version is not compliant with current standards, Sheep8144402's version of your signature is. Please change the code of your signature as proposed (which will not change your signature's display at all) so it does not cause error messages. If you don't change the code, your signature will continue to be fixed by other users (we even have some approved bots that fix signatures). So to prevent these edits (and to prevent stuff like page that stopped working after a software change), just use the correct and modern code for your signature. —] (]) 23:13, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
*:::Can you please link the policy that allows other users to make the changes to my signature without my consent. The guideline only says that once the signature format is obsolete, then the signature will revert to its default status. I'll deal with it then. in the meantime I kindly ask that users not change my signature unless there is a rule specifically stating that they can. If there is, then link it here for all to see.] ] 23:27, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
*::::See ] {{tq| Moreover, refactoring old signatures from you and other users (including in archive pages) by changing <nowiki><font></nowiki> tags to <nowiki><span></nowiki> tags can help prepare the project for this eventual loss of support.}}. Note the policy suggests changing the tags in other users’ signatures. —&nbsp;]&nbsp;] 23:38, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
*:::::Well good luck with that then. My current signature is well within the current guidelines and is "grandfathered in" according to the Media Wiki proposal and is still allowed.--] ] 23:44, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
*:::::Then random users and bots will change it when they see it. If you don’t have a problem with your sig causing accessibility errors, then you won’t have a problem with this happening, making this entire thread moot. — <span style="letter-spacing:-1pt;font-family:'Helvetica', sans-serif;">'''] has spoken'''</span> 23:49, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
*::::The guideline that allows this is ] (and, more and more, ]). Behavior indistinguishable from yours ]. Look. The people fixing your sig are ''trying to help you''. The font tag isn't just obsolescent, but actually obsolete. When the last vestiges of support for it are dropped from MediaWiki, your sig will display like this: ] ]. Meanwhile, you're making life harder for the people who - for reasons I can't personally fathom - choose to spend their time going through the four million page backlog at ] so that sigs like yours don't look silly when the tag ''isn't'' grandfathered anymore. —] 23:55, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
*JOJHutton, could you explain why you don't want to make this change to your sig? I can't figure it out. There would be zero change to the appearance of your signature, and it would take about 45 seconds. While I'm not sure changing other editors' old signatures is the best use of someone's time, I don't understand the reluctance even more. --] (]) 23:52, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
*:{{u|Jojhutton}}, can you please explain why you insist on continuing to create linter errors for other people to fix, when both the problem with your signature has been explained to you, and a simple solution has been handed to you on a platter? This is collaborative project, after all. ] (]) 23:57, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
*::What guideline am I not following? Nobody asked anyone to fix anything for me--] ] 23:59, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
*:::I haven't done anything to you. Could you do me the courtesy of answering my question? --] (]) 00:04, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
*:::@]: ], a guideline, has already been pointed out to you: {{tq|{{tag|font}} tags were deprecated in ] and are entirely obsolete in ]. This means that the popular browsers may drop support for them at some point. When support is finally dropped, the tags will be ignored in all signatures; any properties such as color and font family will revert to their default values. For this reason, it is recommended that you use {{tag|span}} tags and CSS properties instead.}} There is no reason for you not to fix this. ]&nbsp;]] 00:08, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
*::::Why? Because according to the proposal, it can't be changed back and undone once it's changed. I'd just rather wait. It's proper under the guidelines.--] ] 00:12, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
*:::::I don't think you're understanding what we, or that proposal, are saying. First of all, I'm not sure where you're getting "can't be changed back or undone", but any language to that effect in the proposal you've linked is talking about a ''software change'', not anything you change in your signature. Any change you make to your signature right now can be undone, and you can go back to your old signature if you notice a difference (you won't, because the signatures are ''identical'' in appearance; the only difference is that the new signature doesn't cause HTML errors). ]&nbsp;]] 00:23, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
*::::::I know exactly what it means. I also know that I'm allowed to keep my current format and that doing so does not violate any policy or guideline.--] ] 00:37, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
*:::::::If you insist, but then you don't get to complain when it gets fixed. ]&nbsp;]] 01:02, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
*You don't have to use ] in your sig if you don't want to, but there's no reason to complain about other people updating the HTML. Literally, no reason has been given. So, let people use old (but still supported) HTML if they want to, and let people update HTML if they want to. It's a 💕, after all. ] (]) 00:21, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
*:@], ] is needlessly provocative. Don't be a jerk about it. ] (]) 00:30, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
*::Actually, I don't agree; fixing obsolete HTML tags is a (very minor) net positive. It's pointed, for sure, but not point-y, imo. There's no reason for Jojhutton to take umbrage at this, but if they do, they know how to fix it: fix their signature's HTML. ]&nbsp;]] 00:33, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
'''Proposal''' ] slaps all around. There's no purpose to introducing additional lint errors that will just have to be fixed someday. At the same time, there's no point in fixing this user's lint errors against his preference when there's a bazillion other gnome backlog tasks to do. ] (]) 00:47, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

:Support trouting. Also if Sheep8144402 is concerned with signatures then he should consider taking into account ], in particular note 4 and use one of the colours that can be found in ] rather than the current one which does not meet the desired contrast ratio. ] (]) 05:17, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
:I see no reason to trout someone for carrying out a maintenance task so innocuous we literally have bots programmed to do it. Someone running through lint errors should not have to check the individual preferences of each user whose signatures they fix. I doubt the bots do. ] (]) 06:14, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
:Since we don't have any consensus to force ] to change their signature at this time, it's probably best to just allow them to keep using it. However as others have said, if they are going to do so, they need to accept after they've posted with an error in their signature, it will be corrected at any time including right now and they are not allowed to reverse these corrections as that's disruptive and something which may require sanction. Nor can they demand that editors do not correct the errors they make every time they sign, as others have said, that's unreasonable, it's too difficult and frankly just silly for editors or bots to need to work out an editor wants to continue to post with errors before they correct these errors. So unless some editor is going around ] them fixing their signature and only their signature, there is no problem that needs ANI or trouting, so if Jojhutton wants to continue to use their signature, they need to refrain from opening dumb threads like this. If they do so in the future then again they're getting into an area which may require sanction of them. ] (]) 06:50, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
:The only one deserving a trout here is Jojhutton due to their insistence in using signatures with broken html, leaving pages in error categories wherever they sign. Deliberately using signatures that cause accessibility problems shows their contempt towards other users, especially when they have been provided alternatives and it takes just a minute to replace it in their preferences. Sheep is doing valuable work fixing Lint errors should be commended for it. ] (]) 10:02, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
::{{ping|Jojhutton}} You're bordering on ]. This is a collaborative project. You've been asked nicely to make a very small change that makes no difference to your editing and been shown how to do it. While Sheep8144402's conduct is possibly slightly discourteous, your refusal makes ''you'' look unreasonable. Please just make the change. Otherwise you might be accused of exhausting the community's patience. ] &#124; ] 13:01, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
:::Fixing low-priority linter errors is not really valuable work, or work at all, it doesn't even need to be done. That's why they're low priority. I've long felt that making multiple edits per page to do "fix" low-priority errors is disruptive: it needlessly spams watchlists and the edits database. Just one edit per page for all of these low-priority errors, if we do it at all. It's truly unnecessary for user talk page archives and other obscure places. "Fixing" it multiple times ''in this thread'', like by making an edit after every time that someone posts, is way too close to hounding IMO. But let's not pretend that fixing low priority lint errors is necessary or valuable work. And there is nothing disruptive about using a font tag or a center tag. These low-priority lint errors don't actually cause any problem, and "fixing" then is just busy work. ] (]) 14:47, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
::::The needless watchlist spamming is caused by those adding lint errors that need to be fixed. Directly changing sigs in this discussion is poor decision making, but the general idea of preventing is valuable. ] (]) 02:07, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
:::::Sure, preventing ''that'' is valuable, but that is an example of a ] error, which isn't the kind of lint error at issue here. That error was fixed by adding the missing end tag, in ]. The kind of error at issue here, by contrast, is ], and the help page says {{tqq|Since it is ] how far we want to push this goal of HTML5 compliance, this category is marked low priority.}}
:::::{{noping|ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ}} (Malnadach) runs {{noping|MalnadachBot}}, which "fixes" these "obsolete tag" errors. and you can check for yourself whether any one of those edits actually changed what you see on the screen (not for me, my browser still supports HTML4, as does every other browser AFAIK).
:::::My point is: these obsolete-tag "fixes" are unnecessary. If people want to make the fixes, they should be able to, because they don't cause any harm, but it's really not accurate to say that these are "broken" html, or that they cause accessibility problems, or to suggest that fixing them is necessary or crucial maintenance work. Certainly, using HTML4 is not disruptive nor does it show contempt towards others.
:::::This is all a big overreaction about using HTML4 v. HTML5. Trouts all around sounds right to me. ] (]) 02:57, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
:Well Jojhutton has made it clear they are not going to change it themselves. Everyone else has made it clear its going to get changed regardless. Why not just wait until the bots start hitting every page Jojhutton edits. Then we can have this discussion again. I am sure Jojhutton will enjoy reverting automated bots constantly. Should be interesting to see if they change their mind. ] (]) 13:12, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
::I have already cleared their old sig using bot 9 months ago. Number 31 in ]. They can continue using signature with font tags, it's only a matter of time before it gets replaced. ] (]) 16:41, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
*Should just make it required to have a signature using the correct tags if you want a custom signature. Problem solved. Hey look, somebody asked me to fix mine ]. I did it in three minutes. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - 15:28, 31 October 2022 (UTC)</small>
*:Yes, signatures in active use should be changed to not cause lint errors. While the problems caused by obsolete font tags are currently tiny, there is no good justification for causing this tiny problem every time you sign a page. —] (]) 19:17, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
If we are going to be talking about signatures, can we talk about how ] is nearly unreadable? Bright and light green on a white background actually hurts my eyes to look at. ] (]) 16:39, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
:Oh god... I didn't even realize my sig was hard to read until this message came up. Hopefully its better now bc green is honestly one of my favorite colours in my life. ] (]) 20:05, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
::Thanks for quickly fixing that! The contrast was 1.37:1 and is now over 15:1, which is great. See https://accessibleweb.com/color-contrast-checker/. The second part of JOJhutton's signature fails accessibility testing, with a contrast of 2.58:1. —&nbsp;]&nbsp;] 20:30, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
::@] Several signatures, like Sheep's, are nearly invisible on a dark background, but that is something I can live with. I don't expect anyone to change their sig for that reason-- I forget how I got a dark background, but it might be a beta or unsupported option in Android Chrome. Just in case anyone was wondering about other backgrounds... And I can always work out the sig if I need to! ] (]) 08:36, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
* While this is a collaborative project, we extend a great deal of deference to participants, such as choosing what to work on and, within reason, how we present ourselves. Fixing linter errors is fine; introducing them is not. {{ping|Jojhutton}}, you were asked to change the HTML of your signature (not even altering its appearance) and you declined. That's your right, but it makes for an unfortunate impression and you should reconsider. ] ] 21:16, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
{{abot}} {{abot}}


== Disruptive editing by ] ==
== Edit warring/vandalism ==
*{{userlinks|Dngmin}}
The main issue with this editor at the moment is disruptive editing based on continuous abuse of ]. Issues began when this editor . He did it and and for past few days, thus creating a lot of work for others to undo.


Since october the user received warning for ]. Please help to block the user.
I would like to raise an issue with user ].. This user - using a wide variety or user numbers - is repeatedly and deliberately breaching Misplaced Pages's house style albeit in small ways. For example, in the article on Yell (company) they are repeatedly changing UK to United Kingdom, even though Misplaced Pages's house style makes it clear that UK is fine and United Kingdom not needed.
] (]) 04:19, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
:<small>I'm assuming the mention of diffs and {{ping|PhilKnight}} was a cut and paste failure? - ] <sub>]</sub> 07:00, 26 December 2024 (UTC)</small>
::Yes it is. ] (]) 16:14, 26 December 2024 (UTC)


== New user creating a lot of new pages ==
In itself, this is a minor point but when they have been repeatedly asked not do so and keep ignoring those requests, it almost amounts to vandalism. Moreover, their other edits continually damage articles. Among the edits they repeatedly make, they:
* repeatedly change straight (') apostrophes to curly ones, again in breach of house style and despite numerous editors requesting they stop or pointing out the error
* insert unnecessary and/or irrelevant detail
* repeatedly changing numerals above 10 to words, when Misplaced Pages's house style says both are fine
* repeatedly putting words, especially but not only company names, into italics and/or bold for no clear reason
* add redundant or superfluous words ('until' becomes 'up until', 'released becomes 'first released', even when there was no second release)
* incorrectly change the case of initials
* inserting completely unnecessary/incorrect/illogical paragraph breaks
* change good, idiomatic English to unidiomatic wording
* add multiple references to sentences, that almost always have no relevance to the claim supposedly being referenced
* insist on adding in the season when something happened, eg "in the spring of" or "in the summer of" when it adds nothing to the article
* Repeatedly remove hyphens where they are grammatically correct and, indeed, necessary (for example, they turn words like re-ordered into re ordered).


* {{user|4Gramtops}}
These are just some examples of their tedious, annoying and disruptive behaviour. It seems that this has been going on daily for at least five years, and several editors have left comments they have ignored. However, they have no Misplaced Pages account (which, after at least five years, is very suspicious in my view). Instead, they change their user number usually every one-three days, making it hard to take action against them. They can easily be traced, however, by the articles they keep re-editing and the types of changes they make. I can also supply many of their numbers if required.


I am not confident I understand what 4Gramtops is up to. They in their userspace. I have not a clue what they are meant to accomplish outside of testing. It just seems strange for a user with so few edits. There was no forthcoming response to ] trying to get an explanation <small>(which I know they've seen since they )</small>
I really hope something can be done to prevent them, as correcting their disruptive, if possibly well-meant, editing, is tedious and time-wasting. If I need to post this in a different section, please let me know (I've never reported anyone before so apologies if this is the wrong page).


<small>On a related note, they have also created ]. It's possible I'm just overthinking a simple troll here.</small> &#8211;<span style="font-family:CG Times, times">]&thinsp;]<sup>]</sup></span> 07:35, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
I have notified them of this report.] (]) 18:06, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
:] for permissions? - ] <sub>]</sub> 09:28, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
::Given ], I find it likeliest they're trying to learn ] by using their userspace as a testing environment. Harmless but technically ]. ] (]) 11:54, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Might not even be U5 if the purpose of trying to learn Lua is to develop the expertise to work on Lua modules for Misplaced Pages. —] (]) 19:39, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
::::I already suggested they use Test 2 Misplaced Pages for that purpose. It'd lead to a lot less clutter. I do find that either way they should probably say what they're trying to do. No one can help them if they don't communicate. &#8211;<span style="font-family:CG Times, times">]&thinsp;]<sup>]</sup></span> 20:55, 26 December 2024 (UTC)


== Undoing my blocks due to collateral damage ==
:], this looks like a mild content dispute that could have been resolved by you first raising your concerns to the IP editor directly and in detail. Please note that their edits (a total of 12 over the course of 3 days, which isn't that many) were not "vandalism" (see ]). And also, not edit warring (see ]), because the IP did not ] back to their edits even once.
{{atop|1=Unblocked. - ] <sub>]</sub> 23:37, 26 December 2024 (UTC)}}
:Now, you've warned this IP editor (]), though note that it's ], not "house style" — however, you then immediately erased that warning 2 minutes later with the notification to this ANI complaint (]). As a result, they likely didn't even see it to begin with.
Hello, could an admin undo ? Blocks like these seem to have caused way more collateral damage than they're worth, per ] (about a block I undid in October when I still had adminship) and ]. Thanks! ] (]) 10:31, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
:Furthermore, you're expected to at least give two warnings (i.e. {{tl|uw-mos1}} then escalate that to {{tl|uw-mos2}} or {{tl|uw-mos3}}), if not three or four. This noticeboard is for ''intractable'' issues, so that falls short communication-wise, if such warnings would even be due, which as mentioned, may well not be so. Generally, please make sure you treat IP editors as you would any named accounts, by explaining yourself with enough detail prior to jumping the gun with enforcement requests here. <small>P.S. I've linked to the IP's contributions in your OP for convenience.</small> HTH. Thank you. ] 08:00, 1 November 2022 (UTC)


Ah, I've just done some checking, and it seems like, as ever, there's a template with unblock links. So here goes::
::Strike that, on closer look, I see that they have used multiple IPs for these pages. I'll re-examine. ] 08:08, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
*{{IPunblock|178.220.0.0/16}}
*{{IPunblock|79.101.0.0/16}}
*{{IPunblock|178.221.0.0/16}} ] (]) 12:24, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
*{{done}} ] (]) 13:29, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
{{abot}}


== Persistent unsourced changes by IP ==
:::], I'm having a difficult time seeing what the problem was, for example, with their edit to '']'' Their addition of {{tq|initally}} seems tentatively okay. But regardless if in error or not, you should not be responding with an edit summary that reads: {{tq|STOP YOUR IDIOTIC ADDITIONS OF TAUTOLOGOUS WORDS}} (]). Anyway, that's just a random example I sampled from some earlier edits/IPs (Sept), so hopefully, the rest are not like that. I have to get going now, but hopefully, I'll get a chance to revisit this matter later in the day. ] 08:22, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
:::They've literally used dozens of IPs over several years, changing every 1-3 days. I have complained directly to them, as have other editors over the years. This is not a one-off, mild issue, it is ongoing and repeat offending.] (]) 10:10, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
::::Can you provide a list of the IPs they have used (it doesn't have to be exhaustive, but a representative sample), and some explanation of how you know they are the same person? ]] 10:15, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
::::Here are just some you can check:
::::81.104.95.127
::::86.2.120.14
::::86.1.31.56
::::81.104.95.127
::::86.7.38.32
::::81.103.30.186
::::86.5.23.191
::::86.7.38.32
::::86.6.237.104
::::86.4.156.202
::::80.0.138.190
::::86.7.38.32
::::86.4.167.159
::::That's just in the last 10 days! I admit some of my comments to them have been intemperate, but they repeatedly ignore standard messages/polite requests and they have been pursuing this behaviour for at least five years, so patience is wearing thin. ] (]) 10:19, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
:::::Sorry, this crossed with your last message. I am certain they are the same person because they frequently return to edit the same pages or make the same changes on a page (eg, changing UK to United Kingdom or changing the apostrophes to curly ones). In some cases, they've been editing the same pages for years, and they are often relatively obscure pages/subjects that not many people would visit. Also, the types of changes they make (including an obsession with adding months, sometimes misleadingly) are too similar for this to be different people. ] (]) 10:22, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
::::::P.s., their edit of Skapocalypse Now! is an example of a pointless edit. They added that the recording was released "in the autumn". This is a little vague and adds nothing to the article, and in any case it had already been stated (in what is a very short article) that it was released in October. This is, I agree, a very small thing, but when they repeatedly over several years keep adding tautologous information like this, it it amounts to poor and unhelpful editing. The article already states the information, it does not need stating again. ] (]) 10:27, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
:::::From a few spot-checks, these are all Virgin Media IPs, mostly in Blackburn. I can understand the frustration - if someone is repeatedly making the same small-but-unhelpful edits to the same pages, ignores requests that they stop and refuses to discuss the matter, I can see how that would get exasperating. (Particularly the curly apostrophes - argh, my eyes!) We can't implement a range-block wide enough to prevent them, so it would have to be dealt with via long-term semi protection on the effected articles. {{u|El C}}, do you think that would be warranted, or is it overkill? ]] 10:30, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
::::::Thanks for understanding and appreciating the issue. Yes, I feared a block might be impractical. TBH, I'm not sure semi protection would help, as there are just so many articles involved. Perhaps a block on the current IP as a sort of warning that their edits are unhelpful? It might (but probably won't!) encourage them to rethink their editing. ] (]) 10:53, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
::::::Briefly, because I'm writing in haste: I did look at ] as an option when glancing at the revision history of some of these pages, but the activity seemed way too sparse for that. I then considered applying ] ''en masse'', but wanted to examine at least a few of the edits closely first. But once I encountered the addition of {{tq|initially}} by the IP, which again nominally seemed fine, followed by {{u|Neilinabbey}}'s {{tq|IDIOTIC }} edit summary (]), I was no longer sure what's what. And I already had reservations after seeing Neilinabbey erase their warning 2 min after posting it, replacing it with the ANI notice for this report (]), which seemed a bit sketchy tbh. Then I had to step out, so I had no time to look any further. Anyway, unfortunately, I gotta step out again, so I'll just leave it with you, ]. But to reiterate, I did not see a single candidate for semi (in the usual sense), only pc. Quick correction, though: I didn't actually choose '']'' at random — I chose it because it's a cool title! ] 11:01, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
:::::::I erased the initial warning as it one I wrote myself (I'm new to reporting, so wasn't fully aware of the procedure). I then found there is a standard wording, so replaced my wording with that. The activity only seems sparse because that's one IP address. When you add it to 13 others in 10 days, and then multiply that for five years, it's a rather bigger issue!] (]) 11:14, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
::::::::I've popped the last dozen articles edited on my watchlist. If there are others, let me know (not all of them, just enough to alert me to their presence). -- ] (]) 12:14, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
::::::::And I've applied some long-term PC protection to a bunch of articles that they've edited recently. If you notice them editing again, let me know and I will try my best to reason with them, and failing that we can do the whack-a-mole blocking game, I suppose. ]] 12:16, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
:::::::::Thanks very much, and to Malcolmxl5 too. In response to Malcolmxl5, here are a few examples of other pages they repeatedly (mis)edit:
:::::::::Cathedral City Cheddar
:::::::::Saputo Dairy UK
:::::::::Giraffe World Kitchen
:::::::::Opel Grandland
:::::::::The Mall Blackburn
:::::::::Bumper Films
:::::::::SP Manweb
:::::::::Asda Mobile
:::::::::1992 Manchester bombing
:::::::::I could go on for ages, but that's probably enough for now!] (]) 12:23, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
::::::::::OK. I’ve added those. -- ] (]) 12:46, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
:::::::::::Thanks, appreciated. Hopefully they'll get the message!] (]) 12:53, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
:::::::::Well, they are back again, this time as 86.4.170.56. The usual daily four edits, three of which I've reverted (Irish car of the year, Tiger Tiger (nightclub) and Sin-Jin Smyth.
:::::::::Given this almost constant changing of IP addresses and their refusal to engage, I'm not sure we're going to be able to stop them, unless they eventually get fed up with 95% of their edits being reverted within minutes!] (]) 15:31, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
::::::::::@]. Have a look at this: ]. Is this mostly their work? Back to September? -- ] (]) 15:57, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
:::::::::::@], yep, that's them alright. I'd be happy to explain why I think their edits here are unhelpful, if needed.] (]) 16:06, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
::::::::::::No, that's OK. In fact, their edits go back to 2017, I think. -- ] (]) 16:08, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
:::::::::::::Yes, that tallies with what I've found. Looks like I'm far from the only editor who's been reverting their edits! It's an odd one, as for the most part I don't think their edits are malicious, they just have certain very fixed views and obsessions, and won't take no to imposing them even where they contradict Misplaced Pages's house style. I do find the constant changing of IP addresses and the four-edits-a-day thing a bit curious, too.] (]) 16:11, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
::::::::::::::OK, I’m going to collate some data to get a handle on the picture here. It may take some time so let’s move this conversation to my talk page. Let me know if you see them again. -- ] (]) 16:51, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::Thanks, will do. ] (]) 16:59, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::Glad to see this got sorted while I was away for the day. ] 09:15, 2 November 2022 (UTC)


== Is this a violation of ] and ]? ==


{{Vandal|2001:999:500:8D52:753A:9BD7:9D61:823B}}
on ]’s page caught my eye a few years ago because it struck me as blatant ] conspiracy theorizing. I’m now wondering if that’s a violation of userspace policy as an off-topic rant and a more general violation of Misplaced Pages’s stance on not unduly promoting fringe theory. but as you can see I received no straight answers. ] (]) 18:16, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
:On the one hand, yes it's polemic (and dumb). On the other hand, I'm pretty tired of Dronebogus wandering around hunting for stuff to be outraged about. Any way we can delete the user page section '''and''' ban DB from ANI? --] (]) 18:44, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
::“Dronebogus is right, so ban them”? How does that make sense? In fact when was the last time I started a thread here? ] (]) 18:55, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
:::No, "Dronbogus is shit-stirring, so ban them". I would support banning you if you were wrong, too. --] (]) 19:04, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
::::Just going to point out that there IS precedent for banning someone from ANI for chronic shit-stirring. ]. And yes, it was decided in that discussion that although the user's issues weren't necessarily off-base, the community was served better by removing the shit-stirrer. ] (]) 19:28, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
:::::I’m somewhat confused why an IP with two edits is both getting involved here and showing intricate knowledge of ANI history. ] (]) 20:42, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
::::::] may help get rid of the confusion ] (]) 21:27, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
:::::::After I pointed out that IP editors are often experienced, why did you post a new editor template to this temporary IP address? Did you really think I was aware of policy on IP editing, but also needed a new user template? ] (]) 21:53, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
::::::::I couldn’t thank you so it was a courtesy re-welcome ] (]) 22:00, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
:::::::::In that case, I apologize for misinterpreting the templating, and you are welcome ] (]) 22:06, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
::@]: I think the section is a violation of ] and should be removed. ] (]) 22:17, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
:I'd like to report ] for having ] content on their user page! But jokes aside, it might help resolve situations like this if there was a guideline for what to do when you see ] material. Right now, the way it's set up seems almost to encourage users to take every single instance here. ] (]) 02:10, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
::Agreed. We don't really have a guideline on things like this, and it leads to these exact situations! —&nbsp;] <sup>(]</sup> <sup>])</sup> 02:35, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
:::We should, just like how we nominate articles for speedy deletion if they violate certain guidelines. Imagine having to go over to ANI every time you saw an unacceptable page.<span id="Nythar:1667271482393:WikipediaFTTCLNAdministrators&apos;_noticeboard/Incidents" class="FTTCmt"> —&nbsp;] (]'''-''']) 02:58, 1 November 2022 (UTC)</span>
::Maybe there should be a minor incidents noticeboard? ] (]) 03:29, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
I'd like to see that dumb stuff deleted, but if we start doing that we'll just be enabling a worse behavior which is seeking out dumb stuff on user pages and taking it to ANI, which is also a great way to hound editors. <b style="color: #0000cc;">''North8000''</b> (]) 19:39, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
:'''Warn Pedant''' and ''more quietly tell Dronebogus'' to not worry so much about other people's user pages. That's my take on this before we get Pedant's input. I don't think we have enough cause here to ban Dronebogus from ANI. Sections like this probably shouldn't be on user pages, but I don't think it's at the level of banning Pedant either. <u>Re: Dronebogus:</u> As far as I can tell, they're not posting here more frequently than 2-3x per year anyway. That's hardly a massive drain on editor resources/time. {{pb}}''']''' for Dronebogus was regarding ''subpages'' and simply requested they attempt to discuss it with the user first before bringing it so quickly to ANI and be less-confrontational. As far as I can ascertain, that's exactly what they've done in this case. If we want, we could warn Dronebogus to not bring any user page-based complaints here, at all. But I actually completely disagree with that, since most, if not all, of the claims they've brought here have had some merit! What kind of message are we sending if we punish people for ''doing the right thing'', in the right order? <small>(Edited to add clarity 11:28, 1 November 2022 (UTC))</small> —&nbsp;] <sup>(]</sup> <sup>])</sup> 22:11, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
::That argument would hold more weight if Dronebogus's actions in the space of user page complaints were not so overtly partisan. The vast majority of his complaints both on ANI and MfD have been against right-wing viewpoints, and he hasn't been shy about his disdain against the political right. That's the issue. I don't see altruism in his approach. ''']'''-''<small>(])</small>'' 23:53, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
:::That’s your perception. It’s cherry-picking and seems to deliberately avoid mentioning that I’ve nominated left wing and neutral userboxes as well. ] (]) 00:30, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
::::I don't need to cherry-pick when you come out with . ''']'''-''<small>(])</small>'' 00:34, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
:::::That doesn’t prove anything. It’s a statement of bias. So yes I’m biased against conservatism but I don’t think I unduly target it at MfD, let alone ANI. In fact you’re the one targeting me over politics here. ] (]) 00:36, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
::{{ping|Shibbolethink}}: Your estimate is low by more than an order of magnitude: since last September, they have opened no less than separate AN/I threads. ''']'''×''']''' 00:14, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
:::There have been ''two'' since may. ] (]) 00:34, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
*I'd support banning Drone from ANI, or at least from having any opinions on anyone else's user pages. He ''did'' ask the user on his talk page about the section, which is a ''marginal improvement'' from the last time we talked about his actions... but then he went ahead and removed it ''anyhow'' as if there was some ticking clock that this material had to get removed immediately. They could be doing ''anything'' more productive with their time on Misplaced Pages, like actually editing and improving articles. ] <sup><small>]</small></sup> 00:12, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
*:A marginal improvement is still an improvement. Topic bans are not punitive, they’re preventative. You’re implying you feel I am incapable of taking advice because I made an error in judgment while being overall right in both assessment and process. ] (]) 00:33, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
*:], 1 month is not "immediate." If something violates ] and the warned user doesn't reply, it can be removed. There doesn't have to be a ticking clock, especially because of the content's nature -- a bizarre conspiracy theory about 9/11. Also, Dronebogus doesn't have to "{{tq|be doing anything more productive with their time on Misplaced Pages}}"; we don't ban users because they didn't do what we think they should've done. If only we had the ability to resolve complaints faster...<span id="Nythar:1667264011322:WikipediaFTTCLNAdministrators&apos;_noticeboard/Incidents" class="FTTCmt"> —&nbsp;] (]'''-''']) 00:53, 1 November 2022 (UTC)</span>
*:@]: I know Dronebogus didn't bring it up, but ] and ] apply here. ] (]) 04:03, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
*I think the noted subpage is probably a violation of ], and I think banning Dronebogus is not warranted at this time. I think I would advise them to not go "hunting for problems", that is to search through trying to find problems to bring to ANI. I am bothered by editors who think it is their job to play detective. HOWEVER, that being said, this is certainly not to the "ban them from ANI" phase. Honest to goodness, I'm ANI daily, and you'd think I'd recognize Dronebogus if they were a major drain on the resources of this page. I had never heard of them before this day. With the amount of time I'm around here, if I'd not heard of them, they probably aren't a problem. If I have been blind to the issue, I invite Floq and the others supporting such a proposal to ''build a case'' by showing diffs and establishing this is a pattern of behavior that needs stopping. I'm not comfortable banning someone without at least that courtesy to those of us unfamiliar with them. --]] 18:20, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
*:Most of the incidents involving me are months old at the newest. It would take some digging to find them, which I think discredits any accusations of an “ongoing problem” at ANI. ] (]) 18:29, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
*I don't think Dronebogus should be banned from here. The user page section has been deleted. Hopefully this section can be closed shortly. Thank you, --] (]) 00:52, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
*:It should be closed. I’ve done nothing (significantly) wrong, and the section was rightly removed by an uninvolved, respected editor and consensus is clearly against allowing it. Pedant should consider this an informal warning. No further action should be taken here. If he insists on restoring patently inappropriate content the proper venue is MfD as an abuse of userspace. ] (]) 04:56, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
*I think that Dronebogus should be prohibited from policing other editors' userspace, in general. Since last September, they have opened a whopping AN/I threads, of which a very large amount have been requests to censure people for political content in their userspace. Quoting from the ], where commenters unanimously supported a warning (and many expressed a desire for more than a warning): "Dronebogus is warned that their actions regarding user subpages have been disruptive and have wasted other editors' time for minimal benefit". Numerous people here noted extreme unease with their "apparent self-appointment as Misplaced Pages's witchfinder general", et cetera. Yes, it's certainly true that at least some of these threads involved people whose userpages really did have offensive content on them: the issue is that someone is spending inordinate amounts of time creating huge AN/I threads in an attempt to have people dramatically censured for things which have little to do with editing encyclopedia articles. It is also rather concerning that they are ]. This is harmful to the project, and it wouldn't be "cancelled out" by having somebody with the opposite agenda do it in the other direction -- it would just give us twice as many pointless AN/I threads. ''']'''×''']''' 23:33, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
::Furthermore, with respect to this specific thread, it should be noted that the polemic tract in question was from 2007, and ], raising the question of how it was even possible to find this without a large amount of deliberate effort. ''']'''×''']''' 00:11, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
:::I already said it was years ago that I noticed it. I don’t even remember how. ] (]) 00:35, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
::You’re using ludicrous personal attacks like “witchfinder general” as an argument? And since when is controlling racism in userspace a “political agenda”? ] (]) 00:37, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
:::I am not sure I understand what you are saying in this comment -- the quoted phrase is itself a quotation from ] in the April thread that I linked (in which, as far as I can tell, nobody claimed it to be a personal attack). My argument is not that it is objectively correct, but that fifteen people expressed sentiments of this general nature. As for the other part of what you said, I am also somewhat confused: is your claim here that race relations in the United States is ''not'' a political topic? ''']'''×''']''' 01:18, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
::::I wasn’t saying that race relations isn’t political, I was saying that racism is banned by the WM code of conduct so it shouldn’t be considered “political” and therefore untouchable. ] (]) 01:57, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
:::::I was invoked, and so here I am. I had to look back at that comment, and I think I was quite transparent in it. This is the sort of thing that elicits a visceral reaction in me, and it probably was over the top to phrase it that way--for which I apologize--but it was simply because I lacked the right vocabulary to say the same thing with a lesser moral dimension. Dronebogus, I suspect you and I would agree substantively on most everything, and I wish you no ill will. But please try to take on board what people are telling you. It feels like you are saying that anything is fine until it leads to formal, logged sanctions. I think we can do better. That said, I sincerely wish you all the best and a Happy Friday to everyone. ] (]) 12:45, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
:::Also note a bunch of those threads were misplaced vandalism reports and general user disruption complaints that had nothing to with politics. ] (]) 00:41, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
::::Or the big ] fiasco that had ''nothing to do with the warning against me''. You can’t sanction someone over a number. ] (]) 00:44, 4 November 2022 (UTC)


, , , , , etc.
== TPA revocation request ==


Note that another IP in the same /64 range ({{Vandal|2001:999:500:8D52:8065:5651:5389:18E}}) was blocked for the same reasons less than a week ago. ]] 19:16, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
{{userlinks|FreshMorphleMemePedia}}<br style="margin-bottom:0.5em"/>This user has been blocked, but I need an admin to revoke their talk page access. Thanks.<span id="Nythar:1667287133922:WikipediaFTTCLNAdministrators&apos;_noticeboard/Incidents" class="FTTCmt"> —&nbsp;] (]'''-''']) 07:18, 1 November 2022 (UTC)</span>
:{{re|Materialscientist}} I pinged you on their talk page. Could you please? ] (]'''-''']) 07:56, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
:TPA revoked. ]<sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub> 07:58, 1 November 2022 (UTC)


== Aigurland again == == 197-Countryballs-World ==
{{atop|1=Countryballs cannot into Misplaced Pages. - ] <sub>]</sub> 23:36, 26 December 2024 (UTC)}}

So far, {{User|197-Countryballs-World}} has made categories, started drafts, and attempted edits to articles, all of which make it clear they presently view Misplaced Pages a bit like their personal playground where they can build some sort of confused, redundant atlas. They have not responded whatsoever to talk messages, their categories at CfD, or their unsourced additions to live articles being reverted. If they can hear us, it seems they need to be gotten a hold of if they want to be a positive contributor—but it seems likely that they can't hear us. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>]</span> 19:19, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
:''Last topic: ]''
:(NAC) Based on their username, I can reasonably confer that their edits likely pertain to the ]. Just a note, as I know we've historically had issues with Fandom editors crossing into Misplaced Pages. Feel free to remove if this message is innapropriate for ANI. :) ]<sub>]</sub><sup>]</sup> 20:23, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

::Aye. Mostly, they seem young. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>]</span> 20:27, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
] has been doing advertisement for Paris 1 (for example: ), and is doing the same again: The same on the webpage on Collège de droit, which he said he won’t edit again in the last topic, but still removes information and sources this time.
*I've indeffed them for disruption and incompetence.--] (]) 21:52, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

--] (]) 09:39, 1 November 2022 (UTC) **Haha balls. ] (]) 21:53, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

: I am shocked to see that Ransouk is still on this page, even though he never answers me when I try to talk to him. I implore an administrator who has the time to come and look into Ransouk's case as it is a clear case of POV pushing. I am at your disposal on my talk. I feel very bad about the way Ransouk never replies to me and undo all my changes, trying to pass himself off as the victim... I really wish an administrator would intervene, please. ] (]) 21:13, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

::], at a glance, your edits appear excessively promotional (]). I suggest you try to gain ] for your changes on the article talk page. The ] to do so is really on you, and this should be mainly attempted on the article talk page rather than on user talk pages, as the former is more visible to interested editors. If somehow you reach an impasse there, you can then try seeking a ] or even go for a ]. Finally, if there is bias elsewhere, then you are encouraged to fix that page or pages directly, but neither ] nor ] are a viable approach. Thanks and good luck. ] 09:31, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

:::Now, Aigurland is making free personal attacks on talk pages:
::: --] (]) 14:18, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
::::Those are not personal attacks, ]. And now is Nov 2, Nov 1 was the day before. ] 15:40, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
::::: Thank you very much ] for noticing this. You are the first outsider to come between Ransouk and me and you have no idea how much it relieves me to be less alone. ] (]) 17:14, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
:::::About personal attacks:
:::::]: I’m happy to answer anything, but if I have a serious idea to answer. I just have to deal with a user, making obvious promotional edits on one page ( ), making long comments about me in several talk pages at the same time, and how other pages where they try to delete sources are supposed to be promotional. I am short in my texts, because the substance of their comment is very short too. You are an admin, so it is your function to tell them how to use wikipedia properly, but I guess you will agree that it is not mine, nor the place in talk pages. It is precisely why I opened this discussion here. For some admin to interact with them. --] (]) 18:34, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
:::::: ] Ransouk (I'm talking to you here since there will at least be witnesses) why don't you ever respond to my requests on the substance? ] (]) 18:41, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
::::::], let me get it right, you're saying that the comment on my talk page that I just responded to contains a personal attack? That's... interesting. Maybe {{tq|quote}} what you contend is a personal attack rather than simply posting diffs, leaving us to guess...? Also, can you please wrap your bare urls so they don't take up extra space for naught? I keep doing it for you, but it's very easy to do. Anyway, at this point, you two should try to minimize interacting with one another and seek outside input, as suggested above. ] 18:50, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
:::::::]: Not at all, I tried to keep it short because I thought it was obvious. I meant that you noticed that some comments of Aigurland about me were improper, and some people could see that as personal attacks. I was NOT saying at all that you made personal attacks against me. ----] (]) 18:56, 2 November 2022
:::::::], maybe because you keep writing at great length...? Please try to condense better. Brevity is the soul of wit, and so on. ] 18:50, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
::::::], it is everybody's (and nobody's) responsibity to tell people how to use Misplaced Pages properly. We are all, including admins, volunteers. ] (]) 18:57, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
:::::::Ok, thank you. --] (]) 19:02, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
: You are right (I would point out that since Ransouk's last comment on the "College de Droit in France" talk, our relations seem to be more courteous :) ] (]) 18:55, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
::], what is this indent? Who are you replying to? Which comment? ] 19:14, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
{{od}} ], I understand you didn't say that I attacked you. Above, I said {{tq|the '''comment''' on my talk page that I just responded to}} — that ''comment'' was by Aigurland (that I responded to), imlpying that I missed it in my response. If I did somehow miss it, please point it out with a quote. The point is that you keep citing diffs of what you claim are personal attacks "leaving us to guess" what exactly these are. So, next time you make a claim of a personal attack, you'll need to attach a quote of it alongside the diff. The diff by itself is not enough. ] 19:14, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

:I meant what you mention of of how they write to me in your comments. But whatever, at this point, it is not very important. What I meant is that they should do exactly what you recommend, I happened to call that "personal attacks", that’s it. ] (]) 19:19, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
::Ah, I see. Fair enough, but in the future, keep in mind that, on Misplaced Pages, the term ''personal attack'' has well-defined meaning as outlined in its policy page: ]. ] 19:33, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

== Enduring disruptive editing by IP ==



{{IPvandal|2A00:23C5:980:B601:7DB2:A065:A969:71D}}

Previously on AN/I:

Following the end of their one-week block (see above), this IP editor has kept editing in the very same disruptive manner as they used to do before, i.e. changing sourced GDP figures with no explanation whatsoever: (the last one was done in spite of a level 4 warning). I think a longer block is necessary, as they don't appear to have learned anything from the first one. ]] 10:11, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
:Blocked for two weeks this time. '''<span style="font-family: Arial;">] <small>]</small></span>''' 12:13, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

==IP editor continual vandalism==
IP editor ] has had more than 30 warnings for vandalism and disruptive editing, yet vandalised the ] this morning. Can somebody please take a look. '''<span style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px black; font-family:Papyrus">]<sup>]</sup></span>''' 12:24, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
:Back to another 3 year school block. ] (]) 12:34, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

== User:Zhomron ==

*{{userlinks|Zhomron}}
*Not capable of observing ], ] or even ]. Chooses to about my , rather than address the sourceability of facts in articles.
] (]) 23:43, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

:It is interesting to see you try and argue WP:CIVIL when you while attempting to undo your violation of WP:BLANKING ] (]) 23:47, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
::Users blanking their own talk pages is not a violation. See ]. And why did you tell Elizium23 to ? ] (]) 23:53, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
:::Because they have consistently disregarded basic etiquette, ''excessively'' tagged ubiquitous information as lacking or needing citations, and even went as far as ] simply because they also reverted their edits. Case-and-point, as soon as things don't immediately fall into line for them, I'm here on the noticeboard. Likewise, WP:REMOVE provides a clear (and bolded) stipulation of what should ''not'' be removed from a user's talk page. ] (]) 23:57, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
::::Yes, and nothing Elizium23 removed from their own talk page is against WP:REMOVE. They can remove templates put on their page if they like, such as the disruptive one you placed, that's perfectly fine. Can you point out what they violated by removing your templating of their talk page? ] ] 00:07, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
::::Additionally there is zero wrong with tagging non-English translations as requiring citations. ] ] 00:10, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
:::::I have opened ] as related activity to this dispute has crossed my watchlist. ] (]) 00:08, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
::::::CheckUsers cannot link accounts to IPs, per the . It is most likely to be declined, as per one ] discussion. ] (]) 00:11, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
:::::::Yup. However the edit interaction between Zhomron and that IP is blindingly obviously the same person. ] ] 00:13, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
:::::::Correct, but ] indicates that users with accounts must not edit whilst logged out to avoid scrutiny or sanctions. CheckUsers can use behavioral evidence to draw the conclusion that is not permitted by their technical tools, and it would be a blockable offense to do this sort of editing while embroiled in an edit-warring, incivil dispute. ] (]) 00:15, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
::::::::Dang, almost certainly . Looks like a false accusation or ]. ] (]) 00:18, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
:::::::::It also would not be out of reach to identify active sanctions from ] in various places Zhomron has chosen to dispute ]. ] (]) 00:23, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
:I think I can contribute here as an editor familiar with the underlying facts. None of these are "translations", but rather original words or spellings of which the English word exists to function as a direct translation or transliteration. It is genuinely unnecessary and counterproductive to require messy citations in the lede for information available in any Biblical dictionary or edition of the Hebrew Bible, in the same way that every page whose title is an indigenous English word doesn't need to cite a dictionary entry for ''its'' spelling. There are thousands of pages about Biblical names and terms, many of which I have written or edited, and I have never seen a citation which specifically sources the spelling. In cases where the spelling is disputed or multiple spellings exist (and Zhomron and I have ] ] ]), detailed information is always noteworthy enough to feature on the page, with citations, but this is extremely rare and does not apply to any of the pages being discussed.
:At the same time, the etymology section of the Shabbat page is a different story and Elizium23 was correct to tag it. And I can't defend Zhomron's attitude toward other editors, about which I have also warned him in the past. ] (]) 00:55, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
:For what its worth you (both) might benefit from just taking a deep breath, and try to de-escalate your relationship with each other. Neither of you are being civil to each other, You're chucking ] around which does anything BUT deny recognition since you're addressing it directly. You've opened at least 3 SPIs involving Zhomron in about the past month's time, and even though it looks like the latest may be true, I don't see much evidence of a particularly ]. And now you've raised talk of finding ARBCOM sanctions to throw at Zhomron, instead of just doing it. All of this because of a content dispute with 2 diffs with debatably nastygram summaries. Have either of you actually tried discussing this? Talk Page? User Talk? Don't discount the fundamentals of WP conflict resolution. ] (]) 11:52, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
::Yes, I have discussed, yes, I have followed ], and it doesn't get traction with someone who will edit-war and then edit-war some more from an IP and then make ]y edits on my watchlist while logged out to evade scrutiny. I won't be abused and insulted by a condescending editor who can't even grasp ], that is why we're here and not on user talk, and that's why their IP is blocked for a month. ] (]) 20:15, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
:::Found this nugget on en.wiktionary: {{xt|00:45, 28 November 2020 Chuck Entz talk contribs blocked Zhomron talk contribs with an expiration time of infinite (account creation disabled, autoblock disabled, cannot edit own talk page) (Abusing multiple accounts/block evasion)}}
:::@]: nah, I don't AGF, nor do I attempt to reason, with sockpuppets. ] (]) 01:08, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

== ahnentafels ==
{{atop|reason=This is a content and sourcing issue, and cannot be resolved at ANI. Advice has been offered and accepted. Closing, since this should be continued at brianne martindale's talkpage and article talkpages. '''<span style="font-family: Arial;">] <small>]</small></span>''' 03:01, 2 November 2022 (UTC)}}

question my ahnentafels are getting removed by multiple editors i don't know what to do i have tried to speak to the people politely but it hasn't worked

i am new to wiki and wish to bring my knowledge of royalty and nobility to wiki for free since i believe in giving my knowledge for free in accordance to my religious beliefs

here is several examples of my ahnentafels getting removed ] ] while others are getting left alone that were made by other people ] ] that do not have any sources added

i do not know what to do please help me

have a blessed day in the name of Jesus Christ

thanks brianne martindale ] (]) 00:59, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

:Keep your God, He wants me dead. This is a content dispute and the only cure is to talk it out with the people reverting you. —] ] <sup><small>]</small></sup> 01:11, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
::@] and everyone else at wiki
::i was only trying to be polite to everyone with have a blessed day in the name of Jesus Christ
::i have tried to talk with the people reverting me and they are getting rude and nasty with me and are threatening to ban or block me from wiki
::i don't know what to do
::this is getting out of hand and getting uncivil
::please help me i am new to wiki and wish to give my knowledge for free in accordance to my religious beliefs
::have a blessed day in the name of Jesus Christ
::thanks brianne martindale ] (]) 01:31, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
:::This is a content dispute. Discuss on the relevant talk pages, after first finding the sources necessary to support the content you have been adding. And please stop using Misplaced Pages as a platform to impose your off-topic religious beliefs on others. ] (]) 01:34, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
::::@]
::::i do not want to impose my religious beliefs on others
::::i say have a blessed day in the name of Jesus Christ as a polite greeting and not an imposition of my beliefs or to be disrespectful of others
::::if this is a content dispute then the matter is not resolved
::::other editors have threatened me with banning or blocking and have become nasty and rude and i am returning the nasty and rudeness with politeness and requests to be left alone
::::i am in need of help
::::have a blessed day in the name of Jesus Christ
::::thanks brianne martindale ] (]) 01:53, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
:::::If this is a content dispute it '''does not''' belong here. Read ] and stop forum shopping. ― ]]<sub title="Discord Username" style="margin-left:-22q;">Blaze&nbsp;Wolf#6545</sub> 01:57, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
:::::This is a global project, open to contributors of all faiths, and none. If you cannot respect that by ceasing to impose your off-topic personal beliefs on others, you may well find yourself blocked from editing. ] (]) 01:59, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
::::::@]
::::::please reread what i have said about the matter thanks brianne martindale ] (]) 02:06, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
:::::You've been here three whole days. Slow down, and remember that you are not here to share ''your'' knowledge, you should be here to share the research found in sources that have been agreed to be consistently reliable. Your repeated use of "I" and "my" is of concern. You've been advised by experienced editors that some of your sources are not acceptable, or are at least doubtful, which is a common problem with genealogical research. You've also been overlinking to a remarkable degree. This encyclopedia is not about you. You also need to recognize that your implied proselytizing grates on other editors, and that they may not share your particular brand of faith. '''<span style="font-family: Arial;">] <small>]</small></span>''' 02:06, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
::::::@]
::::::i also use the books that i have including lines of succession by louda and maclagan the royal descant of 900 immigrants among others
::::::i am also wanting to write a book on royalty and have it published and have it be the book to end all books and be the last book you would every buy because it would be the informative book ever
::::::i can also back off on linking a little bit
::::::i am doing this not for me but for everyone else
::::::thanks brianne martindale ] (]) 02:15, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
:::::::You are not here to share your knowledge, your book, but to share research, as per Acroterion stated above. Doing so continously will result in a block. ] (]) 02:19, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
::::::::@]
::::::::i am stating my intentions for my future but that is not my intentions for wiki
::::::::my future book has nothing to do with wiki i was just stating what i want to do in the future
::::::::thanks brianne martindale ] (]) 02:33, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
:::::::::Regardless, you are sharing your knowledge for the future. Please refrain from doing so. ] (]) 02:35, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
:@]: You have failed to notify any of the editors who have reverted your edits of this ANI filing, as the red notice both on top of the page and when editing clearly require you to. If you are unable to do this yourself, reply to this with a list of users you believe are involved and I will do so for you. Regards, ]. (] &#124; ]). 02:21, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
::On closer inspection the only editor I can see that would reasonably be involved in this report is Felida97, who has successfully been notified. Regards, ]. (] &#124; ]). 02:29, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
:::@]: I don't think I'm involved in this report at all as I have not reverted any edits related to the ahnentafels issue (there are other editors, who have reverted the user on the mentioned articles or interacted with the user on talk pages, like Kansas Bear or Ealdgyth). But I also believe this to be a content dispute, so it doesn't belong here anyway. ] (]) 02:41, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
::::No doubt, this isn't suitable. Other solutions could include ]. As for the notification, I'm not really sure how to quantify subjects; since you have reverted Brianne's edits, I assumed you may have been hinted at in her saying {{tq|are getting removed by multiple editors}}, and may appreciate the notification. Regards, ]. (] &#124; ]). 02:46, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
:::::@]
:::::i just want peace on wiki again and i just want to help make royalty and nobility articles better for readers especially for readers who live and breathe this stuff
:::::thanks brianne martindale ] (]) 02:52, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
:::::@]: Though that first part of that sentence is {{tq|''my ahnentafels'' are getting removed by multiple editors}} (emphasis added by me) and I have not removed any of "their" ahnentafels. It just seemed weird to me that, out of all people who have reverted them, you find the one person to be involved that hasn't reverted them on this issue. But it doesn't matter, thanks for the notification, and I guess it does say in the ANI notice that one ''may'' be involved, so it's all fine :) ] (]) 02:58, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
::::::It was probably because you were the only one who Brianne specifically reverted your revert, so would show up in her Special:Contributions (well, not actually. She reverted Kansas Bear as well, but I somehow missed that). An unfortunate coincidence, really. I could not find any other reversions in the list. Regards, ]. (] &#124; ]). 02:59, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
::@]
::the list is plenty
::you did find one of them thanks
::here are the others @] @]@]@]@]
::i am new to wiki and i don't want to cause a problem
::i just want to help wiki out with peace and harmony and politeness
::on the other end this person ] was kind enough to welcome me and i want himher thanked
::thanks brianne martindale ] (]) 02:40, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
:::{{re|Briannemartindale}} Thanks for that. By the way, if you haven't seen it, then I've left a message on your talk page recommending the ], given what you seem to be struggling with as a first timer. Regards, ]. (] &#124; ]). 02:43, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
{{abot}} {{abot}}


== Disruptive editing and ongoing vandalism by User:Caabdirisaq1 ==
== Nuwordlife0rder: violates BURDEN, adds FICTREFs, restores OR ==


I have warned @] multiple times in his talk page with no avail. He consistently vandalises articles by adding images unrelated to them such as ] , ] and ] . I have been trying to revert the changes made and explained that they were of orientalist paintings of Arab bedouins. ] (]) 21:28, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
I had removed what was unsourced and FICTREFed from the page ].
*], you may disagree with these, as you say, orientalist depictions, but that doesn't make ]'s edits "vandalism". You also haven't actually discussed the matter with them--you merely placed two standard warnings and threatened to have the editor blocked. You reverted them a few times on ] but you never explained why. I am not going to take administrative action on a content matter where the complainant (you) have done so little to make clear why those edits were problematic. ] (]) 21:57, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
*:] produced the paintings in the late 19th century mainly depicting Arabs and they have nothing to do with the ] and those Somali soldiers which fought for it. They have been doing image vandalism on these articles and they're all related to each other.
*:This image has nothing to do with Ahmed Girri Bin Hussein Al Somali
*:https://commons.wikimedia.org/File:Adolf_Schreyer_Reitende_Araber_mit_Gefolge.jpg
*:I have spoken to him on the article but he had constantly reverted the talk page and prevented a discussion from taking place as evident here. ] (]) 22:13, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
:::These edits adding these images may not rise to the level of vandalism but they seem pretty disruptive to me. ] was a 19th century painter well known for portraying horses and horsemen, and he traveled to to Turkey, Egypt, Syria, and what is now Algeria. He also painted horses and horsemen in a European context. I know nothing about his work other than what the Misplaced Pages article says or the file pages for the various public domain images on Commons say. If the image file says something like "two Arab horsemen" and the painting was created 150 years ago, then adding that image to the biography of someone who lived 500 years ago with zero evidence connecting that specific painting to that specific individual 350 years earlier is disruptive and unacceptable. So, maybe I am missing something and maybe there is a ] for this artist that identifies these paintings as representing figures of the ]. But lacking that sort of solid evidence (which should be reflected in the Commons file pages), then adding these images is a violation of the ] policy, in my opinion. ] (]) 04:09, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
::::Regardless of the content dispute, Replayerr opened a discussion on an ] three times; the first two times Caabdirisaq1 simply deleted Replayerr's talk page post rather than replying to it. That alone seems pretty inappropriate behavior. ] (]) 06:34, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::He hasn't spoken to me once and I've tried to hold discussions explaining it to him but he ignores them and reverts the changes done. I opened this incident so something could be done regarding this. ] (]) 10:00, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
:I've left another comment asking them to come to this discussion and participate in this conversation about images added to articles. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 06:37, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
::He hasn't listened and is still editing those articles with the unrelated images. He has reverted all my changes. ] (]) 09:58, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
:This editor does not seem to want to discuss things. Maybe a partial block from mainspace would help? ] (]) 10:07, 27 December 2024 (UTC)


== Please revoke TPA from ] ==
The user Nuwordlife0rder (some of which are OR), sometimes by sourcing them properly, other times by not sourcing them, most of the time by sourcing them with new FICTREFs. I then , and the user .
{{atop|result=There is no reason for TPA to be removed. I suggest ''talking'' to editors before opening a case on them on ANI. They have had a very bumpy introduction to Misplaced Pages so I left them a message. I doubt they will file an unblock request (and have even more doubt that it would be granted) but let's not try to silence every blocked editor who is frustrated when they find themselves blocked. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 06:25, 27 December 2024 (UTC)}}

* {{vandal|MarkDiBelloBiographer}}
I then attempted to ], but it was to no avail: the user kept the unsourced and FICTREFed data, and said {{tq|done}}. ] (]) 10:26, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
Misuse of talk page after being blocked. Still promotion the same person. ] 03:40, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

: What exactly is the problem? She said that she wants to create a Misplaced Pages page for her friend as a Christmas gift. She got blocked, and now she's complaining that she doesn't understand how Misplaced Pages works. If you don't want to explain how Misplaced Pages works, why not just stop looking at the page? ] (]) 03:52, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
:I had responded accordingly. The sources that "I added" are not ]s as those are legit. The fict links the user is referring to are previous links by other users in the past which I tried to restore but I already removed them as requested since I fully agree and understand this user's point. I responded "done" as I have complied with his request. This user seems to be violating ] and I have no intention to disrupt the page. Everything was done in ] as a Misplaced Pages editor. I have no intention of ] as I believe that Misplaced Pages is ] and everyone are welcome to edit. Thank you. ] (]) 10:43, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
::{{quote|I offered to write about him and did for 3 long days as a gift and you guys disbelieved everything, none of which I put was false! It's all on the web, in papers, or other media, or pictures and on his websites}}{{quote| Anyways Mark and I were both fans of and he thinks it's a valuable resource for people I'm just sorry you're so negative and inaccurate about me and him}}I believe this is not the good try after getting block. ] 03:58, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
::{{tq|The sources that "I added" are not WP:FICTREFs as those are legit}}: I strongly disagree, the user has added numerous FICTREFs, and has kept them.
:::This person clearly appears to be a good faith editor, they just don’t understand notability requirements. Now they’re blocked and being reported? Nobody could take the time to be kind and explain how this place works? Wow. ] (]) 04:49, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
::The user , stating asking for BURDEN to be respected and FICTREFs to be removed was a form of bullying.
::::This ''does'' seem to be, if not a wrong block, one for the wrong reasons - it's certainly not an "Advertising only" account. And absolutely no need for TPA to be revoked, no. - ] <sub>]</sub> 05:02, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
::The user : {{tq|Original research (OR) and Refimprove tags were already added. I humbly believe that a revert is not required. Thanks again}}. Thus, the user clearly assumes breaking the BURDEN rule. ] (]) 11:35, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

== Undiscussed move of "Special member state territories and the European Union", apparent WP:ADVOCACY ==
*{{userlinks|Micga}}

Without any prior discussion, ] moved ] to ]. (Just now, I have moved it again temporarily to ], to at least mitigate the damage.) This user has done extensive edits to this, to ] and to ] that at least appear to be ] for ]. They do not appear to have taken on board the ] from ] and ]. The article as it stood was meaningful in the real world, to change it to drag in the ] countries is unhelpful and just looks like POV-pushing.

I am not at this stage requesting that Micga be subjected to any sanctions, though others may take a different view. This request is only that this move ({{Diff|Special territories of members of the European Economic Area|1119554982|1119553955|diff}} (and my subsequent mitigation move) be reverted to the status quo ante. All edits by Micga dated since 04:32 UTC on 2 November (that are based on their reframed scope) should be reverted pending discussion and consensus for change. --] (]) 12:20, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
:This seems to be a content matter. ], can you elaborate on why you took it to ANI? Your edits to the article on 2 November between 10:41 and 11:05 have been contested, see ]. ] (]) 21:43, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

:Actually, I moved the article to ] only because the title did not match the contents. ] (]) 23:46, 2 November 2022 (UTC) But the massive rollback revert of ] by user 77.188.28.121 is arbitrary, unexplained and simply rude - I intend to undo it. ] (]) 23:50, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
::{{rto|77.188.28.121}}, No, my purpose in raising this at ANI is not about the content{{snd}}that is easily resolved using the ] process, as is already happening at ]. I have taken it to ANI because administrator support is needed to undo a page move. Micga is being ]: the reason that the article title "did not match the contents" is because of their massive undiscussed changes to the article to make that be the case. The request is only to ask that an administrator reinstate the original article title. --] (]) 01:02, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
:::Now, this allegation is totally untrue. There were even more unrelated contents there before my edits (e.g. concerning the sovereign microstates). I have doubts whether you even took the time to analyze the changes.] (]) 01:39, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
::::I have not looked over the specific changes, but "Special territories of states participating in the European integration" is a very clunky phrase. The original title is an actual existing phrase, gave a clear idea of the article topic, and is understandable. It would be helpful if an admin could restore that title, and then if there is a desire to move the article, an RM should be used. ] (]) 01:47, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
:::::Well, then I‘m expecting retraction of the charge against me of being economical with truth. You can’t just throw such unfounded allegations at people and then pretend that nothing happened. especially if it was done immediately after another unfounded charge of ] Thr problem with ] is that they are guided by their impressions and emotions rather than facts. ] (]) 01:53, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
:Adding a comment here due to ]'s consistent non-constructive editing (especially at ]). For several days, the user has been drastically editing content on these articles, typically with zero explanation, removing sourced content without reason, and adding unsourced material and a plethora of ] information. I have had to remove the user's OR additions several times, only to find the user reinstating their unsourced edits almost immediately. At the very least, the user should have sought consensus before proceeding with such a large overhaul of this article, or at the minimum, provide edit summaries for the dozens upon dozens of rapid edits. Generally speaking, the user has engaged in what I believe to be non-constructive editing tactics against Misplaced Pages ethos and norms. As ] has pointed out, the user has ignored several warnings and persistently edited these article's as they see fit. My biggest concern here, is the amount of ] information Micga snuck in at ]. This should not be overlooked by the Admins. Thankfully, the article has since been restored to its last stable version. However, I don't know if Micga fully comprehends these policies. I pointed these concerns out several times (while also linking policies) in my edit summaries- all of which have been ignored with more and more unsourced OR being added. This ] behavior must stop. Regards, ] (]) 02:27, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
:Upon further review, Micga's talk page clearly shows that almost a dozen other editors have left similar warnings regarding the user's disruptive editing. Plus a for disruptive editing. The complete lack of acknowledgment and almost no effort to self-improve this pattern of editing/learn from these multiple warnings is worrisome. ] (]) 04:04, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
::Now, could you please elaborate on this alleged plethora of OR? Apart from two-three sentences in the section „extent” at the very end of the Article, I do not see any. Please provide examples instead of general impression, as the latter is not a valid justifcation and it is rather hard to dispute it. The majority of the edits were all about sorting the chaotic layout of the Article and categorisation of integration arrangement types, along with correcting obvious errors like extending the term eurozone on all countries using euro. As for the previous disputes, the one with ] was for example settled in my favor, but obviously neither you nor ] would bother to check it, would you? It’s pretty clear that you guys feel convinced that you can accuse me of lying and inventing things, without bothering to indicate the lie or the things invented. Pretty humble, honest and insightful of you. ] (]) 10:53, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
:::Micga, you wrote: "''As for the previous disputes, the one with User:Subtropical-man was for example settled in my favor, but obviously neither you nor 𝕁𝕄𝔽 would bother to check it, would you?''" - no, this not settled in your favor. The fact that I have given up further discussion with you has nothing to do with winning your ideas. I just didn't have time to long discussion with you. I started a discussion (in ]) and the discussion showed that another user is also against your changes. Sufficient arguments have been put forward, which you didn't even answer to. Overall, probably not a single user on Misplaced Pages has support your massive changes to the EU topic. As indicated above, your behavior is already very bothersomeand and previous requests on your talk page by other users did not help to change your behavior, this is why I support '''topic ban for anything related to EU for user:Micga'''. ] <span style="color: navy;">(] | <small>en-2</small>)</span> 20:41, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
::::This clearly indicates that you are in deep denial, taking also into account the percentage of your edits which are devoted to various edit wars and other conflicts - which does not surprise me at all, as this kind of attitude is regretfully inherent to this nation of ours.] (]) 03:00, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
:::::Additionally you breaks ], with an ethnic outline. ] <span style="color: navy;">(] | <small>en-2</small>)</span> 03:14, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
::::::In conjunction with your initial post and the personal remarks included there, this reply of yours confirms my assessment pretty well.] (]) 03:30, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
:::::::I am asking the administrator who will close this discussion in the near future to include such user:Micga' behavior which are a personal attacks. This discussion is about <s>dozens</s> hundreds of controversial changes made by the user:Micga do Europan Unon (EU) and related articles, his disruptive behavior at all, no desire to reach a consensus whatsoever ... and the lack of any improvement whatsoever. The problem has lasted for 'last''months''' and the user shows no improvement his behavior ... on the contrary - he argues with anyone who has a different opinion than himself. I have the right to express my opinion here, especially since I was called here twice with the function {ping}, however, in this discussion, it's hard to write own opinion as I am being attacked by the user:Micga. In my opinion, the topic ban for anything related to the EU is the best option because this user has the most problems in this topic. If the user continues to use personal attacks, I will agitate for block his account. ] <span style="color: navy;">(] | <small>en-2</small>)</span> 14:00, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
Again, my request is not for sanctions against ]. It is a request to reinstate the name of the article to "Special member state territories and the European Union", which has been its long standing name and its exclusive content before this week. I did not accuse Micga of lying, but only that their assertion that they "only moved the article ... because the title did not match the contents" omits the highly relevant detail that they had just changed the content of the article so that it no longer did so. It was the truth but not the whole truth. ] is a highly controversial topic and it is best kept in its own firepit. --] (]) 13:15, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
: I do not see the need for admin intervention at the moment. ] might also be cited...Micga did literally a bold move, this can be reverted/moved back and then discussed either on talk or via RM, although ] might be probably a good way to go here, as it will (hopefully) get more eyes on the topic as a whole. ] (]) 14:25, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
::Yes, but an admin is needed to revert the move, because the redirect cannot be deleted automatically. Probably could have been handled at ] rather than ANI, though. ] (]) 14:31, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
:::Yes...I was kind of brainstorming with myself, the link to ] being the final result :). ] (]) 14:54, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
::::Probably my error in raising this at ANI, as it is first time in many years of editing that I have felt that I needed to so for any reason, because I consider it the last resort. Cry wolf etc. I believed that Misplaced Pages:Requested moves/Controversial is what should have been used in the first instance since it was the first move that was controversial{{snd}}but it wasn't, which is why we are here. Is a move back to the original, long-standing and accurate name somehow controversial? Conversely, I believed that Misplaced Pages:Requested moves/Technical requests is designed to implement a consensus decision at an article talk page, where there is some trivial obstruction to be cleared up first. I would certainly have done a BRD reversion but for the fact of the midstream move. Is this really the first time a case like this has arisen?
::::I am content for this ANI discussion to be closed if there is administrator consensus on a more appropriate place to take it for resolution. --] (]) 16:17, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
:Just for the record; that implies that I broadened the scope of the contents and then adapted the title accordingly. In fact, it was quite the opposite. The discrepancy between the title and the contents was most pronounced in the original form of the article before my edits. Thus, in order to reconcile them, I removed contents entirely unrelated to the subject (e.g. sovereign microstates) instead of adding any, and then tried to adapt the title to this NARROWED scope. Therefore, saying that I changed the content of the article so that it no longer matched the title, is an obvious manipulation that has nothing to do with the truth, as the mismatch was originally even greater. I assume, though, lack of insight secondary to laziness as the main cause, rather than outright malevolence. As for the move to the original title, I will not contest it, though I insist on undoing the unjustified rollback of my edits, as they went in the direction of making the contents match more closely also the original title rather than deviating from it, contrary to ]′s allegations above. ] (]) 01:16, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
*Contrary to appearances, but too bold edits that completely change key Misplaced Pages articles (hundreds changes in short time in article of the European Union), renaming and change of meaning important articles (like example above), removing content from one and moving to another are very controversial andvery debatable. Controversial changes by user: Micga are made without consensus and the praceder has been going on for months, this is very burdensome. As already mentioned by several users, user behavior resembles the appropriation of articles on this topic (])?. The user, not paying attention to the opinions of others, changes freely the articles related to the EU, according to his own opinion only. Despite the fact that the procedure has been going on for months, the user has not changed his behavior and it looks like he will not change because he makes such controversial changes even during the lifetime of ANI, for example . It follows that the user is completely unreformable and will continue to create problems in this topic. The most appropriate sanction to stop creating dozens of controversial changes in the future made by user Micga is '''topic ban for anything related to European Union'''. ] <span style="color: navy;">(] | <small>en-2</small>)</span> 14:45, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

== Ongoing self-promotion on Yakuza franchise pages ==


For the last four years, the '']'' franchise article and the various ''Yakuza'' video game articles have dealt with ongoing attempts at self-promotional vandalism by a user looking to promote . There have been occasionally been other articles affected too, such as ] and ], but the Yakuza articles are the main targets. According to ], they have gone through at least 20 different socks in their attempts to do so, and quite frankly, I'm getting very tired of it. Between the continued bad-faith editing and ], it's irritating to have to deal with this time and time again, especially when it immediately resumes the moment their block is up (if not before, under a new IP) or protection expires. Therefore, I'd like to request indefinite pending changes protection on all ''Yakuza'' series articles, if not indefinite semi-protection. The fact this has been going on for ''four years'' warrants at least some level of preventative measures, and it would certainly make things a lot easier on those of us who have been doing our best to curtail his activity up to this point. -- ] (]) 13:54, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
:I think the easiest solution, that doesn't involve protecting articles, is simply to blacklist their YouTube channel URL. Seems like the simplest action for the greatest outcome. Or would that not work with the way YouTube URLs work as they're video not channel URLs? ] ] 13:56, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
::We can blacklist the channel landing page, but that doesn't really help because there's no way to blacklist the videos from a particular channel. ] (]) 14:01, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
::You can also blacklist individual videos. That would be tedious, but if the problem is severe enough, at some point it takes a lot more time to create a new video than to block one. &mdash; <samp>] <sup style="font-size:80%;">]</sup></samp> \\ 14:04, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
:::Yeah, each video would have to be blacklisted individually, which is doable, but would probably be a slow process. That said, they do use links to specific website articles as citations to justify the videos' inclusion ( and ), so blacklisting those specific articles might be helpful. -- ] (]) 14:06, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
:::I gathered up a list of URLs that might need to be blocked, in addition to the aforementioned news articles. While blocking all 50-ish tour videos isn't really viable, here are the three videos that start each tour "series", which have been linked before ( ). All the playlists on their channel include "list=PL0HKt-kbL9s" as part of the URL, so blocking that string would theoretically prevent any of their playlists from being linked to. And unrelated to the Yakuza stuff, these three videos ( ) are the only other ones he's attempted to add to any pages. -- ] (]) 14:21, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
:I wonder if it's possible to have a filter that prevents a non-autocomfirmed account from adding YouTube links. Would save so many headaches across the project, not just in this case. ] ] 16:21, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
::I like that idea. A more general approach (to be argued out at the Village Pump for years before actually happening) would be to have something like that tied into the ] list. ] (]) 07:01, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

== NotOrrio is NOTHERE ==

] has spent much of the past two weeks removing AfD templates from articles, attacking other editors, refactoring other editors' comments, and most recently on their userpage (if you're wondering, the "nerds" in question are myself and ]).

Some highlights include responding to an AfD notice with "shut up" , recreating an article that was redirected at AfD (], recreated as ]) after falsely claiming to accept the results of the discussion , edit warring over said recreated article , removing AfD templates from their own articles , being given a temp block for persistent disruption of AfD , edit warring post-block (note the very creative modification of my username to "Nerdsandotherthings", more sad than anything else), accusing others of bad faith , more refactoring of other editors' comments , and more attempts to circumvent AfD (including by linking a specific diff in a mainspace article of one of the bus routes before it was redirected) . With the latest userpage edits today, it's abundantly clear this user is not here to build an encyclopedia. ] (]) 14:09, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

:I won't say all of this isn't unjustified but some of it is unjustified
:# Why are you looking at my user page in the first place let alone old revisons likely a case of cyber stalking
:# The removing afd notices is already done and was addressed by an admin doesn't need to be readressed
:# There was no edit war Dan Ardnt kept on adding unneeded tags even though it was clearly adressed and resolve
:# The recreated article you mentioned in 103 was clearly reverted as it was changed to a revert without notice
:# You can't complain I am assuming bad faith while also saying "its abundantly clear this user is not here to build an encyclopedia"
:] (]) 00:11, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
::I also want to point out 1 more thing
::6. The time it was stated i refracted another users comments when all i did was delete my own comment ] (]) 00:15, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
::], and your actions have demonstrated you are not acting in good faith. Much of the conduct here happened after your block, showing it was insufficient to address the issues with your behavior. "I was right" doesn't change that you were involved in an edit war (and you were wrong on the merits). That you accuse me of "cyber stalking" by looking at your publicly viewable userpage (I was actually checking your contribs to see if you had continued doing what you'd been warned multiple times against, hoping I'd see no issues and we could move on) shows a level of battleground behavior that exemplifies why I am right in calling you NOTHERE. ] (]) 00:20, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

*I don't think you've shown that the editor is ]. Au contraire, I think your evidence shows they ''are'' here to build an encyclopaedia. AFAICS your evidence shows that NotOrrio doesn't respond too well to their contributions being nominated for deletion or tagged with maintenance tags. It's something they need to work on, and probably they need to accept that if consensus is against an article existing then that has to be honoured as frustrating as it may be. But this is an entirely different problem to being NOTHERE, and this particular problem is pretty common to see (unsurprisingly I suppose, a lot of people don't take too kindly to their contributions being binned). For NotOrrio: you may wish to focus your efforts on things that will pass ]? Makes them less likely to be subject to deletion discussions. ] (]) 00:30, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

* I agree with ProcrastinatingReader's sentiments about NOTHERE. It's clear that NotOrrio has a passion for buses and wants to contribute to Misplaced Pages. Writing an article from scratch is one of the hardest things to do for a new editor on Misplaced Pages. One has to know the ]. One needs to understand what are ], what constitutes ], and what type of sources contribute to notability. The provided at ] did NotOrrio no favours. It probably gave the impression that the sources NotOrrio provided were pretty good for notability when in fact they were mostly not. NotOrrio needs to take the AFDs for the three bus routes as a learning experience on notability and reliable sourcing, and also remember to ]. I don't see any need for administrative action. -- ] (]) 13:53, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
*In my opinion, the worst NotOrrio has done, besides disrespecting and insulting other editors, is edit disruptively in response to their articles being nominated for deletion. I think NOTHERE would entail more deliberate and intentional attempts to disrupt Misplaced Pages. As more experienced editors, we know (or should know) to stay cool in debates, not letting our emotions cloud our judgement; I suggest NotOrrio familiarize themselves with that philosophy so they can avoid emotionally driven disruption in the future. ] (] • ]) 00:09, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

== Crosswiki and sockpuppets abuser ==
{{atop|1=Both accounts are now globally locked by a steward. Nothing more to do here. ] (]) 20:56, 2 November 2022 (UTC) }}

{{Useracc|Mohammedarrhioui}} and {{Useracc|Hafsaelfakir}} are sockpuppets, crosswiki abusers, both dedicated to (self-)promote an unsignificant artist "Mohammed_Arrhioui" (here too: , ).

See .

Both are blocked indefinitely on Commons and frwiki (more details on the RCU above).

Regards. ] (]) 18:48, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

:A to lock the pair was made by {{noping|Elcobbola}} on meta. Since they aren't actively disrupting here, I think it's fine to wait for the stewards to lock them. ]<sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub> 18:54, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
::I ran CU here and have {{confirmed}} {{Useracc|Mohammedarrhioui}} and {{Useracc|Hafsaelfakir}} to each other. ] (]) 19:18, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
{{abot}} {{abot}}


== User:KairosJames ==
== Hide this racist redirect ==

Hide this racist redirect saying Gypsy scum

https://rmy.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Romane_manusha&oldid=15796 ] (]) 10:29, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
:This is the English language version of Misplaced Pages. You are talking about the Vlax Romani version. That's a different project. Please contact them directly, there's nothing we here at en.wiki can do. --] (]) 10:31, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
::In addition, as a last resort, if no one is active at that Misplaced Pages at all, you can contact ] to suppress the redirect. Regards, ]. (] &#124; ]). 10:35, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
:You have the wrong Misplaced Pages. This is the English Misplaced Pages, and we have no jurisdiction over a 14 year old edit on the Vlax Romani Misplaced Pages, which appears to be moribund in any event. ] 10:34, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

== Hide racist insulting edit ==
{{Archive top
|result=Log entry deleted, perpetrator long time ago, nothing more to do here. ]rado (]✙]) 18:37, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
|status=Dealt with}}
Hide this racist edit saying {{redacted|Noted edit summary of 'Go back to Mexico, wetbacks'}}:

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Special:Log&page=Mexicans ] (]) 10:34, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
:They are talking about . ]rado (]✙]) 11:23, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
::{{done}}. --]] 12:45, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
:::Also in future when you are trying to get a racist comment hidden and removed from the archives, don't repeat it as it is defeating the point. ] ] 13:13, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
::::Redacted it here...just do a link-out next time, IP. <span style="font-family: Roboto;">''']''' <span style="color:#00008B">•</span> <small>''(])''</small></span> 17:34, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
{{Archive bottom}}

== Editor whose only purpose here seems to be to prove that Jews established the African slave trade ==

To quote them, "i am going to add all the information about the exiled Jews moving to Africa, starting settlements, marrying the African women and then started selling the slaves to Euros.
This is how the slave trade started (all sources agree in all countries and languages)". There's a discussion at ] about their sources. I thought hard before brining this here but finally decided that this editor needs eyes. ] ] 16:27, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

:Someone with more expertise than me should check ] for accuracy. The user edited a lot there. —&nbsp;]&nbsp;] 16:38, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
:They have a single source which they appear to be misrepresenting, they are here for one purpose, they are big into ], they are not assuming good faith (accusing anyone who disagrees with them of censorship, rather than showing any inclination of working with others). I say punt 'em. --] (]) 16:38, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
::That's . One of our more obvious cases. ] (]) 16:44, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
:::Well that was fast. {{re|Orangemike}}, thanks. ] ] 16:51, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
::::Thanks folks. ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 19:02, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
:::::{](non-admin passerby) I am going to delete the statement that Portuguese Jews and forced converts *often* traded in slaves in Africa. I am sure examples of this existed -- and in fact recall one slaver in Brazil that was probably a converso, but yes, it does seem like the editor had some sort of confirmation-bias fixation at work. Yes, there was an exodus of Jews from Spain and Portugal and yes Portugal had colonies in West Africa with a flourishing slave trade, but those two truths as far as I know just barely overlap. I sometimes work with Portuguese and have done some relatively extensive work with (French-speaking) West Africa, as well as a little on the slave trade to Brazil. I do not describe myself as an expert in these topics, but I am pretty certain that most of the slave-capturing was carried out by Africans, and I know that the British and the French also bought these slaves, and they generally wound up on plantations, not in the homes of the Portuguese gentry, so that statement is a red flag also.
:::::It would be best if someone who reads Portuguese really really well reviewed the source, but I agree that it is probably misrepresented, and would urge that this person also check the article. I will delete the egregious stuff that I can identify but could well miss some nuance, and apparently it's a hot-button topic for some ] (]) 19:05, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
:::: My opinion is that the editor in question, ], is a semiliterate bigot operating with a blatant agenda and no trace of ] and needs to be treated accordingly. ] (]) 03:09, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
*Boomerang this to the complainer. Policy-wise, there is nothing wrong about stating the Jews might have initiated the Atlantic slave trade. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 14:26, 4 November 2022 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
*:If your understanding of Misplaced Pages’s policies is this uninformed, you should not be involving yourself in Noticeboard discussions. Your editing history appears to be tendentious at best. This proposal would suggest that you are ]. ] (]) 14:40, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
*:Given that Madame Necker has volunteered here, it may be time to consider that user's history and take this opportunity to consider sanctions on them.]] 14:58, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

== Billyball998 is sealioning ==



I think that {{User|Billyball998}} is using ] at ]. They are a case of ] and ]. They are pushing a ] interpretation of ] against the ] (the consensus claim is verified by no less than four citations). ] (]) 19:09, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

:] is raising a legitimate point ]'s approach to excluding the description of the views of religious scholars has been problematic across a number of different articles. Interaction with him tends towards bludgeoning and often involve incivility. The only reason one could disagree with the "scholarly consensus" is because one is either "severally misinformed or a religious bigot".
:It does look like ] is a SPA, which is bad. Someone with tools should probably look at it to see whether it is a sock puppet and take appropriate action. However, the 1AM issue is a red herring. Tgeorgescu drives contributors with different views away from these articles and then claims that any new ones who show up are 1AM. ] (]) 19:27, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

::{{Cite book
| last1 = Ryken
| first1 = Leland
| last2 = Longman
| first2 = Tremper
| title = The Complete Literary Guide to the Bible
| year = 2010
| publisher = Zondervan
| url = https://books.google.com/books?id=A2GCDsFC3XMC
| isbn = 9780310877424
| quote= The consensus of modern biblical scholarship is that the book was composed in the second century B.C., that it is a pseudonymous work, and that it is indeed an example of prophecy after the fact.
}} N.B.: Ryken and Longman have an axe to grind against this mainstream academic consensus, nevertheless they report it for what it is.

::And... I did not revert {{U|Billyball998}}. Two other established editors did that.

::As I stated at ], I am not against citing the Medieval Rabbi ]. I just oppose citing him as being on a par with modern mainstream historical research.

::They may cite Rashi using ], but they should leave the mainstream academic view undisturbed. My verbatim statement was:

::{{talk quote|I am not principally opposed to citing ], but there should be no implication that his dating is on a par with the modern, mainstream academic dating. ] is not an excuse for maiming mainstream historical information from the article.|tgeorgescu}}

::{{talk quote|The Bible is the voice of God, not the voice of scientists. If we want the voice of scientists, we ask the scientists. Most of them do advocate the ], ], and ] as the most visible means of how the world came to be. Whether or not this was God's doing is up to the reader to decide. If the scientists are mistaken, this has to be shown to them on their own grounds, which anti-evolution folks are not really doing, because they are not reading up on the same literature, they are not using the same standards and experiments, and they are not speaking in the same circles nor getting published in the same journals. If it does not walk like a duck, does not talk like a duck, and avoids ducks like the plague, there is little reason to assume its a duck. Or scientist, in this case. I'm not saying the anti-evolution folks are wrong, I'm just saying that they are not mainstream scientists. This is why they're not consulted for the voice of scientists. Now, they can be consulted for what they think if their views are notable.|Ian.thomson}}

::Same applies to those "religious scholars": they are often not modern mainstream historians, so they should not be consulted for the voice of modern mainstream historians. ] (]) 20:02, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
:::I'm going to try to avoid the content dispute per se here, including the problems with academic consensus as a concept.
:::You've now replied five times in 30 minutes to this comment, which is part of why I mention bludgeoning. Twice I've tried to reply and had my comment edit conflicted out.
:::You say that you're not opposed to including other views, but you don't seem to work towards a mutually agreeable version, or edit the page in a compromise way to include them as historical or minority while restoring information about modern academic consensus. This seems to be its own kind of sea lioning, where you claim that you want to include those views, but oppose their inclusion in practice. ] (]) 20:08, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

::::{{re|Jahaza}} Can you mention examples from the past wherein I have opposed including "religious scholars" using ]? I certainly did oppose citing them in the voice of Misplaced Pages, or as being on a par with modern historians, but I don't remember that I would have ] "religious scholars" ''per se''. ] (]) 20:12, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

::::One hour later: my understanding of ] is that talk page posts can be edited ''as long as they have not been replied to''. Is my understanding wrong?

::::And I would gladly be considered "the bulldog of the academic consensus", although more often than not I am the canary in the coalmine. ] (]) 21:16, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
:::::{{!xt|Let me spell out your choice: abide by WP:RS/AC or be gone from Misplaced Pages. There is no need to beat around the bush, the end result is the same: you will be blocked and banned if you don't abide by it. We don't need fundamentalist claptrap masquerading as WP:SCHOLARSHIP. Either you kowtow to WP:CHOPSY, or Misplaced Pages is not the proper place for you. ]}}
:::::*I think that this sort of discourse can stand on its own to show the chilling effect and the ] bias that has been bludgeoned into articles on Sacred Scripture throughout enwiki. This topic area has a third rail and if its ] rejects anything that isn't CHOPSY then I consider it to be intellectually bankrupt and not worth my editing time or effort. I really do avoid anything related to Scripture because of this pervasive attitude and ] of articles across the broad topic area. I can testify that it has a chilling effect against any actual Christian scholarly views being represented.
:::::] (]) 21:48, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

::::::{{talk quote|No. It's a historical question. And by "theological points of view", you're not referring to the '''mainstream theological position''' but what is essentially a fringe theory held by fundamentalist theologians. The purpose of theological study of the bible is hermeneutical - it's about interpretation, and most respected theologians accept that Genesis was written somewhere between the reign of King David (c. 1000 BCE) and the exile period (560 BCE). ] (]) 14:11, 27 May 2010 (UTC)}}

::::::{{talk quote|Ask anyone who edits in this area: scholars following a non-mainstream, fundamentalist view are regularly removed from Misplaced Pages. --] (]) 00:53, 17 January 2020 (UTC)}}

::::::{{blockquote|1={{tq|You linked to the article on the ], but did you read it?}} Yes, have you? Perhaps I should have linked to a more appropriate article, such as ] which more accurately portrays what Bdub is claiming to be wrong. You can't assume that because an editors is capable of making points that they are correct: Bdub's assertion is that the consensus of modern historians is wrong and ancient sources are right, which puts his position in many of the same categories as ], ], ], ] and the belief in ]. No matter hos sophisticated their argument: Bdub has an extraordinarily high standard for evidence to clear, and ]. <span class="texhtml" style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;">] ]</span> 03:20, 3 July 2018 (UTC)</blockquote>}}

::::::{{talk quote|Awery, just a bit of housekeeping. When you post new comments to this thread, the newest comments need to be put at the bottom of the thread. That's the only way others can easily keep track of how the conversation has flowed. The ''Harvard Theological Review'' probably is a prestigious forum. On the other hand, the paper on Daniel that you want us to use was not published by the Harvard Theological Review. It was published by JISCA, an outlet for advocating conservative religious views. This fits with the general trend we've already observed here -- the folks saying that Daniel was written in the sixth century don't publish in mainstream outlets, generally speaking. It's entirely possible that MacGregor has published all sorts of stuff in reliable outlets. JISCA, however, isn't what most editors here would treat as a ] outlet. When a journal is dedicated to a particular religious view, that matters. Just as, for example, Misplaced Pages does not make use of articles published in ''Journal of Creation'' when dealing with the subject of creationism. The question I'd like to see answered is, have any defenses of a sixth-century date been published in mainstream academic outlets. And if they have been, are they the work of a tiny fringe group of scholars, or do they represent a significant number of scholars. So far, it looks as is the 2d-century date for Daniel assuming its present form is the scholarly consensus, although of course there are hold-outs in the religious world, just as there are hold-outs on creationism. Because of ], Misplaced Pages generally doesn't make much use of those who hold out against academic consensus. I don't want to speak for Tgeorgescu here, but I don't think he's saying that Christian scholars are automatically disqualified due to their personal faith. Indeed, almost all biblical scholars that Misplaced Pages cites are either Christian or Jewish. There's only a handful of non-Christian, non-Jewish biblical scholars out there. We don't sideline the views of ''Christian'' scholars on Misplaced Pages, it's that we sideline the views of ] scholars, those whose views have been overwhelmingly rejected by the academic mainstream. ] (]) 21:14, 31 December 2018 (UTC)}}

::::::Attempting to picture ] as an Anti-Christian cabal is hilarious. Most Bible professors from CHOPSY are either Christian or Jewish, but not of the fundamentalist sort. Such accusation is not far from the idea that liberal Christians are not Christians at all, or from the idea that Catholics aren't Christians. You could equally well claim that the ] is the ].

::::::Someone has to tell the newbies as it is: what's wrong with kowtowing to the academic consensus? Aren't we all expected to do that? ] (]) 00:52, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
:::::::I would like to add that conservative/traditional (so called fundamentalist) religious positions are not ipso facto sub-scholarly/anti-chopsy, the big 6 regularly publish conservative/traditional religious positions. Chopsy is about adhering to scholarly standards, not a rejection of religious views. I of course do not advocate for citing as evidence poorly sourced or other sub-scholarship, but published works that, for example do not implictly disqaulify the possibilty of prophecy, are not sub-scholarly, and are often published by the big 6. For example . Even Collins does not inherently reject prophecy, he makes claims as to why he doesn't believe it to be prophecy (J.J. Collins, ''Commentary on the Book of Daniel, with an essay, “The Influence of Daniel on the New Testament,” by A. Yarbro Collins (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 1993)) p. 26.'' I will post this on ] ] also. ] (]) 01:29, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
::::::::The historical method (aka ] to many) rejects genuine prophecies as attestable historical facts. ] (]) 01:32, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
:::::::::That is not the ].. and it is not the criteria of chopsy as evidenced by the fact that chopsy do publish works that leave prophecy as a potential, such as the porter young work. Do you have a source that wikipedia abides by ]? I know for a fact chopsy doesn't. ] (]) 01:42, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
::::::::::That applies to the World War 2? I would love to publish an article how elves and fairies influenced the battles of WW2. Or does it apply only to the Bible? Then I would love to publish an article that leprechauns have dictated the Book of Daniel. ] (]) 01:47, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
:::::::::::wp:Chopsy still applies... i doubt chopsy would consider your article, because of poor scholarship and citations, not inherently because of your beliefs, unless you could apply proper scholarship to your claims. ] (]) 02:07, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
::::::::::::{{blockquote|Answer from Dr. Ehrman: I think the theological modes of knowledge are perfectly acceptable and legitimate as theological modes of knowledge. But I think theological claims have to be evaluated on a theological basis. For example, you know the idea that these four facts that Bill keeps referring to showed that God raised Jesus from the dead. You could come up with a different theological view of it. Suppose, for example, to explain those four facts that the God Zulu sent Jesus into the 12th dimension, and in that 12th dimension he was periodically released for return to Earth for a brief respite from his eternal tormentors. But he can't tell his followers about this because Zulu told him that if he does, he'll increase his eternal agonies. So that's another theological explanation for what happened. It would explain the empty tomb, it would explain Jesus appearances.{{pb}}Is it as likely as God raised Jesus from the dead and made him sit at his right hand; that the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob has interceded in history and vindicated his name by raising his Messiah? Well, you might think no, that in fact the first explanation of the God Zulu is crazy. Well, yeah, O.K., it's crazy; but it's theologically crazy. It's not historically crazy. It's no less likely as an explanation for what happened than the explanation that the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob raised Jesus from the dead because they're both theological explanations; they're not historical explanations. So within the realm of theology, I certainly think that theology is a legitimate mode of knowledge. But the criteria for evaluating theological knowledge are theological; they are not historical.}}
::::::::::::{{blockquote|“The historian has no access to “supernatural forces” but only to the public record, that is, to events that can be observed and interpreted by any reasonable person, of whatever religious persuasion. If a “miracle” requires a belief in the supernatural realm, and historians by the very nature of their craft can speak only about events of the natural world, events that are accessible to observers of every kind, how can they ever certify that an event outside the natural order-that is, a miracle- occurred? – Bart Ehrman – Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium (p. 193)}}
::::::::::::{{blockquote|“Since historians can only establish what probably did happen in the past, and the chances of a miracle happening, by definition, are infinitesimally remote, they can never demonstrate that a miracle probably happened. This is not a problem for only one kind of historians, it is a problem for all historians of every stripe. Even if there are otherwise good sources for a miraculous event, the very nature of the historical discipline prevents the historian from arguing for its probability.” – Bart Ehrman – Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium (p. 196)}}
::::::::::::Quoted by ] (]) 02:23, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Given that I am involved here, I thought I should chime in at least briefly. I see a clear consensus against Billyball998's proposals, and agree that they have been a bit strident on the talk page, but I don't think they have been truly disruptive. I have great respect for tgeorgescu, and agree with him substantively almost all the time, but he tends to be a lot more proactive than I am. I am content to simply keep saying "no" to Billyball998 unless and until they provide us something more compelling than the argument to date. Cheers, all, and Happy Friday. ] (]) 15:13, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

=== Topic ban ===

See {{diff2|1119899380}}? They're hopeless. They're not even good for rough ashlar. They lack any ]. I propose giving them a topic ban for lacking ]. Hint: there are now 5 (five) ] which all verify the ] requirements. Some people never learn. ] (]) 01:10, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

* '''Support''' as proposer. ] (]) 01:03, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
* What is the scope of the proposal, so we don't have to guess after looking through? Is it specific to the ], or will a broader topic ban be needed? –] (]]) 01:27, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
**Scope is anything in the intersection between mainstream history and religion. ] (]) 01:28, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
*'''Opppose'''. Far too soon for that. As mentioned above, there are also problems with the way tgeorgescu carries on discussions (I still haven't got used to the way he uses quotes) so I would not use any interactions with him as evidence against another editor. As for the content, while there may be an academic consensus on the dating, that is in itself not a reason to put it in WP voice, and we have no policy that requires us to do so. (], cited above, is tgeorgescu's own essay.) ]] (]) 15:44, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

:* '''Oppose''' i think its a reasonable proposal, even if you disagree with it, i am not pov pushing or an SPA. also obviously the spurious SPA ban on my account was lifted fyi
:] (]) 15:59, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

== Concern about behaviour during an ongoing RfC at ] ==

The talk page of ] has been turned into a mess by ] and] during a delicate RfC. The diffs:
* At 23:44, 28 October 2022, Jargo Nautilus (JN) made a totally unprovoked and incomprehensible personal attack on ], an editor who had not even posted anything in that RfC: {{tq|I caught him blatantly lying … he was gaslighting me and other editors on purpose}}.
* At 00:01, 29 October 2022 JN stood on a ]: {{tq|If it comes to the point that Misplaced Pages actually ends up endorsing some of Russia's criminal actions, then I will boycott this website}}, {{TQ|Russia has brought its downfall upon itself by electing the criminal Vladimir Putin}}, {{tq|Russia ... a lawless wasteland of bandits}} while also being unnecessarily rude to me:{{tq| Gitz's logic regarding sourcing is a bit nonsensical}}.
* I noticed but didn't particularly mind JN's soapboxing and rudeness. However, three days later I noticed the personal attack on Seryo93 and I thought it was unacceptable. I replied to it and I also collapsed the off-topic and soapboxing remarks. I contacted JN on their talk page to address these issues. JN denied any wrongdoing and deleted the whole thread because{{tq| This is ultimately a waste of time, so I am wiping it clean}}. Waste of time notwithstanding, JN stared a long conversation on my talk page (]).
* Immediately before starting that conversation, JN removed from the article talk page both their personal attack on Seryo93 and my reply to it. JN also removed the collapsible box I had applied to their remarks, and heavily edited their remarks or removed them altogether from the article talk page. Note that these comments had been posted 3 days and half earlier and I had already reacted to them by applying the collapsible box.
* I reverted JN’s removal of both their personal attack on Seryo93 and my reply to it, and I explained {{tq|You shouldn't delete comments! And collapsing off topic comments is fine. Have you ever read WP:TALK?}}.
* JN made a partial revert of my revert: they deleted their personal attack on Seryo93 and left my reply to it in a collapsible box with the title "off-topic."
* On my talk page] commented {{tq|Jargo Nautilus Please do not edit other people's talk page contents. Please do not change your own talk page comments after they have been responded to}}. While they were probably meaning "article talk page" rather than user talk pages, the message was clear.
* Encouraged by this, I restored the status quo ante - both JN's personal attack and my reply to it. I also restored JN’s soapboxing comments in their original drafting. However, I didn't restore my collapsible box on them. So this was now the talk page as it used to be before my intervention and before JN edited and removed both their old comments and mine.
* However, Cambial Yellowing (CY) restored JN's edited version of their own comments and explained {{TQ|restoring unreplied comments to version by the editor who wrote them}}. CY also left a warning on my talk page ({{tq|vandalism}}) and commented on the article talk page that {{tq|It's generally acceptable for an editor to amend their own comments to which there has not yet been a reply. So your editing of another editor's comments is not acceptable}}.
* I believe that JN should not have edited and removed their comments because it had already been three days (not a "short while" per ]) since they had posted them, and because I had already reacted to their comments by putting them in a collapsible box. CY doesn’t agree and we had a discussion on this ], where CY speaks about my {{TQ|inappropriate refactoring}} and {{TQ|pointless, reaching wikilawyering to try to excuse failing to observe conduct policy}}. CY was trying to justify JN's disregard for ] by muddying the waters and making it look like I was the one who misbehaved.
* CY has been both uncivil and tendentious in that talk page since the beginning of the RfC. They had tried to modify the opening sentence without consensus in a way that strongly affected the ongoing RfC and had engaged in edit warring on a related issue. Once I had expressed and argued for a view different from theirs in the RfC, they replied that {{TQ|If you're not keen on that policy this may not be the website for you}} provoking the reaction of a fellow editor ], {{tq|it comes across as rude and patronising}}.
* Apart from restoring JN's edited comments and reproaching me for not respecting talk page guidelines, CY provided JN with "good advice" on their talk page. CY encouraged JN to edit their comments yet again because {{TQ|your edit summary suggests you edited them at the behest of another editor}}. Worse still, CY suggested to JN that they were justified in calling a fellow editor a liar because of ]: {{tq|you may find ] - part of ] - of interest (note point 2(d))}}. Obviously CY was wrong: even if Seryo93 had lied in the past (which none of us have reason to believe) it would be entirely inappropriate to call them a liar in an RfC where they have never posted.
* I think that this is just battleground mentality, disregard for talk guidelines and lack of civility on CY's part. I contacted CY on their talk page and they reverted because {{tq|Not of interest}}. So here we are.
* Final note. I'm not a Putin supporter, but I find JN's view that {{tq|Putin supporters should be permanently prohibited from editing Misplaced Pages}} simply appalling. Misplaced Pages does not discriminate editors on the basis of political views, as I tried to explain to them in this conversation on my talk page ]. IMHO these two editors should be prevented from editing in the EE area.] (]) (]) 21:51, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

=== Statement Jargo Nautilus ===
Firstly, I have not replied to the RfC in days. Secondly, I am not in with ]. I have had no direct contact with that user (except very recently at my talk page). Thirdly, I am very busy at the moment and probably can't reply to this thread for the next three weeks. Fourthly, I would hardly describe your own behaviour as appropriate, including the fact that this dispute was started by you when you collapsed my comments. And also, for over a day I believe, I didn't actually respond to you. You spent a considerable length of time arguing with Cambial Yellowing in my absence, and that isn't my fault because I didn't ask him to argue with you on my behalf. So, even though you may view Cambial Yellowing's actions as an escalation on my part, they actually had nothing to do with me. ] (]) 22:04, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Gitz, your logic yet again does not track. You originally collapsed my comments on the charge of being "off topic" and "soapbox" (charges which haven't been verified by a third party, I will add), so I the parts that I thought might have caused my comments to be flagged, since I was under the impression that you wanted me to remove the offending parts. However, remarkably, after I did this, I was only met with more outrage from you. Apparently, you actually wanted me to keep the information there, perhaps in order to make me . I'm not sure how it makes sense that you are angry at me for simultaneously "writing inappropriate things" and then subsequently deleting those things after I was told that they might cause offence. ] (]) 02:26, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

The first edit (deleting my comments) was my original attempt at conflict resolution. Gitz has highlighted this as a "crime" or an "escalation" for unknown reasons. Clearly, with that edit, I was attempting to improve the situation, not to worsen it. I deleted the parts that I thought might be considered "soap-boxy". My comments hadn't been replied to yet, so I figured it was okay to delete them. ] (]) 03:23, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Note: I have not commented in the "Republics of Russia" article ever since I deleted some of my comments on November 1 (it's now November 4). Ever since then, I have only been interacting with Gitz at his user talk page. As I've said, my time is limited at the moment. | Update: I have on the talk page again after three days of absence, on November 4. ] (]) 03:36, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

=== Other comments ===
This extremely verbose comment from Gitz6666, which I have skimmed but not read, is I assume occasioned by reminders to both Jargo Nautilus and to Gitz6666 of the importance of observing ], and especially so during a contentious RFC. The template used was ]. Both editors edited each other's comments. Gitz6666 first hid Jargo's rather prolix series of comments, citing OFFTOPIC but neglecting to {{Teal|err on the side of caution}}.{{diff2|1119318137}} Jargo then removed two of his own comments, to one of which Gitz6666 had responded, and removed Gitz6666's response.{{diff2|1119343391}} Gitz6666 restores; Jargo then removes his own comment and collapses Gitz6666's reply.{{diff2|1119346184}} Gitz6666 then removes the collapse, and changes Jargo's other comments to an earlier version.{{diff2|1119468798}}.

The only reason any of my comments about this are on article talk, is that Gitz6666 insisted on responding {{diff2|1119476690|in a thread on article talk}}. The , in which Gitz6666 merely seeks to justify ignoring ], is relevant context.

I reject Gitz6666's specious accusations above, including a fabricated charge of "edit warring" and the claim that I suggested Jargo was "{{tq|justified in calling a fellow editor a liar}}" - a phrase and a notion of his own invention. The charges he makes are refuted by the diffs he purports to adduce in support of his claims. <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#4682B4 0.1em 0.1em 1.5em,#4682B4 -0.1em -0.1em 1.5em;color:#000000">]— ]</span> 22:49, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

:Could you please explain what did you mean when you said {{tq|note point 2(d)}} (per ]) in your conversation with JN quoted above? Who was the liar you were referring to? ] (]) (]) 06:38, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
:::I made no reference to a {{tq|liar}}: that's yet another example of the complete fabrications you've made in your comments on this noticeboard. <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#4682B4 0.1em 0.1em 1.5em,#4682B4 -0.1em -0.1em 1.5em;color:#000000">]— ]</span> 16:18, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
::Gitz, I would advise to avoid casting ]. You have accused me and Cambial Yellowing of collaborating, which is not true aside from what can be seen publicly (which is not that much; I've interacted with you -- Gitz -- more than I have with him). This comment of yours was especially direct in this accusation -- . And the phrase {{tq|"your conversation with JN"}} in your statement above is seemingly suggestive of this accusation. It certainly wasn't much of a conversation; Cambial Yellowing left two medium-length messages at my talk page, and I left one medium-length reply, and that's it. It's more of a brief "chat" if anything. Indeed, Cambial Yellowing's messages to me are not strongly relevant to the statement that he has made above, which means you are going into ] territory. | EDIT: Also, what is this quote -- {{tq|"good advice"}} -- in the segment at the top here a reference to? Is this another accusation? I have been searching through the history of this three-way dispute and I can't find that precise phrase anywhere else but here. ] (]) 07:35, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
::In terms of Seryo "lying", you can see what I am referring to in the most recent discussion on his talk page. Effectively, he repeatedly kept misquoting another user by changing the wording of a phrase that they had said -- specifically changing "in Europe" to "in the world". This incident occurred in a discussion on Talk:Russia. ] (]) 12:59, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

I have now had time to go through Gitz6666's bullet points above. The level of obfuscation, distortion, and outright fabrication in Gitz6666's post is so extreme that I am left with the impression Gitz6666 is unable to edit in this topic area without resort to totally inappropriate conduct. I suggest a ] for Gitz6666 in the form of an indefinite article ban and a twelve-month topic ban in the Russia and Russia-Ukraine conflict areas.

Re: the above -

Gitz6666 claims that I {{tq|left a warning on talk page (vandalism) and commented on the article talk page}}. This gives the false and inaccurate impression that a) my warning was for vandalism and b) that I commented on article talk right away. In reality my warning was the ] for "Editing, correcting, or deleting others' talk page comments" personalised with "{{tq|It's always best to strictly observe ], and particularly so in a formal RFC. Where comments have not been replied to it is generally acceptable for an editor to make amendments to their own earlier comments.}}" My comment on article talk was made later and only ''in response'' to Gitz6666 {{diff2|1119476690|starting a thread}} on talk ''after'' he had first responded on his talk page.

Gitz6666 claims that I {{tq|was trying to justify JN's disregard for WP:TALK by muddying the waters and making it look like I was the one who misbehaved.}} Gitz6666 gives no evidence for this groundless, dishonest claim. Leaving reminders on two editor's pages for the same thing - editing each other's comments - would be no way to "{{tq|muddy the waters}}" were that someone's aim, but Gitz6666 does not let mere logic get in the way of his fabrications.

Gitz6666 claims comments on talk were {{tq|uncivil and tendentious}}. The only talk diff they refer to in this paragraph is {{diff2|1118751360|this one}}, a response to Gitz6666's that rather than requiring RS that support southeast Ukraine as Republics of Russia, I ought to {{tq|have RS saying that the Republic of Crimea, DPR and LPR are not federal subjects/constitutive elements of the Russian Federation}}. Gitz6666 is at this point moving into ] territory. My response pointing out the absurdity of approaching sourcing this way (assuming something is true until RS deny it) remains accurate. The part Gitz6666 says he objects to is justified and objectively true, and I'm happy to repeat it here: "Content ]. If you're not keen on that policy this may not be the website for you."


{{user links|KairosJames}}
Gitz6666 claims that {{tq|CY provided JN with "good advice"}}. He puts the phrase "good advice" in quotes, despite that the phrase is entirely his own invention. Gitz6666 claims that {{tq|CY encouraged JN to edit their comments yet again}}. In reality I pointed out to Jargo that I had ] his comments to the last version created by him, and to check this was the right version.(see )


This user's additions of unsourced content to biographical articles (not any ''living'' persons that I've seen, or I'd have gone to BLP) have been reverted many times, with several warnings. They've made no response on any talk page. Assuming they actually are getting these facts from some kind of source, I would think they could be a constructive editor, but they at the very least need to become aware of our citing standards in my opinion.] (]) 04:36, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
Gitz6666 then claims that {{tq|CY suggested to JN that they were justified in calling a fellow editor a liar}}. This is not a distortion, but an outright fabrication, as can be seen from the diff. I began {{tq|Regarding the comment in this edit summary}}, linking to where Jargo says {{tq|Indeed, as far as I can tell, it's not a crime on Misplaced Pages to tell a fib on a talk page, but it's definitely very annoying.}}. I pointed out to Jargo that lying is considered uncivil in Misplaced Pages conduct guidelines. I made no comment about another editor, Seryo, whom I know nothing about, nor about whether anything is "{{tq|justified}}" – a word and a phrase of Gitz6666's own invention.
:Actually in one of their recent edits () they added content that was patently false, so for all I know they've made up all the other unsourced info.] (]) 05:18, 27 December 2024 (UTC)


== Suspected sockpuppet ==
Gitz6666 says he {{tq|contacted CY on their talk page}}, which is true, but they neglect to mention that I already indicated in the thread Gitz6666 started on article talk that I was not interested in attempts to justify ignoring ] in a contentious RFC. Given that Gitz6666 had seen that, it should be unsurprising to him that I had no interest in his doing so at even greater length and with even more specious arguments on my talk page. <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#4682B4 0.1em 0.1em 1.5em,#4682B4 -0.1em -0.1em 1.5em;color:#000000">]— ]</span> 13:33, 4 November 2022 (UTC)


* '''Comment''' I'm involved at the RfC, I'm not going to add anything here. I feel the situation would best be served with less heat. -- LCU ''']''' <small>''∆]∆'' °]°</small> 14:59, 4 November 2022 (UTC)


I've come across a user who I believe is a sockpuppet of a user who has been indefinitely block on Misplaced Pages. This is the user I suspect: https://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Contributions/Coop4883368638
===Proposal: Indefinite article ban and twelve-month topic ban for Gitz6666===
Given the extensive degree of distortion, omission, and outright fabrication that Gitz6666 engages in in his OP here, some kind of ] is appropriate in this instance.


I'm not sure if what I suspect is true, however I've found other accounts with the same editing habits as the user above. These are the users: https://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Contributions/Coop443535454, https://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Contributions/Coop40493, https://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Contributions/Coop2017
I note that Gitz6666 is already indefinitely blocked on both the and Wikipedias for incompatibility with the Project, irredeemable violation of Wiki etiquette, and block evasion (Italian), disruptive edits, and edit wars (Spanish).


That's all the information I have to hopefully support my suspicions. ] (]) 05:16, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
On the article talk, Gitz6666 has pushed a POV that is a common talking point for the English-language editions of Russian media: that Russian constitutional law has established southeast Ukraine as part of Russia. Gitz6666 does so
:I'll ping ] since they blocked the other accounts. They probably have a better sense of whether or not this is the same editor. Right now, it seems like a username similarity at least. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 05:29, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
*{{diff2|1118397420|here}}, saying {{tq|the member states of a federation are determined by the federal constitution, not by international law or international consensus}}
:] ] (]) 10:05, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
*{{diff2|1118743522|here}}, saying {{tq|In fact it is obvious that the constitutive elements of a federation are determined by the federal constitution rather than international law or international consensus}}
*{{diff2|1118750068|here}}, suggesting sourcing policy ought to be turned on its head in saying {{tq|Do you have a RS saying that the Republic of Crimea, DPR and LPR are not federal subjects/constitutive elements of the Russian Federation?}}
*{{diff2|1119317233|here}}, saying {{tq|I have been asked to provide sources to support the claim that, ''according to Russian constitutional law'' are federal subject of the Russian Federation}} . In fact Gitz6666 was asked for sources which directly support the notion of southeast Ukraine as Republics of Russia, which of course do not exist.


== Wikihounding by Awshort ==
Gitz6666 has previously been civil, and his pushing of this "Constitutional law establishes fact" line can best be described as ]. As he has now escalated this POV-pushing to a crass attempt at ] in which he fabricates actions and quotes by other editors, I propose an indefinite article ban on ] and a twelve-month topic ban on Russia and Russia-Ukraine conflict articles. <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#4682B4 0.1em 0.1em 1.5em,#4682B4 -0.1em -0.1em 1.5em;color:#000000">]— ]</span> 13:33, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
user Awshort has been selectively invoking rules on the article for ]. It has taken me some time to really see how it was happenening, but finally today wrote on the talk page with examples of how they have been selectively and hypocritically enforcing rules on me (a new user).


Additionally, as I mentioned in that post, at one point they accused me of asking another editor for help...which doesn't make any sense? It seems like they were trying to imply to me that I had done something wrong, but I read over some rules first to make sure I was allowed to ask for help. I'm still pretty sure I am! If not...let me know?
*'''Support''' as proposer. <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#4682B4 0.1em 0.1em 1.5em,#4682B4 -0.1em -0.1em 1.5em;color:#000000">]— ]</span> 13:33, 4 November 2022 (UTC)


After my post today, Awshort started ]me.
== Harley Pasternak ==


Here are diffs where they follow me around to pages it doesn't appear they have had any interest in prior:
] is being subject to constant BLP violating edits by IP users. Can I request semi-protection pronto. Thanks. ] (]) 03:23, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
: Article has now been protected. Thanks. ] (]) 03:25, 4 November 2022 (UTC)


°
== Long-term disruption on UK TV articles ==
{{Archive top|result=82.69.56.206 blocked for one year by {{noping|GiantSnowman}} for ]. -- '''] ]''' 16:10, 4 November 2022 (UTC)}}
We are again having mass editing of UK TV articles by {{IP|82.69.56.206}}, adding unsourced information. This has been going on for years, usually with the unhelpful edit summary "This should do it". Previous blocks have now expired... ] (]) 08:09, 4 November 2022 (UTC)


°
:Blocked for a further year. ]] 09:08, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
{{Archive bottom}}


°
== Baudimoovan is getting a little racist ==
Now, I will of course acknowledge that on the third example, I did make a mistake. I thought I had only removed the text of the sentence, but looks as though I accidentally deleted part of the template too. I am unsure how that happened, so I will try to figure that out.
{{Archive top|result=Baudimoovan has been indefinitely blocked by {{noping|DanCherek}}. -- '''] ]''' 16:09, 4 November 2022 (UTC)}}
I hate to be that guy, but this edit by ], saying only white people can be US president and including pictures of Hitler, was kind of over the line. ] (]) 12:46, 4 November 2022 (UTC)


Either way, Awshort's edit summary was not the language I hope experienced editors would use with newer editors like myself. I have mentioned multiple times in conversations that user Awshort is part of that I am a newer user, so they likely know that.
:I have indefinitely blocked {{user|Baudimoovan}} for vandalism, given that they were previously temporarily blocked in August (also for flagrant vandalism). ] (]) 12:50, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
____
{{Archive bottom}}


I'll end by saying that this user's behavior is making me reconsider whether I want to devote any time to improving wikipedia. Truly. I've never made a report like this before, anywhere in my life, just to give you a sense of how frustrating and upsetting its been.
== Personal attack at ] ==


I hope that this is the right forum for this. If not, my apologies, and please let me know where to redirect this to.


Thanks for taking a look.] (]) 08:49, 27 December 2024 (UTC)


:Hello, Delectopierre, if you have had any discussions where you actually tried to talk out your differences with this editor, please provide a link to them. They might be on User talk pages or article talk pages or noticeboards. But it's typically advised that you communicate directly with an editor before opening a case on ANI or AN and don't rely on communication like edit summaries. Also, if you haven't, you need to notify any editors you mention about this discussion. They should be invited to participate here. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 09:12, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
I don't think it's courteous to call other editors "clowns". Please tell them to knock it off. Thank you. ] (]) 13:03, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
::There isn't. I don't feel comfortable discussing wikihounding with them. It is, after all, harassment. ] (]) 09:20, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Although I did link to my post today where I confronted them with their behavior (except the wikihounding, as it hadn't happened yet). So that is an attempt to discuss the other part.
:::But after I tried to discuss it, instead of responding to it, they started wikhounding me. ] (]) 09:22, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
::::Maybe you should spend less energy “confronting” and more energy discussing and trying to learn from more experienced editors. ] (]) 13:38, 27 December 2024 (UTC)


== User:PlumberLeyland ==
:@] I'm not sure how it could be a personal attack - it doesn't state a specific person or persons, and the article has been edited by more than enough people for it to not simply be a hidden attack. Clowns is also a mild term for many - I might use the word "muppet" in the same way. ] (]) 13:19, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
::<small>TIL that people use "muppet" as a mild insult. — <span style="background: linear-gradient(#990000,#660000)">]&nbsp;<sub>]</sub></span> 13:25, 4 November 2022 (UTC)</small>
:::<small>I can confirm this. I think it must be a British thing, but it's very common here. ]] 13:32, 4 November 2022 (UTC)</small>
::Oh please. Calling people "clowns" and accusing them of being "activists" is not a "mild insult like calling them muppet". Where in the world do you get this from? And they are very clearly referring to certain editors. Also, referred to sources such as The Guardian, The New Yorker and the Wall Street Journal as "dubious" AND broke ] that's in place on the article. Pretty clear case of ].<small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 13:46, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
::They also added a slew of "citation needed" tags to the article... after they themselves removed all the citations that were in the article already .<small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 13:54, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
:::Perhaps you are correct, but none of this rises to the level of needing attention at ANI. Seems like a backhanded way by the OP to involve admins in a content dispute. ] (]) 14:23, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
::::AFAICT the OP, is uninvolved in the article, aside from reverting an anon ip. Wait, that’d be you? <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 16:01, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
:::::No, I have never edited that article. Regardless of the OP’s involvement, this doesn’t warrant a thread at ANI. ] (]) 16:16, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
*Calling other editors "clowns" is most definitely insulting, and is not acceptable behavior. ] ] 15:40, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
*There is no doubt about who this editor is referring to with his "clowns" comment, but I think that it is only a minor personal attack so should attract a warning (which any editor can issue) rather than a block. I haven't looked into any further behaviour by the editors involved here. ] (]) 16:41, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
*:Note that this is not a single, isolated personal attack from the user in question – only very recently they referred to other editors engaged in the article dispute as {{xt|"]"}} ] (]) 16:47, 4 November 2022 (UTC)


== Victor Ohids adding various forms of citation needed templates to parts of the lead in articles ==


Could someone else please deal with {{u|PlumberLeyland}}, I feel a bit involved myself, not least because of the personal attacks (, ], ). If they say that sort of stuff to me, they'll one day say it to someone who actually minds. Thanks, --] (]) 12:41, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
I wasn't exactly sure where to take this as I Don't feel this is quite enough of an issue to need administrator attention, however at the same time it's also rather disruptive and a lot of edits have been made with this. The user Victor Ohids appears to have gone on an editing spreed, adding a bunch of various tags regarding refs in the article, recently in the article's lead. These don't appear to be constructive at all since sometimes they aren't an inline template but rather a banner template which messes up the layout of the article and also the lead does not always need refs (]). ― ]]<sub title="Discord Username" style="margin-left:-22q;">Blaze&nbsp;Wolf#6545</sub> 16:38, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
:Blocked indefinitely as a regular admin action. --] (]) 12:47, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
::And TPA pulled. ] (]) 12:57, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Thanks, both. -- ] (]) 13:02, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 13:38, 27 December 2024

Noticeboard for reporting incidents to administrators
Noticeboards
Misplaced Pages's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General
Articles and content
Page handling
User conduct
Other
Category:Misplaced Pages noticeboards
    Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents Shortcuts

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

    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
    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

    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)
    Think it's time to draft up a formal proposal at this point? LakesideMiners 18:29, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
    I don't think that's necessary. The key isn't formally deciding the criterion for blocking (because that's obvious to everyone) but rather detecting the next incident. Best way to do that for everyone gathered here to watchlist User talk:AnonMoos. Sooner or later, futher trouble will show up there. EEng 21:31, 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)
    Not to mention it would STILL be supported these days. It's literally right there when you click wifi/network settings in Windows 10. LakesideMiners 18:20, 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)
    • If it's that much of a problem for his computer, go and buy a new computer. It would certainly be better than whining about how Misplaced Pages broke his ability to edit without screwing things up for other users.Insanityclown1 (talk) 07:06, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
    Meh. None of this matters. Signatures sometimes get accidentally fucked up. This is an encyclopedia, not a forum, and this signature thing is not a real disruption to the creation of encyclopedic content. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 07:21, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
    While true, it's still a violation of WP:TPO, and if it's accidentally changing characters in signatures, who knows what else it might be doing that isn't getting caught or reported? - The Bushranger One ping only 07:27, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
    It is safe to assume there more than a few of the editors taking part in this discussion have years and decades of technological experience under their belts, myself included. I do not think The Accused is straight-up lying about the technical hurdle, but clinging to the "I refuse to change my system of operation, therefore it's Misplaced Pages's fault for (6 years ago) making the change!" excuse is the real problem here - this is at the heart a behavioral discussion, not a technical one. Consistently violating the norms of the community is indeed a real disruption to the creation of encyclopedic content. Zaathras (talk) 16:29, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
    It's not inherently about the signatures. It's that he's stubbornly insisting on using an outdated system that introduces errors into other content. — The Hand That Feeds You: 17:40, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
    agree on this. Incidental changing of signayures due to the tech issue is not a small problem itself but that clearly has potential to impact a much wider range of mainspace content. I have a hard time believing that there is not a browser that supports https and can run on a decade old computer (something like Opera even). Claiming inability to switch or upgrade needs to be explained in detail or otherwise this has potential to be a bigger problem. Masem (t) 17:55, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

    Disruptive editing by User talk:185.146.112.192

    IP blocked 24 hours, and then kept digging and created an account to evade the block, which has now been indef'd. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:43, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

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

    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)

    After he/she was blocked for 24 hours, this IP created an account as User talk:Ibish Agayev in order to evade the block and has resumed his/her POV pushing. Moroike (talk) 16:51, 24 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)
    Hiding bot edits from watchlists is not a viable option for many editors, since it also hides any non-bot edits that predate the bot edit (phab:T11790, 2007, unassigned). Users AnomieBOT, Cluebot III, Lowercase sigmabot III, Citation bot, et al edit with such high frequency that hiding their edits leads to an unacceptable proportion of watchlist items not appearing. (Also, Citation bot's edits should usually be reviewed, since it has a non-negligible error rate and its activators typically don't review its output, exceptions noted.)The code for maintaining two aliases for one parameter cannot possibly be so complex as to warrant a half million edits. If one of the two "must" undergo deprecation, bundle it into Cewbot's task. If the values don't match, have the banner shell template populate a mismatch category.In general, if a decision is made to start treating as an error some phenomenon that has previously not been a problem, and that decision generates a maintenance category with tens or hundreds of thousands of members, it is a bad decision and the characterisation of the phenomenon as "erroneous" should be reversed.At minimum, any newly instanced maintenance task scoped to over a hundred thousand pages should come before the community for approval at a central venue. Folly Mox (talk) 15:19, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
    Also, like, if only one of |blp= and |living= gets updated, shouldn't the net result be pretty obvious? Valid updates should really only go one direction. Folly Mox (talk) 15:24, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
    Meanwhile, the category has grown to over 800,000 pages. Perhaps next time an RfC to determine whether creating such a large cleanup task is warranted, would be better? Fram (talk) 16:34, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
    @Fram: this is logical. We should also make it a policy (or at least a guideline), something along the lines "if change would lead to edits/updating more than XYZ pages, a consensus should be achieved on a venue with a lot of visibility". Like Silver seren mentioned above, sometimes a formal consensus/discussion takes place, but it happens on obscure talk pages. —usernamekiran (talk) 14:01, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

    User:ZanderAlbatraz1145 Civility and Content #2

    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)
    This feels par for the course for Zander frankly. As noted with the bit about Zander reverting after an explicit edit summary saying not to and there being two days worth of me saying that edit would be made and they made no objections until the move was made. They disengaged from discussion but only re-engaged when the situation changed to their disliking. Rusted AutoParts 02:07, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

    User:Glenn103

    Glenn103 is now globally locked. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:47, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

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

    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)

    Similar behavior to PickleMan500 (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) and other socks puppeted by Abrown1019 (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki), which also made tons of drafts on Cyrillic characters that cited few sources (and none with in-depth coverage). Most drafts have been WP:G5'd, of course, so only those with admin perms can verify the deleted contribs. Since these socks have been banned (WP:3X), I haven't notified them of this discussion. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 17:08, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

    Good catch, and looking at the contribution histories it  Looks like a duck to me. Changing the block to indef as a sock accordingly. - The Bushranger One ping only 07:22, 25 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)
    you can put the U.S. constitution through one and it says 100% AI generated – Well, I just put it through GPTzero and got 97% human. Might be best if you don't just make up random "evidence". EEng 17:25, 25 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)
    I understood the material very well, its not like I just used 100% AI out of nowhere. I know the context. I have been involved in this discussion since September. Rc2barrington (talk) 16:43, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
    It's a respect thing. It's disrespectful of other editors to make them read chatbot output rather than your words. Simonm223 (talk) 16:49, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
    External videos
    video icon Rc2barrington's appearance on Jeopardy
    Rc2barrington's user page says This user believes in the bright future AI and robotics will bring, so there's probably no point in arguing here. However, I simply observe that in any kind of discussion where you're trying to convince other people, don't use a method that aggravates a significant number of readers (probably a significant majority of readers). It really is that simple. Axad12 (talk) 19:11, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

    Putting the use of LLM aside, however you compose your message you should comply with the basics of ANI. This includes not making allegations without supplying evidence. This would normally be in the form of diffs but in this case just links might be fine. But User:Rc2barrington has provided none.

    Probably because this is because their initial complaint appears to be unsupported by what's actually happening. They claimed "Despite the RfC's resolution, the same arguments are being repeated across multiple threads, often by the same editor". But where is this? I visited the talk page, and what I see is here Talk:Russian invasion of Ukraine#Post RFC discussion there was a request for clarification from the closer, something which is perfectly reasonably and which the closer followed up on. The OP then offered an interjection which frankly seemed unnecessary. There was then a very brief forumish discussion. To be clear, AFAICT no one in the follow up discussion was suggesting any changes to the article. So while it wasn't he most helpful thing as with any forumish discussion; it's hardly causing that much disruption especially since it seems to have quickly ended and also cannot be called "the same arguments" since there was no argument. No one in that discussion was actually suggesting changing the article.

    Then there is Talk:Russian invasion of Ukraine#North Korea RFC aftermath discussion. There was again some forumish discussion in this thread which again isn't helpful but wasn't that long. But there was also discussion about other things like the name of the article and whether to restructure it. To be clear, this isn't something which was resolve in the RfC. In fact, the closer specifically mention possible future issues in a non close comment.

    Next we see Talk:Russian invasion of Ukraine#Follow up to the previous discussion (Request for comment, can we add North Korea as a belligerent?). Again the main focus of the discussion is in how to handle stuff which wasn't dealt with in the RfC. There is a total of 2 short comments in that thread which were disputing the RfC which is unfortunate but hardly something to worry ANI about.

    Next there is Talk:Russian invasion of Ukraine#Can we add a Supported by section for Ukraine in the infobox?. DPRK was briefly mentioned there but only in relation to a suggestion to change the infobox for other countries. No part of that discussion can IMO be said to be disputing the DPRK RfC. Next we have Talk:Russian invasion of Ukraine#Remove Belarus from the infobox. Again DPRK was briefly mention but only in relation to other countries. No part of that discussion can be said to be disputing the RfC. AFAICT, the only threads or comments removed from the talk page since the closure of the RfC was by automated archival. The only threads which seem to be post close are on Talk:Russian invasion of Ukraine/Archive 20 and none of them seem to deal with North Korea.

    So at least on the article talk page I don't see what the OP has said is happening. The tiny amount of challenging of the RfC is definitely not something ANI needs to worry about. Even the other forumish or otherwise unproductive comments aren't at a level that IMO warrants any action IMO. If this is happening somewhere else, this is even more reason why the OP needed to provide us some evidence rather than a long comment without anything concrete, however they composed it.

    Nil Einne (talk) 10:15, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

    Concern About a New Contributor

    Suspected editor was indeed a sock. Unnecessary drama created by all-too zealous reporting--let this be the end of it. Drmies (talk) 21:19, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

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

    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)
      No personal hate intended, but I just found this and thought it would be worth checking. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 16:49, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
      It would be nice if you could explain the significance for those who do not speak Hausa. Remsense ‥ 论 16:51, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
      She had made contributions to pages in other languages a few months ago. I am attaching her contributions link. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 16:59, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
      How does this constitute evidence of sockpuppetry if we aren't to know what exactly happened? There's a reason we don't just automatically block anybody who is blocked on another language wiki, and I looked through the edits some and didn't find anything outrageous that made it past the language barrier. Remsense ‥ 论 17:01, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
      I agree that it’s important to ensure we have solid evidence before making conclusions. I appreciate your perspective on not automatically blocking users based on blocks from other language wikis. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 17:17, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
      Please don't reply to me or others using ChatGPT. It is flat-out rude. Remsense ‥ 论 17:18, 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. EF 15:47, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
    • This whole thread, but especially the 16:49, 24 December 2024 (UTC) comment, feels like the OP is just throwing literally everything at the wall to see what sticks. But, worse, what is being thrown at the wall lacks any significant body of evidence to support. I note that a personal attack warning has been given for the continued unfounded accusations being presented, which I think is a good move. I don't support a block at this point, although if I was the OP I would withdraw this complaint and/or drop the stick and walk away from this topic as a matter of urgency to avoid continuing to make the situation worse. Daniel (talk) 17:41, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    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)
    Normally this starts with warnings on the user's Talk page, but it seems you two have already hashed that out. So unless this account does it again, there's no further action to be taken. — The Hand That Feeds You: 18:25, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
    FYI, following this, I have made this sockpuppet investigation request. Psychloppos (talk) 13:48, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
    Of note, Hazar Sam has now accused Psychloppos of engaging in defamatory edits, which smacks of a WP:LEGAL violation. — The Hand That Feeds You: 18:09, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
    And their response to being warned about that was to flounce. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:46, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
    So apparently he was indeed the person insulting me under IP (which he calls having "a little anonymous fun"). Psychloppos (talk) 08:21, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

    Request for Review of Neutrality and Repeated Actions

    This complaint has no merit and does not require administrative intervention.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:08, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

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

    Dear admin, I hope this message finds you well. I am writing to express my concern regarding Psycholoppos, who has repeatedly applied the neutrality dispute tag to content related to Randa Kassis. Despite previous clarifications, these actions suggest a potential bias, which could undermine the objectivity and integrity of the platform.

    I kindly request that you review this matter and take appropriate steps to ensure that all users adhere to neutrality standards. If possible, I would also appreciate guidance on how to address such situations constructively in the future.

    Thank you for your attention to this issue. Please feel free to reach out if further clarification is needed. Hazar HS (talk) 17:45, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

    @Hazar Sam, whether the NPOV tag is needed or not should first be discussed on the article's talk page. Also, see the large notice at the top of this page: you are required to notify the editor you are reporting. Schazjmd (talk) 17:53, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
    The editor is also called Psychloppos, not Psycholoppos. I have notified them for the OP. – 2804:F1...26:F77C (::/32) (talk) 17:59, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
    I wouldn't give a chatbot-written thread the time of day. HS, we have less tolerance for AI-written arguments than the American court system. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v 18:05, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Nlkyair012 and LLM chatbots

    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)
    If we just temporarily put aside the AI-generated comments, can Nlkyair012 accept the view of experienced editors on Raj era sources and not push any viewpoint on a particulary caste? Because, to be honest, editors who have done this in the past usually end up indefinitely blocked. There is a low tolderance here for "caste warriors". Liz 19:27, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

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

    Page protected, and now this admin is flashing back to his youth going to Frisch's Big Boy in Tampa. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:37, 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 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)

    Courtesy link Frisch's. Knitsey (talk) 17:02, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
    This sounds a lot like the same edit warrer I dealt with on Redbox, down to the false accusations of vandalism, removal of sourced information, and apparent use of proxies (all the IPs geolocate to different places). I wouldn't be surprised if this is the same person. I've asked RFPP to intervene. wizzito | say hello! 21:05, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
    NVM, checked MaxMind for geolocation and they all are in the same general area. wizzito | say hello! 21:08, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    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)

    Lil Dicky Semi-Protection

    WP:RFPP is thataway →. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:34, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

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

    Lil Dicky was semi-protected back in 2019. Now that five years have passed, could the semi-protection be lifted? 174.93.89.27 (talk) 16:25, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

    Ask at WP:RFPP EvergreenFir (talk) 16:28, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Disruptive behavior from IP

    For the past month, 24.206.65.142 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has been attempting to add misleading information to Boeing 777, specifically trying to use the unofficial "777-200LRF" designation beyond first mention in the relevant section and passing it off as official (, , , , , , , , , , ). Their behavior died down for a few weeks, but restarted several days ago (, ), including baseless claims that Fnlayson is "okay with it". They have been asked numerous times on their talk page to either stop or provide evidence of official use of the designation, but they have failed to do so and have continued their disruption. - ZLEA T\ 19:51, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

    I forgot to mention that this user has used at least two other IPs; 24.206.75.140 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 24.206.65.150 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). 24.206.65.142 is the most recent to cause disruption. - ZLEA T\ 20:10, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

    "777-200LRF" is not misleading, some cargo airlines do use that designation. Today I reverted to a previous version that User:Fnlayson was okay with . I feel that User:ZLEA is going overboard with charges of misinformation and disruptive editing. 24.206.65.142 (talk) 19:59, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
    It is misleading to remove any mentions of it being unofficial. Boeing has never made a "777-200LRF", no aftermarket conversion has ever been offered under that name, nor has the FAA or any other regulatory agency ever certified such an aircraft. To pass such a designation off as official is by definition misleading and misinformation. Likewise, to continuously do so after you have been told to stop by multiple people and falsely claiming that others support your arguments is by definition disruptive. - ZLEA T\ 20:06, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
    Of note is the fact that this is not the first time the IP has claimed to have Fnlayson's support. They have been told before by Fnlayson not to assume support without a specific statement, yet it seems they've also ignored that. - ZLEA T\ 20:23, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
    Its not misinformation as here are the sources which use "777-200LRF", including GE Capital Aviation (the engine supplier for most Boeing 777) and Leeham News (to avoid confusion with the upcoming 777-8F). 24.206.65.142 (talk) 21:06, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
    I have asked you for sources from either Boeing or the FAA, yet you still either refuse to do so or (more likely) cannot because they don't exist. Only Boeing and the FAA can designate factory-built Boeing aircraft. Airlines and misinformed news websites have no authority to do so, and any alternative names they use are purely unofficial and should not have anything more than a single brief mention in the appropriate article section. Your failure or refusal to get that after numerous people have told you is disruptive. - ZLEA T\ 22:14, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
    None of those are reliable sources suitable for sustaining the edit you want to make. #1 would only support that airline claiming to have that kind of plane. #2 is a model manufacturer, and #3 is a blog. — The Hand That Feeds You: 18:37, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
    Relevant range is 24.206.64.0/20 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)), in case somebody needs it. wizzito | say hello! 21:02, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

    Rude and unfestive language in my talk page

    My esteemed editor collegue Marcus Markup just left this rude message on my talk page, on Christmas Day no less. Not really in the spirit of the season, I'd say. Considering that he was sagaciously advising me on the importance of tact and etiquette in the very same thread, he should be held to the same standard. Vector legacy (2010) (talk) 17:54, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

    Vector legacy (2010) and Marcus Markup, you both should stop that childish behavior and disengage from one another. Cullen328 (talk) 18:10, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
    Uh, “suck a bag of dicks” seems a cut above anything childish in VL2010’s conduct. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 08:05, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
    True, and given a warning accordingly - but Vector legacy's user page is also...interesting. - The Bushranger One ping only 09:31, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
    Vector Legacy's comments in that discussion are clearly poking the bear, both should be warned. On top of that, Vector has broken the 3RR rule with these 4 reverts: , , , . They acknowledge in the edit summary of the 4th that they know of the 3RR rule and that their first edit was a revert. The last revert in particular, effectively saying "haha, you can't make any more reverts because you've already made 3" when the user themselves has made 4, is really not smart nor constructive/collaborative. Valenciano (talk) 10:12, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
    I'm normally a stickler for civility, but frankly in this case I actually think Vector legacy (2010) is the bigger problem. Marcus's Markup comment is something they can hopefully easily learn not to do and could have been an extremely unfortunate one-off in a bad situation. By comparison it seems that Vector legacy (2010) is treating editing here as a game where they win edit wars rather than collaborate constructively. I have little hope this is an attitude easily changed so a WP:NOTHERE block might be justified soon. Nil Einne (talk) Nil Einne (talk) 12:25, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
    (edit conflict) Yes. The idea of WP:3RR is that the protagonists should discuss things on the article talk page before that point is reached, not to use it as a stick to beat other editors with. I note that Vector legacy (2010)'s user page admits to a lot of edit warring, and it discloses a WP:BATTLEGROUND attitude. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:31, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
    I think that it is safe to say that both these editors are skating on thin ice. Cullen328 (talk) 17:02, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
    To that point, Vector legacy (2010)'s userpage consists of a tally of "EDIT WARS WON". I doubt this is serious, but the optics of it, combined with the above 3RR vio + bragging about the other party being on the line, is not good. ―"Ghost of Dan Gurney" (hihi) 18:01, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
    I've nominated that userpage at MFD as it's purely disruptive. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:42, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

    User:Ryancasey93

    31-hour block. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:06, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

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

    Over at Talk:Anti-Barney humor, a user by the name of Ryancasey93 requested that their YouTube channel be cited in a passage about them () that was added by TheLennyGriffinFan1994 (). The talk page discussion was removed by AntiDionysius as being promotional in nature. Ryancasey93 then decided to make an edit request to cite their channel, which was declined by LizardJr8, who then proceeded to remove the passage as being unsourced.

    I then brought up concerns with WP:GNG and WP:COI with Ryancasey93, who then proceeded to respond in a needlessly confrontational and hostile manner, creating a chain of replies and pinging me and LizardJr8. Ryancasey93 then proceeded to go off on a tangent where they said we were "very rude and belittling" to them, told us they sent an email complaint against us, called us "the most cynical, dismissive, greedy, narcissistic, and ungrateful people I ever met in my entire life", accused us of discriminating against Autistic people (I am autistic myself, for the record), and called us "assholes".

    Simply put, I feel as if Ryancasey93 does not have the emotional stability required to contribute to Misplaced Pages, having violated WP:NPA, WP:ASPERSIONS, and WP:PROMOTION, and a block may be needed. The Grand Delusion 19:47, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

    I just logged on while digesting turkey, and was alerted of the pings and this report. I don't really appreciate the messages from the user (I'm on the spectrum too, FWIW) but I think @Tamzin gave a good response, highlighting the need for secondary reliable sources. I should have done that better when I removed the unsourced information. I would like to see if there is any further activity from the user before getting into a block discussion. LizardJr8 (talk) 21:10, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
    Looks like they've been blocked for 31 hours by Cullen328. The Grand Delusion 23:15, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
    Yes, that last comment was unacceptable in several ways. Cullen328 (talk) 00:57, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User:24.187.28.171

    Blocked for 3 months for edit warring. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:32, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

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

    IP has been blocked before for previous infractions. Now, they continue to perform persistent disruptive edits contradicting the Manual of Style, either by deliberately introducing contradictions or undoing edits that resolve the issue. The user has also violated WP:DOB at Huntley (singer), though that remains unresolved for some reason. The IP has done all of this despite a backlog of warnings dating back to 2023. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EdrianJustine (talk • contribs) 22:48, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

    @EdrianJustine: could you please provide specific diffs? voorts (talk/contributions) 23:23, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Incivility, aspersions, WP:NOTHERE from Cokeandbread

    I revoked TPA, applied 3 weeks semi to the article + AfD, indef for the SPI, and tagged Hammy TV (what a name!). Thank you. El_C 11:44, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

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

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

    Cokeandbread is a few-month-old account whose area of greatest focus has been creating (and defending) two promotional pages for social media influencer-types: Jimmy Rex and Hammy TV. Cokeandbread has refused (diff) to answer good-faith questions (diff, diff) about whether they are operating as a paid editor (responding to one of them with Don't threaten me) and posted a copyvio to Commons (diff). Despite warnings (diff), the editor has been engaging in bludgeoning/disruptive behavior at the Jimmy Rex AfD (bludgeoning and attempting to !vote multiple times (diff, ) and has made uncivil remarks to other editors (diff, diff, diff), while demanding respect in the other direction. Recently, Cokeandbread posted the following on their user page: The way some people in AfD discussions move, you just know some people commenting are under demonic influence. Stay away from me and mine. (diff). Despite another warning (diff), which Cokeandbread removed when blanking their talk page (diff), this aspersion is still up. If we're at the point where an editor is accusing other editors of being demonically influenced, I think we're well into WP:NOTHERE territory. Given the lack of response to non-admin warnings and requests, I'd ask for admin intervention here. Dclemens1971 (talk) 23:34, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

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

    Disruptive editing by Dngmin

    The main issue with this editor at the moment is disruptive editing based on continuous abuse of Byeon Woo-seok. Issues began when this editor 1500+ bytes of sourced material. He did it again and again and again for past few days, thus creating a lot of work for others to undo.

    Since october the user received warning for blocked from editing. Please help to block the user. Puchicatos (talk) 04:19, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

    I'm assuming the mention of diffs and @PhilKnight: was a cut and paste failure? - The Bushranger One ping only 07:00, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
    Yes it is. Puchicatos (talk) 16:14, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

    New user creating a lot of new pages

    I am not confident I understand what 4Gramtops is up to. They created 50+ new pages in their userspace. I have not a clue what they are meant to accomplish outside of testing. It just seems strange for a user with so few edits. There was no forthcoming response to my talk page messages trying to get an explanation (which I know they've seen since they used my heading as a new subpage title)

    On a related note, they have also created this epilepsy nightmare. It's possible I'm just overthinking a simple troll here. –MJL ‐Talk‐ 07:35, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

    Gaming the system for permissions? - The Bushranger One ping only 09:28, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
    Given Special:PrefixIndex/User:4Gramtops/, I find it likeliest they're trying to learn Lua by using their userspace as a testing environment. Harmless but technically U5. Folly Mox (talk) 11:54, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
    Might not even be U5 if the purpose of trying to learn Lua is to develop the expertise to work on Lua modules for Misplaced Pages. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:39, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
    I already suggested they use Test 2 Misplaced Pages for that purpose. It'd lead to a lot less clutter. I do find that either way they should probably say what they're trying to do. No one can help them if they don't communicate. –MJL ‐Talk‐ 20:55, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

    Undoing my blocks due to collateral damage

    Unblocked. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:37, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

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

    Hello, could an admin undo these blocks that I made? Blocks like these seem to have caused way more collateral damage than they're worth, per this message on an IP talk page (about a block I undid in October when I still had adminship) and this message on my talk page. Thanks! Graham87 (talk) 10:31, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

    Ah, I've just done some checking, and it seems like, as ever, there's a template with unblock links. So here goes::

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

    Persistent unsourced changes by IP

    2001:999:500:8D52:753A:9BD7:9D61:823B (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

    , , , , , etc.

    Note that another IP in the same /64 range (2001:999:500:8D52:8065:5651:5389:18E (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)) was blocked for the same reasons less than a week ago. BilletsMauves 19:16, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

    197-Countryballs-World

    Countryballs cannot into Misplaced Pages. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:36, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

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

    So far, 197-Countryballs-World (talk · contribs) has made categories, started drafts, and attempted edits to articles, all of which make it clear they presently view Misplaced Pages a bit like their personal playground where they can build some sort of confused, redundant atlas. They have not responded whatsoever to talk messages, their categories at CfD, or their unsourced additions to live articles being reverted. If they can hear us, it seems they need to be gotten a hold of if they want to be a positive contributor—but it seems likely that they can't hear us. Remsense ‥ 论 19:19, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

    (NAC) Based on their username, I can reasonably confer that their edits likely pertain to the Countryball Fandom. Just a note, as I know we've historically had issues with Fandom editors crossing into Misplaced Pages. Feel free to remove if this message is innapropriate for ANI. :) EF 20:23, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
    Aye. Mostly, they seem young. Remsense ‥ 论 20:27, 26 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 ongoing vandalism by User:Caabdirisaq1

    I have warned @Caabdirisaq1 multiple times in his talk page with no avail. He consistently vandalises articles by adding images unrelated to them such as Ahmed Girri Bin Hussein Al Somali , Matan ibn Uthman Al Somali and Garad Hirabu Goita Tedros Al Somali . I have been trying to revert the changes made and explained that they were of orientalist paintings of Arab bedouins. Replayerr (talk) 21:28, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

    These edits adding these images may not rise to the level of vandalism but they seem pretty disruptive to me. Adolf Schreyer was a 19th century painter well known for portraying horses and horsemen, and he traveled to to Turkey, Egypt, Syria, and what is now Algeria. He also painted horses and horsemen in a European context. I know nothing about his work other than what the Misplaced Pages article says or the file pages for the various public domain images on Commons say. If the image file says something like "two Arab horsemen" and the painting was created 150 years ago, then adding that image to the biography of someone who lived 500 years ago with zero evidence connecting that specific painting to that specific individual 350 years earlier is disruptive and unacceptable. So, maybe I am missing something and maybe there is a Catalogue raisonné for this artist that identifies these paintings as representing figures of the Adal Sultanate. But lacking that sort of solid evidence (which should be reflected in the Commons file pages), then adding these images is a violation of the No original research policy, in my opinion. Cullen328 (talk) 04:09, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
    Regardless of the content dispute, Replayerr opened a discussion on an article's talk page three times; the first two times Caabdirisaq1 simply deleted Replayerr's talk page post rather than replying to it. That alone seems pretty inappropriate behavior. CodeTalker (talk) 06:34, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
    He hasn't spoken to me once and I've tried to hold discussions explaining it to him but he ignores them and reverts the changes done. I opened this incident so something could be done regarding this. Replayerr (talk) 10:00, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
    I've left another comment asking them to come to this discussion and participate in this conversation about images added to articles. Liz 06:37, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
    He hasn't listened and is still editing those articles with the unrelated images. He has reverted all my changes. Replayerr (talk) 09:58, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
    This editor does not seem to want to discuss things. Maybe a partial block from mainspace would help? Phil Bridger (talk) 10:07, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

    Please revoke TPA from MarkDiBelloBiographer

    There is no reason for TPA to be removed. I suggest talking to editors before opening a case on them on ANI. They have had a very bumpy introduction to Misplaced Pages so I left them a message. I doubt they will file an unblock request (and have even more doubt that it would be granted) but let's not try to silence every blocked editor who is frustrated when they find themselves blocked. Liz 06:25, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

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

    Misuse of talk page after being blocked. Still promotion the same person. -Lemonaka 03:40, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

    What exactly is the problem? She said that she wants to create a Misplaced Pages page for her friend as a Christmas gift. She got blocked, and now she's complaining that she doesn't understand how Misplaced Pages works. If you don't want to explain how Misplaced Pages works, why not just stop looking at the page? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:52, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

    I offered to write about him and did for 3 long days as a gift and you guys disbelieved everything, none of which I put was false! It's all on the web, in papers, or other media, or pictures and on his websites

    Anyways Mark and I were both fans of and he thinks it's a valuable resource for people I'm just sorry you're so negative and inaccurate about me and him

    I believe this is not the good try after getting block. -Lemonaka 03:58, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
    This person clearly appears to be a good faith editor, they just don’t understand notability requirements. Now they’re blocked and being reported? Nobody could take the time to be kind and explain how this place works? Wow. 173.22.12.194 (talk) 04:49, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
    This does seem to be, if not a wrong block, one for the wrong reasons - it's certainly not an "Advertising only" account. And absolutely no need for TPA to be revoked, no. - The Bushranger One ping only 05:02, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User:KairosJames

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

    This user's additions of unsourced content to biographical articles (not any living persons that I've seen, or I'd have gone to BLP) have been reverted many times, with several warnings. They've made no response on any talk page. Assuming they actually are getting these facts from some kind of source, I would think they could be a constructive editor, but they at the very least need to become aware of our citing standards in my opinion. -- Fyrael (talk) 04:36, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

    Actually in one of their recent edits (here) they added content that was patently false, so for all I know they've made up all the other unsourced info. -- Fyrael (talk) 05:18, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

    Suspected sockpuppet

    I've come across a user who I believe is a sockpuppet of a user who has been indefinitely block on Misplaced Pages. This is the user I suspect: https://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Contributions/Coop4883368638

    I'm not sure if what I suspect is true, however I've found other accounts with the same editing habits as the user above. These are the users: https://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Contributions/Coop443535454, https://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Contributions/Coop40493, https://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Contributions/Coop2017

    That's all the information I have to hopefully support my suspicions. Dipper Dalmatian (talk) 05:16, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

    I'll ping User:Drmies since they blocked the other accounts. They probably have a better sense of whether or not this is the same editor. Right now, it seems like a username similarity at least. Liz 05:29, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
    WP:SPI 2001:8003:B16F:FE00:BCD0:5E51:7D5E:445D (talk) 10:05, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

    Wikihounding by Awshort

    user Awshort has been selectively invoking rules on the article for Taylor Lorenz. It has taken me some time to really see how it was happenening, but finally today wrote this post on the talk page with examples of how they have been selectively and hypocritically enforcing rules on me (a new user).

    Additionally, as I mentioned in that post, at one point they accused me of asking another editor for help...which doesn't make any sense? It seems like they were trying to imply to me that I had done something wrong, but I read over some rules first to make sure I was allowed to ask for help. I'm still pretty sure I am! If not...let me know?

    After my post today, Awshort started Wikihoundingme.

    Here are diffs where they follow me around to pages it doesn't appear they have had any interest in prior:

    °1

    ° 2

    °3 Now, I will of course acknowledge that on the third example, I did make a mistake. I thought I had only removed the text of the sentence, but looks as though I accidentally deleted part of the template too. I am unsure how that happened, so I will try to figure that out.

    Either way, Awshort's edit summary was not the language I hope experienced editors would use with newer editors like myself. I have mentioned multiple times in conversations that user Awshort is part of that I am a newer user, so they likely know that. ____

    I'll end by saying that this user's behavior is making me reconsider whether I want to devote any time to improving wikipedia. Truly. I've never made a report like this before, anywhere in my life, just to give you a sense of how frustrating and upsetting its been.

    I hope that this is the right forum for this. If not, my apologies, and please let me know where to redirect this to.

    Thanks for taking a look.Delectopierre (talk) 08:49, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

    Hello, Delectopierre, if you have had any discussions where you actually tried to talk out your differences with this editor, please provide a link to them. They might be on User talk pages or article talk pages or noticeboards. But it's typically advised that you communicate directly with an editor before opening a case on ANI or AN and don't rely on communication like edit summaries. Also, if you haven't, you need to notify any editors you mention about this discussion. They should be invited to participate here. Liz 09:12, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
    There isn't. I don't feel comfortable discussing wikihounding with them. It is, after all, harassment. Delectopierre (talk) 09:20, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
    Although I did link to my post today where I confronted them with their behavior (except the wikihounding, as it hadn't happened yet). So that is an attempt to discuss the other part.
    But after I tried to discuss it, instead of responding to it, they started wikhounding me. Delectopierre (talk) 09:22, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
    Maybe you should spend less energy “confronting” and more energy discussing and trying to learn from more experienced editors. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 13:38, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

    User:PlumberLeyland

    Could someone else please deal with PlumberLeyland, I feel a bit involved myself, not least because of the personal attacks (, User talk:PlumberLeyland/sandbox, ). If they say that sort of stuff to me, they'll one day say it to someone who actually minds. Thanks, --DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:41, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

    Blocked indefinitely as a regular admin action. --Yamla (talk) 12:47, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
    And TPA pulled. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:57, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
    Thanks, both. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:02, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
    Category: