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 18:57, 22 March 2007 editAlpertunga5000 (talk | contribs)1,808 edits eupator report← Previous edit Latest revision as of 17:08, 27 December 2024 edit undoSergecross73 (talk | contribs)Administrators101,027 edits →User:Iacowriter: ReplyTag: Reply 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Short description|Noticeboard for reporting incidents to administrators}}<noinclude><!-- Inside the noinclude, because this page is transcluded.-->{{/Header}}</noinclude>{{clear}}
<blockquote></blockquote><!-- {{/sprotected}} -->
{{stack begin|float=right|clear=false|margin=false}}
{{Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentsHeader}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{Administrators' noticeboard navbox all}}
|maxarchivesize =800K
|counter = 1174
|algo = old(72h)
|key = 740a8315fa94aa42eb96fbc48a163504d444ec0297a671adeb246c17b137931c
|archive = Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive%(counter)d
|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-->
== 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 .
__NEWSECTIONLINK__
<!-- BEGIN WERDNABOT ARCHIVAL CODE --><!-- This page is automatically archived by Werdnabot-->{{User:Werdnabot/Archiver/Linkhere}} <!--This is an empty template, but transcluding it counts as a link, meaning Werdnabot is directed to this page - DO NOT SUBST IT --><!--Werdnabot-Archive Age-1 Target-Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive210--><!--werdnabot-index Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Archive index--><!--END WERDNABOT ARCHIVAL CODE-->


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 .
<!-- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ -->
<!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 15:20, 17 December 2024 (UTC)</small>
<!-- New entries go down at the *BOTTOM* of the page, not here. -->
<!-- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ -->
]


: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)
== Request on WP:AIV and WP:RFC/NAME for User talk:I Want it that way ==
::Yes the is indeed about ]. I see the content dispute as stemming from the fundamental conduct issue, which has manifested itself most egregiously with insisting on violating ] repeatedly even after I that I had and that they should refrain from changing the heading again in order to preserve the integrity of the link, after which they went ahead and . ] (]) 16:00, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
:::The heading dispute is between a date heading, and a descriptive heading? that's not really reformulating your entry. ] (]) 17:44, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
::::It's a conduct issue. ] (]) 19:58, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::But what conduct issue? TALKNO doesn't forbid changing headings. In fact the wider guideline makes it clear it's perfectly acceptable "{{tqi|Because threads are shared by multiple editors (regardless of how many have posted so far), no one, including the original poster, "owns" a talk page discussion or its heading. It is generally acceptable to change headings when a better heading is appropriate, e.g., one more accurately describing the content of the discussion or the issue discussed, less one-sided, more appropriate for accessibility reasons, etc. Whenever a change is likely to be controversial, avoid disputes by discussing a heading change with the editor who started the thread, if possible. It can also sometimes be appropriate to merge entire sections under one heading (often preserving the later one as a subheading) if their discussions are redundant.}}" To be blunt, if you don't want editors changing the headings of sections you start, don't use such terrible headings. I definitely recommend you stay away from ANI since changing headings is quite common here. ] (]) 06:25, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::Actually I missed the signature issue. That's far more concerning unfortunately lost IMO partly because you concentrated on silly stuff. ] (]) 06:29, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::&lrm;إيان: I suggest you stop messing around with the section heading since it's a distraction which could easily lead to you being blocked. But if AnonMoos changes your signature again, report it and only that without silliness about section headings, mentioning that they've been warned about it before if needed. ] (]) 06:50, 18 December 2024 (UTC)


I wrote a long and detailed explanation on his user talk page as to why the date-only header is basically useless in that context, but he's still for some peculiar reason fanatically determined to keep changing it back. Frankly, I've basically run out of good-faith reasons that make any sense -- except of course, his apparently unshakable belief that he has certain talk-page "rights", which according to Misplaced Pages guidelines he does '''not''' in fact have (outside of his own personal user talk page)... ] (]) 23:10, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
This User made the following comment on Backstreet Boys discography
"Note2:Hi: I want speak with you I don't think black and blue sale just 15 million and this not with mind seven years just sale 15 million and they best boyband in the world, And your digit not true ever . take care before I wiping you from Misplaced Pages and I ravage your computer because you nuisance just here
This user is also appears to be using multiple names Micheal-Nicks, Batguy, Richard Jone, Kmnmo, and has been extremely disruptive over the past two months (daily). All attempts to warm him of his/her errors and repeated removal of edits has not worked. Can someone please look into this and please take action. ] 16:02, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
:User is referring to -- ] <small>(])</small> 16:14, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
::{{user|I Want it that way}}, {{user|Batguy}}, {{user|Micheal-Nick}}, {{user|Richard Jone}} & {{user|Kmnmo}} ''do'' all have a very similar editing pattern... -- ] 16:16, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
::I've added a npa4 warning at ], the account that made the attack statement. -- ] 16:20, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


:{{replyto|AnonMoos}} I don't see a problem with changing the heading but why on earth did you change their signature multiple times ? That is indeed a clear violation of ] since the signature was perfectly valid per ]. In fact your change was far worse since it changed a perfectly valid signature which would take other editors to the contributor's talk page and user page into an invalid one which lead no where. If you're using some sort of plugin which does that, it's your responsibility to manage it better so it doesn't do that ever again especially if you're going to edit talk pages where it might be common. If you're doing that intentionally, I suggest you cut it out or expect to be indeffed. ] (]) 06:48, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
==] and sockpuppetry==
::], this is not good to see. Don't rewrite or reformat other editor's signatures. There is no reason to be doing this unless you are trying to provoke the other editor. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 07:51, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
::: For what it's worth, AnonMoos stated earlier that the changing of the signature was a unintentional technical issue, due to his use of some "non-standard tool" in accessing the internet . This seems plausible, as similar apparently unintentional changes to non-Ascii character data have happened in edits of his before (e.g. ). But if he knew of this issue, it's rather disappointing he let it happen again some days later . Equally disappointing is the extremely aggressive rhetoric and acerbic tone with which he has been escalating this essentially harmless, good-faith content dispute from the beginning. ] ] 10:25, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
::::I just can't fathom what tool they're using to get around the HTTPS requirement to edit Misplaced Pages securely. — <b>]:<sup>]</sup></b> 17:42, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::Should be impossible as it's required to even access the site in the first place according to ]]<sup>] </sup> 16:41, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
::::<strike>Looking at his talk page it's been going back to at least 2011]<sup>] </sup> 16:17, 19 December 2024 (UTC)</strike>
:Guys, I do not deliberately set out to modify signatures, and when it happens, I am not usually aware of doing so. As I've already explained before in several places, since the December 2019 encryption protocol upgrade (NOT 2011!), the only way I can edit (or view) Misplaced Pages at all from home is by an indirect method which is not fully Unicode-compliant. To change this, I would have to get a completely different type of Internet connection, which would permanently disconnect my older computer, which I still use almost every day.
:Meanwhile, this thread has been set up so I can't add a comment to it from home without affecting Unicode characters, so I was unable to reply here for 36 hours or so. If I'm silent in the future, it will be for the same reason. ] (]) 01:14, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
::Misplaced Pages uses Unicode characters (] encoding). Anyone who cannot edit without corrupting such characters should '''not edit'''. ] (]) 03:47, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Whatever, -- I was using them perfectly fine until December 2019, and still use them perfectly fine on public WiFi, but in December 2019 a requirement was imposed that you can't access Misplaced Pages '''at all''' unless you can handle encryption algorithms and protocols that weren't introduced until the mid-2010s. I have a 2012 web browser on my home computer that handles UTF-8 just fine, but 2012 simply wasn't good enough for the Misplaced Pages developers -- you had to have software that was almost up to date as of 2019, or you would be abruptly totally cut off. If you can drag up the relevant archive of Village Pump Technical, I and others complained at the time, but our concerns were not listened to or considered in any way. The basic attitude of the developers was that if you weren't running almost up-to-date software, then screw you, and if your computer is not capable of running almost up-to-date software, then double screw you! The change was announced for January 2020, but was actually implemented in mid-December 2019, apparently because they were so eager and anxious to start excluding people. It wasn't one of Misplaced Pages's finer moments. Since that time, I have had to use an indirect method to access Misplaced Pages from my home computer, and I don't feel particularly guilty about it (other people's obnoxious behaviors in 2019 have done away with most of the guilt I might feel)... ] (]) 20:59, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
::::...] was created in ''1994'', and became an official specification in '''2000''', not "mid-2010s". I'm not sure what 2012 web browser you're using, but if it's not able to handle HTTPS not being able to access Misplaced Pages with it is the least of your browsing concerns, given that 85-95% of the World Wide Web defaults to it now. Also I hate to think of how many security holes your ancient computer has. I'm going to be honest: with a brower setup that old it isn't safe for you to be on the web ''at all'', and the security hole that lets you access Misplaced Pages without using a secure connection should be fixed, because that is ''not'' working as intended and is - as mentioned - a security hole. - ] <sub>]</sub> 00:18, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::You unfortunately don't know what you're talking about. New ENCRYPTION ALGORITHM AND PROTOCOL METHODS have been introduced ''within'' HTTPS from time to time. I was using HTTPS perfectly happily until December 2019, when the developers arbitrarily ENCRYPTION ALGORITHM AND PROTOCOL REQUIREMENTS. ] (]) 00:57, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
::::And even leaving that aside, as Johnuniq mentions - if you can't edit without corrupting Unicode characters, and by your own admission you ''don't know when it happens'', you shouldn't be editing. - ] <sub>]</sub> 00:20, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::This is probably a reference to when Misplaced Pages started requiring TLS 1.2 (because earlier versions were deprecated). Anyone who was/is still on Windows XP at that point couldn't connect any more. ] (]) 01:29, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
::I'm not talking about when the update happening, I'm talking about how you have known about this issue, and have been getting complainants about it since <strike>2011</strike>and are still not taking any steps to do anything about it. What kind of internet connection would not support your PC? What on earth are you even using? Dial-Up? Because that still is supported by even Windows 10. ]<sup>] </sup> 02:59, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
<strike>:::Also, how did you see me saying "this has happened since 2011" as me saying that the update happened in 2011? Can you clarify. ]<sup>] </sup> 03:07, 23 December 2024 (UTC) </strike>
::::The problem didn't start in 2011, and I have no idea what you're referring to when you mention 2011. The problem started in December 2019 when the developers arbitrarily imposed new ENCRYPTION ALGORITHM AND PROTOCOL REQUIREMENTS... ] (]) 00:57, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
::::: Apologies. I was extremely tired when I wrote both above. I have striken the date parts. Rest of my comments still stand. ]<sup>] </sup> 01:06, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
===None of this matters===
I don't care what tool this guy uses or what his excuse is. If he can't edit without screwing up people's sigs, then he must not edit. {{U|AnonMoos}} shouls consider himself on notice now that if one of his edits messes stuff up one more time, he'll be blocked until he can give assurance that he's come into the 21st century. ]] 18:05, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
:That's nice -- and also totally inaccurate. I ''was'' in the 21st century, and using 2012 tools, up until December 2019, when the developers pitchforked me backwards by arbitrarily imposing HTTPS ENCRYPTION ALGORITHM AND PROTOCOL REQUIREMENTS which my home computer hardware is not able to run. Notice that I had no problem complying with character-set handling -- the problem is with arbitrary ENCRYPTION ALGORITHM AND PROTOCOL REQUIREMENTS. ] (]) 00:48, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
:::The century imagery is irrelevant. You have been warned. ]] 03:14, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
::That was ''six years ago'', which is IMO about 3-4 years too long to keep using it as an excuse. Technology changes over time, so whatever this non-standard thing you think you need to do to edit here, it may be time to make a choice. ] (]) 00:56, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
:::As I said, to fix the problem, I would have to get a completely different type of Internet connection which would permanently disconnect my old computer, which I still use almost every single day. I would basically have to change my workflow and overall habits/methods of working because of an arbitrary decision by Misplaced Pages developers about encryption protocol updates. Anyway, when editing through public WiFi, I'm 100% Unicode compliant, and by exercising a little prudence, I can also avoid most problems when working from home. If I was constantly mangling Unicode right and left, there would have been a chorus of complaints long before now. But occasionally I can't anticipate a problem... ] (]) 01:06, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::And just to say for the third time: you're out of chances. "Occassionally" is too often. Once more is too often. And if and when that happens, your attitude of entitlement displayed here will pretty much ensure an indefinite block. ]] 03:14, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::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)
The person who registered the {{User|Jonawiki}} account is causing disruption at ] and ], where he is using his sockpuppet {{User|Magonaritus}} (and vice-versa) to circumvent policy and influence an RfC. He has previously done the same at ] and the relevant ] for over a year. His demeanour is generally abrasive, and confrontational. All-together the user has violated ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], and, of course, ], leading to edit wars and the pages being locked. Evidence has been outlined ]. This user needs to be blocked. --] 16:30, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
:'''Update''': User:Jonawiki is now causing issue at ] to ]. --] 18:04, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
I am now looking into this — One of these has contacted me concerning wiki-stalking with regards to the complainant. Will post my findings. ] 19:52, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
:Ah, I don't mean to sound suspicious here, but ] is ]. Nor am I sure how anyone has contacted him about possible wiki-stalking, as I see no evidence of such, unless the intervener has contacts with the user(s) in question outside of Misplaced Pages. --] 22:21, 16 March 2007 (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 was contacted inside Misplaced Pages concerning wikistalking. I can't say anything more until I've completed my invesitgations. If you have any further questions, please follow procedure and post on my talk page
] 22:58, 16 March 2007 (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)
:No - I am not comfortable with your investigating anything. Your anon IP's points towards you being aligned with the user(s) I have identified as disruptive and possibly sockpuppets. An actual administrator should handle this case. --] 23:11, 16 March 2007 (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)


::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)
Sorry -- you are not qualified to make that decision. I have been called in; it is too late. Your edits on Star Wars Galaxy have implicated you in a wiki-stalking invesitagtion that far exceeds only your minor contributions. Your assertion that I am aligned with others has been noted, and put on the record. Again, if you would like to discuss this further, please do not compromise this investigation any further, and follow protocol by contacting me on my web page. All best, ] 00:09, 17 March 2007 (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)
:::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)


== Disruptive editing by ] ==
:WormwoodJagger, under what authority are you making these claims? You can't be claiming this authority as a member of ]. That page clearly states that "Advocacy is not mandatory" and "Advocacy is NOT an official Misplaced Pages procedure." You state "I have been called in..." could you please inform as to who called you in. You also state "...please do not compromise this investigation any further, and follow protocol by contacting me on my web page." Could you provide details of what investigation, who set it up and under who's authority and where the protocol is posted on Wikipeda. I also find it very odd that you do not edit from September 2006, ignoring comments, until the 16 March. Just out of curiosity, do you deny that 74.110.212.198 is your IP? If I was G2bambino I would view your comments as a possible attempt at intimidation. ] ] 00:23, 18 March 2007 (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)}}
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.


] (]) 20:52, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
:Not qualified? Anyone can ask for help from an admin. It is very inappropriate for you to try and disuade ] from seeking assistance under the guise of authority you don't have. <font color="Green">]</font> <sup><font color="Blue">]</font></sup> 01:05, 18 March 2007 (UTC)


:@]: 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)
::This is quite odd. Is it usual for an 'investigator' to have only 73 mainspace edits to just 13 articles, including edits to the article in dispute? I have noticed some sockpuppetry at Upper Canada College, but this is something else. -- ]<sup>]</sup> 00:43, 18 March 2007 (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)
:::@]: I am not suggesting that the IP editor isn't being disruptive, but my point is that {{u|Moroike}} isn't making the situation better (using the example of that one article). You can see this by looking at <span class="plainlinks"></span> where {{gender:Moroike|he has|she has|they have}} mostly just reverted this editor without using a summary. &#8211;<span style="font-family:CG Times, times">]&thinsp;]<sup>]</sup></span> 18:02, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
::The IP's edits were removed a total of 13 times on the page regarding the capital city of ], ]. You can't let him continue engaging in further edit wars with other users besides Moroike, can you? ] (]) 17:24, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
Since this IP user won't stop and is stonewalling, either he/should be temporarily blocked, or all the pages he is POV pushing without sources, should be semi-protected, so that only registered users can edit them. ] (]) 21:37, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
: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)
{{abot}}


== 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 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.
Well I guess I violated a whole lot of policies... I thought I was following correct protocol... I'll recuse myself. Good luck! ] 16:40, 18 March 2007 (UTC)


I tried to get him to stop at ], to no avail. This isn't the first time, as you can see from that discussion. ] (]) 14:57, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
: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)
I thought I would clear the air —— I honestly thought I was an admin. I was notified about this affair by Blunders (phone). Neither Jonawiki, Magonaritus nor G2bambino contacted me. You can see here I have protected a page while I was advocating on August 25 (http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Neurofunk&diff=prev&oldid=71784370). I guess I'm not anymore, given that I was afk for a few months.
*{{ping|Fram|Tom.Reding|Kanashimi|Primefac}} I got AWB working again. If cewbot would take time for making the changes, and if this needs attention soon, then should I file a request for that particular bot task? —usernamekiran ] 06:20, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
*:The robot is in operation... ] (]) 09:09, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
*::yay! —usernamekiran ] 16:04, 24 December 2024 (UTC)


: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)
Nonetheless: I'm obviously recusing myself. I thought, however, that, for whoever takes my place, I would offer the findings from my investigation:
:{{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 ==
There are several indications that place non-trivial doubt on the assertion that Jonawiki and Magonaritus are sockpuppets.
*{{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.
(1) G2bambino placed a request for checkuser on Magonaritus as a suspected sockpuppet. His request was declined on March 10, 2007: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_checkuser&diff=114171374&oldid=114171183


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 .
(2) G2bambino asserts that Magonaritus and Jonawiki "always supports the opinions... of the other" (http://en.wikipedia.org/User:G2bambino/temp). However, this assertion is untrue. They have disagreed 4 times:
* http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Star_Wars_Galaxies#Emulators: Jonawiki wanted to keep emulators in the Controversy section despite objections from Antman. Magonaritus agreed with Antman and moved it to a new Developments to Watch section.
* http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Star_Wars_Galaxies#Freeman_.22Controversy.22 Jonawiki wanted to keep the description of a controversy involving Jeff Freeman. Magonaritus disagreed and argued that it should be deleted from the article.
* http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Star_Wars_Galaxies#Freeman_.22Controversy.22 Jonawiki argued that the Bioware rumor should stay in the article. Magonaritus disagreed and argued that it should be deleted from the article.
* http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Upper_Canada_College#G2bambino:_Stop_Hiding_UCC.27s_Dirty_Laundry Magonaritus lightly chastises Jonawiki's demeanor with "no comment".


This editor displays no interest in conducting themselves cordially or cooperatively on this website. ] 23:20, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
(3) Previous to the articles on Upper Canada College and Star Wars Galaxies, both Magonaritus and Jonawiki have a long list of different non-intersecting editing interests:
:I've given them a warning for canvassing: - ] <sub>]</sub> 04:08, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
* Magonaritus edited O Rly?, Elephant, List of Internet slang phrases, Dragon, Harvard University, AOL, ICQ, Edgar Allen Poe, Urban Dictionary
: - ] <sub>]</sub> 05:36, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
* Jonawiki has edited Harvard College, Old Ones (Buffyverse), Roma people, Green tea, Auction, Monomyth, Teras Kasi, Carl Jung, Monarchy in Canada
::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 ==
(4) Per the "100 edit rule" as one possible test for sockpuppets (http://en.wikipedia.org/Wp:sockpuppet#When_questions_arise), the results do not really indicate that they are sockpuppets:
{{atop|1=Glenn103 is now . - ] <sub>]</sub> 23:47, 26 December 2024 (UTC)}}
* Magonaritus has about 70 edits on pages other than Upper Canada College and Star Wars Galaxies
{{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)
* Jonawiki has about 97 edits on pages other than Upper Canada College and Star Wars Galaxies
: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?
(5) On http://en.wikipedia.org/User:G2bambino/temp, G2bambino makes a decent case that 66.208.54.226 is Jonawiki. There's no crime in a user forgetting to log in every once in a while. Then he tries to show that Jonawiki and Magonaritus are the same user because they both made edits to articles about Harvard, however this link is pretty weak.
:I mean you might have a point, but wow. &ndash; ] (]) (]) 04:57, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
* Jonawiki edited Harvard College to create a new section list of famous alumni. Magonaritus never touched this article. 66.208.54.226 never touched this article.
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)
* Magonaritus edited the Harvard UNIVERSITY article to add a pop culture reference. Jonawiki never touched this article. 66.208.54.226 never touched this article.
: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 ==
On the other hand, G2bambino has displayed what seems to me to be disruptive behaviour, and proprietary interest in the UCC article, given his several hundred edits on the article.


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.
(1) G2bambino has been accused of lacking ]:
* http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Monarchy_in_Canada#Rouleau....again
* http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Monarchy_in_Canada#Gbambino_and_POV


'''Key Points:'''
(2) G2bambino has been accused of violating ]:
* http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:G2bambino#Your_edit_summary_in_Image:Queen_of_canada.jpg
* http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:G2bambino#Civility
* http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Monarchy_in_Canada#More_on_the_meaning_of_.27Crown.27
* http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Monarchy_in_Canada#gbambino
* http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:James_Buchanan#Buchanan.27s_sexual_orientation


# '''Prolonged Discussions and RfC Closure:'''
(3) G2bambino has been accused of vandalism and 3RR:
#* The RfC on North Korea's inclusion was conducted thoroughly, with a wide range of arguments presented by both sides.
* http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:G2bambino#Canadian_Royal_Symbols
#* 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.
* http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:G2bambino#Kingston_Community_Classifieds
#* The close explicitly allowed for reevaluation if new battlefield events or sources emerged, but no substantial new evidence has invalidated the prior consensus.
* http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:G2bambino#UCC_Revert_War
# '''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:'''
Re: Wikistalking


I respectfully request that administrators address the following issues:
(1) G2bambino has been warned by an admin of violating 3RR in an edit war against Magonaritus (http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:G2bambino#UCC_Revert_War).


# Enforce the consensus reached in the closed RfC, as no new evidence significantly alters the previous conclusions.
(2) Per ], G2bambino did not have the "courtesy... ... inform other users and editors if they are mentioned in a posting, or if their actions are being discussed." A check on the discussion pages of both Jonawiki and Magonaritus will demonstrate that G2bambino is attempting to get them blocked with as little notice as possible.
# Discourage editors from rehashing resolved discussions, particularly when arguments have been repeatedly addressed and dismissed.
# Consider imposing a topic ban or other appropriate measures on editors who persist in disrupting the article with repetitive or bad-faith arguments.


This matter has been discussed exhaustively, and it is essential to prioritize Misplaced Pages's goals of maintaining a high-quality, well-sourced, and consensus-driven encyclopedia.
(3) Reviewing several thousand contributions from G2bambino, there were no contributions to any articles on gaming or Star Wars previous to his most recent contributions to the article on the Star Wars Galaxies game. The vast majority deal with monarchy, Canadiana and sexuality.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
UPDATE: I just noticed that North Korea was removed as a belligerent and added to the 'supported by' section, completely violating the consensus.
] (]) 08:48, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
:Since this report isn't really about an incident and your request is directed towards admins, I think this complaint would be better placed at ] rather than ANI. It will also need more specifics, which articles, which edits, which editors. You'll need to provide that. I also question whether or not these are content standards that the community can't handle on their own. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 09:50, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
::I was going to post it at ] but it said: "'''This noticeboard is for issues affecting administrators generally – announcements, notifications, information, and other matters of''' ''general administrator interest.''
::If your post is about a '''specific problem you have''' (a '''dispute''', user, help request, or other narrow issue needing an administrator), you should post it at the ''']''' (ANI) instead. Thank you."
::I posted it on ANI beecause my specific problem was this dispute ] (]) 12:07, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
:::The original post in this thread appears to resemble LLM output. GPTzero confirms this impression, rating text as "99% probability AI generated". Using AI to generate ANI submissions is highly inappropriate. ] (]) 18:01, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
::::Even when a message appears to be AI-generated, I think it is worth considering whether or not it is pointing out an actual problem. I think editors might be ignoring the results of an RFC, I just don't think asking for administrators to monitor a subject area, without identifying specific articles, is a feasible solution. It does seem like, possibly, a point that could come up in a complaint at AE regarding the Ukraine CTOP area. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 19:55, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::I had a peek and it's a messy RfC and, as is generally the case with a messy RfC had a very involved closure message which seems to reflect that the closer felt constrained by the framing of the RfC. I didn't see any immediate indication in the edit history that anyone had tried to implement the RfC result and been rebuffed (although I might have missed it). So there's some smoke here but, I think, not a ton of fire. ] (]) 20:21, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::Liz, I don't disagree but I'm not at all convinced that use of AI is a positive contribution to CTOP areas. ] (]) 20:27, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::It was written with AI assistance. Not all AI. ai detectors aren’t considered reliable, because you can put the U.S. constitution through one and it says 100% AI generated. Regardless, whether it’s AI or not has nothing to do with the topic. It’s just that there’a been so many discussions and when I checked the info box it said ‘supported by”, violating the consensus of the RFC ] (]) 12:45, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::{{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 ==
(4) His contributions displayed no knowledge of the Star Wars Galaxies game, just very generic edits.
{{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,
(5) It seems his sole interest in the Star Wars Galaxies article was because of the presence of Jonawiki and Magonaritus. He even admits as much at http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:BaronJuJu#SWG_edits: "I was merely drawn to the issue as I've had to deal with Jonawiki (talk • contribs) and Magonaritus (talk • contribs) inserting POV and highly baised edits at Upper Canada College, and noted "they"'re doing the same at SWG."


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.
This seems a possible case of wikistalking per ]. Because of the past history of edit wars between Jonawiki/Magonaritus versus G2bambino, it seems per ] that G2bambino's edits in the Star Wars Galaxies article and his accusation of sockpuppetry have the "purpose of causing negative emotions in a targeted person... for the purpose of intimidating the primary target... to make editing Misplaced Pages unpleasant for the target, to undermine them, to frighten them, or to encourage them to stop editing entirely." G2bambino's edits in Star Wars Galaxies seemed only for the purpose of inciting and harrassing Jonawiki and Magonaritus. Per ], his behavior fits wikistalking.


I believe your experience could help address this situation effectively.
I am no longer interested in this matter. Good luck! ] 21:02, 18 March 2007 (UTC)


Looking forward to your advice on how to proceed.
:You put <nowiki>{{protect}}</nowiki> on an article. You didn't . You aren't and never were an admin. You must go through ] to become an admin. <font color="Green">]</font> <sup><font color="Blue">]</font></sup> 21:07, 18 March 2007 (UTC)


Thankyou! ]] 15:21, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
::I find this whole thing very disturbing. WormwoodJagger, you say that ] contacted you, but they don't exist. Of course there is ] (created ) but they have no edits. You provide a link to where the RFCU was removed as declined but forget to show ] where the reason is given. Interesting too that several of your links don't quite match what you are saying and how easily you found all these when you are not active for months. ] ] 23:23, 18 March 2007 (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.
First off, I'll note that {{User|WormwoodJagger}} stated originally that he was contacted within Misplaced Pages; he has since contradicted that claim by stating he was contacted by another user via telephone. It should also be pointed out that the user who contacted him, {{User|Blunders of the third kind}}, was previously party to the debates at ] involving the accused sock puppeteer, myself, and WormwoodJagger.
: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.
:By the way is forum shopping. Stop that. ] (]) 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 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)
::I am concerned that ]’s actions, including unjustified deletion nominations and spamming, are disruptive and violate Misplaced Pages’s guidelines.
::She seems to lack understanding of basic Misplaced Pages guidelines, particularly those related ] and ]. ]] 16:40, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
:::You were asked to provide diffs. You did, almost, but then reverted yourself. Those diffs (well, the ones before those diffs) are just the other user nominating articles for deletion (which is allowed) or tagging them for what they believe to be conflict of interest edits (which is also allowed).
:::Please provide some actual evidence that the other user is engaging in chronic, intractable behaviour, rather than just not editing how you would like them to. ] (]) 17:21, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
::::Here are some diffs highlighting her problematic edits. However, I believe that many of her contributions may be in violation of Misplaced Pages’s guidelines. It appears she has specifically targeted me and added the COI tag multiple times to the same page. I would appreciate it if you could review her actions more thoroughly:
:::: •
:::: •
:::: •
:::: •
::::and many more
::::Thankyou! ]] 17:33, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::We wouldn't generally treat an AfD as vandalism. ] (]) 17:39, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::I understand your point about AfDs not generally being treated as vandalism. However, I noticed that the major contribution history of the user seems suspicious. ]] 17:42, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::Not from where anybody else is standing so far. I get that you're upset to have four articles of yours nominated for deletion, and if you have any evidence ''at all'' that you are being deliberately targeted by the other editor, then people will very much act on that. Please provide it. ] (]) 17:58, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::I am here to contribute and edit articles in accordance with Misplaced Pages’s guidelines. However, today a new user targeted me and falsely blamed me for actions that are not accurate. I believe this is unfair and not in line with the collaborative nature of the platform. ]] 18:04, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::Please provide evidence of this. ] (]) 18:06, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::Please check! ]] 18:07, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::The articles that have been nominated for deletion discussion have been reviewed by experienced contributors. These discussions involve articles about judges and lawyers, under ], a valid criterion according to Misplaced Pages’s guidelines. Therefore, the deletion decision was made after carefully reviewing these articles. ]] 18:11, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::Honestly it looks like this user, rightly or wrongly, believes you have a conflict of interest and are acting on the basis of that assumption. I would suggest, if you don't have a CoI, talking to them about this and maybe asking why they've come to this conclusion. ] (]) 18:10, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::They have just started targeting my contributions, and I tried to inform her about the situation. However, she is acting as if she knows everything about Misplaced Pages and is dismissing my concerns. ]] 18:15, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
{{od}}
:{{ping|Kriji Sehamati}} hasn't edited since their AfD spree earlier today, let's wait and see what their response here is when they return to editing. ]&nbsp;] 18:16, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
*We need to stop focusing on the OP's calling this vandalism; it is not. I've changed the header to reflect that. That said, the new user's edits ''are'' problematic and merit scrutiny. As for the UPE stuff, I've removed that post from the OP's Talk page; it's nonsensical coming from a new user and does not merit a response.--] (]) 18:42, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
*It is, of course, not vandalism to nominate articles for AFD discussions as long as a legitimate deletion rationale is provided and the article hasn't just been discussed at a recent AFD. However, I don't think it's a good sign when a brand new editor claims to understand all of Misplaced Pages policies and whose first actions are to nominate articles at AFDs. They are almost never an actual new editor, especially when they know how to even set up an AFD or are familiar with using Twinkle on their first day of editing. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 19:34, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
*:It seems that she is not new to Misplaced Pages and might be operating multiple accounts. It appears she has an issue with one of my contributions, as she created her account just 15 days ago, yet she already has a good understanding of tools like Twinkle and AfD procedures. This level of familiarity suggests prior experience on the platform. I am now requesting her account to be blocked as I am completely disturbed by her repeated allegations and disruptive behavior. ]] 11:32, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
*::I am now genuinely confused—if all my contributions are not good, then why am I even here? Were the experienced editors who reviewed and approved these pages also mistaken? A newcomer, who joined just recently, is now disrupting and questioning the validity of all the work that has been carefully reviewed and maintained by experienced contributors. This situation is deeply discouraging. ]] 11:58, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::Please resolve this situation—either block her for her disruptive behavior. How can i continue working under such constant targeting and stress ? ]] 12:00, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
*::::User:S-Aura, you seem to be making unsupported personal attacks against ]. You should provide specific evidence of wrongdoing, including diffs, or your arguments here will fall on deaf ears (and bring consequences for you). Meanwhile, as a filer on ANI, you have brought all your own edits to close scrutiny by the community. You may have to face that smart people disagree, and this is how we sort disagreements out on English Misplaced Pages. You are not required to edit, but we encourage you to do so. Nobody is going to block Kriji Sehamati at this point, because you've given us no reason to do so. ] (]) 12:01, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::::Meanwhile, in the last few minutes S-Aura has disruptively about this exact issue on this same board, which by another editor. This is intentional disruption. ] (]) 12:07, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
*::::::As to the question "Why am I here?", poets and artists have been trying to answer this question for eons. Epistemology is outside the scope of this board, but there are articles about it. Show up to edit if you want to, but expect disagreement from time to time. (That's actually a sound answer to any epistemology question as well.) ] (]) 12:16, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::::Dear @],
*:::::It means I have been proven wrong, and that user’s contributions have been more focused on me, which is quite insufficient to catch someone’s lie that she is pretending to be new, when in fact she is old.
*:::::Also, I am not against AfD; I am simply expressing my opinion. ]] 13:12, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
*::::::Could you please rephrase your point here? I don't understand. While it's okay to be suspicious that this editor is somehow socking or doing something else deceptive due to the familiarity, it seems unacceptable to deliberately accuse them of such repeatedly without firmer evidence. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>]</span> 13:19, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::::::Dear @],
*:::::::I am not engaged in paid activities on Misplaced Pages, and she claimed that I am connected with the subject, who is a judge, lawyer, etc. You all should understand that this is not a trivial matter; justice is a very respected position. Making such allegations can escalate court cases. I would like to remind you of the Misplaced Pages vs. ANI case. ]] 13:24, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
*::::::::One thing you need to understand immediately is you should never make another post that sounds vaguely like a legal threat, as you've just done above. ] That intonation is seriously not helping us decide who's right or wrong here. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>]</span> 13:27, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::::::::Okay! ]] 13:35, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
*::::::::I will caution you that this is tiptoeing right up to the edge of ] and you'd be advised to avoid making legal threats. ] (]) 13:28, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::::::::Dear @],
*:::::::::I am merely showing that she can potentially do something inappropriate. I am following the guidelines and not making any legal threats. ]] 13:31, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
*::::::::::Accusing another editor of potentially making legal threats is not much better, when there is no concrete evidence that they would do so. Being interested in articles about judges does not suffice. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>]</span> 13:32, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
*::::::::The page of Justice ], who had conducted over the Misplaced Pages vs. ANI court hearing, was also created by me. ]] 13:28, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::::::::<del>State plainly what the implication you are making here is, because what I'm hearing is "I'm familiar with people who have hit Misplaced Pages with a mallet in court before, and I can make sure it happens again".</del> <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>]</span> 13:30, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
*::::::::::This is becoming a rabbit hole. I urge you not to pursue the rabbit further. ] (]) 13:33, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::::::::::Good call, I'll retract the above. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>]</span> 13:34, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
*::::::::::No, that is not what I am implying. ]] 13:33, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::No one has said your contributions are not good. However, it should be noted that a draft being accepted at AfC or a new page having been ] does not guarantee greater scrutiny would not result in a valid AfD nomination. That said, echoing others here it's clear something problematic is up with this user's behavior. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>]</span> 12:02, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
*::You can't both criticize someone for {{tq|lack understanding of basic Misplaced Pages guidelines, particularly those related ] and ]}}, and then argue that she is too familiar with the platform to be a newcomer for knowing how to file an AfD. I wouldn't be surprised if most people here knew how to file an AfD before knowing all 14 notability guidelines by heart. ] (] · ]) 12:59, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::There are detailed instructions on filing an AfD that can be found by googling "how can I get a Misplaced Pages page deleted" - if somebody had some personal reason for wanting to have pages removed it doesn't strain credibility to think that's why they created a WP account and that they just followed the very clear instructions on the appropriate pages.
*:::In fact that might explain why some of the AfD filings were reasonable and some were, on their face, incorrectly filed. If you looked up the AfD ''process'' but not ''criteria'' that is the likely outcome. That's why I find the "new user files AfDs must be a sock" idea here somewhat uncompelling. ] (]) 13:04, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
*I believe we're entering boomerang territory at this point. Opinions? ] (]) 13:35, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
*:I think OP is upset that a cluster of their articles were put up at AfD. This in itself is understandable, but while there's reason to think there might be mischief by Kriji Sehamati, we don't have any real evidence of it. We either need the OP to make it clearer what misconduct, if any, has occurred, or they need to ]. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>]</span> 13:37, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
*::The OP has been intentionally disruptive (by creating a new ANI thread which was reverted), and this thread is going nowhere. IMHO, there's nothing ANI can do here. Everything I'm reading about should be resolved at the page talk and user talk level, in my opinion. The AfDs are underway. If dispute resolution is needed, fine. Nobody is harming S-Aura. S-Aura can't come crying to ANI (or four random user talk pages like mine) anytime someone merely disagrees with them. ] (]) 14:08, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::I'd have said close with trout for all if not for creating the second thread at AN/I. Based on that I'd say the OP should be formally cautioned against such antics in the future. ] (]) 14:10, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
*::I should have added that I largely hold with Remsense in their position. ] (]) 14:15, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::] is definitely a sock puppet on Misplaced Pages, but we don’t have any evidence because understanding Misplaced Pages’s AfD process so quickly can be a bit challenging. I have no problem with AfD regarding my contributions, and it’s a good thing that experienced contributors are giving their feedback. If you believe that the kriji is 100% correct and her activity is not suspicious, then this discussion should be closed. ]] 14:27, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
*::::You need to stop insisting this is definitely the case if you don't have any evidence for it, period. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>]</span> 14:28, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
*::::S-Aura, how did you make the determination {{tq|User:Kriji Sehamati‬ is definitely a sock puppet on Misplaced Pages}}? Please share your process. That's a personal attack, and requires proof to prevent you from being in violation of ]. I've looked at the AfDs and they seem reasonable to me. When you've provided strong sources the article is being kept. So far the jury is out on the others. Both of you seem to be writing articles about obscure living persons who wouldn't normally (by my cursory reading) have a Misplaced Pages article about them because reliable sourcing is not readily found. When I see that, I must suspect COI or undeclared unpaid editing here, but nobody's admitting to it. ] (]) 15:05, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
*::::S-Aura's continuing to issue personal attacks makes it more difficult for us to just close this (without some form of consequence for the editor making unproven personal attacks after they've been warned repeatedly). ] (]) 15:08, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::::I have made a level-four user talk page warning for the personal attack. FYI. We've been very nice about this up 'til now, but we need to stop being so kind. Doing foolish things has real world consequences. ] (]) 15:17, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
* Both editors' apparent use of AI is certainly disruptive. If it continues, it should lead to blocks. <span style="padding:2px 5px;border-radius:5px;font-family:Arial black;white-space:nowrap;vertical-align:-1px">] <span style=color:red>F</span> ]</span> 15:10, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
*: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 ==
Now, for Wormwood's investigation:


1) My request for a CheckUser was not declined, it was deemed unnecessary as I'd already done sufficient work.


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)
2) Having your socks disagree with each other once in a while is a ].
:Hello, Psychloppos. What action are you seeking to happen here? <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 09:42, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
::I have no idea which actions are warranted here. Maybe an admin could leave a message to this IP and this registered user and remind them that they should ] ? It would also be nice to remind them about ] and ]. Saying that I am "fuelled by an unhealthy obsession" or questioning my sanity do not seem to respect those guidelines. ] (]) 09:52, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
:::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,
3) & 5) Magonaritus', Jonawikis' and 66.208.54.226's edit histories cross paths more often than they diverge. If I make a good case that 66.208.54.226 is Jonawiki, I also ] that 66.208.54.226 is Magonaritus; ergo, Magonaritus and Jonawiki could well be the same person.
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.
Disruptive behaviour:


Thank you for your attention to this issue. Please feel free to reach out if further clarification is needed.
1) ]
Hazar ] (]) 17:45, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
* I was accused of NPOV by a user who was attempting to edit based on his own POV and not factual evidence. I was supported by other users, and the accusing editor eventually resigned.
:@], 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)
* Accusation of NPOV by the same above-mentioned editor.
::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)
2) ]
* Confronted because I called a tag "silly"; no accusation of breach of WP:CIV
* Supposedly offended user stated he never said my actions were uncivil; no breach of WP:CIV
* Debate with same user under 1) above; no accusation of breach of WP:CIV
* Debate with same user under 1) above; no accusation of breach of WP:CIV
* Accused of violating ] by same user who stated he never said my actions were uncivil; no accusation of breach of WP:CIV


==Nlkyair012 and LLM chatbots ==
3) ]
*{{Noping|Nlkyair012}}
* Automated bot reverted legitimate change; no accusation of WP:3RR
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 removed linkspam; no accusation of WP:3RR
* Legitimate warning of WP:3RR against myself in an edit war with Magonaritus.


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)
Wikistalking:


:Hello @Ratnahastin,
1) Same warning already mentioned above, does not constitute Wikistalking.
:To start with I should admit that I am sorry for all the inconvenience that I may have caused as a result of my actions. It was never my intention to take people’s time or skew the conversation in a certain way. I appreciate the core idea to contribute the thoughts to the Wiki and share it borne in mind the overall rules and policies of this program.
:I understand your fears about the AI utilities you have mentioned on your site. Even when I was using AI for the grammar check or, for instance, to elaborate on some point in the text, I saw to my mismanagement that over the process we probably confused the readers and repeated the same information and thoughts, which I would never wish to happen again. From now on I will ensure that in the future the input which I provide to wikipedia fits the Misplaced Pages standard and is more personal. I will also not write walls of text and will not make assertations that do not have substantiated evidence in sources.
:As for subjects that concern the Raj and the sources from this period and the discussions we have had it seems that I have gone too far in demanding clarification for the same thing. That being the case, with the understanding that the consensus will be acknowledged, I shall not be inclined to reopen this discussion unless new substantiated evidence is produced. I don’t want to prolong the conversation or bring any more stress.
:I will strive to learn from my experience to be more productive in my interactions going forward. If there are other limitations or additional rules to which I have to stick to, I will receive them with pleasure.
:In the same respect, let me specially apologize for the inconvenience and thank all of you for bearing with us. That was why I wanted to remind all of us that we can and should keep collectively improving Misplaced Pages as a resource. <span style="font-family:Georgia,serif; color:#FF4500; font-size:120%; font-weight:bold;">]</span> 13:31, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
::This comment also has a typical LLM feel and contains meaningless statements such as "I understand your fears about the AI utilities you have mentioned on your site" and differs substantially from , although GPTzero said this is human input. - ] (]) 13:38, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
:::It seems human in that it contains some composition and grammar errors that I don’t think an LLM would produce. <span style="position: relative; top: -0.5em;">꧁</span>]<span style="position: relative; top: -0.5em;">꧂</span> 13:56, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
::::Thanks for the reply sir, I can't explain how frustrated I'm feeling from this morning which this user made me experience <span style="font-family:Georgia,serif; color:#FF4500; font-size:120%; font-weight:bold;">]</span> 14:02, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
:::The time when I messaged Vikram banafar I was casual not formal and second of all your saying doesn't prove anything "and differs substantially from your usual (non-AI) writing style" that's a straight up false accusation and utter nonsensical point and 3rd point being that GPTzero stated that this is a human input then that's an human input end of the question. <span style="font-family:Georgia,serif; color:#FF4500; font-size:120%; font-weight:bold;">]</span> 14:01, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
::::No it's really not the end of the story if GPTZero says "likely human". In fact I'd actively discourage people depending on tools like GPTZero in favour of their human senses ] than yet another computer program. And, frankly, what you're hearing from people here is we'd rather your casual, human, flaws-and-all style of writing over ChatGPT output "formal" report templates. They are doing the opposite of what you're looking for and have become disruptive. ] (]) 14:05, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::Man you still wanna do this? @] also says this doesn't seems AI generated to him and he used his actual "Human senses" to lean that way <span style="font-family:Georgia,serif; color:#FF4500; font-size:120%; font-weight:bold;">]</span> 14:10, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::Admitting that you have used AI for writing your comments and then saying that you have not used AI is not going to help your case. - ] (]) 14:36, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::You know what I think this is getting to the ] point. Having to tell somebody to have the basic respect of other editors to not subject them to text-walls of chatGPT garbage over and over again is a disruptive distraction from what we should all be doing. ] (]) 14:38, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::This ain't getting anywhere <span style="font-family:Georgia,serif; color:#FF4500; font-size:120%; font-weight:bold;">]</span> 14:59, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::I really don't understand the problem. Cuz I literally also said many where that yes I used AI but for expanding and grammar correction <span style="font-family:Georgia,serif; color:#FF4500; font-size:120%; font-weight:bold;">]</span> 14:54, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
::::If this combative approach is your "casual" style, perhaps your use of AI and its over the top politeness was an attempt to mask it. In any case, I think you are ] but for caste glorification given your obsession with a certain sub-caste. - ] (]) 14:33, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::im not obsessed with a certain subcaste but am sure is obsessed with British Raj sources. <span style="font-family:Georgia,serif; color:#FF4500; font-size:120%; font-weight:bold;">]</span> 14:56, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::I don't think that's better. ] (]) 15:44, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
::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. ==
2) Agreed - did not perform the courtesy of notifying Jonawiki or Magonaritus. It does not excuse this omission, however 1) I didn't read the introduction carefully enough to take note of this, 2) I didn't want either user to stop their editing pattern and begin again under new user names. This does not constitute Wikistalking.
{{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)}}
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-->


:Courtesy link ]. ] (]) 17:02, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
3) Jonawiki and Magonaritus were indeed causing disruption at ]; I intervened to aid those who wanted to maintain balance, order and NPOV. I am free to edit whatever articles I please. This does not constitute Wikistalking.
:<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 ==
4) Agreed.


5) Agreed.


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)
All together, this is a pretty poor collection of "evidence" - a look beyond the mere surface shows that 95% of it is groundless. The other 5% I have, or will, accept responsibility for. My motives are to see nothing but the end of disruption and strife caused by a particular user; it is not up to me to decide how that is done, hence I have notified administrators of the issue and leave it to them to deal with.


== Lil Dicky Semi-Protection ==
It should be drawn to the attention of those involved here that {{User|Roguegeek}} has filed a ]. --] 23:45, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
{{atop|1=] is thataway →. - ] <sub>]</sub> 22:34, 24 December 2024 (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)


:Ask at ] ] ] 16:28, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
{{abot}}


== Disruptive behavior from IP ==
I don't appreciate the aspersions being cast on my name -- it's a little ad homine(o?)m. As for 'conveninence': as I said, I was conducting an investiagtion. As for withink wiki -- within wiki community. Now leave me alone -- please! I made an honest mistake and am really feeling beat up on (sniff).... Have some faith! Good luck! ] 23:51, 18 March 2007 (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 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)
:You called ] a wikistalker and attempted to intimidate him with authority you don't have. You probably shouldn't be complaining about aspersions as you have tossed the mud yourself. <font color="Green">]</font> <sup><font color="Blue">]</font></sup> 23:56, 18 March 2007 (UTC)


:"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)
:: G2bambino IS a wikistalker (see above). I never attempted to intimidate ANYONE -- I SIMPLY ASKED HIM TO TALK TO ME USING MY, UM, TALK PAGE. Clear? ] 02:08, 19 March 2007 (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)
::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)
:::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 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)
::::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)
:Relevant range is {{rangevandal|24.206.64.0/20}}, in case somebody needs it. ] &#124; ] 21:02, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
*Semiprotected ] for two days. - ] <sub>]</sub> 22:33, 24 December 2024 (UTC)


== Rude and unfestive language in my talk page ==
:::No. You specifically you don't have and told him what he could or couldn't do. Saying things like ''"I have been called in; it is too late"'' is most assuredly attempting to intimidate. <font color="Green">]</font> <sup><font color="Blue">]</font></sup> 02:20, 19 March 2007 (UTC)


::::No <font color="Green">]</font> <sup><font color="Blue">]</font></sup> . I WAS called in & I SIMPLY ASKED HIM TO TALK TO ME USING MY, UM, TALK PAGE. THIS IS HARDLY CONTROVERSIAL. And G2bambino HAS ADMITTED TO WIKISTALKING JONAWIKI TO BUILD A CASE AGAINST HIM. ] 02:24, 19 March 2007 (UTC)


:::::WormwoodJagger, you did not ask G2bambino to contact you on your talk page. You invented some non-existant protocol and procedure and then told him that was where he was to contact you and implying that he was not to post here any more. As to your remark about G2bambino wikistalking Jonawiki. Well to ID sockpuppets you have to look at the edits they are making. Frankly, I too think that your purpose was to try and intimidate G2bambino. ] ] 12:33, 19 March 2007 (UTC)


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)
Look, I'm finding this very upsetting -- I'm not sure why CambridgeBayWeather and IrishGuy are even piling on me, here. If you go through my edits, you can see I thought I was an admin, when clearly I'm not, and I thought I was following correct procedure by having G2bambino's questions about my legitimacy moved to my talk page (you're wrong to assert that I did anything but ask him to follow protocol and not plug up the Jonawicki sock puppet discussion with anything else). I was asked to look at him in terms of wikistalking and, as you yourself note, without knowing his intentions, nor without having completed my invesitagtion, it certainly seemed as though he was wikistalking. He's had you explain his position very clearly now, and I am no longer suspicious, though I must say you two seem to work as a team, in my experience, as this reminds me very much of Upper Canada College last March. Furthermore, I don't care what you think my purpose was, anymore. Please stop wikistalking my posts here, and let the people who *can* resolve the matter of sockpuppetry do so. I will not be logging into this account nor checking anything for the next ten days, becuase, frankly, I feel like I'm being wikistalked and harassed when all I want to do is explain myself. I may even start a new account and close this one. Good day sir! I said good day! (imagine a Fez accent :). ] 13:01, 19 March 2007 (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 ==
:Please stop making silly accusations. This is an ongoing thread. If ] and I (or anyone else, for that matter) chose to reply to comments, that isn't "wikistalking". While you claim that you were asking him to follow protocol...it was a protocol completely made up by you. I'm also not sure how you could assume you were an admin. Who confered these admin powers on you? <font color="Green">]</font> <sup><font color="Blue">]</font></sup> 19:48, 19 March 2007 (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".
::Don't think you are going to get much of an . ] ] 15:08, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
:::Just wait for the next person to pop up in this dispute and claim to have authority, and also to be an administrator. Then you can ask for an answer :) ''']''' 09:54, 21 March 2007 (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)
::Have you checked ? To me, this seems all to co-incidental. An editor comes around, claiming to be an admin, and after a discussion is immature enough to place ''My final act is to suggest that G2bambino and CambridgeBayWeather are meatpuppets'' on his page before changing names? My personal thought on the matter is that wormwood is a person contributing nothing more than negative impacts on Misplaced Pages. First of all, someone claiming to be an admin would not simply change names because (1) or (2) people have a dispute with them ... they would contact other admin's (and I am referring to true admin here, not someone who wants to feel important with a cool title) to help settle the case. Secondly, there are many levels (and I am talking the difference between a simple house and the eiffel tower) between the maturity of admin and wormwood; I do not believe admin material includes behavior we have seen here. Assuming oneself to be admin would note you worthy of it ... Wormwood, here, resembles one of those autistic puppetteers, such as the famous ; however, it is my belief that MascotGuy is even a load more mature than Wormwood. In conclusion, I suggest removing this "final claim" from Wormwood's page. It is my belief that this would quickly surface the IP/handle that wormwood has chosen to use. Secondly, has anyone looked into the fact that wormwood is a third puppet of the other (2) names? ] 16:09, 21 March 2007 (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 @] 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)
:::Since my last edit (1) of the (3) IP addresses that wormwood has used to edit his page in the past several days, has cleared it, leaving it blank. You can look through his to see the step process he used to edit his good-bye message, before finally deleting it after my previous posting. At least now we know several IPs wormwood's new "persona" will be using.
::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 ==
::: Of particular interest is IP . Reviewing it's log of edits, this IP address was used to vandalize the Upper Canada College article, before turning around and making "positive" contributions (I use this lightly, as positive may not be the best of choices to use). It was then used to add wormwood's "goodbye" mentioned above, followed by (2) other address that followed with edits. In conclusion, I suggest that wormwood be a sockpuppet jonawiki and magonaritus, or vise versa (who knows who came first). ] 18:33, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
{{atop
| result = Blocked for 3 months for edit warring. ] (]/]) 23:32, 25 December 2024 (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 ] ==
== Banned user edits - against policy (Daniel Brandt)? ==
{{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)
, who is banned, posted again on ]. I am just curious--why does this user get to post/interact when banned when other banned users with articles (such as Barbara Schwartz) are routinely RM/RV'd out if they post. my understanding was posts by banned users were typically removed for being banned, and the usernames (if logged in) blocked as socks, and the IPs if not logged in blocked for a duration. - ] 20:09, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
*You're absolutely right. Editors should not be accusing other editors of being demonically influenced. They should ]. ]] 00:04, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
*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)
*: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)
*::...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)
*:::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)
{{abot}}


== Disruptive editing by ] ==
:He doesn't. Revert. Block. Ignore. --] <small>]</small> 20:13, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
*{{userlinks|Dngmin}}
::Others have let the edit stand... and during the previous hooha (DRV/AfD/DRV) I believe Doc Glasgow (an admin) had actually threatened to ban anyone who RV'd out Brandt's edit at one point. I am not an admin so I can't block myself. - ] 20:16, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
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.
::Relevant from before...
::::''I've quit for now. But is any process pillock removes the above as the post of a banned users, I will rise from the grave and block them for 1,000 years.--]<sup>g</sup> 18:18, 28 February 2007 (UTC)''
::So... is policy we endorse this, or is anyone free to RV banned users on sight? - ] 20:18, 19 March 2007 (UTC)


Since october the user received warning for ]. Please help to block the user.
:] says "''Any edits made in defiance of a ban may be reverted to enforce the ban, regardless of the merits of the edits themselves. As the banned user is not authorized to make those edits, there is no need to discuss them prior to reversion.''". So users are free to rv banned users edits on sight, any block for such behavior would be innapropriate. <small>]<sup>(Need help? ])</sup></small> 20:19, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
] (]) 04:19, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
::to be clear, do you mean if ''I'' RV a banned user, anyone blocking/reprimanding me is out of line... or that RVing a banned user is fine, but reblocking them/their IP is not alright? - ] 20:22, 19 March 2007 (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 ==
:(ec)I mean any action taking against a person reverting a banned user would not be appropriate as the action of reverting a banned user is explicitly allowed in the banning policy. <small>]<sup>(Need help? ])</sup></small> 20:24, 19 March 2007 (UTC)


* {{user|4Gramtops}}
:::Denny, nobody is stopping you but nor can you force other editors to remove said material. Personally I think this is a case where his non-main space edits should be allowed but that is just my POV. At least he isnt hiding who he is, ] 20:23, 19 March 2007 (UTC)


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>
:Keep in mind if an editor in good standing also wishes the addition of the material the banned user is adding, then regular editorial debate should take place. <small>]<sup>(Need help? ])</sup></small> 20:25, 19 March 2007 (UTC)


<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 believe Doc stepped in because Brandt was correcting potentially libelous/false information about a living person&ndash;himself. If that's all he's doing I'd let it stand. ] ] 20:25, 19 March 2007 (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 ==
:I would say that ] trumps anything else, if it is unsourced material about a living person being removed then it needs to stay removed. <small>]<sup>(Need help? ])</sup></small> 20:27, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
{{atop|1=Unblocked. - ] <sub>]</sub> 23:37, 26 December 2024 (UTC)}}
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)


Ah, I've just done some checking, and it seems like, as ever, there's a template with unblock links. So here goes::
BLP notwithstanding my concern is that if we do this for ''this'' banned user, the next person banned with an article can point to this and say, "Did it for Brandt". then, if we don't do this for all banned users with articles (the number will surely grow in time), it would be hypocritical to only give Brandt that luxury. - ] 20:37, 19 March 2007 (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 ==
:If there is a BLP violation then we are not doing it for Brandt, but because of our policy. <small>]<sup>(Need help? ])</sup></small> 21:27, 19 March 2007 (UTC)


WTF??? I really can't believe this rules-wonking! Three weeks ago Brandt posted some fairly level-headed observations on his own bio page. At the time, I issued a warning that they should not be removed because I suspected that some small-minded person would be more concerned with the 'rules' or with dissing Brandt than actually looking to see how we could improve out content with fairness to the subject. Here, three weeks later, someone drags this up and wikilawyers exactly as I'd feared. We are not in the business of warring with Brandt or any other 'banned user'. If they may useful posts, all good and well. This is not a battleground and we don't do vendettas. Article quality is always our overarching priority. Try creating www.wiki-soap if you need a MUD where you can battle foul fiends and other monsters endlessly.--]<sup>g</sup> 22:46, 19 March 2007 (UTC)


{{Vandal|2001:999:500:8D52:753A:9BD7:9D61:823B}}
This is not the right message to be sending. The message is not "If you arre banned you are our enemy forever." If someone, anyone, any banned user comes back and reasonably explains some problems with an article on a talk page, they are welcome to do so with thanks (at least from me). - ] <small>(] | ])</small> 22:53, 19 March 2007 (UTC)


, , , , , etc.
:We don't ban users in a punitive manner. If users are actively contributing to the project, there is no reason not to allow them to do so. ] <sup>]</sup> 22:56, 19 March 2007 (UTC)


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)
:I don't particularly disagree with either of you in that if the edit has merit, it shouldn't be reverted, but ] is abundantly clear that that belief is not policy (no "wikilawyering" necessary, sorry Doc); perhaps a change is in order to bring it closer to the blocking policy so that it states that edits by banned users ''may'' be reverted rather than the present language. —] ] ] 22:58, 19 March 2007 (UTC)


== 197-Countryballs-World ==
::Doc, Brandt is banned for very good reason, and any edit he makes should indeed be reverted. He has stalked me for many months, stalking that has included contacting what he thinks are old boyfriends of mine '''from 20 years ago'''. He has posted seriously libellous material then refused to publish a correction that was sent to him, which shows he is not the honest researcher he claims to be. He tried to hound another woman either out of her job or out of Misplaced Pages, and succeeded in doing the latter. He has posted photographs of people without their consent, some of which were very intrusive and clearly intended to be hurtful and possibly damaging to their lives. The only person I know of who has more seriously invaded Wikipedians' lives was Amorrow, whose edits are reverted on sight so that he gets the message that he isn't welcome here, no matter how useful his contributions might otherwise be. If we don't afford that minimum courtesy to editors &mdash; that we're not going to be asked to edit alongside people who are stalking us &mdash; then we'll lose everyone that Brandt and others like him decide to target.
{{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)
:(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)
*I've indeffed them for disruption and incompetence.--] (]) 21:52, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
**Haha balls. ] (]) 21:53, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
{{abot}}


== Disruptive editing and ongoing vandalism by User:Caabdirisaq1 ==
::It's common sense to allow corrections to his BLP to be made if he draws attention to them, but if that's his only interest, as opposed to grandstanding, he can do it by e-mail. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 23:08, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
{{atop
| result = I have p-blocked from article space. It can be lifted at any time if they show commitment to and engage in discussion. ] ] 14:45, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
}}


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'm not suggesting we encourage Brandt's general participation. But as long as we have a publicly listed article on him - and an open discussion about it on a talk page - we should not prevent his public participation in that. Removing edits that are otherwise constructive is churlish, and serves no useful purpose. Denying him a right to comment publicly on his own bio will not prevent the behaviour you indicate, indeed it is only likely to escalate things further.--]<sup>g</sup> 00:41, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
*], 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)
{{abot}}


== Please revoke TPA from ] ==
::::I agree that constructive edits by banned users shouldn't be removed just for the hell of it or to spite them. But the key word here is "constructive". You can hardly call deriding Wikipedians and claiming we have "no sense of social responsibility" constructive in any way. If he wants to fix his article, he can either learn to keep a civil tongue in his head first, or do as SlimVirgin suggests and conduct his business by e-mail. The substantive content of that linked post could have been quite easily said in a civil, policy abiding manner as "Mentioning my draft card burning without also mentioning the amnesty is non-neutral/libelous/mean, please fix it." I find it quite humourous that a man who claims to fear for his reputation because of us mentioning his student activism, which was apparently mentioned in the New York Times and already quite publically available to anyone who cared, doesn't think that his habitually throwing about insults online is potentially just as damaging to him. If I were an employer I'd care a lot more about my applicant's present attitude when dealing with people they don't like than what their political views were during Vietnam. --] <small>]</small> 00:59, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
{{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)}}
:::::But this is precisely the problem. Commenting on Brandt's ethics, inconsistencies and contradictions is not really not something we should have any need to do. What you think of Brandt is neither here nor there.--]<sup>g</sup> 02:29, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
* {{vandal|MarkDiBelloBiographer}}
:::::::Actually, we do have a need to do it, because of people who revert those who have removed Brandt's posts. If editors would avoid helping banned editors to evade their block, we wouldn't need this discussion. ]] 03:07, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Misuse of talk page after being blocked. Still promotion the same person. ] 03:40, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::why not change policy then to reflect what you say is practice...? If this is true and supported shouldn't the policy on banning be changed to reflect this? - ] 02:33, 20 March 2007 (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)
:::::::Why did you dig up a three week-old dead issue on an archived talk page and resurrect it here as a dramatic 'incident' needing admin attention?? It looks like you're just out for drama, and point scoring. This isn't a game.--]<sup>g</sup> 02:37, 20 March 2007 (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)
::::::::I'm not out for drama or points... he posted again today to the article talk page, and I was about to RV him out as a banned user... per the ''written'' policy, but then I remembered your comment, and didn't want to get tagged by someone for a block... his post . - ] 02:40, 20 March 2007 (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. ] (]) 04:49, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::It would be an abuse of blocking powers to block someone for removing a post from a banned user. ]] 03:07, 20 March 2007 (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. - ] <sub>]</sub> 05:02, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
Also isn't another legal threat? ''"The draft-card burning is libelous unless counterbalanced by details of Jimmy Carter's draft amnesty in 1977. That's my position. I expressed this in writing via a fax to Danny Wool on September 9, 2006. If he doesn't do something about this, the Foundation will be held accountable''"- ] 02:43, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
{{abot}}
: I removed his legal threat as I understand my reading of the written policy pages. No legal threats, and no editing by banned users (the policy doesn't have any exceptions for their own pages that I saw), so I removed it albeit late... from the page . - ] 03:01, 20 March 2007 (UTC)


== User:KairosJames ==
Banned editors can stop the behaviour that got them banned, and can e-mail an appeal to Jimbo or the ArbCom. If Brandt is sorry for the harm he has brought into individual editors' lives, he can take down his website, stop posting people's personal details to other websites, send an e-mail to Jimbo expressing his contrition, and ask to be unbanned. If the only issue is BLP issues with his biography, he can e-mail his concerns to any administrator. Regardless of our opinion of him, his article is subject to as strict an interpretation of BLP as any other article. But SlimVirgin is right: it is an insult to stalking victims to expect them to have to edit alongside their stalkers. ]] 03:07, 20 March 2007 (UTC)


{{user links|KairosJames}}
Why are we debating Daniel Brandt's block? It would be completely against common sense to block people for reverting edits of an individual blocked by arbcom. Also even if Daniel Brandt corrects info about himself, he still has to cite sources. --<small> ]</small> <sup>]</sup> 12:04, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
:Ofcourse he has to cite sources. But his posts have been reverted also when he provides good, sourced information: . --] 13:00, 21 March 2007 (UTC)


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)
* No, there is a difference between a block and a ban. Brandt is banned. He is banned for trolling, disruption, conflict of interest, outing Wikipedians who prefer to remain anonymous, and pretty much stalking, per the above. If Brandt wants a corrction to his article, he should send mail to OTRS. We should not subject editors to the risk of being inadvertently sucked in to his mind games by engaging in dialogue, because we know what happens when you don't give him what he wants. As William Pietri so neatly put it in another context, we feel about Brandt ''the way that a natural history museum feels about tigers. We admire them and want our visitors to see how fierce and clever they are, so we stuff them and mount them for close inspection. We put up all sorts of carefully worded signs to get people to appreciate them as much as we do. But however much we adore tigers, a live tiger loose in the museum is seen as an urgent problem.'' If, after reverting, someone wants to check the comment and perhaps correct a verifiable inaccuracy then fine, but we absolutely should not get into any kind of dialog with this man. If you want proof, check his hive mind page. Just talking about him will get you on there, for all the Internet to see. We should not subject unwitting editors to that kind of treatment. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 16:14, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
: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 ==
===Posted again===
{{resolved|Blocked}}
Would someone be willing to block Brandt's IP per policy? He's still posting, but is still banned. . - ] 03:19, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
* Blocked by Musical Linguist. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 16:07, 21 March 2007 (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
{{checkuser|Homeopathic}} is almost certainly George Vithoulkas, or someone closely related to him. For 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
He has been making extreme POV-pushing edits to ], and any attempts to lessen the POV have led to him complaining. I realise that content issues aren't germaine here, but this is beyond content issues to him trying to remove all negative content.:


That's all the information I have to hopefully support my suspicions. ] (]) 05:16, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
* (last in a series)
: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)
*
:] ] (]) 10:05, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
* - This one shows up funny, I'll quote:
* The user in question has been blocked by {{noping|Drmies}}. --] (]) 16:21, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
::The critique article you've used as reference is by someone who does not believe in Homeopathy, nevermind the general 'neutral' tone and titles. The author, Anthony Campbell, in his book concludes that Homeopathy is not proven and suggests the effects are due to placebo
::. This critique is against Classical Homeopathy, not Vithoulkas himself, who is simply expressing Hahnemann's Homeopathic point of view for health and disease, nowdays accepted by most Homeopaths (the critique is dated 1978). Besides there was a newer edition of Vithoulkas' Science of Homeopathy printed on 1980, with very possitive comments by the Homeopathic community ::. At the time of print of the very first edition of Science of Homeopathy, at the Royal Hospital, only Homeopathic Polypharmacy (combinations of homeopathic remedies) were being used, and that only for minor health issues. Campbell and the establishment felt threatened, and hence this negative critique. Science of Homeopathy is a standard book used in almost all homeopathic schools around the world - the fact that it has been translated in 20 languages is a proof of its acceptance. And please do something about ], he is clearly biased, dismissing all information about Vithoulkas as POV (please compare the edited versions) ::] 16:02, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
:The quote in question is , and is from the British Homeopathic Journal.


== Wikihounding by Awshort ==
I don't know what to do with him. If I had my druthers, I'd block him, but... ] <sup>]</sup> 16:22, 20 March 2007 (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?
'''UPDATE'''
:He's now making legal threats: (this makes it easier to read) I've changed two things he objected to on my talk page to an exact quote, and a more exact paraphrase of his argument since this, but I somehow doubt it'll placate him. ] <sup>]</sup> 16:30, 20 March 2007 (UTC)


After my post today, Awshort started ]me.
*I would like to provide more detail about ]'s legal threats. Here and here he uses edit summaries to threaten legal action over the ] article. I warned him about ] and ], after which he continues to make legal threats: and . I am becoming very concerned about this situation, and I would appreciate it if an uninvolved admin could intervene. Thanks! ] 16:36, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
**I'm a hawk when it comes to fighting legal threats but to me it seems like he's skirting ''just'' outside the realm of what warrants an instant ban. Let us know here if he crosses the line solidly. I'll drop a note to stop even alluding to a possible lawsuit. --] 16:39, 20 March 2007 (UTC)


Here are diffs where they follow me around to pages it doesn't appear they have had any interest in prior:
I've protected the article on the ], let's work this out shall we. --] 16:38, 20 March 2007 (UTC)


°
* Are there actually any sources for this article which are not in some way connected with advocacy of homeopathy? <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 16:42, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
**Not really. Frankly, the subject seems largely invisible outside of pro-Homeopathy sites, and that weird ]. (Have you ever poked around the R. L. Award website? They criticise the Nobel prize for not awarding enough science prizes to the "south". Big freaking surprise, given there's only two not-particularly populous first-world nations in the southern hemisphere.) ] <sup>]</sup> 16:55, 20 March 2007 (UTC)


°
*Sorry to be a bit slow, have just noticed this "Dave, i'm just letting you know Adam inserts FALSE information on Vithoulkas' WP page, obviously intentionally. Just a friendly note, WP and Adam himself can be sued for this. Hope you resolve the situation.Homeopathic 16:01, 20 March 2007 (UTC)" which is perhaps superseded by later events. One thing Adam's not picked out from the interview which was the source of the contested views, it indicates that Vithoulkas has fallen out with "his students from the UK in the 1980s", which may explain a bizarre on my talk page at 13:08, 19 March 2007: "it seems that you have sided with the wrong guys". There appear to be rival factions in the homeopathy world. .. ], ] 20:38, 20 March 2007 (UTC)


°
:Just to play devil's advocate: if there are no ] on this guy, should we really ] about him? ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 23:04, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
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.
::It seemed pretty borderline to me. from the ''British Homoeopathic Journal'' looks pretty independent. ] recently added other articles from the same source which are very uncritical, reading rather like advertising magazines. His books do seem to have made it onto Amazon.com, though Amazon.co.uk didn't seem to be selling them themselves, essentially referring buyers to second-hand dealers. .. ], ] 00:41, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
:::There was an AfD, but it got overrun by meatpuppets (See ]) and then, after I early closed due to copyvio, it got promptly reconstructed. (And Vithoulkas changed his copyright terms to release his CV under a free licence - NOT that we should use it!)
:::He's very extreme and anti-conventional medicine, and that seems to have made him a darling of extreme homeopaths and altmed types. ] <sup>]</sup> 07:17, 21 March 2007 (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.
::::Well then, I don't say this to ], but maybe another AfD ''sans'' meatpuppets and copyright issues would make sense? The article is still extremely thin on ] establishing notability, and likely fails ] and/or ]. Given the hullaballoo surrounding the page of late, it would seem there has been plenty of time to produce such sources, so their lack is telling. But as it's protected currently I'm not sure whether it can or should be re-listed. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 15:08, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
____
Well, we could, but I'd suggest you be the one that does it: I think he hates me enough already. That said, he has made himself notable enough among homeopaths to get a few awards, now, whether they're really notable - a medal awarded to him by Hungary to kick off a homeopathic conference in Budapest, for instance - is another thing, but it is evidence he's notable for a modern homeopath. Whether "notable for a homeopath" is really notable in reality, I dunno. I wouldn't mind keeping the article if we can get him to allow an objective statement of Vithoulkas' views, as it might be a useful study in how far out there homeopathic thought can get. ] <sup>]</sup> 16:17, 21 March 2007 (UTC)


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 agree with the above, so have boldly initiated ] <small>—The preceding ] comment was added by ] (] • ]) 16:36, 21 March 2007 (UTC).</small><!-- HagermanBot Auto-Unsigned -->
::::Well, if it does succeed, we'd best salt it. ] <sup>]</sup> 07:38, 22 March 2007 (UTC)


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


Thanks for taking a look.] (]) 08:49, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
I am requesting a block of {{user|Lordknowle}}, who has been disrupting the article at ] (currently at ] status, and trying to get to FA). Lordknowle, who claims to be a PhD in the subject (yes I've told him to read up on the ]) has been repeatedly adding a link to , and been inserting false information into the ] article, either using his own website as a source, or trying to obfuscate the issue by citing what ''appear'' to be valid sources, that in actuality have nothing to confirm the information that he's adding. When challenged, Lordknowle throws out a wide range of personal attacks, some of which are violating ] policy, and has been trying to intimidate other editors out of the discussion by saying that if they don't have a degree in history, they shouldn't even be participating. He has also falsely accused an editor (me) of copying information from ''his'' website for the Misplaced Pages article.


: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)
A clear consensus against Lordknowle's actions has been achieved on the talkpage (see ]), but he continues to edit war to re-add the false information and his link to the page, along with other information in support of his group. He is also now bringing in ] to try and support him: {{user|HexTokis}} and {{user|Blakescottage}}.
::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)
:I've notified Awshort as it still hasn't been done. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 15:05, 27 December 2024 (UTC)


== User:PlumberLeyland ==
In addition to the on-wiki actions, Lordknowle has also been sending me a series of harassing emails, with a large quantity of venom and personal attacks (I can forward these along if anyone would like to verify this).


In summary: Lordknowle's website of http://www.templars.org/uk appears to have just launched a new version on March 10th, so the recent activity on Misplaced Pages seems clearly designed to try and drive traffic to the site. My recommendation, after discussing it with others, is that Lordknowle be blocked from Misplaced Pages for a "cooling off period" of a few days or weeks, and then if he genuinely wants to return to Misplaced Pages after that and work in a cooperative and collegial fashion, he would be welcome.


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)
Administrator assistance is requested to address this issue, before it further escalates and completely derails the FA process. Thanks, ]]] 19:11, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
:Blocked indefinitely as a regular admin action. --] (]) 12:47, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
* '''Support''' (as nominator) Given the clear desire of Lordknowle to promote his website, and the quantity of ] violations, a block of 2-4 weeks seems appropriate. --]]] 19:13, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
::And TPA pulled. ] (]) 12:57, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
* '''Endorse''' block as blatant spammer. '']'' 19:56, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
:::Thanks, both. -- ] (]) 13:02, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
* '''Comment''' How do you know that the site is his? And does the knights templar have an official website? --] 20:21, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
** He confirms the website connection at his userpage: ]. And no, the Knights Templar were a medieval order that was dissolved in the early 1300s. They have no official website. --]]] 20:53, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' I don't see any outright personal attacks. Is ] un-civil? Yes. Then again, I think ] going out of her way to use the phrase in reference to LK's PhD (and drawing a parallel to him and Essjay) is fairly un-civil too as the obvious intent is to call LK a liar without actually saying it. <font color="Green">]</font> <sup><font color="Blue">]</font></sup> 20:25, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
**The "obvious intent" is to point out that pseudonymous contributors can and do invent fake academic credentials, and that it is a mistake for other contributors to trust them without question. Please assume good faith. ] 22:17, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
***And it is good faith for Elonka to constantly refer to LK's "claims" of having a PhD (as she even did for this thread)? <font color="Green">]</font> <sup><font color="Blue">]</font></sup> 22:19, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
****Skepticism about unsubstantiated claims of one's own expertise is not bad faith. ] 22:29, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
*****It most assuredly isn't assuming good faith, is it? <font color="Green">]</font> <sup><font color="Blue">]</font></sup> 22:30, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
**There are limits to assuming good faith. Accepting unsubstantiated claims of academic credentials is one, for reasons Elonka has pointed out and that we are all very familiar with. Elonka is not even assuming *bad* faith, merely suspending judgment, in the true spirit of skepticism. ] 22:44, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
* '''Comment'''. It is worthwhile noting that Elonka's comment "" is slightly incorrect; spelling corrections do not have to be sourced, ANI reports do not have to be sourced, ''et cetera'', ''et cetera''. '']'' 20:55, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' I fail to see how a 2-4 week block would resolve this content dispute. It may allow for enough time to get the article promoted to FA, but then what? There are more appropriate venues in place to handle such disputes: ], ], ], etc. ˉˉ<sup>]</sup>] 21:25, 20 March 2007 (UTC)


== User:Iacowriter ==
The constant personal attacks and harassment are what concern me. The content disruption is pretty weak sauce for a block (although ]), but the harassment deserves a fairly stiff block, particularly if Elonka can forward or post some of the emails she's received. ] 22:13, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
:Characterizing the cited diffs as personal attacks is going a bit overboard, IMHO. Of course I am not aware of the actual content of any of the e-mails mentioned by Elonka, but they are off-wiki. Looking at the situation from a neutral stance, I see no reason to endorse either vendetta. ˉˉ<sup>]</sup>] 22:22, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
::Why is it okay, during a content dispute about the Knights Templar, to go on laborious tangents about Elonka's character? ] 22:29, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
:::I never said it was. I don't think that a temporary block will diminish Lordknowle's animosity because Misplaced Pages makes for a poor vehicle for any sort of effective behavioral modification. Lets focus on helping them resolve the content dispute. The personality clash and ensuing bad faith accusations are unfortunate, but that is a personal matter between these editors. ˉˉ<sup>]</sup>] 22:52, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
::Two of the three diffs may count as incivil. But I believe that constitutes a personal attack, in the sentence "Maybe I should write a self-promoting entry page on my life, career and publications, but there again, I don't think that I could be so vain or conceited.:-)" The "self-promoting entry page on my life, career and publications" obviously refers to Elonka's user page. By saying "I don't think that I could be so vain or conceited", he's automatically saying that Elonka ''is'' vain and conceited. I call that a personal attack. ]]<sup>]</sup> 10:19, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
*'''Endorse''' per above. &mdash; ''']]''' 22:38, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' this is a content dispute. ] has filed this complaint as well as a 3RR. I think she is simply forum shopping to find an admin who will block this user for her personal recommended week or two. <font color="Green">]</font> <sup><font color="Blue">]</font></sup> 22:48, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
**If someone violates 3RR as well as harassing other contributors, I don't really see what's wrong with reporting both incidents to the most appropriate place for each. ] 22:54, 20 March 2007 (UTC)


] has been warned in the past year to properly update numbers since he is not listening and can't do basic rounding of numbers and update the accessdate parameter. He has been warned enough times about this as seen by his ] by me and other editors but still refuses to listen.
*'''Oppose''' Firstly, I object to being called a meatpuppet. Although new, I have been trying to pour oil on water on here in relation to your squabble with LK. The term meatpuppet (which I have now looked up) is not very welcoming to someone who has tried to resolve the issue. It also seems very hypocritical for you, Elonka, to be nicey-nicey in your welcome statement and then use this sort of language. It seems that Elonka really does have some real issues here. But to start bringing people like me in, when I'm trying to pacify the two of you seems more like desperation with no logical argument. I would disagree with your often used expression of 'concensus'. On the Talk page of the article in question, Elonka has been supported by three people (some names also appear here) who have personally contributed to her own Misplaced Pages article. That is not the basis for impartial concensus and should be considered in that prejudicial light. As to LK's academic qualifications, I know what he holds, as we have visited his library to research rolls and other archives. He is most definitely the holder of a doctrine and to accuse without knowing the fats is plainly rude and unnecessary. This now just seems to be academic jealously and I am frankly shocked at this attitude. As to breaches of policy, Elonka has equally labelled LK with the SPA tag when it is obvious that he is not. He has not been party to any vandalism at all. As to private emails, that is a matter for email providers to sort out, not Misplaced Pages, even if such emails exist. I am astounded at the manner in which this complaint has been raised considering the Talk messages that Elonka has sent on my introduction to Misplaced Pages. I am not happy at all. ] 22:56, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' I'm not really all for "voting" on blocks, but the personal attacks, uncivil tone, and "shut up and let the expert do it" attitude are a cause for concern. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 22:57, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' I'd strongly support investigation of HexTokis to determine if he is a sockpuppet of Lordknowle. I don't think any action should be taken until that matter has been looked at. ] (<small>]</small>) 23:03, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
**Distinctly possible. Based on their edit histories, they are never logged in at the same time. ] first edits were to the ] talk page to defend LK. <font color="Green">]</font> <sup><font color="Blue">]</font></sup> 23:07, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
::{{user|Blakescottage}} looks questionable too, also a first-time editor who turned up to defend Lordknowle. ] 12:33, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
*** It looks strongly possible, and it will hang over this whole affair (not to mention HexTokis' account) until it ceases to be an open question. Regards, c] (<small>]</small>) 23:11, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' Elonka's report for 3RR was denied by me. There were only 3 reverts, and she showed 4 reverts when she included a consecutive revert as two separate reverts. It does appear that Lordknowle has been quite incivil, but I don't think such blocking action is warranted in this case. ''']]''' 00:47, 21 March 2007 (UTC)


I've full protected the article. <font face="Verdana">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 02:04, 21 March 2007 (UTC) I've requested admin action but I was told to go here. ] (]) 14:51, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
: This has been going on for months now. At first I thought he was following the bad example of other editors who fail to update the box office gross consistently in all places it needs to be updated (article body, lead, infobox) but it goes beyond this. I tried asking nicely and repeatedly tried to explain the basics of how to round numbers (which is odd because he seems to be able to get it right in the Infobox most of the time, but frequently fails in the lead section and fails to update the article body). The problem is compounded by his failure to follow the ] rules and provide a meaningful edit summary.
*'''Objection''', per forum shopping. Page protection is a good solution, getting your opponent in an edit war blocked is not. ] may be relevant. ] 09:57, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
: ] warned him politely October 27, 2024, but Iacowriter seems unwilling or unable* to correct his persistent mistakes and unfortunately it seems to be necessary to escalate this issue in some way. (* stated that he has autism) -- ] (]) 16:41, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
**Note that with respect to forum shopping, this has also already been reported on . ] 10:13, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
:Leave me alone! I’m trying! ] (]) 17:04, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
::Trying is one thing, but you seem to keep ignoring it he advice you're getting from others. It looks like there have been multiple requests for you to stop rounding numbers incorrectly. Why have you refused to stop? ] ] 17:08, 27 December 2024 (UTC)


== Disruptive editing and pushing of his own "point of view" by ] ==
Okay, something exceedingly unpleasant is going on at ]. I think I am going to have to block Lordknowle for either trolling or a potentially compromised account. ] 12:14, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
A few months ago, I began to create ] German folk songs, with my own translation under CC-license (that's still quite normal for a bachelor in history (ethnography), I guess). The above-mentioned user started to push his own remarks, reverting my edits (in spite of my authorship and my notices about my VRTS permission and CC), and ended . At least, we (together with other participants) clearly established that I had had such a right and labelled some of my talk pages with my VRTS-ticket. Nevertheless, already the following page I'd started the attention of the aforementioned person. And that what me (a poet-translator of folk songs and historian/ ethnographer): {{Blockquote
:Blocked. See that talk for more details. I think this moots the prior discussion above, at least pending further explanation or if there is sock activity to be dealt with. ] 12:50, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
|text="I replaced (or omitted) archaic 'inwit', 'wont'; mark parts of the translation as dubious.", it was a substantial improvement of that article. My remarks on the shortcomings of its translation, which you subsequently labelled "poetic", still stand"}}. The first case that he marked as "dubious" was the gender of the German "Winter". In German, that word is masculine; however, I translated "Winter" as a feminine, and there are a plenty of samples from history when the Germans depicted "Winter" in their beliefs as a female deity or spirit (one might begin from ]).
*I concur that there's something strange going on. Intuitively I'd say it's a compromised account. ] 12:55, 21 March 2007 (UTC)


I have neither wish, nor time to consider all such current and future "improvements" (a lot of time we've spent solving the question with the VRTS-ticket itself). I only hope to avoid such "waste" of time and strength in the future — either he isn't allowed to undo or change my poetic translations without my own consent and our consideration, or I stop my further like work. --] (]) 15:10, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
*Per the indef block on this account I've changed the protection level at ] to semi and also implemented a weeklong semiprotection on ]. That should give the regular editors an opportunity to continue improving this GA into an FA while keeping any socks from tiptoeing out of the drawer. <font face="Verdana">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 14:32, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
:@] I have posted an ANI notice on Michael's talk page. Please leave the notice on users' talk page when starting a discussion on ANI next time. ]<sup>(])</sup> 15:42, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
:{{ping|Tamtam90}}, anything on Misplaced Pages can be changed at any time by any editor. If it is not acceptable for you to have your translations modified by others, I suggest you not use them. --] 16:17, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
::: I translated and published my translations in Wikisource, as professional ethnographer. You don't explain the situation, nor the edits of your "protégé": merely reverted my (author's) edits without any consideration. Why not to "change" or "revert" in Wikisource as well? Please, try it. Or your admin flag doesn't admit such a trick?--] (]) 16:59, 27 December 2024 (UTC)


== AUSrogue's behaviour ==
== Admin abuse by ] against ] ==


{{Userlinks|AUSrogue}}
(the same description in ] too!)


I believe this user is not here to build an encyclopedia. They are pushing an anti-semitic point of view and calling editors who disagree with them Jewish as an insult. The original issue is this {{diff2|1260302142}} on ] where they say some terrorist attack was labeled as Christian terrorism {{tq|by Jewish wikipedia editors}}. I reverted it, left a level 2 personal attacks warning on their talk page, and they agreed to stop.
] was in revert war with ]
*revert Nr. 1
*revert Nr. 2
*revert Nr.3
*revert Nr. 4


They then do {{diff2|1260316648}} which just isn't neutral. This was a month ago, and today, they put it back, leaving this {{diff2|1265572883}} on my talk page, with an image, ] uploaded just for me. This is a reference to the ] which I take issue with.
4 reverts in only 23 min and ] is admin!


I believe AUSrogue isn't here to build an encyclopedia. ] (]) 16:07, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
] personal attack against ]


* Yeah, that's not acceptable. Blocked indefinitely, they can explain themselves in an unblock request. ] 16:11, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
*personal attack Nr. 1
*personal attack Nr. 2


== Disruptive reverts and insults by Andmf12 ==
*] blocked ] with him who was in personal editwar


{{user|Andmf12}}
but
]
say:


First, I'm French and my english isn't perfect. Then, it's my first report here, so sorry if I'm not posting on the right place.
'''Blocking to gain an advantage in a content dispute is strictly prohibited.'''


Since days, {{user|Andmf12}} is continuously reverting on article ] but also insulting me: , , + insult: "are you dumb?", + insult: "yes, you are an idiot and stop deleting because we are not interested in your stupid rules, like you", + insult: "You're crying like a little girl and I see you don't want to calm down".
That is a very serious violation of admin rights,
and after revert of another page and revert of ] and blocking of ]
only tree minutes - a very hard working and very cautios admin.


The object of the reverts is about non-sourced hypothetical (or not yet confirmed) transfers (see ? on each item) but as I explained many times in my removal, "Misplaced Pages is an encyclopaedia and not a ]". If needed has been mentioned ("devrait") but not confirmed yet. Same thing for .
--] 07:43, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
:''Moved from ] to ].'' ''']]''' 22:46, 20 March 2007 (UTC)


For a little more context, previous similar behaviour by differents IPs happened in this article and lead to a request for page protection on and a second time on . Actually, the problem wasn't only for the handball club article but the same problem occurred to multiple handball clubs and led to many . At that time, ] was the worst with already many insults in english ("Where is democracy? We do not distort information, we come to support handball fans who do not have a platform like transfermarkt in football" and "Are you stupid?") or in romanian "iar ai aparut ma prostule?" (meaning "You showed up again, you idiot?"), "mars ma" (x2), "Nu mai sterge bai prostule" meaning according to google "Stop wiping your ass, you idiot").
:good news, personal attack now --] 09:42, 21 March 2007 (UTC)


Coincidence or not, looking at led to the conclusion he.she is Romanian and by the way one can see that he also have had inappropriate behavior in the past months (, , )
I must say this behaviour is indeed troubling. Darwinek was revert-warring on the ] article, breaking 3RR himself two days ago, then (just minutes after his own 4th revert) blocking his opponent for 3RR. Admittedly a valid 3RR offense on a different article, on which Darwinek wasn't himself involved, but about a similar topic and as such part of the same overall dispute situation. Adding a rather taunting comment on the blocked opponent's talk page (). Then continuing the same revert-war until today, calling his opponent "schizophrenic" (). The dispute is one of those silly nationalistic POV-pushing matches where people have to be "claimed" for this or that nationality; both sides are equally at fault there. When S.novak added the report to Darwinek's old RfC (true, a stale RfC from last year about a totally different issue), Darwinek simply reverted it without any comment. This isn't looking good. That said, someone deserves a slap with the wikitrout for combining this report with an uncalled-for personal attack ("dishonorable"). ] ] 10:27, 21 March 2007 (UTC)


I'm not fully aware of the rules here, but I think that {{user|Andmf12}} should sanctioned somehow.
:Not the first time I hear of Darwinek's bad mouth. Blocking someone you're in a revert with is even worse. I propose a proper long block for repeated incivility and abuse of sysop tools. He knows it has no place here, but he also knows that he will typically get away with it as before.--] 11:50, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
::Sometimes it happenes to everybody, because everybody has blood too hot sometimes . They were edit warring both, I welcome them both to the calm discussion on the talk page of that article with a cup of tea. ''']<sup>]</sup>''' 12:11, 21 March 2007 (UTC)


Thanks for your concern.--] (]) 16:27, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
:::I'm sorry, but a cup of tea is a wholly inadequate response. This either needs a new RFC of straight to Arbcom, unless—at a minimum—Darwinek apologizes here and to mt7 and takes a voluntary 24 hour break for his 3RR violation. ] 12:49, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
: Blocked two weeks as a CheckUser action. It could be upped to indefinite if someone wants. I doubt this person is going to change after 2 weeks. ] (]) 16:57, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
::::Can somebody please translate "personal attack number 2"? Also, "personal attack 1" is a diff to another revert, not a personal attack. ] 12:55, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Mt7, or whoever he is, is a nice example of user who doesn't know what is he doing. I started mentioned article, he later properly added mentioned person is Hungarian. But after recent dirty war on HU Wiki he started whitewashing articles about Hungarians from Slovakia on EN Wiki. I reverted his edits, and will do so until I will be user here. Point is I am not Hungarian but he is Slovak. Bashing Hungarians is a strong element in Slovak society, now transformed also to Wiki. He claims he used three sources, saying all prove Gögh is Slovak. Bullshit. I can speak Slovak and no of these three "sources" say anything about his nationality. No source also says he is Hungarian but it is most probable, he is. He played for Czechoslovakia national team because he was a citizen of that country but that doesn't mean he was Czech or Slovak. Mt7 edits are thus strong campaign against national and ethnic minorities and will be always reverted. He has even deleted cat "Hungarians in Slovakia" from Hungarian people who were born in Slovakia, lived there and later represented Hungary. This is vandalism. Only reason why we are here is he is whining and trying to camouflage his vandalism as content dispute. Period. - ] 12:57, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
:First: Good faith edits are '''never''' vandalism. Second, ] applies even if you're right. You're an admin; you're expected to act like one. ] 12:59, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
::Looks like Darwinek is the one reverting the vandalism, so 3RR doesn't apply.--] 13:02, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
:::How is changing the ethnic characterization of a person vandalism as opposed to a content dispute? Otherewise, let's pick a side in the Armenian-Azerbaijani edit wars, call all its edits vandalism, and block the editors. No need for a messy arbitration case. ] 13:07, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
::::This is completely other case. You don't understand it because you don't live in Central Europe. When some IP will remove claim that Siegmund Freud was Jewish, info that Denzel Washington is African American or info that Al Pacino is Italian American, I will revert all, warn IP and if continued, block him. I am doing it all the time, this case is special only in the factor, we have a registered user instead of anonymous IP. But vandal is still vandal. Or how else would you call blanking whole "Hungarians in Slovakia" category several days ago ... - ] 13:15, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Note that Slovak Misplaced Pages article started also by Mt7 says he is Ethnic Hungarian. So this user also knows the truth but suddenly changes his mood and start reverting like a crazy. No comment. This whole campaign probably aims at provoking my actions and destroy my respected person. - ] 13:03, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

:Sigh. I see that you are utterly unrepentant and unwilling to address the real issue, ie. that you abused your admin powers in what very very definitely was a genuine content dispute. If this goes on, I hate to say it but I see desysopping on the horizon. ] ] 13:31, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
::Let's not make threats such as that anymore, especially since there has been zero effort at dispute resolution yet.--] 13:53, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
:::Sorry, but I stand by that. It's not that I would want to press for desysopping this moment. Dispute resolution is exactly what we are doing right now. But for me the fact of admin abuse seems very clear at this point, and I maintain, if Darwinek doesn't come round and admit he was wrong, then I see no other option. ] ] 13:59, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
::::I see...that sounds like a very severe penalty for matters that might not be readily understood by persons who are not from the region Darwinek is from. He claims it is vandalism, so until someone can prove to me it isn't, then I can't see how suggesting a desysopping (for which neither of us have the power to do anyway) is helpful...all it does is add fuel to the fire.--] 14:17, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
:::::MONGO, if one person says Gogh is a Hungarian, and another person says he is a Slovak living in Hungary, and neither side has any sources, that is a content dispute, not vandalism. ] 14:24, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
::::::Thatcher131, common knowledge to Darwinek may equate with he being correct that he is dealing with a vandalism issue. If indeed what we have here is an edit war, then why did you reduce the block on Mt7 instead of unblocking him...or block Darwinek too if he is in an edit war and has violated 3RR??--] 14:44, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
:::::::I reduced Mt7's block for the reason I gave. I did not block Darwinek at the same time because I though I saw 4 reverts by Mt7 and 3 by Darwinek. I am certainly prepared to block Darwinek if he keeps this up, but I also have to go to work now and, being neither omniscient nor omnipresent, will have to leave that to the judgement of others for the time being. Looking at Darwinek's contributions, including , I'm not enthusiastic about adopting his version of "common knowledge" as a yardstick for identifying vandalism. I'd rather have verifiable sources ''in the article.'' ] 14:54, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

::Sigh. Reverting vandalism is not a content dispute. - ] 13:38, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

:::If a dispute over the ethnicity of a person is vandalism (i.e. you are right and a differing opinion is vandalism) then we can easliy solve the Armenia-Azerbaijani dispute currently at Arbitration by declaring one side right and the other side vandals. (By the way, this is the same problem with former admin PMA, see ]). ] 14:19, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

:Check the history when I spot edit war I proposed the discussion and offered compromise. Mt7 was that one who refused. ''']<sup>]</sup>''' 13:45, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

::This may well be true and your compromise may well be very reasonable, but it's still the case that the claim that this guy was an ethnic Hungarian remains unsourced (Darwinek added something he called a source but which wasn't). Mt7's removing the nationality claim under these circumstances may be seen as POV-pushy, perhaps, but it was quite definitely not "simple vandalism". ] ] 13:56, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
:I see, discussion is the way that should be taken. ''']<sup>]</sup>''' 13:58, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Darwinek seems to have, at the very least, a blind spot concerning this area of Misplaced Pages, which make him unable to distinguish between vandalism and edits that go against his view. His blocking of an editor with whom he as in dispute is also very worrying. That Mt7 refused discussion & compromise might say something about him, but it is of no relevance to this issue: the blatant misuse of admin tools. --] (]) 14:00, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

:Time to move this away from the noticeboard, into an RfC? ] ] 14:03, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

::Perhaps, compounding edit warring with insults is bad behavior for an editor, but threatening to block crosses the line. Some sort of acknowledgment of error would go a long way though, ] makes it very clear this is a disagreement, not vandalism. <small>]<sup>(Need help? ])</sup></small> 14:06, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
:Darwinek is a respectable sysop, perhaps he made a mistake, slap him with the wikitrout but why RfC ? ''']<sup>]</sup>''' 14:09, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
::Because misuse of rollback, blocking editors you are feuding with, and misunderstanding content disputes as vandalism are serious failings in an admin, and undermine the trust that users must have that all admins will use their special buttons responsibly. An RFC will demonstrate to Darwinek that many other admins view his actions as a serious problem, and might force him to recognize this for himself. His current lack of awareness that there is even a problem to discuss makes me doubt the eventual value of an RFC, however. ] 14:15, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I've now filed an RfC: ]. ] ] 15:10, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

=== Request for Arbitration ===
Even though this dispute is only a few hours old, I feel Darwinek's responses, both on the RFC page and on the talk page, demonstrate that he lacks the judgement needed to be an administrator, at least regarding topics related to Czech nationalism and ethnicity. I have filed a ]; you may wish to comment there. ] 20:58, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

== Violation of ] policy ==

At ], NPOV issues have been clearly raised on the talk page, in a manner consistent with the guidelines of ]. This is supported by numerous editors on the talk page. However, two editors, ] and ] are refusing to respond. Instead, they simply revert the NPOV tag. --] 01:34, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
* When your arguments are rejected, I recommend you ''bring better arguments''. Regardless, you want ], second on the left down the hallway. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 14:47, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
::My understanding of Misplaced Pages policy is that it is customary to discuss the reasoning behind one's edits, especially the controversial ones, rather than just initiating an edit war and saying "I reject your arguments." --] 16:42, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
:::The issues on the talk page have been raised by supporters of Lyndon LaRouche, usually with no heed to the policies, and sometimes in violation of ArbCom rulings. These editors stuck the NPOV tag on it months ago, and feel it should stay until their demands are met, but the tags aren't there to enable editors to hold pages hostage. If there are genuine NPOV complaints, please describe them ''succinctly'' on the talk page (no rhetoric, no personal attacks, please) and make suggestions for improvement that are ''actionable within our policies''. That means you have to be familiar with the policies first. If you do that, your concerns will be addressed, but if all we see are attacks, long-winded grandstanding, and suggestions that amount to policy violations, no one is going to respond. That's not a SlimVirgin/CBerlet conspiracy; it's just human nature. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 16:54, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
::::I have ''succinctly'' described my NPOV complaints at ], as the NPOV dispute policy requires. As far as I have seen, none of the issues I raise have been formally raised on that talk page before, except in a more general way by ] one week prior. BTW, you are mistaken when you say that the tag was added by "supporters of Lyndon LaRouche." It was added by Cberlet in this edit last September, and it remained until you removed it earlier this month. --] 21:50, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

== The UPN Vandal ==

{{IPVandal|172.132.195.201}}
* I reported this in ], but this was declined as there was no vandalism. However, he is a known sockpuppet of ], as demonstrated by this . Proof of socking is at , which references the same issue. --] 02:18, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
*:Please take this to ]; you'll likely get a better response there. Cheers, ~]&nbsp;] 00:58, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
:Although this does appear to be a sock of that UPN chap, the IP is likely dynamic and there's not a whole lot of point blocking it. &ndash; ] 01:00, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

== Radio station Nova 106.9 – vandalised by own staff? ==

{{resolved}}

At 10:04, 20 March 2007 (UTC), I requested semi-protection for page ], which was declined for not enough recent activity. Since then (today), the page has been vandalised three times, all by the same IP address. However the latest edit suggests that the vandalism is being done by the station's own on-air staff . What could/should be done about this? ] 04:08, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

:It's still vandalism. That it's being done by the article's subject is irrelevant. Report the IP at ] if it continues past warnings. —] ] ] 04:15, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

::Reverted some nonsense that managed to survive on that page for several hours -- a bit disappointing to see that, but I'll try to keep an eye on it for now. Would sprotection be a good idea, here? If the staff (or whoever this is) keep coming back, it may be called for, I'm thinking. &ndash; <span style="font-family: Garamond">] (])</span> 19:24, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
:::Eh... I see this has been going on for awhile. I'll see if I can sort it out a bit better, later. For now, I'm giving it semi. &ndash; <span style="font-family: Garamond">] (])</span> 07:31, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

::::Thank you! Felt a bit psycho reloading my watchlist so often to see if it had been vandalised yet again... ] 09:38, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

== ] ==

Ok, now I don't want to ], but ] is obviously not acting in good faith, I don't think he'll ever be a decent contributor if he doesn't know that Misplaced Pages is serious about its policy, and his behaviour leads me to believe he's not a newcomer anyways, but I'll get to that later anyways. Anyways, my concerns are:

*The user , and his userpage flagrantly violates ] with its attacks on Americans, such as an upside down flag, references to using the flag as a cum-rag, and comments belittling 911. Now I know this may cause a knee-jerk reaction "Oh no we shouldn't stifle political speech", but I hope everyone will see the difference between political speech and deliberate antagonism, which harms the civil atmosphere Misplaced Pages needs for good editing. Everything seems to indicate he's mostly just here to cause trouble.

*His edits indicate he has little regard for Misplaced Pages's goal of encyclopedic content , and his standards are strongly at odds with Misplaced Pages's , even though he seems to have some knowledge of Misplaced Pages's policies (more on that below).

*I'm inclined to believe that the user is a sockpuppet created for venting antagonism at Misplaced Pages, or at least someone with extreme hostility to Misplaced Pages as well as familiarity with it.

:*His first edit was removing a faux-"New messages" line on a user's talk page , a current hot-button issue on Misplaced Pages. At the least, this indicates he's been on WP for long enough to be looking at people's talk pages, and he knows Misplaced Pages code reasonably well.

:*His second act was listing a page for deletion .

:*Among his first edits were adorning his userpage with userboxes (just check out the histories for ] and ], indicating familiarity with the WP community. Among these was evidently a parody of WP's editcountitis, with a userbox first indicating 20,000 edits (outrageously high) then 20 edits (possibly parodying counting every edit).

:*He uses terms such as NN, not notable, vandalism, and speedy delete. (just check out ]).

:*He successfully created a new image with valid inclusion criteria, something newbies often bungle, indicating knowledge of Misplaced Pages's image policies.

So, basically, I strongly suspect this is either sockpuppet created by a user for trolling, or an IP who's been on WP long enough that he should know the policies. In any case, his flagrant violations of Misplaced Pages's policies on content and civility deserve some kind of official action, or else I doubt he'll ever be a useful contributor, if that's even possible. --] <sup> (] / ]) </sup> 04:49, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
:Someone has opened a ] on him/her. ] 06:55, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

::Yeah, I saw that and wasn't surprised that someone else thought he (I'm pretty sure he, given ]'s userpage) might be a sockpuppet. I didn't find that case particularly convincing tho. Given how long SSP's sometime take I think Evergreens78 at least needs a sanction or a block to help avert any more harmful editing even if SSP cases are pending. --] <sup> (] / ]) </sup> 07:08, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

:::Contributions on AFD include "This is bullshit". ] ] ] 06:13, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

== Bulk copyvios of our content on a blog ==

I found containing uncredited content from WP while searching for copyvios on the ] article. Further investigation yielded the unauthorised copying of content from our ] article as well. I wouldn't be surprised if the ] post was also stolen. I've got to go to bed so I can't take further action on this now; what should be done? ] 10:44, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
:It might be a good idea to contact the blogger and let him/her know that Misplaced Pages needs to be attributed according to the GFDL. If the blogger doesn't respond, contact the Foundation. There really isn't anything here that can be solved with admin action, since it's outside Misplaced Pages. --''']]''' 11:15, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
::For the recod, a review of his profile reveals over a dozen such blogs, all pumping out copyvio Wikiarticles. ] 11:19, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

:::Ummm guys, "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, '''do not submit it'''." - The content on WIkipedia is free for anyone to share. ] 11:22, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

::::Per ] and ]. They can't just copy it and not attribute it or release it under the GFDL themselves. --] 11:31, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
:Well I've reported it via the google blog TOS, so we'll see. on the topic on google groups if anyone wants to post. ] 18:03, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

:Note: Copyvio wikipediaarticles may be a sign of ]. ~]&nbsp;] 01:02, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

== Cluebat needed ==

Can someone posessed of either saintly patience or an evil rogue streak please visit {{userlinks|1B6}}. He seems to think that reverting this "perfectly good" edit was admin abuse. Thus far he has called me a bastard and an asshole for making this change. Thread on my Talk (soon to be archived to dev/null using ]) makes it pretty plain that his real agenda is something else. I don't see much evidence of anything but trolling from this user right now. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 11:42, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
:Given his recent track record and block log , there is no need for saintly patience here. --] 13:16, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
::Looks like time for a community ban discussion. User's block history already shows an indef block that was lifted with a final warning. Hasn't gotten the message. Guy, you've got more history than I. Would you like to do the honors? Be sure to throw in ] which was created while this editor debated ] with you. <font face="Verdana">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 13:31, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
(outdent) Looking further, I've imposed an indefinite block for impersonation of administrative powers. Am composing a proposal for a community siteban. I informed the user of the proposal, which will be posted shortly to ]. If the user wishes to make a defense he or she may post to the user talkpage. <font face="Verdana">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 14:01, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
:] <font face="Verdana">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 14:13, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

* A fine job of work, probably more effort than this troll deserved in fact. Time to give him directions to the exit, I feel. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 14:40, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

== Comment ==

I, Homeontherange, would like to start anew. No more sockpuppeting, etc. This will be my new account. I will cease editing Israeli apartheid articles etc. You have my word. --] 13:18, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
* Take it to ArbCom, I for one am not unblocking you. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 14:34, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
* I second JzG's motion. <small>]<sup>(Need help? ])</sup></small> 14:48, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
::This message was left by ]. Given Homey's requests to obscure his past activities, I suspect this is a troll rather than the real ex-Homey. ] 16:28, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
::* Probably, but I don't care enough to do more than block the troll and move on, which is what I did :o) 16:39, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

== Possible copyvio involving ACM and Misplaced Pages... but who copied who? ==

While trying to track down sources for ], I came across the ]'s Turing Award page . It's pretty clear that either one biography was derived from the other, or they are derived from the same original source. Of course, I initially thought the Misplaced Pages article had plagiarized ACM, but looking through the edit history it seemed like our article was written by several editors in the incremental wiki-way. I then found striking similarities between Misplaced Pages articles and ACM biographies on other Turing laureates:

* ] and
* ] and
* ] and
* ] and
* ] and (notice the last sentence of the ACM biography and the penultimate one of this revision )

Something is not right here... I'm leaning toward thinking the Misplaced Pages articles are legit, but would like other opinions and ideas on what to do. -] (]) 15:02, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

: Don't forget ] and - came across this one the other day. It's pretty obvious which direction the copying is taking place in.
: The best thing to do would presumably simply be to remind ACM of their obligations per the GFDL. ] 15:10, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
:: Ah, I see Knuth had some {{tl|copypaste}} warnings on it, I've gone ahead and removed those.

:: I sent a quick e-mail to the ACM Web Editor (contact info ) pointing out ] and ], making clear I wasn't an official rep of Misplaced Pages or Wikimedia Foundation. If anyone is interested, I can forward you the e-mail I sent. -] (]) 02:14, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

== Possible severe Conflict of Interest AfD? ==

Can another admin please take a look at this: ]

The nominator is a self-professed employee of the ], and to me this seems a sever conflict of interest. The user was ] of ]. I am of the belief that this should be Speedily Kept as both a violation of ] and a seemingly bad faith nomination to boot ("that the violence may be legitimate.") -- ] 16:24, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

:Hm. If we barred everybody who is a civil servant or otherwise employee of a state agency from contributing on political issues regarding their country, where would that lead us? - That said, I now see he actually claims not only to be an employee but an authorised representative of the PNA. That makes some difference. I guess it would constitute COI for articles relating directly to the PNA as an institution, but still not to all articles relating to Palestinian politics. ] ] 16:32, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

::Firstly, contributing is different from nominating an article that paints this person's employer in a less than positive light. And are not gov't officials ostensibly working for the people in a "democratic" society? Secondly, COI exists, and in its context I am asking for confirmation that the AfD is improper. Your concern is more properly raised on ]. -- ] 16:37, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, when you're dealing with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, it will be hard to find anyone resident in either Israel or the Palestinian territories ''without'' a strong opinion. It's not like a standard political issue where most of the populace doesn't pay attention to the issue and can be considered unbiased. So we either exclude the entire population of a country or two, or we just have to live with a bit of editing by interested parties. --] <sup>]</sup> 17:03, 21 March 2007 (UTC)\

:There is a tremendous difference between having a strong opinion about something and being a paid public relations member of a government. I think it is actually somewhat ludicrous that you would even compare the two. I don't know how you could come to the conclusion that blocking her could be anything even remotely like the exclusion of an entire population of a country.- ] | ] 20:04, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

::I wonder whether you guys would be so keen on blocking her if she stated she was a member of Likud. WP:COI is about the stupidest policy we have, and trying to apply it here is ridiculous, given that your effort is so clearly politically motivated. My view: we should concern ourselves with the edits, not the editor. If she edits within the bounds of policy, there's no big problem. ] 22:47, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
::::Grace, ] is also one of our policies. Perhaps looking at before accusations are levied would help. Thank you. -- ] 02:32, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
:::::"Assume good faith" does not mean "bend over", Avi. The diff mostly seems to be a long lecture on your part. It's a bit like the thief giving the court his version of the law on robbery so far as I'm concerned, I'm afraid. As I noted, so long as this user edits within the bounds of policy, there is no problem; if she does not, there are the usual remedies. You could though try negotiation instead of antagonism. Anyway, Avi, my money is on this being a clever piece of trolling. The intention is to get your faction to do something intemperate, allowing those who believe that Misplaced Pages is biased towards a particular point of view more fuel for their fire. ] 07:27, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
:::If it helps quell any doubts to say this, my impartiality has earned enough respect that I recently got solicited ] and ] and ] regarding sensitive issues that relate to Middle East politics. The latter example led to ] where my analysis of policy and precedent led to a fairly sympathetic stand toward the more conservative Muslim side of the debate. I was the editor who imposed a block on this account and let's ] toward the intentions of all who have been involved. We're here to create an encyclopedia, not to wage the world's disputes. <font face="Verdana">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 01:52, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

:::: As I noted above, "assume good faith" does not mean "pretend that no one has a bias round here". I don't have a problem with editors' having a bias, of course. Anyway, it's pretty clear that this user, whoever they are, will be run out on a rail pretty shortly. ProPalestinian editors have to be very careful to stay within the guidelines, as you have demonstrated. ] 07:27, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

:::::With the preconcieved notions and an inability to try to engage in dialogue that you seem to be representing, that may be an unfortunate truth. Thankfully, I have had dialogue with other Muslim and Palestinian editors and supporters who are more amenable to discourse than you seem to indicate. -- ] 14:06, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

::::::Grace Note, please refrain from the implication that the editor's political beliefs have any bearing whatsoever on my handling of this matter. The fact that this editor claims to be a representative of a well known organization did have some bearing. I would, however, have handled this the same in response to equivalent actions from someone who said they represented General Motors or the World Bank. <font face="Verdana">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 14:35, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

===Editor says she is a Hamas representative===

An issue has arisen with a new editor, {{User|Asucena}}. She says on her user page: "I am an official of the Palestinian authority and a member of Hamas' political public relations division; I am an official representative of the authority in the online field." And on her talk page: "I am an official of the Palestinian Authority. I am authorised to answer your questions about Palestine."

If true, there's a clear conflict of interest regarding any edits to do with Palestinian affairs or issues of relevance to the Palestinian authority or to Hamas. The question is how should we handle it? I seem to recall that the IPs of offices believed to belong to American congressmen were being blocked at one point to stop edits that might benefit them, but the Foundation wanted to be told because it was a government issue. This is also in a way a government issue. Do we block the user; ask her to stop making that claim until she proves it; revert her edits; simply keep an eye on them? Some of her editing has been controversial; for example, she nominated ] for deletion, which is absurd in itself, and a clear COI violation coming from her, if what she says is correct.

I'm posting this here and not on the COI noticeboard because she's saying there's a government authority involved. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 17:34, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
::How is she "going to prove it"? If for real, you'd think she would have much better things to be doing that tooling around here. Anyways, --] 17:43, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
:Notify the foundation, request confirmation via OTRS, and revert any COI edits on sight? ] ] ] 17:33, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

::See duplicate thread two headings up. ] ] 17:35, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
:::Could ] and ] (in that order) be related here? {{User:Netscott/s1.js}} 17:38, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

As long as all edits are in keeping with our guidelines and policies, there shouldn't be a problem surely? I'm a member of the University of Oxford, and have associations with a number of Colleges, but no-one has ever suggested that I should steer clear of relevant articles. Given that this editor is perfectly open and honest about her affiliation, we shouldn't have any problem monitoring what she does.

Whether she's actually who she says she is &mdash; that's another issue. Unless she tries to use it as a justification for edits, instead of giving verifiable sources, then I don't see that it matters. --] (]) 17:46, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

:You're not paid to represent Oxford University online, that's the difference. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 17:51, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

::I agree that it's ''a'' difference, but why is it significant here? --] (]) 18:26, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

:::Because she says she's an official rep &mdash; "I am an official representative of the authority in the online field." And on her talk page: "I am an official of the Palestinian Authority. I am authorised to answer your questions about Palestine."

:::Being on Misplaced Pages is part of her job description. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 20:28, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

There is a really big difference between just working for a college (which although needs to be seen as elite and exclusive does not need to be concerned with the public perceptions of of the organization near as much as a small government striving for recognition does) and being a paid public relations representative of a government. This is a textbook conflict of interest, if we ignore this situation we might as well abolish the entire policy since we are not going to find a better example of a violation. If someone was simply a member of a government in an unspecified position you might be able to make an argument against it being a COI, however this person is self-admitedly a public relations representative, their entire job is to protect the image of their employer. They will attempt to spin every detail to their advantage just as assuredly as those idiots on ]. Furthermore this user has not made a single edit that contradicts anything I have said.- ] | ] 20:04, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore the editor has stated that she is acting in an official capacity, , and that she isn't just editing wikipedia as a hobby.- ] | ] 20:24, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

:Role account anybody? ] <sup>]</sup> 20:37, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore is anyone else troubled by the fact that she refers to herself as "'''''one''''' of Palestine's National Authority representatives here on Misplaced Pages" and goes to refer to her "'''''duties'''''", . If this editor is being truthful about her affiliations the aforementioned statement seems to have at least two serious implications- First, that she is but one person that has been delegated to represent a particular government on wikipedia. Secondly, that the job actually carries specific duties. Maybe I'm just being paranoid, but this seem very disconcerting to me.- ] | ] 20:44, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

:I definitely don't agree with the proposition that some seem to be advancing - that we should be banning or reverting an editor's contributions ''based on who they are''. That way lies a very nasty slippery slope. It's also totally at odds with our mission statement ("the encyclopedia that anyone can edit"). As long as the editor's professional affiliations are properly disclosed - and in this case they seem to have been - I don't think there will be a problem. As for the fact that this editor will most likely be a partisan, I have to point out that the Arab-Israeli conflict articles are already a cesspit of aggressive partisan editing, disregard for NPOV, original research, reliance on fringe sources and unverified information, coordinated tag-team edit warring, overt POV-pushing, ownership of articles and pervasive systematic bias. The addition of one professional partisan isn't going to make much difference to an area of Misplaced Pages which is already infested with numerous amateur partisans (and it wouldn't surprise me if some of them were professionals, too, as Moshe suggests). -- ] 21:31, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

::Chris, banning ANYONE violates the idea of "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit". And I think working for a militant organization which has engaged in combat against Israel makes someone more partisan than someone who, for instance, works in a Tel-Aviv delicatessen. Sure, the guy in the delicatessen might not like the Palestinians much, but his job isn't to do PR for the people who blow them up. I'd have the same objections to someone who works for Likud or IDF editing Israel/Palestine related articles as well. ] 22:08, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

:::What next? Banning anyone who votes the wrong way? Most editors here do not state their affiliations. Should we be rewarding them for being smarter and punishing this one for being honester? ] 22:50, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

::::It's true that it's a bit of a paradox that when people disclose, we tell them they can't edit in certain areas, but it's not clear how else to handle it. For example, we don't want professional PR people for certain companies editing those companies' articles, and if they do, they have to be extra cautious; that is the point of the ] guideline. Given Asucena's edits, she's not being cautious at all; quite the reverse. So the question remains how best to deal with it. Of course, we don't yet know that she really is a PR person for the Palestinian Authority. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 23:27, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

::::I was under the impression that we only block people for their (mis)conduct, not their professional affiliations, or have I missed something in ]? Actually, I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing for people directly involved in the conflict to edit related articles. Several of our editors do serve with the IDF (] comes to mind), which can hardly be avoided given Israel's conscription policy. I'm sure we have Likud activists editing too - I'd be surprised if we didn't. There's nothing wrong ''per se'' in them editing, as long as they disclose any COI issues in advance. I'd call it a positive step that people are willing to engage with each other on Misplaced Pages rather than just blowing each other up... -- ] 22:54, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

::::If you edit with a consistently pro-foo bias, you should be banned for being a pro-foo partisan hack. Admitting to be employed by the Party for Foo and Blowing Up Bar is evidence of bias, which, '''in combination with a biased editing record''' and no indication of future improvement, is cause for ban. If you happen to be employed by the Party for Foo and Blowing Up Bar, but never say anything, edit anything having to do with foo or bar, or if you do edit those things, edit them neutrally, no one will care. ] 00:01, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

A very brief look through the user's contribution history and talk page shows that she has been making edits based upon her expertise or authority, and has been challenged for sources. I think she should be made aware of the rules and policies, and watched. If she can make encyclopedic contributions that are NPOV and reliably sourced, great. If she can't handle the rules, or won't, then hammer her through existing process and policy. Same goes for her fellow employees, if they really exist, and assuming she is what she says she is. If she's not, she shouldn't be allowed to claim it. ] 23:20, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

:As a matter of interest, and to test people's intuitions, if the press officer for the ] arrived at Misplaced Pages, announced who she was, and proceeded to edit animal rights articles from a very strong AR POV, and nominated for deletion an article that suggested the Animal Liberation Front was violent, what would we do? My sense is that person would be blocked by now. Am I wrong? ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 23:32, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

:: Interesting comparison, SV. There are one to two self identified activists for various liberation groups editing currently. Since the "Front" has no official organisation, we are told that anyone who self identifies as such, and works within their remit, is a representative. I don't believe any of them have been blocked despite editing the ALF and related articles from an obviously pro-AR perspective. Why not? Because they are judged on their contributions, not who they claim to represent. I keep a close eye on those I'm aware of, however none of the have grossly violated our policies. I would suggest doing the same for this editor. ]<font color="black">e</font>] 02:36, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

:: I do think you're wrong, and I think in any case the proper comparison is with a pro-Israeli editor, several of whom do edit in that manner. I think care needs to be taken not to deal with factionalists with the ban hammer, lest you are seen to be acting out of political animus rather than concern for the policies of the encyclopaedia. ] 07:27, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

*I've blocked the account for 24 hours and written what I hope is an appropriate and sufficient explanation at this user's talk page. <font face="Verdana">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 00:29, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

:Some explanation of role accounts may be necessary in light of the "one of" comments brought above. -- ] 00:43, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
::Feel free to add to my explanation. My main concern is to slow things down before this becomes another media feeding frenzy. We understand that new users often get off to a rocky start, but the press can be merciless and the recent Microsoft to-do may incline them to very little leniency toward this editor. I'm confident they'd check the bona fides before running any story. Yet from our perspective we're dealing with a bull-in-a-china-shop situation and the bull doesn't appear to notice the cameras strolling past the sidewalk outside the plate glass window. Let's lead the bull carefully so the good vases don't get broken. I suppose I'll take some criticism for this decision. I also think it was the right thing to do. <font face="Verdana">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 01:07, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

:::You'll get no criticism from me and I am generally a Palestinian Sympathizer. It is fine for her to be their representative, but when she edits those articles she (more than anybody else) needs to refer ONLY to published sources and maintain a neutral POV. There are other venues for her to push her POV. --] 02:17, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

There is a significant problem with letting editors pose as representatives of real world organizations with no proof of it. Such persons may wish to bring harm to the organizations they are posing as reps of. Or may wish to deny they are reps after they srew up and do damage to the reputations of whoever they are representing. Important real world claims by users should be sourced or deleted. ] 06:51, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

: I think this is about the first sensible thing I've seen said on this subject. What better way to troll the pro-Likudist faction here than to pose as a representative of Hamas and make contentious edits? ] 07:27, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

=== Let's all take a breath and calm down ===

I've written to the Foundation, summarized the situation with relevant links, and asked for directions on how to proceed. Let's avoid inflammatory speculations of all types. I'm confident they'll check this person's bona fides and reach a sensible solution. <font face="Verdana">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 15:01, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

== Maku ==

This is a returning indef user, his previous account ] now he is heavily edit warring here, please block him, ] 17:14, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
:I got that one, but it's likely that he's just going to create another. I don't suppose anyone has tried CU to see if a range-block wouldn't be too damaging? -- ] <small>(])</small> 17:27, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
::He has a number of ways to retrieve IP addresses so I wouldn't suggest blocking the ips since there not even his, other peoples. He has been range blocked before but it did not help him. Also he came back, the only solution now is reverting or protecting the article for now. Or we can reach a comprise by dealing with a sock puppeter not sure. ] 17:36, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

== Emergency: Betacommand deletion at bot speeds - please review impending block ==

{{user|Betacommand}} is deleting hundreds of links to usenet posts and Google groups every minute, without reviewing content, and without discussion at his user talk page despite strong objections by multiple people. He's apparently an administrator, and from his block log has had this issue before. I really, really don't want to block an administrator, but don't see another way around this. --] <sup>]</sup> 17:43, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
:It is actually averageing 28 edits a minute (at least over the last 500 edits), all of which happened in less than 20 minutes. The edits are out of control, removing links from anywhere and everywhere, even cite web templates that is leaving them broken. I think it stopped for now but there is a reason there is a bot approval process. ] 17:48, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
::Betacommand in response merely said "he missed some" . - ] 17:52, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
:AN discussion: ]. Probably should have been in ANI in the first place. -- ] <small>(])</small> 17:53, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

:Yes, it made bad edits to the RSX-11 article. Please somebody stop it? Please hit a ROLLBACK on it. Thanks! --] 17:56, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
::That was -- ] <small>(])</small> 17:59, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
:::* Correct. '''Would somebody please look at those links and tell me please if they actually do violate policy in some way?''' If so, I will correct them. I think having a bot enforcing policy in this very heavy-handed fashion is counterproductive and only breeds ill-will here. --] 21:01, 21 March 2007 (UTC)


:He's stopped after I threatened him with an impending block. However, I would still like several other admins to review that my threats were appropriate, and whether there was another action I could have taken here; I have never come this close to blocking another admin before, and it's a really, really, really bad precedent. I'm not happy. --] <sup>]</sup> 18:00, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
::Yes, your threat was appropriate. No, the unapproved bot action was not appropriate. But all that aside, please don't blindly rollback the edits - I have looked at a number of them and everything I have seen except for the one mentioned above was correct - random yahoo groups need to be removed from articles when they are found - but not with an unapproved bot. --] 18:04, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
:''I really, really don't want to block an administrator'' - why not? ] 18:02, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
::Blocking any established user is something to be avoided. --] 18:04, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
:::Even in the middle of such a rampage? Besides, the comment wasn't "I really, really don't want to block an established user"; it specifically referred to "an administrator". Why? ] 18:14, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

:I was about to block him too but wanted a second opinion before doing such. For all I knew, he was running an unauthorized bot, even though the task may have been useful in some situations, it was still running as a bot. There is a reason there is a bot approval process. ] 18:05, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
:::I think a block would have been the correct thing to do if he hadn't stopped. He shouldn't be making that many edits at once without a bot flag. ''']''' <sub>]</sub> 18:07, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

:Someone should have blocked him sooner, even if it was just for 15 minutes to force him to stop his actions immediately. I looked through a random selection and many of his removals were relevant external links that happened to be usenet posts, not cited as sources. Betacommand is routinely overzealous in enforcing his interpretation of policy. He opposed my rfa because I wouldn't agree with his block first, ignore their begging later policy towards usernames he considered inappropriate. PS, holy crap, I got three edit conflicts while adding this. ] (]/]) 18:06, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
:: O Lord, deliver us from do-gooders who know better than us. -- ] 18:59, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
:The rampage has stopped however blocking while it was happening was definitely called for. The necessary cleanup is now larger because of the hesitation. It also looks to me like the user has a problem with over-mechanistic application of policy in addition to civility lapses . I left a about overenthusiastic policy enforcement but further monitoring and (if necessary) intervention may be in order. I do think this user's intentions are good, but he is showing recurring poor judgement. The basic advice I would give him is SLOW DOWN, and be willing to write detailed explanations both in response to questions and in edit summaries. ] 22:16, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

:It was removing external links, I dont think this one was doing admin actions. If I remeber correctly, this is not the first time we have had issue with him running a "Bot" or automous "script" that performs controversial actions. ] 18:11, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
:::Is this gonna be cause for another request for comment? ''']''' <sub>]</sub> 18:09, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
::::<S>I'm not sure if there's grounds for one. He's done a lot of inappropriate actions but it's not like there's an ongoing occurrence of any one thing.</s> ] (]/]) 18:11, 21 March 2007 (UTC) Didn't read the second half of Chris's post. ] (]/]) 18:12, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
:::They're not. There's no CAPTCHA for routine actions so you can only block them once they start making hundreds of edits a minute. ] (]/]) 18:10, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

It may be cause for an ], but I'm not in any state to bring it just now. Thanks for vetting my actions, folks. I gather I'm not going to be desysopped any time soon, and it's got attention from other admins; I hope someone else will carry it further now. I'm going to take a break, because if I keep this up I'm going to do or say things I will certainly regret.--] <sup>]</sup> 18:14, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
:Well, for the record, I mentioned earlier I thought he had been involved in similar bot problems before. His ] shows 2 previous blocks for innapropriate bot action. ] 18:24, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
::Third time's a charm! Can Misplaced Pages afford an administrator/bot operator who goes on unauthorized bot rampages where he deletes useful and policy-conformant information every month or two? <span style="font-family:serif;font-size:120%">''']''' ]</span> 21:22, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
:::What I find the most offending about this case is that he didn't stop after getting several complaints on his user talk in a very short time frame, until he was finally directly threatened by another administrator. Until then, even where complaints argued that the links did not conflict with the policy, his responses were limited to claiming that the links undeniably conflict with the policy, and didn't even consider the objection.
:::I do not think a person with this kind of infallible attitude makes a good administrator, not to mention violating or ignoring several points of the ] policy &mdash; I would expect the '''bot operator''' of ] to be at least aware of it. -- ] 09:03, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

===Betacommand's bot gone stray!===
:''this section was moved from the main admins noticeboard''
Hello admins, please block the bot {{user|Betacommand}}, as it has several concerns listed on its talk page today, and is making unreviewed edits at an insane rate. -- ] 17:32, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

::''Apologies for misreporting this user as a bot due to misunderstandings. -- ] 18:03, 21 March 2007 (UTC)''

:I dont know if he has a bot flag, and i am not trying to point fingers, but edits are being made at more than 30 edits a minute. That is pretty quick for manual work. ] 17:36, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
:] is responding at ], so there doesn't seem to be any real concern about a runaway or "unreviewed" bot. The concerns "listed on" ] are about things like removing links to groups.google, so it isn't obvious that anything other than inappropriate link cleanup is happening. ] 17:41, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
::It is unreviewed innapropriate link cleanup. If he were manually removing the links, I would have no issue with it. There is a reason there is a bot approval process, an average edit rate of 28 edits per minute for the last 500 edits is insane. Plus, it is just blindly removing them, from citeweb templates and other stuff. ] 17:43, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
:::] has a bot account called ]. Has the user logged the bot into the wrong account by mistake? ] 17:46, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
::::This isn't part of that bot's approved scope, IIRC. -- ] <small>(])</small> 17:48, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
:::Indeed. While many or most of these should be removed, taking them out blindly (some exceptions ''might'' be reasonable) and cutting templates in half isn't good. He may be using a script to do this rather than a bot, but if he doesn't check the edits it has the same effect. -- ] <small>(])</small> 17:48, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
::::I guess, what draws the line? In 1bout 15 minutes, over 500 links were removed, and as far as I know, none of them were reviewed. While some may have been valid removals, others have been demonstrated as breaking things or the links may have been valid. What draws the line between a Bot and a script, especialyl when they can both do the same amount of damage? What prevents somebody from just writing a script and not worrying about the bot process? ] 17:51, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

::I don't think anyone would have much of a problem with Betacommand removing links to google/yahoo groups per ] when appropriate, but this user removes '''all''' links with a bot-like speed. This not only includes , but also the . The latter edit also breaks the cite newsgroup template. --]|] 17:55, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
:::] makes no mention whatsoever of Google Groups or Yahoo Groups. So what's this "per WP:EL"? And even things in the "normally to be avoided" category should not be deleted en masse. ] 18:04, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
::::Yahoo/Google groups are probably more likely to fall under the points of "Links normally to be avoided" than your average link, I think that's what is meant. But I agree it's not a guaranteed thing and should be done by a careful human, not an indiscriminating bot. --] 18:25, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
:::::In many cases, google groups was being used to provide a convenience link for a usenet post, thus, he was removing very useful external links. ] (]/]) 18:28, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
::::::Exactly! And this is especially problematic in articles about usenet and usenet groups. --] 04:43, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
He apparently stopped after I was clear that I was going to block him if he didnt. I really didn't like to do that, but didn't see another way. See also ]. Please go there to review whether my block threats were appropriate or not. Whew. I need to go take some deep breaths. --] <sup>]</sup> 17:57, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
:Actually, his last link removal was at 17:34 UTC. You message came at 17:45 UTC. &ndash; ] 18:02, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
::He seems to have stopped the bot at the same minute as AnonEMouse's comment , which wasn't a threat of a block, but was a strong warning to stop. --] 18:29, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
:::Ah, didn't notice that one. &ndash; ] 18:37, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

*Something similar happened not long ago with automated edits by {{user|James McStub}}. Admins should be a lot less reluctant to block accounts making automated edits, if other editors are complaining on the talk page and the edits are not stopping. From ]: ''Sysops should block bots, without hesitation, if they are unapproved, doing something the operator did not say they would do, messing up articles, editing too rapidly, or running anonymously.'' and ''Unflagged bots (including bots in trial periods) should limit edits to no more than 2 per minute.'' A BAG member should know this. ] 18:34, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
**Well, had I known that, and had I caught it in action (I.E. had he not stopped it), I would have blocked it. The average 30 edits per minute is well over the 2 listed in the policy. Thank you for clarifying that! ] 18:37, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

===Betacommand bot approval withdrawn===

Just FYI.

--]

:Good work. This kind of out of control admin behaviour is just why some people are leaving wikipedia (if you read the en. mailinglist you understand). This is just power misuse. YES, there is a lot of cleanup to do, but cleanup does not and has never meant automatic deletion. Bot work should be supervised at all times, and in this case it was clearly a case of run a query and dump them all in the bot. VERY VERY VERY BAD. If this was a company, said person was fired. And that has nothing to do with if I like the user or not. In general I have been very happy with the work of Betacommand, but this is just not acceptable. The Council was very unhappy as well because a lot of assessment categories got deleted for instance. I went trough the deletion list of betacommand, and in my opinion the whole thing should just be reverted and someone else who does review all the categories listings can try again. --] (] • ] • ]) 04:23, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

::As I recall, the only people talking about leaving Misplaced Pages on the en mailing list are some trolls that re-post an "I'm leaving" speech and some other nonsense every now and then. —]→]&nbsp;&bull; 05:03, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
I was looking through BetacommandBot's contribs for a ], to see if it had any approved tasks left. It was approved for two tasks which seem to have been one-offs and now discontinued (the contribs check was to see if it was still doing them); but the bot seems to have been used for tasks it wasn't approved for (such as substing templates) as well as the task for which approval has just been withdrawn. Aren't bots only supposed to be used for the task for which they were approved (for instance, I use my ais523 account to (manually) post ] generated by ] when it's decategorising AfDs; I've needed to help my bot out manually on occasion but always make sure I say it's me in the edit summary)? --] 09:23, 22 March 2007 (]]])

== Bot Vs. Automated Script ==

What is the difference between a BOT and an Automated script? The ] pages says, "Robots or bots are automatic processes that interact with Misplaced Pages as though they were human editors. Please read the guidelines below before designing and implementing any bot on Misplaced Pages." Would an automated editing script that does mass edits per minute qualify as a bot? ] 18:18, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
:Bots ''are'' automated scripts. &ndash; ] 18:20, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
:Yes. The defining characteristic of a bot is a program that makes edits in an automated fashion, without human intervention on each one, and they're all basically automated scripts of varying levels of sophistication. Betacommand violated the bot policy, plain and simple. ] (]/]) 18:21, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
::He was in November for the same thing ] ]/] 18:23, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
:::He has actually had 2 blocks for bot related action, each time he was unblocked by another administrator. ] 18:25, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
::If a script gets human confirmation then it is not a bot, if it acts without human confirmation then it is a bot. <small>]<sup>(Need help? ])</sup></small> 18:23, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

:] has a section on "assisted bots", which don't necessarily need bot approval, but must make it clear that software is being used, and says to make sure there is consensus *before* any large series of edits. ] 18:24, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
::The need for clearer policy on this was mentioned, but not resolved, during ] ] 18:28, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

== Need calm Admin voice and comments ==

On the ] page I am in a discussion with an obviously sincere but very opinionated and unskilled editor who is responding with increasingly angry personal attacks to my attempts to explain about citation, secondary sources, original research, and the difference between anecdotal incidents and secondary authors describing paradigms. The editor is demanding that everything be cited, which is fine (if burdensome when directed at an entire page); but then does not seem to understand how cited research works. As a start, I would greatly appreciate an Admin. stepping in, reviewing the discussion, and then offering some comments about what consitutes "vandalism," and what consitutes personal attacks. Some guidance regarding how citation works on a contentious page would also be helpful. I have already tried an RFC and a third opinion request, and I want to avoid moving into mediation if it is not needed. Thanks.--] 18:20, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
* Calm? That's me out, then. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 23:10, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
::I've full protected the page. Recommend mediation. BTW that certainly is a single purpose account. <font face="Verdana">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 23:58, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

== National Library References ==

I have left a message at Village Pump / Policy ] but maybe it fits here better. It's about the (troubled) relation between National Libraries and Misplaced Pages. Please let me know what's best. Thank you for your time, ] 18:23, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

== Advice needed, can admin look at this please? Re: Canuck01 ==

*] - This editor came to my attention when he repeatedly added a chart trajectory to the article '']''. I removed this information (as did other editors) based upon the guidelines ] and ]. Canuck01 did not like this and reverted several times. I suspect (but am not positive) that this disagreement led to on my Talk Page.
*Shortly thereafter, the same reverts were being made by ] and ]. I have left warnings and attempts to communicate on the Talk Pages of all three editors.
*Coincidentally, all three accounts edit the same exact articles.
*Coincidentally, all three accounts edit each others' User Pages.
*Canuck01 has questionable material on his User Page. Looks more like a regularly-updated collection of information that does not have anything to do with Misplaced Pages.
*Additionally, 68.45.87.86 has now replaced all of the communication I left on his Talk Page with the very chart trajectory that I removed from ''Some Hearts''. I'm pretty sure this isn't allowed either.

If I'm overstepping here or if this behavior is acceptable then so be it, but as far as I can see, this could possibly be sockpuppetry and that stuff on the User Pages seems very questionable. My apologies if I've put this report in the wrong section of Misplaced Pages - if this is the case please let me know. Thanks in advance. - ] 18:37, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

:I have also encountered Canuck01 in the past, and found him an extremely unresponsive and confrontational editor then; as well, he edited through the IP {{user|68.44.16.135}} and his username when edit-warring, almost always refusing to join discussions with other editors on talk pages. Has a history of personal attacks, too: after I removed the trajectory from the ] page, he called me , after which I warned him again not to use personal attacks. Look at the diff link to eo's talk page above, and you'll see he's chosen to ignore it. Not a shock really - see also and . I strongly recommend for an uninvolved admin to leave him a word on his talk page. ] 19:13, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

== Advice needed, can admin look at this please? Re: libelous content added by anon ==

Repeated libelous abuse inserted in to biographical entry by IP: 80.194.68.162. User repeatedly returns to the page on entry ] to inseret variations on "he is also a gay witeboy".
:Gave it a warning -- if they insert that line or anything like it again, let me know and I'll block. &ndash; <span style="font-family: Garamond">] (])</span> 19:28, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

== {{User|63.72.102.163}} claiming to be ] ==

Just wanted to bring this IP address to everyone's attention. This IP has twice claimed to be administrator ] (''diffs removed by Persian Poet Gal'') but these claims seem to be false and possibly malicious. There is reason to believe they are malicious because obviously ] has been editing quite fine under his own account at this moment and the IP has been requesting help in obtaining a password to access that account.] <font color="purple">]</font> 19:00, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
:I'd say that Anome should be notified (as I see he has been), and once he confirms he's not an IP, that IP should be confronted and warned about the impersonation, and possibly blocked if he doesn't cease and desist. Also, at Anome's discretion I'd consider removing those diffs above from the history of those pages, since they contain his personal information (full name and email address) that he might not want broadcast like that (for spam, if no other reason). --] 19:19, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
::::This is nuts. An experienced user like The Anome knows how to deal with password problems and that is not the way. Delete the diffs and block the IP immediately when something like this happens. ] 22:41, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
:: The diffs are a slight concern. You may want to delete them now and restore them if Anome wishes. '']'' 19:43, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
:::I see what you both mean, I have removed them as of this minute.] <font color="purple">]</font> 20:05, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

:What's a "Second Wave Wikipedian"? ] 21:18, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

::Yes, I can confirm that they're an impostor. I can't see any full name given in the diffs previously given above (unless it was there, and has been vanished using the Oversight process), and the one E-mail address that I have seen given (an exchange.uta.edu address) is definitely completely bogus. I've blocked that IP for a week, as I cannot possibly see any good-faith reason for password trolling. -- ] 22:29, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

:It is still there. OldID:116823159. Should be enough for you to find it, but not someone completely new. ] <sup>]</sup> 22:48, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

== Outside admin help requested ==

Hi - I was wondering if an uninvolved admin or kind soul could have a word with {{user|Alan2012}}. He's been posting fairly lengthy items at ] regarding medical journals, their connections to the pharmaceutical industry, etc (, , , ). Some of these posts verge on , and all of them are ] and violate the ] to use the page to improve the article in question, rather than as a platform for personal views. It's this has come up with editor; I'm afraid he's going down a path which will be unconstructive in the long run. I tried to (also , for example), but I'm involved in editing the article, so I fear I'm not impartial and not making a positive impact. Anyone? ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 20:28, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

:There's a WQA item for the same user that hasn't been responded to as well . --] 23:05, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

:''(Restored from archive so it's not overlooked.)'' --] 19:46, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

== ] ==

Can someone review my deletion of ] a while back (made before Vithoulkas changed his page to release use) and see if I was wrong to delete it as a copyvio? It does seem awfully close to the page linked, and gets more and more so as you go back in the history, and the inserted paragraphs and sentences disappear, becoming the hastily-reworked copyvio ones (there's an edit labelled "remove copyvio" - I don't believe it was completely successful.

I ask this because {{checkuser|LeeHunter}} refuses to stop attacking me about it, not that I see how he'd know, and if I was, in fact, wrong, I'd like to know so I can apologise, but don't really think I was, due to order of facts and a lot of sentences which just had their first word or two replaced with a synonym, though, admittedly, there were parts that probably weren't copyvio.

And if I am justified, can you please tell him I am? ] <sup>]</sup> 19:58, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

N.B. A similar page to the one I thought it was copyvio of, , was made copyright free by Vithoulkas after the deletion. This, of course, doesn't affect things at time of deletion, but is worth noting. ] <sup>]</sup> 20:02, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
:I'm not in a position to comment on the timing, but the page now reads "The material on this site is copyrighted by Prof. George Vithoulkas. Note: Prof Vithoulkas' biography information and photograph can be freely used, without prior notice." then goes on to list restrictions on use of the other information. It's an interesting question whether the statement "can be freely used, without prior notice" meets Misplaced Pages requirements for licencing, but contrary to LeeHunter's statements it appears that the bio is still copyright. .. ], ] 20:17, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
::I believe it happened at the time of . Also, if it doesn't meet licensing requirements, the photographs of Vithoulkas need deleted. (or at least fair use rationale'd) ] <sup>]</sup> 20:19, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

:::{{user|LeeHunter}} is taking an AfD on a subject he cares deeply about very personally. Happens every day. The decision was reasonable and supported by the header at ]. The article was re-created; otherwise, he could have gone to ]. If and are to be believed, it may be a moot point anyway. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 03:13, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

== Betacommand ==

Could someone please intervene in the Betacommand situation. I don't care whether what he's using is technically a bot or not. The issue is that a lot of the edits he's doing are bad. Misplaced Pages is a human edited encyclopedia and Betacommand is using some (manual or automated) process that fails to apply human judgement to these edits. Numerous users are asking him to stop and he's not slowing down. I can't tell if he's just being rude or actually engaging in ] but this needs to be stopped, if necessary via a block. Thanks. ] 20:03, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
::I think that this might be a troll. I am doing what I can. ] <sup>(] • ] • ])</sup> 20:09, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
:::] ] 21:18, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
:Um, he has been nothing but friendly here. He has reverted mistakes he made, he has undeleted a speedy article and afd'd it. I think you need to drop your gripe against this editor. ] 20:05, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
::He has stopped his controversial edits for now. —— ] </font><sup>]</sup> 20:07, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
::Sorry, I somehow saw a contribs page in which it looked as if the edits were still in progress. I'm not sure how that happened but it was undoubtedly my error. (I think I must have mistaken one of the older pages of Betacommand's contribs list for the most recent page). I'm glad the mess is being cleaned up. Thanks. ] 20:26, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

== Patience: expired -- edit warring on ] ==

{{User|14thArmored}} came to my attention on ] for engaging in personal attacks and vandalism. A quick check of his contribs revealed that he had been repeatedly capitalizing every initial letter in subheadings; when warned about it, he responded , and then deleted the 3RR and civility warnings with edit summaries like "Deleted bullshit from wikipedia morons." I blocked for 24h for personal attacks and disruption and left . (His unblock requests are and ; given the unblock "reasons", I .) Longstoryshort, dude has been a thorn in my side ever since, going through my contribs and claiming that I'm not a real editor since I don't add content. He's now skirting 3RR on the ] page, including falsely claiming that consensus is on his side. (It's really, really not.) Can anyone take a gander?

I admit that I invoked ] when talking with him; I felt that edits like , , , , and warranted it. Perhaps another wholly useless administrator can step in? Cheers. -- ] 20:08, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

:A guy with spelling and grammar (or, a dirth of grammer skils, as he'd say) errors as commonplace as he has really shouldn't be causing this big a fight over Title Case VS. Sentence case. It's a Pot Kettle black situation. ] 22:00, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

::Various ], ] warnings issued, which is what this editor really needs most at the moment. Next stop, longer block, I'd say. ] 22:06, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

== User:Broly The LSS ==

{{resolved|1=&ndash; <span style="font-family: Garamond">] (])</span> 21:48, 21 March 2007 (UTC)}}
Please block this guy. He has been messing with Dragonball pages all day and refuses to stop
a quick look at his contributes http://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Contributions/Broly_The_LSS
shows that he has been done nothing but vandilise wikipedia. Please just block him. ] 20:44, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

:*Blocked indefinitely. Next time try ] for accounts that are obviously vandalizing.] <font color="purple">]</font> 21:01, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
::Ok thank you. ] 21:02, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

== Spammer needs reverting ==

{{user|Hbrady}} / {{user|Helenbrady}} is Helen Brady, production assistant at WGBH . Looking at the contribs, you'll see a lot of edits to Exernal Links, pairs of links to the site (four pairs is the most I've seen in a single article thus far). I'm chipping away at it but it's a slow job. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 21:27, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
:So what? She's hardly spamming, she's creating links to freely available material hosted on the Web site of a respected American public television station. I think you're doing a grave disservice by blindly reverting every single link added. Many of them appear at first glance to be useful and informative. ] 22:43, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
:: Specifically, she's creating hundreds of links, two to an article, to material freely available on the website which employs her. Which is behaviour we usually call spamming. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 23:11, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
:::For heaven's sake, the Web site in question is advertising-free, operated by a non-profit organization and provides free access to primary source interview video clips. The links could be better-formatted, but that's what the "Edit page" button is for. Assume good faith. Especially of educational institutions. Perhaps they need to be pruned and edited - but they certainly shouldn't be blanket-reverted. ] 23:14, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
::After reviewing more of the links, some of them appear to be perhaps not perfectly relevant, but the vast majority are external links of the highest caliber - links to freely-viewable primary source video of interviews of the article subjects, hosted and made available by the copyright owner. That's exactly the sort of external link we should be encouraging and supporting because it's relevant material that we can't publish ourselves, but is legally available for free at an external source. ] 23:18, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
:::She should at most propose the links on the articles' talk pages. If these are links to where she works, they are COI edits, so someone else should make them instead. I agree with JzG that anyone inserting hundreds of links to their work site is spamming. ] 01:08, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
::::] does not prohibit people from making links to sites they are related to, or editing articles they are related to. It states that such edits should be made with '''great caution,''' and should be reviewed. The links in question are not promoting a product, are not pushing something that is otherwise-obscure, nor are they self-aggrandizing in any way. The content they link to is free and of the highest quality, and as I mentioned, it's not content that we can add ourselves because the videos are copyright-protected. By blanket-removing them, we aren't punishing the person who added them, we're punishing the encyclopedia's readers out of spite. ] 02:13, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
:::::'''' That sums it up. <font color="Green">]</font> <sup><font color="Blue">]</font></sup> 02:15, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
::::::Knee-jerk and inflexible application of guidelines is not necessarily in the best interest of the encyclopedia. Again, before calling this person's good-faith contributions "spam," please examine the content to which they've linked and note the fact that there is no advertising (and thus no profit motive) involved. The Web site in question is that of a major-market ] station in the United States, and thus can hardly be considered some sort of evil promotional plot. ] 02:20, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
:::::::I don't claim an evil plot and I don't see a disjunction between good faith and spam (Misplaced Pages is full of good-faith spamming). And there is no requirement that spam be commercial. These links all have to be evaluated according to the criteria of ]. I have no trouble believing that there are some that qualify but hundreds is too much. We are not here as an outlet for PBS web content--PBS has its own web site for that purpose. Also, the content is not free in the sense that we are about ("the 💕" aka "encyclopedia libre"). See ] for the distinction. They are streaming videos (no obvious way for the user to download a permanent copy) that are PBS copyrighted and they don't appear licensed to permit re-use. If there is free (libre) video available about these topics we should upload it to Commons and not need extlinks. While this no-charge stuff is certainly preferable to typical commercial stuff, it's only partway toward what we're trying to develop. ] 03:18, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
::::::::Correct, but at this point we don't have the capability to develop such content and, as far as I know, nobody's even really trying. Until there's a quality "Wikivideo" project which can provide GFDLed, professionally-produced video clips of journalistic interviews with noted figures in world history, a PBS source is preferable to any other, and certainly better than nothing. Nowhere did I say that all the links should be kept - certainly we should review them and there's overkill in a couple places. But neither should we, as the topic heading suggests, simply blanket-revert them. ] 05:42, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
:(unindent) I'm not persuaded that having PBS links all over the place is better than having nothing. We're writing a 💕 that anyone can edit and re-use, not an online PBS catalog. Our ] strategy is quite explicit: if we don't have something, then we should get by without it until we do have it, rather than linking to it externally from an article, unless it represents a unique resource beyond what we would supply in a hypothetical feature-quality expansion of the article. Maybe some of these PBS videos meet that standard. I'd favor a mass reversion followed by possible careful selection.<p>I also don't have any respect for the concept that "professional" video is better than what we can make ourselves. A main point of wiki philosophy is that by working together and continually improving our materials, we can write an encyclopedia that's as good as--make that better than--the ones that professionals write, and also there should be no distinction between those reading the encyclopedia and those creating it (they are the same people). However, I'd agree that shooting video interviews with news figures is more in the mission of wikinews than the encylopedia part of the wiki project. I have a camcorder; maybe I'll look through some of the videos on that list and see if any of the interview subjects live near me and will let me interview them. Alternatively, perhaps we can approach PBS and ask if they'll license some of their videos compatibly with the GFDL so we can use them directly. If they won't do that, it shows that PBS's philosophy is different from ours and we shouldn't be linking to their stuff indiscriminately. ] 07:09, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

== ] ==

{{resolved}}
This user self-identifies as a 15 year old boy on his user page. It's been hit by unusually high levels of IP vandalism, probably from his classmates. ] 21:33, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
:Half a dozen edits in a day or two is not a big deal. If he wants it, he can take it to RFPP himself. ] (]/]) 21:38, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
::I'll let them know on the talk page. Consider this closed. ] 21:52, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

== Graffitiwriter1 vandalism block request ==

{{resolved}}
] displays many block threats and the user has begun vandalising again at ]. Please block them. <font color="FF9900">]</font><font color="66CCFF">-</font><font color="66CCFF">]</font><font color="FF9900">-</font><font color="FF9900">]</font> 22:16, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
:Blocked indef by ]. <font color="Green">]</font> <sup><font color="Blue">]</font></sup> 22:28, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
::Poifect. Thanks. <font color="FF9900">]</font><font color="66CCFF">-</font><font color="66CCFF">]</font><font color="FF9900">-</font><font color="FF9900">]</font> 23:37, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

== ]/] ==

I opened a SSP case against ], ], the user responded with a ] counter case against me ] ("Pete Hurd had accused me of being a SockPuppet. I thought in the manner of corporate law I would bring a countersuit. I have no reason to really believe he is a sockpuppet, but then neither am I"). The accused sock, ] has twice removed the user page template , and added a warning that future vandalism will "result in action to the offending editor" . I feel the templace should be restored until the case has been resolved. ] 22:38, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

:I put a note on his talk page. <font color="Green">]</font> <sup><font color="Blue">]</font></sup> 22:42, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

::I think his violates ]. ] 14:20, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

== Socks? ==

{{user|Swgg}} & {{user|Orel Secs}} (currently under username block) look like socks of {{user|SparklingWiggle}} and/or {{user|Malber}}. Swgg redirected (in 1st two edits) to two user subpages to two SparklingWiggle subpages. These four accounts voted in quick succession on ], ], & ]. It just looks fishy, but I've no familiarity with any any of these users, nor of the weird clique that appears to hang out at ], so I bring it here for advice... -- ] 21:23, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

:Well geez...looks like I might have been right. for using the same IP as Orel Secs, as was ... Guess I'll pass this on to ever-backlogged ]. -- ] 15:52, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

::Looks like I've no need to bring this to SSP...If anyone cares to know, {{user|Swgg}} & {{user|Orel Secs}} have been indef blocked as socks of {{user|SparklingWiggle}}, who's under a 1 month block for the puppetry. {{user|Malber}} was eventually unblocked, but it's worth reading the unblock request, questions & evidence on . -- ] 17:26, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

== More Kataraisdabest problems ==

I just blocked {{user|Starfire&robin}} as a sockpuppet of {{user|Kataraisdabest}}, who was blocked indefinitely yesterday for ignoring warnings about incivility, ], and making nonconstructive edits. Indeed, Starfire&robin was blocked 24 hr for incivility yesterday by Netsnipe. This user claimed to be Kataraisdabest in on my user talk page. Shortly after, someone claiming to be her sister on the same account posted . The edit patterns are the same, so it's definitely a sockpuppet or meatpuppet. It might be a good idea to keep an eye out for more. --''']]''' 23:55, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

== {{article|Squirrel tag}} and other nonsense.. ==

#<span class="plainlinks">'''{{vandal|Redneck16}}'''</span>
#<span class="plainlinks">'''{{vandal|Con-61}}'''</span>
#<span class="plainlinks">'''{{vandal|Republicanpolitics}}'''</span>
#<span class="plainlinks">'''{{vandal|Glfootball92}}'''</span>
#<span class="plainlinks">'''{{IPvandal|69.246.150.45}}'''</span>
All seem to be the same person, and seem, for some reason, to be defending ], all together they have a dozen or so edits each, it might be a good idea to go through their contributions and weed out the nonsense/hoaxes--<small>'''VectorPotential'''</small><sup>]</sup> 00:20, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
:They're also harassing ]... -- ] 00:24, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
::Issued final warnings to Con-61 and Redneck16. THe other three had edits to the now deleted article, but nothing as severe as the first two. I'd push for an indef block as vandal only accounts upon next infraction. -- ] 00:49, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
:::If any blocking happens, don't forget {{user|Kumarpatel}} - created by Con-61 a little while ago, although that account hasn't made any edits yet. ] 02:28, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

== Personal attack ==

{{resolved}}
I came back from Wikibreak to find what appears to be a personal attack, can someone comment? ] <small> ] </small> 01:21, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
:Ignore it and the editor who left it unless it happens again. ] 03:00, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
::Thanks. ] <small> ] </small> 03:36, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

== family dispute? How to do this? ==

Ok, so ] is a fine upstanding editor. However, his brother ], and sockpuppets thereof, is vandalizing all over, and threatening violence over it. Apparently, 512theking, who is older than JohnnyAlbert has threatened and engaged in violence against JohnnyAlbert10. 512theking is now vandalizing my talk page as well, etc, no signs of stopping.

Honestly, what is there to do about this? I'm sort of at a loss. They're both minors, and the IP is AOL, so its easy for 512 to evade. Any IP blocks inevitably end up catching JohnnyAlbert in them, which means time and inconvenience for him while we figure it out and unblock him. ] ] ] 01:39, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

:Is it possible to do an IP block with an exception? In other words, whitelist a user so that the IP blocking won't effect them? (If not, it should be.) --] <small>]</small> 01:45, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

::You could block an IP and have it not effect users. You could combine that with an account creation block as well. But I am not sure I completely understand the situation, it seems more complex then that, and with AOL involved... ] <sup>]</sup> 02:33, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

:::If you block 512 by name can't JohnnyA use the secure servers? ] 02:56, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

::::If I understand the situation correctly, 512 ''is'' blocked. He keeps creating abusive sockpuppets. <font color="Green">]</font> <sup><font color="Blue">]</font></sup> 03:04, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
:::::Well it also sounds like JohnnyA is getting caught be autoblocks. The autoblock is the only way to stop 512 from making more socks since he's on AOL; but then again, if he's on AOL then the autoblock will only work until he gets a new IP, so not really an effective sock blocker. I guess just block the socks with autoblock turned off and be resigned to the fact that you'll have to keep it up until he gets tired. If there's no static IP that's the only real answer anyway. ] 03:12, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

::::::I'm not familiar with how AOL works, does it ever begin recycling IP's? i.e. can we block enough of them for whatever particular node that 512 is on, that when his IP cycles again it goes back to a blocked one? ] ] ] 04:34, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

:It looks like a bored troll playing with sockpuppets. They edit the same articles, and one of them always logs out the minute the other one logs off. A big brother isn't going to threaten his sibling with violence on wikipedia, and then let that brother log on to his own account and make a drama queen response to this (and then again return right after said brother logs off). Just ignore it. - ] 10:16, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
::A non-admin comment: "one of them always logs out the minute the other one logs off" doesn't really demonstrate that there is only one person involved. Rather, there might be people in the world who don't have a PC each, and might share a communal one... ] 11:38, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

:::Did you read the rest of it? Would you threaten violence upon someone on the Internet one minute, and then log off and let that same person log on to reply to your comment? Come on. - ] 13:00, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

:::::According to the younger brother, they already got into a fight over it. ] ] ] 15:13, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

== Ali doostzadeh stalking ==

Editor Ali doostzadeh is stalking rv'ing to prevent clean-up of derrogatory and libelous statements in violation of (, ) ] 03:10, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
::Actually I am just r.v.'ing to the original author of the article. Further comments needs to be discussed in the talk page. --] 03:11, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

::The response of also demonstrates the extent of the stalking. ] 03:21, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

== Admin Dbachmann filled article by his derrogatory and libelous POVs ==

Admin Dbachmann packed an article about biography of a living schiolar with derrogatory and libelous POVs, in violation of ], and ignoring calls for a balanced and respectable views ( http://en.wikipedia.org/A._S._Amanzholov ). ] 03:18, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

:I see no obvious problems with this article. This is a content dispute that does not belong here. Please discuss it on ] and remain ]. ] 06:02, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

== Personal attack ==

IP address (24.187.112.28) used aggression, vulgar, and belittling comments towards another individual (SWF Senior Trainer). Please refer to user 24.187.112.28 Talk Page. I believe proper warnings should be issued! ] 03:33, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
:You can issue warnings, see ] ]] 03:36, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
::Note that I protected the page that 24.187.112.28 and another user are arguing over. --] ] 03:44, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

== Fixing Betacommand's bot destruction... ==

I went to go start fixing the damage, and my god there is a lot of it. There is a Rollback function isn't there? Can it PLEASE be used in this case? Thanks. --] 03:51, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
:Ummm.... what damage? I've missed something? Can you explain the situation please? --] ] 04:03, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

::See above. Betacommand's bot went on a rampage of removing perfectly proper external links, mostly to archived usenet posting on Google. The bot was shut down, and the bot's approval was yanked, and Betacommand did manually revert some of the damage, but there are HUNDREDS of such links that were removed from articles. And I simply do not find that the vast majority of these were anything other than important links that supported the article. And in removing the links in this fashion he leaves broken sentences and similar. Basically ALL of these edits were destructive. And they lacked the bot flag too. Look at everthing before around 1734 March 21st on here; -- It is a HUGE mess. --] 04:17, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
:The rollback function rolls back individual edits. It's going to take another bot to undo what Betacommand's bot did without a lot of manual reverting. Note that Betacommand's bot seems to have done some bulk edits on several occasions before today. Could Betacommand please give some indication that he understands not to do this any more? Always look for consensus before launching any large scale edits of this type, whether automated or manual. ] 04:25, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
::A lot of categories were also deleted. Among them many Assessment categories. I side with BenBurch. Just too much incorrect deletions. Total revert, and then someone else can try again if he/she wants. --] (] • ] • ]) 04:32, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
:::If somebody HAS such a bot, unleash it. There are four thousand plus damaged articles by my estimation. --] 04:35, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
:::::How about asking Betacommand to code one up--'''and have someone else run it'''. Betacommand should please please please stay away from bot operation for a while. ] 05:55, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
::::Is there a way to revert all edits between fixed starting and ending times? I can search starting at particular times - any way to do mass reverts with those same times?
*::::about 1800 from 16:10 to 17:34 2007/03/21 ~ 21/minute
*::::some rejiggering from 15:16 to 16:09 subtract 7 entries
*::::about 350 from 14:14 to 15:16 2007/03/21 say 5.5/minute ?
*::::about 450 from 22:25 to 04:35 2007/03/20-21 (note the relative slowness - sometimes only one every 2 - 5 minutes, sometimes 4 per minute)
::::I didn't go back farther than that, except to scary research (kudos to ] for this, at least), chilling in all respects, how ever you feel about external links
:::::''"website *.angelfire.com has 3364 links on wikipedia"''
::::Umm, it doesn't look as bad as thousands and thousands, just "a few thousand", but that might depend on how long this has been going on? ] 05:21, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
:::::that is a data scipt that I was testing for BetacommandBot as a purely statistical function. if you look under ] subpages you can see more stats. ] <sup>(] • ] • ])</sup> 15:23, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Section above describing problem ]. ] 04:26, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Also please see the latter half of ], concerning a large number of users told to change their usernames and given username blocks '''with account creation blocked''' so that in fact they could not register new usernames. I said then (on 1 March 2007): ''"I would like to know that any remaining old account creation blocks are revisited and fixed where appropriate"''.... but in fact I've never heard that anything was ever done about it. Would somebody please consider aiming a bot in that general direction, too? -- ]&ensp;<small><sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub></small> 04:58, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
:It doesn't make much difference now, the blocking of account creation is only effective for 24 hours after the person accesses the account—and generally people don't continue to use accounts that have been blocked. —]→]&nbsp;&bull; 05:00, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
::It seems you guys want a mass rollback, I have the code in my monobook.js if anyone wants to find it or I can run a mass rollback. (this will loose a lot of good spam link removals though) ] <sup>(] • ] • ])</sup> 15:23, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

== Betacommand as BAG ==
{{relevant discussion|Wikipedia_talk:Bots/Approvals_group#Betacommand}}
I just discovered the new round concern over ] engaging in problematic automated behaviors (at least the third time). I would like to express my opinion that Betacommand should not be a member of the ]. I have no faith in his ability to handle bot related actions responsibly. ] 05:21, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

:PS. As there is no real process (or any history) of removing someone from BAG, I figure this is as good a place to start the discussion as any. ] 05:23, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I concur with Dragonsflight in questioning Betacommand's judgment. Betacommand does good work that we don't always see, but every time he's mentioned on AN/I it's because of yet another outrageous action. These issues were brought up at the RFA ''before'' they happened... <span class="user-sig user-Quarl"><i>—] <sup>(])</sup> <small>2007-03-22 05:47Z</small></i></span>

:I opposed Betacommand's RfA because of communication issues. I see the same issues coming up again and again on this noticeboard. Make no mistake about it, I think Beta has the best intent of the encyclopedia in mind, but I too am starting to question his bot-related judgment, particularly in the operation of scripts from his admin account. ] 06:57, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Betacommand has made some pretty awful process errors and has some trouble with communication, but as far as I can tell he is good with technical stuff. BAG members can't actually set bot flags, and it's not so clear what kind of harm they can actually do, so BAG still seems like a place where Betacommand can contribute. BAG process actually looks a bit bizarre and maybe needs to be adjusted somewhat (i.e. to require a bit more consensus within BAG before approving bots) and that too can help correct any errors.

Mainly I think someone needs to get into a discussion with Betacommand about some of these issues and Betacommand needs to be responsive to it. Betacommand's intentions are good, but he needs to develop better understanding of how the editing process works. I see from his RFA that he had very few mainspace edits at that time. Perhaps he would benefit from concentrating on that area for a while (I mean on actual content writing and editing) before going back to doing maintenance stuff. That would present another side of the encyclopedia to him--exciting in its own right--and also the added editing experience would help prevent further misjudgements from the technical side. ] 06:43, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
: This looks like you don't really have any objections with Betacommand actions with respect to BAG, but have objections to his own use of bots/scripts. Is that correct? <font face="monospace">]<sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub></font> 06:51, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
::Yes, correct, I think these current problems basically reflect poor editorial judgement on his part (i.e. the problem wasn't bot operation per se, but rather that he programmed his bots to make a huge number of edits that shouldn't have been made on content grounds). I'd prefer that he stay away from that kind of mass editing for a while until he has a better understanding of article-editing culture, rather than just following policy mechanistically. <p>I confess to not understanding BAG myself that well, but if Betacommand's technical knowledge means he can contribute there without creating a concrete threat of harm from misjudgement, then maybe it's ok. Basically I wouldn't kick someone off BAG as a punitive measure in this situation--I'd only do it if I thought leaving them on was likely to harm the project or unlikely to help it. (I have to call it a pretty bad faux pas even on pure technical grounds though, that the recent rampage totally ignored the 2 edit/minute limit for unapproved bots). ] 09:09, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

:::If you feel he has poor editorial judgment, then how can you feel he can be trusted to decide when a bot should be allowed to make mass edits? If he has trouble figuring out when editting by bot is a good idea for his own account, then I don't see why it makes sense for him to judge whether proposals for bot actions by others are also good. It is not punitive, it is preventative. BAG is about deciding when the use of a bot makes sense, and I feel Betacommand has demonstrated poor judgment in exactly that skill. ] 12:18, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
::::It's a lot easier to be objective in your judgement about other people's edits than it is to be objective about your own. If there were evidence that Betacommand had displayed poor judgement in assessing the editing proposals of others, removing him from BAG might be a good idea, but as things are they seem like two different things. -]<sup>]</sup> 13:35, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
:::::I've posted one possible case of conflict of interest, but have not looked into it more deeply to see if there is any other evidence. See ]. -- ] 13:55, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

This is an interesting discussion that would be most appropriate elsewhere. Please continue this discussion at ] and add any thoughts there instead. Thanks. -- ] 13:34, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

== Important real world claims on user pages should be sourced or deleted ==

See ] which says "'''I am an official of the Palestinian authority and a member of Hamas' political public relations division'''". ] 05:42, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Real world user names are prohibited without evidence the person is the same as a real world user name (eg User:Samantha Fox). ] 05:45, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

:Well, most people are allowed to edit under their real names without having to show ID ;). For a high profile organization like the PA though, maybe it's best if someone from the WP office contacted the PA press office to verify that Asucena really does represent the PA. ] 05:51, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

::The Wikimedia Foundation has made it clear that they lack funds to do verification of user page claims. ] 06:32, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I would like to be clear that:
#My idea for sourcing real world claims originated with the issue of ].
#My knowledge of this particular user came from reading Misplaced Pages Review.] 06:26, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

::So? You could have gotten it by reading this very page. --]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 06:30, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

:::While there has been discussion on this matter, I don't think people are currently required to prove the claims made about themselves on their talk pages. I suggest you ignore the claim and hold the person to the same standards of verifiability we do everyone else. <small>]<sup>(Need help? ])</sup></small> 13:38, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

::::Well, good, because I am the EMPEROR of THE WORLD. (But it is strictly and honorary title.) --] 13:56, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

:::I am only King of a small magical forest. <small>]<sup>(Need help? ])</sup></small> 13:59, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
*Claims of credentials do not matter, IMO, unless they are used in a dispute, as with Essjay. We don't have to confirm everything that everyone says unless there is a reason that it really matters. —''']'''<sup>]]</sup> 15:09, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

== Please block Marlon.sahetapy socks ==

{{relevant discussion|Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets/Marlon.sahetapy}}
Please block ]. Vandalism, 3RR evasion, edit warring, incivility. I would have blocked already if I weren't marginally involved. <span class="user-sig user-Quarl"><i>—] <sup>(])</sup> <small>2007-03-22 06:02Z</small></i></span>

== Bizarre vandal on ] ==

I'd like to ask for some more help and eyes on the articles ] and ].

For those not already aware, ] is a bio article about a computer scientist who invented a rather well known Linux filesystem (]), but is better known for having been arrested for allegedly having killed his wife a few months ago.

Today, we had an IP user show up on the articles and start repeatedly adding a very long original research filesystem performance section to both the filesystem article and his biography; in addition to uncited OR, it's also completely inappropriate for the biography article. First IP address got a bunch of nice requests to stop and then warnings, and eventually got himself blocked along with a couple of socks by two other admins.

IPs from the same block (219.88.0.0/16) are now hopping in to the article talk page (]) and twice have inserted the content repeatedly along with claims that "The Jews" keep removing the info ( for example).

] sprotected the article for a couple of days, but my earlier interpretation that we have a clueless newbie is yielding to fears that we have a serious troll here. The problem is that they're operating from a wide IP range (so far, {{ipvandal|219.88.155.109}}, {{ipvandal|219.88.77.237}}, {{ipvandal|219.88.81.35}}, {{ipvandal|219.88.88.225}}, {{ipvandal|219.88.80.172}}, {{ipvandal|219.88.158.100}}, and {{ipvandal|219.88.165.170}} ). These are apparently all in New Zealand, a very large set of possibly affected netblocks worth.

Are there known New Zealand trolls who might be doing something like this?

Other suggestions?

Disclaimer: I knew Hans in college, though I haven't been in contact since. This, combined with the random apparently antisemetic bent of the anon editor, is making my neutrality rather bent on this matter. I blocked one of the IPs for antisemetic comments but I really don't want to be the one with the hammer here.

Any help appreciated. ] 07:37, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
:I've added both articles to my watchlist and will rollback edits on sight and block as necessary. I'm in NZ, use Reiser3 and have read the specs for Reiser4, so I'm reasonably well placed both in terms of timezone and technical understanding to deal with this.-<font face="cursive" color="#808080">]</font> 08:39, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

:I hear that it is a great filesystem, but installation is murder. --] 17:06, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

== How do I deal with ]? ==

This user's behavior is rather bizzare. He does valuable work on copyright templates, especially fair use templates. However, he uploads photos like ] and ], which I recently deleted because they were so poor quality that I speedied them for having completely invalid {{]}} tags. He also uploads many photos that are replaceable fair use photos or has disallowed licenses. See . ] 08:17, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

== Suspected sockpuppet case ==

Can someone please have a look at ]? It is highly suspected that there is merit to the possible sockpuppetry of some users here, and it might be good to have an RFCU. Can anybody offer help or advice on this? Thanks! ] 09:21, 22 March 2007 (UTC)shervink

:If you think checkuser would be beneficial, you can certainly ]. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 10:20, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

:: I requested a CU . ] 10:50, 22 March 2007 (UTC)shervink

== A case for checkuser? ==

{{resolved}}

I'm not sure if this situation warrants a request for checkuser or not. I think it probably does, but figured I could just ask here.
Over the last 2 weeks, multiple users, or usernames at least, have been attempting to insert information about a police officer who may or may not exist in Minnesota. 9 articles have been deleted. Several others have had information removed. It seems like every time an article or mention is deleted, a new username appears to recreate or reinsert with misleading edit summaries like 'miss spell', 'word order', or 'wording'. So far, the following is what I've been able to put together.

=====Users (creation date)=====
*{{User|BARKLEY J}} (3-22-07)
*{{User|Garagehh}} (3-21-07)
*{{User|NickOwnes}} (3-21-07)
*{{User|Burnsvillemike}} (3-8-07)
*{{User|DeaninDetroit}} (3-18-07)
*{{User|Joeinalabama}} (3-20-07)
*{{User|Billrusslen}} (3-18-07)
*{{User|Parkermax}} (3-8-07)
*{{User|NateinFlorida}} (3-18-07)
*{{User|Gregwolen}} (3-18-07)
*{{User|Seaninwashington}} (3-20-07)
*{{User|Carlostexas}} (3-21-07)
*{{User|Gregsteres}} (3-18-07)
*{{User|Timwiller}} (3-21-07)
*{{User|Glenwolling}} (3-21-07)
*{{User|Dr.Shartell}} (3-21-07)
*{{User|JamesinNevada}} (3-18-07)
*{{User|66.41.155.45}}

=====Pages created=====
*] - deleted 6 times since March 8.
*] - 1 time
*] - 1 time
*] - 1 time

=====Other articles information or pictures has been added to=====
*]
*]
*]
*]
*] - I guess he wanted to be a rapper on the 11th...
*]
*]
*]

I guess I'm just confused about whether a checkuser would be declined because it's too obvious, but I'd like to root out any other socks that have already been created and think that might be considered a fishing trip.
Either way, none of the above have been blocked yet, and I'm pretty sure that they've done enough collective damage to justify a block at least. Sorry for the excessive section length. Thanks ahead of time for any advice or help. --] 10:47, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

:There's no need to waste a checkuser's time with this, these ] about as loud as it gets. The obvious socks have been blocked indefinitely and the puppetmaster for a week. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 11:23, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

::Thanks for the help. I thought it might be obvious enough to keep checkuser out of it. I'll keep my eye out for others that appear with a high quack ratio and report them straight to ]. --] 11:47, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

== Personal attacks and abuse ==

Hello, I have been subjected to personal attacks and abuse as can be seen on my talk page. Thanks. ] 11:21, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
:I have warned both editors - that's pretty offensive stuff. &ndash; <span style="font-family:trebuchet ms">] <sup>]</sup></span> 11:25, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
::Please note that this anonymous user has a history of vandalism, abuse and sockpuppetry. See ] for details. -- ] 12:41, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
:::And is that a good reason to allow vicious personal attacks on his/her talk page to stand, Chuq? I notice you restored the comments that Riana deleted. I think Riana was correct in removing them, and I wish you had not reversed him/her. ] 12:55, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I came here to say the same thing; I've again removed the comments. No provocation excuses those comments. --] (]) 12:59, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
:Her, Jeff :) and while I can appreciate how frustrating this editor's behaviour has been, I don't believe 'do us all a favour and die' should be allowed to stand. &ndash; <span style="font-family:trebuchet ms">] <sup>]</sup></span> 13:08, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

== ] attacking me as psychotic that should be excluded from Misplaced Pages and others ==

] (Japanese Misplaced Pages username Arpeggio, ]) has been in a content dispute with me and (primarily) ] (More known online as Norton, Japanese Misplaced Pages username Ntn, ]) on a claim 1523 made on ]-- this dispute has been one spilled from the Japanese Misplaced Pages, and hence most arguments (Mainly in ] and ]) are in Japanese-- there isn't much I can participate in their arguments even I have to admit I am a party in the dispute, siding with 08albatross.

Yesterday 1523 left a message on his talk page. I smelt trouble since I was mentioned in the article and he specifically mentioned my having some form of autism (I have been diagnosed of ].) I was surprised that several people that I asked to translate this message has claimed 1523 called me a "psychotic" and should be banned from Misplaced Pages, and I saw translators were in more a rage than me. (The English translation can be read at ].) I am sure the language also attacked 08albatross, calling us ''human trash that has no use in the society'' (社会的に無用なゴミ人間), among others. Also, I'm sure he attacked Misplaced Pages as a whole, also.

Hence, I request admins to inquire. --]-- <sub>]·]</sub> 11:10, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

: I am not an admin but I can suggest that you investigate this user who is attacking you's contributions and see if you can see any other attacks made by him/her. It would also help greatly to get a second hand opinion on this or ask an administrator or another editor who can translate to confirm what the user is saying or add a reference on to the page of where you found the translation then if it confirms that it was an attack against you then I would suggest leaving {{tl|attack}} or he may be blocked if he has made other personal attacks. If you need any more help, leave me a note on my talk page. Cheers! <b><font color="0066FF">]</font><font color="66FF33">]</font></b> 16:26, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

::I don't think he has commented on any of my messages in particular; you can read my messages in this issues in the talk threads. As for the claim that I have autism, appreantly he searched my name on the web. The translated message was from . It was originally locked for my fiancee and the translator (summonillusion), who is a Japanese who resides in the US.--]-- <sub>]·]</sub> 16:35, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

== Caches and Page Histories ==

Someone really needs to track down <span class="plainlinks"></span>, because it has too great a possibility of creating some serious damage, with pages randomly reverting to much older versions--<small>'''VectorPotential'''</small><sup>]</sup> 11:19, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
*Are the scripts and the AWB version you used when this occured up-to-date? You should probably be careful and check any edits you make that way to see if you can track down under what circumstances it occurs. - ]|] 12:32, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
**It's happened to more than one user, at least one of whom had a blank monobook.js (if I remember correctly; it was a while ago so I might be wrong). People report this problem on ] occasionally. --] 12:41, 22 March 2007 (]]])
***It happened again just now: . I wonder if it's the diff engine that's borked, or the page itself that's having the problem; it seems to be the page in this case, but earlier something happened to me involving the diff engine (which I mentioned ; the particular diff that borked for me then seems to be working for me now). --] 16:59, 22 March 2007 (]]])
****Based on the way that this is happening to different people with different setups, ] and I suspect it's a server bug. --] 17:17, 22 March 2007 (]]])
*****More weirdness; diffed against the 10th rather than the previous edit for some reason last I checked it <ins>but it worked again when I checked it again a bit later</ins>. --] 18:01, 22 March 2007 (]]]) (edit --] 18:02, 22 March 2007 (]]]))

== Reuploader of CP images ==

] has been uploading images previously deleted for not having a license and others that are obviously copyrighted. ] (]) 13:06, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

== {{user5|PookieYum}} ==

{{user5|PookieYum}} is one of the more problematic editors around. Although some of his edits appear legitimate, he persists in vandalising. Even though he received a final warning on Tuesday, he moved ] to ] on Wednesday and made some unwanted edits (to put it mildly) to ] and ]. It doesn't look like he is responsive to warnings, so I'm not sure another warning would be effective. I think this warrants the (continuing) attention of an admin. ]]] 14:41, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

==realitybabble.com==
I've been following a user who has been persistently linking to realitybabble.com, and reverting the additions as spamming, and requesting that the user discuss the link in the talk pages. So far they have not done so, and have persisted in adding the link. The user was ] for their behavior, but seems to use multiple IPs, so blocks aren't too effective. The most recent case is somewhat different, as they seem to have added some content to accompany the link. The content smacks somewhat of ], and the section to which it is being added (well, the article in general) is in serious need of some cleanup already, but in an attempt to ], and not unduly ] a ], I haven't reverted it, as I am inclined to. I'm basically posting here to get some prompt input on how to proceed. ] 15:02, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

== Close an RFA candidate wishes to withdraw from ==
{{Resolved}}
Can somebody who knos the proper templates close ] as the candidate has expressed they would like to withdraw? (I also wouldent mind a quick link to where I can find those templates as well). Thanks ] 15:03, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
:They're {{tl|rfaf}} (top, for a failed RfA; a passing RfA is {{tl|rfap}}) and {{tl|rfab}}. However, there are other housekeeping jobs needed as well as just the closebox. --] 15:12, 22 March 2007 (]]])
::Thanks. ] 15:13, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
:::Done. ] has all these sorts of templates listed. <span style="font-family: Verdana">]]</span> 15:15, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

==Hullaballoo at AfD==
] has put up ], ] and ] up for deletion using some pretty dodgy nomination criteria. Because of ] I won't say this is trolling but these are pretty obvious snowball keeps and the sooner they're closed, the less chance of this developing into a Wiki-drama there'll be. --] 15:26, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

:*Seems like several admins ''speedy closed'' all the nominations and the user was approached on his talk page.] <font color="purple">]</font> 15:33, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
:* Can we delete Jade Goody? Not the article, the "slebrity". <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 18:33, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

== What a User Profile... ==

Anybody just have a look at recent changes and catch sight of ]? How much does ] apply here? Not sure if you can block on sight for something like that but it certainly doesn't indicate much good.] <font color="purple">]</font> 15:37, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
:If this guy carries on like his last 2 edits, I don't think he'll be here much longer, anyway... &ndash; <span style="font-family:trebuchet ms">] <sup>]</sup></span> 15:40, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

:Seems he already has racked up a couple vandal edits according to this: ].] <font color="purple">]</font> 15:39, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

::We are not required to add truthful material. Only verifiable material as it says in ]. So that user is actually making a staement in line with policy. Its a weird Wiki world aint it? 8-){{unsigned|88.109.8.166}}
::I'm leaving a note on his talkpage. ] 15:50, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

::What? to tell him he cant quote policy or the fact that hes not the 'awsome est' person ever?{{unsigned|88.109.8.166}}

:::At the same time those who add hoax material are warned and eventually blocked if they continue. Hoax information is drastically different than using verifiable information.] <font color="purple">]</font> 15:52, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
:::I agree hoax material should not be added. But lets not go down the road of blocking people because we are offended by what they say (esp when there is some truth in he statement){{unsigned|88.109.8.166}}


::::I don't believe anyone suggested blocking them for the statement on their userpage. --] 16:01, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
:::::Thats where this road leads, believe me. I ve been down it enough times to know 8-( {{unsigned|88.109.8.166}}

::::::]? The user announced their intent to vandalize, then vandalized. You don't think that's worth commenting on to them? --] 17:29, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
:::::::Its worth commenting that they should not vandalise, yes. But really its not worth commenting on the contents of their user page which is going to harm no one. This sort of comment may lead to escalation. Best to ignore comments like this.{{unsigned|88.109.8.166}}
::::::::Care to explain what you did to A Man In Black's page ?] <font color="purple">]</font> 17:53, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

:::::::::This looks like some variant of a troll - I wouldn't be surprised if the anon is connected to the named account somehow. - ] 17:56, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I've nuked the userpage, in any event. This kind of user page is the sort of shit up with which we do not put. - ] <small>(] | ])</small> 17:40, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

The style of the anon's comments seems very similar to that of banned user ]. -]<sup>]</sup> 18:43, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

== series of bad-faith AFD nominations ==

by user ]. I first noticed it when he/she was one of the two users pushing for delete on ] and the DRV for that. After checking out AFD for a bit, I've found a long history of bad faith nominations. , , (with the rationale that "there's no proof al qaeda did it"), ...A quick trip through his edit sums shows accusations of racism everywhere, and no grasp of notability policy whatsoever. Also is wont to add conspiracy theory external links (on the marilyn monroe article: "the file found points out that marilyns death wasnt suicied but murder... and the presedent was involved.. hot news" "# FBI HAS FOUND FILES ON THAT POINTS OUT JOHN KENNEDYS INVOLVEMENT IN THE SUICIED/MURDER OF MARILYN..ADDING EXTERNAL, ")...


It's interesting that a user that's added probably 50 beauty pageant contestants has no grasp of notability guidelines, either for inclusion or for deletion.

Anyway, I feel I have a conflict of interest with this user based on mutual involvement with the AFDs, so I'd appreciate someone else taking action. ] ] ] 15:38, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

:After looking over the contributions and the two posts on this page, I gave the user a 48 hour block for the following reasons: ''bad faith afd nominations, incivility, and possible ]''.] <font color="purple">]</font> 15:47, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

::My auto AFD tool is broken, but it would be a good idea for someone to go through his contribs and mass nominate all the pageant contestants and song contest contestants he's created, nearly none of them have any notability whatsoever, and a handful don't even try to assert notability. ] ] ] 15:50, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

:::It might be worth noting that the same user has been blocked on several occasions on the Swedish Misplaced Pages for similar behavior, the last is a month long block. Something he also complained about by calling it censorship. He has also been found creating sock puppets . --] 16:03, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

=={{User|Kl4Uz}}==
This is user is probably a sockpuppet ana undoubtely a single-use account (see his contributions: he created the account in 2005 and made some 15 edits, then nothing until some days ago and the only thing he does is to cast his vote in ]). I can live with this but not with his offences: he called me and . What can I do about it? --] 15:50, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

== {{User|Webmaster}} ==

I recommend a {{tl|Usernameblock}}, user is not a wikimedia webmaster (I don't believe the title belongs to anyone) --<small> ]</small> <sup>]</sup> 15:56, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
:The name doesn't violate ], I think, but if you really want to find out if others agree with you, take it to ]. --] (]) 16:07, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
::User has edited (albeit sporadically) for more than two years, there is no WP title of "webmaster"&mdash;I say let it go, but Mel is right that if you want to pursue it, WP:RFCN is the vehicle. ] 16:11, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
:::Wouldn't "Webmaster" be like ]? --<small> ]</small> <sup>]</sup> 16:28, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
::::I have ] nevertheless --<small> ]</small> <sup>]</sup> 16:35, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
No, because the latter would be impersonating an administrator, while the former isn't impersonating anybody, as there's no Webmaster to impersonate. --] (]) 16:34, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
:It gives the wrong message. ] would be blocked even though such a title doesn't really exist. --<small> ]</small> <sup>]</sup> 16:35, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

::Well, that's not a title, it's a description. --] (]) 16:42, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

== Disruption, sterile revert warring, POV pushing, refusal to discuss changes at ] ==

One or two Ukrainian editors have been engaged in an ongoing edit war with others at the ] article over the past months. The problem seemed to die down for a while and go away, but today {{user|Ukrained}} has resumed his edit war, deleting informational templates without discussion and without trying to reach consensus at the talk page. This is disruptive behavior. He has been blocked repeatedly for 3RR, incivility, and personal attacks. The grand sum of his argument is that the templates are "POV" and "wrong". Yet, he will not explain why they are wrong, will not contribute in discussions on how to improve them, and continues to delete them from the article. The undiscussed deletions fly in the face of consensus, as a number of people have continuously reverted this deletion and implored this person to find a diplomatic solution to his grievance. Instead, he deletes the table, claims IT is "POV" , and won't discuss.

This editor is constantly trying to push a Ukrainian nationalist agenda at the expense of verifiable information and hard facts. He accuses an admin of making "unsolicited POV changes" and reverts again . He acknowledges his participation in the edit war .

I told him that I would report him here if he did not contribute to a rational discussion of the templates and he did not respond .

This nonsense is ongoing. If Ukrained has an issue with content, he should discuss and reach consensus on the talk page, which he has not done. Something should be done about this editors constant use of edit warring to push his agendas. ] 16:51, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

== Personal Attacks and Uncivil Behavior ==
{{resolved}}
{{User|Burgz33}} has made and continues to make attacks/act uncivily towards and against other editors, even after final warnings have been issued. Here are links to the most recent violations:

*1)From ]
*2)From ]
*3)From ]
*3)From ]
*4)From ]
*5)From ]
*6)From ]

There are numerous other older instances. Thanks ] 17:19, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

*Blocked 24h for personal attacks.] ] ] 18:55, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

==] automatically reverting, edit varring, acting in bad faith==
] has been edit warring, incessantly reverting, using disruptive editing and removing fully sourced, authoritative, academic, verifiable evidence (such as from Encyclopedia Iranica, etc.), from the articles on ], ], ], and ]. Despite this going on for months, nothing was done to user Eupator for reverting pages, often with no or little explanation, for DOZENS of times. At times, he would also meatpuppet, by gaming the system, and asking a large possy of his followers to do the reverting for him.

I have posted this at also since we are both part of the Armenia-Azerbaijan ArbCom and there is a temporary injunction. I did not know which page is best for reporting. --] 18:57, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Consider the page ]

*Revision 08:48, March 22, 2007

*Revision as of 00:02, March 2, 2007

*Revision as of 16:14, February 20, 2007

*Revision as of 14:20, February 20, 2007

*Revision as of 12:38, February 20, 2007

*Revision as of 14:14, January 27, 2007

*Revision as of 13:49, January 27, 2007

*Revision as of 17:23, June 10, 2006

*Revision as of 08:52, June 10, 2006

*Revision as of 23:31, June 9, 2006

*Revision as of 18:43, June 9, 2006

*Revision as of 07:39, June 9, 2006

*Revision as of 13:50, June 8, 2006

*Revision as of 08:13, June 8, 2006

*Revision as of 07:46, June 7, 2006

*Revision as of 08:22, June 1, 2006


Consider the page ]

*Current revision (08:49, March 22, 2007)

*Revision as of 08:23, June 1, 2006

*Revision as of 07:48, June 7, 2006

*Revision as of 08:17, June 8, 2006

*Revision as of 13:51, June 8, 2006

*Revision as of 07:40, June 9, 2006

*Revision as of 18:42, June 9, 2006

*Revision as of 23:35, June 9, 2006

*Revision as of 08:51, June 10, 2006

*Revision as of 17:23, June 10, 2006


Consider the page ]

*Current revision (08:48, March 22, 2007)

*Revision as of 16:38, March 1, 2007



Consider the page ]

*Current revision (08:48, March 22, 2007)

*Revision as of 13:49, January 27, 2007

*Revision as of 14:13, January 27, 2007

Latest revision as of 17:08, 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 p-blocked from article space. It can be lifted at any time if they show commitment to and engage in discussion. Star Mississippi 14:45, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

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

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

    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)
    I've notified Awshort as it still hasn't been done. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:05, 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)

    User:Iacowriter

    User:Iacowriter has been warned in the past year to properly update numbers since he is not listening and can't do basic rounding of numbers and update the accessdate parameter. He has been warned enough times about this as seen by his Talk page by me and other editors but still refuses to listen.

    I've requested admin action but I was told to go here. Timur9008 (talk) 14:51, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

    This has been going on for months now. At first I thought he was following the bad example of other editors who fail to update the box office gross consistently in all places it needs to be updated (article body, lead, infobox) but it goes beyond this. I tried asking nicely and repeatedly tried to explain the basics of how to round numbers (which is odd because he seems to be able to get it right in the Infobox most of the time, but frequently fails in the lead section and fails to update the article body). The problem is compounded by his failure to follow the WP:SIMPLE rules and provide a meaningful edit summary.
    User:Betty Logan warned him politely (diff) October 27, 2024, but Iacowriter seems unwilling or unable* to correct his persistent mistakes and unfortunately it seems to be necessary to escalate this issue in some way. (* (diff) stated that he has autism) -- 109.79.69.146 (talk) 16:41, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
    Leave me alone! I’m trying! Iacowriter (talk) 17:04, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
    Trying is one thing, but you seem to keep ignoring it he advice you're getting from others. It looks like there have been multiple requests for you to stop rounding numbers incorrectly. Why have you refused to stop? Sergecross73 msg me 17:08, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

    Disruptive editing and pushing of his own "point of view" by User:Michael Bednarek

    A few months ago, I began to create some new pages about German folk songs, with my own translation under CC-license (that's still quite normal for a bachelor in history (ethnography), I guess). The above-mentioned user started to push his own remarks, reverting my edits (in spite of my authorship and my notices about my VRTS permission and CC), and ended here. At least, we (together with other participants) clearly established that I had had such a right and labelled some of my talk pages with my VRTS-ticket. Nevertheless, already the following page I'd started drew the attention of the aforementioned person. And that what he answers me (a poet-translator of folk songs and historian/ ethnographer):

    "I replaced (or omitted) archaic 'inwit', 'wont'; mark parts of the translation as dubious.", it was a substantial improvement of that article. My remarks on the shortcomings of its translation, which you subsequently labelled "poetic", still stand"

    . The first case that he marked as "dubious" was the gender of the German "Winter". In German, that word is masculine; however, I translated "Winter" as a feminine, and there are a plenty of samples from history when the Germans depicted "Winter" in their beliefs as a female deity or spirit (one might begin from here).

    I have neither wish, nor time to consider all such current and future "improvements" (a lot of time we've spent solving the question with the VRTS-ticket itself). I only hope to avoid such "waste" of time and strength in the future — either he isn't allowed to undo or change my poetic translations without my own consent and our consideration, or I stop my further like work. --Tamtam90 (talk) 15:10, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

    @Tamtam90 I have posted an ANI notice on Michael's talk page. Please leave the notice on users' talk page when starting a discussion on ANI next time. 🔥YesI'mOnFire🔥 15:42, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
    @Tamtam90:, anything on Misplaced Pages can be changed at any time by any editor. If it is not acceptable for you to have your translations modified by others, I suggest you not use them. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:17, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
    I translated and published my translations in Wikisource, as professional ethnographer. You don't explain the situation, nor the edits of your "protégé": merely reverted my (author's) edits without any consideration. Why not to "change" or "revert" all my edits in Wikisource as well? Please, try it. Or your admin flag doesn't admit such a trick?--Tamtam90 (talk) 16:59, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

    AUSrogue's behaviour

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

    I believe this user is not here to build an encyclopedia. They are pushing an anti-semitic point of view and calling editors who disagree with them Jewish as an insult. The original issue is this on List of terrorist incidents in Australia where they say some terrorist attack was labeled as Christian terrorism by Jewish wikipedia editors. I reverted it, left a level 2 personal attacks warning on their talk page, and they agreed to stop.

    They then do which just isn't neutral. This was a month ago, and today, they put it back, leaving this on my talk page, with an image, Toxic Misplaced Pages Users.png uploaded just for me. This is a reference to the Jewish Internet Defense Force which I take issue with.

    I believe AUSrogue isn't here to build an encyclopedia. win8x (talk) 16:07, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

    Disruptive reverts and insults by Andmf12

    Andmf12 (talk · contribs)

    First, I'm French and my english isn't perfect. Then, it's my first report here, so sorry if I'm not posting on the right place.

    Since days, Andmf12 (talk · contribs) is continuously reverting on article CS Dinamo București (men's handball) but also insulting me: revert 1, revert 2, revert 3 + insult: "are you dumb?", revert 4 + insult: "yes, you are an idiot and stop deleting because we are not interested in your stupid rules, like you", revert 5 + insult: "You're crying like a little girl and I see you don't want to calm down".

    The object of the reverts is about non-sourced hypothetical (or not yet confirmed) transfers (see ? on each item) but as I explained many times in my removal, "Misplaced Pages is an encyclopaedia and not a crystal ball". If needed Bellahcene and Pelayo's transfer has been mentioned ("devrait") but not confirmed yet. Same thing for Rosta.

    For a little more context, previous similar behaviour by differents IPs happened in this article and lead to a request for page protection on 4 December and a second time on 22 December. Actually, the problem wasn't only for the handball club article but the same problem occurred to multiple handball clubs and led to many pages protection. At that time, CS Dinamo București (men's handball) was the worst with already many insults in english ("Where is democracy? We do not distort information, we come to support handball fans who do not have a platform like transfermarkt in football" and "Are you stupid?") or in romanian "iar ai aparut ma prostule?" (meaning "You showed up again, you idiot?"), "mars ma" (x2), "Nu mai sterge bai prostule" meaning according to google "Stop wiping your ass, you idiot").

    Coincidence or not, looking at Andmf12 contributions led to the conclusion he.she is Romanian and by the way one can see that he also have had inappropriate behavior in the past months (diff with probable insult in capitals "NU MAI EDITA PAGINA DACA NU AI TREABA CU CLUBUL INAPTULE", diff with insult "don't delete if you have nothing to do with the team", diff with insult "fck u iovan jovaov")

    I'm not fully aware of the rules here, but I think that Andmf12 (talk · contribs) should sanctioned somehow.

    Thanks for your concern.--LeFnake (talk) 16:27, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

    Blocked two weeks as a CheckUser action. It could be upped to indefinite if someone wants. I doubt this person is going to change after 2 weeks. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:57, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
    Category: