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 06:09, 26 June 2007 editChaser (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users22,934 editsm →Second opinion requested on sockpuppetry allegation: modify/clarify← Previous edit Latest revision as of 22:43, 24 December 2024 edit undoThe Bushranger (talk | contribs)Administrators156,577 edits →Disruptive editing by User talk:185.146.112.192: closing 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Short description|Noticeboard for reporting incidents to administrators}}<noinclude><!-- Inside the noinclude, because this page is transcluded.-->{{/Header}}</noinclude>{{clear}}
{{Purge|''Purge the cache to refresh this page''}}
{{stack begin|float=right|clear=false|margin=false}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config {{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{Administrators' noticeboard navbox all}}
|maxarchivesize = 250K
|maxarchivesize =800K
|counter = 263
|algo = old(24h) |counter = 1174
|algo = old(72h)
|key = 4636e7fd80174f8cb324fd91d06d906d
|key = 740a8315fa94aa42eb96fbc48a163504d444ec0297a671adeb246c17b137931c
|archive = Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive%(counter)d |archive = Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive%(counter)d
|headerlevel=2
}} }}
{{stack end}}
{{Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentsHeader}}
<!--
]
NEW ENTRIES GO AT THE BOTTOM OF THE PAGE NOT HERE
__NEWSECTIONLINK__
NEW ENTRIES GO AT THE BOTTOM OF THE PAGE NOT HERE
__TOC__
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 .
<!-- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ -->
<!-- New entries go down at the *BOTTOM* of the page, not here. -->
<!-- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ -->


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>


: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)
Pigsonthewing and ] had paragraphs on their respective userpages, attacking the other user. ] talked to them, but then asked me to take a look when Pigsonthewing insisted there was no problem. I subsequently talked to them both, and Leonig was entirely reasonable. However, Pigsonthewing was not, claiming that he was ] in having the message, completely unreasonably, and reverting . Also relevent is his ], in which he was told he would be blocked if he excessively reverted. Could an uninvolved admin please take a look, and decide what needs to be done? ] 23:04, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
::Yes the is indeed about ]. I see the content dispute as stemming from the fundamental conduct issue, which has manifested itself most egregiously with insisting on violating ] repeatedly even after I that I had and that they should refrain from changing the heading again in order to preserve the integrity of the link, after which they went ahead and . ] (]) 16:00, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
:::The heading dispute is between a date heading, and a descriptive heading? that's not really reformulating your entry. ] (]) 17:44, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
::::It's a conduct issue. ] (]) 19:58, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::But what conduct issue? TALKNO doesn't forbid changing headings. In fact the wider guideline makes it clear it's perfectly acceptable "{{tqi|Because threads are shared by multiple editors (regardless of how many have posted so far), no one, including the original poster, "owns" a talk page discussion or its heading. It is generally acceptable to change headings when a better heading is appropriate, e.g., one more accurately describing the content of the discussion or the issue discussed, less one-sided, more appropriate for accessibility reasons, etc. Whenever a change is likely to be controversial, avoid disputes by discussing a heading change with the editor who started the thread, if possible. It can also sometimes be appropriate to merge entire sections under one heading (often preserving the later one as a subheading) if their discussions are redundant.}}" To be blunt, if you don't want editors changing the headings of sections you start, don't use such terrible headings. I definitely recommend you stay away from ANI since changing headings is quite common here. ] (]) 06:25, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::Actually I missed the signature issue. That's far more concerning unfortunately lost IMO partly because you concentrated on silly stuff. ] (]) 06:29, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::&lrm;إيان: I suggest you stop messing around with the section heading since it's a distraction which could easily lead to you being blocked. But if AnonMoos changes your signature again, report it and only that without silliness about section headings, mentioning that they've been warned about it before if needed. ] (]) 06:50, 18 December 2024 (UTC)


I wrote a long and detailed explanation on his user talk page as to why the date-only header is basically useless in that context, but he's still for some peculiar reason fanatically determined to keep changing it back. Frankly, I've basically run out of good-faith reasons that make any sense -- except of course, his apparently unshakable belief that he has certain talk-page "rights", which according to Misplaced Pages guidelines he does '''not''' in fact have (outside of his own personal user talk page)... ] (]) 23:10, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
:Leonid is now also , as well as Pigsonthewing's with links to page differences showing old personal attacks from <s>Pig to himself</s> himself to Pig. ] 23:15, 20 June 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)
::I have made no such personal attacks. The personal attack you cite was one of several made by Leonig Me, about me, not vice versa. My name remains ] 23:17, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
::], this is not good to see. Don't rewrite or reformat other editor's signatures. There is no reason to be doing this unless you are trying to provoke the other editor. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 07:51, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
:::The personal attack I cited was from you to him, but it was a long time ago. Check the diff. ] 23:22, 20 June 2007 (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)
::::On the contrary, as anyone can see, he wrote it, about me, on my talk page. ] 23:28, 20 June 2007 (UTC)


== Disruptive editing by ] ==
:::::Oh, sorry, you're right. I'll correct that. ] 23:36, 20 June 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)
::::::Thank you. Now you've seen, at least in part, why the note is on my user page; and why its justified. That's not the worst he's called me; and he's always been allowed to get away with it, with no community sanction or admin response. My name remains, ] 23:38, 20 June 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)
:::::::Indeed there are worse accusations he could have hurled. For example he could have and gotten away with it. ] 23:44, 20 June 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}}


== User engaged in edit warring to remove disputed content prior to consensus ==
:::::::Then rise above it. There is no need to respond to abuse with abuse. Your case suddenly becomes somewhat weakened when you yourself have behaved in an unreasonable manner. ] 23:43, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
{{atop|There's nothing actionable in this content dispute, except perhaps trouting the original poster for failing to assume good faith and hounding friendly admins when they try to help. Longtime user ] (4.5 yrs, over 5K edits) has made several assertions based on their clear misunderstanding of social norms. In this discussion they've failed to notify the subject (they actually failed to use the subject's name in the OP), they've failed to bring any diffs, they failed to sign their post, and over and over they seem to have failed to assume good faith of their fellow editors. A number of editors including several admins have attempted to talk Sxbbetyy down. Nobody in this discussion seems to agree with Sxbbetyy on the merits, yet Sxbbetyy keeps circling back to their own personal interpretation of policy. The discussion at ], where Sxbbetyy refuses to listen to the admin they asked, gives another example of the problem. Sxbbetyy is reminded that creating a post on ANI puts all their own behaviors up for examination. ] (]) 15:46, 23 December 2024 (UTC)}}


Title is pretty self explanatory. Rather than engage in the consensus building process to determine if the disputed content discussed ] is problematic, ] editor has instead immediately reverted the disputed content. They have been informed of the relevant policies prohibiting this behavior and how it should normally be handled (tagging the content as disputed while the discussion is ongoing) but have elected to instead engage in edit warring to keep the disputed content removed prior to any consensus on the matter. Also important to note that they wish to have the content removed entirely, but have stated that they no longer intend to participate in the consensus building discussion. So this appears to be a ] tactic to accomplish their goal of removing the content immediately without a consensus. Seeking admin help to halt this behavior and restore the content with the correct tagging.<!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 23:36, 18 December 2024 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Xsign -->
::::::::"''There is no need to respond to abuse with abuse.''" - Indeed; and I haven't. ] 23:58, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
:It would help if you named the editor and signed your name to figure out what you are talking about; a noticeboard only works if you give us notice about the subject and what is happening. <span style="font-family: Roboto;">''']''' <span style="color:#00008B">•</span> <small>''(])''</small></span> 23:39, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
::The editor appears to be {{u|PerfectSoundWhatever}}, based on the under the word "this" as well as . — ]&nbsp;<sub>]</sub> 23:51, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
::My apology, this is my very first time making such a post. The other pages o have spoken on seemed to have signed themselves automatically. Will remember this going forward. And yes, that was the user, posted this using my phone so I didn't want to mis-spell their name, just linked instead. ] (]) 17:01, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
:{{non-admin comment}} IMO the best practice is that in the event of a content dispute, the article should be reverted to the status quo of how the article's content appeared before the dispute started, until such a time that consensus is established to re-add it (see: ]). It seems like the beginning of the content that is in dispute was added on 18 August 2024, the dispute began a few weeks later on 23 September 2024 and has been ongoing ever since.{{pb}}In this case, since the article existed in a relatively steady state for several months (or even years?) previous to the disputed material being added, I think it'd be wise to leave the disputed content out of the article until the discussion comes to a close. ] (]) 00:07, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
::I have been seeing this opinion from a few editors and even one admin on how to interpret this article. However, the first few sentences in that section do outright state to avoid reverting the disputed content prior to a consensus. And prior to opening this report, I asked several admins on the topic and got a response that reverting the disputed content immediately is incorrect per WP:STATUSQUO as it bypasses the consensus building process. I was advised that the content should instead be tagged as disputed rather than be outright removed. The offending user was made aware of the relevant policies but has nonetheless engaging in edit warring to keep it reverted, hence this report. ] (]) 17:13, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
:::The status quo of an article constitutes implicit consensus (]). The person trying to include disputed content in an article despite it not being status quo is the one that could be construed as attempting to bypass the consensus building process, not the person trying to maintain status quo until discussion takes place. ] (]) 17:20, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
::::Correct, and at no point was the definition of what constitutes the status quo ever in contention. In fact, if you review the edit history of the article you can see that the disputed content was the status quo via implicit consensus at the time PSW chose to first outright revert the content, and then continued to revert it as others tried to restore it (both before and after the consensus discussion began). ] (]) 23:38, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::{{tq|1=the disputed content was the status quo via implicit consensus at the time PSW chose to first outright revert the content}}<br>Not really, I personally wouldn't define "been there a few weeks" as status quo.{{pb}}I think maybe the other replies to this thread provide pretty good reasoning to take a step back and say "hey maybe I'm the one in the wrong here" instead of talking in circles ] (]) 00:30, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::Personally I think the number of contributions since the edit where it has gone unchanged is a more useful metric, especially on low traffic pages such as this one. Regardless, per the policy you cite, there seems to be no official Misplaced Pages stance on what exact criteria are needed for a contribution to be considered the current status quo, beyond it having been unchallenged in subsequent contributions (which is the case here).
::::::As for the rest of your comment, there seems to be a high amount of band wagoning and "]" going on in the rest of this. Or people trying to use this report as an extension of the dispute discussion on the article's talk page. Hopefully more actual admins to chime in on the topic as I don't actually want to waste my time talking in circles.
::::::On that note thanks for actually taking the time and baseline minimal effort to engage in a discussion where you actually support your point and don't just devolve into repeating the same talking points over and over. It's a nice change of pace. ] (]) 02:48, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
:I am the editor being discussed here. I'll provide a summary of events since the initial statement by Sxbbetyy is misleading.
:Myself and the editor had a content dispute at ] (]) and following circular discussion, I stopped engaging since I felt I had laid out my points. Per ], I maintained the state of the article to before the dispute. I requested for a ], which was answered by {{ping|BerryForPerpetuity}}, who agreed the statement should be removed, albeit for a different reason than mine. I took this 2-1 as rough consensus. I also posted the dispute on two WikiProjects, and have received no response so far. Sxbbetyy reached out to three admins about the matter, {{ping|Sergecross73|Oshwah|Pbsouthwood}}. The ] can be summarized as Sergecross believing that I haven't engaged in misconduct, and that I have presented a "plausible, good-faith interpretation of ]". Sxbbetyy then accused Sergecross73 of not acting in good faith. Oshwah did not respond to the post on ], but {{ping|BusterD}} did, essentially agreeing that the sourcing does not back up the claim in the content dispute. Sxbbetyy received help on ] about responding to a content dispute. And now we're here.
:Throughout these interactions, Sxbbetyy has demonstrated a failure to assume good faith, refuses to accept ], and ]s talk pages, refusing to let the other editor have the last word. Frankly, this is a massive waste of editor time: it should have been a brief talk page discussion then an RfC. Apologies for all the pings. — ] (]; ]) 00:23, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
::This summarization in itself leaves out critical context, (such as berry's concern being alleviated and them no longer expressing a desire to remove the content), the specifics of why that conversation with Serge ended the way it did despite my repeated attempts to engage with them in good faith, and the entire discussion with pbsouthwood (who quite definitively explained that the behavior PSW was engaged in was not correct). So I urge all involved to go read those topics to get the correct context through your own eyes and then discuss any concerns from what you see here. That being the case, it seems pretty clear cut imo. ] (]) 17:20, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Just to be clear, in no way did I express that I didn't want the content to be removed. I did not receive a notification for your reply, and I wouldn't have engaged either way. —&nbsp;] ] 17:24, 19 December 2024 (UTC)


: Yes, I would leave that material out of the article. Whilst it may not exactly be synthesis ''per se'', it is certainly editorialising ("the removal of that amount of marine debris is of negligible consequence...") ''unless'' there is an actual source that says this by making a link between between the two statistics (the amount of waste removed by Team Seas and the rate at which waste is entering the ecosystem). And even then, I would say that such an edit would need to say something like "However, ARandomNewspaper pointed out that ...". ] 00:34, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
:I did not insist that there was no problem. There very much is a problem, as described on my user page. ] 23:17, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
::That is actually no longer the content that is being disputed. If you look at the that got reverted on the article you can see the current version. I had made edits to it precisely because of valid WP:NPOV concerns brought to my attention by PSW. However, their dispute with the content remains with the claim that is is synthesis rather than any other concern. Which they have been thus far unable to obtain a consensus on. ] (]) 17:27, 19 December 2024 (UTC)


*I have some pretty serious ] concerns about the topic starter here. They came to me for help (no idea how/why me, I have no connection to this dispute) and I repeatedly told them I didn't see any misconduct, and then they started attacking ''me'' when I refused to agree with them. And now this. This is a very simple content dispute, with a very simple ] outcome. I've told them this. It's a disappointing time sink on a rather trivial content dispute. ] ] 00:52, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
::You insisted there was no problem in having the comments on your userpage. ] 23:22, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
*:At no point was he "attacked". I defended myself after he became hostile with me (as anyone can read in our convo, I stated multiple times that I would leave and did not want to be a burden if they didn't want to engage with this, but he made no such objections and continued). Eventually he just became outright hostile and refused to explain their points any further, devolving the conversation into them repeating themselves over and over, its all there to read on his talk page. As for why I contacted him, I wanted to ensure I chose impartially so I just randomly looked at the currently active admins at the time and he was the first one I found. ] (]) 18:23, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
*::The discussion is , if anyone wants to look. The "attack" I'm referring to you is your accusation that I responded to you in bad faith. I was not involved in the dispute, have no stance on it, and had no pre-conceived notions about either of you - what in the world would my motivations be for "bad faith responses"? It doesn't make any sense. You simply didn't get the response you wanted, and proceeded to badger me on it. Did I get vaguely irritated when I volunteered my time to review and comment on a dispute I had no stance or interest in, only to get all sorts of ] responses on it? Yeah, sure, but who wouldn't? ] ] 18:44, 19 December 2024 (UTC)


*I'm here from my input at the 3rd opinion request. This is nothing more than a trivial content dispute, I see no reason for this to be at ANI. I somewhat agree with the claim of ], it becomes more susceptible to incorrect information, and from my analysis it seemed like the claim in the disputed content was completely wrong. Two different sources, from two different time periods. My $0.02: The claim of stonewalling is ridiculous, there was ample good-faith discussion based on existing policy and guidelines. This editor does not ], it appears that he claims that editors disagreeing are acting in bad faith. From him to administrator Sergecross73: {{tq|"I'm not wasting time engaging with you if you aren't going to speak with me in good faith."}} It seems that he roots his argument based on the editor who removed it rather than the content itself. Very unfortunate waste of time. —&nbsp;] ] 15:31, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Stop putting words in my mouth. ] 23:28, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
*:Exactly. It's not "stonewalling" that's happening here. PerfectSoundWhatever has discussed at-length at the talk page. They're simply not willing to ''talk circles indefinitely''. And we don't require that of editors. I've urged Sxbbetyy to, rather that spin their wheels arguing with the same person endlessly in a stalemate, to try to get other participants to take part. But they've refused, and instead decided to move their arguing to ANI instead. As I noted to them in one of my last comments to them, if they spent half as much effort in consensus-building as they did complaining and arguing, they could have built a consensus by now... ] ] 17:30, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
*:Reading any of what I wrote in this dispute shows clearly that is not the case. Also, the quoted sentence is completely taken out of context.
*:Here is what was said in the mesaage before that they left out, "Not really the logical conclusion one draws from reading any of what I wrote here, where I asked multiple times for you to explain your reasoning in your replies (instead your response was to repeat yourself without offering further explanation), but if that is what you want to take away from this that's fine by me. I'm not wasting time engaging with you if you aren't going to speak with me in good faith."
*:The message as a whole was replying to was a passive aggressive insult that didn't progress that conversation, hence the response as it was clearly not an example of engagement in good faith.] (]) 18:34, 19 December 2024 (UTC)


:Also, it looks like the participants in the dispute on the Team Seas article are acting as if this report is an extension of that dispute discussion.
:::: We have more than a million articles and four million users. Would all the litigants please go off and do something else for a while and stop complaining, stop insulting each other and stop posting notes here, there or anywhere. That's a very simple solution that will end this dispute. You're fighting about nothing! ] <sup>]</sup> 00:20, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
:This is a report of edit warring to revert disputed content prior to a consensus being reached (there was no consensus prior to the reversion and there still is no consensus, as admitted by PSW themselves in that very dispute and In their latest revert message, no idea why now in this report they are trying to claim that there is suddenly consensus for removal).
:This is not a report on the dispute itself, just to make that very clear since those involved are responding as if it is. ] (]) 18:41, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
::You've still got this backward. You need to show a consensus to keep your content in the article, as everyone else has been telling you. ] is directly on point, and I'll quote it here: {{Tq|The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content.}} ] (]) 18:53, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Thank you. I have tried to inform them of this many times and many ways. I do not know why they cannot wrap their head around the concept. Conceptually, it would be very problematic if we were required to retain every disputed content until consensus ruled it out. It wouldn't be workable. ] ] 19:02, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Nobody is arguing WP:ONUS here...not in the dispute and not here in this report. The point is that the content is being removed prior to there being a consensus on if it should be removed.
:::I was directly advised by admin Pbsouthwood that the removal of disputed content BEFORE any consensus has been reached is not allowed (save for specific situations, none of which apply to the disputed content) as this bypasses the consensus building process. ] is the talk page where I was advised this. This is echoed with the wording in WP:STONEWALLING and ]. Here is the direct quote from the latter, "To eliminate the risk of an edit war, do not revert away from the status quo ante bellum during a dispute discussion. Instead, add an appropriate tag indicating the text is disputed. For an article, many of the inline dispute tags are appropriate. For other pages, {{under discussion inline}} is good. Leave the status quo and the tag in place until the discussion concludes." ] (]) 19:58, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
::::{{tq|The point is that the content is being removed prior to there being a consensus on if it should be removed.}} <--- No. This is your problem. What you are saying here is incorrect. Policies say the opposite of this. You are not going to get support at ANI. In fact, the longer you keep going with this ] insistence that community practice is actually the opposite of what policies plainly say it is, the more likely it is you're going to find yourself blocked for disruption. Pbsouthwood didn't tell you this either (what he wrote doesn't match what you've been doing), and your initial question did not properly represent the situation at hand. But we can invite him here to see if he actually supports what you're doing here: {{ping|Pbsouthwood}}, what say you? ] (]) 20:06, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::This entire comment serves absolutely zero purpose whatsoever. You're parroting what others have already said with no supporting evidence. Along with throwing in an oddly included threat that is completely nonsensical and wholly unwarranted.
:::::And while I could point out the myriad of ways your claim about what Pbsouthwood said was inaccurate, that would pretty much involve reposting his reply, which is a waste since anyone can already go to his talk page and read it themselves.
:::::So at this point, if you need that admin to come here and tell you what they already said themselves, more power to you. Would save us all a ton of time to get an authoritative answer on this, especially with another admin holding the opposite view point, in spite of the specific policy wording. ] (]) 23:08, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::], there does not need to be an established consensus for the removal of content. ]. - ] <sub>]</sub> 01:28, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::I'm not the one insisting otherwise...this report only exists because an ]. And as I've posted in my previous replies, the wording in the policies clearly support that. Makes me question how many have actually bothered to really read these policies... ] (]) 02:22, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::The other admin told you ''nothing'' about the removal of ], which is always appropriate. ]. - ] <sub>]</sub> 03:19, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::# This report is not an extension of the dispute discussion for that article, if you want to involve yourself in that discussion, do so there, do not hijack this report.
:::::::::# The disputed content is plainly not WP:SYNTH as I explain on the talk page in great length, with nobody thus far having provided valid examples as to how it is.
:::::::::# If you are going to make the claim that any WP:SYNTH concerns warrant immediate reversion without consensus, please feel free to share the quote in the relevant policy that says this. I have not found any such wording and instead found that what is present matches up with what PBsouthwood informed me.
:::::::::] (]) 17:17, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::] ] ] 02:05, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::At this point I say that my advice was given without a specific context, and without prejudice. I maintain that it is more collegial and polite to discuss a removal of unsourced but ''plausible'' content ''before'' removing it, as it can often avoid disputes of this kind, but it is not forbidden to arbitrarily delete content that an editor ''plausibly considers inappropriate provided the relevant reason is given''. It is always the responsibility of the person advocating inclusion to provide a reference when challenged, regardless of the process of challenge.
:::::Some forms of synthesis are acceptable. If a conclusion is logically inevitable based on undisputed factual premises, or is a simple mathematical calculation, we routinely accept claims that may not be specifically stated in a source, but we may require the logic to be explained, as it may not be obvious to the reader.
:::::At the risk of being ], I also refer readers to <s>]</s> <u>(looks like that essay has been expunged, try ])</u>. &middot; &middot; &middot; ] ]: 06:59, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::I think many of us used to the mess editors adding unsourced content can create would strongly oppose leaving in unsourced content just because it's plausible. The standard should instead be at a minimum that you believe the claim made is most likely correct and sourceable not simply that it's plausible. Although ultimately such discussions are a little silly anyway. If editors would just add sources rather than leaving it for someone else because they're claiming it's unlikely to be challenged or whatever, there would be a need for others to decide whether to query or remove unsourced content. ] (]) 09:56, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::I was suggesting tagging with citation needed while you wait a reasonable time for a response, but as we know some of us do not have the patience and just revert. It in not unheard of to know something, but not have a source handy at the time. What is obvious to one may be totally obscure to others. This is acceptable within policy and guidelines. You could start a RfC to have the guidelines changed, but I suspect it would not get through as being a bit bitey. Cheers, &middot; &middot; &middot; ] ]: 12:47, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::Yes, what you say is true, that's absolutely an acceptable approach. But that's not really the problem at hand here. The bigger issue is that Sxbbetyy appears to be believe that the alternative approach - reverting per STATUSQUO or NOCONSENSUS - is somehow misconduct, and that's simply not true. They're not arguing about if your approach is valid, they're arguing that its ''compulsory'', and they're attempting to report a user for not following your possible approach, which is completely meritless. ] ] 17:31, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::Please do not put words in my mouth. The only reason this report exists is because Peter Southwood advised that this was how I should proceed if the editor participating in this no-consensus reverting continued to do so and was unreceptive to further discussion. (Both are true by admission of PSW themselves). ] (]) 18:22, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::Yes, I've seen , but you presented the situation to them entirely in hypotheticals that lacks crucial context. You frame PSW as unwilling to engage in discussion but omit the fact that You accuse PSW of edit warring to keep their information in the article, but omit the fact that . I would think the near-unanimous rejection of this ANI report would indicate that this was not, in fact, a good thing to report. Best case scenario, this is archived with no action, but I'd be shocked if it didn't result in a ]. ] ] 18:44, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::I don't know why you are attempting to present the entire discussion on that talk page as some sort of proof that PSW was willing to engage in further discussion to halt the behavior this report is about. At no point whatsoever did PSW ever indicate anything like that; if they did this report wouldn't exist as the discussions on your talk page or Peter Southwood's page would have never needed to happen. Not to mention if you take the time to actually read the discussion, you see that most of it is on the specifics of the validity of the WP:SYNTH claim made by PSW, eventually culminating in PSW actually asserting that they will not stop change their position on this and then outright refusing to engage any further.
:::::::::::And now you accuse me of edit warring by citing the entire recent edit history of the page...this isn't fooling anyone who actually bothers to read any of the revert messages and examine the timeline of when they occurred (talk about omitting "crucial context").
:::::::::::Beyond just slandering my character, I don't really see what these kind of spurious claims accomplish. It wastes everyone's time, makes yourself look biased and hostile, and adds nothing to the conversation. Keep things civil please, I really shouldn't have to tell you of all people that basic expectation. ] (]) 02:38, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::Wait...are you seriously trying to suggest that, even though you were the only one who reverted him every single time, he was edit warring and you weren't? ] ] 02:50, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::If you are going to continue to twist words and make false claims immediately after being asked to keep things civil, maybe it would be best for all involved if you just moved on from this conversation. Sad that even has to be stated at this point, it should be a given. ] (]) 17:25, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::::Yet another IDHT response where you try to baselessly chastize me rather than address anything anyone is saying to you. ] ] 18:14, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::What a choice to post this exact type reply to my last message... not to mention the sheer absurdity of it. To claim that I've never addressed anyone's points in my replies is so easily and visibly wrong (literally this entire topic is full of my detailed replies to people's concerns, including this very reply) that it's almost insulting to the rest of the people participating in this or to anyone who even chooses to read that message. It's as if you think nobody can see the rest of this discussion (or even the comments directly above it). ] (]) 11:52, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::Thank you for taking the time to respond and my apology for any inconvenience it may have caused. Ive tried to keep it as civil as possible, but there seems to be a very hostile air in this discussion by those with the dissenting opinion. As for how this situation is to be resolved, would it be appropriate to restore the currently disputed content with the appropriate tags (as it is sourced and was the statusquo on the page at the time of reversion)? Or is there something further that must be done here? I'm generally unfamiliar with how ANIs actually function. ] (]) 17:52, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
:Have you considered starting an ]? The fact is that you made a ] addition to the article; someone else objected to it, which means you now ought to seek consensus ''for your addition''. As numerous people have told you, none of the relevant policies and guidelines (], ], ], etc) would allow you to make a recent addition the "default" the way you want, but more generally - the problem is that you're trying to dig through policy for something that will make your preferred version the default, allowing you to have it in the article without having to demonstrate consensus for it even in the face of challenges. Even if the policies and guidelines I listed ''were'' on your side this would still be a bad way to approach it. You have a conflict, your goal should be to resolve it by making consensus as clear as possible - figuring out what the crux of the dispute is and then, if you can't reach a compromise, holding an RFC to see where consensus lies. Also, I have to point out that just by a quick nose count of people who have weighed in on talk, I'm seeing a dispute that is now three-to-one against you. That ''is'' a consensus - not a massive one, maybe an RFC will pull in a bunch of people that say something else, but it doesn't make sense for you to keep demanding a consensus to remove something you added when there actually ''is'' such a consensus on talk. You've disagreed with their arguments but they're not obliged to ] you; ultimately if you think your arguments are so strong and theirs are so weak, the only real option for you at this point is to start an RFC and hope that you can demonstrate that there. --] (]) 04:10, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
::As mentioned earlier in the discussion, this report is not an extension of the dispute on that article, nor is that what this report is about. Also, a RFC was already started for the topic about a week or so ago by PSW, but that occurred after he reverted the status quo, disputed content with discussion (repeatedly). As for the rest of your comment, Peter Southwood, an admin, has addressed what is the actual expectation. ] (]) 18:00, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
:::What? I never started an RfC. — ] (]; ]) 19:07, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
::::I just checked and on 12/9/24 at ] you said the following, "Thanks – just wanted to mention I requested comments from ] and ] about 2 weeks ago."
::::Did that not actually happen? ] (]) 02:11, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::] is a specific process. Asking questions on a couple of Wikiprojects is not an RFC. ] (]) 02:22, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::That's fundamentally not what an RFC is. This is getting ridiculous... ] ] 03:03, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::It's almost like this is the very first time I've ever been involved in this kind of issue on Misplaced Pages before...seriously these kind of replies come off as rude and don't actually say anything meaningful or helpful. Ever since our conversation on your talk page you have made next to no real effort to engage in good faith and I find that highly disappointing to be coming from an admin. And my apology if I offended you at all at some point or if you have just "lost your patience" with me, but I don't see how that gives you the green flag to suddenly disregard ]. I certainly haven't, in spite of being on the receiving end of this. ] (]) 17:44, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::I haven't said anything uncivil, I just keep calling you out when you say something incorrect. ] ] 18:08, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::], is a powerful force, I find it difficult to resist myself. ] (]) 18:10, 21 December 2024 (UTC)


===Request for closure===
:::::Jehochman, I don't see how multiple ] and ] violations as well as a probable violation of ] can be reasonably described as "nothing". Unfortunately, this is yet another example of Pigsonthewing's stubbornness and refusal to compromise and the frustration his behaviour engenders in other editors - several of whom feel that he is, if not "stalking" them, then certainly monitoring and reverting their edits more closely than is normal (hence the reason I'm not logged in to post these comments). -- ] 07:14, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Despite its large size, the consensus here is quite clear. There's no misconduct here, just standard following of procedures of ] and ], which is perfectly acceptable. Not a single person has suggested taking any action towards PerfectSoundWhatver. Outside of a a potential IDHT BOOMERANG, there's nothing left to be done here. Can someone close this? ] ] 14:02, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
:I second that. If there has been any edit-warring by any party that should be dealt with in the normal way. {{u|PerfectSoundWhatever}} has certainly done nothing wrong, and the OP will get blocked if they don't start listening to people pretty quickly. ] (]) 14:24, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
::Exactly. And even that's probably unlikely, as most of the "edit warring" was singular reverts with days or weeks in between. It's far from a 3RR situation at least. ] ] 15:26, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
:{{non-admin comment}} I don't think this conversation is going anywhere fast, other than seemingly coming to the conclusion that @] has done nothing wrong, which seems to be the opposite of what this ANI post was about. There's no edit warring here, and even if there was, it wouldn't be dealt with at this venue. Shut it down! ] (]) 16:48, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
:In what way whatsoever is this editor's decision to revert the disputed content during the discussion "standard following of procedures of WP:STATUSQUO"? The literal first words that appear at that link are in bold and say, "'''Avoid reverting during discussion'''", followed by a detailed explanation of the actual proper procedure. And to make it very clear what it says, here is the literal first paragraph verbatim: "To eliminate the risk of an edit war, do not revert away from the '']'' '''during a dispute discussion'''. Instead, add an appropriate tag indicating the text is disputed. For an article, many of the ] are appropriate. For other pages, <code><nowiki>{{</nowiki>]<nowiki>}}</nowiki></code> is good. Leave the status quo and the tag in place until the discussion concludes." ] (]) 02:31, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
::In what way is ''that'' your read of the consensus in the discussion above? ] ] 02:49, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
:::In what world do you logically come to that conclusion from a message that consist of almost entirely the word for word quote of the procedures described in WP:STATUSQUO, that directly counters the claim you just made? Are you saying it is "against consensus" simply because it presents a viewpoint you don't like and don't want to address? I don't see another reason why you would again twist my words, to the point of lunacy. And this is, once again, despite the fact that all of what has been said is literally within view.
:::Also, regarding the consensus. Out of everyone that has actually joined the discussion and all the messages sent (~90% of which are either from myself or you Serge), there have been only three people who have actually said anything in support of your interpretation of this. The rest either did not discuss the topic, did not express an opinion, or were Peter Southwood who supported the interpretation of WP:STATUSQUO as stated on its page. Seems like you're just trying to rush a end to the conversation to get the conclusion you want. ] (]) 15:02, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
::::I'm saying there has been no consensus for anything you're arguing here. Not a single person has supported action against PSW. ] ] 15:15, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
::::The status quo ante bellum that shouldn't be reverted from is the version ''without the new content''. ] (]) 15:16, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
{{abot}}


== Creating the need to make 400,000 unnecessary edits ==
::::::Ah, sockpuppetry. ] 07:38, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
:::::::Whether that user is a sock-puppet or not, what they say is entirely accurate. ] 09:55, 21 June 2007 (UTC)


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.
Can I ask why nothing has been done about this? This is a blatant violation of ] and ], not to mention going against an ArbCom ruling. Why then, do I post this here, leave it overnight, and only get someone suggesting that posting here was an immature action? This is actually rather ridiculous. Why do we have this board, if not for situations like this? ] 09:55, 21 June 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)
:Hm I notice that the reverts were in his own user space where the three revert rule is restricted and that at least one administrator was making the same reverts as he was. Whilst I am one of several people irritated by Andy's posts in projects where I belong and I sarted watching this thread as I initially hoped he might be made to shut up at last, I now have come to believe that your posts here are on a similar level to his posts on his page re Leonard Mig that you tried to remove. Can further posts here be restricted to uninterested parties (sock puppets need not apply) or to responses to specific accusations by the person accused. --] 11:11, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
:If you want to discuss {{tl|WikiProject banner shell}}, you should do so at ].
::I actually find that rather offensive. I was originally asked to look into this matter as an uninvolved administrator, and now I am being shufted to one side as if I am 'trying to get one over' on an 'enemy' of mine. I got involved, find myself to be somewhat in over my head due to the excessive amount of reverting done, and obviously I have no interest in breaching the ] myself. I am honestly not sure why ] made that revert- I can only assume it was a mistake, or he was reverting the actions of an obvious sock puppet. I am not quite sure why 'uninterested parties' would ever post; perhaps you mean 'uninvolved parties'? That's what I was originally. And, in completely good faith, no offense meant- who in hell are you to say who is and who isn't allowed to post here? The only reason I have continued to post is because no one has responded here. This is a CLEAR case of disruption, why is everyone so unwilling to do anything about it? ] 12:14, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
:As for the size of the category, I have no plans to empty it, and was only going to update a few hundred more categories and templates. &nbsp;&nbsp;<b>~</b>&nbsp;<span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:16px;">] (] ⋅])</span>&nbsp; 15:02, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
::You made nearly 2000 of such edits in the last few hours, and when asked to stop pointed me to a category with 400,000 entries. I have no way to know how many more you planned now or in future runs. Starting a discussion at the module would hardly stop you. ] (]) 15:10, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
:::"{{tq|when asked to stop pointed me to a category with 400,000 entries}}": incorrect. Since you wrongly thought I was making cosmetic edits, i.e. "{{tq|no change in output or categories}}", the category was to inform you that they are not cosmetic.
:::Regarding a BRFA for the bulk of the category, that's looking more likely since the category appears to be neglected. &nbsp;&nbsp;<b>~</b>&nbsp;<span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:16px;">] (] ⋅])</span>&nbsp; 15:29, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
::::Unnecessary removing a synonym and then making thousands of edits to remove the hidden cat created by that unnecessary change is not really any better than making cosmetic edits, the end result is that nothing has changed for the affected pages at all. ] (]) 15:33, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::Not unnecessary. The Lua code is very complex and removing the need the support various settings makes the code both easier to read and maintain. As always, editors that don't want to see these edits can hide these by hiding the tag "talk banner shell conversion". ] (]) 12:32, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::It doesn´t look as if the specific code to have these synonyms was very complicated though, the argument that in some cases two synonyms were used on one page with conflicting values was more convincing. And the edits I complained about did ''not'' have that tag, so no, even if people knew about hiding that tag, it wouldn't have helped here at all. ] (]) 16:04, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
:This was discussed in detail on ]. Ideally these edits would be done by an approved bot so they do not appear on people's watchlists. The main benefit is to merge the {{para|blp}} and {{para|living}} parameters. When both are in use, we find they often get conflicting values because one gets updated and the other does not. &mdash;&nbsp;Martin <small>(]&nbsp;·&nbsp;])</small> 17:25, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
::Isn't it more logical to first have a bot cleanup the unwanted parameter, then remove it from the template, and only then start populating the cat with the somehow remaining or since added instances? In any case, this is a typical bot task and shouldn't be done with massive AWB runs. ] (]) 17:39, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Yes, probably. But we have this mechanism already set up and I assumed {{ul|Cewbot}} would deal with these as part of its normal activities. Happy to look at other options - maybe discuss on template talk? &mdash;&nbsp;Martin <small>(]&nbsp;·&nbsp;])</small> 18:23, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
::::I don't know what this is about, but if the OP is correct, it is totally absurd to edit 400,000 talk pages for a tweak. Discussing at a template talk page monitored by those focused on the template would simply hide the issue. ] (]) 03:53, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::Edits like these should ''always'' be bots, so they can be filtered from watchlists. There are numerous other editors who have recently engaged in the mass additional of categories to articles which I had to ask them to stop as my watchlist was flooded. ]] 13:02, 22 December 2024 (UTC)


* Is it just me or are talk pages like ] just perpetual ] issues where a very small number of editors (frequently 5 or less) make major changes that affect thousands of articles, all without involving the broader community through, at minimum, places like ]? ]]<sup>]</sup> 04:03, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
The message is now back on Pigsonthewing's userpage. Could an uninvolved admin please do something about this? As Peter cohen so politely told me, my opinion no longer seems to be valid, and it is not like Pigsonthewing has any respect for the removal, simply reverting without explanation. This is disruptive, and is causing considerable friction. ] 12:47, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
*{{ping|Fram|Tom.Reding|Kanashimi|Primefac}} I got AWB working again. If cewbot would take time for making the changes, and if this needs attention soon, then should I file a request for that particular bot task? —usernamekiran ] 06:20, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
*:The robot is in operation... ] (]) 09:09, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
*::yay! —usernamekiran ] 16:04, 24 December 2024 (UTC)


: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)
:Also regardless of whether his revert parole applies to his own userpage, he made to ''another'' editor's userpage, which is in breach of his revert parole. <font face="Verdana">]<sub>'']''</sub></font> 13:02, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
:: I'm not going to block anyone for deleting shit like that. Not even Pigs. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 13:18, 21 June 2007 (UTC)


== ] ==
:::My point was that if you look ] various uninvolved editors are attempting to get the information off both userpages, yet Pigs persists in reinstating the information on his page while removing it from Leonig Mig's page. <font face="Verdana">]<sub>'']''</sub></font> 13:21, 21 June 2007 (UTC)


::::It does appear hypocritical, although justifiable when using a particular logic and interpretation. I strongly suggest that the sections be removed from both user pages, but I would also suggest that arguing about it (and blocks) will cause more trouble than the original problem. ] (]) 13:34, 21 June 2007 (UTC)


] is making wholesale reverts of my edits in contravention to guidelines. ] (]) 19:17, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
*The evidence presented here is '''strongly''' compelling that PoTW should be blocked for the behavior he has shown. In particular I first point out that conducting 7 reverts in a single day on his own userpage while not violating the letter of the law with regards to ], when taken in the context of removing personal attacks and his parole for reverts is is very convincing by itself. Second, that PoTW twice attempted to remove similar personal attacks from the userpage of the person with whom he is in disagreement is an unequivocal violation of the same parole. That PoTW insists on behaving in this manner despite multiple people requesting him to stop, despite the prior ArbCom ruling against him for this behavior shows his inability to function appropriately within the confines of a community based project. This user is severely trying the patience of Misplaced Pages in general. Taking into account his , I am hard pressed to understand why this abusive user is being treated with kitten paws. I am further troubled that when uninvolved parties try to intervene, they are quickly embroiled in the debate and assaulted for taking action because they are so embroiled. This effectively undermines the ability of administrators to take action in this case. This has gone on far too long. A block, and a long one at that, is entirely appropriate and should be placed immediately. --] 13:12, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
:You're removing demographic categories and templates by blanking them out; irreligion still deals with religion no matter your argument. That's definitely not compliant with ] and clearly vandalism. There's no action to take here except that you need to stop removing these categories and templates. <span style="font-family: Roboto;">''']''' <span style="color:#00008B">•</span> <small>''(])''</small></span> 19:42, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
::And you are now '''required''' to cite how your edits meet ]; spamming it in edit summaries is not discussion. <span style="font-family: Roboto;">''']''' <span style="color:#00008B">•</span> <small>''(])''</small></span> 19:47, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
::::While doing routine vandal patrol, I came across what seemed to be a hasty and massive removal of content, being done in a very directed and personal manner.
::::After looking at the persistent removal, and communicating, I restored the well-drawn categories.
::::Hopefully, this is easily resolved.
:::] (]) 20:40, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
::::43*, do not continue to revert these category removals without discussing them first. - ] <sub>]</sub> 22:48, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::THere is nothing to discuss. The guidelines are clear. What needs to be done is editors need to be familiar with the cat guidelines. We don't discuss whether the sky is blue do we? ] (]) 02:05, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
::::THey are not well drawn, it was not hasty, it was not massive, and it was not "personal". It was directed because they all had the same issue. ] (]) 02:07, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Editors should not blindly revert. They should be '''required''' to understand the guideleines. ] (]) 02:08, 21 December 2024 (UTC)


I gave up editing because there were too many problems that the wiki communtity is not sorting out. One of them is treating anon editors as second class wikicitizens.
::I for one find Andy's entire attitude to discussions on Misplaced Pages unhelpful and wrong. This is not the only incident where he has wasted hours of editors' time trying to push his point. Even if he's the only one who believes as such, he will still claim lack of consensus (ie. I don't agree = no consensus). He will remove comments for no reason (sometimes the token WP:NPA, which in his eyes is anything remotely critical of him) and refuses ever to compromise. For all the helpful edits he makes, he makes far more unhelpful edits and his stubbornness on many issues means that arguments such as this can drag on for weeks wasting everybody else's time. If he is blocked for breaking revert parole, I support the block. He needs time off to learn humility. ] – <span style="font-size:xx-small; vertical-align:middle;" class="noprint plainlinksneverexpand">• ]</span> – 13:19, 21 June 2007 (UTC)


Another problem is "this is how it is so we are going to leave it like this for years and years" and this is at the expense of the quality of WP.
:::Your disingenuous reference is to the debate about infoboxes on the Composer and Opera project's talk pages, where I have demonstrated that there are around a dozen or more editors speaking against the supposed consensus. Your "I don't agree" statement is therefore dishonest. ] 13:27, 21 June 2007 (UTC)


I can't remember the specific category guideline for the edits I did but is the undoing editors need to look it up. Categorisation is something that a lot of editor do not understand. Go and put a notice on WikkiProoject Categorisation and you will fing that there is support for my edits.
::::I haven't noticed a dozen or more editors putting the boxes back. I haven't even noticed that number commenting. Oh, and off-topic trollfests get archived. ] <sup> ]</sup> 13:36, 21 June 2007 (UTC)


WP could be sooo much better. ] (]) 02:02, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::Have you noticed people stating that they're leaving the project because of the hostility shown to them? I have; just as I've seen you . ] 13:43, 21 June 2007 (UTC)


:I'm sorry, but "I don't remember what policy says but I'm right so leave me alone" is an indication you should be trying to do better instead of telling us we should do the same. If you're not willing to actually explain why guidelines vindicate your changes, then being right sometimes isn't enough if you want to make things better. Communication is the process, not something ancillary to it. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>]</span> 02:10, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::Oh, so archiving a discussion that drifted completely off-topic into outright trolling is censorship, with productive discussion finished long ago? ] <sup> ]</sup> 13:45, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
::GO and read the guidelines. It does not need discussion. ] (]) 02:15, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Discussion is required when other editors ask you questions in good faith in order to resolve present disputes and prevent future ones. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>]</span> 02:18, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
::Bear in mind this is WP and not social media. ] (]) 02:16, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
::How do you get the impression that "I don't remember what policy says but I'm right so leave me alone". ] (]) 02:18, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
:::No. You brought this here. The ] is on ''you'' to explain how the guidelines justify your edits, not to say "go look it up". Also {{tqq|How do you get the impression that "I don't remember what policy says but I'm right so leave me alone"}} - because that's exactly what you said. - ] <sub>]</sub> 02:19, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
::::It's not unreasonable in many cases to link to a very specific passage of a guideline and expect an editor to understand its meaning as regards a pertinent dispute, but you can't just fail to clearly articulate your argument while also insisting it's vindicated somewhere within the full text of a guideline. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>]</span> 02:21, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
:Content dispute. Bold edits were reverted; next step is discussion, probably at ]. If there is dispute over interpretation of the guideline you can consider leaving a pointer at ]. If there are any categories that shouldn't be used at all that can be discussed at ]. ] (]) 03:31, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
::The content dispute could have been discussed on any of the talk pages. Yet it was brought here first. ] (]) 06:16, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
:::When a content dispute involves several pages it is often <small>though not always</small> best to centralize discussion. Misunderstanding ANIs purpose and bringing content disputes here is a common and understandable error; best just to point people at appropriate ] when that happens. ] (]) 06:53, 21 December 2024 (UTC)


Not overly impressed by 43's comments above. But do wish to note that their ] of ] from at least one BLP appears to have been correct. The subsequent reversion of that removal is misfortune. ] <sup>]</sup> 08:06, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::I've no idea, but archiving relevant, on-topic discussion, just because you disagree with the point being made, ''two minutes'' aftrr it was made, as you did in the case in question, is censorship. ] 19:34, 25 June 2007 (UTC)


== User:ZanderAlbatraz1145 Civility and Content #2 ==
::::This really is an unusual case: a Pigsonthewing ANI which doesn't involve ]. Mabbett's campaign to push through microformats in the face of any opposition has caused untold friction around Misplaced Pages and has been the origin of many incidents appearing on this page, including the classical music infobox debates. This editor is clearly a disruptive influence on Misplaced Pages and something should be done about him. --] 14:00, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
*{{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.
:::::Your continued ad hominem does you no credit; it merely suggests you cannot support your arguments otherwise. ] 14:12, 21 June 2007 (UTC)


On December 10, I noticed on the article ] page several additions were made that didn't adhere to the article's purpose. Zander restored these with an introductory summary rife with . For the most part there was an attempt to discuss the issue we had, but ultimately did not see eye to eye. I asserted I'd be escalating the issue to garner more substantive dialogue around it, Zander's response includes a needless . I made some attempts at engaging the topic at the article's talk page, in addition to WikiProject Film, it was over a week that saw no input. I would go on to state that (at the time) in two days, I would restore the page to it's status quo. I would do so, . Zander , and after another terse interaction, I moved to nominate the article for deletion, finding with the conflicting views of what Unrealized meant, it was too open ended and led to these lists being essentially trivia. Since then, Zander has elected to take an antagonistic approach towards me, making swipes they openly admit , and now that I am putting said comments , Zander is now doing the editing equivalent of mockingly repeating me, with edits such as and .
*I'd like to further point out the rapid accumulation of evidence in support of what I said above, where I said "I am further troubled that when uninvolved parties try to intervene, they are quickly embroiled in the debate and assaulted". Since my above posting, three other editors have commented in regards to PoTW's behavior. Results: ] accused of being dishonest, ] accused of censoring him, and ] accused of ad hominen attacks. It seems blatantly evident that PoTW refuses to learn lessons from prior sanctions against him and remains a highly disruptive presence on the project. --] 14:16, 21 June 2007 (UTC)


This editor displays no interest in conducting themselves cordially or cooperatively on this website. ] 23:20, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
:You're mistaking cause and effect. There is no evidence to support your claim. ] 14:29, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
:I've given them a warning for canvassing: - ] <sub>]</sub> 04:08, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
: - ] <sub>]</sub> 05:36, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
::And they appear to be continuing editing while ignoring here. - ] <sub>]</sub> 05:39, 24 December 2024 (UTC)


== SPA ] back at it on ] ==
:*I recognize and fully expected you to disagree with me. I'm not interested in whether you disagree or not. It's a given that you would. I have no interest in discussing this matter with you because your past and current behavior has shown you incapable of working within a community. I've been providing the above commentary to show to others why you should be blocked, not for your edification. --] 14:35, 21 June 2007 (UTC)


Hi, all, I'd like some assistance with the SPA ], who's been POV pushing on the ] article since . A quick view of their extremely short edit history shows that their sole focus is on pushing a vaccine-denialist POV on that and similar COVID-related topics. Started out on the talk page and BLPN, but now they've graduated to edit-warring on the article itself; they were active in June, made a single related edit in October, but now they appear to be . They've already , and have received an warning--to which they were . Would appreciate a more permanent resolution, either a COVID-19 topic ban or just an indef considering their SPA status, so they don't just go back into hibernation and then turn up again like a bad penny. (And yeah, given this context, I don't love the implications of the username "Tikitorch2", either.) Thanks, ]&nbsp;]] 05:13, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
::And I suppose you'll want to blame me for your ad hominem outburst as well? ] 14:49, 21 June 2007 (UTC)


:::I think you've just proved the point, Mabbett. ] <sup> ]</sup> 19:41, 21 June 2007 (UTC) :]? ] (]) 06:25, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
::{{duck}}. I'm sending this ]. - ] <sub>]</sub> 11:16, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
:::, so might just be generic disruption. - ] <sub>]</sub> 22:47, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
:What are you implying with regard to my username? My edit history has been limited to trying to correct two red flags that stood out so much that I followed the citations when I was searching these scientists who were in the news for censorship. It has been enlightening learning how wikipedia selectively chooses secondary sources but discourages the use of primary sources to help discriminate which secondary sources are credible.
:For my two attempted contributions to Misplaced Pages, the two red flags were pretty dramatic to prompt me to check out the citations--Sunetra Gupta's article implied more than 1 in 1000 people in England died from Covid in spring 2020 in an effort to discredit her, which was trivially easy to google as untrue. I corrected that without really changing the overall narrative. The article for Martin Kulldorff...I would probably not have spent time looking at the sources or realized how unscientific Kulldorff's critics were had there not been such superfluous "Wikivoice" editorializing and synthesizing suggesting Kulldorff lied in an essay to the public. ] (]) 06:30, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
::] are not to be used for anything but simple facts about a subject. They absolutely are not to be used {{tqq|to help discriminate which secondary sources are credible}} because that is ]. - ] <sub>]</sub> 08:57, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Not sure why you felt the need to repeat what I said. Maybe I am the sock puppeteer! ] (]) 03:33, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
::What I am implying is that such a username in the context of an account pushing COVID-denialist rhetoric that flies in the face of the sources and Misplaced Pages policy is . Anyway, this editor continues to be a drain of editor time and attention. ]&nbsp;]] 14:58, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Ah an absurd, convoluted, and contrived personal attack. Assuming anyone but you knew tiki torches were present at a political event where someone was killed, why would I choose my username based on that? Tikitorches provide light, warmth, and keep the mosquitos away. I guess its not surprising an editor named writ keeper attacks the editor rather than effectively debating the subject of the edit. ] (]) 03:28, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
::::Even if it was a personal attack, making one ''back'' isn't going to fly here. Knock it off. - ] <sub>]</sub> 04:04, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::], your edits are being examined at ANI. This is not a pleasant experience, I'll admit. So, it's best for you not to dig yourself into a hole. I know the instinct is to defend yourself but it doesn't help your situation to come out swinging. It's probably to your benefit to address any concerns that have been raised and say no more than that. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 04:30, 23 December 2024 (UTC)


== ] ==
In other news this week, Pigsonthewings has again the offending material after Newyorkbrad took it out. He's also made a right royal nuisance of himself by disrupting ]: after his off-topic ranting gets archived, he immediately shouts that he's being censored. I cannot take action myself, due to personal involvment, but I would suggest that someone does. ] <sup> ]</sup> 19:41, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
{{atop|result=Just officially closing this discussion as the account involved has been globally blocked. If an editor has Spore on your Watchlist and you see this occurring again, contact your local administrator. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 06:25, 24 December 2024 (UTC)}}
This user made 500 edits to their user page which were all completely useless (] to inflate their edit count) and then once receiving extended-confirmed permissions vandalized ] by copypasting another article. Their user page shows them editing and counting to 500. ]] 04:52, 22 December 2024 (UTC)


:It's a ], and I just reported to AIV. ] (]) 04:58, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
Pigs has continued to revert. Could someone please take action? ] 18:33, 21 June 2007 (UTC)


::Would it be possible to put up some kind of filter to alert for this? Something that…say…catches when more than 25 edits are made in a single space (user space for example) or something that would trip if the edits added less than 5 characters consistently? <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 05:15, 22 December 2024 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:Like ], I'm finding ]'s campaign here a little shrill. Andy's message does not appear to me to be an attack, but merely a statement drawing attention to the dispute. (<s>Although I question the word "abusive" in the first sentence - Leonig's ''admission'' that he is stalking does not appear to be abusive, although stalking might be abusive.</s> Ah, I see Andy's point on abusive. My bad.) Attempts to shape Andy to your conceptions of wikiquette, J Milburn, are bound to fail, border on pointless, and are as likely as not to make matters worse. --] ]
:::There is a filter for this. Look at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Special:AbuseLog&wpSearchUser=International+Space+Station0&offset=20241222044736, "New account unusual activity" covers exactly this. ] (]) 05:22, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
*This account has been globally blocked as an LTA so it shouldn't be an issue. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 05:25, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
*:At what point is it appropriate to selectively delete their hundreds of edits of nonsense from the page history?
*:Or is that just something that isn't done? &ndash; ] (]) (]) 05:28, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
*::If you are talking ], there is rarely a good reason for it's use at present. If instead you mean ] see ] and ]. ] (]) 05:33, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::I've gone ahead and revdel'd the lot of them, as cut-and-pasting from other articles without proper attribution is copyvio and thus RD1able. Selective deletion (making the edits go away from the history) is probably not going to happen, if it's even technically possible for an article with almost *9500* revisions (I know ]!). - ] <sub>]</sub> 08:55, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
{{abot}}


== Disruptive editor on ] ==
::Yes, because it is . (And they aren't the only people...) He is inappropriate comments in an uncivil manner, which serve only to incite anger and bad feelings. He refuses to remove these, continues to revert several established editors and administrators without discussion, breaching the 3RR massively, despite previous ArbCom rulings. I see no doubt that he should be blocked, and the only people speaking in support of him appear to be people such as yourself who see the matter, think it is minor, and disregard it. It was minor, until he insisted that there was nothing wrong with him having those comments, continually reverting, and continuing to attack everyone involved, mocking typing errors, picking up on minor mistakes and even edit warring over the userpage of the person he claimed to be his stalker. It isn't like I have seen this and come running straight here- I and another editor worked with him for a short while, and I only came here when I realised that he was intent on being unreasonable. ] 21:43, 21 June 2007 (UTC)


User ] has repeatedly removed reliably sourced refs to the genres infobox by removing ] simply because they don't believe it to be correct as the ref is "new" and that the artist isn't that genre. I had sent them two warnings now and also explained that's not how this works, so they decided to add more genres with refs that don't even mention the genres they included. I do not believe this editor is going to cooperate. ] (]) 08:27, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
:::My comments are in no way uncivil; they are a factual report of the circumstances. I have attacked no editors. I have mocked no typing errors. ] 21:48, 21 June 2007 (UTC)


:User:Pillowdelight changed the genre list of When the Pawn... which originally had been a variation of certain genres: Art pop, jazz rock, art rock, alternative rock, jazz pop, chamber pop, all of which are somewhat accurate and agreed upon by various editors of this page over many years. It was changed to just Alt pop, a genre that is used to describe the newer sounds of pop in the early 2010s with Lorde, Sky Ferreira and Lana del rey. It is not a genre that fits the album hence it has never before user:Pillowdelight been described as such beyond what her poor source says, a Fiona Apple revisit (that is not even about When the pawn.. specifically) from a new, small and virtually unheard of web magazine. Sources such as Rateyourmusic, allmusic and Pitchfork are far more accurate and robust and that's why this album has never been described as alt pop. That genre did not exist at the time of the release of the album. The source needs to be accurate, it is not. It's not an album review, it is a fluff article about Fiona Apple by a small web magazine. It's not even about When the pawn... specifically, it makes no sense. I think the other editors agree, it is inaccurate.
::::I really don't want to get dragged into this debacle, seeing how it's affected everyone else so far; but seems somewhat incongruous with the claim that ''"I have mocked no typing errors".'' -- ] 22:00, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
:Allmusic and pitchfork are far better sources. I have added both as sources. I didn't change the genre list, I simply changed it back to the genre list that had stood there the longest before user:Pillowdelight changed it a few months ago for the first time, having never touched this page before yet complaining about other editors. ] (]) 18:52, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
::{{ping|Longislandtea}} I removed the genres because they're unsourced, which I stated in many edit summaries you keep reverting, as well as on your talk page. It doesn't matter that just because you believe a source another user added calling the album alternative pop is incorrect and unreliable because it's "new, small and virtually unheard of" is a ridiculously excuse. Read ] it states — {{xt|genres must be stated and referenced in the body of the article; personal opinions or original research must not be included.}} The sources you have added specifically from Pitchfork don't state the genres you've listed. ] (]) 20:12, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Sources need to be '''legitimate''' and''' relevant'''. Your source is not relevant and it is disputed. Pitchfork is added because they describe the album as an alternative album several times in the review and the genre category is ROCK. What is alternative and rock? Alternative rock. That is how the album was marketed. You can't cherrypick a single article to make a case for a genre that the album absolutely is not in. I will remove the Pitchfork source, that's fine. There's numerous ones including from Allmusic that clearly state that it is an alternative rock album. The album was even added to Misplaced Pages's page for alt rock albums ages ago. This is very uncontroversial. Just having alternative rock is also lacking; jazz fusion, art pop (the album is already added on the wikipedia page for art pop albums) and art rock are accurate too and have been there for ages but alas! Let's get rid of it all to only serve your opinion. Numerous albums have unsourced genres might I add, but the vast of amount of editors agree to it because they know these accurately describe the album, these are the scenes that the album and artist comes from and sourcing for genres can often times be lacking. In that case, rather than trying to look for BAD sources, it's better to agree with the consensus. In our case, we do have sources. Rateyourmusic has been used as a source for adding art pop, alternative rock, jazz pop, fusion, art rock and chamber pop as genres before. ] (]) 20:54, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
::::Here's the page for what is considered acceptable sources {{lw|Acceptable sources}}.
::::''Relevance. Sources must be relevant--there must be some reason for the reader to care about what the author has to say. For example, the opinion of a random individual on the presidency of George W. Bush, as published in a letter to the editor of a major newspaper, is not relevant; and thus should not be included--even though it is published, traceable to its author, and given in a reputable publication. Relevance can be imputed several ways--through explicit personal knowledge, through subject-matter authority, through general notability of the author, through demonstrable correlation with the opinion(s) of a large group of people, etc.''
::::A large group of people, the editors of When the Pawn...'s page throughout the years, thousands of people on music reviewing sites and numerous music journalists from legitimate publications do not agree with what this one article you cherrypicked states.
::::''Note that this policy is the minimum standard for inclusion as a reference in Misplaced Pages. Sources may meet this standard and still not be authoritative, reliable, accurate, free from bias, or undisputed. Sources which meet this minimum standard but which fail to meet stricter standards may be used, but should be used with caution. In particular, such sources should be explicitly attributed to their author(s) or publisher(s) in an article's prose (rather than being presented as fact with the author only given in the notes), and disputes considering the source's veracity should be described.''
::::Meaning you can't just add any genre because some random source says it when it goes against larger and more reliable sources as well as it is controversial.
::::Thank you and please stop vandalizing pages on topics of music you do not understand. ] (]) 21:04, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::]. Note that accusing editors of vandalism when they are not, in fact, vandalising can be considered a ], so I'd suggest you strike that comment. - ] <sub>]</sub> 21:14, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::Okay, I strike. ] (]) 21:17, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::You didn't actually strike any comments. To do so, do this <nowiki><s>Comment</s></nowiki> which will make it look like this <s>Comment</s>. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 22:17, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::<s> please stop vandalizing pages on topics of music you do not understand.</s> ] (]) 22:26, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
::::{{ping|Longislandtea}} How is the source considered not relevant and where was this dispute? AllMusic ''does not'' call the album alternative rock at all within its article. Rate Your Music is also not a source it's user generated which is against Misplaced Pages. I really wish an admin would comment on this because this is getting absolutely nowhere. ] (]) 21:05, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::Here's another source describing it as an alternative rock and jazz fusion album
:::::https://www.the-solute.com/the-solute-record-club-fiona-apple-when-the-pawn/
:::::Alt pop is not accurate. If you're so adamant about alt pop, please argue why. It is completely inaccurate and you have one singular source over music journalists and music sites. Allmusic does categorize it as alternative rock, Pitchfork has categorized it as rock since 1999 of its release. There was NO Alt-pop at the time. It still isn't. These are different genres. Art pop is not Alt pop. You edited the page one time in October 2024 only to get rid of the genre list that editors agreed upon to add Alt pop which makes no sense whatsoever. ] (]) 21:17, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::I have now added a new source to the genre list. If you have any problems with the new source, tell me. But it's much more accurate this way. It's still sad to see the whole genre list that was originally there, so much more descriptive and fitting, hacked away but oh well. ] (]) 21:31, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::Pitchfork's categorizations mean basically nothing. They have ten categories, one of which is "Pop/R&B", and another of which is "Global". By the way, you should just stop caring about this, because sources misclassify genres of music chronically and everywhere you look. Take your passion to RateYourMusic. <span style="position: relative; top: -0.5em;">꧁</span>]<span style="position: relative; top: -0.5em;">꧂</span> 18:16, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
:All of this discussion should be taking place on the article's talk page (which neither editor has used). ]&nbsp;] 21:36, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
::{{ping|Schazjmd}} I'm awaiting for an admin to respond. This conversation is getting nowhere hence the reason why I brought it here in the first place. I've tried to explain to the user on their talk page along with this entire thread and it's getting nowhere. {{ping|The Bushranger}} you left a comment but could you please share your opinion on the dispute? Or possibly ping an admin who's familiar with music if this isn't your area of familiarity? ] (]) 21:49, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
:::There was no reason to bring this conversation here. I talked to you directly but go no real reply or any arguments despite adding sources and explaining why it's not an Alt pop album. I've explained to you well enough. Please stop trying to get admins to ban me simply because I (and other editors) recognize that the genre list that you got rid of was far more fitting. There's a new genre list now with sources but it is not Alt-pop. The album was already added to the wikipedia album pages for Alternative rock and art pop. I'm familiar with these genres and Fiona Apple specifically to know that it's accurate hence why the genre list has been that way for years. If you're adamant about sources, there is a source. Accusing me of not sourcing should be considered a false accusation at this point. Not all sources are equal either and I've tried explaining that to you. ] (]) 21:55, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
:::], you were given good advice which is to have this discussion on the article talk page which neither editor has posted at yet. This is a content dispute. If no action has been taken yet by an administrator, it's likely because they don't agree with your statement that action needs to be taken. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 22:22, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
::::Okay, will do. Thank you Liz. ] (]) 22:24, 22 December 2024 (UTC)


=== Irrelevant sources and unnecessary changes to genre list on {{pagelinks|When the Pawn...}} ===
:::::There is no mockery there; that's the correct way to cite text which is know to be incorrectly written; see ]. ] 22:12, 21 June 2007 (UTC)


On October 22 2024, {{lu|Pillowdelight}} changed the genre list that has stood in place for years and has been a variation of the same variety of genres: Art pop, art rock, jazz, alternative rock, jazz rock, chamber pop and jazz pop. Across the biggest music sites, this is what the album is described as. The user changed it to Alt pop using a single irrelevant and unreliable source. The album is not described as such anywhere else. The user is going against the general consensus. Sources have now been added to the genre list and I don't feel as though that would mean I'm breaking any rules. The user is threatening to get another editor banned because they're uncooperative with how us other editors feel the genre list should look like. It's an album that has been categorized as rock by Pitchfork at the time of its release and was added to rock charts when released too.
::Thank you, but I fail to see how "''he's acting like a cunt''" can be regarded as anything but abusive. ] 21:48, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Here's how the genre list has looked over a long period of time, without much controversy from editors not readers:
https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=When_the_Pawn...&oldid=1178937091 from 2023


https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=When_the_Pawn...&oldid=1049316366 from 2021
:::''He is inappropriate comments in an uncivil manner, which serve only to incite anger and bad feelings.'' We'll be putting WP:AGF to one side for this discussion, will we? Go and take the beam out of your eye, JM. You've made your point at very great length. Now let's see if other more experienced admins pick up on it or, as I suspect, let sleeping dogs lie. --] ]


Thank you. ] (]) 19:32, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
::::I am not putting AGF to one side, that's all they have served to do. You will also note that other, ] have also said that they support a long block of Pigs already. ] 22:16, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
:Why do people have to argue about what genre music is rather than just listening to it, and hopefully enjoying it? ] (]) 19:58, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
::The genre list was fine and accurate and uncontroversial until this user decided to remove the entire thing. It's important that the genre list is accurate. People find albums through genres. There's other reasons as well. ] (]) 20:38, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
:::This is neither here nor there, but I thought albums are generally sorted in alphabetical order by band name or the musician's last name.
:::Please, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, or my information is incomplete. ] (]) 22:28, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
::::I was trying to explain the important of listing genres accurately. If you go to a record store then yes, albums are listed in alphabetical order. But they're still put in categories of genres. ] (]) 22:43, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::If we were going to list musical genres "accurately," we wouldn't bother at all. Except in very broad strokes ("rock," "punk," "Baroque," etc), so many of these horribly subjective "genres" are made up by bored media writers and bands that hate the notion of being The Same As Everyone Else. Get ten people to listen to ten different tracks of heavy metal, and you won't get as many as a third of them agreeing on any of them on the doom/grudge/dark/death/Goth/Viking/sludge/*-grind/*-core/etc etc etc spectrum. Beyond that, arguing whether any given artist is "that genre" is ''very'' highly subjective. (Hell, I've sung Baroque, classical, folk, rock, ethnic, shape note, so many genres I can't readily count.) ] 15:12, 23 December 2024 (UTC)


== Multiple users breaking 3RR on Gilman School article ==
:::::] states quote clearly, (with the emboldening in the original: '''This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of evidence to the contrary.'''. Given that Leoning Mig has , , and , I'm satisfied that that criteria is met. Why are you not? ] 19:40, 25 June 2007 (UTC)


Mabbett's block log speaks for itself. ''Disruptive obnoxiousness'' and ''This user appears to be here to make nuclear war with contributers; not to write an encyclopedia'' being the most apt descriptions of his behaviour in my experience. I have no idea why this editor has not been banned. --] 22:12, 21 June 2007 (UTC)


:I completely agree. Will somebody please just block him? ] 22:16, 21 June 2007 (UTC)


Two users are actively engaged in an ongoing edit war on ], with both {{user13|Counterfeit_Purses}} breaking 3RR , , , and {{user13|Statistical_Infighting}} being right at 3 Reverts
::''I have no idea why this editor has not been banned. '' He has been. Currently he is not. What do you want him blocked for, JM? Disagreeing with your view of wikiquette and having the temerity to be the master of his own userpage? Being a curmudgeon? Annoying the fsck out of us all by his style of argument? Not being what you would want him to be? You are - by analogy - poking someone with a stick, and then whining "oh, won't someone ban him" when he bites back. I just cannot fathom why you've mounted this campaign, beyond the dislike that you have of Andy. And that's just not a good enough reason for a ban. Don't you have anything better to do? --] ]
, , .


This seems to go back to December 9th, with the first editor (Counterfeit) removing it and , on the 17th, , and then being at the above today.
::There is far more of a personal attack in each of those quotes, and in Folantin's use of them, than in the disputed text from my user page, which contains no PA. Yet he is allowed to continue unabated... ] 19:46, 25 June 2007 (UTC)


] (])
We are not going to put up with much more of this. I have again removed the offensive paragraph from Pigsonthewing's talkpage and warned him that if he reinserts it I will block him. However, Leonig Mig's comments that provoked Pigsonthewing were highly unacceptable and I have left a warning for him as well (I note that a number of other users have also asked him to improve his civility in this matter). Hopefully the matter can end here. ] 22:28, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
*E/C applied. ] ] 19:51, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
:He's just reverted his user page yet again after you gave him his last warning. This is typical Mabbett behaviour: he just ploughs on like a bulldozer until he gets his way or gets banned. ''Hopefully the matter can end here'' - sadly I don't think this is ever likely to be the case. --] 22:34, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
::{{u|Counterfeit Purses}}, please be aware that the ] article was kept in a recent Articles for Deletion debate, so the consensus of the community is that he is notable. Edit warring to keep his name off the alumni list is a ''really bad idea''. ] (]) 20:14, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
:::@] No problem, I've already given up. I would argue that ] applies here, but there's no sense in pushing against the tide. If you're content to have the lede section of Gilman School include "prominent graduates including "alleged murderer Luigi Mangione", I guess that's fine. It seems to be an unusual thing to include and an obvious case of undue weight given to something that is in the news at the moment. Perhaps someone should start a Wikiproject to add famous murderers to the ledes of other schools? ] (]) 22:00, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
::::{{u|Counterfeit Purses}}, in my view, ] is among our most misunderstood policy documents. It begins {{tpq|In principle, all Misplaced Pages articles should contain up-to-date information. Editors are also encouraged to develop stand-alone articles on significant current events.}} I believe that Mangione is notable, the evolving article is acceptable, and his name belongs in the alumni list. Many, many "bad people" are listed as alumni in countless school articles, and it is not at all unusual. The only unusual thing here is that the lead of this particular school article lists alumni, and so I have removed them from the lead. ] (]) 01:07, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::I'm glad that misunderstanding WP:NOTNEWS is so common because I am going to continue to misunderstand it. I see that Liz Luigi Mangione from the lede before you removed the rest of the list. Acknowledging again that I have given up hope that Mangione will be removed from this article, let me ask you what you think the purpose of these alumni lists is? Including Mangione is an editorial decision. We don't include all notable alumni in these lists, so why should we include Mangione, and why now? It's too soon to know if he will have lasting relevance. ] (]) 04:22, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::{{tqq|We don't include all notable alumni in these lists}} Why not? If someone is Wikinotable and went to a Wikinotable school, then they belong in the "Notable alumni" section of that school's page, ] - ] <sub>]</sub> 04:28, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::@] I'm not saying "we shouldn't", I'm saying "we don't". We don't include every notable alumnus in these lists, nor should we because it would lead to long, unhelpful lists stuck in the middle of articles about the schools. ] (]) 04:49, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::If an alumni list bloats an article, it can be split out. See ]. 11:29, 23 December 2024 (UTC) (Oops, signing) ] (]) 16:01, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::Of course that's always an option, but what I am saying is that it isn't desirable to have every alumnus listed in an article for a school. Ideally, it would be a selection of alumni who have made significant achievements in their field. Otherwise, it's just trivia. Am I wrong? ] (]) 17:21, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::Yes. You're making a value judgment that some alumni (with articles, else they most definitely should not be included) are more notable than others. That is ]. ] (]) 20:05, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::Yes, that's called editorial judgment. Just like deciding not to include every known fact about something in an article. At some point, it is just trivia. Misplaced Pages is not a database. That info would probably be welcome over on Wikidata, which is a database. Alternatively, someone could just add ] (in this case). ] (]) 20:52, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::And a new user, who doesn't understand categories and has no idea Wikidata exists, is relying on the list on the page. - ] <sub>]</sub> 21:35, 23 December 2024 (UTC)


== Vandal encounter ==
:''We are not going to put up with much more of this. '' Much more of what? Of Andy not agreeing with your world view? Perish the thought. --] ]


] seems to be a vandal who seems to be ready to start an edit war. I have reverted their disruptive edits, and they have begun to add them back.
::Of disruptive conduct that interferes with the editing environment. But since there is apparently some dissent, instead of act unilaterally I request input on the proposed block. ] 22:37, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
:::Fully support, as I have done from the start. The fact he continued to act after a blatant final warning just strengthens the case. ] 22:39, 21 June 2007 (UTC)


diffs: </nowiki>] </nowiki>] </nowiki>] </nowiki>]
::::Support the block, I would say 24 hours, and protecting his user page in the meantime, so he cannot continue to edit war when he comes back. ] 22:40, 21 June 2007 (UTC)


I would have put this at AIV, but I have no clue how to edit source. ] (]) 23:43, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::Just block him for as long as possible. Some of us have had to put up with over two months of this kind of behaviour. There's no point offering him any more chances, he never takes them. --] 22:43, 21 June 2007 (UTC)


:{{not done}} - Not an admin - I hate to be that person but unfortunately you've not sufficiently warned them, They've only received one warning and their edits aren't gross vandalism so this would only be declined by an admin anyway, If they continue I'll report them to AIV, Thanks, –]<sup>]</sup> 23:47, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::I feel a block is justified because Andy continues to be disruptive (I'm thinking more of his behavior toward the opera project members, though his activity on his userpage is not appropriate, either). ] ] 22:44, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
::Ah, I see. Thank you! This has been noted for the future. Thank you, again! ] (]) 23:48, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
:::You're welcome, Happy editing, Thanks, –]<sup>]</sup> 23:51, 22 December 2024 (UTC)


== User:Glenn103 ==
::::::I would recommend locking his user page for a month and not blocking him. Were he to move the content to his talk page then would be a good reason to block him, ] 22:45, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
{{userlinks|Glenn103}} has been mass creating unsourced stubs about Cyrillic letters, most of which have been draftified. They've also disruptively edited in the past, such as: <span style="white-space:nowrap"><span style="font-family:monospace">'''<nowiki>''']<nowiki>]]'''</nowiki>'''</span> (] • ])</span> 01:41, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
: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?
:::::::''Of disruptive conduct that interferes with the editing environment.'' What does that mean. Is it the disputed message that is causing disruption? If so, what is it disrupting? If not, what exactly is the complaint, other than that we don't much like Andy and his style of argumentation? Is that a sufficient reason for a ban? The whole storm appears a nonsense to me; the ban threat little better than concerted bullying. --] ]
:I mean you might have a point, but wow. &ndash; ] (]) (]) 04:57, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
Similar behavior to {{checkuser|PickleMan500}} and other socks puppeted by {{checkuser|Abrown1019}}, which also made tons of drafts on Cyrillic characters that cited few sources (and none with in-depth coverage). Most drafts have been ]'d, of course, so only those with admin perms can verify the deleted contribs. <small>Since these socks have been banned (]), I haven't notified them of this discussion.</small> ] (] '''·''' ]) 17:08, 24 December 2024 (UTC)


== North Korean involvement in Russian-Ukraine war discussion ==
(outdent) I have blocked ] for 24 hours, per 3RR violations mentioned above. I did so as an admin action to prevent this discussion over-heating. Please would the above participants attempt some sort of consensus in this period. Also, if anyone unblocks or reduces the period then fine, there will be no wheel war as I am off to bed! ] 22:53, 21 June 2007 (UTC)


The inclusion of North Korea as a belligerent in the infobox for the "Russian invasion of Ukraine" article has been a point of extensive and protracted discussion since September. A formal Request for Comment (RfC) on this matter ran for several weeks and was closed with a clear consensus to include North Korea as a combatant based on reliable sources and expert analysis. However, despite the closure, the discussion has continued unabated across multiple threads, with certain editors repeatedly rehashing resolved points and questioning the validity of reliable sources, leading to significant disruption.
:I note that no attempt at such consensus was made in my absence, and that another editor who supported me by reverting my user page was blocked for doing so. ] 19:46, 25 June 2007 (UTC)


'''Key Points:'''
::::<small>I note that I gave a reason of "harrasment" in my block edit, but I had intended to cite 3RR... I was tired, I guess. ] 12:45, 22 June 2007 (UTC)</small>


# '''Prolonged Discussions and RfC Closure:'''
:I support a lengthy cool off period. Tagishsimon, you must realise we are not bullying Andy because we just want to pick on him. He brings it onto himself by dragging any of his critics down to his level and then forcing them to engage in a horrible sledging match. If you carefully read through the history of this debate you will see that this is just one and many similar arugments he has caused. In this particular argument both J Milburn and Newyorkbrad assumed good faith and approached Andy with civility. He then responds with his usual stubbornness which includes censoring comments that are in any way critical of himself. It's highly ironic and hypocritical then when he accused Moreschi of censorship when he merely '''archived''' rather than '''removed''' a discussion. See Durin's post about the examples of how he brings any editors critical of him down to his level. The fact is any 3rd party who tries to resolve this either has to be pro-Mabbett or be cajouled into a heated discussion with him where you are then accused of bullying the guy. It appears that his new tactic of argument is to call any attack on his behaviour and ad hominem attack on him.
#* The RfC on North Korea's inclusion was conducted thoroughly, with a wide range of arguments presented by both sides.
#* The closing administrator, S Marshall, determined there was a clear consensus to include North Korea as a belligerent based on reliable sources and the strength of arguments.
#* The close explicitly allowed for reevaluation if new battlefield events or sources emerged, but no substantial new evidence has invalidated the prior consensus.
# '''Ongoing Disruption:'''
#* Despite the RfC's resolution, the same arguments are being repeated across multiple threads, often by the same editors.
#* This behavior includes undermining reliable sources, misrepresenting their content, and insisting on a higher standard of verification (e.g., requiring firsthand evidence of North Korean combat, which is unreasonable given the context).
# '''Reliable Sources Confirming North Korean Involvement:'''
#* Multiple reputable outlets, including the BBC, Reuters, and Pentagon statements, confirm North Korean military involvement and casualties in the conflict.
#* Experts from institutions like Chatham House and RUSI have explicitly stated North Korea's role in combat, aligning with the community's decision.
# '''Impact on the Community:'''
#* The continued disruption consumes editor time and resources, detracting from the article's improvement.
#* These actions disregard Misplaced Pages's consensus-building principles and guidelines for resolving disputes. This dispute has been ongoing for months, with multiple threads being opened and closed on the same topic.


'''Request for Administrative Action:'''
:It is this unhelpful attitude that I think should warrant a lengthy ban. He was after all banned for exactly this behaviour in the past for 1 year. He hasn't changed one bit. ] – <span style="font-size:xx-small; vertical-align:middle;" class="noprint plainlinksneverexpand">• ]</span> – 23:42, 21 June 2007 (UTC)


I respectfully request that administrators address the following issues:
::All that may well be so. But this - WP:ANI - is not the place, and the above discussion is not the process by which such a sanction is determined. At best this is a kangaroo court, at worst a lynch mob. If findings of stubbornness and hypocrisy and whatever else can be proven in the appropriate place (dunno - Arbcom? RfC?) then so be it. Take it to that appropriate place and run with it. --] ]


# Enforce the consensus reached in the closed RfC, as no new evidence significantly alters the previous conclusions.
:::You need not worry on that score, though consensus on ANI is a perfectly valid rationale for blocks. ] <sup> ]</sup> 06:57, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
# Discourage editors from rehashing resolved discussions, particularly when arguments have been repeatedly addressed and dismissed.
# Consider imposing a topic ban or other appropriate measures on editors who persist in disrupting the article with repetitive or bad-faith arguments.


This matter has been discussed exhaustively, and it is essential to prioritize Misplaced Pages's goals of maintaining a high-quality, well-sourced, and consensus-driven encyclopedia.
::::Mabbett's never had any hesitation about hauling other users in front of ANI when they've done something to offend him. And I'll always remember how, when one of his ANIs wasn't going quite the way he wanted, he went on a ] spree against Project:Opera by suddenly insisting that all operatic terminology be rendered into English forthwith (that was on May 1 of this year). He also has a habit of branding any comments he doesn't like in discussions as personal attacks and deleting them, so this user page controversy is the height of hypocrisy. Forgive me if I find all this "Andy is the victim here" talk quite unconvincing. --] 07:18, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
UPDATE: I just noticed that North Korea was removed as a belligerent and added to the 'supported by' section, completely violating the consensus.
] (]) 08:48, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
:Since this report isn't really about an incident and your request is directed towards admins, I think this complaint would be better placed at ] rather than ANI. It will also need more specifics, which articles, which edits, which editors. You'll need to provide that. I also question whether or not these are content standards that the community can't handle on their own. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 09:50, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
::I was going to post it at ] but it said: "'''This noticeboard is for issues affecting administrators generally – announcements, notifications, information, and other matters of''' ''general administrator interest.''
::If your post is about a '''specific problem you have''' (a '''dispute''', user, help request, or other narrow issue needing an administrator), you should post it at the ''']''' (ANI) instead. Thank you."
::I posted it on ANI beecause my specific problem was this dispute ] (]) 12:07, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
:::The original post in this thread appears to resemble LLM output. GPTzero confirms this impression, rating text as "99% probability AI generated". Using AI to generate ANI submissions is highly inappropriate. ] (]) 18:01, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
::::Even when a message appears to be AI-generated, I think it is worth considering whether or not it is pointing out an actual problem. I think editors might be ignoring the results of an RFC, I just don't think asking for administrators to monitor a subject area, without identifying specific articles, is a feasible solution. It does seem like, possibly, a point that could come up in a complaint at AE regarding the Ukraine CTOP area. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 19:55, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::I had a peek and it's a messy RfC and, as is generally the case with a messy RfC had a very involved closure message which seems to reflect that the closer felt constrained by the framing of the RfC. I didn't see any immediate indication in the edit history that anyone had tried to implement the RfC result and been rebuffed (although I might have missed it). So there's some smoke here but, I think, not a ton of fire. ] (]) 20:21, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::Liz, I don't disagree but I'm not at all convinced that use of AI is a positive contribution to CTOP areas. ] (]) 20:27, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::It was written with AI assistance. Not all AI. ai detectors aren’t considered reliable, because you can put the U.S. constitution through one and it says 100% AI generated. Regardless, whether it’s AI or not has nothing to do with the topic. It’s just that there’a been so many discussions and when I checked the info box it said ‘supported by”, violating the consensus of the RFC ] (]) 12:45, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::I think the underlying issue here is that if you use AI to generate text which looks like obvious AI output then readers will wonder "does the end user even have sufficient English to understand what the AI has generated for them?" and "did the end user understand the material prior to deciding to employ AI?". Thus if a user is fluent in English, as you obviously are, it will always be better to communicate in your own voice.
:::::::At the end of the day, a user making a valid point in their own voice is generally speaking going to be taken more seriously than a user employing LLM output.
:::::::There are plenty of other reasons for users not to employ AI (see the recent thread here for extensive coverage) but the argument above seems like a good practical reason for fluent English speakers to always prefer using their own voice.
:::::::You will see from the recent thread that many users here are vehemently against AI use. ] (]) 15:46, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::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)
::::::::::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)


== Concern About a New Contributor ==
:::::Is a complaint about a 6 or 7 week-old opera dispute really pertinent to the current problem? And I don't think it can ''all'' be chalked up to Pigs interpreting comments he simply doesn't like as being personal attacks. For example, one of the inclusions in the 'Stalker' section was when his ''entire user page'' was replaced with a link to . That's a personal attack, and vandalism. No room for dispute on that one. And calling someone a certainly qualifies as well. Whether or not this stalker section is a ''good idea'' is a separate issue. I don't find it terribly helpful, and find the declaration that he no longer feels it necessary to explain edits very troubling. But outright blocking when there clearly wasn't even consensus on whether or not he should be allowed to include the box was premature. And rehashing old opera arguments is entirely unhelpful. ] 12:15, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
{{atop|Suspected editor was indeed a sock. Unnecessary drama created by all-too zealous reporting--let this be the end of it. ] (]) 21:19, 24 December 2024 (UTC)}}
{{userlinks|Kriji Sehamati}}


Dear Wikipedians,
::::::Those aren't "old" opera arguments, they're part of the same campaign of disruption which continued until yesterday. They are proof Mabbett knows nothing of the subject at hand. I have no idea why he is editing in this area beyond a desire to push through his beloved microformats. He was disrupting the Opera Project page right up to yesterday morning in an attempt to restart a dispute that has been dragging on since mid-April. We had just agreed a moratorium on the issue when Mabbett burst in trying to re-ignite the whole argument. Those who have had to deal with the user page issue have experienced his behaviour for just one day; some of us have had to endure this kind of thing for weeks. That's why I want tougher sanctions against him. --] 12:30, 22 June 2007 (UTC)


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.
:::::There was no "POINT" spree; that's a lie. ] 19:46, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
::::::Yes there was, by any reasonable person's definition of the word. ] <sup> ]</sup> 20:49, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
(indent) The user has now reposted the comments that were the source of this incident . Yet another user has restored it . Judging by the length and intesnity of this debate, (and speaking purely as an uninvolved party), this appears to me to be a case for ]. ] 10:10, 22 June 2007 (UTC)


I believe your experience could help address this situation effectively.
:Agreed. Even though I find Andy annoying, being a pain in the neck, in itself, is not a reason for a block. This current issue was stirred up by the entry on his user page where third parties to that particular argument seem to be split, some restoring, some removing the entry. An RFC would be an appropriate way to deal with that. If he continues to argue the different point on the opera or classical music pages, that two can be dealt with as a separate issue. --] 13:16, 22 June 2007 (UTC)


Looking forward to your advice on how to proceed.
::I will confirm Andy's long history of being involved in ugly disputes, and that this is not simply about the stalking entry. Often his behaviour is not the ugliest in the dispute, but it would be too much of a coincedence without the explanation that his behaviour in some way leads to this state of affairs, dragging others down to his level and further by focussing on criticisms of behaviour rather than the topic at hand. Unless Andy decides that this is a problem worth fixing, there seem to be two choices: blocking Andy for a long time, or avoiding the trap of discussing behaviour and ignoring any comments along those lines as much as possible. It might be clear which option I consider preferable, but either would be more productive than stopping to argue about whether the paragraph on the user page is ok or not, blowing that particular problem out of all proportion. ] (]) 13:28, 22 June 2007 (UTC)


Thankyou! ]] 15:21, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Since he's continued with his ], and thumbed his nose at the various parties who were trying to work with him, I have changed the block duration to 72 hours and protected his talk page for the block's duration to keep him from readding the information. ] 15:06, 22 June 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.
::My comments about the Opera & Composer projects are to - legitimately - point out that the claimed consensus for the wholescale removal of infoboxes does not exist; I've provided evidence to that effect. It is irrelevant to this discussion. ] 19:17, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
:Perhaps if you supplied ] of this behaviour, someone would be able to help? If your issue is that they've nominated 4 articles of which you are a major contributor ''and'' are doing so by going through your contributions in order to find articles to nominate for deletion with specious reasons, then this board would be the place to come. If not, then making your arguments for keeping the articles on the AfDs in question would be your best bet.
: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}}


== Darkwarriorblake making aspersions ==
::::My editing was not disruptive, and your block on my talk page, after reverting it to yoru preferred version, was an unaccpatbale act of censorship. ] 19:17, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
{{atop|result=The OP says they don't care any more which I'm reading as a withdrawal and the other party says they won't be responding again so I'm closing this discussion. My only comment is that both editors in this dispute should have brought this to the article talk page to talk this disagreement out. I don't know if the differences would be resolved but this is what we advise editors to do when their edits are reverted. Now I just have to get that scene in the movie out of my mind. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 05:54, 24 December 2024 (UTC)}}

Postscript: Ah, someone just close this, I don't care any more. &nbsp;— ] <span style="color:#900">•</span> ] 22:56, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::After you had broken 3RR on your user page (and been blocked for it), to just move it to your talk page was ] in a nutshell, and considering folks above were calling for a longer block, I'd say you got off quite lightly. As long as the paragraph in question does not reappear on your pages (with or without your ok), I consider the matter closed. ] 19:25, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

=== "article"-ban proposal ===
* '''Proposal''' - I would ], but the conversation here involves many... this user is under revert-parol from his arbcom case in 2006. I recommend a simultaneous "article" ban and deletion of his userpage enforceable with lengthening blocks per the remedy demanded by the arbcom rulling. "''Determination of when this has been violated may be done by any uninvolved administrator.''" - I am uninvolved and I am determining that he has violated his revert limitation. I am requesting support for this remedy. ---] <small>(]/]/])</small> 14:48, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
** Supported. Entirely appropriate. Regardless of justifications, PoTW has been engaging in highly disruptive editing. --] 15:35, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
** As an involved non-admin, I support this. People should be on the lookout for sockpuppets, as Pigsonthewing has basically circumventing his previous 1-year ban. ] 15:40, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
***I have admitted no such thing! Good grief, your user page says you're a legal student. God help your clients, if that's what you consider a confession of guilt! ] 22:47, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
**Only if {{user|Leonig Mig}} faces heavy sanctions for continually baiting PoTW. I looked at PoTW's unblock request this morning and Leonig Mig's block log and my response was "Why the fuck is Leonig not banned". I think someone has taken their eye off the ball here, so I would be looking for Leonig Mig to be banned from interacting with PoTW (and vice-versa) with a further ban on either party reverting each other (using their own accounts or by proxy) anywhere in the article namespace with blocks of increasing length for both parties. ] 16:23, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
:::Could you just clarify here please, Nick? I've looked at Leonig Mig's block log and as far as I can see there isn't a single item in it . Maybe I'm looking in the wrong place? NB: I have no doubt it's a good idea to keep that statement off Leonig Mig's user page as well. It's currently removed anyway. --] 16:52, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
::::That's precisely the problem, if action had been taken against Leonig Mig, we wouldn't have PoTW in the state he's in. ] 16:59, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
:::::I've left Leonig Mig a note: if he makes one more PoTW-related edit, I will not be best pleased. He should realise he's not helping here. What ban exactly are we proposing here, BTW? ] <sup> ]</sup> 17:02, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

::::::''we wouldn't have PoTW in the state he's in''. I sincerely doubt that. Mig hasn't exactly been a model of civility but the two serious PAs on Mabbett date back to 2005. Mig has hardly edited Misplaced Pages at all in 2006 and 2007. More importantly, it's worth noting that Mabbett was found guilty of harrassing Leonig Mig by ArbCom (vote 8-0) . But, yeah, we should use sanctions against both users if need be to put an end to this two-year old dispute. --] 17:20, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

:::::::Leonig Mig,, by his own account, edits using another account. For all I know, he could be posting here; he could even be you. I have harassed no-one. ] 20:31, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

:::::More importantly, I'd echo Moreschi by asking what ban are we proposing here exactly? --] 17:25, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

::::::I proposed banning PoTW and Leonig Mig from each others talk and user pages, plus banning either party from reverting (either directly, or by proxy (as far as is possible)). I'm not convinced allowing either party to interact at all is a good idea but I'm fine with permitting civil conversation between both parties on article talk pages only. Any breaches of these parole conditions would be met with blocking of extending durations. ] 17:35, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

::::::I think the "article ban" in question means not adding that section any more. I'm hesitant to delete the user page, because of that one section,that's like 5% of the user page. Basically, he knows that that if he continues to insert that paragraph anywhere (user page, talk page or any subpages), he's going to get a lengthy block anyway (because of the tendentious nature of his editwar). (and yes, Leonig will have to remove anything similar from his user/talk page as well) ] 17:38, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

:::::::What is it that you object to? Me pointing out that ? Hi ddid do so, as shown at that link. Or do you object to me pointing out , and that he called me "a cunt"? Or that he ? Or is it that ? ] 19:23, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

::::::::I object(ed) to you ignoring all requests to voluntarily deleting the paragraph after you were asked repeatedly to remove it, reinserting it after it was removed FOR you (breaking 3RR), and then immediately upon being blocked, inserting it onto the only page that you COULD edit. As I said above. Since you have not added the paragraph since the temporary protect has expired, as I said above, the matter is closed. ] 19:36, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

:::::::::The matter is '''''not''''' closed; you have yet to answer my question - what, in that paragraph, did you object to? And those were hardly requests for voluntary action, given the subsequent heavy-handed enforcement, with no supporting consensus. 3RR does not apply to such material, on a user's user-page. ] 19:50, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

(outdenting) Actually,, as was explained to you when your request for an unblock was declined (please note, I was not the one who placed the original block, nor the one who declined the unblock request), 3RR did and still does apply. ] 19:54, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

:That's not what ] says. I'm asking you for a '''''third''''' time: what, in that paragraph, did you object to? ] 20:26, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

::I've already explained what I objected to, and you continue to argue. "Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose", apparently. ] 20:43, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

:::I note your continued failure - which I shall now take as a refusal - to answer my question, Answering a different question does not change that. ] 22:48, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

== {{user|Doug Coldwell}}; original research, content forking, and material in userspace ==

I'm having a problem with an editor who has repeatedly tried to place his ] in a range of articles, and has now turned to content forking to achieve his goals.

On June 19, I nominated ], an article created by ], for deletion (]). He later copied a substantial portion of that article's text into a new article, ], which I have now nominated for deletion (]). In my opinion, this is an evasion of the AfD process through content forking.

But this is just the tip of the iceberg. Doug maintains an impressive ] in his user space. For instance, his ] is an essay on the ancient Greek work ''eidos''; he has tried to include bits of this in the articles ], ], and ]; when these attempts were rejected by other editors as ] or irrelevant, he created ] (now up for deletion at ]). As another example, Doug created the article ] (now ]) from material in his ] (most of the revisions have been deleted at his request); this material, somewhat reworked, has now shown up in ]. A set of sandboxes, ], ], ], and ] contains ideas related to the ancient Greek word ]--which have shown up in ] and ], among other articles. Note also that an anon IP, probably belonging to Doug, ] the creation of ] on June 8, after Doug had encountered stiff resistance to his edits on ]; Doug now merging ] into ].

Doug does not agree that his articles are forks (see his comments at ]). I'd appreciate some outside opinions as to whether there's any policy violations here, including whether Doug's sandboxes are appropriate. ] (]) 18:07, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

**Comments regarding these points:
***True, sandbox 50 is the article ], which I worked out in a sandbox first before making it an article. However did not first try to put these ideas into other articles. I make edits to these other articles, but not on this particular subject.
***true I do have an array of sandboxes to work out the articles first in a soadbox, however note most are deleted. Only the remaining are being now worked on.
****You can go through my Contributions and see how I work and edit in the sandboxes. I make as many improvements as I can '''before''' I enter and make it a new article. You can see through the history how this went, then shortly therafter the new article was actually made. This sometimes actually makes an article so good in initial quality that ultimately there are few or no further improvements - example ] and ] and ] and ].
***Sandbox 47 is the article ] pretty much the way I worked it out in the sandbox. The points that I improved upon must not have been objectionable to other editors, since most of it is still there. The original article before I did a major overhaul was last edited on April 9. I did the overhaul (worked out in a sandbox first) on April23 - which most of that is still there to this day (so apparently other editors didn't object to most of it). Of course some edits have been done since then for additional improvements.
***Sandbox 63 is the ] article worked out in this sandbox first. Yes, this part was later deleted.
***Sandbox 65 is the article ] which I did a major upgrade to on June 17 - no editor has objected or even made any edits to it since I did this major improvement.
***Sandbox 67 is only dictionary definitions I made to this "new" sandbox of as June 16. I haven't even worked with this material yet since I just obtained it.
***] is a completely different subject that ] which is explained in Talk of the prior. They happen to have common denominators that couldn't be avoided in the new article. If different references are desired, I can certainly furnish that. The article so far has received nothing but '''Keep''' from other editors.
****Its interesting since these '''Keep''' votes have come in ] has made several improvement edits to this article he nominated to be deleted.
***I agreed with merging Divine Nous with Nous to go along with the other editors to expide the process. If I would have objected, then there would of course been an objection to this. So to make matters simplier and to expide this I figured this was the best procedure. It really doesn't matter with me if ] is merged, not merged, or deleted. Whichever they feel they want to do with the article is fine by me because it looks like ] pretty well covers all the points anyway. I was just trrying to help matters by going along with everyone else. Whereever they want my vote on this is fine by me, since it doesn't matter to me. I haven't put in a vote one way or the other on the article or edited it.
***Other articles I have started (many of which are few or no edits) are on my User page - mostly concerned with ].--] <sup>]</sup> 19:12, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
*] has many deleted revisions that are substantially similar to Doug's contribution to ] (). Doug tried to include similar material in ] () and ] (). Doug's changes have been objected to on the talk pages of those articles (e.g. , ), and some have been reverted. After most of the material that Doug contributed to ] was removed , Doug started the article ], which is so close to the removed material from ] that it's a content fork. ] (]) 20:10, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
**Yes I did make major improvements to the article ] starting on May 15 - most of which are still there to this day (so apparently other editors are not objecting).<br />
Here are some example parts I added for improvements that are still there and were not there before I added them and are not being objected to:
:::History of the term "Idea"
:::Where ideas come from
:::Francesco Petrarch
:::René Descartes
:::John Locke additions
:::David Hume additions
:::Immanuel Kant additions
:::picture of "Walk of Ideas"
:::Wilhelm Wundt additions
:::Validity of ideas
:::Many additional references and sources added with inline citations and footnotes - including new Bibliography. Basically all the References now on the article are what I contributed. The article previously did not have a Reference section - I provided all the references - a major improvement.--] <sup>]</sup> 20:58, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
***P.S. Forgot about the parts where I expanded the "See Also" section and added the links to
::::::Wikisource
::::::Wikibooks
::::::Wikiquote
::::::Wikiversity<br />
--] <sup>]</sup> 21:06, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
*Whether you've improved ] is discussed at ]. As you know, because you were part of the discussion, not everyone thinks you've improved the article. However, the reason I started the discussion here is not because of your edits to ] in and of themselves; it's because you're creating articles like ] and ] as content forks. ] (]) 21:10, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
**Look at it this way - its obvious that I am trying to make major improvements to Misplaced Pages as is shown by my work. Perhaps I don't get every little rule correct, however ]. If I broke a rule somewhere, it wasn't intentional. I am not trying to put in any particular "ideas" that others are objecting to. If they object to something I put in, I just let them take it out and leave it be. Its just not that important to me rather it is there or not. Most however is not objected to and is still there, so it must be alright. If you don't like something I added to an article, just take it out - I really don't care. There are so many articles to work on that I am too busy anyway to be concerned with nit-pick items. I didn't see you objecting to these points I added to the article ]. As I already explained in the Talk section of ], this is entirely a different article with "different" viewpoints. If you want different references (being the only content items similar to the two articles), then just let me know and I will obtain them for the same material, since there are many references on this material. ] is also a differnt article (or anyway I thought it was when I initially wrote it), however you feel they are close - so my suggestion is then why not merge them to make one good article since ] is now a stub. It obvious by the quality of my articles that my intentions are to write excellent articles - which apparently I have since most are not edited much. There are some however that do get a fair amount of activity and become an outstanding article from what I started - example being ]. So my friend whatever you want to do with ], ], ], or ], it really doesn't matter to me. I have bigger and better things to do. My next major improvement will be on ] and the article ] - so I thought I would give you a heads start on this one. FYI: I am the one that found the ISBN number for it.--] <sup>]</sup> 21:49, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
:This is the second article I have seen by Doug Coldwell in two days. They are both empty pieces of nonsense, formed about a small fact, and bolstered by irrelevant references. This editor is seriously disruptive. ] <small>]</small> 23:26, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
*Not quite sure what you are referring to on edits however here are a few in the last couple of days
:::#Petrarch - Added that Cicero, Virgil, and Seneca were his literary models.)
:::#''History of Rome'' of a similar climb by ], the same who waged war against the Romans (ascended ] in ]).
:These are not exactly "disruptive" edits, however are constructive. In addition, you can see the quality of my articles I have started and work on.--] <sup>]</sup> 23:59, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
::On the contrary: , small though it is, is destructive and incompetent guesswork. "Philip of Macedon, the same who waged war against the Romans" is an (uncredited) quote from Petrarch; leaving out the quotation marks was already irresponsible. But that Philip is '''not''' ], as actually reading Misplaced Pages's article on him would have told Coldwell; Macaulay's schoolboy would have known it. ] <small>]</small> 00:40, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
:::This is strong language, and I was testy when I posted it; but, upon consideration, I cannot call any of the words here wrong. ] <small>]</small> 13:53, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
*Yes, it is true I did a major upgrade and major improvements to the article ] on April 23. If you compare what I added, it turns out most of that also is still there to this day (so apparently has not been objected to by other editors). These are the Sections that were not there before that I added for improvements that are still there as major improvements:
::Anaxagoras
::Plato
::Aristotle
::Alexander of Aphrodisias
::Neoplatonism
::Plotinus
::Augustinian Neoplatonism<br />
The Section originally called "History" with identically the same wording has been relabeled "Overview of usage by ancient Greeks" and moved to the top. These are all major improvements which are still there to this day which no editors are objecting to. Of course there has been some additional edits to improvement my major improvements, which is to be expected (since there is always room for improvement). My major improvements have been then a springboard for other editors to work from, which they have. The previous edit before my major improvements was on April 9, which then was basically a stub with no references. It is now a full good quality article with the major improvements I made (which have been improved upon even more). The part of certain IP addresses of Divine Nous "probably belonging to Doug" is just that, a guess. There has been 5 different IP addresses that have worked on ]. I noticed that ], the article I made all these major improvements to, was flagged that perhaps Divine Nous should be merged with it. My first choice would be to delete Divine Nous, however had I said that there would of course been an objection. So since there only 4 choices here (merge, no merge, delete, keep) I chose to merge since this apparently was what the other editors wanted, so I went along with them. Whichever vote they want from me on that article I will be glad to give, if I knew what they wanted without an objection.

If you go through the last 2000 edits I did in my Contributions you can see the parttern is that I work out an article first in a sandbox. Then when all the bugs have been worked out and all the improvements added, I then make it a new article (or a major section improvement to an existing article). This then produces quality and there are few (if any) further edits needed for some time for these major improvements made. Also you can see the many other improvements I have made to many other articles (from ice cream to botanical gardens to science to history) as well as much vandelism reverted. There are times these improvements are then even improved further, which is the way it should be.--] <sup>]</sup> 11:03, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
:In other words, you don't edit cooperatively. This is a wiki; the product of several minds is usually better than one. And when your "improvement" is justly criticized, as at ], youi create ] with the same information and the same sources, and about it. The temptation to do so must be strong; that is a lot of work to waste; but it would be better to edit cooperatively from the beginning. ] <small>]</small> 13:50, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
I'd say I edit in a very cooperative manner and try to please as many other Wikipedians as I can. Ultimately I won't be able to please all, however most times I can please most others. I have noticed that certain areas are however more sensitive than others, in particular religion and philosophy. One example, in these other fields, where recently an editor felt I wrote up an article that looked like an advertisement for a historical society. That was not intentional when I wrote up the article, since I have no connections to the society (therefore no motive). Anyway I rewrote the article (in cooperation with other editor requests) so that it didn't look like an advertisement, which completely satisfied all the other editors. That article is ]. Other articles that I have started that have been expanded and improved much, that I contributed again to in cooperation with other Wikipedians, that ultimately produced a quality article are:
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]<br />
Other articles that I work on often in full cooperation with other Wikipedians are:
*]
*]
*]
*] (all pictures are mine)
*] - my favorite botanical gardens
*] - my favorite subject
*] - second most favorite subject
*]
*]
*] (place of employment)
*] - where I travel often.
*] - favorite game as a child
*] - place where I would like to retire to.
*] - favorite state park
*] - favorite presidential historical house
*] - tourist attraction I visit often
*] - favorite tourist attraction (videos are mine)
*] - personally went there then (contributed several pictures to Wikicommons)
*] - my favorite science project.
*] - my favorite food.
*] - my favorite desert.
*] - my favorite ancient history subject (except maybe for Plato and Aristotle)
*] - favorite historical war event<br />
There are several more articles I work on in full cooperation with several other Wikipedians, however the list would get too long if put here.--] <sup>]</sup> 17:31, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

:::In this case, you may get a more productive result out of a ] than out of the Admin noticeboard, as there does not seem to be a clear-cut policy violation. I would recommend listing it there and seeing what sort of comments come out of the woodwork. ] 16:57, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
::::Yes, does seem to be turning into one, doesn't it? I will be busy for a few days; if someone else write one, please post here. ] <small>]</small> 00:36, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
===Plagiarism===
How about copying right out of the ''Encyclopedia Britannica''? Compare the earliest revision of '']'' (http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Genealogia_deorum_gentilium&oldid=106348439)--"Boccaccio's ''on the genealogy of the gods of the gentiles'' is a scholarly interpretive compendium of classical myth... It was the first ever in a very long line of Renaissance mythographies." and the article on Humanism: "His ''De genealogia deorum gentilium'' (“On the Genealogy of the Gods of the Gentiles”), a scholarly interpretive compendium of classical myth, was the first in a long line of Renaissance mythographies;..." That's a direct quote, copied into Misplaced Pages without attribution; given Doug's seeming unfamiliarity with research standards I believe he was unaware that was he was doing was incorrect, but it is plagiarism and copyright violation nonetheless. I have to wonder if the same problem is present in other articles he's written. ] (]) 17:37, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
:Sorry about that, it was unintentional. I often work from the 1911 Edition of the ''Encyclopedia Britannica'', which text I understand is public domain. If you found certain text from ''Encyclopedia Britannica'' that you think is copyright, could you please remove it as perhaps I placed it there by mistake thinking it was public domain text -or- make the correct reference to what it should be. Normally if I know some text is copyright I make the appropriate reference and give credit where it should be. Example on the article ] I quote Hilary Evans on page 16 as to ''What seems most likely to be happening'' in this phenomenon and placed it in quoteblocks - which to the other editors I am working with on this article seem to think is the correct procedure. So if you find where I accidently placed some text that is copyright someplace, please make the correct references or let me know so I can correct.--] <sup>]</sup> 19:27, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
::Public Domain status doesn't mean it's not plagarism. You still must attribute the words of ] or ] to their authors. I suggest, quite seriously, you research plagarism as it applies ot the writing of papers and such. You've probably got an old high school/college copy of Strunk & White's somewhere, might be worth keeping it at hand as you continue to edit Misplaced Pages. ] 22:43, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
"Britannica", in this case, did not mean the 1911 Britannica; the text was copied from , which is copyright 2007. There's little doubt that the text was copied from that page, because it was one of the external links in the original version of . ] (]) 00:42, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
:As you can see in my other articles I do give credit if it is copyright material - two such examples are in ] in addition to the examples in ] described above. The material for the major section additions I added above to ] and ] were public domain text. I referenced this as such at the bottom. Article of ] has a very extensive Reference section now that I added, where there was nothing before I made the major improvements to the article. The article on May 14 was tagged as not having any references - so I provided many. I do 1000's of edits and apparently at that monent thought it was the 1911 public domain text of Britannica. I realize it was a short sentence, however should have been credited accordingly anyway. Thanks for noticing this and removing the text. I'll watch it closer in the future.--] <sup>]</sup> 20:58, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

::I can only agree that Doug's edits have been disruptive and damaging to the quality of the encyclopedia. When ], I provided some documentation of his original research agenda (for example, to prove that the New Testament was written only several hundred years ago). More recently, at ] ({{Querylink|Talk:Divine Nous|qs=diff=139231320&oldid=137456889|diff}}), Doug has denied any connection to anonymous IP edits from his area of Michigan that are very obviously him. I think this should be investigated, and that his lies to make himself look better/different should be weighed in any evaluation of how he participates in the Misplaced Pages community. I warmly embrace the amateur nature of the Misplaced Pages project, but Doug is a crackpot, not an amateur. He edits and creates many articles about ancient Greek philosophical ideas, not because he is interested in them or knows anything about them, but because they fit into his original-research project. Most recently, after ] Doug has put the same dubious, half-understood, error-riddled, and often nonsensical material at several other articles (], ], ], ], etc.). These contributions have been thrown together by a method totally contrary to any integrity; they are full of footnotes, but in fact the citations (I've looked some up in my library!) often do not justify Doug's original-research statements, and Doug culls indiscriminately from any bad source (he treats ref-desk answers as fact; he has recently been treating ] as an actual source for ancient Greek ideas, as in a recent attempt to get yet another fork going at ]!), so that it's much worse than nothing. The few expert editors out there (I don't claim to be an expert in Neoplatonism, but like Akhilleus I know ancient Greek) struggle to keep up with and contain these messes. In the history of my involvement with Misplaced Pages, I have generally been content to see quality material build up; Doug's projects stand out as the only counter-argument that seems to say, "Misplaced Pages doesn't work; a small team of expert classicists is not enough to keep several articles from reflecting garbage ideas from one problem user, which the community has no effective way to keep up with." I'd love to be proven wrong and see the system do something here, & send the message that if the scholars on Misplaced Pages express unanimous dismay about bad material, it can count for something, & that the system will work and keep the bad material from spreading and lingering. ] 02:12, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
::*For those not up on the problems here: This is not even a ''plausible'' crankery. The New Testament is the best attested Ancient Greek work of literature; it has a dozen manuscripts of pre-Byzantine date, (and hundreds of papyrus fragments) all in genuine third to sixth-century writing, found all over the Eastern Mediteranean, and many of them with Koine variants not in the standard text. The Church fathers quoted all of it, one place or another. Petrarch didn't have enough Greek to read Homer. ] <small>]</small> 19:06, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
::*Unfortunately, this is almost all content disputes, probably beyond ArbCom's mandate. Do we need a problem editors page, with the resulting abuses? ] <small>]</small> 19:06, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

== ] ==

I understand that there is some sort of copyright issue going on, but that isn't my concern. My concern is that I found it using ], even though there is an invisible comment which states it is supposed to avoid that list. Is there something going on?--] 02:28, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
* It's been blanked due to OTRS actions for almost a week now. However, the 'short pages' comment-text was only added today & as the short pages page itself is populated from a snapshot of cache, it took its 'snapshot' of the page when it was at 0 bytes. - ] ] 02:35, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
**I see. So as long as it , it should be fine, right? --] 02:46, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
*** Yep. Don't ask what that threshold is, though, as I've no idea! :) - ] ] 02:49, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
::::The threshhold for appearing on the shortpages list is a moving target, but currently is tending to be around 106 characters. The key is that the cached versions only lists 1,000 pages. So it includes the shortest 1,000 pages at the moment it is run. It tends to be run every 3-4 days currently, and will likely be run either later today or tomorrow. If you like working with shortpages, you might also want to check out ]. This is a bot generated parsing of the special::shortpages data, and nicely categorizes the contents of the shortpages data. The Zorglbot report is also run daily, so while it cannot pick up newly shorted pages until the master cache is updated, it at least nicely shows the current status of all those pages that were on the previous master cache.
::::As for the invisible comment, that reflects back to the 1,000 article limit for the cache data. I tend to drop that comment on a variety of pages that show up on the shortpages list, but really are not needing attention from regular short pages patrollers. Salting templates, Wiktionary soft redirect, copyvio notices, and the blanked Lava Lamp page. All these are pages that show up on the list, but really do not need attention from the short pages patrollers. And every one of these that I can bump down off the list is one more page that can make it into the 1,000 that may actually benefit from the attention of the patrollers. - ] 13:40, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
*Another OTRS drive-by... I've restored it to a stub-level article. It would be nice if the OTRS guy came back at some point to fix the article but... don't hold your breath. --] 02:52, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
*''This'' I've gotta see: what possible OTRS issue can there be about ]? Especially one that requires blanking? --] | ] 02:59, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
**See the article's talk page... some kind of corporate trademark thing. Similar to ] at a glance. --] 03:00, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
** I recommend you ''don't'' actually stub it as the issue (from the edit history) is over whether the term "lava lamp" can constitute a ] or not. Your edits just now say that yes, it is, and it's obvious that Haggerty Enterprises disagree. Not sure if I want to go there ... - ] ] 03:20, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
*** So improve it. But I see nothing in the current version claiming it's a genericized trademark. It just describes what a lava lamp/Lava Lamp looks like. --] 03:28, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
***I think that we should have notified ] before going ahead and adding content to the article. I've never heard of OTRS, so I can't help any here.--] 03:50, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
**** (to w.marsh) Yes, but they're likely claiming that Lava Lamp™ is a trademark which is their property, while you're referring to it as a generic term. That's bound to piss them off, esp. given their court proceedings against ], no? It's not as simple as it looks, hence OTRS - ] ] 04:06, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
***I can't find the OTRS ticket referred to, but I suspect the complaint is either that we are genericizing their trademark, or that we aren't using the approved name: "LAVA(r) brand motion lamp". Based on that, ''any'' article at that title will be a problem. --] 05:43, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
****Sorry but what the bloody else do we call it (not have a go at wikipedia or wikipedians, just the idiot company). That is most definitely a genericized trademark. ]] 07:16, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
***** Apparently, they're "motion lamps" or even "Astro Lamps" (the original name). I guess the people who own the name Lava Lamp™®(r)(C) get very het up about these things - ] ] 07:21, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
****** Never ever heard them called anything but Lava lamps. ]] 07:28, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
******* There seem to be endless companies other than these 2 selling things called lava lamps. But this is an article content issue, not a legal issue. We aren't selling something we claim is a trademarked Lava Lamp, we're just describing what people mean when they say something is a lava lamp. Part of that will include who owns the trademark and so on, it would help if they could provide coherent third party documentation. We need to make the article more accurate, not blank it. --] 11:03, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
*I haven't been able to find the OTRS ticket number either. Maybe it was copy/pasted wrong? In any case there is no trademark issue as far as I can tell from my understanding of trademark issues. ---] <small>(]/]/])</small> 15:03, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
*It's in the legal queue, which is why you can't see it. We've received a legal complaint from an attorney regarding this. The issue goes directly down to the words Lava lamp. Thus, I blanked the article completely: any use of the word lava lamp is disputed in the claim. REGARDLESS OF THE MERITS, please let us proceed through this to resolution before reinserting the information. The world will not end because this article is blanked for a little bit. ] ] ] 16:25, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
**There has got to be a better way to handle it than this... hatcheting articles on demand and maybe fixing them at some point is an insult to people who work hard on articles. --] 16:40, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
***Maybe you have some misconception of what's going on here. It's not hatcheted on demand: it's a preventative response to a potential lawsuit. And we're not "maybe fixing them" at some point: it's under active investigation, and it WILL be fixed as soon as that ends. There's no insult there. Until that point, you need to trust that OTRS is doing their job. ] ] ] 17:04, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
****I'll get some trust when I actually see OTRS fix an article they've hatcheted. I haven't seen that in a while... at one point they were quite good at fixing actual problems quietly. Now all I see are farces like ]. --] 17:14, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
*****Assume good faith? ] ] ] 19:06, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
****** Fix the article? --] 19:25, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
******* It will happen, as soon as we finish resolving things with the party. ] ] ] 01:37, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
**** Er, in order to keep a trademark good, doesn't one have to show a history of enforcing its use? I can recall past examples of various companies (Caterpillar is one that comes to mind) publishing notices in periodicals like '']'' about their trademarks, but I have ''never'' seen any notices about "Lava lamp". And I can assure you that I would remember that -- because that would be like attempting to trademark "Acapulco Gold". -- ] 23:40, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
***** . This should explain to you why the entire article is blanked, as opposed to a 2 sentence stub or so. ] ] ] 01:37, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
****** (Hope that's enough indents; sorry if it's too many) Yes, that's all very nice, but one sparrow does not mean spring is here. They have to enforce their copyright in a consistent & regular fashion; send out enough legal notices, & someone somewhere will cave. Waking up one morning after decades have passed, then siccing legal sharks after everyone using the word without the proper symbols after it, doesn't qualify as "consistent and regular". I hope whoever is handling this case is ''insisting on'' sufficient burden of proof that the people behind this complaint have made a reasonable attempt to enforce their trademark -- otherwise, we're not talking about caution, we're talking about caving in. -- ] 04:13, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
******* I fear that Haggerty are a bit late. The name lava lamp (uncapitalised) has been common currency in the UK for about thirty years... <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 09:24, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Would using the term "lava lamp" within the context of a scholarly article qualify as fair use? I think it would. Also, my understanding of the law on this is that owning a trademark does not give one carte blanche to force others to use it, as seems to be the case . Trademark is meant to prevent other commercial entities from creating products that can be mistaken for the trademark holder's products. Since Misplaced Pages is not producing <s>lava lamps</s> motion lamps, calling the article about l**a l**ps "]" should not be a problem. , . At least they're leaving ] alone ... for now. ] ] 09:53, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
*Ah, I think they may be overreaching if I'm reading their legal page correctly {I am not a lawyer; this is not legal advice but an attempt to comprehend the situation with the sources available; please don't sue me, volcanic light-fixture people; etc.). From their : "A 'lava lamp' does not exist." Their trademarks are LAVA®, LAVA LITE®, and LAVA WORLD INTERNATIONAL®; the term "l**a l**p," which the page asserts does not exist, does not appear to be trademarked by them, which would logically leave it free for generic use. Also demanded by Haggerty: "Somewhere on the page containing a LAVA® brand motion product, the following must be written: ''legalese, blah blah blah blah.''" There was probably an issue with having a picture of a "motion lamp" on the page without their legal language there, but it is my understanding of fair use that, if one takes a picture of a product, then that image belongs to the person who created it, and that would thus not constitute a trademark infringement. I am wondering why they have not trademarked "l**a l**p" and instead insist upon LAVA LITE®. Methinks someone might want to look into whether or not they applied for that trademark but couldn't get it because it was determined to be a generic term or was trademarked by someone else. ] ] 10:29, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
**According to , a trademark for "Lava Lamp" is owned by a fireworks manufacturer in Missouri. In my search, I didn't find any explicit Haggerty trademark of the phrase "lava lamp," though they do seem to own "Lava Brand" in relation to lamps and such. Someone else should double-check that because I might not have looked in all the right places and might not be interpreting their entries correctly. In any case, this is from the : '''''lava lamp''' • '''noun''' a transparent electric lamp containing a viscous liquid in which a suspended waxy substance rises and falls in constantly changing shapes.'' I would love to see what happens if/when they issue a C&D order to the ] people. There will be fireworks, for sure. ] ] 11:46, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
***I hope our team of attorneys uses all of this excellent evidence to ensure our article can remain accurate and high-quality. --] 14:27, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
****I expect the recent trend of expedient solutions and capitulation in the face of brute force to continue, but hey, the Foundation might just redeem itself this time. LOL at one of the LAVA LITE®'s own vendors' : "''Lava Lite® lamp and its configuation are both registered trademarks of Haggerty Enterprises, Inc., and they will SQUISH anyone who infringes upon their stuff.''" ] ] 18:25, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
*Well done to ] for this potential trademark problem nearly 3 1/2 years ago! ] ] 14:41, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
*The conflation of copyright and trademark at ] is highly indicative that OTRS is once again failing here. A copyright dispute would involve someone copying something that is copyrighted. From the above, it is clear that this is about a trademark, not copyright. In addition to the ''Oxford English Dictionary'' mentioned above I add pages 14&ndash;16 of ISBN 0124001513, a reference work like Misplaced Pages, entitled "What Makes a Lava Lamp Work?", which talks about lava lamps throughout and which in turn references an article in the March 1991 issue of ''Popular Electronics'' entitled "How to Make a Lava Lamp.". ] 20:12, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

::: Okay, I don't like this any more than the rest of you, but ''let's keep this constructive''. Someone at OTRS is doing the best job she/he can (I don't know if it is SwatJester, but for the moment Let's assume he's just here answering questions) -- although this person is not responding to this legal harassment with the appropriate attitude. I think that at this point the claim of infringement on their trademark is looking pretty dodgy to any uninvolved observer; we ought to give the person holding this ] at OTRS a chance to share with us any evidence that Haggerty has provided showing they ''have'' enforced their rights to "Lava lamp" -- or to take the evidence we've supplied & ask them to respond in a constructive manner. If this doesn't happen, then it would be the time to stop ]. -- ] 00:57, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
:::: OTRS does need to be held accountable though. The article has been in a useless limbo state for a week now with no resolution in sight... is this really acceptable? If this is the best volunteer OTRS can do nowadays, the foundation needs to seriously consider getting paid legal counsel back, as I doubt a qualified attorney would have had to handle it this way. --] 03:40, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
::::: I don't dispute your point: I'm growing increasingly worried that OTRS is being used as a magic formula to remove controversial material without a proper discussion -- & only serving to offend long-term Wikipedians who aren't privy to these discussions. Nevertheless, try to remain civil while pressing your points: one catches more flies with honey than vinegar. -- ] 20:44, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
:::::: Meh. That's not a helpful thing to say, to be honest. Criticism isn't automatically uncivil... I am going to criticize people who mess up articles. The solution isn't for me to keep my mouth shut, it's for them to do a better job. --] 20:58, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

*The ] has published discussion by geologists of a "lava lamp model" of the Earth's mantle, by the way ({{cite book|title=Mantle Plumes: Their Identification Through Time|author=Ian H. Campbell|chapter=Identification of ancient mantle plumes|editor=Richard E. Ernst and Kenneth L. Buchan|date=2001|publisher=Geological Society of America|pages=7|id=ISBN 0813723523}}). I hope that the OTRS people will have the sense to reject outright any calls to blank ], ], and ]. ] 20:31, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

== Republicofwiki ==

{{userlinks|Republicofwiki}}

Seems a bit suspicious for a newbie, and a possible username violation even. Goes around adding {{tl|fact}} to articles, even dating the additions (I don't even remember to do that, and I've been on WP two years!). Then they . Sounds an awful lot like a sockpuppet of a banned editor, though I don't know exactly who matches Republic's MO. Can an experienced admin check up on the situation? &mdash;]&nbsp;<sup>] ]</sup> 13:35, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
:Hey, they are even dating the fact tag! That is obviously a ], but I don't think they are disruptive by themselves (yet?). I'd suggest keeping an eye on him to see if an agenda appears. -- ] <sup>]</sup> 13:46, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

::Gotta be someone who's been here before, and obviously hitting "Random article" and added the fact tags. The only sock I can recall with a similar M.O. was ] (a sock of the banned ]), who added unreferenced tags to a few hundred random articles to build up her first 300 edits or so. But I think we'll have to wait and see. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 15:23, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
:::Blocked by ] per ]. &mdash;]&nbsp;<sup>]&nbsp;]</sup> 01:46, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I declined the unblock due to the suspicious behaviour, but I may have been wrong. The user showed me where they first found the obscure tag I mention in my unblock decline that so raised my warning bells. The tag was added a long while ago by another user. A couple of users ] about the block. I myself am a bit suspicious and wary of the user. However, in the absence of solid evidence that this user is the sockpuppet of another specific user, or that the user's intention is to disrupt Misplaced Pages or harass its users, our principles encourage us to assume good faith. An indefinite block seems a bit out of place without a demonstrated need for it. Indef blocks are generally meant for users who have repeatedly demonstrated an inability to work productively in this environment, not first warnings. Just some thoughts. ] 12:51, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I made the following comment to the user on IRC - "Well, I don't know if you're telling the truth or trolling. But Misplaced Pages policies as well as common sense would seem to indicate that in the absence of clear evidence for the latter, the former should be assumed". I think this sums up my views, it's possible that the user is trolling, however I think he should be unblocked in the interests of Assuming Good Faith. It's trivial to block the user again if he is a troll, yet we could lose a potentially valuable contributer to wikipedia if he remains blocked. --] 13:51, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

:This is obviously a sockpuppet. Ask them to get over it and get another account; if they feel like editing constructively. — ] ] 13:57, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
::That's a fair bit of nonsense. Being a ] is not a reason in and of itself for a block, especially an indefinite one. Also, it's more than a bit ridiculous to say we should tell them "to get over it and get another account" when their indef block includes (account creation blocked). ] 16:12, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
:::While I agree he's a sockpuppet/new account of an other user (he know the procedures much more than most users), I don't really see the harassment. In my views his behavior is not really against ], since he did not disrupt a process or seem to have /voted somewhere. Personally I'd assume good faith, unblock and keep an eye on him; but for now blocking him is more a preemptive strike than anything else. As a principle I never revert an admin decision without consensus to do so, so it's your call. -- ] <sup>]</sup> 16:54, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
:::Actually, the user made a single !vote, which was the basis for the block. ] 17:04, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I was under the impression that there was nothing wrong with voting as long as the user votes once; i.e. not with both accounts. ] 18:20, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
:The block was made, I believe, because Ryulong viewed the !vote as ], as noted above. ] 18:37, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
::I blocked because I saw the !vote. There should very likely be a checkuser in this situation to see if the individual was vote stacking.—] (]) 20:52, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
:::The above is a good example of ]. If you want to request the checkuser, go ahead, but would you agree to unblock if nothing turns up? Given what the user appears to have learned, I'm not sure what this block is ]. ]<sup>]</sup> § 02:09, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) Due to the lack of evidence connecting the user to a banned/blocked account and no proof that this user is a puppet of an abusive sock, I cannot support an indefinite ban. Additionally, it seems as though consensus indicates that the user should be unblocked under good faith. I have notified Crazytales ] and Ryulong ] that I am willing to unblock under these circumstances. Barring any serious objections and/or further evidence, I will unblock the user after 24 hours to allow time for responses. ] 07:39, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

:I support the unblock. In fact, I'd support an unblock right now. The user quoted from RFA: '''"Any Wikipedian with an account is welcome to comment in the Support, Oppose and Neutral sections"''' Considering this block, the user is correct in saying that this is obviously not true in practice. Apparently, we have some intangible suffrage level of "real" looking edits before a user can vote without being banned. I can't believe that is being considered harrassment. It's a complete misapplication of ] and disregard of ]. -- ] (]) 21:11, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

== User:Iwazaki ==

*{{usercheck|Iwazaki}}

After an editor in an through an error I made in a sandbox, I have been harassed number of times with that information ever since. I have not dealt with incident of exposure of my real identity when I had made all efforts to conceal it including blanking the Sanbox number of times yet. That decision I am still grapling with but the harrasement is interfering in my ability to contribute to wikipedia.

*,
*,
*
* Thanks ] 23:17, 22 June 2007 (UTC)<br>
<br>
{{usercheck|Iwazaki}} revealed at a AFD discussion, the subject is adamant LTTE supporter based on his edits in wikipedia and endangered his life.] 03:42, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

:The harrassment of Taprobanus is unacceptable, however anyone can find out ].<b>]]</b> 03:44, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

::Technically ] didn't reveal the identity of Taprobanus. In circa 2006 December ] (Then ]) posted the essay which Blnguyen found in the ] on his userpage. Few days after that the page was deleted. --] ]</sup> 14:19, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
::: However, Iwazaki's action of stocking and harassing a wikipedian is wrong. Especially when he puts on the "totally disputed" tags on articles that has been edited by ] without a proper reason. How can we expect Taprobanus to contribute to wikipedia if his work is going to be torn apart because of his real identity. Proper steps needs to be taken to help fellow wikipedian to make him edit comfortably ] 14:26, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

::::I'm not going to comment on the stalking issue right now but this identity reveling issue is totally false allegation as I see. I too like to recommend to have an Oversight regarding this but I strongly object for the scolding on others for the totally unwanted self identity declaring done by him self. It's true that Blnguyen went through the ] on User:Taprobanus and found that on his Sandbox. But once that essay was on his userpage. So if Taprobanus reveled his identity then he should learn to live with it. Sorry to say that. --] ]</sup> 18:03, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
:::::: This complaint is not on the fact that he revealed his identity. Its rather about Iwazaki breaching ], ], ] and so on. It's about judging the editor and then assuming he is here to vandalize. Misplaced Pages clearly does not allow this. Some measures should be taken to stop said user from such offence. We all want to contribute to wikipedia without being stocked and abused for our real identity. ] 21:08, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
:I feel users should not raise the background,race,religion,sex etc while raising issues here on any account in particular in Talk or Discussion pages and discussion should be confined to the topic ,I feel that is getting to personal and if he is stalking that is totally unacceptable and I feel no user should stalk others.One can watch pages no issues with that but stalking is totally unacceptable and violation of ], ], ].] 21:39, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
::I thought this was '''Administrators Notice Board of Incidents''' (ANI), :((( looks like no one wants to touch a hot potato. That’s all right, any way I have my two cents, based on the adamant protection of ] reveals to me that the poor chap was set up, i.e he was given the information by those who had interacted with me in the past. But this notice is not about Blnguyen’s actions. This is about the harassment. Thanks ] 12:26, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

== Impersonating another user and religious attacks ==

{{Vandal|Fyslee}} has taken text and (midway down the mixed edit), effectively amplifying an already heated discussion. He then proceeded to have a heated conversation against this post I never made. He has included my signature and the date. It appears to other users as if I posted the information myself. His behaviour in the last 24 hours on the talk page appears to be purely in the name of escalating an already volitile situation. &#2384; <small><i><strong><font color="orange">]</font></strong> <sup><font color="red">]</font></sup></i></small> 01:34, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Is there anything that can be done about this? I really feel he's trying to escalate a bad situation beyond a tenable discussion. &#2384; <small><i><strong><font color="orange">]</font></strong> <sup><font color="red">]</font></sup></i></small> 07:02, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

: My response to this totally false and misleading charge is coming... We're dealing with blockable and bannable offenses here by a user who refuses to accomodate BLP and NPR concerns from several users (including myself) regarding Metta Bubble's behavior. If necessary I will take this to the BLP Noticeboard and try to get Metta Bubble sitebanned for gross impropriety. No need to waste time on a ArbCom RfArb, when any admin can simply make a block or ban. There are other users who will back up this effort. -- <i><b><font color="004000">]</font></b></i>/<b><font color="990099" size="1">]</font></b> 07:54, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

::: "My response to this totally false and misleading charge is coming..." The diffs I posted above speak for themselves. What possible legitimate reason could you have for posting my comments and signature to another page? How would you like it if I went around posting your signature to things?

::: Your content issues do not warrant admin intervention. &#2384; <small><i><strong><font color="orange">]</font></strong> <sup><font color="red">]</font></sup></i></small> 08:32, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

:::: You seem to misunderstand. It is your behavioral issues that may require blocking or banning. I never attached your signature to anything. I very precisely and carefully copied your statements (signature and all) and my replies (thus preserving the context). You start out here by making it sound like I forged something and then added your signature to make it look like something you had written:

::::* "... this post I never made. He has included my signature and the date. It appears to other users as if I posted the information myself."

:::: You did post that information yourself on my talk page. I only moved it in context. They are your words and signature and time. Don't try to make it sound otherwise. I would never "post(ing) your signature to things" you had not written, and I would not take them out of context and add them to another discussion of another subject. I was only keeping the discussion on the same page, especially since the context also involved other users and your accusations against them. As my response below explains, I am prepared to drop this matter if you don't restore you personal attacks and BLP violation. Otherwise I will go higher up and have a very strong case, since a previous editor who made the same false charges got banned, partially for showing intention (without even doing it) to out another user. That was the last straw after they had already repeatedly publicized private information about myself and made false and unproven COI allegations. You have already outed AvB, but since you may not have understood the seriousness of what you were doing, AvB is being very generous. If you heed his request and don't go there again you may be spared this time. -- <i><b><font color="004000">]</font></b></i>/<b><font color="990099" size="1">]</font></b> 09:59, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

::::: I can't believe you openly admit it and still don't see how it's wrong. Can someone please explain how Fyslees actions (in his own words "I very precisely and carefully copied your statements (signature and all) ") are inappropriate. I'd truly appreciate this. I'm really sick of this user harassing me and I thinks it's gonna get ugly if someone doesn't set him straight on the appropriateness of copy-and-pasting other users signatures. &#2384; <small><i><strong><font color="orange">]</font></strong> <sup><font color="red">]</font></sup></i></small> 23:52, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

'''Response to false charges and misuse of this board'''

I see that Metta Bubble has continued her disruptions, personal attacks, and BLP violations against myself and ] at the ] page, and has now escalated the matter by making false charges here. This false charge concerns '''''' which Metta Bubble wrote about me, and which I ] to a more accurate word (which makes Metta Bubble look more charitable!), and then noted . The word was a repetition of a false charge from a RfArb. (That RfArb resulted in a banning of ].) That charge was never proven and a repetition is simply a gross BLP violation and personal attack against myself. Making COI charges is a serious matter. Rather than take the matter to the BLP Noticeboard, I simply changed it and explained why, since I saw "." Metta Bubble decided to escalate the matter and it (restoring BLP violations is a blockable offense, IIRC, while deleting such isn't even covered by 3rr) and deleted my explanation. Metta Bubble then took the discussion , which I felt was problematic as it split the discussion, removing it from the relevant spot, which also involved other editors. I therefore '''copied''' very precisely and carefully (no "impersonation" at all, so she is deceiving this board) Metta Bubble's ensuing comments (they were indeed her comments!) and my own replies and placed them in the existing thread where they belonged, so others would know what was going on. Otherwise it would not be understandable. I also wished other editors to help me keep the BLP violation out of Misplaced Pages, and I made such a .

She has also and is out of it with another user (even claiming it was her heading).

Now she is calling me a vandal here (by wikilinking my name to "vandal"). She is getting more and more agitated and is attacking other users as well. Please get her to calm down and just leave the more accurate "POV" instead of the false "conflict" (COI) word in place. That will settle the matter for me.

In the meantime I will continue to remove the BLP violation against me in accordance with the requirement ("must") for any Misplaced Pages editor to do so if it pops up again. As of the time of this , the state of this word matter is acceptable to me.

These edit histories tell part of the story:

* http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Stephen_Barrett&limit=500&action=history
* http://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Contributions/Metta_Bubble
* http://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Contributions/Fyslee
* http://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Contributions/Avb

-- <i><b><font color="004000">]</font></b></i>/<b><font color="990099" size="1">]</font></b> 09:59, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

: Fyslee considers it a BLP violation that it's my opinion his edits reveal a conflict of interest on the article. &#2384; <small><i><strong><font color="orange">]</font></strong> <sup><font color="red">]</font></sup></i></small> 23:52, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

'''Request for Admin comment'''

* Why has this user been allowed to get away with impersonating me? Have I brought this to the wrong page? &#2384; <small><i><strong><font color="orange">]</font></strong> <sup><font color="red">]</font></sup></i></small> 00:23, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Both of you summarize your complaints in 100 words or less after my comment. Right now, this is an argument between the two of you that has spilled over onto this board. There is nothing we administrators can do without knowing what the hell is going on.—] (]) 00:25, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

* {{User|Fyslee}} copied to an article talkspace (replying, inserting my message, then making a religious attack). He admits his behaviour , stating "''I very precisely and carefully copied your statements (signature and all)''." He also deleted my posting about his conflict of interest, claiming it is a BLP violation. I respected his refactoring though he was . Some days later he continues to post on me. I see his behaviour as wilfully inciting hostilities. I take '''impersonation''' and '''religious attacks''' to be critical community issues. &#2384; <small><i><strong><font color="orange">]</font></strong> <sup><font color="red">]</font></sup></i></small> 07:23, 25 June 2007 (UTC)


:: I see Metta Bubble continues to falsely charge me with "impersonation." If I had written a message and attached Metta's name to it, then that would indeed be impersonation, but I didn't. I simply copied a complete conversation, including sigs, to the existing thread on the article talk page so the discussion didn't get split up, and also because other editors were being attacked by Metta Bubble in that particular thread. Since everything related to that discussion was relevant for others to read, I just copied it. There was nothing remotely related to "impersonation" or any attempt to misrepresent, take out of context, or otherwise do anything improper. -- <i><b><font color="004000">]</font></b></i>/<b><font color="990099" size="1">]</font></b> 14:59, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

::: The other accusation about COI is misplaced. The RfArb listed my interests, but no COI was every proven. A shared POV does not a COI make, otherwise no one could edit here. Even a COI does not prevent editing if it doesn't affect the actual edits.

::: Her COI accusation was clearly a personal attack, as defined by the NPA policy:

:::* ''using "someone's affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views - regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream or extreme."''
::: -- <i><b><font color="004000">]</font></b></i>/<b><font color="990099" size="1">]</font></b> 14:59, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

:::: "Religious attack"? Only pointing out the hypocrisy so evident. I admire the ideals of Buddhism, and when a Buddhist so evidently seeks and pursues conflict it seems rather hypocritical to me. She should live up to her ideals instead of making a mockery of them. -- <i><b><font color="004000">]</font></b></i>/<b><font color="990099" size="1">]</font></b> 14:59, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

:* '''Response to Fyslee's perspective''': You can see in my second diff above (the insertion diff) that Fyslee made no attempt to identify he was citing text from another talk page. To any other user it would have appeared as if I had posted the comments myself. He is not merely citing me as he states, he is making it appear as though I was conversing with him on that page. Need I also note he continues his religious attacks above? &#2384; <small><i><strong><font color="orange">]</font></strong> <sup><font color="red">]</font></sup></i></small> 04:04, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

'''Thirdy party comments'''

*Although not a party to this specific conflict, it is a bit of a spin-off of a conflict between Metta Bubble and me and I am mentioned above. Ryulong, if I can help, please let me know. I am still considering whether or not to ask an admin to step in and explain to Metta that "outing" and damaging another editor's real-life identity are blockable, sometimes bannable offenses. Apparently they do not accept this from me or other editors who have tried. Thanks. ]&nbsp;&divide;&nbsp;] 07:39, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

:* {{User|Avb}} has a conflict with me and seems to be the reason his friend {{User|Fyslee}} started attacking me. I haven't outed anybody and never posted information beyond what is already public on wikipedia. If these users want to pursue their accusations I'm happy to answer with diffs to refute any and all claims. However, I see this behaviour as tag-team ]. I can't imagine any forthcoming context for justifying impersonation and religious attacks on me. &#2384; <small><i><strong><font color="orange">]</font></strong> <sup><font color="red">]</font></sup></i></small> 12:41, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

''See also ]. ]&nbsp;&divide;&nbsp;] 14:20, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

== Legal threat ==

Is blockable? ] 06:38, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
:No, just lame. ] <small><font color="teal">]</font></small> 06:42, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

:Speaking of which, this user is a minor revealing a great deal of personal information about himself on his User page. ] 06:55, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

::I don't think any of those restrictions on minors revealing personal information ever became policy.--] - ] 06:59, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
:: (ec) It's totally MySpace-y & is userbox hell. Dunno if the personal info aspect warrants it, though. I'd ] on the grounds of aesthetic offence, however ... - ] ] 07:00, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
::No, not policy. Just common sense. ] <small><font color="teal">]</font></small> 07:01, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
:::] says ''Reasonable efforts to discourage children from disclosing identifying personal information are appropriate'' and ''Users who appear to be children editing in good faith who disclose identifying personal information may be appropriately counseled. Deletion and oversight may be used in appropriate cases to remove the information.''. ] 07:03, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
:::: ''"... in appropriate cases ..."'' - define "appropriate". In this case, the fact that the guy reveals his full name concerns me here, but everything else seems reasonable at a glance - ] ] 07:05, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
:::::The city he lives in and the school he goes to? ] 07:06, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
:::::: Ummm - I'm deleting that - ] ] 07:07, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
:::::::Cool, thanks. ☺ ] 07:08, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
::::::::Userpage deleted. We have to have some limits. ] <small><font color="teal">]</font></small> 07:19, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
:I think it is blockable, technically, although a block probably isn't really necessary given the implausibility involved. He appears to be threatening to have his mom sue wikipedia for not removing that image. That ''would'' be a legal threat, albeit a very lame one... we could ask him to clarify, though, if it isn't clear. --] 07:12, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
::::::::I have cooled down that dispute before this thread started. And the "legal threats" were just grasping at straws, so just dismiss them as empty talk, at least for now. —''']''' 07:17, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
:::::::::I suppose this might be considered another legal threat/rant: . ''''']]''''' <sup>]</sup> 17:00, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
And I thought recruiting an admin into my discussion with ] would defuse things... seems that his objections to the photo is not founded in anything other than an intense desire to have it removed. ]<sup>]</sup>]</sub> 18:09, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
:About his userpage? He's just gone up the foodchain a bit ]<sup>]</sup>]</sub> 18:22, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
::Which I would imagine wont do him much good at all, I left a link to his talk page so if Jimbo really wants to he can get an explanantion there, ] 18:28, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
The only method of getting him into constructive conversation was to appeal to his religious beliefs, which was laid out quite blatantly on his user page. Unorthodox, yes, but if it works, hey, what the heck. —''']''' 18:30, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
=== Image removed under the biographies of living persons policy ===
Without expressing an opinion either way as to the existence of this image on Misplaced Pages per se, I have removed it from one of the articles in which it was being used, under our ] policy. Its use in that article was an entirely gratuitous publicization, that added no information to the article, of a living person who is not a public figure and who can neither defend xyr own rights or grant consent, and thus unacceptable. See ]. Please note that any attempt to edit war or to re-include this image without making a ''strong and compelling'' case beforehand that these specific children need to be personally identified in an encyclopaedia article ''about a bicycle race'' will lead to loss of editing privileges. ] 13:09, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
*I see mention of OTRS on the description page, are we sure that the naked man has not granted consent? ]] 13:22, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
** The owner of the website on which it was displayed claims copyright and has granted GFDL rights. The child in the photograph has not consented and probably could not. --] 13:36, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
***There's no "probably" about it, Tony. That kid can't be more than three years old--that's too young to give consent in ANY country. I do have to wonder, though ... the ''name'' of the child wasn't included. If it was, then that would be totally inappropriate. But is merely including a picture of a child the same as identifying her (and it definitely looks like a girl)? Just wondering for future reference ... ]] 16:19, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
****In most countries, the legal guardian (presumably one of the parents, possibly the very person holding up the child in the picture) could have given consent which would make the matter perfectly legal. However, whether this particular picture enhances the article in any way (given the other pictures), especially given that our society has issues with displaying images of nude children, is a totally legitimate and relevant question.--] 16:30, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
*****Hmmm, I can understand that perspective--especially since no race action was portrayed, or it wasn't clear that the guy holding her was the winner of the race. On those grounds, the picture should have been removed. But it's still not clear (to me, anyway) whether the girl was identified. I'm a journalist by training, and I agree it is totally inappropriate to identify a minor without the parent's permission. Seems a bit too broad to suggest that merely including a picture on a high-traffic Web site would be considered identification. I just want to make sure we're not setting a bad future precedent.]] 16:44, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
******IMHO, that's a distinct possibility. That's why I'd drop the ] pretense (which to me doesn't apply too well), and just say that the merits of adding this particular picture to the articles are doubtful, considering the possible controversial nature of the contents (depicting a nude chld). Purely subjective, but if there's consensus behind it, I'd say it becomes fully justified. Otherwise, if we accept that ] applies because the child itself couldn't be old enough to consent, we'd need to remove all pictures of children belowe the age of, say 7 years old from Wikpedia, which would be counter-productive.--] 16:54, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
*******My thoughts exactly. I may be a pentecostal/charismatic Christian (though somewhat more liberal than the guy leading the charge for that picture to be spiked from WP entirely), but I'm no prude. I realize that per Jimbo, we seem to have adopted a very broad interpretation of BLP, but this is carrying it too far. That said, the picture should stay out of that article--it's not clear whether the guy holding her won the race, and portraying nude children in a nongermane manner is unencyclopedic. ]] 17:20, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
*******Indeed if it doesnt go in ] it shouldnt go anywhere, and if it isnt linked to any articles it should be deleted, ] 17:23, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
*I have moved the image to Commons. And I'd like to point out the three IfDs this image has gone through. There is plenty of consensus to keep the image. Acting unilaterally otherwise goes against the community will. I believe that counts as the strong and compelling evidence Uncle G asked for. -] 17:38, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
**Indeed, then it shouldn't be deleted (nor was I suggesting that it be). The only thing I was suggesting was that the image's place in the article should be judged independently from the ] standard, which I don't feel applies here. It might be useful in an article on family nudism or somesuch. But putting in a picture of a nude child to point out that their presence in this particular event is rare - is it just me, or is it counter-illustrative?--] 18:36, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
***Well, as I pointed out on the article's talk page, most of the keep consensus was based on the image being in that article. It's a nude bike race, those are pictures from the race. Europe is incredibly lax on public nudity, even of children. If pictures from a nude bike race don't belong in the article on the nude bike race then something's wrong. Of course it could also be well-placed in other articles. -] 19:30, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
****Well, I would have considered it be kept in the article, but for two reasons: 1)the article (which isn't that long) already has several pictures of the racers and 2)the caption of the image said children are rarely seen at that event, which means the image is atypical rather than really illustrative of the event. Under these circumstances, I would question its inclusion.--] 20:18, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
*****Well, I've moved it to Commons. I'm perfectly content with that as a solution in the meantime, and waiting for the uploader to return to Misplaced Pages and see what they want to do. -] 20:23, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
**It is nothing of the sort, as already explained. As yet, ''no'' strong and compelling evidence has been presented that this image need be used anywhere in the entire encyclopaedia.<p>The ] policy most definitely ''does'' apply here. I find it dismaying that editors, including especially those who profess to be journalists, are not thinking of the consequences of their actions, including the fact that they will result in a living person, who had no choice in once being photographed naked as a child, being labelled in the future as they grow up by friends, schoolchildren, employers, and complete strangers who recognize xem from xyr picture as "that naked little child in the encyclopaedia".<p>This is why journalists have editors. I suggest that ] run the idea past xyr editor of choosing between two pictures to illustrate a published print article about a bicycling event: one that contains solely consenting adults capable of giving consent, making their own choices, and defending themselves, and one that contains a child in a pose that can cause that child embarrassment and distress in the future as xe grows up. I expect that ]'s editor, if xe is competent, will have strong words to say on the subject, and explain to ] that conventional journalism ethics is to do no harm in such cases. If xyr editor is not competent, there are plenty of discussions of journalism ethics around, as well as plenty of explicit codes of journalistic conduct, that will explain what one has to think about with regard to pictures of identifiable children.<p>As an alternative, consider how you would each react to embarrassing and distressing photographs of yourselves as children being used in an encyclopaedia as you grow up. We are not constructing private photo albums of baby photos here. We are constructing a public encyclopaedia for the whole world's use. '''].''' ] 22:23, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
***I'm afraid you're wrong on all counts: three IfD against this image have all resulted in the image being kept, as per Misplaced Pages consensus. This is as strong and as compelling as evidence can get on WP, barring direct intervention from Jimbo Wales. Your ] argument would hold water if the child was identified and/or readily identifiable. Neither applies: the child isn't identified, and the picture of the face is taken in such a way as to make formal recognition very difficult, if not almost impossible. It's just a casual image of a naked child, about as anonymous and unprovocative as can be. The argument about the child not being able to make its own choice is also moot: if a legal guardian has consented to the picture, that counts just as if the child him or herself had accepted being photographed. None of these arguments are appropriate to remove this picture from the article.--] 22:36, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
***Come to think of it also, I fail to see how this would be any more traumatic than say, your mother showing pictures of you as child, naked in the bathtub, the first time you bring a girlfriend over to dinner to meet your parents. Sure, it's embarrassing, but it's far from being the life-long trauma you seem to depict.--] 00:26, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
****And something else. That picture was taken in 2001, and has presumably been on the original site since then. Germany has stricter privacy laws than the States ... seems if there was a concern, it would have been raised by now. In either case, I stand by my argument that keeping it off on BLP grounds sets a bad precedent for Misplaced Pages. ]] 21:27, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

== User page as possible attack page ==

What is the policy or usual method of acting when one encounters a user page that may be genuine, but looks to me more like an attackpage? I mean something like ], which is possibly not written by this Rob Boot but by e.g. a school "friend" (I can't imagine someone saying about himself "Hi I'm a Christian nerd and a nazi). Warn? Blank? Block? Leave alone? ] 16:35, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

* There is a previous account ], who started the article ] which this "Rob" coincidentally says he also attended (and is the newer account's only mainspace edit). I'd say that it's an attack page. <b>] ]</b> 17:09, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
] 19:17, 23 June 2007 (UTC)Its not an 'attackpage' and the fact that you consider it such makes you appear to be intolerant of the far-right, i was also 'robthegate' but i lost the password a few days after creating the account (i didn't give an email address for it so i couldn't get my password emailed) Why would i cover up my political or religious beliefs? I am openly a National Socialist and have been for a couple of years, i don't go shouting it but most people guess and if they ask ill tell them. Most Neo-Nazis are unlikely to cover up what they think unless they are trying to sabotage a red or anti site. I started the 'littlemoss' site as 'robthegate' and i rarely see the need to update a page and if i do it usually gets stopped even if i provide factual evidence. {{unsigned|Robthenerd1990}}

:Ahh, an accusation of intolerance from a devotee of Adolf Hitler whose avocation is making "morality based complaints involving male and female relationships amongst his peers." Mind if I go ahead and tag the two accounts as related? ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 20:11, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

== Trademark violation? ==

This is a long shot, but is there any action to take regarding ? Background information: about a week ago, ]&nbsp;(]&nbsp;'''·''' ]) created articles like ] and ] which were A7/G11'd, and I username blocked the user. Today ]&nbsp;(]&nbsp;'''·''' ]) moved ] to ] and claims it is a trademark violation for "IStarLive" to be used to refer to a user. -] (]) 00:54, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
:Regardless of the trademark issue (which legally is a non-starter), to prevent further spamming, I've removed the invalid redirect and salted ]. ''']'''<sup>]</sup> 01:03, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
::Oh, and I added ] to ], given its long history of creation/deletion. ''']'''<sup>]</sup> 01:11, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
:Considering that CheckUser shows that JamesterDude and Istarlive are the same person, this adds an extra layer of comedy. ] (]:]) 21:46, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

== Re-post about ] ==

'''Help, please''' Could someone review ]; these issues have not been resolved or even addressed. I have refrained from editing these pages, pending someone's intervention, and I don't want another edit war to start. -]·]·]·] 03:00, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

:The post looks like a content dispute. Have you considered using the dispute resolution process? &mdash;&nbsp;Carl <small>(]&nbsp;·&nbsp;])</small> 03:26, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

::'''Thanks''' Carl, to be honest, I was not sure where to put this, as there are a large variety of disputes across more than one namespace, even. If you think it is wisest to post there, I will. Does anyone else have any suggestions? -]·]·]·] 19:10, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

== Blocking ] for policy violation ==

Pl. block ] who has uploaded several images (which he himself admits to be fair use for copyrighted images) under the additional license tags of Creative Commons or GDFL. The upload page clearly mentions "'''Do not upload content with false license declarations. You will be blocked.'''" He has exactly uploaded with false licenses, therefore pl. block him and delete the images. --] 04:32, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
:I see no need to block at this time (not that I could if I wanted to...). He seems to have stopped for the while, and probably understands the warning. If he does it again, you would be within reason to take it directly to ] (an unusual step, but it works). ]] 22:41, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

== Problem Editor/Possible Vandal ==

{{user|Stefers08}} made several uploads and edits to three of the four main ] Heroes by using promotional images from the FF movies. Upon further review of his contribution history, either this guy is an obvious vandal that has slipped under the radar, or a seriously misguided editor. Activity suggests and leans towards Vandal. I checked most of his uploaded images, and the ones I saw had the <nowiki>{{Non-free currency}}</nowiki> tags on images that depict ficticious characters. Most of his activity has been "contained" in a 12 day period. --] 11:53, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
:This is almost certainly a good-faith ] who simply doesn't understand the image policy. Come on, everyone, raise your hand if you really had a solid understanding of image policy during your first month or 50 edits on the project. That's what I thought. So some of the images are already tagged, and the others could be listed at IFD. No harm, no foul. ]] 22:37, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

== ] ==

Tagged for speedy deletion under the brand-new CSD U4 ("polemic"). Anyone want to take this one? I'm seriously tempted to remove the tag and say take it to MfD, but... ]<small>&nbsp;(]·])</small> 14:32, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
:I feel I have no choice but to forward this to MFD, for one very simple reason. Userboxes of this nature have survived MFD in the past, and I can only support a speedy criterion if I believe that a formal debate would result in a near-unanimous deletion. I will make it a procedural nomination, and I will give full context. I hope that works for everyone. ]] 14:40, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
:::I've tagged this and ] on the grounds their opposites, Palestinian return and communism were recently speedied. Fully understand about your reasons for prefering a MfD. ] 14:43, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
::::Works for me, although I can't really say I'd have agreed with the above two being speedied either. Thanks for understanding. ]<small>&nbsp;(]·])</small> 14:52, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
:There's are active discussions on this & related deletions in several places simultaneously , (at least) WP:DRV, WP:CSD, WP:MfD .''']''' 21:43, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

== ] recidivism with insulting edit summaries ==

I hope I've found the right place to post this; sorry if I haven't. ] recently made a small, unsourced edit to a page I watch, but then summarized it in a completely inappropriate way: . I am personally deeply offended by his language, and originally I was just going to ask him to stop on his talk page -- but then I noticed that he's been blocked for very similar behavior before: (links to user's contributions page). I'm not sure what needs to be done, but I'd suggest that the user be blocked again, as that seemed to teach him a lesson, at least for a little while before. Thanks. ] 17:02, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
: (Non admin comment) I see you left him a polite warning, that was definitely a step in the right direction. I'll keep an eye out and if he continues then you cna either follow up here or take it straight to ]. All the best. ''']''' 17:10, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
:: I have to say that whatever point Darkcurrent was attempting to make was more than slightly compromised by his spelling "whole" without the '''w'''... Considering the epithet s/he used regarding editors, perhaps they had something else on their mind? ] 18:58, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
::: (Non admin comment) Also, the point is false. It's I'm in insurance, per . You'd have to go to the last page, if memory serves, because it's the final scene, but clearly, it's "I'm in insurance.".--] 21:51, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

:Any chance this guy is ]? ] ] 21:54, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
::That was my first thought, as Light current was banned in February and this account started full-time editing in March (only one edit before that) and Light current had a history of abusive edit summaries. But it seems to be two different people based on editing patterns and their comments. — ] ] 22:22, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

:::(Non admin comment) ] was better at spelling, and wasn't so heavy on the caps lock key. ]<sub>|<font style="background: ffffcc">\]</font></sub> 22:31, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

== Steve Brookstein ==

The article ] has been edited by an anon claiming to be that person (see ]). This needs investigating given "how can Misplaced Pages be taken seriuosly when it allows vandalism and untruths be spread about people and presented as facts", but nobody has taken this through the official channels as far as I am aware. ] ] 17:29, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

:He was legitamately complaining about a BLP violation on the talk page that would violate NPA as well. Could someone oversite it please now i've edited it off the talk page? ] 17:45, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

:The editor who added the section in question is 80.6.89.61 and here is the diff , that should help. ] 17:51, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

::I deleted the talk page and restored versions that did not contain that text. ] (]:]) 21:39, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

== Vandalism on Colors in Infoboxes ==

I would like to block the IP address {{user|68.173.209.19}}, because he continues to change the colors on baseball players infoboxes, mostly Yankees players and changes them to lesser known teams they played for. I believe he changes them because he doesnt like the Yankees, and that is not a good reason to change the colors, I also believe it is the Ip address of {{user|Pascack}}, considering they make nearly all the same edits, and I think he uses a couple of other IP address also. I have told him numerous times to stop but he doesnt listen--] 18:10, 24 June 2007 (UTC)Yankees10

:He offers the fact that the said player is in the hall of fame with those colors (i.e. Dave Winfield was with the Padres the most). What is your compelling reason for retaining the original colors? ] 18:30, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Well for players like ], ], ] he has A's colors for Reggie when they should be Yankee, Mets Colors for Gary when they should be Expos, and Red Sox colors when they should be White Sox--] 18:32, 24 June 2007 (UTC)Yankees10

:(non admin) Those are all debatable, especially Fisk, who is most closely associated in the popular imagination with the Red Sox and wears a Red Sox cap on his Hall plaque. I'd say that, in many cases, you're right, but there are others -- Jeff Nelson comes to mind -- in which he's done the right thing. ] 20:30, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I disagree Nelson signed with the YANKEES TO RETIRE AS A YANKEE {{unsigned|75.82.16.153|21:03, 24 June 2007 (UTC)}}
*Possible contender for the Screaming WGAS award here. No administrative action is called for here; work it out somewhere else. --]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 21:22, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
:'Wood Green Animal Shelter'? ] 21:24, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Jeff Nelson actually played three separate stints for the Seattle Mariners and played more years in Seattle. However, I agree that he is likely better known as a Yankee. However, Reggie Jackson played many more years in Oakland and won more titles in Oakland. Since his photo is already shown as a Yankee, I think it would be most fair to show Oakland colors, so that both teams are represented. However, I have never used profanity or foul language in the descriptions when making edits, a practice that ] has done consistently. I think this is much worse than showing Jeff Nelson as a Mariner, or Reggie Jackson as an Oakland A - both representations that are not beyond reality. I will give him Nelson as a Yankee but Reggie should be shown with Oakland colors since he played many more years there. Regarding Carlton Fisk, he actually is in the Hall with Boston colors, not White Sox, but I think he is most remembered as a Red Sox due to the famous World Series HR in 1975, and I believe the general consensus would agree. Gary Carter is wearing an Expos in the Hall but it was his request to wear a Mets cap and he was overruled because the Hall wanted an Expos hat represented before the organization moved to Washington. He is most remembered for his high-profile championship years with the Mets in the 1980's and he has also spent the better part of the past 15 years working in the Mets organization as an instructor and minor league manager. Carter clearly identifies himself most as a Met.] 21:25, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

== User:Thedeadmanandphenom ==

Having some problems with {{vandal|Thedeadmanandphenom}}, who has been leaving profane, incivil and occasionally threatening (though not realistically threatening, more in the 'I hope you die!' type commentia range) on the page of ]. I think he needs a time out. Could someone put him in the corner for a a couple hours? --] 18:33, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

:In the past he has disrupted pages and blanked sourced material , and after having numerous warnings for editors other than myself he has now decided to attack me personally for PROD-ding an article he created , . I don't know if he is here to constructively edit, and I have tried to assume good faith, even tidying up the article he created but I think that some kind of block (may be for 12 hours) may be needed to try to reign him in. Any help on this matter would be appreciated. ] 18:41, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

If anyone ever gets around to looking at this issue, I'd also request a checkuser on {{vandal|Lostinspace123}}, who has been mucking with my talk page and Darren's, entirely with snarky comments about Darren's sexuality and facetious sounding comments about Thedeadmanandphenom. --] 16:10, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
:ETA - slurs from Lostinspace123 invectives have now gotten racial in addition to being sexual. He's on a bit of a tear. --] 16:25, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
::I've blocked him indef for a "death threat" as well as general harassment ] 16:31, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

== User:BullyDale ==

{{vandal|BullyDale}} is another likely sockpuppet of ] that should be blocked. The user's contributions fit the pattern of previous Danny Daniel sockpuppets (see ] for more info). The username is in CamelCase. He/she even created a hoax sequel called ] (a parody of ]. ] created similar pages which are dubbed The Inuyasha Jake Power Hour. ] was a suspected proxy of that user, which turned out to be a confirmed Danny Daniel sock). <font color="orange">]</font><sup>]</sup> 20:21, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
:Also, block {{vandal|BullyPoop}}. <font color="orange">]</font><sup>]</sup> 20:23, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
::Update, BullyPoop has been blocked indef by ] for having an inappropiate username. BullyDale has not been blocked yet. <font color="orange">]</font><sup>]</sup> 01:35, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

== Folken de Fanel and Sandpiper ==

I was't quite sure what to do about this so i thought i'd better put it on here. These two users, ], and ], are engaged in edit warring over a number of harry potter related articles such as ], ], ], ] etc, and neither seems to be able to resolve an issue over article content, instead, the same arguments keep being repeated over and over, if another user becomes involved, like i did, still no consensus or compromise is reached, the user just gets sucked in too. Judging from their contributions, it seems that all they do is revert the other ones edits. Can anything be done about this, or will we just have to wait for the book to come out and settle all the debates.--] 20:40, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
:and i forgot to say that they don't appear to actually be breaking the 3RR, which is why i haven't reported it there.--] 20:17, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
::This is what we would refer to as a "slow-motion edit war" and yes, I agree that it is a problem. -- ] ] 05:03, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

== Block requested ==

Use {{user|Yankees10}} has persistently used profanity in the discussion section in editing history. Argument in question is the team colors on Reggie Jackson's infobox - Oakland vs. Yankees. This argument can go in either way, but he should not be using such language on a public forum. {{unsigned|Pascack|21:21, 24 June 2007 (UTC)}}
: Take your feud somewhere else, please... ] 21:33, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Massive 3RR'ing on ] for the past two days. Can an admin just block Yankee10 now, or will I have to file a 3RR report? ] 21:34, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I admit I am over using profanity but you are changing everything because you clearly dont like the Yankees--] 22:54, 24 June 2007 (UTC)Yankees10

== Personal Attacks & Incivility ==

] started making personal attacks on me the other day, and has not relented, despite my efforts to resolve the issue politely and, in the end, somewhat ineffectively. I have had very little in the way of interaction with him, and am very surprised by the rage and vitriol I am seeing in his recent edits to and about me.<br>
The conversation began over some placement of citation tags in the ], wherein ThuranX and another user, Duhman were edit-warring and generally being uncivil to each other. I suggested that they might want to take a step back for a bit, and they both went nuts. I replied to each of them on their talk pages. Duhman proved pretty much a lost cause, but I had enough respect for Thuran to try and help square things away, as evidenced and (both of the short sections are full of personal attacks). He took my questioning of his edits as a personal attack, and became a lot more uncivil. I wasn't expecting this and responded a bit hotly, though nowhere near as hotly as what continued. I retracted my statements, hoping this would calm matters down. It didn't, and the personal attacks just kept coming:<br>
In the Catwoman article:
*
*
*

In another editor's talk page:
* (including my response to the initial attack, which I , wanting the attacks to simply stop)
*

His own talk page had more personal attacks.

The damnable thing is that, while I know he is feeling and is not at all polite with many, many others (as evidenced by a look at just the edit history of his own Talk page). I actually ''respected'' the guy - until he decided to target me. I am not sure how to proceed, as he seems to be continuing the uncivil stuff despite my politely trying to defuse matters, or not responding at all. I mean, I am avoiding the guy, but he just keeps making comments. Can someone lend a hand? - ] ] 18:18, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

:He's not assuming good faith on your part, but good faith has its limits and he might have reached his. Here he explains himself:
::<div style="border:1px solid black;font-style:oblique;">You're a troll. You're deliberately disrupting pages with citation demands for every line and section to make a point. What that point is, I don't care. but it's tiring, childish, and irritating. If you feel that every single thing needs citation, you go find it. I found more than enough, given that this all started with you being nosey. ] 17:21, 22 June 2007 (UTC)</div>
:I've not reviewed your dispute in detail, but if ThuranX is seeing this correctly, he might be correct regarding the citations (though presumably has mistaken your intentions). You only need to place <nowiki><ref/></nowiki> tags on facts that are likely to be questioned. –'']'' 19:26, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
::Unfortunately, that wasn't the issue prompting the complaint. I was addressing the personal attacks and incivility that accompanied the edits, which another editor also addressed with him (to no avail). Maybe he was all upset about the User:H issue, and it spilled over, but I am not the only person he has blown up at or made personal attacks at. When a user acts in this way, they usually get blocke for a period of time, not as punishment, necessarily, but instead to both protect the project as well as giving the person being complained about some perspective. I am not sure I understand the delay in acting here. -] ] 18:29, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
::This complaint was perhaps accidentally without resolution. I am putting it back into queue, because people shouldn't be free to be a dick. - ] ] 21:37, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
:::Uhh, I'll warn him to keep his cool but I pretty much agree with him in that you're being completely zealous with the whole citation thing... that's about all I'm willing to do though. Lay off asking for citation for facts that probably wouldn't challenged per policy. ''']''' ]|] 04:30, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

== Admin intervention for ] ==

{{resolved|Account indefinitely blocked.}}
On the ] page, ], now editing under his IP address of ], has continually (one might even say continuously) attacked editors who do not agree with his interpretation of how to edit the (contentious) article on ]. Pwok/71.231 is an SPA, as his user logs show. He has been blocked three times already for incivility (3 hours, 10 days, and 7 days), and during his blocks he has used his talk page (which he blanked yesterday) to rain invective upon Sanchez, other editors, the admins who have blocked him, and Misplaced Pages itself. Then, of course, there is , at a site he has created, ''which is solely dedicated to smearing Sanchez.'' (Suggests more than a bit of a Conflict of Interest.) He apparently has some sort of vendetta against Sanchez, and there have been allegations of off-wiki drama between the two of them, but his activity here (and his personal attacks against ] and ] are simply out of line. During his last involuntary wikibreak, the hostility level on that talk page dropped considerably. I would suggest some sort of intervention, and am willing to take this to the next level if necessary to block a tendentious and abusive editor from Misplaced Pages. ] <small>]-]</small> 21:48, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

:The IP address has been blocked by ] for a month () and its talkpage has been protected following the subsequent posting of attacks and abuse. Given this and the receipt of abusive emails from ], I have now blocked that account indefinitely (and disabled the "E-mail this user" feature from that account in order to prevent further attacks on editors he has been in conflict with). <span style="font-family: Verdana">]]</span> 02:54, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

== Help with non-free images from ] ==

This project is currently . I don't have the guts to engage in talk, as I have already been called a Nazi (two times image my talk page and in a message delivered to several project participants ( ...)). Would someone step in?

The ] covers articles about Japanese pop celebrities, and as such, is a magnet for replaceable non-free images of living people. Besides keeping an eye on its articles, I have minor instructions to the project's page to help with the problem.

But, recently, the project's page has been . I don't think it's helpful to state "''Free images sadly do not exist for H!P artists.''" in the project's instructions about the images.

It's a good thing to notice that the project also promotes the tagging of all images used in its articles. But its incentive to the upĺoad of images that are going to be deleted is not something desirable. --''] <sup>(])</sup>'' 22:13, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

:Straight-up I see a violation of ] and implied ownership and incivility in the call to "protect" the project from "copyright nazis". ] 22:24, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
::I've left a nice essay on the main user's talk page and the talk page of the project.—] (]) 22:28, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
::And they're not getting it. They're claiming that there are no free alternatives because their management company does not allow fans to bring cameras to the concerts.—] (]) 00:17, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

The same user, ], continues with his highly uncivil language and ] behaviour (where he states that only members of that Wikiproject should edit the Wikiproject's page, otherwise it's vandalism) even after Ryulong and hbdragon88 tried to communicate with him. Would someone especially tactful be willing to step in and help? Thanks. --''] <sup>(])</sup>'' 16:46, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

== Racist Personal Attacks ==

{{resolved}}
Please be aware that on the talk page for ] the editor ] has taken to personally insulting another editor, myself, by using racial slurs damning all Indians. I will not contribute in an environment that is hostile or that insults my race and he has done both. I asked a question involving the possible racism of Joseph Smith as it might be something to make the article more accurate. It is true that most people of Smith's time were racist and if Smith was as well then as an importand leader that began a religous movement it should be noted, especially since books penned by Smith do contain racist material. I recieved some initial responses but I still felt the issue had not come to a proper decision. I was very conserned about some of the information provided in a link and I specifically asked if the information in the link was factually accurate. At that point Storm Rider, instead of answering the question, called me a hypocrite for even asking. Not only did he call me a hypocrite for even asking but he then proceeded to insult my race by using phrases like "blood thirsty Savages" to decribe all Indians and he insist on inserting information that had nothing to do with the topic at had, the possible racism of Joseph Smith Jr., by saying over and over again that all Indians are liers because they weren't the first people in America so they are all liers for saying it. I do not feel conforable continueing to edit in this type of atmosphere. I ask that this user be centured for these racist comments and not allowed to edit anymore. Should this not be something that Misplaced Pages is able to do even to someone that has launched this horrid type of personal attack at me then I feel it prudent to not edit Misplaced Pages anymore. Please let me know which one of us should go.--] 22:22, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
*Well, a quick look says you're misrepresenting the situation. Storm Rider did not ''phrases like "blood thirsty Savages" to decribe all Indians''; rather, he said, ''The various cultures of Native Americans ran from blood thirsty to peaceful...just like every other culture upon the earth.'' Slow down and read more carefully, and perhaps you'll have a better time here. --]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 22:34, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

::Sorry, but I find this kind of talk from ] to be totally uncalled for:

::''The noble savage is a farce and to begin to attempt to say that Native Americans were the "first" residents of these lands is the stuff of fairy tales we tell to ensure that the injustice of "the man" is condemned. That first group or people has yet to be identified or known by history. However, current archeology would say that Native Americans may simply be transplants from Asia. Given that perspective the concept of "original" inhabitants loses its primacy and legitimacy.''

::Not only is it uncalled for, because it is incendiary, but it is probably incorrect. Current understanding is that Native Americans are likely the descendants of basically the first human beings to inhabit North and South America. See ]. ] 22:57, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

:::Well, "probably incorrect". There are also hints of human activity before the current residents and of catastrophe. But "simply transplants from Asia" only makes sense if there is an alternative of humans appearing spontaneously in many places. They're most likely to have appeared where primates live. (] 04:42, 25 June 2007 (UTC))

Not so much a personal attack, but a violation of ] and ]. Can you please tell me which talk page this was posted on, and I will post a warning. ] <small>]</small> 04:26, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

: Posted warning in talk page. ] <small>]</small> 04:33, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

::Jossi, I agree with your assessment and appreciate the notice. However, it should be udnerstood that the words being the biggest issue were copied from a personal attack on my talk page. After I responded Billiot copied just my exchange without his/her attack on the Joseph Smith, Jr talk page. To put everything in context I then added Billot's attack so that my response would be taken in context, but ] reverted that addtion from the talk page. This is basically silliness in which I should not have engaged. I recognize that Billot was just trolling and I fed the troll. --] ] 17:15, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

== 24.203.217.170, IP of an indefinitely blocked user ==

{{resolved|IP blocked.}}
The user at the IP ] . I'm not totally ''au fait'' with the relevant policies, but would this be grounds for blocking the IP? ] 22:42, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
: {{RFPP|b}} - self-confessed sockery / personal attacks / revert-warring, etc, etc - ] ] 23:17, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

== ] and my sigs ==

{{user|Centrx}}

User:Centrx is mass reverting my modifications of my own signatures which is explicitly allowed as per ]. Centrx failed to that he has valid points. In addition a ], feel free to have a read of it.

Centrx is engaged in a revert war over my sigs on multiple pages including ones inside . Centrx that I have a malicious intent for modifying my sig. I believe that also violates ].

--<small> ]</small> <sup>]</sup> 23:17, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

:The policy talks about removing personal information. It's not like you used to use your real name, so I see no way that you could call Cool Cat something personal and identifying. --<small>(])</small> ] <sup>]</sup><small>]<sub>]</sub> (Let's Go Yankees!)</small> 23:23, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
::I strongly desire to change my sig. Thats all the policy expects. --<small> ]</small> <sup>]</sup> 23:31, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
:I would suggest you notice the writing on the wall, and catch on that repeatedly changing your sig on every page you've ever posted on is an obnoxious waste of time and resources. --] <small>]</small> 23:25, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
::I do not think resources is an issue and its my time to waste. At least according to the devs I talked to. En.wiki receives several thousand edits per day. Centrx is wasting more of our resources by repetively revert waring over this. --<small> ]</small> <sup>]</sup> 23:31, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
:::Once again, here's an exact quote of policy: "If you feel strongly about personal information no longer being on visible pages on the site, you can edit these pages to remove your signature." The username "Cool Cat" does in no way, reveal your personal information, so there is no personal info for you to feel strongly about. Because of that, policy doesn't allow you to do what you're doing. --<small>(])</small> ] <sup>]</sup><small>]<sub>]</sub> (Let's Go Yankees!)</small> 23:36, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
::::Lets say you are right for the sake of argument, there still is nothing prohibiting from fixing my sigs. I am allowed to change my sigs and even comments on non-archived talk pages by default. Although discouraged, I am even allowed to remove my comments altogether if I do so desire - especially in my userspace. --<small> ]</small> <sup>]</sup> 23:44, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
:::::Is there a reason in changing your past sigs other than aesthetic effect? —''']''' 23:45, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
::::::Yes. I am sorting my sigs by year. It is particularly helpful for me. I can explain additional reasons in private if you like. Though, I would like to add (no offense), I shouldn't really need a reason aside from "my strong desire". :) --<small> ]</small> <sup>]</sup> 00:25, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
:Centrx did not say he believes you have a malicious intent for modifying your signature. Regardless, why is this topic back here? At least Centrx has been kind enough to keep this trivial matter off the AN and ANI. Seriously, why is this so darn important to you? (And, to Centrx as well, why is this so darn important?) It takes two to tango; one of you just stop already. -- ''']''' 23:48, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
::Why did you move ]? Is that really necessary? And what was the purpose of blanking the origin page and re-adding the same content? Was that in an attempt to make moving the page back more difficult? (If that was your intent, that doesn't do much). -- ''']''' 00:01, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
:::I am more than allowed to move old references to my former username. I did this before with my first RFA. I forgot about the mediation case till recently. Why should I even need to provide an explanation? The complaint is Centrx's mass revers btw. --<small> ]</small> <sup>]</sup> 00:25, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
::::It's still rather pointless to continue to 1) remove references to your old name and 2) revert war over it when all it is, is your signature. Damn near everyone realizes that Cool Cat = White Cat at this point. Even if people didn't realize it by the signature, they could equally just check the history of any page you edited and it says White Cat now. — ] ] 00:52, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
:::::I have protected the MedCom nomination from editing and moves. I think it's generally best if closed nominations not be edited in any way, and this includes their location. ''']''' 07:55, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
This wouldn't have been an issue if the second involved party hadn't started reverting harmless changes. I think going back and editing your old sigs isn't really useful, but any argument against it (server load, disruption, etc) can be equally made against reverting edits to old sigs.
::::::Really? What difference does the title of a medcab nom have to its content. Who is the candidate? Is it a lie to say that the candidate is me? --<small> ]</small> <sup>]</sup> 16:32, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Anyhow, this isn't prohibited, and ] shouldn't have to justify themselves in re. this. It's a personal choice, not a community one, and there's no reason that a personal (albeit retroactive) aesthetic choice should be made by committee.
<em class="user-sig user-Adrian">—{{User:Adrian/zap2.js}} <small>2007-06-25 01:03Z</small></em>
:He's been warned about this, twice. Originally he had a bot doing the changes in mass. He is editing community talk pages, so it's not just up to him. -- ] 01:11, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
::Sorry to butt in, but why oh why does ''anyone'' care what he does to his own sigs if he's not being incivil or disruptive or trying to hide who made the comments? (he's actually making it more clear who made the comments) ] 01:15, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
:::Because he's repeatedly been disruptive about it, and repeatedly told not to do it. -- ] 01:23, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
::::Forgive me for not being involved in the previous discussions concerning this, but....why has he been told not to do it? I am straining to rationalize the edit wars this is causing. ] 01:26, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
:::::I believe it's been opposed for a variety of reasons by different people. Personally I dislike it because, unless you actually are leaving Misplaced Pages and ], you don't get to put your previous ID down the memory hole like this. --] <small>]</small> 04:36, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
::::::Except that White Cat/Coolcat is clearly ''not'' trying to vanish, if you look at his userpage. He's actually making it easier for anyone reading old archives to find out the username currently being used by Coolcat, as well as still being able to see Coolcat's contribs (linked to right from White Cat's userpage). I still believe a mere redirect from his old userpage to his new one would be oh so much easier (I'm not finding it possible to comprehend why that wasn't done, looking through old discussions), other users have done that upon changing username. ] 04:47, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
::::::::Just redirect all of the pointers to the old names into the new one and stop changing the sigs. This the second time I have seen this issue come up here since your name change and this is frankly getting me pissed off. Why are you making this hard on yourself White Cat; just make things easier so you can go back to editing. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 09:18, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
:::::::::''Except that White Cat/Coolcat is clearly ''not'' trying to vanish'' - Not what was claimed: he's clearly trying to whitewash his reputation, given that the simplest thing he could have done was put a redirect at ] -- which he not only hasn't done, but has had the page protected so it CAN'T be done. Presumably he's trying to obscure something like . --] | ] 14:56, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
::::::::::Indeed it was all to hide my block log. Man am I exposed...</sarcasm> Seriously have you actually seen my userpage? I link to that very log and far more (not that I am expected/required to do so). Also my sig does not link to my block log. Me fixing my sigs is more like "admitting guilt" if anything. Your accusations are baseless and unfounded.
::::::::::Zscout370 I am not making this hard on myself. There is a person reverting me on multiple pages. And not just any pages but discussion pages (article content isn't in jeopardy) including the ones in my userspace.
::::::::::If the precondition for me to fix my sigs is my leavening of the project, that can be arranged - though I believe such a demand would be out of proportion. I dispute the validity of those "variety of reasons".
::::::::::This is a complaint on Centrx's behaviour. Strangely almost no one seems to be commenting to that end. 3rd opinion and Grutness's conversation with Centrx is pretty clear on this. The policy is also clear on this even though people are interpreting stuff not written on it.
::::::::::I am not the first person to fix his/her sigs people...
::::::::::--<small> ]</small> <sup>]</sup> 16:20, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
:::::::::::I don't see the point, but I also don't see what the big fuss is about. If Cat wants to make a fresh start, great, as the old Cool Cat account had more blocks than a daycare full of toddlers, and I can thoroughly understand that. Is it obfuscating GFDL by changing all those talk page attributions? If it isn't, then Centrx, let him do what he likes. ]&nbsp;] 16:55, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
::::::::::::''Your accusations are baseless and unfounded.'' Reeeeally. Then mind explaining why you haven't done the simplest thing you could do -- why, in fact, you've taken active steps to PREVENT the simplest thing you can do from being done -- namely adding a redirect to ]? Instead, you are doing things in the most difficult way imaginable and bitching about it every step of the way. --] | ] 20:03, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
* Am I the only one who thinks this is getting ''really'' ridiculous? ]<sup>(] - ])</sup> 18:24, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
:I think this is simply the case of a user trying to achieve legitimate intentions (look at ] if you doubt this) in an absurdly inefficient manner, leaving aside for a moment the bot issue. Please, ''please'' just redirect the old userpage before more ] worthy material is created, although I do believe that reverting White Cat's sig changes is utterly pointless, whatever policies say (aren't we supposed to ignore those?). ] 23:33, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

== Anti-Bosniak sentiment ==

The article {{la|Anti-Bosniak sentiment}} was recently deleted by ] for reasons I don't understand: he claims it was a CSD R1 (widow redirect) but AFAIK there was a full article there. Anyway, {{vandal|Bosniak}} has been complaining about this (in all the wrong places, such as ]) and has just now reposted the article, presumably from an HTML copy, as it's not properly wikified. Naturally it doesn't preserve the author history, and is therefore a copyright violation. So…
#Can an administrator check the deleted page history to see whether Coredesat deleted the article by mistake?
#If the article was deleted by mistake, can an administrator please delete Bosniak's version and restore the original?
#If the article was not deleted by mistake, can an administrator please speedy-delete Bosniak's version, warn him against reposting deleted content, and direct him to ]?
Thanks. —] 23:50, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
: There was never any full article there, far as I can see. Just a redirect. Note there was a bit of moving and shuffling of articles going on around then (and since) but what Coredesat deleted was just a redir - ] ] 23:54, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
:: Never mind; I see what the problem is. The page was moved elsewhere and ''then'' AfD'd. So in this case Bosniak is reposting deleted content. This is at least the second time he's done so; he was previously warned for this. This incident is particularly egregious because he's attacking an administrator who wasn't even involved in the deletion, ], claiming that Duja is responsible and has a conflict of interest. I suspect a block is in order (and it wouldn't be the first time). —] 00:02, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
::Article deleted, it was a clear re-post of the old page at ], which was deleted after AfD at ]. ] ] 00:03, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
:::The version I deleted was a broken redirect with no article history. The article was at ], which I deleted after the AFD. --]] 01:43, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

===User:Bosniak's behaviour===
This incident was marked as resolved, but so far no one has addressed the behaviour of the user in question, who has
#reposted a deleted article ''for the second time'', ''after'' being warned the first time that this could lead to a block;
#refused to avail himself of ] despite suggestions by two editors;
#used numerous pages to accuse a completely uninvolved administrator (]) of engineering the deletion, accused Duja of having some unspecified conflict of interest, and forum-shopped to seek a remedy; and
#continued to proclaim that Serbs and Croats own particular articles on Misplaced Pages and that due to institutional racism here Bosniaks are prevented from having "their" own articles, thereby implying that it's proper for Misplaced Pages articles to exist for polemic purposes.
Unfortunately this recent behaviour is simply the latest in a long string of personal attacks and willful disregard for consensus and policy. —] 09:36, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

:Yes, his behavior has been a problem that seriously needs to be addressed. For instance, I had to block him back in March due to personal attacks he made. His shows that his incivility has been consistent throughout his time here. Perhaps you might want to open up an RFC on his conduct.--] 10:41, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
::I don't think an RFC is necessary or would be helpful. This isn't a content dispute; this is a user persistently attacking others as "racists" and flouting policy and consensus as if it doesn't apply to him. The behaviour has been going on for nearly a year, and has affected dozens of editors, many of whom have patiently tried to educate Bosniak about the rules. IMHO all that needs be done is enforce the existing rules to curb this behaviour; an RFC would only give Bosniak's irrational persecution complex yet another platform to spout its outrageous claims of Serbian infiltration. —] 11:23, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
:::I've left him another message explaining exactly why the article was deleted, what recourse he has if he disagrees, what policies the article violated, and that his talk of conspiracy theories and allegations of racism will not be tolerated. If he continues, I'm happy to block him for a short time for incivility; if it persists after that, I'm ready to propose a community ban. His consistent NPOV violations compounded with his victim mentality and conspiracy theories do not a good contributor make. -- ] 13:12, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

== Anon using two accounts to game 3RR? ==

{{resolved|Page semiprotected.}}
Not sure if this is the right place, but... I suspect that {{userlinks|207.237.232.228}} and {{userlinks|69.112.18.229}} are the same person. Both have done little other than introduce the same controversial material into ]. They are different ISPs but both geolocate to the New York City metropolitan area (using ). Admittedly this is not the biggest issue facing the project at present. Nonetheless, it's frustrating to have to deal with stuff like this when trying to work on articles. Any suggestions for how to handle this kind of situation? Thanks - ] 01:39, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
:Reverted and sprotected. ] 01:41, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
::(slaps own head...) I should have thought of ] to begin with. Thanks for the help! ] 01:59, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

== Lsi john incivility ==

<div class="boilerplate metadata" style="background-color: #C7BEFA; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #8779DD;">
:''The following discussion is preserved as an ]. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.'' <!-- from Template:Archive top-->

{{resolved}}
* {{userlinks|Lsi john}}

I regret having to open this case. In spite of my , and , ] has engaged in worsening incivility toward ]. Lsi john uses words like , , . We need to stop this because it creates a hostile environment, and sets a bad example for other editors. My attempts at friendly persuasion have failed. Can any of you suggest a way forward? ] <sup>]</sup> 03:50, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
: Durova is a very experienced admin, and more than capable to respond directly to these issues. ] <small>]</small> 04:23, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

*Ok, now that is an example of a very bad faith posting.
#I have clearly stated that I do not want this to be discussed in a public setting .
#It is my understanding that a dispute with another editor cannot be resolved until that editor is made aware of the problem. Therefore, I posted to Durova's page to make her aware of the problem.
:Per Jehochman's request , I rephrased my posting to Durova and removed the wording that Jehochman objected to. And yet, rather than post my 'good faith version', he posted the diff to the original version here.
:It took several edits to completely catch them all, but the final edit was . PRIOR to Jehochman's post on AN/I.
:Notice that Jehochman even Thanked me for making the changes .
::<blockquote>"''::::You're welcome. You've still got the word "defamatory" in there. That's a lightning rod. Please refactor that comment one more time''"-Jehochman</blockquote>
:And refactor it I did.

#] I did what you asked me to do.
#By bringing this to a public forum for discussion, you are forcing me to discuss my personal life and you are causing people's attention to be focused on lies that have been said about me. I consider that to be harassment.

I have not been uncivil to Durova. She has lied about me and falsely accused me. I asked her to stop.

] this is an EXTREMELY personal issue for me and I have no desire to have it discussed here. Please redact this thread. ] 04:24, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
{{archive bottom}}

== Violation of fair use ==

{{resolved}}
* {{vandal|Sefringle}} Continues to reinsert huge quotes despite the fact that on the talk page of the article it has been noted that doing such is against fair use policy. ] 04:16, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

:Error1010 is an obvious sockpuppet of {{user|His_excellency}}. A quick indef would be appreciated. - ] 04:36, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
::Please don't troll and harass me. Whether or not I am not a sockpuppet but I would appreciate some attention to this matter. ] 04:37, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

* Asked editors to summarize long quotes and move text to footnotes. ] <small>]</small> 04:38, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

== Nasty mess of ] at ] ==

{{resolved}}
See ]. ] 05:45, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
: Good work, but I think we can handle this over at ]. No need to cross post here. ] <sup>]</sup> 06:26, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

== Community ban violation ==

{{resolved|1=] sockie, blocked some time ago by someone else - ] ] 09:20, 25 June 2007 (UTC)}}

]

User is ''currently'' contributing in the past half an hour or so, and continuing. Could this get a quick resolution? ] 06:38, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

== ] ==

{{resolved}}
What exactly is this image? I am blind so I have no idea what it is. The reason I ask is that ] and ] have added the image without explanation to ], ] and ], with some other nonsensical edits. The image was uploaded without a copyright tag. I'm wondering what it is and what should be done with it. ''']'''<font color="green">]</font> 08:43, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
:It's a ]. By the time you read this, I will have deleted it.—] (]) 08:55, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
::OK thanks. ''']'''<font color="green">]</font> 09:03, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
:::{{user|Shonikado}} <s>is</s>was using its relative, ] (note the lowercase), to try and convert people to "Besotism". He uploaded the original Besot.PNG as well, according to his talk page. -'']'' <sup><small>(<font color="0000FF">]</font>)</small></sup> 22:53, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

== Help with User ==

] has been following me around and will not leave me alone. Some of his comments are rather benign, but his activity is very counter productive. He has commented on a number of articles that clearly have little to do with what he is interested in and everything to do with what edits I make. I just want the guy to leave me alone. Can someone please help? //] 12:54, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
:I've examined the allegation, and it is legitimate: Baseball Bugs has edited several articles (not reverted, just edited) minutes after Tecmobowl has edited. ArbCom precedent in the RickK vs. TheRecyclingTroll case has established such behavior as a violation of ].

:I'll give Baseball Bugs a stern warning. If he persists, please report him to ] or ] or here again. ] <sup>]</sup> 15:05, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

*Thanks, this is a very touchy situation and all i want to do is get the content on here better. //] 15:06, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
*It might be time for an admin to step in here. //] 19:50, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

== ] ==

] keeps formatting articles according to his personal aesthetics. This is his summary for one of his edits on the ]: "Easier to read (LEAVE IT THIS WAY)". There is probably much more, but I only named the articles that are on my watchlist. That is incorrect formatting, and I have seen many other Wikipedians format articles the way I am trying to format them, even admins, so it must be right. Speaking of admins, Jerdon13 didn't even listen to ] when he to stop formatting that way. He thinks that articles are "easier to read", but the rules are obviously there for a reason, so his preferences on formatting are irrelevant. Oh yeah, and I . Then he did it again. I think a warning is not enough for this user. --- ] 13:11, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
:Please explain exactly what the problem is. I reviewed a number of these edits, and I had a lot of difficulty seeing any difference between the two versions. I would not recommend a block over a ] edit war.

:At the same time, if you can clarify why this is a problem, it's clear that the user has been warned enough times, and a 24h block would be appropriate to make it clear that formatting articles against consensus is not acceptable. ] <sup>]</sup> 18:10, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

OK sorry, I am a bit new at this. The thing is you are not allowed to use <nowiki><br></nowiki>s in InfoBoxes like he is doing, you are supposed to use commas. This is actually important, as some users have been blocked by some admins because they were doing this. That is the problem, it is anti-WikiProject formatting rules (for albums). He was told not to do it. He did not listen to me, or the admin, something must be done. --- ] 20:39, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

== ] ==

I suspect that ] is, in fact, another sockpuppet of ]. Could someone please check the IP to see if this is the case? ] 13:29, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

* I believe you want ask this ]. //] 13:31, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

**Indeed, thanks. ] 13:41, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
:*No problemo :-) //] 13:50, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

== Unilateral moving of "Allegations of state terrorism by the United States" ==

A single purpose account one month ago moved "Allegations of state terrorism by the United States" to "State terrorism by the United States". Since then there has been a poll with majority support for keeping the old title.] It was moved back today. Now ] has again moved the article back to "State terrorism by the United States".] 13:49, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
:I explained my rationale for moving to the "allegations" title at the current AFD. I don't feel that strongly about it, but please folks, let's not have an edit war. ] <sup>]</sup> 14:56, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
::I don't want to step into that article, but I'll point out that if you're going to use the "allegations" wording, shouldn't it be "Allegations ... ''against'' the United States", not ''by'' the United States? The other wording makes it sound like it's an article covering allegations that the United States has made. (In fact, that's what I thought when I saw this section header.) --] 17:37, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

== ] refuses to acknowledge "outing" another editor ==

''See also ]''

On ] Metta Bubble has "outed" my real-life identity, damaging both my Misplaced Pages and real-life reputations, brought assorted unwarranted COI accusations presented as "questions", also violating WP:BLP and WP:NPA. I responded to the questions and explained about the various blockable offenses. I hoped that my explanations would be understood and taken to heart and let it go, under the impression that Metta wanted the conflict to end (see my talk page e.g. ) and had realized there was, indeed, a problem with their behavior. I myself had also responded somewhat irritatedly, and I assumed this was more a question of temper than one of extreme policy violations - lessons learned all around (although I do not believe I have violated any policies here. If so, please let me know).

However - I regularly look at problems here and on the BLP noticeboard to see if I can be of some help. Yesterday I noticed where Metta was accusing one of the other editors they had accused of a COI worthy of an ArbCom arbitration and tried to resolve the conflict. Being mentioned there, I posted some background in the Metta's report. Their responses opened my eyes to the fact that there is no discernible learning curve here.

Here are some relevant diffs (a number of intermediate posts not included):

*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*

I would appreciate it if an admin could explain the problems here to Metta and ask them not to "out" other editors?

Thanks -- ]&nbsp;&divide;&nbsp;] 14:17, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

PS My user page history (the real-life info had been lifted from an old version) has just been deleted at my request in order to prevent repetition. ]&nbsp;&divide;&nbsp;] 14:58, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

:Metta Bubble, investigating a possible COI, finds information in your User Page history then mentions it in a discussion about a possible COI. You remove the information and delete your User page's history, and note that you want this information kept private. Has Metta revealed this information since you removed it? –'']'' 15:54, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

::I removed it probably a year ago by blanking the page/adding new contents. It was useful at the time as a declaration of my possible COI since I was editing related articles back then. But (as always) it remained somewhere at the bottom of the history. Other editors are not supposed to use it, and that's what I told Metta very early on. Instead of removing it from the article and disengaging from this specific line of questioning, they expanded on it. Regardless, simply editing user page info out should be sufficient. I never expected another editor to do dig up a very old version, let alone doing something like this. As a result of this experience I then had my user page history removed. I haven't heard from Metta since then. ]&nbsp;&divide;&nbsp;] 16:10, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

:::Circular accusations of COI have been a staple of ] and related articles for some time. I must say that the "evidence" here is extremely weak (i.e. you are a health-care critic, so is Stephen Barrett, therefore you have a COI). And digging through year-old userpage diffs and then posting identifying information in article-talk space, in service of such a weak COI accusation, bothers me substantially. I've been previously heavily involved (and now very occasionally involved) in Barrett-related pages, so I'm not in a position to objectively evaluate this situation as an outside admin, but I would urge an uninvolved admin with patience and a streak of masochism to review this situation carefully. We've already had one such conflict on these pages end up in a ]. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 16:20, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

::::Metta was being extremely silly there. The evidence proved the converse (example: it lists many chiropractors). For the rest, "nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition". And the reverse is also true; I simply want this user to understand the situation and never do something like this again. Mastcell and others who have helped to explain this so far, thanks a lot. ]&nbsp;&divide;&nbsp;] 16:45, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

===== Response to accusations =====

* I have never posted information a user asked me not to. {{User|Avb}} posted his affiliations on his user page where they stood for months. It was me who first raised these affiliations in this general question . In reply Avb outed himself by posting links to his website . I subsequently posted links also. Then Avb urged me to reread his links. . He was reluctant to discuss the issues and had hoped his links spoke for themselves. . His explanation was more than enough for me and I was ready to move on. Over the ensuing days {{User|Fyslee}} got progressively more aggressive at me, attempting to fan discord about this issue and ultimately resulting in me filing an incident report . It appears my incident report has fueled this incident report as though the two are related. They are not.
: My line of questioning Avb didn't come out of nowhere. We had been discussing each others neutrality for a few days. Early on he said to me "I know my own biases and will never deny them. In fact I'm proud of them." .
: I know making COI assertions is a serious business and I don't shy away from this. However, there has already been at least one regarding the ] article involving COI (I think more than one) so I don't see it as breaking propriety to raise the issue during talk page discussion that civilly migrated towards the topic of COI. Thanks. <small>p.s. Please don't split my post</small> &#2384; <small><i><strong><font color="orange">]</font></strong> <sup><font color="red">]</font></sup></i></small> 01:09, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

== ] deleting material (again) ==
{{resolved|IP blocked for 24 hours.}}
<span class="plainlinks userlinks">] (] · ] · · ] · )</span>: I issued a final warning about removing content, after which s/he did it again, and I (albeit a bit after the fact). Since then, the user has removed {{tl|Copyvio}} from ] (I've reverted to the tagged version and moved the rewrite to a temp page). I have an ongoing dispute with the user, otherwise I'd handle it myself. -- ] ] 14:27, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

:Blocked for 24 hours. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 16:13, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

== 88.22.61.254 ==

This user has been adding a foreign GTA fansite to the external links section to ] Grand Theft Auto related articles that certain has no reason to belong there and takes you to a page that simply contains a date and does nothing. - ] 16:38, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

::Left a message on his talk page. ] 16:39, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

== {{vandal|MrClaxson}} ==
{{resolved|Avoid nourishing the trolls; new sockpuppet blocked.}}
There's a bit of an argument going on at ]'s talkpage, related to the ] for which he was indef-blocked. Could someone intervene, particularly since the accounts of whom he is a sock were both notorious post-blocking trolls, who had their talkpages protected? Thanks, --] (]) 16:54, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

:He's been indef-blocked and his appeal denied, so I'd suggest just ignoring him. If he keeps posting abusively on his talk page just to hear himself talk, then I'll be happy to protect it. But right now, I think the best approach is ] - stop responding to his talk-page posts, and he'll probably stop. If not, let me know or come back here. If you have problems with him flooding your email inbox, we can reblock him with email disabled. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 17:14, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
OK, thanks. I'll bear that in mind.--] (]) 17:16, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
:MrClaxson, or whatever his original account was called, has been evading his block as ]; that account is now indef blocked. ] (]) 17:45, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

== Removing a copyright violation ==

There are a very large number of links in a small number of articles to the "official" Tate LaBianca murders blog. All link to content which is copyright and identified as such, the site makes no claim to any right to publish this material. Rather the opposite, actually. I have removed them from {{la|Helter Skelter (Manson scenario)}} and will remove them from other articles when I get time. I am aware that last time these links were removed it stirred up a shitstorm. Hopefully the explanation on the talk page will prevent that happening again. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 16:56, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
:Seems completely correct to do. I've edited ] to remove all the offending links (plus several YouTube links that also violate copyright). -- ] 17:11, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
::And I've got them from ], too. That appears to be all of them. -- ] 17:19, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
::: Thanks, that saved some effort :-) <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 23:00, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

== Personal attacks by HeadMouse ==

Fresh off his latest block , {{User|HeadMouse}} is calling the editors he is in a dispute with "uptight power hungry ass holes." . His ] (which was re-archived just 50-odd minutes ago) shows at least four warnings for personal attacks so far this month. Can an admin do something about this? Thanks, ] (]) 17:16, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

: Where? The diff you provided dates back several days, and his edits today don't seem overly problematic (although his edit summaries suggest he's turning beet red and steam is coming out of his ears--appropriate, given the articles he's editing). ] 17:21, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

:: . At least he isn't disrupting the article right now. Right now being the operative term. ] 17:27, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

:Right. I've left him a message. ] 17:35, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

:::My apologies; I appear to have inserted the wrong diff link. The correct on is and I also fixed it above. --] (]) 17:37, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok, well I've left him a message on his talk page and I've refactored some of the posts on the article talk page in question. He hasn't made any new edits for some time now, so for the moment there's not much else that can be done. If he continues to be incivil or if he begins to edit war, then he can be warned or blocked again. ] 17:41, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

:It was said above that {{User|HeadMouse}} is not currently disrupting the article. I would argue that is not the case, as a careful screening of the edit history shows that ''HeadMouse'' has reverted every edit made to the article today by other editors (, , , and ). The disputes over the article have been so mild today because those of us who care are being inextricably ground down. I mean, what is the point when ''HeadMouse'' has made it abundantly clear that he has no interest in reading (let alone following) ] and ], and that he will revert any edit he sees fit in order to make the article "have CLEAN, ACCURATE, READABLE, information." (See ], ], and ] for his un-compromising, obstinate dispossession on full display.)

:At this point, I am at a loss as to what can be done. --] (]) 18:16, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the coloured fonts in the description of the trains. I thought that was weird when I looked at the article in the first place. He hasn't made any edits for 2 hours now, and I have to say I really see very little problem with his edits, unless I'm really missing something, which is certainly possible. He's insisting that the "R" in "relations" in the subheading "Customer relations" should be capitalized, which I think is debatable, but otherwise the diffs you're providing don't show me much... Just edit the page per talk page consensus, and keep an eye on things. If he's really being a problem editor he'll be blocked one way or another. ] 18:25, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

User continued abusive behaviour and was subsequently blocked by me for one week. He continued altering another person's signed comments on his discussion page and so the page was protected for 24 hours. This will hopefully give this user a chance to cool down. One unblock review has already been performed and of course, unblock-en-l is open if he desires another one. Hard to imagine any admin being willing to unblock this user, though. --] 20:59, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

== Attempt to hijack my account? ==

I have just received two password reminders: from IP address {{vandal|203.218.104.136}} on 23 June, 8:47, and from {{vandal|218.103.168.56}} today, 12:22 (both of CET). One such request could be an accident, two mean it's intentional. I'll list the addresses to be checked for possible open proxies; is there any other action I should take? - ] 17:59, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

:Neither of them look very proxyish to me from RBL checks of the IP. You may want to change your password to keep it secure. ] 18:03, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

::Umm, what? There is nothing wrong with Mike's password. Any idiot can send password reset messages and they do nothing unless acted on. If you log in with the new password it will become your new password, but it was only mailed to you so the idiot never sees it. If you ignore the messages, your old password remains active and the idiot never sees it. Just ignore the emails. ] 18:06, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

:::That sounds like the best way to go. Although if you do have a weak password you may want to strengthen it, on the off-chance that Mr. Idiot presses any further. --] ] 18:10, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

::::I just scanned both of those IPs, and neither of them have any open ports. ] ] 18:21, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Okay; and I presume that even if he had made 50 password reminders - which is no longer possible, I presume - his chance of guessing it would be remote (and repeated attempts to log in to my account would first require entering a "captcha" code, and eventually be blocked altogether). I remember having received many new passwords in a row from {{vandal|146.145.148.209}} the other day, but it probably wasn't a hijack attempt, either - just an attempt to annoy me. So there's no need to worry; I was just being paranoid after multiple accounts were taken over by vandals. - ] 18:26, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
:An added bonus to this might be the discovery of 218.103.168.56's contributions: ]. All two edits are directly related to ] (Who awarded Mike Rosoft a a bit earlier. ] ] 18:41, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
:I get these 2 or 3 times a week. If you use a strong password, it doesn't matter. And it doesn't matter anyway because only you can see the e-mail. However, when I do get them, I check the IP's contributions to see if there are any. --<small>(])</small> ] <sup>]</sup><small>]<sub>]</sub> (Let's Go Yankees!)</small> 22:05, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

==Small Problem==
we have a small problem on Timeline of CGI in film and television where a editor and myself have different opinions on what is notable the editor will not go to dicussions explain his choices just say it in his edits. I have a large amount of knowledge and would like to make this page the page the best it can be. I do change the information when I am in fact wrong But there are somethings I think are notable that he erases when he reverts it. I would like to know how to deal with this wikipedian in a civilized matter.] 18:51, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
:Seek a Third Opinion --> ]. If that doesn't work try ]. ] <sup>'']''</sup> 19:00, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
I can't find a third one] 19:35, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
:pardon? ] <sup>'']''</sup> 19:42, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
third Opinion] 21:34, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

==Fair use of album cover images==
I have been removing album cover images from discographies in the bands' articles, and have encountered quite a bit of opposition. Where is the discussion on this specific subject that I can point the objectors to? ] 19:08, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
:I've been doing the same thing--it's a surprisingly prevalent problem. In my edit summary, I write "remove excessive Fair Use Images; see ] items #3(a) and #8" and then I put a note on the associated talk page. Let me know if you're still having problems. -- ] 19:26, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
::There's a pretty thorough explanation .
::]<sup>]</sup> 19:30, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
:::] also specifically covers this in the discographies section. --] 19:58, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

::Thanks to all of you. ] 20:06, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

== Huge sockpuppetry problem ==

We've been dealing with screwing with the ] recently. They have odd usernames like ] and ]. At the same time, it appears that ] is being attacked by socks with names like ] and ]. When both articles are protected from new users...the socks start coming out. A brief look through the attackers of both articles will show that the socks are made on the same days. This guy is making about ten to fifteen accounts every two or three days and waiting to use them. The most recent wave to attack both articles were made on the 7th of this month. This guy has patience. Any ideas what to do? <font color="Green">]</font> <sup><font color="Blue">]</font></sup> 19:10, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

:You could try "Requests for IP check" at ] to identify and block the underlying IP, if possible. Many checkusers will list other obvious sleeper accounts when performing a check. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 19:15, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

::I don't think he is using a static IP. He only brings out the sleeper accounts when he needs an older one. If there is no protection on a page, he just uses brand new accounts. Everytime they are blocked, he just makes a new one. As you can he even taunts ''Come on boys, set your best Checkuser on me.'' because he knows he can switch IPs. <font color="Green">]</font> <sup><font color="Blue">]</font></sup> 19:19, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

:::If there's nothing that can be accomplished via checkuser (and I'd still recommend giving it a shot), then I don't know what else can be done other than semi-protection and ]. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 19:38, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
::::Have you tried to get the IP addresses blocked? Assuming it isn't possible to block the underlying IP address got me once. I finally got fed up and submitted the user for an IP address check and got some ranges blocked. Since then the user has been pretty much non-existent. --] <sup>]</sup> 19:42, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

:::::He has used an IP address a few times. They were ], ] and ] that is how I know it is the same person on both articles. He can change it so quickly that individual IP blocks are useless. I don't know how big the range is so I feared collateral damage with a wide rangeblock. <font color="Green">]</font> <sup><font color="Blue">]</font></sup> 20:25, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
::::::I'd still submit them for an IP check. Let the person running the check decide if they can block or not. You may also want to request the person keep a record of the IP addresses so you can file a report at ] and maybe get BT to shutdown their account. --] <sup>]</sup> 20:55, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Well, the IP checkuser came back with: ''IP is different every day, across several A class ranges''. Any other ideas? The whack-a-mole thing is getting annoying. <font color="Green">]</font> <sup><font color="Blue">]</font></sup> 02:57, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

== Does this stay in borders of ]? ==
This edit just cropped up in my watchlist and I felt It could use a comment from admins.--] 19:48, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
:While I'm not an admin, that falls under WP:CIVIL like the Pope falls under Judaism: i.e. it doesn't by a long shot. ''']''' <sup>(])</sup> 20:11, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

== Repeated personal attacks and UserPage vandalism by ] ==
{{resolved}}
On June 18, ] left a message on her user and talk pages asking the project to "''f*ck off''".

One day later, June 19, she updated the messages explaining she was leaving Misplaced Pages .

But just 2 days after her goodbye message, on June 21, she came back in an DRV discussion to call fellow Wikipedians "''F*KING IGNORANT''" , "''IMBECILES''" and suggested that Misplaced Pages has "''gone down the toilet''". She said that it was that what brought her to leave Misplaced Pages.

Just on they later, (June 22) she was apparently back to normal editing, when she created one article and added a free image to two articles . All very good!

But today she just came back and, apart from some apparently normal editions, called Wikipedians "''imbecile''" , showed intentions to ignore ] when she see fits and vandalized ]'s page to call him (and another user named Carlton) a "''f*cking arsehole''" and to ask him to f*ck himself and to go to "''hell''".

Also today, she updated here userpage to say that "''everyone here is a f*cking arsehole''" .

DISCLAIMER: I have to let you know that this user is involved (but not very active) in an ] against me, so, I may have a bit of personal prejudice on how I read all these "''f*ck you''" in her comments. --''] <sup>(])</sup>'' 20:16, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
:Yeah, this crap doesn't fly with me. User was warned, persisted in doing it anyway, and is now blocked for 24h. -- ] 20:24, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

:For the sake of accuracy: Insults are not necessarily personal attacks. Only if said insults are used to dismiss arguments in an '']'' form does it qualify. Under ], threatening behaviour also qualifies. See ] for the nuances of the term.
:That said, the PageantUpdater is definitely having some trouble with ]. –'']'' 20:28, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
::Agreed, I don't now if any of this is really a personal attack per se, but the Fuzzy510 diff (which appears to be in response to an AFD notice Fuzz510 left at PageantUpdater's talkpage) absolutely warrented a block. I understand that it sucks to see your work get nominated for deletion, but that sort of response simply is not helpful. The "everyone is a fucking arsehole" bit I'd just chalk up to frustration...--] 20:40, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

:::Well, at least calling the other parties in an DRV discussion "''F*KING IGNORANT''" and "''IMBECILES''" is an uncivil ] argument, right? Anyway, thanks for dealing with her. --''] <sup>(])</sup>'' 20:56, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I have unblocked due to the editor apparently having calmed down and promising not to be disruptive or be uncivil. Obviously if this promise is broken a block is in order. --] 01:10, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
:I wish someone had brought my attention to this section earlier, although perhaps its better that I have come to it with a clear head and a desire to move forward. I apologise for my atrocious behaviour, although in all honesty I cannot apologise for the essence of my message. I hope the former is enough for now. I promise that I will refrain from incivility in the future and keep my head down for a while. I found that I love editing too much to go... although the collaborative side of Misplaced Pages is certainly not as much fun as it once was. ] 05:50, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

== Continued personal attacks by Isaiah13066 ==
{{resolved|7 day block.}} ] 04:00, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I came across edit by {{vandal|Isaiah13066}} and warned him against making personal attacks. He (the user's last name is Cox but Isaiah13066 is calling him Cocks). So I gave him a final warning to which he did to. The user was previously blocked 48 hours for making personal attacks. ] 20:43, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

:Those diffs would prompt me to block him, but I note that they're all from 2-3 days ago. His more recent edits, while uncivil, seem slightly more constructive. I'm feeling like blocking him for those older posts now would be punitive rather than preventive; however, I'm all for having a zero-tolerance policy from here forward, given the inappropriateness of those earlier remarks and the fact that he's been adequately warned. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 21:16, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
:I've also notified Isiah of this discussion on his talk page. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 21:18, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

::I hope that my posts were ok. I was trying to stay civil. But in any case, I actually did apologized to him on his Talk Page if I upset him. If it matters, I'd vote to not block him and give him the benefit of the doubt. ] 01:17, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

:::, on 28 June, seems pure vandalism. -- <font style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:15px;">] </font> ] 01:29, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

::::That edit is from 28 ''February'', methinks. Unless you're with the Precrime Division... ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 02:30, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry (not really) about my zero-tolerance for stupidity ] 03:52, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

: 7 day block due to my zero-tolerance for incivility (see user's talk page history, as well). ] 04:00, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

::Good block, we don't have to put up with this.--] 04:02, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

:::Yes, good block; I'd have done the same once he made those further edits. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 04:45, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

==Incivility and forgery by Cberlet==

There have been edit disputes going on at ] and ] for several weeks now. The discussion on the talk pages and in edit summaries has been fairly heated on both sides of the disputes, although I would say the worst incivility has come primarily from ] and ]. I and others have asked the editors in these disputes to tone it down. However, today an incident took place which I think crosses the line. In Cberlet deleted a comment by ] and substituted a different text, so he effectively forged a post by Don't lose that number. I think this incident requires some sort of administrative action. --] 21:24, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

:That's not forgery, that's refactoring. The link you provided shows Cberlet changing the heading of the poll he started and refactoring the comments of another user to conform with a poll. While I don't think polls are generally helpful, I've seen this done frequently before where someone adds a comment to a "vote". Regarding the incivility charge, the "pro-LaRouche" editors, particularly {{user|NathanDW}}, have a habit of making negative personal remarks about Cberlet and Dking , and have been warned. ]] ] 21:58, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

::A different text? Qué? It's exactly the same text. Did you not scroll all the way down on the diff, or something? I think your charge of "forgery" here on ANI requires some sort of apology to Cberlet. ] | ] 22:10, 25 June 2007 (UTC).

:::I would prefer that Cberlet not edit an article in which he has such a ] (he is named several times and his publications are cited as sources). However there is nothing wrong with that diff. ] 22:18, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
::::As many have pointed out, a problem with our COI guideline is that it penalizes editors with known affiliations while exempting more anonymous users who may have equal or greater conflicts. The LaRouche-related articles have long been the subject of attention from pro-LaRouche editors (and their sock puppets). Overall, I'd say that Cberlet may have less of a COI than many of the involved editors, but there is no way of unequivocally establishing that fact. Removing "anti-LaRouche" editors while allowing the "pro-LaRouche" editors to remain would not result in better articles. The alternative we're stuck with is dealing with protracted, and sometimes rancorous, disputes on these pages. ]] ] 22:40, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
::::On rereading ], I see it does contain exemptions for those in Cberlet's situation.
::::*''An article about a little-known band should preferably not be written by a band member or the manager. However, an expert on climate change is welcome to contribute to articles on that subject, even if that editor is deeply committed to the subject.''
::::*''You may cite your own publications just as you'd cite anyone else's, but make sure your material is relevant and that you're regarded as a reliable source for the purposes of Misplaced Pages.''
::::I believe that Cberlet and Dking have complied with WP:COI. ]] ] 22:44, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Cberlet created an entirely new poll question and signed Don't Lose That Number's username to one of the answers. This was apparently intended to mock Don't Lose That Number for his previous comment -- Cberlet's edit summary was "(Is this formulation of your views correct User:Don't lose that number?)." Then, Don't Lose That Number's previous post was added as a "comment" to the new poll. This is not "refactoring." Don't Lose That Number later removed this creation with the edit summary "not my doing." Please take a second look at and you will see that it was not just an innocent moving of text. The creation of a new poll question and the adding of the username to an answer adds up to attributing an opinion to Don't Lose That Number that he apparently does not subscribe to. --] 05:53, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

== Trolling by anons on ] ==

Over the past month or two, a dispute over an internet meme from ] has been debated on ]. When I joined the argument (against the meme), things turned south quickly, leading to several long arguments on my talk page and Talk:Mudkip, partially because I was playing the "hardline policy" card. About a few weeks ago, two anonymous users - {{user|64.40.60.55}} and {{user|64.40.53.240}} - have been playing ] on the page, and seem to be doing it to get a rise out of myself and out of {{user|Ksy92003}}. Is there anything that can be done to stop this madness one way or another? -'']'' <sup><small>(<font color="0000FF">]</font>)</small></sup> 21:34, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
:I'll put in a request at ] to semiprotect the page so that anonymous users cannot edit it. Such action is unheard of for talk pages, but it's justified in this instance. ] <sup>]</sup> 21:53, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
::I have another note to add: 64.40.60.55 tried to Ksy92003. -'']'' <sup><small>(<font color="0000FF">]</font>)</small></sup> 21:57, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
:::I've left a note on the talk, but seeing as most IPs anywhere on Wiki can't even be bothered to read comments, I doubt anyone's going to take notice. ''']''' <sup>(])</sup> 23:27, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
::::The IPs that care do, and have been so nice as to rebut me in . -'']'' <sup><small>(<font color="0000FF">]</font>)</small></sup> 00:40, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

== Possible external link spam ==

] has been rapidly adding links to "thebusinessmakers.com", which appears to be a podcast series, to multiple articles - see ]. The links tend to be tailored to the articles to which they're added (interviews with article subjects, etc.), but the sheer number is beginning to become alarming. Could use some admin attention. ] 21:40, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
:Reverted and warned; adding links like that is never OK. I'll be watching their contributions and seeing if they start up again. ] ] 21:49, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
::If this continues, please make a request on ]. ] 22:42, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

== Chris Benoit (preventative) ==

This Wrestler and his family have died under unknown circumstances. From previous experience with the deaths of famous (or semi-famous) people, the dingbats and fuckwits soon follow to put their own stamp on events. Do a couple of admins want to put this on their watchlist - because a little prevention goes a long way... --] 22:43, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

:It's been preëmptively semi-protected, which should help keep things under control. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 22:46, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

:: I should point out I'm not actually into wrestling but saw it mentioned elsewhere - the other reason it might be trouble is that (from what I can gather) the WWE is currently doing a storyline where the head of the organisation is pretending to be dead (yes yes I know) so it's likely we would get lots of "OMG THIS IS FAKE!" stuff. --] 22:48, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

::: It isnt a storyline he is unfortuntly dead and I can't get over the bad timeing with the Mcmahon is dead storyline ] 23:41, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

<s>::::Nothing is showing up anywhere on the internet or the MSM except on the wrestling blogs. Probably worth the protection anyways, but so far nothing substantiates this story as real news. ] 23:48, 25 June 2007 (UTC)</s>laright, it's starting to get coverage now. ] 00:12, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

:::::Even TNA has reported it and ther a rival company they would only do it if it was real like with ] ] 23:52, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

:::::An Atlanta TV station has picked it up . Sadly, it's real. ] 23:53, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
::::::As well as the major Atlanta paper

:::::: darn I wish it was fake I can't stop crying. But even other tv shows have picked it up ] 23:55, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

:Wrestling's a touchy subject with news, especially with the McMahon "death" happening very recently. I'd be happy with a major news source picking it up, but I guess we have to accept it only with the minor sources. ''']''' <sup>(])</sup> 00:01, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

:: Mr Mcmahon just admited that his death was fake so theres no way anyone would confuse chris death with a storyline ] 00:03, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

:::Not any more, at least. The news in Benoit's home town/province are picking up the story now. It's legit: ] 00:14, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

::::I can't belive his son was that young I think im going to be sick ] 00:16, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
Interesting: link to the AJC says murder-suicide, edmonton sun says homicide. ] ] ] 02:23, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
::I haven't put the AJC link into it because there's no source listed (named or unnamed). there's no confirmation elsewhere as well about the possible murder-suicide (I've heard it was mentioned on MSNBC and Fox News, but that's hearsay) ] 02:25, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

==Death threat==
{{resolved|IP blocked.}}
- and extreme incivility at best. ] 22:58, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

:Blocked for a week, hope it's static. WHOIS traces the IP to Ontario. Any known public enemies from Ontario? ]]] 23:06, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
::Thanks. Might want to ask ] if he has any ideas. ] 23:22, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
:::Most probably this is same as ] (another IP that traces to Toronto, Ontario) -- I had blocked the user for 24 hours. The user had vandalized the same article (]). ] | ] 04:40, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

== Probable disruptive sock ==

{{user5|Japastor}} created ] (which I closed early). The user in question had no other contribs outside of making the AfD, and tagging the page. Any comments as to who? <font face="comic sans ms">]<sup>]</sup></font> 23:02, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
:You didn't remove the AfD tag from the article. ] 23:11, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
:Done. Thanks for reminding me. <font face="comic sans ms">]<sup>]</sup></font> 23:12, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
::Cheers. :) ] 23:21, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

== ] ==

I don't want to issue a block for a dispute I'm involved in, so I encourage someone else to look into it and block. Here's the story:
*He was blocked on July 3, 2006 for 24 hours for vandalism of ] after receiving a message about an image he had uploaded.
*He was blocked for a week on July 4, 2006 for personal attacks such as
*Today, he posted , and I warned him with
*He came back at me with
Thanks. —<span style="color: red;">] (])</span> 23:41, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
*He also the OrphanBot page. Seems like he just flipped out. --] 23:44, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

::I think he ''might'', just ''might'', be a sockpuppet of banned ]. That sort of conduct is totally unacceptable -- uploading inappropriate, and illegal images, is not a "content" dispute. --] 23:46, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
::I don't think so Karmafist had extensive checkusers run on him in the past. Juppiter is probably just his friend. --] 23:50, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
:::Blocked for two weeks. -- ] 23:47, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

== vandalism by ] ==
{{resolved}}

He keeps ] the ] article to push his POV and makes threats against me in his last few edit summaries.Please do something about this troll.-] 23:45, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

:Actually, it appears that it is ''you'' who are adding POV statements. You the unreferenced statements: ''Many in Pakistan have turned to Islamist terrorism and antisemitism because they see the west and the jews as a scapegoat for most of their social and political problems.'' and it is, correctly, being removed. As ] noted on your talk page, please read ] and ]. <font color="Green">]</font> <sup><font color="Blue">]</font></sup> 23:50, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

::Add ] to that for good measure.--] (]) 00:42, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

== Movie copyvios from AOL IPs ==

Be on the lookout for copyvio plot summaries being added by AOL IPs. I have just reverted a bunch of additions by {{user|172.147.50.92}} and {{user|172.164.171.148}} that were just movie reviews from wire services. In the case of the latter IP, the descriptions were added on June 18 and have been sitting there for a week. --] 00:59, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

==User:Dragon panda from the west - Removal of DB-nonsense tag==
{{usercheck|Dragon panda from the west}} insists on removing a DB-nonsense tag from a (probably) nonsense article . Has been warned about this & has continued to do so . --] ] 01:42, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

:You gave him a last warning, after which he hasn't made any edits yet. Report him to ] if he removes the tag again.--] (]) 02:03, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
::I'm sorry i don't see that as ] What I see is a probable hoax, and there are good reasons why merly probable hoaxes, as opposed to admitted or velrly confirmed ones, are not speedy targets. I'm going to remove the tag, replace it with {{tl|hoax}}, and prod it. ] ] 06:01, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

== Admin nullifed a vote and discussion in UCFD. ==
<div class="boilerplate metadata discussion-archived" style="background-color: #dedaca; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
:''The following discussion is archived. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.'' {{#if:As pointed out, the DRV is happening, andy further complaints about jossi's actions should be directed to jossi personally - the admin's talk page is the first stop if you don't liek what they have been doing. ]] 02:41, 26 June 2007 (UTC)|''A summary of the conclusions reached follows.''
::As pointed out, the DRV is happening, andy further complaints about jossi's actions should be directed to jossi personally - the admin's talk page is the first stop if you don't liek what they have been doing. ]] 02:41, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
---- ----
I'm posting here after a particularly underwhelming interaction with an editor in the form of edit summaries. I'll need to provide the context of a brief content dispute which hopefully won't take too long and then get to the point. I'm not asking for anyone to take my side in the dispute.
}} <!-- from Template:discussion top-->

An admin characterized the vote and discussion at this ] as "result was delete" and nullified the vote and discussion on the basis of undisclosed and undiscussed "similar" categories.

In the ] as ] points out the actual vote was 30:11 '''Keep'''.

Apart from the merits of '''Keep''' and '''Delete''', the admin did not participate in the discussion and vote and therefore there was no discussion and no disclosure of these so-called similar deletions and their relevance to the specific categories which were the ''actual subject'' of the UCFD.

* This "result was delete" was arbitrary and, in fact, counter to the actual discussion and vote, and needs a speedy ''Overturn''. ] 01:30, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
*:] is that way. ] ] 01:48, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I notice what the policy says, what the vote says, and what happens often do not match. Perhaps I am missing something fundamental. ] 01:51, 26 June 2007 (UTC)


This is what DR is for. Quite frankly, I find the propensity of some to treat closing a discussion like a "super !vote". The closing admin should apply overriding policies and then look for a consensus. Being an admin doesn't mean that your opinion counts more than anyone else's. If you disagree with the consensus and there is not an inviolate policy to consider (like BLP, copyrights), then tough cookies. That said, this issue is on DRV so there really isn't anything to discuss here. I would strongly suggest, for all sides to think about, that the best solution by far - one that was suggested in the CFD and would meet most objections either way - is to simply remove these categories from userboxes. Userbox categories are essentially worthless for anything other than babel boxes. When people are adding 50 userboxes to their page, the odds that they would be of assistance in writing about all of those topics are remote. But if we removed categories from userboxes and you were only in a cat you really cared about ... well ... that's useful. --] 02:05, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

:This is an informal complaint against the admin who issued "result was delete" without (a) participation in the discussion and vote, (b) then citing "similar deletions" without their disclosure or discussion, and (c) disregarding (or selectively applying) the actual vote and discussion. This ] is a procedural complaint of arbitrary action by an admin. The merits of ''Keep'' and ''Delete'' for the UCFD are in the DR. ] 02:17, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

::I see you haven't asked the admin in question for an explanation yet, you went straight to this page. Anyway, it's common for an admin to close an AFD in which he/she was not involved. I don't understand why you complain about that. Also, the votes and comments in the discussion will be weighed at the closing admin's discretion. It's not a simple count. Like the others told you, if you disagree with the decision, you need to go to DRV.--] (]) 02:27, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

:::Yes. Talk to the admin yourself before coming here; it's way friendlier and things get done faster. --] ] 02:36, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

FYI, the closing admin usually is one that ''does not'' participate in the discussion. I ''never'' count votes in AfD or CfD discussions, I read the arguments and weight them against their pertinence and compliance with established understanding and policy. I closed with delete, given the fact that other similar categories have been deleted on the same basis. There is consensus in the community that these type of categories are not useful, are divisive, and do not help the project. Users can add themselves to categories such as Wikipiedians interested in XXXX, that are neutral categories that ''can'' help the project. I synthesized the comments: there were these that want it deleted, and there were those that wanted it kept on the basis that these categories can assist editors in finding each other for consultation. The comments in favor of keeping are addressed by the fact that "Wikipedians interested in XXX" can be used for the purpose raised in these arguments. If there are disagreements, ] is the mechanism to contest a close, where this is now being discussed. ] <small>]</small> 02:36, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.''<!-- from Template:discussion bottom --></div>


== 75.117.51.131 ==

This IP address has repeatedly posted unsourced information about "upcoming" virtual console releases. They will not stop, even after a message asking they not to was left. http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Special:Contributions&target=75.117.51.131 ] 01:52, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
:Lamename, that's a violation of ]. Next time you see that, you should report the offender to ]. The standard remedy is a 24h block for the IP address. ] <sup>]</sup> 03:53, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

== {{user|Ghirlandajo}} ==

{{resolved}}

Looks like a continuation of ]. He left a on DDima's talk which I found to be a bit agressive (it looked to me like it was directed at DDima). I replied to it on both and .


'']'' is a widely acclaimed comedy film from 1983, which is also widely acknowledged to have problematic elements by modern standards, including a scene in which the villain of the piece, stuck in a gorilla costume, is locked in a cage with a real gorilla, which is implied to sexually penetrate him without his consent.
A few hours later, I got a on my talk page accusing me of trolling. I Ghirlandajo about it, but .


The article states that ] demurred being cast in the role upon finding that out. for this claim is a ] on ], which contains the sentence
It looks to me like a violation of the warning mentioned here: ]. This user's history of disputes is mentioned here: ]. — ]<sup>(]|]|])</sup> 01:57, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
: ''Reportedly, Liddy was on board until he got to the part where Beeks .''
Reportedly ''by whom'' is not mentioned, let alone is there a direct quotation from Liddy. Plus as can be seen the words "becomes a gorilla's mate" are linked to a very poor quality, hand-held video of the scene in question playing on a television. This alone should be enough to raise serious questions about the use of this "source" in a featured article.


The content dispute began when I changed it like this () with the comment ''Don't mince words; the interaction between Beeks and the gorilla is rape played for laughs'':
I'm sure that a violation of an ArbCom warning has serious consequences. I would suggest a block, but I'm sure administrators know these policies better than I do. — ]<sup>(]|]|])</sup> 02:03, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
{{text diff|Liddy was interested in the offer until he learned that Beeks becomes the romantic partner of a gorilla.|Liddy was interested in the offer until he learned that Beeks is raped by a gorilla.}}


This was reverted () by {{u|Darkwarriorblake}} with the comment ''not what the source says''.
:It looks to me like an extremely petty content dispute that is getting blown out of proportion, and I can't see how this should lead to anyone getting blocked. You've cited an RfC that appears to be largely irrelevant, not an ArbCom case. But what do I know. ]]] 02:09, 26 June 2007 (UTC)


After thinking about it a moment I came to the conclusion described above about the quality of the source, and decided that it was better out than in, which is what I should have done in the first place.()
: I've examined the diffs--thank you for providing them--and see no need for blocks or other actions. ] <sup>]</sup> 02:16, 26 June 2007 (UTC)


{{text diff|...was offered the role of corrupt official Clarence Beeks. Liddy was interested in the offer until he learned that Beeks becomes the romantic partner of a gorilla. Paul Gleason took the role;...|...was offered the role of corrupt official Clarence Beeks with Paul Gleason eventually taking the role;...}}
: You were a bit agressive in your comment (really more of a warning) on Ghirlandajo's talk page... so it's not surprising that he didn't respond super-politely. I personally find his stance on infoboxes to be annoying but whatever... nothing wrong with having an opinion. It doesn't really seem like he's done anything wrong here. --] 02:20, 26 June 2007 (UTC)


My accompanying comment was ''(a) That was the source's voice, not Liddy's. It's called a euphemism. Demonstrable by how it links to a clip of the scene in which a man is raped by a gorilla. (b) Source says "reportedly" for this claim, without evidence. Poor quality source. Removing claim''
:: Okay, I'd rather be safe, that's why I posted it here. Thanks for commenting. — ]<sup>(]|]|])</sup> 02:28, 26 June 2007 (UTC)


That was reverted by Darkwarriorblake () with the comment ''Nothing wrong with Indiewire as a source, if there is I'd raise it at ]. Until then, there's a talk page for you to use per ]. Your comments sound agenda driven and therefore not Neutral.''
== NPAs, reverts, sock/meatpuppetry, pseudoscience continued ==


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


There's one final back and forth which was enough to motivate me to post here. First, I reverted that revert (, my only time using the actual "Undo" button today), with this comment: ''a good source doesn't say "reportedly" (ie, spread a rumor), it specifies the origin of a fact. My only "agenda" is with a crap listicle being used as a reference, regardless of who published it. Take it to talk if you want to argue for the continued inclusion of a trash ref in a featured article, or source the claim properly yourself''.
{{userlinks|Alexander the great1}} (aka "alexander veliki" in maknews) is now:


This was reverted - again - by Darkwarriorblake () with the comment '' How are you an admin? "rape played for laughs" is an agenda, this went through FA as is so ] and ] apply. You must go to the talk page, not I. I don't know if you're going through a bad time or something but this isn't how an admin should be acting or communicating with others, up to and including ]''
*persistently reverting/adding un-encyclopedic information on the previously stated articles, sometimes obviously unlogged. ,
*also here where he is removing bot html comments for unknown copyright images (among others) and calling people "vandals" for reverting his edits ,
*spamming across 3 talks some totally unworthy sources as "western references". (commentary on the source ])
*has the firm belief that countries dictate what should be written in history books (or Misplaced Pages), which leads in absurd claims... See ] for an example (and a laugh -sorry).
*calling people names off-wiki repeatedly
*and soliciting organized reverts (link above)
*and asking for ] in their site (having seen our previous ANI thread linked in the beginning of this comment -again the same link as right above)


At this point it's gone firmly into the realm of knee-jerk reversions, because if Darkwarriorblake took the time to read the article which they've (is this ]? Kind of feels that way), they would get down to the ] section. Which says "some critics have praised the film while highlighting elements that they believe aged poorly, including racial language, the use of blackface, and the implied rape of Beeks by a gorilla", cited to articles in four major publications. Or, you know, even .
I just described how my evening was like today. There is really very little I can do to stop what is an apparent case of rampant nationalistic edits ad absurdium. I'm going to bed. ]] 02:26, 26 June 2007 (UTC)


So anyhow regardless of whether the Indiewire source is deemed suitable or not, I'm just wondering what the feeling here is about someone making goofy assertions on the record that another editor has "an agenda" (what agenda could it be?) and may not be emotionally stable, which really doesn't feel like ] at all. &nbsp;— ] <span style="color:#900">•</span> ] 20:03, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
:Hrrm, this seems a bit excessive.
:*I've added a second source for the claim. Really this should've been the first option rather than removing the content.
:*The first summary was, as stated, "Don't mince words; the interaction between Beeks and the gorilla is rape played for laughs". "Rape played for laughs" is a loaded comment and not something said in the article or the source text, so it's a personal opinion, it's not neutral, it's agenda-driven.
:*When this was reverted, the editor just removed the content entirely claiming IndieWire was unreliable. There is, as far as I'm aware, nothing wrong with Indiewire. I've since found a second source, the Telegraph, which is reliable per ].
:*The editor ignored WP: BRD when raised, and as an admin they should adhere to policy.
:*The editor states that they are an admin on their page. Assuming this is true, the aggressiveness of their edits, hyper focus on the single area, and use of words like "crap listicle" seemed out of line with what I, personally, would expect from an admin on Misplaced Pages, certainly someone who has been so for nearly two decades. Perhaps the edit summary wasn't the place to have that discussion but, as stated, they weren't adhering to WP: BRD to start a discussion, and in the interim the article needed putting back to the status quo.
:*I find accusations of OWNERSHIP often tend to come when people don't get their way. Which is fine. I have plenty of reversions on the page for people adding unsourced content and there are plenty of changes as well. I find someone removing sourced content and me putting the sourced content back to not ''really'' be something you can fling ownership at.
:*Within the context of the film, Beeks does become the romantic partner of the gorilla, it seemed more appropriate and encylcopedic text than just saying 'rape', and neither source I've added says that either.
:*Anyways, my edit history shows I'm a massive contributor and helper and it's nearly Xmas, and I don't feel like engaging with this any further, good luck Hex. ] (]) 20:27, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
::Of course you don't, having ignored the actual matter of your conduct that I'm raising here. Your comments about the content of the article are irrelevant. &nbsp;— ] <span style="color:#900">•</span> ] 20:43, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
*Hex's position is not wholly supported, although in the entire issue, their toolset is irrelevant. There was no incivility on either part, and an all-out edit war seems to have been averted.{{pb}}Fundamentally the change Hex wanted to make was pure OR; rape may have been intimated—or, as Hex themself admits, implied—but its never overtly stated and is a wholly loaded term. This is the interpretation of an editor, not of secondary sources. If there is a pron=blem with Indywire as a source—currently used in —take it to WP:RSN. If it's disputed that it's a high quality source per WP:FA?, then take it to WT:FAC. Accusations of OWNership are as unhelpful—and as much an aspersion—as accusations of agenda-led editing. In fact, for OWNership, Hex should read the relevant policy: here, it is WP:FAOWN, which not only allows for careful stewardship of featured material, but requires significant changes to the consensus version to be discussed on talk; I don't suppose there's any suggestion that introducing rape—particularly "played for laughs"—wouldn't be a significant addition.{{pb}}Really though, this is an overblown content dispute which should have started with ''one revert'' each, and ended on the talk page. --]'']''] 21:10, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
*:"Never overtly stated... 'played for laughs' be a significant addition" - with John Landis, the director. {{talk quote|One of the executives was deeply appalled by a man being sexually molested by a gorilla. And I said you know, it's a joke and it goes by very quickly. But the first preview was very successful and it all went away. ''''}}
*:Feel free to amend the article on that basis. I'm certainly not interested in spending any more time on it. &nbsp;— ] <span style="color:#900">•</span> ] 22:48, 23 December 2024 (UTC)


===Followup===
:: I have not persistently reverted anything within a reasonable time period. I have reverted articles twice maximum.
I just want to say that, now that we've had an ANI thread on the subjeect of Gordon Liddy's feelings about portraying the romantic partner of a gorilla, I can die happy.
::I only reverted the Alexander the Great article twice because it sounded more neutral and once because someone deleted my source.
::I did not create the History of Macedonia template
::I have not spammed anything. That link was related to the talk pages.
::I have nothing to do with the forum you posted


While we're on the subject, recites that {{tq|Prior to his departure from the FBI in 1962, Liddy sought admission to various bars.}} I'm curious to know whether this is meant to imply that Liddy had a , and whether this could have had any bearing on the whole gorilla romantic partner situation. ]]
] 03:02, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
{{abot}}


== User Stationmanagerskidrow removing information on ] page ==
==]==


] once again started Edit War without discussing before revert the issues of she/he consider, "random videos posted on google and tripod websites and communist lobby groups are not RS."] 02:40, 26 June 2007 (UTC)


] is repeatedly removing information about a recent incident involving a Jewish DJ at ]. They say that it is incorrect information, even though it is sourced. The name also states clearly that this is a company account. Lastly, they have continued this behavior even after being warned on their talk page. ] (]) 03:07, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
:...Sounds like a very good call. In any case, I'm not sure what you expect us to do. ]]] 02:43, 26 June 2007 (UTC)


:User is now editing using ] ] (]) 03:34, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
:Should we move it to ] to match ]? Or would that title not be appropriate? ] <sup>]</sup> 02:52, 26 June 2007 (UTC)


::This is a content dispute and the article is being actively edited by many different editors. However, no discussion about the disagreements has occurred on the article talk page which is where this discussion should be happening. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 04:37, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
::You should move it back to ] to match ], that is the ideal version to explain the "State Terrorism by Fools".] 03:14, 26 June 2007 (UTC)


That article probably should be speedied as an A7 for not containing any assertions of notability; which obscures that Stationmanagerskidrow appears to have been edit warring on it with an undisclosed COI, and presumably was ]ing as , and if so violated 3RR as well. It's probably best for me not to take administrative action here tonight as I won't be around later/tomorrow to deal with any followups, but something should be done here beyond just saying "take it to the talk page." ]] <small><sup>Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!</sup></small> 06:22, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
:Not only it's protected at the version before the revert of ] and she/he should be reminded Misplaced Pages is not someone's "grandma's property".] 02:54, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
:The page was longer, but sourced (all but?) soley to the station's site and it's been trimmed down to what it is now. Given the repeated edit-warring by IPs I've semi-protected the page for two days for now. - ] <sub>]</sub> 07:59, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
::Very good call. How about you, you know, actually read what he wrote when he reverted, instead of just blindly reverting back. ] <small><font color="teal">]</font></small> 02:56, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
::] and ] message added . I'm just about to make myself thoroughly ] by seeing what I can do about the ] article. ] (]) 🦘 09:11, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Well see ] about proper published materials not random stuff posted on the internet. We've gone through this before. Nobody considers these sources acceptable except a group of single purpose Tamil lobbyists. eg, see where Samir and Ghirlandajo tell you the same thing. ''']''' (]) 02:59, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
::::] - We have Y, DakotaKahn, Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington, Nishkid64, Dineshkannambadi, Naveenbm telling you that these are not RS (and you asked for neutral opinions, and you got them). Only FayssalF thought these ethnic lobby groups and random websites are acceptable. ''']''' (]) 03:10, 26 June 2007 (UTC)


== Insults ==
::Once you go through this, you will realise even the neutral editors ] and ] are the same view of ] meets ].] 03:36, 26 June 2007 (UTC)


:::So those who don't think it is RS don't count? ''']''' (]) 03:43, 26 June 2007 (UTC)


I'd like to report an incident related to ]. A person under IP already accused me of being "obsessed". Now someone (possibly the same person) . Please also see . I guess we can always agree to disagree with other people, but this is going a bit too far. Thank you. ] (]) 09:30, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
::: That's what we have a lenghthy discussion at ] and ] has given the final verdict - ] meets ]. If you want to by-pass his verdict find some other way in wikipedia to determine whether ] meets ] or not, than just shouting about others - "So those who don't think it is RS don't count?".] 03:57, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
: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)
::: You should discuss case by case basis and should revert and not the "whole scale revert" - A clear vandalism. ] 03:06, 26 June 2007 (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)
::::You are the one who never discussed at all and simply cited vandalism. You are a single topic editor who knows about ANI on your sixth edit and hibernates until an incident comes up and you are back in five minutes.....''']''' (]) 03:10, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
==Nlkyair012 and LLM chatbots ==
*{{Noping|Nlkyair012}}
This editor has been constantly using AI chatbots to respond and write messages. They are a single purpose account for glorifying the ] caste using unreliable ] era sources, I and several other experienced editors have taken time and effort to respond to their endless queries and ] generated using ChatGPT. They have posted AI generated walls of text on multiple noticeboards such as ] and ] and including here , accusing me of vandalism.


Despite my repeated requests and even a final warning to them (including a request by {{ping|ActivelyDisinterested}}) they are still continuing to do it. Their messages are repeating the same argument again and again and are frankly just ] that bring up fictitious guidelines or misrepresent the existing ones. Several editors have told them that Raj era sources are not reliable yet they continue to ask for more evidence on why that is the case based on AI generated claims of supposed academic value or neutrality. This is getting very disruptive and taking up valuable contributor time to respond to their endless AI responses which take a few seconds to generate. I have alerted them about ] and ], I would appreciate it if someone could enforce a restriction on this user from at minimum caste area. - ] (]) 13:07, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
::::I think you are interested in my old history how did I manage on my sixth edit at ANI, then you can dig my sandboxes and reveal them to public how you have done it to ], the case is already going on at this ANI/Incidents just you scroll above.] 03:44, 26 June 2007 (UTC)


:Hello @Ratnahastin,
:::::Tamilnet seems to be ok. But tamilnation, eelamnet, etc are ] mouthpieces.<b>]]</b> 03:12, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
:To start with I should admit that I am sorry for all the inconvenience that I may have caused as a result of my actions. It was never my intention to take people’s time or skew the conversation in a certain way. I appreciate the core idea to contribute the thoughts to the Wiki and share it borne in mind the overall rules and policies of this program.
: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. ==
I reviewed the edit history of Lusthead. He appears to be an essentially one-purpose account primarily interested in flaring up "Sri Lankan and Indian conflicts". My policy towards combative one-purpose accounts is strict. I would suggest a community block if he sticks to his disruptive policy of forum shopping and revert warring in the future. ] ought to be protected until the dispute is resolved. --]<sup>]</sup> 05:52, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
{{atop|1=Page protected, and now this admin is flashing back to his youth going to Frisch's Big Boy in ]. - ] <sub>]</sub> 22:37, 24 December 2024 (UTC)}}
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)
==Impersonation==
:<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)
Recently a rash of pseudo-Hindu users have propped up on the map. These users have been masquerading as Hkelkar socks and seem to be assisted (or the same as) some anti-Hindu socks. Here are a list of users that are suspiciously new and way too knowledgeable on wikipolicy and which users to contact for their POV-feuds. These users should be blocked anyways, so I will not take spurious allegations of facilitating meat/socking by sympathizers of ] very lightly.<b>]]</b> 03:04, 26 June 2007 (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 ==
*{{user|chowk}} (obvious impersonator of Hkelkar)
*{{user|Gr8India}} (impersonator of hkelkar, currently blocked for allegedly being hkelkar)
*{{user|74.101.181.203}} (Probably related to {{user|Siddiqui}})
*{{user|The_king_of_swords}} (A probable sock of {{user|Kuntan}})
*{{user|Shipslucky}} (A probable sock of {{user|His excellency}}
*{{user|72.226.197.61}} (BhaiSaab/His excellency masquerading as Hkelkar)
*{{user|143.111.60.146}} (sock of {{user|Kathanar}})
*{{user|Jorodo}} (probable {{user|Kuntan}} sock)


This is a large scale impersonation, sock, and vandalism operation. These users are all masquerading as other people or attempting to shed their identities. Something dirtier than Hkelkar is afoot, and Hkelkar stopped socking (at the behest of {{user|AMbroodEY}}) several weeks ago.<b>]]</b> 03:04, 26 June 2007 (UTC)


All but 2 of user's edit summaries are "Fixed Typo" when they are in fact partially updating statistical information on the page. Have left multiple messages/warnings on TP, with no response. ] (]) 16:03, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
:It's very simple. Genuine Kelkarsocks should be blocked under the terms of his ArbComm-issued ban. Ersatz Kelkarsocks should be blocked because they're only here to cause trouble. ] 03:17, 26 June 2007 (UTC)


== Lil Dicky Semi-Protection ==
::I agree that these accounts should be blocked. But see, right now {{user|Hkelkar}} is paying for a crime he did not commit. {{user|His excellency}} (arbcom on him right now I think) and {{user|Kuntan}} are getting away with impersonation. And Hkelkar's ban is reset under false pretenses, meaning he wont be back until next June instead of next May.<b>]]</b> 03:46, 26 June 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)
:::Actually, the block/ban is indefinite now. I have no opinion on this matter, but merely commenting on an inaccuracy in the above post. —''']''' 03:52, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
{{abot}}


== Request for Review of Neutrality and Repeated Actions ==
==Overzealous "linkspam" deletion==
{{Atop|This complaint has no merit and does not require administrative intervention.--] (]) 18:08, 24 December 2024 (UTC)}}
{{user|Requestion}} has been deleting all "External Links" entries on all pages that link to pages on eserver.org, claiming that these are "linkspam". Alas, these links are typically to original source material and scholarly articles (typically concerning 19th Century American abolitionists) that are exactly what Misplaced Pages encourages people to use the "External Links" section of a page for. In response to complaints about these overzealous deletions, Requestion does not engage in honest give-and-take, but instead claims that his actions are justified based on discussions "at WPSPAM and COIN" (which may be true for all I know, but they certainly aren't justified by the current Misplaced Pages external links policy), obliquely threatens to have people who revert his deletions blocked, and leaves unjustified spam warning boilerplate on their talk pages. Requestion has also said, in frustration at these reversions, "I'm going to build a bot that will do the maintenance deletion automatically".


Dear admin,
See, for instance, the '']'' page.
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.
This is harming dozens of Misplaced Pages pages by removing some very useful content of the sort that is encouraged by current Misplaced Pages guidelines. It seems difficult to correct using the normal peer editing and discussion of Misplaced Pages. And it threatens to become a greater problem if Requestion's already overzealous deletions become robotic. For these reasons, I raise this as an incident here. -] 03:10, 26 June 2007 (UTC)


Thank you for your attention to this issue. Please feel free to reach out if further clarification is needed.
: I'm a participant in this discussion, so not a neutral bystander, but I agree with Moorlock's summary. Requestion has and repeatedly to substantive comments about the suitability of these links, and has been repeatedly reverting without discussion at numerous pages (e.g. ]). -- ]|] 03:23, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
Hazar ] (]) 17:45, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
:@], whether the NPOV tag is needed or not should first be discussed on the article's talk page. Also, see the large notice at the top of this page: you are required to notify the editor you are reporting. ]&nbsp;] 17:53, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
::The editor is also called Psychloppos, not Psycholoppos. I have notified them for the OP. &ndash; ] (]) (]) 17:59, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
:I wouldn't give a chatbot-written thread the time of day. HS, ]. —] ] <sup><small>] ]</small></sup> 18:05, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
{{Abot}}


== Disruptive behavior from IP ==
:Per COI and SPAM policies once coordinating linkfarming has been detected, the proper procedure is to remove all the links and then see if the editors on the individual articles who are actually there to edit the article and not there just to promote a site restore them one by one for actual, honest to goodness encyclopedic reasons. A bot in this case would be extremely helpful. ] 04:35, 26 June 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)
== Second opinion requested on sockpuppetry allegation ==


:"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)
I need a second opinion on a sockpuppetry allegation (in fact, the second allegation made by one editor against another). Briefly, the IP evidence suggests that {{user|Willie Peter}} is editing from the same ISP as various ] and also misspells grammar as "grammer" in the same way. I don't see any other similarities, but a summary of the accuser's evidence is below my long comment ] and in the section below (my comment is about the previous sockpuppetry allegation). I would like a second opinion about the new sockpuppetry allegation, the accuser's behavior, and anything else that people are interested to give.--] - ] 06:05, 26 June 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)
: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)

Latest revision as of 22:43, 24 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)

    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.

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

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

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

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

    It would help if you named the editor and signed your name to figure out what you are talking about; a noticeboard only works if you give us notice about the subject and what is happening. Nate • (chatter) 23:39, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
    The editor appears to be PerfectSoundWhatever, based on the link under the word "this" as well as this notification. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 23:51, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
    My apology, this is my very first time making such a post. The other pages o have spoken on seemed to have signed themselves automatically. Will remember this going forward. And yes, that was the user, posted this using my phone so I didn't want to mis-spell their name, just linked instead. Sxbbetyy (talk) 17:01, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
    (Non-administrator comment) IMO the best practice is that in the event of a content dispute, the article should be reverted to the status quo of how the article's content appeared before the dispute started, until such a time that consensus is established to re-add it (see: WP:STATUSQUO). It seems like the beginning of the content that is in dispute was added on 18 August 2024, the dispute began a few weeks later on 23 September 2024 and has been ongoing ever since.In this case, since the article existed in a relatively steady state for several months (or even years?) previous to the disputed material being added, I think it'd be wise to leave the disputed content out of the article until the discussion comes to a close. RachelTensions (talk) 00:07, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
    I have been seeing this opinion from a few editors and even one admin on how to interpret this article. However, the first few sentences in that section do outright state to avoid reverting the disputed content prior to a consensus. And prior to opening this report, I asked several admins on the topic and got a response that reverting the disputed content immediately is incorrect per WP:STATUSQUO as it bypasses the consensus building process. I was advised that the content should instead be tagged as disputed rather than be outright removed. The offending user was made aware of the relevant policies but has nonetheless engaging in edit warring to keep it reverted, hence this report. Sxbbetyy (talk) 17:13, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
    The status quo of an article constitutes implicit consensus (WP:IMPLICITCONSENSUS). The person trying to include disputed content in an article despite it not being status quo is the one that could be construed as attempting to bypass the consensus building process, not the person trying to maintain status quo until discussion takes place. RachelTensions (talk) 17:20, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
    Correct, and at no point was the definition of what constitutes the status quo ever in contention. In fact, if you review the edit history of the article you can see that the disputed content was the status quo via implicit consensus at the time PSW chose to first outright revert the content, and then continued to revert it as others tried to restore it (both before and after the consensus discussion began). Sxbbetyy (talk) 23:38, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
    the disputed content was the status quo via implicit consensus at the time PSW chose to first outright revert the content
    Not really, I personally wouldn't define "been there a few weeks" as status quo.I think maybe the other replies to this thread provide pretty good reasoning to take a step back and say "hey maybe I'm the one in the wrong here" instead of talking in circles RachelTensions (talk) 00:30, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
    Personally I think the number of contributions since the edit where it has gone unchanged is a more useful metric, especially on low traffic pages such as this one. Regardless, per the policy you cite, there seems to be no official Misplaced Pages stance on what exact criteria are needed for a contribution to be considered the current status quo, beyond it having been unchallenged in subsequent contributions (which is the case here).
    As for the rest of your comment, there seems to be a high amount of band wagoning and "Proof by assertion" going on in the rest of this. Or people trying to use this report as an extension of the dispute discussion on the article's talk page. Hopefully more actual admins to chime in on the topic as I don't actually want to waste my time talking in circles.
    On that note thanks for actually taking the time and baseline minimal effort to engage in a discussion where you actually support your point and don't just devolve into repeating the same talking points over and over. It's a nice change of pace. Sxbbetyy (talk) 02:48, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
    I am the editor being discussed here. I'll provide a summary of events since the initial statement by Sxbbetyy is misleading.
    Myself and the editor had a content dispute at Team Seas (1) and following circular discussion, I stopped engaging since I felt I had laid out my points. Per WP:STATUSQUO, I maintained the state of the article to before the dispute. I requested for a third opinion, which was answered by @BerryForPerpetuity:, who agreed the statement should be removed, albeit for a different reason than mine. I took this 2-1 as rough consensus. I also posted the dispute on two WikiProjects, and have received no response so far. Sxbbetyy reached out to three admins about the matter, @Sergecross73, Oshwah, and Pbsouthwood:. The Sergecross73 discussion can be summarized as Sergecross believing that I haven't engaged in misconduct, and that I have presented a "plausible, good-faith interpretation of SYNTH". Sxbbetyy then accused Sergecross73 of not acting in good faith. Oshwah did not respond to the post on their talk page, but @BusterD: did, essentially agreeing that the sourcing does not back up the claim in the content dispute. Sxbbetyy received help on Pbsouthwood's talk page about responding to a content dispute. And now we're here.
    Throughout these interactions, Sxbbetyy has demonstrated a failure to assume good faith, refuses to accept that they may be wrong, and WP:BLUDGEONs talk pages, refusing to let the other editor have the last word. Frankly, this is a massive waste of editor time: it should have been a brief talk page discussion then an RfC. Apologies for all the pings. — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 00:23, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
    This summarization in itself leaves out critical context, (such as berry's concern being alleviated and them no longer expressing a desire to remove the content), the specifics of why that conversation with Serge ended the way it did despite my repeated attempts to engage with them in good faith, and the entire discussion with pbsouthwood (who quite definitively explained that the behavior PSW was engaged in was not correct). So I urge all involved to go read those topics to get the correct context through your own eyes and then discuss any concerns from what you see here. That being the case, it seems pretty clear cut imo. Sxbbetyy (talk) 17:20, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
    Just to be clear, in no way did I express that I didn't want the content to be removed. I did not receive a notification for your reply, and I wouldn't have engaged either way. — BerryForPerpetuity (talk) 17:24, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
    Yes, I would leave that material out of the article. Whilst it may not exactly be synthesis per se, it is certainly editorialising ("the removal of that amount of marine debris is of negligible consequence...") unless there is an actual source that says this by making a link between between the two statistics (the amount of waste removed by Team Seas and the rate at which waste is entering the ecosystem). And even then, I would say that such an edit would need to say something like "However, ARandomNewspaper pointed out that ...". Black Kite (talk) 00:34, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
    That is actually no longer the content that is being disputed. If you look at the latest version that got reverted on the article you can see the current version. I had made edits to it precisely because of valid WP:NPOV concerns brought to my attention by PSW. However, their dispute with the content remains with the claim that is is synthesis rather than any other concern. Which they have been thus far unable to obtain a consensus on. Sxbbetyy (talk) 17:27, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
    • I have some pretty serious WP:IDHT concerns about the topic starter here. They came to me for help (no idea how/why me, I have no connection to this dispute) and I repeatedly told them I didn't see any misconduct, and then they started attacking me when I refused to agree with them. And now this. This is a very simple content dispute, with a very simple no consensus means no change outcome. I've told them this. It's a disappointing time sink on a rather trivial content dispute. Sergecross73 msg me 00:52, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
      At no point was he "attacked". I defended myself after he became hostile with me (as anyone can read in our convo, I stated multiple times that I would leave and did not want to be a burden if they didn't want to engage with this, but he made no such objections and continued). Eventually he just became outright hostile and refused to explain their points any further, devolving the conversation into them repeating themselves over and over, its all there to read on his talk page. As for why I contacted him, I wanted to ensure I chose impartially so I just randomly looked at the currently active admins at the time and he was the first one I found. Sxbbetyy (talk) 18:23, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
      The discussion is right here, if anyone wants to look. The "attack" I'm referring to you is your accusation that I responded to you in bad faith. I was not involved in the dispute, have no stance on it, and had no pre-conceived notions about either of you - what in the world would my motivations be for "bad faith responses"? It doesn't make any sense. You simply didn't get the response you wanted, and proceeded to badger me on it. Did I get vaguely irritated when I volunteered my time to review and comment on a dispute I had no stance or interest in, only to get all sorts of sour grapes responses on it? Yeah, sure, but who wouldn't? Sergecross73 msg me 18:44, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
    • I'm here from my input at the 3rd opinion request. This is nothing more than a trivial content dispute, I see no reason for this to be at ANI. I somewhat agree with the claim of synthesis, it becomes more susceptible to incorrect information, and from my analysis it seemed like the claim in the disputed content was completely wrong. Two different sources, from two different time periods. My $0.02: The claim of stonewalling is ridiculous, there was ample good-faith discussion based on existing policy and guidelines. This editor does not assume good faith, it appears that he claims that editors disagreeing are acting in bad faith. From him to administrator Sergecross73: "I'm not wasting time engaging with you if you aren't going to speak with me in good faith." It seems that he roots his argument based on the editor who removed it rather than the content itself. Very unfortunate waste of time. — BerryForPerpetuity (talk) 15:31, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
      Exactly. It's not "stonewalling" that's happening here. PerfectSoundWhatever has discussed at-length at the talk page. They're simply not willing to talk circles indefinitely. And we don't require that of editors. I've urged Sxbbetyy to, rather that spin their wheels arguing with the same person endlessly in a stalemate, to try to get other participants to take part. But they've refused, and instead decided to move their arguing to ANI instead. As I noted to them in one of my last comments to them, if they spent half as much effort in consensus-building as they did complaining and arguing, they could have built a consensus by now... Sergecross73 msg me 17:30, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
      Reading any of what I wrote in this dispute shows clearly that is not the case. Also, the quoted sentence is completely taken out of context.
      Here is what was said in the mesaage before that they left out, "Not really the logical conclusion one draws from reading any of what I wrote here, where I asked multiple times for you to explain your reasoning in your replies (instead your response was to repeat yourself without offering further explanation), but if that is what you want to take away from this that's fine by me. I'm not wasting time engaging with you if you aren't going to speak with me in good faith."
      The message as a whole was replying to was a passive aggressive insult that didn't progress that conversation, hence the response as it was clearly not an example of engagement in good faith.Sxbbetyy (talk) 18:34, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
    Also, it looks like the participants in the dispute on the Team Seas article are acting as if this report is an extension of that dispute discussion.
    This is a report of edit warring to revert disputed content prior to a consensus being reached (there was no consensus prior to the reversion and there still is no consensus, as admitted by PSW themselves in that very dispute and In their latest revert message, no idea why now in this report they are trying to claim that there is suddenly consensus for removal).
    This is not a report on the dispute itself, just to make that very clear since those involved are responding as if it is. Sxbbetyy (talk) 18:41, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
    You've still got this backward. You need to show a consensus to keep your content in the article, as everyone else has been telling you. WP:ONUS is directly on point, and I'll quote it here: The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content. MrOllie (talk) 18:53, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
    Thank you. I have tried to inform them of this many times and many ways. I do not know why they cannot wrap their head around the concept. Conceptually, it would be very problematic if we were required to retain every disputed content until consensus ruled it out. It wouldn't be workable. Sergecross73 msg me 19:02, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
    Nobody is arguing WP:ONUS here...not in the dispute and not here in this report. The point is that the content is being removed prior to there being a consensus on if it should be removed.
    I was directly advised by admin Pbsouthwood that the removal of disputed content BEFORE any consensus has been reached is not allowed (save for specific situations, none of which apply to the disputed content) as this bypasses the consensus building process. Here is the talk page where I was advised this. This is echoed with the wording in WP:STONEWALLING and WP:STATUSQUO. Here is the direct quote from the latter, "To eliminate the risk of an edit war, do not revert away from the status quo ante bellum during a dispute discussion. Instead, add an appropriate tag indicating the text is disputed. For an article, many of the inline dispute tags are appropriate. For other pages, is good. Leave the status quo and the tag in place until the discussion concludes." Sxbbetyy (talk) 19:58, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
    The point is that the content is being removed prior to there being a consensus on if it should be removed. <--- No. This is your problem. What you are saying here is incorrect. Policies say the opposite of this. You are not going to get support at ANI. In fact, the longer you keep going with this WP:IDHT insistence that community practice is actually the opposite of what policies plainly say it is, the more likely it is you're going to find yourself blocked for disruption. Pbsouthwood didn't tell you this either (what he wrote doesn't match what you've been doing), and your initial question did not properly represent the situation at hand. But we can invite him here to see if he actually supports what you're doing here: @Pbsouthwood:, what say you? MrOllie (talk) 20:06, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
    This entire comment serves absolutely zero purpose whatsoever. You're parroting what others have already said with no supporting evidence. Along with throwing in an oddly included threat that is completely nonsensical and wholly unwarranted.
    And while I could point out the myriad of ways your claim about what Pbsouthwood said was inaccurate, that would pretty much involve reposting his reply, which is a waste since anyone can already go to his talk page and read it themselves.
    So at this point, if you need that admin to come here and tell you what they already said themselves, more power to you. Would save us all a ton of time to get an authoritative answer on this, especially with another admin holding the opposite view point, in spite of the specific policy wording. Sxbbetyy (talk) 23:08, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
    No matter how much you insist otherwise, there does not need to be an established consensus for the removal of content. Drop the stick. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:28, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
    I'm not the one insisting otherwise...this report only exists because an admin told me otherwise. And as I've posted in my previous replies, the wording in the policies clearly support that. Makes me question how many have actually bothered to really read these policies... Sxbbetyy (talk) 02:22, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
    The other admin told you nothing about the removal of WP:SYNTH, which is always appropriate. Back away from the dead horse. - The Bushranger One ping only 03:19, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
    1. This report is not an extension of the dispute discussion for that article, if you want to involve yourself in that discussion, do so there, do not hijack this report.
    2. The disputed content is plainly not WP:SYNTH as I explain on the talk page in great length, with nobody thus far having provided valid examples as to how it is.
    3. If you are going to make the claim that any WP:SYNTH concerns warrant immediate reversion without consensus, please feel free to share the quote in the relevant policy that says this. I have not found any such wording and instead found that what is present matches up with what PBsouthwood informed me.
    Sxbbetyy (talk) 17:17, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
    Come on, how many people need to tell you you're wrong? Sergecross73 msg me 02:05, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
    At this point I say that my advice was given without a specific context, and without prejudice. I maintain that it is more collegial and polite to discuss a removal of unsourced but plausible content before removing it, as it can often avoid disputes of this kind, but it is not forbidden to arbitrarily delete content that an editor plausibly considers inappropriate provided the relevant reason is given. It is always the responsibility of the person advocating inclusion to provide a reference when challenged, regardless of the process of challenge.
    Some forms of synthesis are acceptable. If a conclusion is logically inevitable based on undisputed factual premises, or is a simple mathematical calculation, we routinely accept claims that may not be specifically stated in a source, but we may require the logic to be explained, as it may not be obvious to the reader.
    At the risk of being hoist with my own petard, I also refer readers to WP:Don't be a dick (looks like that essay has been expunged, try Meta:Don't be a jerk). · · · Peter Southwood : 06:59, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
    I think many of us used to the mess editors adding unsourced content can create would strongly oppose leaving in unsourced content just because it's plausible. The standard should instead be at a minimum that you believe the claim made is most likely correct and sourceable not simply that it's plausible. Although ultimately such discussions are a little silly anyway. If editors would just add sources rather than leaving it for someone else because they're claiming it's unlikely to be challenged or whatever, there would be a need for others to decide whether to query or remove unsourced content. Nil Einne (talk) 09:56, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
    I was suggesting tagging with citation needed while you wait a reasonable time for a response, but as we know some of us do not have the patience and just revert. It in not unheard of to know something, but not have a source handy at the time. What is obvious to one may be totally obscure to others. This is acceptable within policy and guidelines. You could start a RfC to have the guidelines changed, but I suspect it would not get through as being a bit bitey. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood : 12:47, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
    Yes, what you say is true, that's absolutely an acceptable approach. But that's not really the problem at hand here. The bigger issue is that Sxbbetyy appears to be believe that the alternative approach - reverting per STATUSQUO or NOCONSENSUS - is somehow misconduct, and that's simply not true. They're not arguing about if your approach is valid, they're arguing that its compulsory, and they're attempting to report a user for not following your possible approach, which is completely meritless. Sergecross73 msg me 17:31, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
    Please do not put words in my mouth. The only reason this report exists is because Peter Southwood advised that this was how I should proceed if the editor participating in this no-consensus reverting continued to do so and was unreceptive to further discussion. (Both are true by admission of PSW themselves). Sxbbetyy (talk) 18:22, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
    Yes, I've seen that discussion, but you presented the situation to them entirely in hypotheticals that lacks crucial context. You frame PSW as unwilling to engage in discussion but omit the fact that PSW did engage in extensive discussion already. You accuse PSW of edit warring to keep their information in the article, but omit the fact that you're equally guilty of edit warring, as you're responsible for every single counter-revert in the situation. I would think the near-unanimous rejection of this ANI report would indicate that this was not, in fact, a good thing to report. Best case scenario, this is archived with no action, but I'd be shocked if it didn't result in a WP:BOOMERANG. Sergecross73 msg me 18:44, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
    I don't know why you are attempting to present the entire discussion on that talk page as some sort of proof that PSW was willing to engage in further discussion to halt the behavior this report is about. At no point whatsoever did PSW ever indicate anything like that; if they did this report wouldn't exist as the discussions on your talk page or Peter Southwood's page would have never needed to happen. Not to mention if you take the time to actually read the discussion, you see that most of it is on the specifics of the validity of the WP:SYNTH claim made by PSW, eventually culminating in PSW actually asserting that they will not stop change their position on this and then outright refusing to engage any further.
    And now you accuse me of edit warring by citing the entire recent edit history of the page...this isn't fooling anyone who actually bothers to read any of the revert messages and examine the timeline of when they occurred (talk about omitting "crucial context").
    Beyond just slandering my character, I don't really see what these kind of spurious claims accomplish. It wastes everyone's time, makes yourself look biased and hostile, and adds nothing to the conversation. Keep things civil please, I really shouldn't have to tell you of all people that basic expectation. Sxbbetyy (talk) 02:38, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
    Wait...are you seriously trying to suggest that, even though you were the only one who reverted him every single time, he was edit warring and you weren't? Sergecross73 msg me 02:50, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
    If you are going to continue to twist words and make false claims immediately after being asked to keep things civil, maybe it would be best for all involved if you just moved on from this conversation. Sad that even has to be stated at this point, it should be a given. Sxbbetyy (talk) 17:25, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
    Yet another IDHT response where you try to baselessly chastize me rather than address anything anyone is saying to you. Sergecross73 msg me 18:14, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
    What a choice to post this exact type reply to my last message... not to mention the sheer absurdity of it. To claim that I've never addressed anyone's points in my replies is so easily and visibly wrong (literally this entire topic is full of my detailed replies to people's concerns, including this very reply) that it's almost insulting to the rest of the people participating in this or to anyone who even chooses to read that message. It's as if you think nobody can see the rest of this discussion (or even the comments directly above it). Sxbbetyy (talk) 11:52, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
    Thank you for taking the time to respond and my apology for any inconvenience it may have caused. Ive tried to keep it as civil as possible, but there seems to be a very hostile air in this discussion by those with the dissenting opinion. As for how this situation is to be resolved, would it be appropriate to restore the currently disputed content with the appropriate tags (as it is sourced and was the statusquo on the page at the time of reversion)? Or is there something further that must be done here? I'm generally unfamiliar with how ANIs actually function. Sxbbetyy (talk) 17:52, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
    Have you considered starting an WP:RFC? The fact is that you made a WP:BOLD addition to the article; someone else objected to it, which means you now ought to seek consensus for your addition. As numerous people have told you, none of the relevant policies and guidelines (WP:ONUS, WP:BRD, WP:QUO, etc) would allow you to make a recent addition the "default" the way you want, but more generally - the problem is that you're trying to dig through policy for something that will make your preferred version the default, allowing you to have it in the article without having to demonstrate consensus for it even in the face of challenges. Even if the policies and guidelines I listed were on your side this would still be a bad way to approach it. You have a conflict, your goal should be to resolve it by making consensus as clear as possible - figuring out what the crux of the dispute is and then, if you can't reach a compromise, holding an RFC to see where consensus lies. Also, I have to point out that just by a quick nose count of people who have weighed in on talk, I'm seeing a dispute that is now three-to-one against you. That is a consensus - not a massive one, maybe an RFC will pull in a bunch of people that say something else, but it doesn't make sense for you to keep demanding a consensus to remove something you added when there actually is such a consensus on talk. You've disagreed with their arguments but they're not obliged to WP:SATISFY you; ultimately if you think your arguments are so strong and theirs are so weak, the only real option for you at this point is to start an RFC and hope that you can demonstrate that there. --Aquillion (talk) 04:10, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
    As mentioned earlier in the discussion, this report is not an extension of the dispute on that article, nor is that what this report is about. Also, a RFC was already started for the topic about a week or so ago by PSW, but that occurred after he reverted the status quo, disputed content with discussion (repeatedly). As for the rest of your comment, Peter Southwood, an admin, has addressed what is the actual expectation. Sxbbetyy (talk) 18:00, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
    What? I never started an RfC. — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 19:07, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
    I just checked and on 12/9/24 at Serge's talk page you said the following, "Thanks – just wanted to mention I requested comments from WP Internet Culture and WP YouTube about 2 weeks ago."
    Did that not actually happen? Sxbbetyy (talk) 02:11, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
    WP:RFC is a specific process. Asking questions on a couple of Wikiprojects is not an RFC. MrOllie (talk) 02:22, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
    That's fundamentally not what an RFC is. This is getting ridiculous... Sergecross73 msg me 03:03, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
    It's almost like this is the very first time I've ever been involved in this kind of issue on Misplaced Pages before...seriously these kind of replies come off as rude and don't actually say anything meaningful or helpful. Ever since our conversation on your talk page you have made next to no real effort to engage in good faith and I find that highly disappointing to be coming from an admin. And my apology if I offended you at all at some point or if you have just "lost your patience" with me, but I don't see how that gives you the green flag to suddenly disregard WP:Civility. I certainly haven't, in spite of being on the receiving end of this. Sxbbetyy (talk) 17:44, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
    I haven't said anything uncivil, I just keep calling you out when you say something incorrect. Sergecross73 msg me 18:08, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
    Cunningham's Law, is a powerful force, I find it difficult to resist myself. MrOllie (talk) 18:10, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

    Request for closure

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

    I second that. If there has been any edit-warring by any party that should be dealt with in the normal way. PerfectSoundWhatever has certainly done nothing wrong, and the OP will get blocked if they don't start listening to people pretty quickly. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:24, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
    Exactly. And even that's probably unlikely, as most of the "edit warring" was singular reverts with days or weeks in between. It's far from a 3RR situation at least. Sergecross73 msg me 15:26, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
    (Non-administrator comment) I don't think this conversation is going anywhere fast, other than seemingly coming to the conclusion that @PerfectSoundWhatever has done nothing wrong, which seems to be the opposite of what this ANI post was about. There's no edit warring here, and even if there was, it wouldn't be dealt with at this venue. Shut it down! RachelTensions (talk) 16:48, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
    In what way whatsoever is this editor's decision to revert the disputed content during the discussion "standard following of procedures of WP:STATUSQUO"? The literal first words that appear at that link are in bold and say, "Avoid reverting during discussion", followed by a detailed explanation of the actual proper procedure. And to make it very clear what it says, here is the literal first paragraph verbatim: "To eliminate the risk of an edit war, do not revert away from the status quo ante bellum during a dispute discussion. Instead, add an appropriate tag indicating the text is disputed. For an article, many of the inline dispute tags are appropriate. For other pages, {{under discussion inline}} is good. Leave the status quo and the tag in place until the discussion concludes." Sxbbetyy (talk) 02:31, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
    In what way is that your read of the consensus in the discussion above? Sergecross73 msg me 02:49, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
    In what world do you logically come to that conclusion from a message that consist of almost entirely the word for word quote of the procedures described in WP:STATUSQUO, that directly counters the claim you just made? Are you saying it is "against consensus" simply because it presents a viewpoint you don't like and don't want to address? I don't see another reason why you would again twist my words, to the point of lunacy. And this is, once again, despite the fact that all of what has been said is literally within view.
    Also, regarding the consensus. Out of everyone that has actually joined the discussion and all the messages sent (~90% of which are either from myself or you Serge), there have been only three people who have actually said anything in support of your interpretation of this. The rest either did not discuss the topic, did not express an opinion, or were Peter Southwood who supported the interpretation of WP:STATUSQUO as stated on its page. Seems like you're just trying to rush a end to the conversation to get the conclusion you want. Sxbbetyy (talk) 15:02, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
    I'm saying there has been no consensus for anything you're arguing here. Not a single person has supported action against PSW. Sergecross73 msg me 15:15, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
    The status quo ante bellum that shouldn't be reverted from is the version without the new content. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:16, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    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)
    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)

    User:Augmented Seventh

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

    You're removing demographic categories and templates by blanking them out; irreligion still deals with religion no matter your argument. That's definitely not compliant with WP:CAT and clearly vandalism. There's no action to take here except that you need to stop removing these categories and templates. Nate • (chatter) 19:42, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
    And you are now required to cite how your edits meet WP:CAT; spamming it in edit summaries is not discussion. Nate • (chatter) 19:47, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
    While doing routine vandal patrol, I came across what seemed to be a hasty and massive removal of content, being done in a very directed and personal manner.
    After looking at the persistent removal, and communicating, I restored the well-drawn categories.
    Hopefully, this is easily resolved.
    Augmented Seventh (talk) 20:40, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
    43*, do not continue to revert these category removals without discussing them first. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:48, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
    THere is nothing to discuss. The guidelines are clear. What needs to be done is editors need to be familiar with the cat guidelines. We don't discuss whether the sky is blue do we? 43.249.196.179 (talk) 02:05, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
    THey are not well drawn, it was not hasty, it was not massive, and it was not "personal". It was directed because they all had the same issue. 43.249.196.179 (talk) 02:07, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
    Editors should not blindly revert. They should be required to understand the guideleines. 43.249.196.179 (talk) 02:08, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

    I'm sorry, but "I don't remember what policy says but I'm right so leave me alone" is an indication you should be trying to do better instead of telling us we should do the same. If you're not willing to actually explain why guidelines vindicate your changes, then being right sometimes isn't enough if you want to make things better. Communication is the process, not something ancillary to it. Remsense ‥ 论 02:10, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
    GO and read the guidelines. It does not need discussion. 43.249.196.179 (talk) 02:15, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
    Discussion is required when other editors ask you questions in good faith in order to resolve present disputes and prevent future ones. Remsense ‥ 论 02:18, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
    Bear in mind this is WP and not social media. 43.249.196.179 (talk) 02:16, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
    How do you get the impression that "I don't remember what policy says but I'm right so leave me alone". 43.249.196.179 (talk) 02:18, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
    No. You brought this here. The WP:ONUS is on you to explain how the guidelines justify your edits, not to say "go look it up". Also How do you get the impression that "I don't remember what policy says but I'm right so leave me alone" - because that's exactly what you said. - The Bushranger One ping only 02:19, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
    It's not unreasonable in many cases to link to a very specific passage of a guideline and expect an editor to understand its meaning as regards a pertinent dispute, but you can't just fail to clearly articulate your argument while also insisting it's vindicated somewhere within the full text of a guideline. Remsense ‥ 论 02:21, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
    Content dispute. Bold edits were reverted; next step is discussion, probably at WT:CAT. If there is dispute over interpretation of the guideline you can consider leaving a pointer at WP:VPP. If there are any categories that shouldn't be used at all that can be discussed at WP:CFD. 184.152.68.190 (talk) 03:31, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
    The content dispute could have been discussed on any of the talk pages. Yet it was brought here first. Conyo14 (talk) 06:16, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
    When a content dispute involves several pages it is often though not always best to centralize discussion. Misunderstanding ANIs purpose and bringing content disputes here is a common and understandable error; best just to point people at appropriate WP:DR when that happens. 184.152.68.190 (talk) 06:53, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

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

    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)

    SPA User:Tikitorch2 back at it on Martin Kulldorff

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

    User:Michael.C.Wright? 173.22.12.194 (talk) 06:25, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
     Looks like a duck to me. I'm sending this to SPI. - The Bushranger One ping only 11:16, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
    SPI says unrelated, so might just be generic disruption. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:47, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
    What are you implying with regard to my username? My edit history has been limited to trying to correct two red flags that stood out so much that I followed the citations when I was searching these scientists who were in the news for censorship. It has been enlightening learning how wikipedia selectively chooses secondary sources but discourages the use of primary sources to help discriminate which secondary sources are credible.
    For my two attempted contributions to Misplaced Pages, the two red flags were pretty dramatic to prompt me to check out the citations--Sunetra Gupta's article implied more than 1 in 1000 people in England died from Covid in spring 2020 in an effort to discredit her, which was trivially easy to google as untrue. I corrected that without really changing the overall narrative. The article for Martin Kulldorff...I would probably not have spent time looking at the sources or realized how unscientific Kulldorff's critics were had there not been such superfluous "Wikivoice" editorializing and synthesizing suggesting Kulldorff lied in an essay to the public. Tikitorch2 (talk) 06:30, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
    Primary sources are not to be used for anything but simple facts about a subject. They absolutely are not to be used to help discriminate which secondary sources are credible because that is original research. - The Bushranger One ping only 08:57, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
    Not sure why you felt the need to repeat what I said. Maybe I am the sock puppeteer! Tikitorch2 (talk) 03:33, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
    What I am implying is that such a username in the context of an account pushing COVID-denialist rhetoric that flies in the face of the sources and Misplaced Pages policy is not an accident. Anyway, this editor continues to be a drain of editor time and attention. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 14:58, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
    Ah an absurd, convoluted, and contrived personal attack. Assuming anyone but you knew tiki torches were present at a political event where someone was killed, why would I choose my username based on that? Tikitorches provide light, warmth, and keep the mosquitos away. I guess its not surprising an editor named writ keeper attacks the editor rather than effectively debating the subject of the edit. Tikitorch2 (talk) 03:28, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
    Even if it was a personal attack, making one back isn't going to fly here. Knock it off. - The Bushranger One ping only 04:04, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
    User:Tikitorch2, your edits are being examined at ANI. This is not a pleasant experience, I'll admit. So, it's best for you not to dig yourself into a hole. I know the instinct is to defend yourself but it doesn't help your situation to come out swinging. It's probably to your benefit to address any concerns that have been raised and say no more than that. Liz 04:30, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

    User talk:International Space Station0

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

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

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

    It's a WP:DUCK, and I just reported to AIV. 184.152.68.190 (talk) 04:58, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
    Would it be possible to put up some kind of filter to alert for this? Something that…say…catches when more than 25 edits are made in a single space (user space for example) or something that would trip if the edits added less than 5 characters consistently? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1011:B32F:11B9:7980:86CC:720C:8B57 (talk) 05:15, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
    There is a filter for this. Look at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Special:AbuseLog&wpSearchUser=International+Space+Station0&offset=20241222044736, "New account unusual activity" covers exactly this. win8x (talk) 05:22, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Disruptive editor on When the Pawn...

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

    User:Pillowdelight changed the genre list of When the Pawn... which originally had been a variation of certain genres: Art pop, jazz rock, art rock, alternative rock, jazz pop, chamber pop, all of which are somewhat accurate and agreed upon by various editors of this page over many years. It was changed to just Alt pop, a genre that is used to describe the newer sounds of pop in the early 2010s with Lorde, Sky Ferreira and Lana del rey. It is not a genre that fits the album hence it has never before user:Pillowdelight been described as such beyond what her poor source says, a Fiona Apple revisit (that is not even about When the pawn.. specifically) from a new, small and virtually unheard of web magazine. Sources such as Rateyourmusic, allmusic and Pitchfork are far more accurate and robust and that's why this album has never been described as alt pop. That genre did not exist at the time of the release of the album. The source needs to be accurate, it is not. It's not an album review, it is a fluff article about Fiona Apple by a small web magazine. It's not even about When the pawn... specifically, it makes no sense. I think the other editors agree, it is inaccurate.
    Allmusic and pitchfork are far better sources. I have added both as sources. I didn't change the genre list, I simply changed it back to the genre list that had stood there the longest before user:Pillowdelight changed it a few months ago for the first time, having never touched this page before yet complaining about other editors. Longislandtea (talk) 18:52, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
    @Longislandtea: I removed the genres because they're unsourced, which I stated in many edit summaries you keep reverting, as well as on your talk page. It doesn't matter that just because you believe a source another user added calling the album alternative pop is incorrect and unreliable because it's "new, small and virtually unheard of" is a ridiculously excuse. Read Template:Infobox album it states — genres must be stated and referenced in the body of the article; personal opinions or original research must not be included. The sources you have added specifically from Pitchfork don't state the genres you've listed. Pillowdelight (talk) 20:12, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
    Sources need to be legitimate and relevant. Your source is not relevant and it is disputed. Pitchfork is added because they describe the album as an alternative album several times in the review and the genre category is ROCK. What is alternative and rock? Alternative rock. That is how the album was marketed. You can't cherrypick a single article to make a case for a genre that the album absolutely is not in. I will remove the Pitchfork source, that's fine. There's numerous ones including from Allmusic that clearly state that it is an alternative rock album. The album was even added to Misplaced Pages's page for alt rock albums ages ago. This is very uncontroversial. Just having alternative rock is also lacking; jazz fusion, art pop (the album is already added on the wikipedia page for art pop albums) and art rock are accurate too and have been there for ages but alas! Let's get rid of it all to only serve your opinion. Numerous albums have unsourced genres might I add, but the vast of amount of editors agree to it because they know these accurately describe the album, these are the scenes that the album and artist comes from and sourcing for genres can often times be lacking. In that case, rather than trying to look for BAD sources, it's better to agree with the consensus. In our case, we do have sources. Rateyourmusic has been used as a source for adding art pop, alternative rock, jazz pop, fusion, art rock and chamber pop as genres before. Longislandtea (talk) 20:54, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
    Here's the page for what is considered acceptable sources Misplaced Pages:Acceptable sources (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs).
    Relevance. Sources must be relevant--there must be some reason for the reader to care about what the author has to say. For example, the opinion of a random individual on the presidency of George W. Bush, as published in a letter to the editor of a major newspaper, is not relevant; and thus should not be included--even though it is published, traceable to its author, and given in a reputable publication. Relevance can be imputed several ways--through explicit personal knowledge, through subject-matter authority, through general notability of the author, through demonstrable correlation with the opinion(s) of a large group of people, etc.
    A large group of people, the editors of When the Pawn...'s page throughout the years, thousands of people on music reviewing sites and numerous music journalists from legitimate publications do not agree with what this one article you cherrypicked states.
    Note that this policy is the minimum standard for inclusion as a reference in Misplaced Pages. Sources may meet this standard and still not be authoritative, reliable, accurate, free from bias, or undisputed. Sources which meet this minimum standard but which fail to meet stricter standards may be used, but should be used with caution. In particular, such sources should be explicitly attributed to their author(s) or publisher(s) in an article's prose (rather than being presented as fact with the author only given in the notes), and disputes considering the source's veracity should be described.
    Meaning you can't just add any genre because some random source says it when it goes against larger and more reliable sources as well as it is controversial.
    Thank you and please stop vandalizing pages on topics of music you do not understand. Longislandtea (talk) 21:04, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
    WP:NOTVAND. Note that accusing editors of vandalism when they are not, in fact, vandalising can be considered a personal attack, so I'd suggest you strike that comment. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:14, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
    Okay, I strike. Longislandtea (talk) 21:17, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
    You didn't actually strike any comments. To do so, do this <s>Comment</s> which will make it look like this Comment. Liz 22:17, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
    please stop vandalizing pages on topics of music you do not understand. Longislandtea (talk) 22:26, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
    @Longislandtea: How is the source considered not relevant and where was this dispute? AllMusic does not call the album alternative rock at all within its article. Rate Your Music is also not a source it's user generated which is against Misplaced Pages. I really wish an admin would comment on this because this is getting absolutely nowhere. Pillowdelight (talk) 21:05, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
    Here's another source describing it as an alternative rock and jazz fusion album
    https://www.the-solute.com/the-solute-record-club-fiona-apple-when-the-pawn/
    Alt pop is not accurate. If you're so adamant about alt pop, please argue why. It is completely inaccurate and you have one singular source over music journalists and music sites. Allmusic does categorize it as alternative rock, Pitchfork has categorized it as rock since 1999 of its release. There was NO Alt-pop at the time. It still isn't. These are different genres. Art pop is not Alt pop. You edited the page one time in October 2024 only to get rid of the genre list that editors agreed upon to add Alt pop which makes no sense whatsoever. Longislandtea (talk) 21:17, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
    I have now added a new source to the genre list. If you have any problems with the new source, tell me. But it's much more accurate this way. It's still sad to see the whole genre list that was originally there, so much more descriptive and fitting, hacked away but oh well. Longislandtea (talk) 21:31, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
    Pitchfork's categorizations mean basically nothing. They have ten categories, one of which is "Pop/R&B", and another of which is "Global". By the way, you should just stop caring about this, because sources misclassify genres of music chronically and everywhere you look. Take your passion to RateYourMusic. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 18:16, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
    All of this discussion should be taking place on the article's talk page (which neither editor has used). Schazjmd (talk) 21:36, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
    @Schazjmd: I'm awaiting for an admin to respond. This conversation is getting nowhere hence the reason why I brought it here in the first place. I've tried to explain to the user on their talk page along with this entire thread and it's getting nowhere. @The Bushranger: you left a comment but could you please share your opinion on the dispute? Or possibly ping an admin who's familiar with music if this isn't your area of familiarity? Pillowdelight (talk) 21:49, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
    There was no reason to bring this conversation here. I talked to you directly but go no real reply or any arguments despite adding sources and explaining why it's not an Alt pop album. I've explained to you well enough. Please stop trying to get admins to ban me simply because I (and other editors) recognize that the genre list that you got rid of was far more fitting. There's a new genre list now with sources but it is not Alt-pop. The album was already added to the wikipedia album pages for Alternative rock and art pop. I'm familiar with these genres and Fiona Apple specifically to know that it's accurate hence why the genre list has been that way for years. If you're adamant about sources, there is a source. Accusing me of not sourcing should be considered a false accusation at this point. Not all sources are equal either and I've tried explaining that to you. Longislandtea (talk) 21:55, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
    Pillowdelight, you were given good advice which is to have this discussion on the article talk page which neither editor has posted at yet. This is a content dispute. If no action has been taken yet by an administrator, it's likely because they don't agree with your statement that action needs to be taken. Liz 22:22, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
    Okay, will do. Thank you Liz. Pillowdelight (talk) 22:24, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

    Why do people have to argue about what genre music is rather than just listening to it, and hopefully enjoying it? Phil Bridger (talk) 19:58, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
    The genre list was fine and accurate and uncontroversial until this user decided to remove the entire thing. It's important that the genre list is accurate. People find albums through genres. There's other reasons as well. Longislandtea (talk) 20:38, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
    This is neither here nor there, but I thought albums are generally sorted in alphabetical order by band name or the musician's last name.
    Please, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, or my information is incomplete. Shovel Shenanigans (talk) 22:28, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
    I was trying to explain the important of listing genres accurately. If you go to a record store then yes, albums are listed in alphabetical order. But they're still put in categories of genres. Longislandtea (talk) 22:43, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
    If we were going to list musical genres "accurately," we wouldn't bother at all. Except in very broad strokes ("rock," "punk," "Baroque," etc), so many of these horribly subjective "genres" are made up by bored media writers and bands that hate the notion of being The Same As Everyone Else. Get ten people to listen to ten different tracks of heavy metal, and you won't get as many as a third of them agreeing on any of them on the doom/grudge/dark/death/Goth/Viking/sludge/*-grind/*-core/etc etc etc spectrum. Beyond that, arguing whether any given artist is "that genre" is very highly subjective. (Hell, I've sung Baroque, classical, folk, rock, ethnic, shape note, so many genres I can't readily count.) Ravenswing 15:12, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

    Multiple users breaking 3RR on Gilman School article

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

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

    Awshort (talk)

    Counterfeit Purses, please be aware that the Luigi Mangione article was kept in a recent Articles for Deletion debate, so the consensus of the community is that he is notable. Edit warring to keep his name off the alumni list is a really bad idea. Cullen328 (talk) 20:14, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
    @Cullen328 No problem, I've already given up. I would argue that WP:NOTNEWS applies here, but there's no sense in pushing against the tide. If you're content to have the lede section of Gilman School include "prominent graduates including "alleged murderer Luigi Mangione", I guess that's fine. It seems to be an unusual thing to include and an obvious case of undue weight given to something that is in the news at the moment. Perhaps someone should start a Wikiproject to add famous murderers to the ledes of other schools? Counterfeit Purses (talk) 22:00, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
    Counterfeit Purses, in my view, WP:NOTNEWS is among our most misunderstood policy documents. It begins In principle, all Misplaced Pages articles should contain up-to-date information. Editors are also encouraged to develop stand-alone articles on significant current events. I believe that Mangione is notable, the evolving article is acceptable, and his name belongs in the alumni list. Many, many "bad people" are listed as alumni in countless school articles, and it is not at all unusual. The only unusual thing here is that the lead of this particular school article lists alumni, and so I have removed them from the lead. Cullen328 (talk) 01:07, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
    I'm glad that misunderstanding WP:NOTNEWS is so common because I am going to continue to misunderstand it. I see that Liz removed Luigi Mangione from the lede before you removed the rest of the list. Acknowledging again that I have given up hope that Mangione will be removed from this article, let me ask you what you think the purpose of these alumni lists is? Including Mangione is an editorial decision. We don't include all notable alumni in these lists, so why should we include Mangione, and why now? It's too soon to know if he will have lasting relevance. Counterfeit Purses (talk) 04:22, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
    We don't include all notable alumni in these lists Why not? If someone is Wikinotable and went to a Wikinotable school, then they belong in the "Notable alumni" section of that school's page, Q.E.D. - The Bushranger One ping only 04:28, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
    @The Bushranger I'm not saying "we shouldn't", I'm saying "we don't". We don't include every notable alumnus in these lists, nor should we because it would lead to long, unhelpful lists stuck in the middle of articles about the schools. Counterfeit Purses (talk) 04:49, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
    If an alumni list bloats an article, it can be split out. See Category:Lists of people by school affiliation. 11:29, 23 December 2024 (UTC) (Oops, signing) Narky Blert (talk) 16:01, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
    Of course that's always an option, but what I am saying is that it isn't desirable to have every alumnus listed in an article for a school. Ideally, it would be a selection of alumni who have made significant achievements in their field. Otherwise, it's just trivia. Am I wrong? Counterfeit Purses (talk) 17:21, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
    Yes. You're making a value judgment that some alumni (with articles, else they most definitely should not be included) are more notable than others. That is WP:OR. Narky Blert (talk) 20:05, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
    Yes, that's called editorial judgment. Just like deciding not to include every known fact about something in an article. At some point, it is just trivia. Misplaced Pages is not a database. That info would probably be welcome over on Wikidata, which is a database. Alternatively, someone could just add Category:Gilman School alumni (in this case). Counterfeit Purses (talk) 20:52, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
    And a new user, who doesn't understand categories and has no idea Wikidata exists, is relying on the list on the page. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:35, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

    Vandal encounter

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

    diffs:

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

     Not done - Not an admin - I hate to be that person but unfortunately you've not sufficiently warned them, They've only received one warning and their edits aren't gross vandalism so this would only be declined by an admin anyway, If they continue I'll report them to AIV, Thanks, –Davey2010 23:47, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
    Ah, I see. Thank you! This has been noted for the future. Thank you, again! Shovel Shenanigans (talk) 23:48, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
    You're welcome, Happy editing, Thanks, –Davey2010 23:51, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

    User:Glenn103

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

    Most of these pages don't even make any sense (eg.: Draft:Yery with tilde). The user also ignores any notice about his articles being moved to draftspace by simply recreating duplicates of them (eg.: Draft:Tse with caron & Tse with caron). Immediate action may be needed. Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 07:38, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
    Given a uw-create4im with directions to come here, let's see what happens. - The Bushranger One ping only 08:00, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
    They've continued editing, this time adding infoboxes to the articles, so I don't think the warning worked... ''']''' (talk • contribs) 08:10, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
    I have blocked them from article space and page moves, and will leave note on talk page to come here. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 15:33, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

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

    Excuse me for detracting from the report, but this was your 4th edit, your last edit was in January 2016... how have you found yourself here of all places?
    I mean you might have a point, but wow. – 2804:F1...57:88CF (::/32) (talk) 04:57, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

    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)

    North Korean involvement in Russian-Ukraine war discussion

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

    Key Points:

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

    Request for Administrative Action:

    I respectfully request that administrators address the following issues:

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

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

    Since this report isn't really about an incident and your request is directed towards admins, I think this complaint would be better placed at WP:AN rather than ANI. It will also need more specifics, which articles, which edits, which editors. You'll need to provide that. I also question whether or not these are content standards that the community can't handle on their own. Liz 09:50, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
    I was going to post it at WP:AN but it said: "This noticeboard is for issues affecting administrators generally – announcements, notifications, information, and other matters of general administrator interest.
    If your post is about a specific problem you have (a dispute, user, help request, or other narrow issue needing an administrator), you should post it at the Administrators' noticeboard for incidents (ANI) instead. Thank you."
    I posted it on ANI beecause my specific problem was this dispute Rc2barrington (talk) 12:07, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
    The original post in this thread appears to resemble LLM output. GPTzero confirms this impression, rating text as "99% probability AI generated". Using AI to generate ANI submissions is highly inappropriate. Axad12 (talk) 18:01, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
    Even when a message appears to be AI-generated, I think it is worth considering whether or not it is pointing out an actual problem. I think editors might be ignoring the results of an RFC, I just don't think asking for administrators to monitor a subject area, without identifying specific articles, is a feasible solution. It does seem like, possibly, a point that could come up in a complaint at AE regarding the Ukraine CTOP area. Liz 19:55, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
    I had a peek and it's a messy RfC and, as is generally the case with a messy RfC had a very involved closure message which seems to reflect that the closer felt constrained by the framing of the RfC. I didn't see any immediate indication in the edit history that anyone had tried to implement the RfC result and been rebuffed (although I might have missed it). So there's some smoke here but, I think, not a ton of fire. Simonm223 (talk) 20:21, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
    Liz, I don't disagree but I'm not at all convinced that use of AI is a positive contribution to CTOP areas. Axad12 (talk) 20:27, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
    It was written with AI assistance. Not all AI. ai detectors aren’t considered reliable, because you can put the U.S. constitution through one and it says 100% AI generated. Regardless, whether it’s AI or not has nothing to do with the topic. It’s just that there’a been so many discussions and when I checked the info box it said ‘supported by”, violating the consensus of the RFC Rc2barrington (talk) 12:45, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
    I think the underlying issue here is that if you use AI to generate text which looks like obvious AI output then readers will wonder "does the end user even have sufficient English to understand what the AI has generated for them?" and "did the end user understand the material prior to deciding to employ AI?". Thus if a user is fluent in English, as you obviously are, it will always be better to communicate in your own voice.
    At the end of the day, a user making a valid point in their own voice is generally speaking going to be taken more seriously than a user employing LLM output.
    There are plenty of other reasons for users not to employ AI (see the recent thread here for extensive coverage) but the argument above seems like a good practical reason for fluent English speakers to always prefer using their own voice.
    You will see from the recent thread that many users here are vehemently against AI use. Axad12 (talk) 15:46, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
    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)
    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)

    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.

    Darkwarriorblake making aspersions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    −Liddy was interested in the offer until he learned that Beeks becomes the romantic partner of a gorilla.+Liddy was interested in the offer until he learned that Beeks is raped by a gorilla.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Hrrm, this seems a bit excessive.
    • I've added a second source for the claim. Really this should've been the first option rather than removing the content.
    • The first summary was, as stated, "Don't mince words; the interaction between Beeks and the gorilla is rape played for laughs". "Rape played for laughs" is a loaded comment and not something said in the article or the source text, so it's a personal opinion, it's not neutral, it's agenda-driven.
    • When this was reverted, the editor just removed the content entirely claiming IndieWire was unreliable. There is, as far as I'm aware, nothing wrong with Indiewire. I've since found a second source, the Telegraph, which is reliable per Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Perennial sources.
    • The editor ignored WP: BRD when raised, and as an admin they should adhere to policy.
    • The editor states that they are an admin on their page. Assuming this is true, the aggressiveness of their edits, hyper focus on the single area, and use of words like "crap listicle" seemed out of line with what I, personally, would expect from an admin on Misplaced Pages, certainly someone who has been so for nearly two decades. Perhaps the edit summary wasn't the place to have that discussion but, as stated, they weren't adhering to WP: BRD to start a discussion, and in the interim the article needed putting back to the status quo.
    • I find accusations of OWNERSHIP often tend to come when people don't get their way. Which is fine. I have plenty of reversions on the page for people adding unsourced content and there are plenty of changes as well. I find someone removing sourced content and me putting the sourced content back to not really be something you can fling ownership at.
    • Within the context of the film, Beeks does become the romantic partner of the gorilla, it seemed more appropriate and encylcopedic text than just saying 'rape', and neither source I've added says that either.
    • Anyways, my edit history shows I'm a massive contributor and helper and it's nearly Xmas, and I don't feel like engaging with this any further, good luck Hex. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 20:27, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
    Of course you don't, having ignored the actual matter of your conduct that I'm raising here. Your comments about the content of the article are irrelevant.  — Hex • talk 20:43, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
    • Hex's position is not wholly supported, although in the entire issue, their toolset is irrelevant. There was no incivility on either part, and an all-out edit war seems to have been averted.Fundamentally the change Hex wanted to make was pure OR; rape may have been intimated—or, as Hex themself admits, implied—but its never overtly stated and is a wholly loaded term. This is the interpretation of an editor, not of secondary sources. If there is a pron=blem with Indywire as a source—currently used in 1000s of articles—take it to WP:RSN. If it's disputed that it's a high quality source per WP:FA?, then take it to WT:FAC. Accusations of OWNership are as unhelpful—and as much an aspersion—as accusations of agenda-led editing. In fact, for OWNership, Hex should read the relevant policy: here, it is WP:FAOWN, which not only allows for careful stewardship of featured material, but requires significant changes to the consensus version to be discussed on talk; I don't suppose there's any suggestion that introducing rape—particularly "played for laughs"—wouldn't be a significant addition.Really though, this is an overblown content dispute which should have started with one revert each, and ended on the talk page. --SerialNumber54129 21:10, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
      "Never overtly stated... 'played for laughs' be a significant addition" - here's an interview with John Landis, the director.

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

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

    Followup

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

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

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

    User Stationmanagerskidrow removing information on Radio Skid Row page

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

    User is now editing using User:159.196.168.116 Pyramids09 (talk) 03:34, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
    This is a content dispute and the article is being actively edited by many different editors. However, no discussion about the disagreements has occurred on the article talk page which is where this discussion should be happening. Liz 04:37, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

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

    The page was longer, but sourced (all but?) soley to the station's site and it's been trimmed down to what it is now. Given the repeated edit-warring by IPs I've semi-protected the page for two days for now. - The Bushranger One ping only 07:59, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
    WP:USERNAME and WP:COI message added here. I'm just about to make myself thoroughly WP:INVOLVED by seeing what I can do about the Radio Skid Row article. Shirt58 (talk) 🦘 09:11, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

    Insults

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

    Hello, Psychloppos. What action are you seeking to happen here? Liz 09:42, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
    I have no idea which actions are warranted here. Maybe an admin could leave a message to this IP and this registered user and remind them that they should assume good faith ? It would also be nice to remind them about Misplaced Pages:Civility and Misplaced Pages:No personal attacks. Saying that I am "fuelled by an unhealthy obsession" or questioning my sanity do not seem to respect those guidelines. Psychloppos (talk) 09:52, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

    Nlkyair012 and LLM chatbots

    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.

    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.

    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)
    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)
    Category: