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 19:21, 11 July 2007 editRfwoolf (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users1,922 edits →Personal attack by admin: resp← Previous edit Latest revision as of 02:07, 25 December 2024 edit undoRusted AutoParts (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers137,256 edits →User:ZanderAlbatraz1145 Civility and Content #2 
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 = 269
|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 .
== ] relocating clean-up templates ==
<!-- 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)
First, let me start off by saying that I do not believe this is in any way malicious and/or vandalism, but I do think it's necessary to bring it to others' attention. ] has been relocating ] in articles so that they are placed at the bottom of the page with a "pointer," or short message, at the top of the article. Several of his changes have since been reverted by various users. I have contacted the user on three separate occasions: 1). when he moved a template to the article's talk page , 2). when he moved a couple templates to the bottom of the page , and 3). recently when I noticed the new development of the "pointer" and after another user attempted to contact him regarding the relocations. Although the user is mostly civil, I find their dismissal of guideline and clearly stated reason mystifying. I'm concerned that his personal opinion ("the tags, especially multiple tags, disfigure the article, and discourage readers from accessing the material") conflicts greatly with accepted Misplaced Pages guideline/procedure and that he is not willing to take his (admittedly well thought out and articulated) concerns to the proper channels. He seems to have dismissed my final attempt at advice (as can be seen by his further template relocating . <span style="font-family:verdana">] </span><small>(])</small> 22:20, 5 July 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)
:Discussion concerning this can be found on my talk page ], and my further thoughts on this and other (related and unrelated) subjects can be found on ]. Thank you. ] <small>(]/])</small> 22:53, 5 July 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)
::Tags, especially dispute and cleanup tags, play an important role -- they alert a reader that what he is reading may be disputed, confusingly written, poorly sourced, or what have you. It is important that readers are aware of these issues before they read the content on the tag; that is why most tags go at the top of a given article. You seem to feel that tagging is a way for users to contest the content of an article without editing it -- this is not the case; "drive-by-taggings", that is, without substantive discussion on the talk page, can and should be summarily removed. --] 23:18, 5 July 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)
::: 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)
::: There are a number of issues here, but I think the only one in question at the moment is the position of tags, since I'm not eliminating them but relocating them, and providing a pointer to their placement. Anyone interested can follow the pointer and see the tags, as will everyone who reads the article to the end. ] <small>(]/])</small> 00:07, 6 July 2007 (UTC)


== Disruptive editing by ] ==
::::The position is important; people need to be aware of issues on the page ''before'' they read the article, not after. Nebulously stating "This page has been tagged" does not help anyone, and would be totally opaque to a general reader. --] 01:44, 6 July 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)
::::: Precisely. It may appear that tags are addressed to the general reader, but because they represent only the <b><i>opinion</b></i> of an editor, and are not in any way <b><i>definitive</i></b>, they are better considered as communications between editors, expressing views on how articles can be improved. If the purpose of a tag is to warn the reader, then there should be some sort of process in place to control their use, to make it the subject of consensus, which there is not.


:@]: 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)
:::::A tag is a flag, saying "Here there is a problem, in my opinion", not a definitive statement, and the audience that cares about possible problems (as opposed to definite ones) is the editors of Misplaced Pages, and not the readers, two separate but overlapping groups.
::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 ==
::::: By the way, you referred earlier to "drive-by-tagging" as if this was merely an occasional thing. In fact, my experience is that the vast majority of tags are placed without <b><i>any</b></i> discussion at all on the talk page, and therefore represent the view of a single editor. They can't even be considered to have been accepted by follow-up editors (as article content can when it passes review and is not changed) because of the <b><i>taboo</i></b> against removing them, which is what I'm (in part) currently up against. (In fact, I'm not removing them, only <b><i>moving</b></i> them.) ] <small>(]/])</small> 02:00, 6 July 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)}}
:::::: As you have moved {{tl|unsourced}} tags on articles which have, in fact, no sources whatsover, I must disagree that the tags constitute "the opinion of a single editor". No sources is simple enough to view and confirm. If there are no sources, this is not opinion. Further, I concur with Haemo - the time to inform readers there is a potential problem or issue with an article is before, not after, they have invested their time and effort in reading it. By burying the tags and adding your non-informative notes in teeny font at the top, you are damaging the credibility of Misplaced Pages. One puppy's opinion. ]<sup>]</sup> 02:15, 6 July 2007 (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 -->
::::::I disagree with your premise that there is not "some of process in place to control their use, to make it the subject of consensus". The inclusion of maintenance tags, just like any other material added to or taken away from an article, is a matter of consensus among the editors who contribute toward it. As for disfigurement: I'd much prefer a disfigured article than one that incorrectly gives the a reader the incorrect impression that they're looking at well-refined material. There's been mention of "drive-by tagging," but what about the "drive-by readers"? An aesthetically dis-pleasing "Hey, this article is missing reliable sources or is short on citations" can effectively give pause to the folks who are trying to get info. on some nugget they just saw on CSI or are scrambling to write about for English class. I'd much rather "inconvenience" users by making them look at clashing colors and scrolling down a bit more if it also means they know to put a few more grains of salt next to their mouse. --] 09:39, 7 July 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)
::::::: Let us come to face with the facts, please: unsourced articles are more the <b><i>rule</i></b> than the exception on Misplaced Pages -- but that doesn't mean that the articles aren't authoritative, factual, informative and interesting. (There are other ways to ascertain an article's value than whether it has sourcing or not.) But let's not get caught up in ancilliary matters -- to answer your on-topic question, I am not "hiding" tags -- would you say that Categories are being hidden, or External Links, or See Also links?, or links to other Misplaced Pages projects? All of those things are at the bottom of the page, which is where I'm putting the tags. That's a place where they don't discourage readers from using the encyclopedia as a resource, and yet they're available to the people that are interested in them, and to whom they are addressed, the editors of Misplaced Pages.
::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)
::::::: I'll reiterate, if the intent of tags is as a warning to readers, than there are only a few tags that should be at the top, none of which are internally directed, and the use of tags should be regulated or controlled so that when a reader sees a tag that says there's a problem with an article, they know that to be a reasonably definitive statement, and not an offhand opinion. Failing that, tags are better viewed as communication between editors, and not as warnings to the reader. 02:32, 6 July 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)
::::::::Citation tags can be construed as warnings to the reader, as the absence of citations can imply the advice to the reader to take the article with a pinch of salt given the lack of a solid foundation for the article. Citation templates can serve both as a alert for the editor and a warning for the reader, as do most other tags. —''']''' 02:43, 6 July 2007 (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)
:::::::::Exactly right, Kurykh. I find the implication that there is an audience we as editors should be catering to rather absurd; this isn't a play and we aren't stage hands. Everyone who reads Misplaced Pages is a potential editor, and therefore the templates are relevant to ''everyone''. The reason why they are placed at the top of the page, as is said by the style guidelines, is visibility. <span style="font-family:verdana">] </span><small>(])</small> 12:09, 6 July 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.
::::::::::<i>I find the implication that there is an audience we as editors should be catering to rather absurd;</i> What an absolutely extraordinary statement! I'm totally flabbergasted. What do imagine is the point of Misplaced Pages, to be a fun place to play around in? It exists to create a reference work to be used, and the people who use it are the "audience". Call them what you will -- user base, clientele, whatever, it is for they and them only that the project exists, and considerations about ease of use and functionality should be second only to considerations of factuality of content.
: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===
::::::::::Obviously, this aspect of Misplaced Pages has been given short shrift for much too long, if an editor can make a statement like that in all sincerity. Everyone's all tied up in policy disputes, which serve (badly) to regulate editor behavior, to the exclusion of consideration of the needs of the user. ] <small>(]/])</small> 13:36, 6 July 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 ==
:::::::::::You stated that "users of the encyclopedia supposedly our clientele, the people for whom the encyclopedia exists." This is a misstatement: the encyclopedia exists for everyone. If any reader is a potential editor, than templates are useful for them, as well. <span style="font-family:verdana">] </span><small>(])</small> 13:56, 6 July 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.
::::::::::Oh, incidentally, very nice attempt to tie in my professional background! Bravo, points for research! But, unfortunately, stage hands don't cater to the audience, they do what other people (director, designers, stage manager) tell them to, so that rather messes up your metaphor. Besides, as a rather famous thespian once said "All the world's a stage." ] <small>(]/])</small> 13:41, 6 July 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)
:::::::::::Please be ], as you have shown you are capable of doing in the past. Not that it means much to delve into the personal, the stage hand comment was a metaphor I pulled not from your life, but my own (speaking as an ex-theatre major). I was not aware of your profession, nor do I think it pertinent to the discussion. Let's remain on topic. <span style="font-family:verdana">] </span><small>(])</small> 13:56, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
:If you want to discuss {{tl|WikiProject banner shell}}, you should do so at ].
:As for the size of the category, I have no plans to empty it, and was only going to update a few hundred more categories and templates. &nbsp;&nbsp;<b>~</b>&nbsp;<span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:16px;">] (] ⋅])</span>&nbsp; 15:02, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
::You made nearly 2000 of such edits in the last few hours, and when asked to stop pointed me to a category with 400,000 entries. I have no way to know how many more you planned now or in future runs. Starting a discussion at the module would hardly stop you. ] (]) 15:10, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
:::"{{tq|when asked to stop pointed me to a category with 400,000 entries}}": incorrect. Since you wrongly thought I was making cosmetic edits, i.e. "{{tq|no change in output or categories}}", the category was to inform you that they are not cosmetic.
:::Regarding a BRFA for the bulk of the category, that's looking more likely since the category appears to be neglected. &nbsp;&nbsp;<b>~</b>&nbsp;<span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:16px;">] (] ⋅])</span>&nbsp; 15:29, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
::::Unnecessary removing a synonym and then making thousands of edits to remove the hidden cat created by that unnecessary change is not really any better than making cosmetic edits, the end result is that nothing has changed for the affected pages at all. ] (]) 15:33, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::Not unnecessary. The Lua code is very complex and removing the need the support various settings makes the code both easier to read and maintain. As always, editors that don't want to see these edits can hide these by hiding the tag "talk banner shell conversion". ] (]) 12:32, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::It doesn´t look as if the specific code to have these synonyms was very complicated though, the argument that in some cases two synonyms were used on one page with conflicting values was more convincing. And the edits I complained about did ''not'' have that tag, so no, even if people knew about hiding that tag, it wouldn't have helped here at all. ] (]) 16:04, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
:This was discussed in detail on ]. Ideally these edits would be done by an approved bot so they do not appear on people's watchlists. The main benefit is to merge the {{para|blp}} and {{para|living}} parameters. When both are in use, we find they often get conflicting values because one gets updated and the other does not. &mdash;&nbsp;Martin <small>(]&nbsp;·&nbsp;])</small> 17:25, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
::Isn't it more logical to first have a bot cleanup the unwanted parameter, then remove it from the template, and only then start populating the cat with the somehow remaining or since added instances? In any case, this is a typical bot task and shouldn't be done with massive AWB runs. ] (]) 17:39, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Yes, probably. But we have this mechanism already set up and I assumed {{ul|Cewbot}} would deal with these as part of its normal activities. Happy to look at other options - maybe discuss on template talk? &mdash;&nbsp;Martin <small>(]&nbsp;·&nbsp;])</small> 18:23, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
::::I don't know what this is about, but if the OP is correct, it is totally absurd to edit 400,000 talk pages for a tweak. Discussing at a template talk page monitored by those focused on the template would simply hide the issue. ] (]) 03:53, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::Edits like these should ''always'' be bots, so they can be filtered from watchlists. There are numerous other editors who have recently engaged in the mass additional of categories to articles which I had to ask them to stop as my watchlist was flooded. ]] 13:02, 22 December 2024 (UTC)


* 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)
::::::::::::It's a category error to treat the class of <b><i>Misplaced Pages editors</b></i> as being equivalent to the class of <b><i>Misplaced Pages users</b></i>. It's certainly (and obviously) true that all Misplaced Pages editors began as users, so that <b><i>Editors</b></i> is a subset of <b><i>Users</b></i>, but in actuality they have totally different relationships to Misplaced Pages, and should not be treated as equivalent. (I'll also say that many editors become so involved in internal Misplaced Pages matters they really cease to be, in any meaningful sense, <b><i>users</b></i> of the encyclopedia. Their concerns are no longer the concerns of the casual user, and it's this disfunction that I'm suggesting needs to be addressed.) It's my contention, which I think is obvious from even the most cursory examination of internal pages such as this one, or from a close look at Misplaced Pages policy, that ease of use and other user-function matters are not given their proper due, and need to be made more important.
*{{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, let me play the Wikipolicy card and cite ] and ] as justifying my actions. ] <small>(]/])</small> 15:45, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
:::::::::::::Both of which work until and unless one meets with resistance, which you have - quite strong resistance. Please re-read the pages to which you have linked. IAR and BB have limitations - they are not a blanket permission to do whatever you wish against consensus. ]<sup>]</sup> 15:49, 6 July 2007 (UTC)


== ] ==
:::::::::::::: "Strong resistance"? I see here three people arguing against what I'm doing, and two people agreeing with it. I'd hardly categorize that as "strong resistance". ] <small>(]/])</small> 16:32, 6 July 2007 (UTC)


Ed is right on this. The tags are opinion graffiti of no value to an intelligent reader. They deserve as much respect as a sidewalk passerby stopping to tell construction workers how to build a building. If an editor wants to express his opinion on an article, but is too lazy to make the changes, look up some citations, or just explain politely on the talk page, he isnt worth listening to. I propose we require editors to earn the right to hang their opinions on articles--- you can place one criticism tag for every measly 2000 characters of text you contribute. Misplaced Pages needs more workers and less sidewalk supervisors. ] 02:39, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
: I hadn't heard the phrase "opinion graffiti" before, but it's spot-on. Thanks. ] <small>(]/])</small> 02:48, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
::You are welcome to it. I was tired of feeling like the Lone Ranger on this. Or maybe you can be the Lone Ranger and I'll be Tonto. ] 02:53, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
:::In many cases I strongly support the approach taken by ] – I've seen a very good expert editor infuriated and driven from the project by the row over a "TONE" tag placed at the top of an article as a quick and easy way of someone expressing the opinion that the writing was too interesting, without having to bother with explaining themselves on the talk page. There are occasions where, for example, an "Unreferenced" tag is important at the start, but I've seen that tag added to articles that clearly do have references – again, the tagger couldn't be bothered with checking the article or explaining themselves. Tags within sections or at the foot of the article achieve the aim without disfiguring the article as a whole, tags at the head should only be used in specific circumstances. Oh, and we've probably all come across tag vandalism..... ], ] 15:43, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
::::Wow, this makes three of us. Anyone else out there? We could start our own cabal. ] 19:08, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
::::: ]: <i>Tags within sections or at the foot of the article achieve the aim without disfiguring the article as a whole, tags at the head should only be used in specific circumstances.</i> I agree with this, and wouldn't be undertaking my current windmill-tilting if tags were controlled and perhaps redesigned to be less visually disruptive. I'd also like to point out that I have not been in any way relocating or disturbing the vast majority of section tags, since moving them to the end of the section would not be in any way less disruptive than leaving them where they are, and moving them to the end of the article would make no sense. I'd still like to see section tags be redesigned to take up less real estate and be less annoying, and their use in some way regulated, but I don't see much point in disturbing them. ] <small>(]/])</small> 22:06, 6 July 2007 (UTC)


] is making wholesale reverts of my edits in contravention to guidelines. ] (]) 19:17, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
I'm not as conversant with Misplaced Pages's internal processes as others are, so I'd like to ask: what is the purpose of bringing this particular complaint here? A cursory look at the instructions on the page makes it appear to not be the correct venue for this, but, as I said, I'm not knowledgeable in this rather esoteric area. What is the administrative action that the editor who filed the complaint wishes to bring about? ] <small>(]/])</small> 16:39, 6 July 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.
OK, the pointer I've been putting at the top of articles after moving tags to the bottom has said this:
<center><b><i><small>This article has been <u>tagged</u> by one or more editors &mdash; please see the bottom of the page for more information.</small></b></i></center>
This is perhaps too non-specific and presumes that the reader knows what a "tag" is, so I plan to replace it with this:
<center><b><i><small><u>Note</u>: For information about the content, tone or sourcing of this article, please see the <u>tags</u> at the bottom of this page.</small></b></i></center>


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.
Would this be more acceptable to those objecting to my actions? ] <small>(]/])</small> 22:23, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
: I am admittedly a newbie, but it strikes me that this sort of tag would only be well understood by Wikipedians who have some experience with editing. As a newbie, I find the large references at the point of infraction to be useful, even if only to teach me about what is considered to be good/bad writing. From this point of view, I would advocate a larger notice ] 01:58, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
:: Point of clarification -- what I'm really trying to say is that Ed's proposal above seems a little too small. ] 02:00, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
::: ]: <i>a little too small</i> That's a very useful suggestion, thank you. I have no objection to increasing the size of the typeface of the pointer, and trying that, so I'll make that change. ] <small>(]/])</small> 02:36, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
::::All tags aren't the same. A simple "cleanup" tag might benefit from shrinking and/or relocation. NPOV tags, totally-disputed, unsourced tags, and so on definitely need to be front and centre; they provide vital information to all readers. My apologies if this is obvious. ] 19:23, 7 July 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.
:<b>Now, I have a complaint:</b> I have not made a massive project out of this, my "initiative" has extended only to articles that I come across in my everyday use of Misplaced Pages, my thought being that such a small semi-random sampling could be seen and evaluated by the users in context, and perhaps (forlorn hope) catch on. On the other hand, it seems that at least one of the people arguing here against my actions is following me around and reverting my changes (see: , for instance and the editor's contribution page), thus subverting my attempt to allow people to see this and judge it, in context, for themselves and without prejudice. His action leaves me with no reasonable action besides reverting his reversion, the first step in an edit war that noone wants, least of all me, or meekly acquiescing in his mass reversions and doing nothing. This doesn't seem fair, especially when the issue is under discussion here.


WP could be sooo much better. ] (]) 02:02, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
:I haven't been around Misplaced Pages for all that long, just over two years, but I guarantee that the way things are done here is <b><u>not</b></u> the way they were done when it was founded, or five years ago or three years ago, and at least <b><i>one</b></i> of the ways that evolutionary changes come about is by people trying things out and other people taking a look and giving the change a fair shake. The actions of this editor in undoing my changes take away that possibility and is not, I submit, at all in the spirit of Misplaced Pages. I think my suggested change has clear value, I think it deserves a chance from editors without an axe to grind to look at it and either leave it or revert it, so I ask that ] be asked to stop following my contribution trail and undoing my efforts. Thank you. ] <small>(]/])</small> 00:37, 7 July 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)
::I have updated all the articles I changed so that they have the new pointer I listed above, and also added the pointer to a few articles where I moved the tags before I had come up with the idea of using a pointer to redirect attention to the tags' new location.
::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 have also found it interesting that in going through those articles, only a very few were reverted by everyday editors, the vast majority were reverted by three editors: ],] and ] -- so there has been, so far, no true picture of what the "grassroots" of the Misplaced Pages community thinks about this idea, because these three editors have not given them a chance to see it. ] <small>(]/])</small> 02:31, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
:::Perhaps you should start a discussion on ] on the style manual to get a feel for what the community thinks. --] 02:41, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
::::Last time I checked, there has never been consensus to put the tags at the top or at the bottom. For example, I've been placing unreferenced tags in the references section for some time now. Just recently, there was a message on ] by Rich Farmbrough who stated, "many of us support sending all/most of the cleanup-tags to the end of the page. They could also be mad more subtle once there." I support Rich and Ed in this endeavor as only one small baby step towards a better solution to a serious problem. &mdash;] | ] 02:58, 7 July 2007 (UTC)


== User:ZanderAlbatraz1145 Civility and Content #2 ==
::::]: <i>Perhaps you should start a discussion on ]</i> Sure, that's a possible avenue, but my experience of Misplaced Pages is that it's generally such an open system that there are a number of valid ways to get things done. Despite (or perhaps because of) my propensity for long-windedness, I'm not a big fan of talking an idea to death as a means of getting something done. That's why I chose the route I've taken, which appears to me to be justifiable under Misplaced Pages's (admittedly crazy-quilt) policies. Also, and this may be a sore point, I'm much more interested in the response of the everyday, ordinary, run-of-the-mill editor to this then I am in the response of the editors who gets caught up in policy debates deep in the bowels of Misplaced Pages. I think the everyday editors have a relationship with Misplaced Pages which is closer to that of the user who is a non-editor, and their responses will be mnore indicative of whether the change is useful to the user, as opposed to upholding current Misplaced Pages practice (which it obviously is not). ] <small>(]/])</small> 03:00, 7 July 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.
Well, I am a "everyday, ordinary, run-of-the-mill editor" and I believe it is a big mistake to ''hide'' what is perhaps critical information from the reader. If an article is potentially deficient, ''especially in terms of content as opposed to style'', a reader should be forewarned in as bold a manner as feasible. A fine-print tag is something I associate with tobacco warnings, insurance ads and snake-oil salesmen, rather than an open honest system that wikipedia aims to be. ] 04:07, 7 July 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 would agree with you <b><i>if</b></i> the tags were a reasonable guarantee that the problem they announce is actually true, but, in point of fact, <b><i>anybody</b></i> can slap a tag on an article at any time, without having to provide justification or proving their case. (I'd also want the tags to be redesigned to be less obstructive, but that's another matter.) If there was some kind of process or procedure in place to insure that tags were only placed in serious cases, after either extensive discussion or soul-searching on the part of the editor, that would be one thing, but, as I mentioned above, the vast majority of tags that I've found have not been justified or discussed in the article's talk pages, and it's clear that some editors do almost nothing except seek out articles that they disagree with, or which fit some preset conditions, and hitting them with tags. This kind of "drive-by" tagging is what's created the epidemic, and it's diluted the value of the tags to the point where having them up top is not justified. But, in any case, the tags are not "hidden", since the pointer to them is right there at the top of the page.


This editor displays no interest in conducting themselves cordially or cooperatively on this website. ] 23:20, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
:I will make an analogy I've made before: if we make an analogy between Misplaced Pages and a print encyclopedia, opening an article with multiple tags at the top is equivalent to opening the reference book and finding that the article you want is covered in post-it notes containing messages from the book's editors: "I think this article needs some work," "The sourcing on this article is deficient", "Let's get a more global view on this" and so on. This does not increase the user's appreciation of the diligence of the editors, it serves to <b><i>decrease</b></i> their respect for the reference work.
:I've given them a warning for canvassing: - ] <sub>]</sub> 04:08, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
: - ] <sub>]</sub> 05:36, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
::And they appear to be continuing editing while ignoring here. - ] <sub>]</sub> 05:39, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
:::This feels par for the course for Zander frankly. As noted with the bit about Zander reverting after an explicit edit summary saying not to and there being two days worth of me saying that edit would be made and they made no objections until the move was made. They disengaged from discussion but only re-engaged when the situation changed to their disliking. ] 02:07, 25 December 2024 (UTC)


== SPA ] back at it on ] ==
:Now, it's true that Misplaced Pages is not a print encyclopedia, it's an online encyclopedia (one in the midst of discovering exactly what that means, if people would only let it find out), but the analogy still holds. Tags could be messages to the reader, if they were authoritative (as authoritative as the articles aspire to be) and well-regulated, but in the absence of those attributes, they are merely (at best!) post-it notes between editors, if they are not actually "opinion graffiti". ] <small>(]/])</small> 04:38, 7 July 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)
::But, this is patently untrue; again, you appear only to object to "drive-by" tagging &mdash; a practice which is contrary to the purpose of tags. Tags, especially ones that go beyond simple clean-up requests, can be summarily reverted if they are not discussed. This has been repeatedly affirmed on numerous pages -- only uncontroversial tags should remain in place. If you feel a tag is not appropriate, then ''remove it'', don't systematically undermine the purpose of tags by removing them out of sight, and thus, out of mind.
::Your analogy to a print encyclopedia is perhaps apt. Print encyclopedias are edited, the published -- one would not expect to see "post-its" in a published work. But, ''Misplaced Pages is in the process of being edited''. That is its very nature -- what you are looking at is a work in progress; and its readers ''are the editorial staff''. The "published" versions of Misplaced Pages are the CDs the foundation publishes; and you won't see "post-its" in those. --] 17:03, 7 July 2007 (UTC)


:]? ] (]) 06:25, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
:::To say Misplaced Pages is a "work-in-progress" is a little misleading, because we generally use that expression for something that's in the process of moving to some pre-set state of '''''completion''''', but that's not the case here. Misplaced Pages will '''''never''''' be "completed" unless it is shut down and abandoned. As long as it exists, it's going to be in the process of being worked on, much like a living entity. And a living entity exists in the here-and-now just as much as it potentially exists in the future, but we don't expect to relate to other people as they '''''might be''''' someday, we interact we them as they are '''''right now'''''.
::{{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)


== ] ==
:::So as a reference work, we really can't behave as if we're saying to the reader "Please excuse our appearance while we get ourselves in order", the reference work is meant to be used '''''right now''''', and anything in its makeup which gets in the way of being used right now should be strongly considered for renovation. ] <small>(]/])</small> 02:54, 9 July 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)
::A fair assessment, in my opinion. Editors in good faith feel they are improving Misplaced Pages by adding tags when they vaguely feel that improvement is needed. If they raised their concern on the talk page this would be useful, even if half the time the most appropriate response would be {{tl|sofixit}}. However, tags provide a message to the world that "this article's rubbish", insulting editors who are doing their best and leading to arguments when the tag is deleted. Where an article is completely unreferenced at tag at the top can be a suitable caution to unwary readers, but when it has at least one reference a more detailed and nuanced criticism is needed: a tag under a "References" heading makes the suggestion, and adds the article to a category for anyone using such categories to find something to do.{{unsigned|Dave souza|09:42, 7 July 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-->
:::I agree with you, dave souza, but your example can be best fixed by common sense; the <nowiki>{{references}}</nowiki> tag states that the article has ''no'' references, so I would hope that any Joe or Jane editor would see that if the article contains even one references, it is not, in fact, entirely unreferenced. I am obviously one for putting necessary tags for overlong plots, trivia, and similar other section-specific templates in the section it belongs; that's also common sense, I should hope. I would also hope that templates that deal with POV or OR are placed in a corresponding section, unless it's an extreme case and it is obvious that the entire article needs help. My concern is mostly with visibility, and the mistaken belief that articles need to be cleaned-up for the sake of aesthetics. Tags are useful, they serve a purpose, both categorically and accessibly -- why hide them at the bottom of the page? The "pointer" is also fairly inconspicuous and easily overlooked by Misplaced Pages's "readers." <span style="font-family:verdana">] </span><small>(])</small> 12:47, 7 July 2007 (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. ] (]) 05:22, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
::::Woops, sorry for failing to sign. It's really a question of balance, and a lack of common sense from some taggers. ] desperately needs cleaned up, but the two tags are a bit iffy – "This article has been nominated to be checked for its neutrality." relates to a recent comment "There is not one mention of the man's controversial nature, and bizarre presentation" - there's a source for that in the talk, why didn't the tagger just add a mention? "This article has been tagged since July 2006" as not citing refs or sources, technically true, but the nine external links listed look very much like sources from the days when references which were external links were commonly put under "External links". So, the tagger couldn't be bothered checking to see if these were sources for the article as written, and for a year no one else has bothered either. Tags can tend to be a way of not doing anything. .. ], ] 19:23, 7 July 2007 (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)
:::::Maria: ''The "pointer" is also fairly inconspicuous and easily overlooked by Misplaced Pages's "readers."'' A number of people have made that objection, here and elsewhere where this is being discussed, and I think it's a valid one. I made the pointer small because I found that the tags at the top get in the way of using the article, but perhaps I made it too small, perhaps there is an aesthetically acceptable middle ground where the pointer is large enough to attract the kind of attention that folks want, but not so large as to disfigure the page and get in the way? Also, perhaps my second revision of the pointers wording could be beefed up in some way. Does anyone have suggestions, I'd be very interested in hearing them. ] <small>(]/])</small> 03:04, 9 July 2007 (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 ] ==
I came here after finding the tags on ] at the bottom of the page. (Please don't ask me why I was looking up Dr. Gene Scott :) ) In any case, I disagree that editors and readers should be seen differently. Since all readers are potential editors, a tag at the top of the page encourages participation. I don't see good articles being tagged. Tagged articles that I see are usually tagged for a reason. Especially as a generation grows up with wikipedia, it is important for wikipedia to be honest about its limitations, to be seen as a first source of collective knowledge, and not the authortative source on anything. Tags at the top remind everyone of the limitations of what wikipedia is, and encourages deeper study of the subject, which also encourages better editing of articles. 16:48, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
: I wrote the above statement, sorry for screwing up the wikicode ] 16:49, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
:: That is not my experience at all, I'm sorry to say. I haven't done any kind of formal survey, but I use Misplaced Pages extensively on a daily basis, not primarily for editing, but to look things up, and what I've found is that close to 50% of the articles I reference have tags on them -- and I'm not looking only in a limited range of subjects, I'm generally all over the map. If 50% of Misplaced Pages's articles are really so deficient that they deserve pointing out their deficiencies to the reader, then Misplaced Pages is a lot less useful than I've actually found it to be, and it hardly deserves to be used as a reference work. I don't think that's the case, since most of the articles I read are functional and informative. (In fact, the biggest problem I've found is that some of the articles are very poorly written.)


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)
:: Perhaps some kind of blue-ribbon panel of well-respected Misplaced Pages editors should take a look at the tagging situation to see if, as I contend, it's out of control and needs re-vamping. ] <small>(]/])</small> 03:15, 9 July 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 ''have'' done a formal survey -- in fact, I've done five of them. In general, less than 5% of all articles are tagged, and even in the most-tagged group, biographies of living persons, only 15% are tagged. Either you're viewing a very atypical selection of articles, or you're experiencing ]. --] 04:07, 9 July 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...}} ===
::::Really!? That very much surprises me, because I spread out across a fairly wide range of subjects, and it's not my experience. I'd love to see whatever information on your survey that you have -- methodology, sample, results. Thanks. ] <small>(]/])</small> 15:37, 9 July 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.
:::::The surveys are at ], ], and ] (partial survey, only 65 pages rather than the intended 100). Sampling methodology was to click ] until I found enough articles that met the criteria for the survey, recording interesting information about each article. "The 100" was re-checked three months, six months, and nine months later, to see how the articles changed over time. --] 02:00, 10 July 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
I'm with Ed, alteripse, and dave. References go at the bottom; that's why they're called ''foot''notes. For exactly the same reason, tags, which are a sort of anti-reference, also belong on the bottom. All that needs to be at the top (if that) is something to indicate that the tags ''exist'', and then anyone who's interested in seeing them can look at the bottom, just as people do now if they're interested in seeing the references and other footnotes. ] 02:29, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
:I see no analogy between tags and footnotes. As I said, some tags need to be front and centre, to alert all readers that an article's content is disputed. ] 08:14, 9 July 2007 (UTC)


Thank you. ] (]) 19:32, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
:First of all, I think a similar activity (and one which is almost universally recognized as positive) that you may want to consider is moving tags to the appropriate section for articles where the tag only applies to a small part of the overall article (especially true for POV problems).
: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)
:That said, I think whether to tag on the top or the bottom depends very much on the nature and severity of the problem. If an article is sourced but is just not particularly well-written or formatted according to WP standards, okay, tag it at the bottom. That's more of an administrative issue than a warning.
::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)
:On the other hand, for articles that have significant POV problems or have literally no sources, I strongly feel the tag needs to go at the top. By the time a reader gets to the bottom, they may already have changed their opinion, possibly based on ''wrong'' information. This is a very bad thing.
:::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.
:To sum up: If there are no major concerns about the accuracy and neutrality of the article, okay, I think Ed Fitzgerald has a point. The tags on top is a bit ugly. But articles that are inaccurate or biased ''should'' be made ugly with a tag, so that all readers are 100% clear that what they are reading may not necessarily be on the up and up. --] 17:23, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
:::Please, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, or my information is incomplete. ] (]) 22:28, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
::I strongly support that as a reasonable compromise. ] 00:59, 10 July 2007 (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)
:::I hope so -- any ideas about what direction that compromise should go in? ] <small>(]/])</small> 02:42, 11 July 2007 (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)
:::]: <i>But articles that are inaccurate or biased ''should'' be made ugly with a tag</i> If the tags were authoritative, that would be a different situation, I agree, but what mechanism could be put in place to assure that? ] <small>(]/])</small> 02:42, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
:::I strongly support continuation of status quo. There appears to be a contradiction - Ed wanted to prevent articles from being defaced he is still leaving a tag up front. So he went in for small text. But he is not adverse to increasing their size, as per his comments above. This then contradicts the whole purpose. Any tag is ugly! If we dislike the tags, time is better spent addressing the problem and removing the tag - by cleanup, referencing, etc. By shoving the tag you only hide the issue - that there is a problem with the article. ] 16:46, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
::::Oh, I think there's a clear aesthetic difference between a single line of bolded text, even if it's bigger than the small type I used, and those huge and unsightly tag boxes which seem to grow bigger and uglier, with more and more text in them, every day - especially (as is the case with some frequency) when there is more than one tag on the article. ] <small>(]/])</small> 02:42, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


== Multiple users breaking 3RR on Gilman School article ==
This issue is being discussed at ], where the "pointer" and templates at the bottom is meeting very strong resistance. I also strongly support keeping the status quo, in which tags will remain either at the top of the article or the relevant sections so that they will be readily visible, therefore fulfilling their purpose. <span style="font-family:verdana">] </span><small>(])</small> 13:51, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


== MONGO: vexatious litigation ==


Yet another frivolous RfC on ]: ], this time by an obvious sockpuppet. It has been certified by two people and consequestly moved to "Approved pages" on the ] page. But isn't that formalism run mad? Does the community actually "approve"? I have moved the page from "Approved" to a new section I just created, ], defined as a special section for frivolous RfCs on MONGO. (Non-frivolous RfCs on MONGO, should one be brought, go in one of the other sections.) Comments? ] | ] 15:54, 6 July 2007 (UTC).
:::I object. There was nothing frivoluous about this Rfc. These were serious violations of the norms of conduct that should be been clearly exposed and condemned by the community as unacceptable. That the evidence presented was quickly deleted is also disturbing. Esp. on the basis of some technicality that could have been easily remedied? Wikilawyering, and frivolity is what we have here by those who have suppressed a valid examination of a serious and ongong problem with Mongo on this article. I have nothing against him personally, but his behavior has been out of line. If a Rfc is deemed the incorrect approach to get the community to stand up and issue preventative measure to stop him from continuing it, then I take it an Arbitration case would be?] 01:27, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
::''P.S. My re-structuring of the main RfC page has been reverted, well, fancy that.'' ] | ] 16:14, 6 July 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
:That seems just about right. To would-be Wikilawyers: if you wish someone to be more polite, be more polite to them. Eventually, they'll get the point. Filing an RfC as if it's a lawsuit will probably not have the effect you desire, and it might cause the community to think less of you. In this case, you didn't score any points in any column where you want them. -]<sup>(])</sup> 16:07, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
, , .
:Looks like you were reverted. The Rfc is unsubstantiated. I was never informed by the filing parties on my usertalk or via email. No effort on my usertalk or via email has been made to work things out...just editors who toss out insults and evade admin warnings repeatedly and then when someone like me stands their ground with them and calls a spade a ] they get hot and bothered. I do have a compliant board and had they simply come there and griped, they could have even possibly won a few terrific barnstars!--] 16:15, 6 July 2007 (UTC)


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.
:Which ED sock is it this week, one wonders? ] 16:15, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
:::Thank you for commenting on a situation you didn't even bother to even glance at. --] 07:17, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
::::What makes you think "I didn't even bother to glance at it"? I did, in fact, read the whole thing, and went to the RfC page to review that, and, once again, just see more of the same attacks againt a well-respected member of the Misplaced Pages community who has had to endure personal attacks and lies not only on Misplaced Pages, but spread throughout the Internet. Why would you feel the need to support the whining of brand new users who are obviously sock puppets with an axe to grind, over a well-known, well-respected, long-established member of the community? ] 22:33, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
:::::Actually I largely agree with Mongo's concerns about the article. However the mudslinging by many different parties there is really too far. Nearly all are experienced editors who should know better, again many different people are at fault here. And smearing people as "ED socks" is out of line, a lie, and quite rude. --] 02:39, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
:::::::And you know this new user is not an ED sock how? ] 16:02, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
::::::::I guess that's an offense of which people are guilty until proven innocent? ]! ] 18:55, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
:::::::::You said my assumption that a new user who just happened to find an RfC was probably an ED sock is a "lie". Prove it. ] 22:31, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
::::::::::Its up to you to prove the positive assertion obviously, I thought it was far more likely it was a sock of a banned leftist of some kind. --] 23:39, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
:::::::::::Since it's clear that you have no intentions of apologizing for calling me a liar, I see no point in continuing this discussion. ] 15:53, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


] (])
::I, in turn, have moved the page to "MONGO Ω", as it certainly seems more than the third or even thirtieth RFC against him. ''']''' <sup>(])</sup> 16:22, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
*E/C applied. ] ] 19:51, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
::{{u|Counterfeit Purses}}, please be aware that the ] article was kept in a recent Articles for Deletion debate, so the consensus of the community is that he is notable. Edit warring to keep his name off the alumni list is a ''really bad idea''. ] (]) 20:14, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
:::@] No problem, I've already given up. I would argue that ] applies here, but there's no sense in pushing against the tide. If you're content to have the lede section of Gilman School include "prominent graduates including "alleged murderer Luigi Mangione", I guess that's fine. It seems to be an unusual thing to include and an obvious case of undue weight given to something that is in the news at the moment. Perhaps someone should start a Wikiproject to add famous murderers to the ledes of other schools? ] (]) 22:00, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
::::{{u|Counterfeit Purses}}, in my view, ] is among our most misunderstood policy documents. It begins {{tpq|In principle, all Misplaced Pages articles should contain up-to-date information. Editors are also encouraged to develop stand-alone articles on significant current events.}} I believe that Mangione is notable, the evolving article is acceptable, and his name belongs in the alumni list. Many, many "bad people" are listed as alumni in countless school articles, and it is not at all unusual. The only unusual thing here is that the lead of this particular school article lists alumni, and so I have removed them from the lead. ] (]) 01:07, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::I'm glad that misunderstanding WP:NOTNEWS is so common because I am going to continue to misunderstand it. I see that Liz Luigi Mangione from the lede before you removed the rest of the list. Acknowledging again that I have given up hope that Mangione will be removed from this article, let me ask you what you think the purpose of these alumni lists is? Including Mangione is an editorial decision. We don't include all notable alumni in these lists, so why should we include Mangione, and why now? It's too soon to know if he will have lasting relevance. ] (]) 04:22, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::{{tqq|We don't include all notable alumni in these lists}} Why not? If someone is Wikinotable and went to a Wikinotable school, then they belong in the "Notable alumni" section of that school's page, ] - ] <sub>]</sub> 04:28, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::@] I'm not saying "we shouldn't", I'm saying "we don't". We don't include every notable alumnus in these lists, nor should we because it would lead to long, unhelpful lists stuck in the middle of articles about the schools. ] (]) 04:49, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::If an alumni list bloats an article, it can be split out. See ]. 11:29, 23 December 2024 (UTC) (Oops, signing) ] (]) 16:01, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::Of course that's always an option, but what I am saying is that it isn't desirable to have every alumnus listed in an article for a school. Ideally, it would be a selection of alumni who have made significant achievements in their field. Otherwise, it's just trivia. Am I wrong? ] (]) 17:21, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::Yes. You're making a value judgment that some alumni (with articles, else they most definitely should not be included) are more notable than others. That is ]. ] (]) 20:05, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::Yes, that's called editorial judgment. Just like deciding not to include every known fact about something in an article. At some point, it is just trivia. Misplaced Pages is not a database. That info would probably be welcome over on Wikidata, which is a database. Alternatively, someone could just add ] (in this case). ] (]) 20:52, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::And a new user, who doesn't understand categories and has no idea Wikidata exists, is relying on the list on the page. - ] <sub>]</sub> 21:35, 23 December 2024 (UTC)


== Vandal encounter ==
:::You know, the fact that this RFC was created by Seabhcan without ever having attempted to resolve the dispute (as required) could arguably be seen as a blockable offense under ]. ] 16:37, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
::::Lets not do that...I just hope he doesn't decide to go to arbcom as I believe it will be a really bad idea for all involved. I think the best thing to do is for all warring parties on the article in question take the weekend off from that place...I intend to...little is being accomplished in the talkpage there anyway...just a lot of mudslinging by all of us.--] 16:40, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Nuked. As was blatantly apparent from the RfC, the people creating this had no intention of trying resolve their differences with MONGO before going to RfC. They presented no evidence that they had tried to resolve their personal differences with him, other than a recantation of their farcical grievances. Uncertified RfC gets deleted. You have to actually resolve the dispute before resorting to mud-flinging. ] <sup> ]</sup> 16:59, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
:::::I'm afraid I don't fully understand, though these kind of processes are still kinda a mystery to me (I've never participated in an RfC before). I did not start this RfC and had not planned to do anything like that, but once it was started I signed on as being in agreement with the summary (and added a small piece of evidence) because in my opinion MONGO was behaving in a very uncivil fashion and not responding well to comments from users (including me) to tone down his rhetoric (I similarly asked a user on the other side of the debate to do the same thing on their talk page). MONGO should absolutely have been told about this and the fact that he was not is probably reason enough to cancel this thing (I did not realize he had not been informed), but I guess I do not see what the huge problem is beyond that. I don't see how one of the users who signed on to it is an "obvious sockpuppet" but maybe I'm missing something. Perhaps more effort could have been made to engage MONGO, but when I asked him on the article talk page to stop the incivility he to "not wikistalk my edits and stop POV pushing" while largely ignoring my complaint about his behavior (he was similarly non-responsive on his talk page regarding a separate issue, so it did not seem possible for me to work out anything with him, though as I said I would not have opened an RfC). Looking at my edit history I think you will see that I am a good faith user and nobody's sock nor an SPA. I agree with MONGO that it's best for all of us to take time off from the article talk page (most of us seem to be doing that) and perhaps an RfC would have just made things worse, but the manner in which this RfC was closed down (for example creating a special RfC section just for MONGO, and another editor moving the RfC title to "MONGO Ω" while posting a note on MONGO's talk page which says "They can't just shut the fucking hell up, can they?" and awarding him a barnstar) does not inspire a great deal of confidence in me as to how this was handled. If the RfC was set up poorly (particularly by not informing MONGO) I think it was shut down poorly too. I find these processes very intimidating and was reluctant to even sign on to this, but I found MONGO's behavior extremely problematic (unlike other users on the article talk page who were beginning to work together a bit) and wanted to try to do something about it because trying to communicate with him was not working. Unlike MONGO, I'm not well known with a bunch of friends here on Misplaced Pages, and don't particularly enjoy sticking my neck out like this, but I wanted to point out that it is possible to have issues with MONGO and not be a an ED sock or a troll or a habitual RfC filer etc. etc. I'm not sure if some of the folks who've posted here even read the basis for the dispute (including a comment MONGO made accusing a new anon editor of being anti-American simply because s/he apparently had an IP address from ]) but it was substantive in my opinion, which is not to say that I'm asking for it to be re-opened because I am not since I understand the problems with how this was filed. Thanks, and sorry for the lengthy post.--] <small>| ] | ]</small> 17:43, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
::The truth of the matter is MONGO seems protected. He has created articles on many wildlife related places and as such as earned a status where he is not required to be civil to others. After reading over the past RfC's and RFaR's, which there are 4 total. It seems Misplaced Pages operates more on the buddy system then anything, being able to contribute over weighs hostility. I am apparently a sockpuppet because the intricacies of Wiki markup, you know adding a < and closing with a >, the very basic tenants of html are to be a mystery. I only hope I too can garner a large sum of edits so I can no longer be held accountable for attacking people based on their place of origin. You would think the existence of 4 total prior complaints would lead to someone questioning the overzealous hostility, I believe that is what Arbcom called it. --] 17:47, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
:Nuked as I was trying to endorse Bishzilla's outside ROAR, darnit. Regarding "protection" - I wish. Were he protected, he wouldn't have been de-sysopped for holding the line against POV pushing vandals and edit warriors, and oh yes - not being sweet enough to them as they ran roughshod over every Misplaced Pages policy in place. ]<sup>]</sup> 18:12, 6 July 2007 (UTC)


] 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.
'''Update''': My creation of a special "Vexatious litigation" section for bad-faith MONGO RfCs on the ] page was reverted, by ], but has been reinstated by ]. It's still there now, two hours later ... so I'm allowing myself to hope the section will become a standing and useful feature of the RfC/User Conduct page. Perhaps it could accommodate other frivolous RfCs than those on MONGO, too? Please remember to place your bad-faith RfCs there and nowhere else. ] | ] 18:31, 6 July 2007 (UTC).
:Is this a productive line of dialogue? I mean, it's funny, and I understand the spirit in which you're working here, but are we actually addressing a problem in a way that will lead to a solution? Is "calling a spade a spade" actually helpful here? (Is it helpful ever?) -]<sup>(])</sup> 18:35, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
This is pretty sad people are honestly advocating here on Misplaced Pages, a global project, that it is ok for Mongo to call people "Anti-American" because of the country they are editing from. Its is disgusting that people would allow that to happen, and insult those who bring it forward. These are the types of things that end up giving Misplaced Pages a bad name, things that end up in news articles. --] 18:56, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
: Sigh SixofDiamonds leave MONGO alone, that useless RFC you did and the comments you making here didn't doesn't help. Take your Point of View somewhere else. ] ] 19:00, 6 July 2007 (UTC)


diffs: </nowiki>] </nowiki>] </nowiki>] </nowiki>]
::So is Bishonen's "Vexatious litigation" section serious or just a joke? I'm asking in all seriousness because I cannot tell, and that is not good. Personally I find the phrase "Non-frivolous RfCs on MONGO, if any, go in one of the sections above" disturbing because the snippy phrase "if any" implies that there could not be a non-frivolous RfC against MONGO, which is obviously not true. I'm sure Bishonen did not mean to say it that way and maybe her creation of that section is largely tongue-in-cheek, but if so it's not particularly funny in my opinion. Bishonen's last comment does nothing to comfort me about how the deletion of the RfC went down, and I do feel some of the points I raised in my comment above are worthy of a reply from those who were involved in closing this out and changing the name to "MONGO Ω". In general I'm wondering if others feel if this is the way we should do business around here (i.e. making light of legitimate and serious complaints about user conduct, even if the original RfC was admittedly improper in certain respects). I'm asking about this in good faith and really would appreciate replies, if this is an improper thing to bring up in this venue let me know and I could discuss it on user talk pages. Thank you.--] <small>| ] | ]</small> 19:16, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
:::The "Update" above came out a little meaner than I intended it. I'm sorry. I guess I'll revert the "Vexatious litigation" section on the RfC page myself, if it's still there. ] | ] 20:04, 6 July 2007 (UTC).


I would have put this at AIV, but I have no clue how to edit source. ] (]) 23:43, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
* It was reinstated, but I removed it again. ''']''' <sub>]|]]</sub> 20:05, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
::::Thank you Bishonen for your reply and mea culpa, no worries, and to V for removing the section on the RfC page. I guess we should just move on from this. Hopefully those of us working on the ] article can work more civilly with one another in the future, otherwise I fear the same issues mentioned in the now-deleted RfC (and to be fair some of the concerns mentioned there probably apply to other editors besides MONGO, and on both sides of the issue) will come up again.--] <small>| ] | ]</small> 21:07, 6 July 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)
===Is this an acceptable edit?===
::Ah, I see. Thank you! This has been noted for the future. Thank you, again! ] (]) 23:48, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
* http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=State_terrorism_by_the_United_States&diff=142403955&oldid=142403728
:::You're welcome, Happy editing, Thanks, –]<sup>]</sup> 23:51, 22 December 2024 (UTC)


== User:Glenn103 ==
MONGO's summary: ''"revert vandalism by anon IP, soon ot end up blocked...shoul we belive than an editor from Brunei Darussalam is not anti-American? I think not."''. Note that which was reverted was not vandalism, but a content dispute. ] 21:19, 6 July 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)
:Perhaps not a good edit summary, but that IP has and not one to a talkpage and was adding contencious material (I and others disagreed with it) repeatedly. Please use your username.--] 22:30, 6 July 2007 (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)
::Only perhaps!? It's not a question of it maybe not being a good edit summary--its clearly is a gross and unacceptable violation of policy that should have earned you a block. First, you call it vandalism, when the editor was actually restoring (not adding, as you claim) the long standing and most stable version, supported by various editors; he was removing the additions that went against consensus, added by UltraMarine. His edit was supported by many other long term, established editors. Thus, this was clearly a content dispute, yet you wrongly label it as vandalism. Surely you have been around long enough to know that is not appropriate. Add to that the bullying threat that he is "soon to end up blocked."
::Given a uw-create4im with directions to come here, let's see what happens. - ] <sub>]</sub> 08:00, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
::Secondly, and more serious, is the fact that you felt it necessary to do an IP search to discover this editors country of origin, and then make a personal attack on this editor based on his national origin—the country he happened to be editing from, as if that is relevant. Maybe you something against Brunei or its people (I don't know) but its very repugnant and ugly to display such prejudice openly, much less use it as the basis to attack an editor, i.e., attacking him on the basis of his national origin. That crosses any conceivable grey lines, and is not something to be tolerated anywhere, by anyone, at anytime. If you don't see how wrong what you did is (not just perhaps), then we have a serious problem (it also calls into question your fallacious reasoning process on these types of articles). Unless WP takes a strong stance against this behavior, per its rules, it shares in the complicity of allowing it to continue. If it becomes known that WP tolerates this kind of behavior, then it does immeasurable damage to the projects reputation.] 00:49, 7 July 2007 (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)
:::Yes, perhaps. I don't add anything ever that could conceivably be seen as contencious to articles about other countries. I have nothing against that country where those edits came from...the question is, does that person have a beef with the U.S. to add such material. Claiming long term editors have more clout on material in article space is akin to saying you ] the article, which you don't. I urge you to prove to me that you are here to incorporate neutral information into our articles and not misuse Misplaced Pages as a soapbox or advocacy platform for your cherry picked references to advance a position.--] 04:21, 7 July 2007 (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?
::::Thanks for a civil response. You say: ''"the question is, does that person have a beef with the U.S..."'' I disagree. That is not the question at all. It doesn't matter if an editor disagrees with US foreign policy or not (what I assume you mean by "beef with the US"). It's not ''our'' POV's that matters. Sure, we all have bias, but we should not let that get in the way--even if its reporting on political concepts and perspectives (i.e. the concept of State terrorism and the allegations that the US has been guilty of such practices) that we personally disagree with. But, why is that question presumptive based on the editors national origin? That remains unanswered. What does this editors nationality have to do with anything? You say you never add anything contintious to article about other countries. Well, what you wrote in that edit summary is an attack on the editor for being from another country, and therefore you are implying that merely being from that country makes the editor, in your mind, "anti-American" (whatever that silly term means). That is certainly a contentious (and irrational) written comment about another country and/or its people.
: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 ==
::::The fact is we have many subjects that are very contencious in nature, and there is nothing wrong with working on and adding such material, provided it means WP requirements of Verifability, Notablity, and Reliablity, among other sound policies. Among these other sound policies is assume good faith that is esp. important on such topics. Thus, I don't have to prove to you first that that my edits or participation are in good faith, that I'm interested in developing this project according to its goals, including this article in question, making it an educational and encyclopedic article that reports on these notable observations from various notable sources, using reliable referenced material--the only extent of my "cherry picking". I welcome all relevant POV's to balance the article ''provided'' it follows the same criteria, and is relavent to the subject matter.


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.
::::It seems you are operating on a the wrong assumption: an editor does not need to first prove to you he is editing in good faith per policies, before you can consider if you want to treat him as a good faith contributor, and then be civil, etc. There is no such burden of proof. When there is an assumption to be made, (prior to proof one way or the other), then that assumption, per policy, is to assume its good. Otherwise, you will be excessively combative, and work to work with others, of other POV's (yes, including far leftists like myself. I've read your blog so I know you are quite right-wing, but that doesnt bother me). If we do not assume good faith (and follow the other rules) we will spiral downward, with the project suffering in the end. WP has good rules. I only ask that we all be expected to follow them not as a luxury but as a requirement. If for whatever reason one finds he can not follow the rules for a particular article (and that includes being civil), then one should simply not edit in that article. Adherence to these rulres, I think, are prerequisite for the privlege of editing.] 07:03, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
:::::I don't have a blog! Please, link me to the blog so I can see what I have supposedly been writing there.--] 07:15, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
::::::I had just assumed this was your blog based on the name and similar politics. If its not, then I stand corrected (not that this fact matters). I've answered all your quesitons, but you keep ignoring mine.] 17:45, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
:::::::My politics are not the same as that person. Your comments aren't worth responding to if your reading ED to get your facts about me.--] 22:13, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
::::::::It doesn't matter what your politics are, just as it doesn't matter what mine are (or the editor you suspect of having a "beef with the US" because he is en editor in Brunei). That is the point. I don't know what ED is, but I do know you keep evading the issue, and ignoring the important questions posed to you. Are you afraid to answer them because the answer is not one you, or others, can in good faith support?] 01:55, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
:::::I disagree with Giovanni that MONGO's reply was "civil". MONGO presents as an arbiter of fairness -- "I urge you to prove to me..." -- when it is no contributor's responsibility to prove their good intentions to any other individual contributor. The policy is to "assume good faith." Proof isn't required when a condition has already been stipulated. MONGO violates the stipulation of good faith by asserting a person's good faith, in this instance faith "that you are here to incorporate neutral information", is not to be assumed, but proven to him as the sole arbiter of what is good or neutral. MONGO has failed to prove consistent neutrality -- especially by calling those who offer neutral information that is less than flattering of United States "anti-American."


'''Key Points:'''
:::::MONGO improperly asserts a claim of proprietary interest in the content of Misplaced Pages when he demands that someone prove to him personally their intent with regard to "our articles." MONGO is part of no organization that owns any article on Misplaced Pages. MONGO edits here as a guest of and donor to the Wikimedia Foundation. The Foundation is not a membership organization and MONGO is not a member of any organization that owns these articles. The articles are the property of Wikimedia Foundation, licensed for free distribution under GFDL. MONGO and Misplaced Pages would accomplish much more for the world's access to collective knowledge if they would use reason rather than intimidation to resolve conflicts. Intimidation by inappropriate claims of authority and ownership is not civil. ] 18:11, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
::::::''Another'' ] that finds its way to ANI and jumps straight in to a dispute about MONGO. Yawn! ] ] 07:20, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
:::::::The fact that is a new account is irrelevant. Lets focus on the content of what their claims are, the merits or lackthereof, its veracity, instead of who happened to make them. Obviously its a puppet account, but it seems to be a legitimate use of a socket puppet, since some people, apparently, have a fear of speaking their mind, openly, without fear of retaliation, hence the anon account. Lets respect the users choice not to disclose their main account and focus only on the argument they make.] 17:53, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
:::::::I do not understand why we are allowing this harassment to continue. I propose blocking the SPA's and blanking their contributions to these threads.] 07:23, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
::::::::I don't understand why you call pointing out serious and repeated policy violations, and discussions about this conduct, harassment. Its like a women who has been raped, saying, "why did you rape me, stop raping me,' and you asking the women why is she harrassing her rapist? The question is absurd. Mongo has yet to even agree to stop violating WP policy. WP rules must apply to everyone. Do you disagree?] 17:50, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
:::::::::Misplaced Pages is not a democracy. The opinions of long-term, productive, non-disruptive contributors to the site have more weight than brand-new accounts or single-purpose accounts, period. Brand-new accounts ''especially'' are to be ignored if they jump into disputes like this since it is very easy to create an illusion of consensus for or against a person or proposal simply by churning out new accounts. The fact that nobody here is agreeing with you should be a signal to stop digging. - ] 18:23, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
:::::::::::I apologise for interjecting this comment, but a long-term, productive, non-disruptive contributor to the site,like (ahem) myself, might think that the statement quoted is worthy of condemnation, but be unwilling to jump into a dispute marked with such unpleasant attacks. So the above comment is both incorrect and counter-productive. ] 01:04, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
::::::::::::I sympathize to a degree, but unfortunately there is no way to distinguish productive contributors commenting anonymously from abusive trolls spawning sockpuppets (like the EDers who've been harassing MONGO), so comments from fresh accounts can only be treated with the utmost skepticism. - ] 02:46, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
::::::::::I'm sorrry Merzbow, your 5163 edits do not qualify you for the right to express that opinion. ] 13:03, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
::::::::::I, for one, object to the attitude MONGO and his friends are taking here, and I'm far from being a single-purpose account, a new account, or anybody's sockpuppet. ] 18:44, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
:::::::::::Apparently you've been harboring a grudge the size of Jupiter against MONGO for a while, and before by an admin about stalking him. You're hardly unbiased in this matter. - ] 20:49, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
::::::::::::When you can't defend what MONGO does, I guess character-assassinating his critics is the next best thing, huh? ] 23:38, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
::::::::Haha, and the username is real charming isn't it. --] 07:26, 8 July 2007 (UTC)


# '''Prolonged Discussions and RfC Closure:'''
As usual, because of the powerful clique he has behind him, MONGO proves to be of an Untouchable Caste, with a free pass to be as uncivil as he wants, and anybody who objects to it gets personally attacked with impunity. ] 03:07, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
#* The RfC on North Korea's inclusion was conducted thoroughly, with a wide range of arguments presented by both sides.
:I found the contempt with which this complaint was met with to be very disappointing, not helping to reach a resolution at all. --] 21:59, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
#* 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.
:I am a bit confused by all of this as well, such a hateful quote assuming all people of a country are Anti-American would surely have led to a block if not ban for hate speech to anyone else. I have decided not to work with MONGO at all from this point forward, there are others on the article who actually are attempting to work in a civil manner such as Tom. --] 10:51, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
#* 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:'''
Just drop it already the admins here are on MONGO's side, no one is caring that he made a xenophobic attack on someone. Like Merzbow said, they value his ability to write articles on parks more then anyone else chiming in here. Edit count > civility. If you do not like it, start some articles and you to will gain privileges. --] 20:11, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
:::I am somewhat disturbed that even established users still don't understand the concept of consensus. The 'powerful clique' is called 'consensus'. I am sorry that some of you find yourselves on the other side of consensus and must therefore resort to ''ad hominem'' arguments about cliques and cabals. Perhaps if you feel that way you should reconsider how you are contributing to such a consensus based project like Misplaced Pages? --] 06:30, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
::::::This discussion is about one person, not the ], please take your ] off. ]
:::::::That's out of order, dear chap. ] 10:50, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
::::::::The hilarity of that bothering you more then someone saying everyone from Brunei is Anti-American. --] 15:46, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
::::So a blatant lack of respect for fellow editors and an obvious contempt for anything even remotely similar to manners or can be excused by 'consensus' now? If this is what 'consensus' on Misplaced Pages has degenerated to, I certainly want nothing to do with it. I suppose it's lucky for Misplaced Pages that the vast majority of people who do the actual work around here neither look at places like WP:ANI, or care.


I respectfully request that administrators address the following issues:
::::I wonder if you actually understand the concept of 'consensus', if you think that it's possible to be on the "other side".


# Enforce the consensus reached in the closed RfC, as no new evidence significantly alters the previous conclusions.
::::] :
# 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.
::::# ] agreement among the members of a given group or community, each of which exercises some discretion in decision making and follow-up action.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
::::# A specific method of ] decision making where consent by all parties is required.
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 ==
::::I don't believe that there is 'general agreement' or 'consent by all parties' from all editors of Misplaced Pages (not even amongst the self-selected ones that edit at WP:ANI) that it is acceptable to treat people who have legitimate complaints with the frankly ''bizzarre'' and incredibly xenophobic behaviour of another user with mockery and ad hominem, rather than addressing his complaints. Consensus means that everyone to some extent can agree. It doesn't mean that just because someone's friends turned up to agree with him, everyone must have the same opinion and therefore his opinion is OK. ] 07:24, 10 July 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,
:::: The ad-hominem arguments I've seen in this thread have been coming from the so-called "consensus" side, not from the critics. The critics have been commenting on MONGO's ''behavior'', not making personal attacks on him, while his defenders are the ones who have been trying their best to character-assassinate the critics by applying labels based on superficial things about their edit history, rather than addressing the substance of their comments. Does it matter if somebody is a "troll" or a "sockpuppet" or has a "grudge the size of Jupiter against MONGO" or is a convicted ax murderer... if they have a valid point about something, it is still valid no matter who made it. ] 10:56, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
:::::Does that axe you have to grind have a double blade or what?--] 11:04, 10 July 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.
*'''Comment''' ] and ] are the same editor. Could someone explain to him that it would be helpful if he at least added his SixOfDiamonds username in print when he makes edits with his IP account. We have tried, but he has dismissively ignored our polite requests.--] 21:43, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
:Done. --] 00:23, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


I believe your experience could help address this situation effectively.
:My opinion? If you play with fire, you're going to get burned. (this goes to both sides - MONGO, that was a rather strong personal attack, but to the other side: removing valid boilerplates isn't on. Discuss first) ''']''' <sup>(])</sup> 13:33, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
::Absolutely. Removal of valid boilerplates is a no-no. It can, however be reverted. Dismissing an entire country's contributions as irrelevant and worthy of reversion without discussion because ''every single editor from there is bound to be anti-American'' is deeply, deeply worrying. I've never run across MONGO before, and am not likely to in the future, so I have no axe to grind, or see any personal advantage from seeing his wrist slapped a bit. (Needless to say, I have nothing to do with ED trolls, either.) I just think it's bollocks that an attitude like this should be out there and nobody established has reproved him more than the gentle knock above. I compare this sadly with what happened to dab after a far more explicable comment, which he hastened to explain. ] 03:13, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
:::Bullshit! That IP had 4 (four) edits total, none to the talk page and was adding highly POV crap to the article. I saw zero effort on the part of that IP to do anything but edit war. I certainly never add anything perjorative to articles about any other country. So this ongoing hallucination that I am some kind of xenophobic editor, when all I am trying to do is ensure that articles about my own country aren't taken over by POV pushers who are not editing from the U.S. Before you mislabel me again as being xenophobic, I strongly urge you to search my edits and see if I have ever ONCE added perjorative content to an article related to any other country than my own. The edits I revert I definitely consider to be perjorative and I will continue to revert them. I could add all sorts of well referenced but pejorative POV to articles about North Korea, Iran, Syria...you name it, but I don't and have no intention of doing so.--] 05:04, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
::::Please, be civil, at least to someone who specifies that he has no axe to grind. 'Bullshit' is a bit much, I think.. I think you may have misunderstood what concerns me. I do not worry that you are xenophobic, and adding xenophobic material to other countries' articles. I am concerned that your comment, as reported, indicates a predisposition towards believing all others are xenophobic, and thus towards deleting without discussion legitimate worldwide contributions precisely because they do not represent what you feel is domestic consensus, and thus seriously damaging the project. This is also quite clearly incivil at worst and uncollegial at least. Your statement above, I am afraid, goes some way towards confirming my initial impression, and only exacerbates my disappointment that nobody else established seems to be speaking out against it on this occasion.
::::Since I have said my piece, this will be my last post on the subject. I apologise if I have offended you. ] 07:00, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
:::::There was nothing collegial about that IP's contributions in the least. I have explained this matter but you fail to understand.--] 07:08, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
::::::Since I'm adding to it, clearly it wasn't my last post....in my defence, I had come back here to further qualify a few things, but my hand was forced by the above comment. (a) You have explained why you believe you are not xenophobic, but that is not the point at issue (b) the IP's behaviour is not what concerns me at this time (c) I really do not care to get into a discussion about this with you. If it is indeed the case that ''nobody else thinks that this sort of crap is worth commenting on'', then I suggest this section be marked "resolved through careful ignoring of the matter" and be archived. Thanks for your careful attention. ] 07:14, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


Looking forward to your advice on how to proceed.
== Request assistance by an uninvolved admin. ==


Thankyou! ]] 15:21, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
I have, for weeks now, been under attack by an editor who has a grudge, apparently for my deletion of a page at some point in the past. They have repeatedly made accusations on my talk page that there are racist motives behind my deletions. The first two such I deleted as trolling. Then they made a third accusation, and began a ] thread with the accusations. Others in that thread stressed that the user needed to back up their accusations with proof. I have since tried to engage the user on my ], but it has become obvious that the user does not care to actually read reasoned explanations why they are off-base, but just wants to continue lobbing the accusations of racism at me without making any attempt to back them up. Overall though, I have no clue which deletion of mine could be the cause of all this. Most likely an A7 speedy, from the user's comments, but who knows.


:"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.
As I am definitely involved in this, it would not be appropriate for me to deal with the continual WP:NPA violations in these unfounded accusations. But if an uninvolved admin could look over the situation and help deal with it, I would appreciate it. - ] 06:02, 9 July 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 ==
:I've blocked the IP address for three months, considering that it's been involved in this since at least early June. There's no indication he's done any of use for Misplaced Pages in the past, and there's no indication he's going to stop anytime soon. I think a nice, long block for such absurd accusations and egregious personal attacks can't hurt. &mdash; ''']''' <sup><font color="#CC5500">]</font></sup> 07:45, 9 July 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)
:Well, I guess he found a new address earlier today. I blocked that one for a week, because I can't yet tell if there's going to be much collateral damage there. &mdash; ''']''' <sup><font color="#CC5500">]</font></sup> 07:48, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

:: He's back again. An account this time. Sigh. I'm now going to just resume deleting him as a troll and no longer dignify him with any more responses. - ] 00:00, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

:::Indef blocked. At this point, I'd completely endorse you going ahead and blocking any sign of him yourself, unless he happened to decide to engage you rationally. (Whatever happened to that kind of mentality, anyway?) &mdash; ''']''' <sup><font color="#CC5500">]</font></sup> 08:55, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Anyone else have any objection to my blocking this guy myself? I've been hesitant to do so because I'm the subject of this guy's ire, thus making me a thouroughly involved person. But being able to block him myself would certainly simplify the situation. A lot easier than having to keep coming here for uninvolved assistance each time he pops back up. - ] 13:23, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

:Looking it over, I think at this point it's pretty clear it's a basic troll. You've been ''more'' than patient and civil, and he's acknowledged he has no intention of providing details of the alleged offense or of doing anything other than posting racist personal attacks. The AGF phase is over, and he's simply sockpuppeting his way past a block. Block away. ] ] 23:40, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
::I agree with ]. Block on sight. --<font color="Red">]</font><sup><font color="Black">]</font></sup> 23:58, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

== ED trolling ==

Please extend the block on {{IPvandal|205.251.30.76}} per finding of fact 16) and enforcement 1) of ] - Specifically, vandalising ] with a ''very'' offensive cutpaste of ED's article on me. ''']''' <sup>(])</sup> (Originally posted 20:57, 7 July 2007 (UTC)) 11:53, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
:That edit was a couple of days ago and there has been no further edits from that IP, which, correct me if I am wrong, is a dynamic IP address. ]<sub>]</sub></font> 12:39, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
::Correction, it's been blocked. But I still think its a dynamic IP address so extending the block will not accomplish much. ]<sub>]</sub></font> 12:41, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
:While that vandalism is certainly childish and offensive, <s>I don't see how ED and enforcement of the ArbCom case are involved; . This appears to be just a run-of-the-mill cheesed-off vandal.</s> '''<font color="#FFA52B">Ƙ</font><font color="#C31562">]</font><font color="#FFA52B">ɨ</font><font color="#C31562">]</font><font color="#FFA52B">ρ</font><font color="#C31562">]</font><font color="#FFA52B">ȶ</font>''' 20:35, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
::Edit was oversighted on my request due to it containing personal information. Anyone with access to oversight-l can confirm this. ''']''' <sup>(])</sup> 21:15, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
:::No one has to tolerate that kind of harassment...sorry Will.--] 21:19, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

:::Ah, OK. My bad. '''<font color="#FFA52B">Ƙ</font><font color="#C31562">]</font><font color="#FFA52B">ɨ</font><font color="#C31562">]</font><font color="#FFA52B">ρ</font><font color="#C31562">]</font><font color="#FFA52B">ȶ</font>''' 22:05, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

::::Thankfully, it was only my last name (which, though I did divulge at one point, would rather not plaster on my page), but still, my ED article is sickening to put it politely. ''']''' <sup>(])</sup> 00:40, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
:::::It looks like your "friend" Geoffrey Mitchell is the one responsible for that Sceptre, or maybe Sixty Six, but I feel more confident about the former. --] 20:18, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
::::::I'm not blaming either Geoffrey or Sixty Six for the vandalism to the page (AFAIK, neither lives in Canada), but the ED vandal does have an overt obsession with myself and Matthew. ''']''' <sup>(])</sup> 14:13, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

== Protection, un-protection and re-protection of ] ==

Hi there. Due to conflicts over a re-wording of this policy, ] was protected on the 6th July by ]. The edits were discussed on the talk page ] and three proposals put up to assess opinion ]. There was clear and strong consensus for draft 1. Today, ] unprotected the page. Jossi had not been involved in the dispute and last edited the policy in June. I asked Jossi on their userpage ] if it would be OK to add the consensus wording to the policy. I checked one last time ] if people were OK with the wording. However, when I attempted to add this consensus wording, ], a party in the dispute, reverted this change and indefinitely protected the page. ] 22:39, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

:The page has now been unprotected by ], who was not involved in the dispute. What do people recommend I do here? ] 22:49, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
*I'd suggest leaving it now - if edit warring continues, it will be quickly re-protected by an uninvolved admin per a ] request, there's no point in getting into a wheel war over something so small. ] 22:53, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

::Jossi is heavily involved in the dispute. This unprotection is completely inappropriate. There is no consensus for the changes Tim Vickers are been pushing for, and the page needs to remain stable. That is precisely why Quadell protected it in the first place. <font color="Purple">]</font> <small><sup><font color="Blue">]</font><font color="Green">]</font></sup></small> 23:02, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
:::Well.... I still say let's see what happens. If there is a consensus, everything will be fine - if just one or two editors continue to edit war, they'll get blocked. If there really isn't a consensus, then it can be reprotected when we come to that bridge. ] 23:04, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
::OK, I've gone back to the version that has overwhelming support on the talk page. If I'm reverted I'll just try some more discussion on the talk page, and hope that the people with concerns will get involved. ] 23:06, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

'' If there is a consensus...'' There *has* been overwhelming consensus on the talk page if any impartial editor is willing to look at the discussions. The real question is whether SlimVirgin is willing to let go of her disappointing out-of-process and uncompromising approach and respect that consensus. — ] 23:16, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

:This blatant disregard for due process is both alarming and extremely disappointing . — ] 23:46, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Um, without commenting on the actual content of the dispute, I think that reverting a blank edit just because it was made to a protected page (especially since at the time it had been only semi'd by mistake) is surely one of those signs that someone needs to get out and take a few deep breaths (Diffs: ). ] 00:56, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

:According to SlimVirgin: "There are a small group of editors agitating to add material that would fundamentally alter the policy. They've engaged in all kinds of unpleasant tactics, including personal attacks and starting forest fires in an effort to wear people down." No diffs for these supposed "personal attacks" were provided. ] 03:33, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

This is some seriously trivial edit-warring right here. Behold, the great and contentious edit:
<blockquote>Academic and peer-reviewed publications are highly valued and usually the most reliable sources in areas where they are available, such as history, medicine, and science. Material from reliable non-academic sources may also be used in these areas, particularly if they are respected mainstream publications. The appropriateness of any source always depends on the context. Where there is disagreement between sources, their views should be clearly attributed in the text.</blockquote>

<blockquote>Academic and peer-reviewed publications are highly valued and usually the most reliable sources in areas where they are available, such as history, medicine and science. Material from reliable non-academic sources is also welcome in these areas, particularly if they are respected mainstream publications. The appropriateness of any source always depends on the context. Where there is disagreement between sources, their views should be clearly attributed in the text.</blockquote>

Some people need to chill. No one, beyond the most Wiki-lawyering hack would be able to derive any substantive editorial meaning from these two versions. --] 03:56, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

:I've proposed that second version on the talk page as a possible compromise version ], but apparently it isn't acceptable. ] 04:01, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

::I appreciate stable policies as much as the next person, which is probably why I never edit them. Although I agree with the proposed changes to ] in spirit, I don't know what the best wording is, and more fundamentally, I'm not willing to expend a lot of effort fighting City Hall here. That said, the ''unpleasant tactics'' being employed to beat down TimVickers are disheartening and lame. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 05:53, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

:I completely disagree. I think sentences like "Material from reliable non-academic sources is also welcome in these areas, particularly if they are respected mainstream publications" are opaque, poorly-written and openly invite this type of abuse of what our policy actually is. Notice that it says "particularly if..." which means they don't even have to be from mainstream publications! Misplaced Pages does not as a matter of policy "welcome" non-academic sources in any of these areas--''that's'' absurd! And I have witnessed editors promote certain claims based on unreliable sources because of just how badly WP:V and WP:RS have become gradually over the past year. They do because they seem to think the policy supports their positions, and they are just as mistaken. — ] 07:56, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

::Of course we welcome reliable non-academic sources; we always have. Please give me one example of editors "promoting certain claims based on unreliable sources because of just how badly WP:V and WP:RS have become ..." I would like to see just one example of the policy being used (correctly) to justify the inclusion of nonsense from bad sources. <font color="Purple">]</font> <small><sup><font color="Blue">]</font><font color="Green">]</font></sup></small> 08:01, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

:::''Of course we welcome reliable non-academic sources; we always have.'' And I have never said otherwise, but this is about academic topics. Until the most recent changes to WP:V, there was no indication at all that Misplaced Pages did give preference to academic sources in academic subjects, which it did a year ago. A year ago, we had: "For academic subjects, the sources should preferably be peer-reviewed", not to mention ] was actually worth its megabytes.
:::This is a particularly ] of an editor who repeatedly introduced ridiculous claims into many articles through various sockpuppets (and apparently still does) based on the assumption that his sources were reliable within the perimeters of our policy. In fact, it was repeatedly pointed out to him by other editors that his sources were not reliable from a Misplaced Pages standpoint, but to me, at that stage, I did not feel that the policy made a strong enough case against what ended up being a mass assault on a significant number of articles, all sourced. That doesn't necessarily mean it would have stopped him, or that it will stop others like him in the future, but I maintain that the policy has to be clear enough to eliminate any potential misuse. It is not with that wording at all. — ] 09:05, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

::::Okay, but you're not giving me actual examples. I would like to see an example where an editor actually cited WP:V as giving him licence to use what turned out to be poor sources. I would like to see diffs. I'd also like to see a link for "For academic subjects, the sources should preferably be peer-reviewed ..." What page was it on and when? <font color="Purple">]</font> <small><sup><font color="Blue">]</font><font color="Green">]</font></sup></small> 09:09, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

:::There is this edit by you to WP:V last October that you described in your edit summary as the "consensus version" . It states ''"For academic subjects, the sources should preferably be peer-reviewed."'' ] 17:02, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

:::: Should we save everyone a lot of effort and acknowledge that only a few editors may edit certain pages, while even good-faith, constructive, civil and productive editors—who discuss and build consensus on talk pages—may be subjected to the "unpleasant tactics" described by MastCell if they attempt input on those pages ? Acknowledging and formalizing the status quo could save a future good-faith editor from being subjected to a similar debacle; Tim probably could have churned out a couple more exemplary FAs in the time spent on this. ] (]) 22:17, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
:::::Hear,hear. The only time I ever tried to edit a policy page - to return it to a stable version changed without discussion to something with a different meaning -in order to make it 'more readable', apparently! - I was reverted a few times without discussion and then told several times I was doing it to win a content dispute, even after I discussed at length how it was irrelevant to any dispute I was then in. Peh. ] 23:01, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

:::I've noticed that this "consensus version" was radically-rewritten 14 days later and, amongst other changes, the statement that ''"For academic subjects, the sources should preferably be peer-reviewed."'' was removed by SlimVirgin with the edit summary of - ''"tightened"'' on 23 October 2006 . There was no prior discussion or consultation on the talk page and her only comment on this major rewrite on the talk page was the statement ''"I've also tightened the writing a bit more."'' . ] 22:25, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

== ] blocked indefinitely ==

This user has created havoc in all main North Africa-related topics' talk pages since she started editing a few weeks ago. Mariam83 tried very hard to prove that she ''is'' right and the rest weather they are or anything related to offend black people in particular. While she could have been a benefit for wikipedia -like when she is not slurring she brings some notable sources although ''blurred'' by the noise, this user has been more a disrupter than someone keen to work w/ others w/o intentionally trying to offend them. I may feel sad for wikipedia for losing a potential positive contributor (editing since June 2007) but my zero tolerance to racist and very offending slurs makes me feel no sorrow for any potential thought whatsoever especially that she was given more than few or little chances to stop that behaviour and contribute safely and gently. Her talk page history is full of comments of a dozen of editors and a few admins' notes/ re her behaviour as well as two block notices. That same talk page that nobody cared for so long to revert as it was made sure to be kept empty at all times. It was like ''ohh you bastards and filthy and uncivilized negroes, do not talk to me!'' And between this and that (chrono order):

* This i consider . It was against ]. That was very sick
* ,
* or meatpuppeting (according to her). She acknowledged that she ''really'' had some off-wiki consultations
* making against four contributors
*"You are also in dire need of a history lesson" This is what i was told on as if i she was believing that i had to believe like she does as we both come from North Africa
* a kind of interrupted wiki-break w/ the minimum edits possible and some kind of mixed w/ references from Britannica and some other notable ones
* ...and then came today when i noticed these new ways and and more

Since this user has been more active in violating NPA many times i blocked her for that said reason. This means that she could have been blocked for disruption, BATTLE, edit warring, ABF as well. All in all, Mariam83 has been having conflicts w/ around 5 admins and around 6 or 7 editors. That's quite a real battle. -- ] - <small>]</small> 02:05, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
:I endorse this block. Mariam83's behavior has been absolutely inappropriate. FayssalF did the right thing in blocking her to prevent further incivility and harassment. ] ] 02:16, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
::Quite right, block with/due to extreme prejudice. ] 03:58, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
:::Probably a troll. (I hope it was a troll, would be even scarier to imagine someone ''really'' thinks that stuff...). In either case, goodbye, don't come back, very strongly endorse block, etc. etc.. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 04:06, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
:::: Thanks mate, the behaviour was impossible to deal with - pity as I noted at Bouha talk page, as it was clear "Mariam" had some real knowledge, but either trolling or really bloody loony (the usages of Abid etc struck me however as real profound racism). ] 15:54, 10 July 2007 (UTC).
:::::She was back emailing me as usual w/ her rant and slurs (i.e. accusing me of having some weird sexual relationship w/ you in particular). Added her few email addresses to spam. -- ] - <small>]</small> 17:03, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
:I wholeheartedly endorse this indefinite block. alone should be anyone's last edit.] 07:27, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
::I agree, and in fact I'm disgusted this person was allowed to stay here for an additional three weeks. --] 07:36, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
:: ] has gone too far with personal attacks. I too support indefinite block --] 07:33, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
::...She even sourced her racist attacks against DCV indeed. Something new at wikipedia. Now she is back w/ socks. -- ] - <small>]</small> 07:34, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
::: It is new indeed :) --] 07:36, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
{{Further|]}}

== User:Rex Germanus' user page ==

] seems to be attacking the German people. Does this not go against ]? ] 14:03, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
:Diffs to demonstrate this? ] ] 14:06, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Check his user page. The link I provided goes right to the thing I'm talking about. ] 15:34, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
:You asserted that this editor is in violation of the "No personal attacks" policy. Please provide evidence that he or she has engaged in personal attacks.
:Incidentally, have you notified this editor that you have raised this issue here? Or discussed it with him or her prior to posting to this noticeboard? --] 03:40, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Just for the record: Due to comments made in the case ] above, I do not present my evidence against Rex here unless asked to do so by an admin. --&nbsp;]&nbsp;]&nbsp;&nbsp;]&nbsp; &nbsp; 03:45, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
:Likewise we will not do anything unless you provide evidence, as requested above by ElKevbo. —''']''' 04:01, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

::Okay then - but where should I start with? It seems Rex has earned most of his blocks on Dutch-related articles, and manages to provoke Dutch editors , but I'm not into Dutch matters, and can only judge from what I have to witness (sigh!) on German-related articles. Rex openly states his motivation on his user pages and on talk pages, and he undoubtedly opposes anything remotely German within English Misplaced Pages. His countless unilateral attempts to move articles away from German loanwords like ] to dubious or clumsy terms like have been reverted by the community nearly every time - as was his attempt to establish a Dutch term on English Misplaced Pages that is "associated with the extreme right.". Rex is gratuitous with labeling others as vandals, which FayssalF found out himself on a related page, see below. It's even worse when Rex sees the chance to accuse others to be nationalists, for which he has developed ], or the straigtforward superlative ''German nationalist'' . He openly brags about . If nationalist or German nationalist is not enough, he uses Nazi wherever (im)possible. E.g. seeing that the result of the ] was marked as "German victory", he made the laughable attempt to declare the sinking of the British flagship Hood a "draw" before he changed it to "Draw / Tactical Nazi victory". Regarding attacks on users, he is on parole for a year , yet got away with edits like and . Rex also developed a habit of replacing comments of others with <nowiki>{{rpa}}</nowiki>, something which he was repeatedly warned not to do . On the other hand, he removes these tags, and threatens a user after he has falsely accused him of sock puppetry , like Rex did with me believing I was . Rex even stalked me in an unrelated Arbcom case were he called me for which he received kudos and questions also regarding his rather provocative ''German King'' user name . Basically, I advocate a permanent ban of Rex from all articles related to German, Germans, Germany and even Germanic tribes. As the recent case of {{user|Cheiron1312}} shows, Rex' edits on Wiki can make newcomers angry, yet alone established editors who have to witness his same patterns over and over again. --&nbsp;]&nbsp;]&nbsp;&nbsp;]&nbsp; &nbsp; 06:38, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


I have provided a link to what is in question here. I personally haven't discussed this with him but this topic I brought here has been discussed with him. He either is or he isn't in violation. ] 03:58, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

:I don't see any violation unless you point out exactly ''how'' it is a violation. Please be specific. —''']''' 04:01, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

"I systematically do not trust German(ophone) wikipedians who spend much time on articles dealing with Nazi Germany, fascism or the German military between 1933 and 1945. I also do not trust people who engage themselves in historical renaming. For example those who support naming Gdansk to Danzig, I'm convinced a large number of these people have a ]." This is a blatant attack on the German wikipedians. ] page he has created is more blatant attacks on German Wikipedians. ] which states User pages may not have stuff that has "Extensive personal opinions on matters unrelated to Misplaced Pages, wiki philosophy, collaboration, free content, the Creative Commons, etc." is clearly violated. ] 04:14, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

:You haven't let the user know about this thread. Anyway, i just informed him. Whatever is the case, as i just checked one of the user in question contribs, i and warrant a block by itself. I'll leave some time in order to hear about the real reasons. -- ] - <small>]</small> 04:16, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Alright then, here we are once more. First let me make this clear:
#''']''': I do not know this editor, and before he showed up at my talkpage and reinserted a removed personal attack by ].
#''']''': New editor, with , all related to the Nemi ships. Making gross personal attacks.
#''']''': This user is, regretably, a familiar name. Though he claims to be "''mainly interested in motorsports''" his contributions and talkpage comments tell . This person thrives on conflict, especialy with Polish wikipedians, and me, concerning WW2 topics.

I '''do not''' attack "''the German people''". Besides ''']''' or ''']''' numerous articles, I try to revert nationalism, and focus on German nationalism, simply because its the form I encounter most.

What ] posted here, ] seems unable to prove his statement of me attacking "''the German people''", are not only old comments, but terribly and I mean terribly out of context, not even mentioning unrelated.

To create some clearity in this mess, the entire timeline of this conflict will now be given:
:::::::::::::'''Prelude'''
:::::::''(Numerous conflicts with ], due to his edits)''
:::::::::::::'''Start'''
::::'''''' an anonymous IP posts a comment on my talkpage concerning the destruction</br> of the ]. He claims the article is very anti-German, because it says that Germans burned</br> during WW2. This information is '''referenced''' and I remind him of this. I also say he should trim down</br> on the pro-German attitude ("''defending nazis''") he displayes for their conduct during WW2.

::::'''''' the anyonymous IP, now as ''']''', replies that he does not considers</br> the source reliable, and then literally says the following:</br> <font color="brown">"''But maybe i should trust you. The Dutchs have a lot of experience in commiting warcrimes''"</font></br>
::::He then continues his rant, claiming the Dutch are responsible for ] ("''the boers were of Dutch decend''")</br> he places numbers of Indonesian victims during the Police actions of the Dutch army, and consequently says</br> the Dutch "'' tasted only a small dose of her own medicine!''" during the German occupation. (Do note, that Dutch </br>victims of the German occupation were twice as high as the numbers he gave for the Indonesians. Not that it </br>matters though, as both events were terrible.)

::::'''''' I'm infuriated and warn him this is not the way people discuss or prove points on Misplaced Pages.</br> I tell him he may consider himself banned (''ie I remove all his future comments'') if he does not adapt his ways.

::::'''''' User continues the rant. Somehow he interpretes my comments as an acknowledgement that the sources are unreliable ''(which they're not)'' and continues to make accusations to the Dutch and myself. Again defending nazis.

::::'''''' as warned before, I remove the comment and replace it with a notice that I no longer wish to speak to him on my talkpage.

::::'''''' ''']''' adds a minor personal attack.

::::'''''' I remove it.

::::'''''' Out of the blue ''']''' appears readds Cheiron1312s personal attack and adds his own below.

::::'''''' I remove them again.
:::::::::::::'''Aftermath'''
::::'''''' ''']''' and ''']''' ''(who is of course more than willing to cooperate in making someone he hates look bad)'' start to conspire.

:This entire report is bogus. I do not attack "''the German people''" ''(and no refs have been provided to prove otherwise)'' I target German nationalism, and as opposed to what Matthead says, I and other wikipedians nearly always '''succeed''', of which this isn't even a real example and Cheiron1213 never implemented his (doubtfull) version.] 11:02, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

The original subject of this complaint is a section of ]' user page that says:
<blockquote> ''I systematically do not trust German(ophone) wikipedians who spend much time on articles dealing with Nazi Germany, fascism or the German military between 1933 and 1945. I also do not trust people who engage themselves in historical renaming.''</blockquote>
I would prefer that Rex not assign editors perjorative labels, but at least his prejudices are out in the open for all to see. I have seen arbitration cases involving editors who were far more POV-prone than Rex but who swore up, down and sideways that they were unbiased and it was ''the other guy'' who had an agenda. I see two main problems with Rex; first, the labeling of editors as a way of dismissing their opinions, and second, a strong POV that manifests itself as incivility on user talk pages and edit summaries (exacerbated by people being uncivil toward Rex).

The problem is how to deal with this. Rex's arbitration case places him on probation and allows any admin to ban him from any page he disrupts. However, the allegations reported so far have not been about article disruption, and he has not violated his revert parole recently. Incivility was not part of the Arbitration case, and in any event the Arbitration Committee has recently deprecated civility parole as a remedy (and we all know that "cool down" blocks are rarely effective). In a couple of recent cases the ArbCom has authorized the use of blocks for incivility of a maximum of 1 hour duration, probably on the theory that someone who gets dinged several times briefly might start to think twice before hitting the '''Save''' button. I could support this remedy, as long as the blocks were thrown in a timely fashion. Otherwise, I think an RFC focusing specifically on incivility and perjorative labeling might be the next route. Admins don't have a lot of tools for dealing with people who are rude and who have strong points of view when those things are not accompanied by edit warring or other overtly blockable behavior. ] 15:13, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

:What I posted on my talk page is not a secret, nor is it unbased. The allegation that I target Germans is nonsense, I target the nationalist ones and keep an eye on them. There is nothing wrong with that. I hope I don't have to qoute Jim Wales's statement on neo nazism on Misplaced Pages? I'm not saying all Germans who edit WW2 articles are nazis, or nationalists, I'm saying I don't trust them. ] 15:29, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

::: Regarding "allegations reported so far have not been about article disruption" and "The allegation that I target Germans is nonsense", Rex was in action at and --&nbsp;]&nbsp;]&nbsp;&nbsp;]&nbsp; &nbsp; 16:23, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

::I don't think your user page targets users specifically, but I think you should avoid labeling users in your direct dealings with others. For example, you could have addressed Cheiron1312's complaint without labeling him a "revisionist." Even if it is true, sticking labels on people shifts the focus from the facts at hand to their to their personality, which is rarely helpful in a dispute. ] 15:39, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
:::I understand, but that doesn't mean it makes him less of a revisionist or weird editor. I for one can't make out why he objected against nazi amry, but was okay with replacing it with german army.] 16:14, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
:As anyone can see from my contribs, I've started editing on Wiki in 2004 mainly in sports-related matters, and got dragged into ongoing disputes only in 2006. Regarding ], it was him who introduced the ] into Misplaced Pages, a list that mainly collects and presents offensive terms. ] shows that Rex did not make many friends with his article and his edits. The comparable ] and ] are younger, thus Rex really is a pioneer. Regarding his beginnings, on his 3rd day on Misplaced Pages, his 8th edit overall claimed that the ] "originally inhabited the ] and ] before they started to fight their way south" which illustrates his Dutch POV on the people that "eventually developed into France and Germany respectively". Indeed, Rex Germanus started to fight his way through Germany on Misplaced Pages. When will he be stopped? --&nbsp;]&nbsp;]&nbsp;&nbsp;]&nbsp; &nbsp; 16:04, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
::Boy you're really trying hard aren't you Matthead? You're forgetting one important thing though aren't you? Sources. That's the main difference between you and me, I use them you neglect them. List of terms used for Germans, was inspired by a very interesting boek, onbekende buren, and was never intended (nor ever was) a bash article. It is currently a perfectly acceptable wikipedia article, something you have yet to produce.] 16:14, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

The neutrality of ] article or section is disputed and the factual accuracy of ] article is disputed and both are listed on ]. Rex has contributed to these articles. His personal opinion on a group of people has affected his ability to contribute constructively. ] 16:19, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
:You are seeing ghosts. I am by no means the sole contributor of these articles, and the information I suplied was fully referenced, and my feeling of responsibility ends there. Like I said you're seeing ghosts. I also made an article on ] a kind of pastry, care to explain how they're anti-German?] 16:29, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

You are the main contributor to ]. This article is factual disputed. ] 16:33, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
:So? It is still referenced. I'm not responsible for possible errors in a book I choose as a reference. ] 16:36, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

::Rex. You haven't addressed my point above (i.e. when it wasn't the case at all). Do you have any reasonable explanation for that? -- ] - <small>]</small> 16:55, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
:::Oh yes of course (though you seem already to have an opinion). If you'll check the history around that specific edit, you'll find a "revert spree". Matthead was inactive for a while then started to revert my edits (without edit summaries) en masse. Including the readding of a template while taggs would have been much better and a false/unsupported merge proposal. Such edits are extremely bath faith and I consider him a vandal for making them. ] 17:30, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

::::The opinion i have is that neither you nor Matthead, nor AjaxSmack are well aware of the process of editing.
::::*You started an .
::::*The article was thanks to ].
::::*] added the . It is expected from editors to be aware of ] before tagging and leaving no starting discussion at any one of both talk pages.
::::*Then you came . All your explanation above is irrelevant because at this stage ] was not involved yet.
::::* to the article was reverting your edition. Again, Matthead left no explanation whatsoever.
::::*Matthead's innapropriate action was considered . It was not the case. It is not appropriate but it is not vandalism at all.
::::Please note that only , the bot edition were in place and appropriate which is very sad for an encyclopedia supposed to be edited by humans. Also, please follow the advice of Thatcher131 above to not assign editors pejorative labels. I have therefore blocked all the parties (pls read ] below). -- ] - <small>]</small> 20:39, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Rex, the whole problem is your point of view pushing onto other users and articles you contribute to like the one I just mentioned. ] 17:03, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
:I do not push my view on to others. My point of view has a clear disgust of neonazis and German nationalists hurting peoples feelings by revisioning history. That's not negative, thats positive for the factual and moral accuracy of Misplaced Pages. ] 17:28, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

===Outcome===
As per the above diffs of disruption and totally inappropriate reverting by ] -adding to that his ] i've blocked him for 2 weeks. As for ], i am blocking him for 48 hours for tedious reverting w/o attempting to discuss which is not helpful at all. ] has already been blocked by Moreschi for 24h for canvassing. I'm extending that block to 48h because of his . ] has been informed of the merge case and was asked gently to try to discuss in parallel when tagging {merge}. -- ] - <small>]</small> 20:39, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

:'''Updates'''

:] has just that ''The reason is totally unclear'' and that blocking him because he used the term ''vandal'' at his edit summary was a wrong decision. again that he was blocked because of the removal of {unreferenced} tag which was totally out of place. As for the 2 weeks period i explained to him that that period is fair as he is already under parole. I haven't blocked him because he designated someone a ''vandal'' as i already excplicitly adviced him to follow Thatcher131 advice re that matter.

:] has just . - ] - <small>]</small> 22:07, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
::Sorry FayssalF, I know it must have been one of the tougher calls, but I don’t think blocking ''anybody'' here was the right approach. What ] that couldn’t be resolved by our ]? And yes I know, I’m using the standard argument to ease on the blocking, but think about it, wasn’t this the "too" quick a solution? What also worries me a bit, is your pointing out of ]’s content with the outcome, that's is a bit... let’s say... slightly naïve. --] 23:00, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
:::I don't see your point Van helsing. It wasn't a quick solution at all. If you check this you'd see that i that i can't take any action until i hear enough. What i heard today wasn't something new. Everybody was treated fairly as per all the discussion above. Removing an {unreferenced} tag when the article clearly lacks any single reference is called '''disruption''' and warrants a block. 2 weeks for Rex was fair as he has been under parole. Matthead was just reverting non-stop w/o discussion which is called '''disruption''' as well. 48h is fair in those kind of situations. As per kingjeff, i fairly extended his block from 24 to 48h because he already know that reverting others' talk pages is called '''disruption''' as well. Your suggestion (i.e. DR) has become something very unlikely to happen. There was even an attempt to community ban Rex. Matthead has explicitly acknowledged that he is not ready to discuss anything with Rex. So? If all these people are not listening to others and indeed go on on reverting than i see no other relevant or appropriate action except letting them having a break to ease tensions and avoid that in the future as what they have been doing is just '''disruptive'''.
:::Indeed, it was me who against Rex. This shows that everybody has been being disruptive and maybe these blocks would change their minds when they are back. -- ] - <small>]</small> 23:25, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

::::Under Rex's revert parole he is limited to one revert per week, excepting obvious vandalism, and must discuss all reverts on the talk page. He has two reverts on {{la|Heel-Nederland}} on the same day (July 5) with no discussion, which is a clear violation (and mislabeling them as vandalism, another violation). My first reaction is that 2 weeks is too long, and that something between 48 hours and 1 week would be appropriate. However, his last two blocks for violating his revert parole were a week each and he doesn't seem to have gotten the message. Also, kudos to FayssalF for taking the time to thoroughly examine the behavior of all parties. ] 23:29, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
:::::Thanks for your synthesis Thatcher131. I indeed never double when blocking someone who has been blocked before for no reason. 2 weeks instead of a week or 48h instead of 24h really mean (no less no more) that all these users have to take issues seriously and stop edit warring, stop labeling each other pejoratively (vandals, nazis, xenophobic, etc...), start good faith discussions, bring reliable sources. Rex indeed claims above in a reply to Matthead that he is keen to bring sources in contrast with what Matthead is doing. The truth as everybody noted is that i blocked him because he was removing {unreferenced} tag from a really unreferenced article whose he had created! See? Which one would you believe? It is time for people to be responsible of what they are saying and doing here in Misplaced Pages and be more civil w/ people w/ whom he is interacting. After 48h Matthead should try to discuss his issues w/ people instead of stating that he has decided not to! Kingjeff should calm down and not violate policies re canvassing, reverting and disruption. As for the unknown ], that i suppose he is a sock or at least a meatpuppet of someone i don't know. Do you still have CU tools Thatcher131? -- ] - <small>]</small> 23:54, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
::::::Not a checkuser. I am suspicious that right after registering he would make Dutch and Afrikaans attacks on Rex, although that information could be found from Rex's Babel boxes. Even so, it would be far better for Rex to have said, "You may disagree with my source but your theory has no sources at all" than "You are a revisionist so shut up" (more or less). ] 00:42, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
:::I must admit it didn’t follow what happened yesterday. What I did see is that two guys to get someone blocked. And it appears, the "victim" actually did violate ] 5 days ago, and thus they succeed in their effort. That’s a bit sour if that "victim" had to respond to a lot of ] from similar users in the past. --] 00:20, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
::::No worries Van helsing. I don't think it was a conspiracy. It was canvassing in fact and that's why Kingjeff was blocked for before i extended his block. If you follow my short discussion between me and him yesterday at my talk page you'd notice that he left almost the same message there. -- ] - <small>]</small> 00:32, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

== Babakexorramdin ==

I would like to draw attentions of the admins to {{user|Babakexorramdin}}. He edits an FA article ] in a very aggressive style, edit warring, making personal attacks, assuming bad faith and including his original research. Please check the recent history of the article. Here he rvs the article accusing me of vandalism:
He keeps on including Azerbaijani people in the list of Iranian people and restoring the claim that “''due to their historical ties with various ancient Iranians, their cultural ties with Persians, and their proven genetic ties with Iranian peoples, <u>they are sometimes included as an Iranian people</u>, although the modern Azerbaijani language is a Turkic language, with a large lexicon of ] words''”, but fails to provide any source that calls Azerbaijanis an Iranian people and removes the {{fact}} tag that I attached to this claim. Moreover, he adds Uzbeks as Iranian people and removes Iranian-speaking ]s from the list of Iranian people. In addition to the extreme POV editing, he assumes bad faith and makes personal attacks on other editors, such as this: ''You , DUE TO POLITICAL RESAONS OF ANTI_IRANIANISM, are violating and vandalizing our pages''. Note that POV editing of this person caused objections of some Iranian users as well. I would like to ask the admins to take measures to stop abuse of editing privileges by this user and help maintain the FA status of the article. Regards, --] 05:10, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
:I would not call all that personal attacks. I've just reminded him of the guideline ] and the ] when it comes to the verifiability policy. If they persist, please let me know. -- ] - <small>]</small> 00:06, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
:: Calling edits of other editors "vandalism" is a personal attack, in my opinion. In the very least it is a violation of ]. Thanks for your interference, I'll let you know if this user persists. Regards, --] 04:24, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

== Stalking by Bharatveer ==

] is wikistalking ] undoing the latter's edits. While the former is a revert warrior and pov pusher, the latter supports all his edits with arguments, and references. It is clear that the former is vandalising to push his pov. {{unsignedIP|59.91.253.167}}
:Do you have any diffs to provide that demonstrate stalking? --] 08:53, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
::Yes. Removing reference, simple unexplained revert, again unexplained revert, no reverting, still stalking , reverting Ragib, revert,
Repeated rv , , , removal of comment about his editing behavious from talk page .{{unsigned|59.91.253.167}}
:'''Side comment''' this IP looks ].--] 11:45, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
::To be more specific - the guy is in the IP range used by banned user ] might need a block.--] 12:03, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
:::Stop trolling, Konstable. A good faith edit is a good faith edit. When did you get the checkuser right? {{unsignedIP|193.111.87.20}}

::::This looks fairly certain to be a ] sockpuppet, and I've blocked the IP for 31 hours, which should be enough to convince him to move on to another IP. Actually, from the above, it looks like he already has. Even if weren't a sock, it's clearly an experienced user trolling AN/I and equally worthy of a short softblock. I haven't looked at the supposed dispute between Bharatveer and Hornplease, but I'm sure either of them are capable of bringing it to our attention if there's a problem. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 16:02, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
:::::I wouldn't,though I am undeniably capable of it. There is no problem at this time, of course. I was notified of a complaint filed on my behalf on my talkpage, so looked in here to reassure all those breathlessly concerned. ] 21:35, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
:::::I should add that the second anon IP that commented here, {{IPuser|193.111.87.20}}, is a TOR proxy server according to TORstatus, so I've indefinitely hard-blocked it. Is that the proper approach here? I know there's been some recent controversy about how to handle TOR servers. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 16:07, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
::::::You're not the only one who's totally confused about it/ ] 21:35, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

== A Continual History of Harassment from ] ==

This user is engaging in harassing and disruptive behavior on the page ] and is engaging in baiting behavior towards anyone who reverts his or her edits by flaunting warnings on their ] page. It seems that unless you are an admin, the user will only ignore warnings and harass others even more. I would love to detail each incident but the trail of contributions this user has made speaks for itself. Here is his or her talk page and here is a view of what the user has done on the ] page . And it apparently has been going on for months. —] 16:18, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
:I agree. Nearly the entire, long, long talk page for ] has been an attempt to reason with User:69.118.129.76, and an attempt to come to consensus. But we seem to have had a slew (more than a handful) of single-user accounts suddenly pop up to this user's defense. Then he claims he's got a consensus on his side. He's taking up a lot of time of a lot of productive Misplaced Pages editors. His participation in discussions has more to do with scoffing at other editors' opinions rather than trying to convince anybody of his own position. Nothing seems to help. ] 18:31, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
::Just an update but the same user is now doing it again . What exactly needs to be done by this user to get admin attention? The user has skirted 3RR rules, but seems to exist on Misplaced Pages only to disrupt this one page. A quick glance at the history shows a concerted effort by other users and admins to keep this user in line, but to no avail. The page was even locked until a concensous could be made and was unlocked when that concensous was reached in the assumption of good faith that this user would abide by group concensous. And they clearly haven't. --] 23:32, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

== Accusations ==

] user has accused me of being someone from the Intelligent Design folks. This is a defamation and a personal attack. See . He also blocked me. ] alleged that I promote Intelligent Design. That's no better. See These are gross violations of ] and ]. --] 18:26, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
*The comments themselves aren't particularly actionable, as far as I can see. The block strikes me as a bit of a strong reaction but contraversial articles sometimes require a more stronghanded approach to disruptive editors (I'll admit I'm quick to apply a block at ]). Have you tried talking to Raul654 to find out exactly what he finds objectionable about your behaviour? Your logs are kind of funny, and it's hard to see what's going on sometimes - anyways, Raul654 is one of the best and most reasonable administrators around - without a lot more to go on, people are unlikely to take complaints about him seriously. Cheers, ]<font color="FF8800">]</font> 19:45, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
::*As below, my reading of your logs was complicated by the Misplaced Pages:Wikipedians issue, and I was unable to get a complete picture. ]<font color="FF8800">]</font> 19:57, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

**Well, I was a little bit pissed off one day at the Intelligent Design talk, but that doesn't justify calling me a creationist or intelligent design guy. I find that a highly objectable accusation. I tried to contribute some knowledge I have about philosophy in general and Karl Popper in particular, who was a quite liberal philosopher (see ]), and some of his adherents seem in fact to argue pro Intelligent Design (I added a note about it to the Critical Rationalism article), which I didn't know until recently. But calling me a ID proponent just because I try to contribute with knowledge about Critical Rationalism is a little bit too much. It may well be true that Raul654 is a good contributor, but he is quite hostile towards me. I didn't even know him before I found myself blocked by him. I never talked to him, neither before nor afterwards. Why does he use these personal attacks without knowing me? --] 20:08, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
:::*That's something you would have to ask him. Try talking ''to'' him, rather than ''about'' him. ]<font color="FF8800">]</font> 20:16, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

<s>:This is unrelated to the issue, but what's with your edits ? Is this a technical problem?-] 19:46, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


:Actually, every single link in your log is messed up.-] 19:47, 10 July 2007 (UTC)</s>

:Nevermind, it's a general technical issue.-] 19:49, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

::Perhaps RTC means well. However, it is difficult to tell sometimes, particularly on very contentious articles. If he really thinks that we have misinterpreted Popper's views, he should write an article in a sandbox with lots of references, so we can understand what his point is and how well supported his views are.--] 15:03, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

== Weirdness ==

Could someone check out {{user|Homeskillettt}} and {{user|ICanDoItNineTimes}}? The first appears to be impersonating {{user|Edward}}, and IMHO there's something seriously weird going on with the latter (ICanDoItNineTimes)... Attacks? Puppetry? I could use a hand figuring things out here :) ]<small>&nbsp;(]·])</small> 19:27, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
:'''Comment''': Anyone else get a chuckle out of the fact that {{user|ICanDoItNineTimes}} has a picture of a sockpuppet, and says that's them? ] 20:22, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
::I the personal attacks on ]' user page. (non-admin) ] ]</sup> ]</sub> 20:25, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

== Bizarre glitch? ==

{{resolved|1=Or seems to be. &ndash; <span style="font-family: Garamond">] (])</span> 01:09, 11 July 2007 (UTC)}}

Can someone look at the edit history of ]? It looks like various reverts and maybe other edits of articles are getting dumped into that page for some inexplicable reason. You just have to look at the last 10-15 versions in the history to see what I mean... I edited a different article and ] showed up in my contribs list. --] 19:47, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
:Same here. The specific page I was attempting to edit was ]. --] 19:48, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
:::My sister went to school there :)--] 20:03, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

::I thought I was the only one getting that. It's showing up on several people's contribs lists. ]<small>&nbsp;(]·])</small> 19:49, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

::::Every diff comes up as having edited "Misplaced Pages:Wikipedians, "-] 19:50, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
I full protected the page... seeing if maybe that will at least alert people before they waste an edit. --] 19:51, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
:::::Ah good, I thought I was having a flashback...--] 19:52, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
There is some problem with the mediawiki software after an update. Please stand by and wait for it to be fixed. --] 19:53, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Being discussed at ] as well. -- ] - <small>]</small> 19:56, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Since Misplaced Pages:Wikipedians is fully-protected, articles which are normally unprotected can now not be edited by reverting to an earlier edit, I think. --''']''']''<font color="green">]</font>]'' / ] / ] || 20:00, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

:Not exactly. When this glitch kicks in, the content is for the article you think you are editing, but if you look at the top of the screen is actually says ''Editing Misplaced Pages:Wikipedians''. The articles themselves aren't becoming protected...you just aren't actually editing those articles. <font color="Green">]</font> <sup><font color="Blue">]</font></sup> 20:02, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
::The protection was the first thing I noticed; I went to do an edit and saw that I saw editing a page that only administrators could edit. I was confused at first, but then I realized it was a bug. ] 20:06, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Apparently it's been fixed now? --] 20:08, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

: Yup, all better now. ] | ] 20:38, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

::Hi. You know, this is a very bizzare and rare occurence. So, how about adding this story to ]? It would make a very interesting story. Thanks. ~<font color="blue">]]]</font><sup>(]]])</sup> 16:57, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

== Personal Attack ==

I have a personal attack from the user ] on my talk page. How do I remove it? {{unsigned|137.240.136.81}}
:That's not really a personal attack, but removed if it bothers you... you two should endeavor to leave each other alone.--] 19:57, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
::"Dumbass" is certainly a personal attack.-] 19:59, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
:::True, and ] shouldn't have said it, but this IP did leave a rather rude comment on that user's talk page first. Both of them need to chill out and be ], in my opinion. -] (]) 20:01, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
:::Eh, I'm probably a bad judge of that; I've got a very thick skin. To me it was grossly incivil and wholly unecessary, but not a personal attack. I removed it per the request. If someone wants to warn Neptune about it, go for it, but as FisherQueen said, there was a history of contact that went back beyond this particular comment.--] 20:04, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
::::I can't find the alleged comment, but regardless, IPs are not always the same person, so this could be one person receiving an insult intending for another. Either way Neptunian shouldn't have made that edit.-] 20:03, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
:You can edit it out yourself by clicking "Edit this page" at the top. However, we're going through some weird technical issues right now, so things might not work correctly.-] 19:59, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

== SCOX Issues ] ==

This user is an SCOX troll here to follow me around and revert edits. He has been repeatedly told to stay away from me on the site and is not listening. This is the third time this person has been warned. How about a block for him to send the message home. Thanks. ] 20:20, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
:Jeff, can you post some diffs where he was warned?--] 20:27, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

::Would take some time. I could post them this evening. Will take some time to research. ] 21:01, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
::What's the point of ''warning'' a harassment-only account? If the user actually listens, they would leave Misplaced Pages, exactly the same result as if they were summarily indefed. More likely, they will do a few unrelated edits or just wait until people have stopped paying attention, as Kebron has. Not that Kebron has not made some valid points here and there, for Merkey is not always correct…but even were Kebron ''always'' correct, there is something deeply unwikipedian about following someone around and confronting him at every turn. Wikistalking is an offense in itself in addition to whatever disruption might (or not) accompany it.] 01:03, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

::Eagerly awaiting to see this evidence. He made a similar claim when he got me blocked over my complaints about his POV and COI re Mormons, but never offered proof that I was ever warned specifically re him. ] 16:09, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

:Indeed, Kebron is an anti-Merkey-only account, see . He went and did a few Canada-related edits when the harassment was being discussed on WP:AN, but is back to Merkey.] 23:53, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

:: Mr Merkey has edited 20 articles +/- in the last month.... I have edited once or twice here and there.... this is considered following and harrassement? I do not agree. --] 13:08, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

:Excuse me.... once again... I have requested what I have did wrong? I am not allowed to revert something that needs reverting? Was I wrong in the reverts that I just did? --] 03:20, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
::It's not individual edits that I'm taking issue with, it's the overall pattern of your contribs since you started. There is one and only one common denominator which ties together the areas you've edited, and that's Jeff Merkey. Why is that?] 04:49, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
:::So I... personnaly as an editor am forbidden from touching ANY artcile edited by Mr Merkey for all time? Have I been insulting to him? Have I violated a three revert rule in a edit war with him? I wish to make it clear. Are you requesting that no matter what, I am forbidden from editing ANY article at the same time as Mr Merkey? EVEN IF the edits are correct? --] 10:38, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
::::Yes, in light of your edit history, that's exactly what I'm saying. As if someone in the real world followed you around all day correcting your grammar and telling all your faults to everyone you meet, that they might (or might not) be correct is entirely beside the point. Merkey feels stalked and harassed by you precisely because you are stalking and harassing him, and have been for several years now. "Good faith wikistalking" is not a concept we should be willing to accept. Harassment-only accounts aren't respected members of our community. Go find something else to do, either not involving Merkey or not involving Misplaced Pages.] 11:21, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

:See , where this issue is being discussed, and the fate of ] is being taken…quite personally.] 11:49, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

::Probiviouac, that post you cite also accuses Merkey of lying about Kebron, no doubt because, to the best of our (as a user of the SCOX board) knowledge, Kebron doesn't actually post there. Even if it was true, being a user of the SCOX board isn't, by itself, a crime against Misplaced Pages - guilt by association is never good policy, and anyways, Jeff often posts there himself. If SCOX is concerned about Kebron, it's because 1) they're always happy to find some reason to complain about Merkey 2) Nowadays they tend to complain about Misplaced Pages admin a lot, for their tolerance/kowtowing of Merkey and 3) Some of us are Misplaced Pages users who've been witchhunted before over this issue and it's something that genuinely concerns us. I've already been (wrongfully) indef blocked mostly for an edit that was in part trying to correct an admin's impression that Kebron was a SCOX troll. When I see people being threatened with adminnery partly because Jeff just asked someone to do it, then ] is what springs to my mind. Kebron doesn't have to be a user of the SCOX board for the SCOX forum to be interested in his fate. --] 14:36, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

:I am not responsible for what happens on that board. I have stated many times that I do not use that board, no matter what Mr. Merkey says. That board is obsessed with Mr. Merkey and since I happen to edit on occasion an article by Mr. Merkey they comment about me. I expressly request a second opinion on the matter. If my edits are considered harassement, what about the edits on any Morman topic by Mr. Merkey? He has stated on Misplaced Pages his beliefs on the suject and has made extreamely hatelfull edits. So following your logic why is Mr Merkey not banned from editing anything Mormon? --] 12:45, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
*Your first edits were to a now deleted version of the bio page on Merkey. Most of your subsequent edits relate to Merkey, SCO, and Groklaw as well (excepting the occasion edit elsewhere and your late May interest in Candian topics). I'll stop short of calling it ], but even assuming ] you seem to be preoccupied with editing articles Merkey has edited. Maybe it's time you took a break and went back to the Canadian related edits for a while.--] 14:20, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

SCO and Groklaw are now under the umbrella of Merkey? Wow. Just WOW.

Isotope23 and Proabivouac, have you considered that Kebron is not following Merkey around, but rather following a disruption in a certain area, namely Cherokee-related articles? After all, if Kebron were a SPA as Merkey claims, and you are inclined to agree, then why isn't Kebron editing every article that Merkey touches, including all of Merkey's unsourced or unverifiable statements in Mormon-related articles, the outrageous libel in the Eric Schmidt bio (material that has since been removed), or the Daniel Brandt saga?

Carefully review the diffs of Kebron's edits. Merkey removed sourced materials, and Kebron put it back with questions about why an entire paragraph should be removed because of a problem in the last sentence. Kebron scrubbed a very POV "(wannabe)" from a title, and suddenly he's committed a federal offense by aiding and abetting Indian identity fraud. Kebron denies being a "SCOX Troll" and so the accusation is repeated more vehemently. Kebron is working through very serious issues of disruption and POV-pushing, usually with a polite response, but at every turn, Merkey lobs accusations of "SCOX Troll," "wikistalking," "sockpuppet of banned user Vigilant," and so on, rather than responding to the questions and valid criticisms.

I don't think Kebron is an SPA against Merkey, but rather against the disruption that Merkey is causing in the Cherokee articles. Following a user is "wikistalking" (which does not show up as a word in any reputable dictionary, BTW), but following a disruptive action and attempting to minimize it is part of being a good wikipedia editor. ] 14:42, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

::This is another single purpose stalking account ]. ] 15:53, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

:::It seems that disagreement equals trolling or stalking in your mind. Check my recent contribution history, particularly post-unblock. ] 16:09, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
::::Who said anything about SCO & Groklaw being under the "umbrella of Merkey"? My point about Groklaw, SCO, etc. was simply that {{user|Kebron}} apparently started editing here on those topics, all of which have some relation, then seems to have changed gear and started showing an interest in Native American related articles that Merkey was editing. As I said above I stop short of calling it stalking, but Kebron's contributions don't exactly bear out your theory of "following a disruptive action and attempting to minimize it" {{user|Pfagerburg}} and I reiterate my comment above that if he wants to be a "good wikipedia editor" as you've put it, perhaps he should find some other set of topics to edit for a while.--] 16:30, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

:::::You brought up SCO and Groklaw as if they added weight to the SPA allegation. If they are unrelated, then leave them out. What if Kebron is knowledgeable about Linux ''and'' Cherokees? (Don't say it can't happen - Merkey claims knowledge of both.) So Kebron is editting the SCO and Groklaw articles, and becomes awake of Mr. Merkey, since Merkey was a topic of discussion in those areas. And then Kebron sees that Merkey is concentrating on two main areas: Cherokees and Mormons. Not knowing much about Mormons, but knowing about the Cherokee, Kebron tries to contain the damage from the POV pushing. And now gets labeled a "SCOX Troll," a stalker, and an SPA.

:::::I began making contributions to the ] articles about a month ago; I've been using chip since 1999. If someone begins inserting unsourced material there, pushing a POV like "AVR is a wannabe-RISC," or accusing people from the ATML stock board of coordinating an attack on him, would I be an SPA for trying to contain his damage to the Atmel AVR and related articles?

:::::So who's going to tell Mr. Merkey to "find some other set of topics to edit for a while"? When does Merkey's disruption and his litany of sockpuppet allegations rise to the level that '''he''' gets told to knock it off?

:::::] 16:44, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

::::::My point was simply that there is the appearance of a pattern here. Your contention that we suddenly have 2 contributors who are interest and or involved in that disparate range of topics is something I find a bit unlikely given the fact that there is a much ]. Looking at the edit history, Kebron was inactive while Jeff was on his Mormon bender and when Kebron returned to editing he '''did''' get involved in category deletion discussions that Jeff was involved in. The data seems to invalidate your theory. The bottom line is that I don't see any reason to block anyone at this time, but Kebron would do well to expand his horizons here before his contributions cross the line into actual stalking.--] 17:00, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
:: And my point is what is wrong with any of my edits? As was pointed out, I have been and continue to be polite in my requests to cite sources, or reverting. Please, aside the fact that I am editing articles by Mr. Merky, are any of my edits wrong? Against Policy?--] 17:09, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

:::::::I'm glad that you agree that there is no cause to block Kebron. Now how about admonishing Merkey for bringing his off-wiki battles to this page and to checkuser? See the link below - someone disagrees with him, and suddenly we need a checkuser. See this entire thread - someone disagrees with him, and is trying to contain his damage in a single subject area, and suddenly we need to get admins involved to talk about who's stalking whom. I chime in with my two cents (being a recent victim of Merkey's complaints resulting in a 2-week block) and suddenly I'm stalking, too. ] 17:10, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

:It seems Mr. Merkey continues to accuse anyone who disagrees with him of being a SCOX troll, sockpuppet, etc. http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk%3ACherokee_Freedmen_Controversy&diff=143843707&oldid=143837850
::Are you surprised? That issue will never actually be dealt with, though, because we're too busy hunting SCOX trolls to actually consider Merkey's behavior. -] <small>]</small> 16:52, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

:::It's blatantly obvious that account is SPA at Cherokee Freedmen. The editor inserted uncited statements attributed to four Cherokee Nation officials and the Chief of the Keetoowahs claiming they made racist statements. None of the cited materials contained the statements. ] 17:07, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

== ] ==

Hello, would someone please intervene at this article, if you look at the article edits you can see that I believe both the front and back covers of the book in the article should be allowed others do not. Would you please help to make a decision on this to avoid edit waring. Thank you. ] 20:22, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
*Multiple editors have reverted you. If you want to avoid edit warring, I'd say now is a good time to start a discussion on the Talkpage for the article and explain why you feel 2 fair use images are warranted and not decorative.--] 20:25, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
:] requires minimal use, and the rationale on the back-cover image is not nearly enough to justify overlooking that. There's an easy way to avoid edit-warring on this one, PianoKeys: listen to the users who have told you, over and over, here, on your talk pages, and on article talk pages, that you continually misuse non-free images in various contexts. We'll stop enforcing policy when you stop violating it. (])<sup>(])</sup> 20:27, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

== Deletion Debate clearly no consensus needs to be closed ==

Can an admin close ] as '''no-consensus'''. I know it's only been open for two and 1/2 days, but looking at it, one or two users have said that it's a clear no consensus, and just about everyone has different views. Thanks in advance. ] 20:48, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
*At the ''very least'' rename that article. "]" is patent editorializing. Try, perhaps "Benoit family murder" or "Murder of the Benoit family". --] 21:50, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
::Except that one member of the Benoit family committed suicide, so your two proposed titles are not only patent editorialising too, but factually inaccurate editorialising. The AfD should run its course, since there is a fairly clear debate between only two options going on, and an admin declaring 'no consensus' at an early stage would just be seen as an attempt to shortcut the process in order to prevent a consensus forming for the 'Merge' side. --] 22:01, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
:::I don't see any reason why the debate shouldn't go on for the normal period. Who knows, a consensus may indeed form eventually - odder things have happened. I don't see why there is any pressing need to decide this any quicker. ] (]:]) 22:45, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
::::Agreed with Morven. No big deal, if there's no consensus when someone does come to close it, it gets closed that way; if people can come to consensus before then, well great! ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 22:49, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
:Silly request... the concensus is on merge/keep, not delete. This should have been a proposed merge and discussion, not AFD.--] 02:14, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

== Ken Burns ==

over the past few day user:{{user|74.92.49.94}} has persisted in adding unsourced after repeated admonitions. before it gets out of hand, and to make sure i'm on a sure footing here, could someone please intervene? --] | ] 21:16, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
:Ummm. That is inappropriate of course but what is new about that? The section of '']'' has been unsourced since a long time as it is the case in many thousands of film articles. Just tag the section as unreferenced for now or discuss that at the talk page or you may even leave them a cool note at their talk page. I don't believe automated warnings would help in this case. -- ] - <small>]</small> 21:49, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
::i even made a precursory attempt to validate the claim myself, but couldn't find anything. we'll try more diplomacy before escalating. --] | ] 00:57, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
:::I've just left them a note. -- ] - <small>]</small> 01:23, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

== ] ==

{{resolved|AfD closed.}}
Five days has passed on this deletion discussion, and it's still open. I bring this up because the AFD has a ridiculous amount of meatpuppetry in it: we have a large amount of editors (many blue-linked, don't be fooled!) who are from the site (which advertised the AFD) and are !voting keep: claiming that Misplaced Pages "has no right to decide what anyone reads", "should keep the article undeleted to avoid the appearance of fighting a competitor" - and other brilliant arguments. Any help in closing this dicussion would be appreciated. Thanks. ] 21:54, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
:Well, you could help out by tagging all of the meatpuppets with <nowiki>{{spa}}</nowiki> tags, where they apply. This will help the closing admin sort of who is making a reasonable argument, and who is not. --] 21:57, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

::I've closed it (I've got my helmet on and I'm ready for the hate mail). Good pickup on the forged signatures that some of the participants were using... ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 22:31, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

:::Well, I guess I wasn't expecting it to take this form: ]. Sigh. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 04:27, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

== Rtkat3 ignoring notes about edit summaries ==

] continues to use no edit summaries for his edits. People have told him this numerous times on his talk page. I told him about edit summaries recently as well and he ignored it once again. I see no final warning for not using edit summaries, so I'm not sure what else to do. He seems to speak english, so there is no language barrier. Admin intervention is needed I think. He should be using edit summaries at least sometimes. ] 21:56, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
:Using edit summaries is polite and helpful, but it's not specifically ''required'' as far as I know. If you've asked him to and he refuses, best thing is probably just to drop it. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 22:52, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
::From what I can tell, he never (or rarely) even posts on talk pages. Why should a person that refuses to use summaries, just be ignored? I don't see him as a vandal: but who actually knows that for sure? With no summaries, people don't even know what he is adding or removing from articles. In my view, it's a bit of bad faith he refuses to even say why he wont use summaries. It seems to be important from the sounds of this: ]. A little bit from it: ''Please do your best to always fill in the summary field. This is considered an important guideline in Misplaced Pages. Even a short summary is better than no summary.'' A simple thing like summaries shouldn't be a big issue. It takes a small amount of time. ] 04:44, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

== Single-purpose account, possible Licorne puppet ==

Looks to me like ] has the same kinds of interests and opinions as permanently banned ]. Can anyone who knows more than me about checking such things look into whether they may possibly be the same or not? --] 22:04, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

== ] ==

{{resolved|Blocked indef by ]}}
] uploaded a junkload of improperly licensed images. I warned him to stop licensing images he got off the internet as pd-self, to which he replied with and . Someone ''please'' block this guy. ] 22:52, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
:I deleted most of his stuff today (something like 20 pd-self images), seems he didn't get the message. indef blocked. -- ] <sup>]</sup> 23:03, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

== Vandalism/Edit Warring ==

Please note here:

User continues to vandalize pages and make dubious edits. He changes the word Jew to Isreali when source clearly uses word Jewish. Please protect page or block this vantal, who is likely sock of AdilB, see earlier report by me.] 00:43, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

== Abusive sockpuppetry by ] ==

{{Userlinks|User At Work}} recently the edits I made to {{la|Grover Norquist}} to bring it into compliance with ]. In performing this reversion, ] restored much unreferenced, inadequately referenced, or original research controversial material concerning a living person, in blatant violation of ]. He also the offending material to the talk page of the article. In response, I to ], removed the offending material , and on ]. {{Userlinks|The Cunctator|The Cunctator}} recently as though he were ]! ] claimed that "I don't argue that he can find policy justification for repeatedly threatening me with being blocked", even though I the ] warning to ], not the ], and I reverted edits on {{la|Grover Norquist}} by ], not the ]. Employing an abusive sockpuppet to in engage in blatant violations of ] is not appropriate behavior for a user entrusted with administrative privileges on Misplaced Pages. ] 01:01, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
:Abusive sockpuppetry would be using a sock to avoid blocks and 3RR violations, or create the appearence of a non-existent consensus. Is there any evidence he actually did this? ] does allow sockpuppetry under some circumstances. Do the two users have a history of taking part in the same discussions (while not posing as the same person) or editing the same articles? ] 01:59, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
::That has never happened. The only reason John254 is able to make this incorrect claim is because I obviously wrote that comment as User At Work but accidentally logged in as The Cunctator. --] 04:48, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
] expressly prohibits the use of sockpuppets to engage in policy violations, even violations unrelated to any actions with one's main account:<blockquote>The use of alternate accounts for deliberate policy violations is specifically proscribed:
* All users, but especially admins and potential admin candidates, are proscribed from operating a "bad hand" account for the purpose of policy violations or disruption.</blockquote>
]'s use of ] to engage in severe ] violations on {{la|Grover Norquist}} is a clear violation of ]. For an administrator such as ] to engage in this sort of abusive sockpuppetry is indefensible. ] 02:27, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
:::But until the sock is actually confirmed by community consensus or administrative action to have violated policy, he's still not assumed to be in violation of ]. ] 02:37, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
::Well, I'm not an administrator, and I don't claim to speak on behalf of the Misplaced Pages community. However, I would submit that some of the material that ] on {{la|Grover_Norquist}} constitutes a blatant violation of ]. I would submit that controversial material concerning living people sourced to political attack websites , political blogs , and original syntheses of sources to draw general disparaging conclusions is inappropriate for posting on Misplaced Pages. ] 03:02, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
:::Furthermore, until recently, ] maintained ] as an entirely unsourced list of accusations of crime -- see , which was in place for nearly a year. If such entirely unreferenced and blatantly negative information concerning living people doesn't constitute a severe ] violation, then I don't know what does. ] 03:16, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
:...In this case i believe you may need to request a CU instead. -- ] - <small>]</small> 02:33, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
I will submit a checkuser request. However, I also believe that ]'s recent edit provides almost certain proof that he is using ] as an abusive sockpuppet. Consider the following <blockquote>I did not summarily revert John254's mass deletion of content -- I restored some of the content, edited much of it, left some deleted. </blockquote> (as ] ) then <blockquote>I will simply respond to say that my comment "I did not summarily revert John254's mass deletion of content -- I restored some of the content, edited much of it, left some deleted." is factually correct. </blockquote> (as ] ) ] 02:49, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
:I have posted a checkuser request at ]. ] 02:55, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
::Good lord. There's no need for a checkuser. User At Work is an account I use for perfectly legitimate reasons. John254 has been harassing me in ever escalating fashion over a disagreement with ''a single edit'' I made restoring some content he deleted. I'm starting to get pretty irritated at his vitriolic and histrionic claims. --] 04:21, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

There is nothing abusive about Cunc's use of a sockpuppet in this case. And from skimming that revert, I don't see any BLP problems. So unless until John254 wants to mention some specific BLP issues, I see no problems here. ] 04:43, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Some specific ] problems with include:

(1) Restores "2004 criticism of Ohio Governor Bob Taft" section, which constitutes inadequately referenced controversial information concerning a living person, since it is sourced only to a political blog.

(2) Restores "Personality" section, which constitutes inadequately referenced controversial information concerning a living person, since it is original research, using the synthesis two opinions to advance a general negative claim

(3) Restores "Alleged money laundering" section, which constitutes inadequately referenced controversial information concerning a living person, since it is sourced only to a political attack website (later from the article, but to the talk page; the prohibition on inadequately referenced controversial information concerning living persons applies to talk pages.)--] 08:16, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
::And what did John254 do? He redeleted those sections. I was fine with that, as I've stated before. His interpretation of those sections is frankly biased. His judgment of what constitutes an unacceptable attack on a living person is highly skewed. And since my bias leans in the other direction, if he were willing to assume good faith and edit the articles with me, we would end up with a better encyclopedia. But that doesn't seem to be his goal.--] 14:30, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Also, as ], ] has been maintaining ] violation for nearly a year. The use of a sockpuppet account to engage in these ] violations is inconsistent with ], which states that <blockquote>All users, but especially admins and potential admin candidates, are proscribed from operating a "bad hand" account for the purpose of policy violations or disruption.</blockquote>] 08:16, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

:Actually, all throughout 2006, both accounts were heavily involved in editing articles related to the ] lobbying scandal. There are definitely some edits to the same articles, although I didn't count them, but more generally a pattern of editing articles within the same constellation. The Cunctator also protected and semi-protected ] several times even though he was involved in editing the content, although no one seems to have complained at the time. ]'s contributions are so politically charged that I doubt he would ever pass RFA if he ran on his own record, see for example the creation of ]. Also, his edits to ] definitely have some BLP problems, although perhaps not as severe as John254 would allege. And, of course, User At Work wass never acknowledged to be an alternate account, something that is preferred. This situation troubles me, but I would like some more feedback before I do anything else. ] 13:01, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

::Noone complained at the time because my edits and actions were responsible. I doubt I would ever pass RFA on my own record; see ]. I've never claimed to be perfect, but I've always been a serious contributor and have always respected fellow Wikipedians. The Norquist thing is antagonizing -- this whole kerfuffle is arising because John254 is yelling about a single edit he disagreed with. So he reedited Norquist in what I thought was a reasonable compromise. There hasn't been any editwarring. Just his repeated accusations of bad faith. --] 14:25, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

:: I think this is probably ripe for arbitration. The allegations of abuse of admin powers, and of long term disregard for the ], should at least be given a sniff test by the arbitration committee. --] 13:19, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
:::Arbitrate away! I've been waiting for the Great Review of The Cunctator. Maybe you should check if ''any'' of these allegations have merit before you call for arbitration, though. But if you want to waste people's time, feel free. --] 14:25, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

::: Recommend strong warning/admonishment, immediate disclosure, and acknowledgment that this is a problem never to be repeated by user TC/UAW. The basics of ] is not to pretend to be two people. The easiest and classical way to do that is to try hard never to edit the same articles. I don't see "would never pass RFA" is necessarily true, given that ] is one of the oldest users on the whole Misplaced Pages (debated with ]!!!), and controversial subject matter isn't necessarily a disqualifier (heck, I passed RFA, and roughly half of my focus is rather controversial too). However, editing the same articles is bad. I recommend:
:::# {{tl|User Alternate Acct}} on ] and ]
:::# Same on any other accounts that edit the same articles
:::# Strict adherence to ''never'' using admin powers on an article any identity is in a ] edit dispute about, with good faith interpreted ''very'' broadly - if there is any doubt, ask someone else to do it, we have a thousand admins
:::# The equivalent of an arbcom admonishment; if similar questionable behaviour is repeated, fast track desysopping by arbcom.
:::# Agreement to all these terms by The Cunctator/User At Work, and, ideally, a couple of arbcom members, so the above proviso has teeth. If not, unfortunately, this should be taken to ], where, I'm afraid, the above terms are ''the best'' TC/UAW can realistically expect. --] <sup>]</sup> 14:42, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
::::Interesting recommendations. Heh--"debated". We had an all-out flame war. If someone can demonstrate where my behavior was actually problematic, I would love to see it. So far all I've seen is accusations and calls for punishment based entirely on assumption and legalistic readings of policies meant to handle bad-faith editors. But hey, if you want to involve the ArbCom, let's do it! --] 15:02, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
::::: Discussion has spread to ]. --] <sup>]</sup> 17:11, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

== Abuse and Harassment by ] ==

This user has been rude, sarcastic abused me on my discussion page ]. He has also gone so far as to accuse me of ], which is completely false and he only did it to get me. I repeatedly asked him to stop messaging me in such a rude way and he continued to do so claiming I was making him "bang his head against the wall". I tried to reason to no avail and wanted the cool off time but he was still messaging me today. I will no longer edit anything here because of him. An Admin told me to go to Deletion Review and I did, I do not know who the people are that posted after my initial plea and could care less if their comments were removed because the comments part is over, BUT this does not give the Darren the right to harass me repeatedly after and poke fun at my inability to sign my posts correctly ( I am just clicking the sig link up top so I do not know what the trouble is) it worked when I copied and pasted another users sig and put my name in it so I am at a loss. He is a mean spirited, rude and sarcastic person who should be warned for his behavior. His blatent comment to WildThing that he is gonna smack indy fans down shows his true colors. Respectfully submitted, --EdWood 01:43, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
:If you're certain that Darrenhusted's claim of sockpuppetry has no merit, then just wait until the ] clears your name, and leave it at that. You've already been in contact with several admins, and the situation is under control. ] ]/] 02:02, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
:: Again I am summoned by the call of my name....seriously though, if you truly aren't a sockpuppeter (and ] I'll believe you aren't), just wait until the checkuser case closes. ] 02:17, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
:If I can say a few words, most of this is already at the DRV for ]. The editor above and myself were editing an article which had been recreated (twice now) after a very long AfD, and AfD which for any one checking my contribs will see was one of about 25 which I have undertook in the last month. I have no personal animosity towards the editor nor any of the articles I nominted, they were PROD-ed (along with hundreds of other ] articles) and when PRODs were removed I AfD-ed them. The first Chuck Taylor AfD was extensively filibustered by Theperfectone who ended up making no fewer than 61 edits to the AfD, and a further 100 edits to the actual article while the AfD was on, although he had edited almost exclusively that one article since joining (which I have no problem with, but it meant he has serious ownership issues), the first AfD ended with delete. I thanked the closing admin and continued editing other articles, as I did though the whole AfD process.
::Less than 24 hours later the article was recreated, a CSD G4 was applied and removed, then a second AfD started, during which time I began editing the article down again, removing unverified claims (such as "he is considered one of the fastest rising indy stars" or words to that effect which tried to imply notability), removing an image which was not fair use, removing linkspam (mainly youtube and myspace) and removing week by week results (as most wrestling bios tend to bloat up with week by week results, and ] guidelines try to limit them). As I edited I explained what I was doing in the edit summaries, and then added three messages to EdWood's homepage explaining what I was doing.
::However while this was going on I was also checking the criteria for a CSD G4, and once I found that this article had violated it I stopped the AfD, reposted the CSD G4 tag, contacted the closing admin from the first AfD to explain what had happened and then messaged SirFozzie, and admin with whom I have spoken an many occasions and also who is a member of the wrestling project, and so understands wrestler bio notability better than most.
::I then posted comments on the users who had taken part in the second AfD to let them know what I had done, and told EdWood to speak to the closing admin about recreation, and when contacted that closing admin told him he would not recreate the article and to go to DRV.
::At the DRV I noticed that four of the editors all signed "two dashes and not using the tildes, , , , , a clear case of sock puppets or a massive coincidence?" and decided to tag the accounts in question with sock tags and then start a sock puppet case when I had the time (which would have been later that day).
::As for messaging EdWood, since he posted this I haven't messaged him, other than to tag user pages as socks.
::And so far as the "admin who works with the ] and so can bitch slap any indy fans" quote which Ed keeps bringing up, this was a comment made by me to Wildthing61476 (the nominator of the second AfD) about all the editors in both Chuck Taylor AfDs, not directly about EdWood, and was obviously meant to be humorous. By "bitch slap any indy fans" I meant that he wouldn't be taken in by their filibustering or exhortations that Chuck Taylor was notable.
::The check user case says the eight listed are not socks, which is fine, because I have no doubt the closing admin on the DRV will give little or no weight to the two new and one recent user who found the DRV minutes after EdWood filed it.
::So to sum up, as I do not intend to post at this ANI again, did I edit the Chuck Taylor page aggresively? Yes. Did I message EdWood? Yes. Have I harrassed or made direct personal threats to him? No. Did he want to keep Chuck Taylor even after he lost the AfD (which was actually a CSD G4)? Yes. Is he using socks to filibuster the DRV? I don't know but it looks suspicious to me. Am I sick of hearing the name Chuck Taylor? Yes.
::The simple truth is Chuck Taylor's article did not state notability, not the first time, not the second time, and once the DRV finishes most likely not the third time. If Theperfectone, Matthewhack, EdWood or anyone else can prove otherwise, or if consensus is that he is notable then I am fine with the article being around, but so far the editors who want ] around seem to want to ] when it doesn't suit them and use them when it does.
::I will not post any futher on this ANI, nor the DRV, so any issues can be brought to my talkpage. ] 09:21, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

*'''Comment''' Nothing he said remotely covers his rudeness, sarcasm and aggressive nature towards me. He is disrespectful with people of different opinions. And for the record his blatent attempt to smear my name has failed as the sockpuppetry issue has been found to be false and we are ALL unrelated. He should be warned or something. --EdWood 16:52, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

== Replaceable non-free images ==

Greetings, all. I've been taking care of the backlog of ], and I deleted ], since it was a portrait of a living celebrity and had been tagged with {{tl|rfu}} for over 7 days. ] the uploader, ], and it seems to have worked. See ]. Mosquera re-uploaded the image, and I redeleted the image and not to reupload images that has been deleted according to process, but to list them on Deletion Review if he thinks they were deleted inappropriately. I noticed that most of Mosquera's uploads were violations of ] #1, and I tagged them as such. He's not happy, and he's accusing me of abusing my administrator privileges. Any comments? I'm going to bed. Maybe some one else could step in. &ndash; ] <sup>(]) (])</sup> 04:18, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

:Update: He has now removed the {{tl|rfu}} tags I placed on the images he uploaded. &ndash; ] <sup>(]) (])</sup> 04:20, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

He's wikistalking me, pure and simple. I posted lengthy rationales ]. I believe these are the most detailed ones ever posted here, as I tried to prevent just this sort of problem.

This is not a case of good faith disputes. He is retaliating at me for saying that he violated policy. The existence of fair use images is no excuse to harass and attack contributors who act in good faith. ''Policy does not call for autodelete of a "portrait of a living person." Period.''

This admin refused to discuss these issues, apparently because I know that the English-language Misplaced Pages permits such fair use of copyrighted images within certain guidelines, including pictures of people who still function. As is par for the course, he cites his own opinion as consensus, then tries to attack every possible contribution for disagreeing with him.

Part of my lengthy rationale is this text:
# The contributing editor uploaded this content in a good-faith effort to comply with policy and further the goals of the English-language Misplaced Pages, recognizing that a non-free image can only be used in an article under strict circumstances. Once these basic requirements are met, the burden of proof is on those who dispute the validity of the content. If the use is a valid fair use and the rationale is a valid rationale, disputing the image is destructive and uncivil.
# The contributing editor understands that image-tagging rules are necessarily complex, are sometimes subject to varying interpretation (which reasonable people can disagree about), and play an important role in safeguarding the project and avoiding ethical issues and potential legal exposure.
# The contributing editor uploaded this content as an important, irreplaceable visual representation of a subject that contributes significantly to at least one article. There is no legitimate question that the image is perfectly appropriate.

At minimum, Quadell must respect that image-tagging rules are necessarily complex, are sometimes subject to varying interpretation, and that honest people may differ. I do not wish to be the victim of about some bizarre campaign against individual users. I acted in good faith and ask to be treated as such.
] 04:28, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
:May I disagree with you on your first point. It is often when an image may ''not'' be valid that it is subject to dispute. And the requirements of keeping a nonfree image are much more stringent than uploading them in good faith; they must also '''actually''' comply with the appropriate policies itself. Calling such discussions regarding validity of images "destructive and incivil" is an assumption of bad faith in itself. —''']''' 04:45, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Like I said: If the use is a valid fair use and the rationale is a valid rationale, ''then'' disputing the image is destructive and uncivil. In an attempt to prevent this exact problem, I drafted the the most detailed rationale possible]]. My posting a "portrait of a living person" is not an a priori justification for abusing administrative privileges to make a ]. ] 05:00, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

::I've never seen a rationale prepared with more detail or care. It's not clear the content of the rationale was even read, let alone considered or addressed, and User:Quadell did not even take the time to post to the uploader's talk page. This is very poor editing practice, and I agree with User:Mosquera in that s/he does appear, now, to be being wiki-stalked. Considering the detail in the rationale, I would like to point out that the above editing practices have demonstrably driven away numerous formerly productive, knowledgeable contributors and must not continue. ] 05:03, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

:::To be fair, he ''did'' post a template to my talk page, but I cleared it off. I assumed he would see that I was dead serious with my rationale and try to touch base with me personally before deleting. I know this is a hot button issue, so ]. Today he bombed me with templates, which I see as retaliation. ] 05:07, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

::I see no such template from this editor on fitting the date range in question. ] 05:09, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

::: The template is right , and the time between "templating" and deletion is longer than 48 hours, which is the requisite time for deletion per ]. --] 05:47, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

:You could write a 5 word rationale or a 5000 word rationale, but pictures of living people are still generally considered replaceable on Misplaced Pages (See #3 at and #8 on ]. Having said that, I don't think I can pass judgment on this particular photo since I have not seen it and don't know how it was used. Still, it seems you've reacted too aggressively to the deletion. Isn't this just a simple matter of asking for deletion review? ]&nbsp;<small>(])</small> 05:32, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
::That's not the question. I see no evidence the rationale was even read or addressed. Whether you claim review is the best option ''now'' is immaterial; the behavior of the deleting editor was clearly improper; s/he prefers to simply go ahead and delete rather than address the rationale's points. As I stated earlier, this sort of thing, in addition to the wiki-stalking (which is very bad) does drive away productive, knowledgeable editors. ] 05:38, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

:: Nadav, I think the image was from <code>http://www.mynetworktv.com/ah__characters_annalynne_mccord/ mainParagraph1/content_files/file7/ANNALYNNE_0010B.jpg</code> (combine the two; sorry, it was too long). I could be wrong about the image. Could Mosquera or Quadell clarify? --] 05:51, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

::(e/c) I've taken a look at the images about which Quadell posted notices on Mosquera's talkpage. (I agree it would have been more polite to post one custom-written message instead of all the templates, but editors upholding image policy deal with so many backlogs that I don't think he can be faulted too much) Almost all of them seem to fall rather blatantly outside the standard interpretation of the nonreplaceability criterion. None of the tremendously long-winded rationales satisfactorily explain why there are outstandingly exceptional circumstances that would permit the non-free portraits of living persons. Regarding the "wikistalking," I believe arbcom has declared that editors may use logs to check if a user has repeated a similar error elsewhere. Quadell was right to check if this non-standard interpretation of the nonreplaceability criterion was employed on other images. ]&nbsp;<small>(])</small> 06:05, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

If these images are replaceable, then I invite you to go find me a replacement. Those images areproperly used under current Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines. If "free", "freely licensed" or "libre" images ever become available, they may be uploaded as replacements. Such an event is highly unlikely in the next twenty years, even if it were somehow in theory possible, given the intellectual property issues involved.

# The English-language Misplaced Pages is the most widely used, most comprehensive, and possibly the most important reference work available. If it degrades the quality of the articles for a perceived lowest common denominator of potential re-use, then it will make itself less relevant and could eventually fail on this issue.
# Creation of "free", "freely licensed" or "libre" content does not have a higher priority than the creation of encyclopedic content. Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia, not a social movement to create "free", "freely licensed" or "libre" content. A reference work that refuses to use a professionally distributed image meant specifically to identify a subject faces serious credibility issues.
# ''Editors cannot be expected to do original work for the English-language Misplaced Pages'', as stated in the five pillars. They cannot be expected to do the original work of creating an entirely new, "free", "freely licensed" or "libre" replacement image. Nor should they be expected to convince rights holders to donate their intellectual property. Further, non-lawyers should not be forced to write ad hoc rationales and legal justifications for fair use on a case by case basis. The law does not require fair use rationales. ] 07:06, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

:These are all open-and-shut cases of replaceable non-free images of living people, and no amount of wikilawyering will change that. Plus, the sourcing is poor; I tried to check on a few of them and not in a single case could I verify that they were indeed "promotional" as the uploader claimed. By the way, have a look at the articles in which they are used: mostly stubs. If the uploder had invested ten percent of the time and energy he wasted in defending the images to instead improve the articles, we'd be better off now. Or ten percent of the time and energy to instead write to the people in question and ask them for a free release. -- Anyway, I hereby state my intention to delete these images shortly. ] ] 07:09, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

:::'''The emperor has no clothes''' Nothing in policy says that fair use images of living people are automatically to be deleted. The images come from places like NBC and Fox, who aren't going to donate content. Be serious. ] 07:17, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
:(e/c) Point 3 goes completely against everything I know about Misplaced Pages ("The 💕") and especially ] and ]. I am also surprised and disappointed that you have now reverted the re-tagging of the images as replaceable by ], and I have re-added the tags myself. Please follow the instructions on the tag if you disagree with the claim of replaceability. But remember that policy holds that portraits of living people are replaceable in almost all cases. (See #3 at and #8 on ]) ]&nbsp;<small>(])</small> 07:27, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

::Those tags do not reflect a good faith dispute. They represent wikistalking. By replacing the tags, you are stalking too. You would not know of the tags had one admin not decided to attack me for following policy on fair use. Let it be. ] 07:45, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
:::So by following up a WP:ANI post I become a wikistalker? It is uncivil to call everyone who disagrees with you names. ]&nbsp;<small>(])</small> 07:57, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

::: Mosquera, these tags do reflect a good faith dispute. Editors, who are concerned about the inappropriate use of non-free content on a 💕, have identified this and challenged the assertion that these images should be used. They are acting within the established processes and, as such, are acting in good faith. Any assertion that they are not acting in good faith is contrary to the guideline ] and the ]. --] 08:00, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

The original admin already showed bad faith by refusing to discuss the issue, then retaliating by slapping a bunch of dispute tags on any image he could find bearing a human face. This is not the established process.
By repeating the tags, you implicitly endorse the stalking campaign. I call ''that'' uncivil. ] 08:04, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
:What is important is how to go forward from this point on. There is no stalking campaign, there are simply editors tagging images that they believe are replaceable non-free images as required by policy. That is not uncivil. Have you read ]? How did you wish editors to contest the fair-use of those images without using tags? ] 08:09, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

: It is established process to tag non-free images one thinks do not meet the criteria for inclusion. Unfortunately, Quadell aggravated the situation by putting many templates on your user talk page, as opposed to putting one long custom message. No one is perfect; he has the opportunity to adjust his practices in the future.
: Looking through someone's contribution logs for allegedly inappropriately tagged images is '''''not''''' wikistalking; that is why we ''have'' contribution logs. Otherwise they would be hidden from editors and administrators alike. Quadell has not engaged in wikistalking. No one here has engaged in wikistalking. --] 08:12, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

===Canvassing===
The recent ] on the part of User:Quadell does not absolve his/her aforementioned actions.

*http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Andrew_c&diff=prev&oldid=143894205
*http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Chowbok&diff=prev&oldid=143894270
*http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Videmus_Omnia&diff=prev&oldid=143894309 ] 05:13, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

: Badagnani, have you read ] lately? How do you reconcile what the guideline ''actually'' says with your baseless accusations? --] 05:38, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

The mention of deletion without addressing the rationale, and wiki-stalking are right there in the history; no accusations are necessary. The canvassing is similarly right there in the edit history. ] 05:40, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

: Badagnani, leaving relatively-neutral messages to '''''three''''' people is not canvassing. Seriously. Re-read ]. "''An arbitrator clarified the position: "Briefly, I think a reasonable amount of communication about issues is fine. Aggressive propaganda campaigns are not....''"" Was this an aggressive propaganda campaign? No. Was it reasonable communication? Yes. Not canvassing. --] 05:47, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

:: Any rational person can guess what he is up to. He is looking for people to back him up, since he is unwilling to rationally discuss this issue on his own. He is trying to retaliate because I showed that he acted against policy. I ask that he not carry this wikistalking campaign against me to other users. I further ask that he apologize immediately and try to undo his destructive actions. I realize that policy ordinarily does not apply to administrators, but in this case I insist. ] 07:13, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

::: Actually, I consider myself "rational", and I completely reject your thesis. Quadell isn't looking for people to back him up, he brought this to ANI for review by uninvolved administrators and editors. And thus far the review has been unanimously in his favour and against the use of the images you uploaded. He is not retaliating, he is actively seeking out images that seriously violate policy, as has been described to you multiple times. His actions are not destructive, they are constructive attempts at maintaining a ''free'' encyclopedia. --] 07:36, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I may be wrong, but wasn't User:Chowbok (one of the editors canvassed) involved at one time in a massive campaign of Wikistalking against numerous users, some of which actually left the project as a result? Maybe it's just a coincidence, but I do see a lot of justification of Wikistalking in these pages in recent weeks. ] 07:17, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
: To answer your question: No, not that I am aware of, and no, Chowbok was not canvassed (see my previous posts). --] 07:36, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

===Repeated tag reverts by Mosquera===
Mosquera has now decided to systematically revert placement of the tags on his images (See contrib history ), even though they were re-added in good faith by both me and Abu badali. This refusal to follow the usual processes is tendentious, and, in my opinion, warrants sanction. ]&nbsp;<small>(])</small> 07:37, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
===Wikistalking===
The refusal to cease wikistalking as regards tagging image uploads is also tendentious, and, in my opinion, warrants sanction. We've seen it previously with Chowbok and Abu Badali and the consensus was that that practice is disruptive and wrong, and drives away editors. ] 08:13, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
:So now every editor who reads this post, looks at the images, and agrees they are replaceable is "wikistalking"? Please stop throwing out this epithet and address (on the image talk pages or at ]) the issue of whether the images are replaceable or not. ]&nbsp;<small>(])</small> 08:19, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

: No one is wikistalking. Looking through an editor's contribution logs to identify what one thinks might be errors is not wikistalking; it is established practice and, when the editor in question is properly notified and the proper process is gone through, established process. --] 08:17, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

===A few brief comments===
Good morning. In regards to Badagnani's claim that "it isn't clear that I even read the rationale", I'm not sure what would make it clear -- I didn't videotape myself reading it. I read the rationale, disagreed, commented on it in the image talk page, and deleted the image. Since the deletion debate had been open to discussion for 48 hours and the uploader had already commented ''at length'', I saw no need to leave an additional message on the uploader's talk page. (I always leave a message when I ''tag'' images, without exception, though.) Regarding the wikistalking accusation, I have tagged hundreds of images with {{tl|rfu}} over the past few days. Sometimes I looked through a particular category with lots of image violations (e.g. "Heavy metal bands"), sometimes I looked through a licensing type (e.g. Publicity photographs) looking for obvious violations, and sometimes I look through the contributions of an uploader who obviously doesn't understand our policy and has uploaded other images that are clearly against policy. That's not stalking. I'd like to point out, too, that there are many other images the Mosquera uploader which are almost certainly against policy to use here (]) -- I didn't nominate those for deletion because I was only looking for RFUs, not trying to tag all a particular editor's images. Regarding the multiple notes on Mosqera's talk page, I use a tool that adds such messages, and when I had tagged all messages (not two minutes after I had tagged the first one), I went to consolidate all the messages into one in order to not leave so many templates on a user's talk page. But he had already deleted them all. Thanks, &ndash; ] <sup>(]) (])</sup> 11:15, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


*What ] said above is entirely accurate . We simply do not permit the use of fair use imagery for the purpose of depiction of a living person. Such imagery ''is'' replaceable. We do not wait until it is replaced. We delete. We do not consider whether a fair use rationale is detailed or not. We consider if the image is being used for depiction purposes only. If so, it is deleted. There's no grey area on this issue. It's been decided by the ] and is echoed in policy and practice.
*I have now removed a dozen of these images from articles () by reviewing the image contributions of ] . ''Anyone'' who considers this sort of action as "stalking" should read and understand ], especially where it says "This does not include checking up on an editor to fix errors or violations of Misplaced Pages policy, nor does it mean reading a user's contribution log; those logs are public for good reason. Using the edit history of users to correct related problems on multiple articles is part of the recommended practices" Those editors who have worked to correct ]'s errors should be commended, and not accused of stalking unless evidence comes forth of harassing behavior. To date, none has been presented.
*If ] is not willing to abide by our policies and Wikimedia Foundation resolutions, and continues to act against same despite multiple warnings, then a block is indeed in order. --] 14:11, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
:*Just wanted to take the opportunity to endorse what Durin's saying here. -]<sup>]</sup> 16:01, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

::I don't want to repeat too much of what has already been said, and I don't know how much my opinion will count because I was "canvassed" :), but I agree with most of what is said above. What shocks me is this statement by Mosquera: ''The images come from places like NBC and Fox, who aren't going to donate content.'' And that is ironically hitting the nail on the head. The reason why we cannot use this non-free content is because ] #2. Just because a company takes a picture and wants to protect their copyright and profit from their property doesn't give us a right to steal their hard work, upload it here, and distribute it for free. Even if you wrote a 10 page boiler plate rationale, ''in good faith'', doesn't excuse stealing another's livelihood just because you want some stub articles to look pretty with decorative images. We still have option: either go out and photographing the individuals in question, searching flickr or other websources for free replacements, or even contact the individual in question and asking for a GFDL image donation. And if someone doesn't want to make a donation, that doesn't give us an excuse to steal their livelihood and distribute it for free. This is exactly why nearly all images of living people are unacceptable here on wikipedia. And a boilerplate, good faith rationale, that isn't individually catered to each individual image just isn't going to cut it. Finally, if multiple, uninvolved editors agree with tagging these images, there is no reason for Mosquera to remove the tags. There is a specific process for disputing tags, and continuously removing the tags after multiple admin review is not good faith editing.-]&nbsp;</sup>]] 16:07, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

::Mosquera's believes that "El Patrón" (the Spanish Cabal?) is out to suppress him . He doesn't see this as a policy issue, apparently, but as fighting the good fight against the repressive admins. ]&nbsp;<small>(])</small> 16:33, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
::*Well, it's not by any means the first nor the last accusation of cabalistic behavior by administrators. I hope he learns from the above comments, and I've directed him here. --] 16:49, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

== Harassment by John254 ==

In response to I made restoring some of the content he deleted from an article, John254 has made repeated threats that I would be blocked, both in the edit history of the page as well as on my userpage. He then called for the speedy deletion of a page in my userspace (]) which I use to keep track of my work (my interest is corrupt politicians and political scandals), raised this to the level of an ANI, and has since accused me of "abusive sockpuppetry" to merit a checkuser investigation; the claim of abusive sockpuppetry is '''entirely without merit''' -- User At Work is an account I (The Cunctator) use, and I have always been assiduous about avoiding intersecting the two accounts (except for the ANI conversation when I responded logged in to the wrong account). The entire time I have tried very hard to be respectful of John254's motives, for example responding to the comments he left at ] and editing the page to address what I believed were the concerns he was expressing.

John254 seems to be entirely unable to admit that his judgment of what is acceptable content for Misplaced Pages may be imperfect -- in particular, his invocation of BLP to justify the removal of well-sourced, accurate but controversial or critical information about a famous person who deliberately seeks controversy is in my judgment incorrect. But I would have happy to work with him to improve the tone, style, and balance of the Grover Norquist page. Unfortunately I can no longer trust that he would operate in good faith.

I respectfully request John254 to retract the claim of abusive sockpuppetry and I hope he will not be so quick to threaten people who question his edits with blocking. --] 04:45, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
:The best way to avoid such problems is to add <nowiki>{{User Alternate Acct|User At Work}}</nowiki> to the UAW account. -- ] - <small>]</small> 05:18, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
::How does that help avoiding being harassed and attacked by another user? --] 05:38, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
:::At least it could have saved us some time instead of going through a CU and accusations of sockpuppetry. -- ] - <small>]</small> 05:51, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
::::The person who is spending the time making the accusations of abusive sockpuppetry and asking for the CU is John254. I've been trying to de-escalate the situation each time he launches a new attack.--] 06:27, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
:::::I'll be keeping an eye. -- ] - <small>]</small> 07:10, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
::::::I think John254's concern is, to a certain extent, legitimate. See the ]. I'm not sure how to proceed, though. ] 13:07, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
:::::::Then a block is warranted. I haven't paid attention to the update by John254. However, due to the specificity of this issue i believe a RfA could decide it. -- ] - <small>]</small> 13:13, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
::::::::I took your suggestion on adding the notice. I'm disappointed that you have decided not to consider John254's behavior in this matter.--] 14:52, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
:::::::::I follow updates and i am still having an eye on him of course. Filing an ArbCom case is not all the time a negative thing. The ArbCom can rule out the case of decide if you or him deserve something. This is a very specific situation and admins cannot do things that only ArbCom can deal w/. -- ] - <small>]</small> 16:02, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
*Well, John ''does'' have a pattern of overreacting, as indicated in the Dmcdevit and Cunctator issues. I have so far been unable to make him understand that no, Misplaced Pages really is not a bureaucracy. Perhaps someone else will have better luck? ] 13:15, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
**(This ''is'' The Cunctator issue) ] 13:27, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
He is now accusing me of using this account as a "bad hand" account, commiting "blatant violation of WP:BLP", "severe WP:BLP violation". If he is correct, then of course it is not harassment. If he is not, then, I submit he is in blatant violation of WP:CIVILITY. --] 14:34, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
*** With respect, you are an administrator, you need to accept that you will be held to a higher standard than people you argue against. That comes with the mop. Also notice that -- if you want to keep the mop -- that you are in a hole, and it is advised that you stop digging. Thank you for adding {{tl|User Alternate Acct}}. --] <sup>]</sup> 15:03, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
:::::Erm, one digs with a shovel, not a mop. Your judgment of whether or not I am in a hole may be incorrect. Please avoid using the passive voice when admonishing me. I continue to submit that John254 is in violation of WP:CIVILITY.--] 16:04, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
::::::Yes, John254 has gone overboard in his pursuit of you. However, I think that his initial concerns are at least partly justified. Now that this is being dealt with by several other admins, let's hope that John254 moves on to something else. He should not continue an independent pursuit. ] 17:13, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

== Harassment and more disruptions from socks of ] ==

{{Further|]}}
] has decided to launch a new campaign of harassment and disruption of her favourite articles and enemy editors and admins via her multiple dynamic IP socks hailing from both Houston, TX, USA and China.

* ] -- ] - <small>]</small> 07:21, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

* {{user|68.89.170.59}} one more. ] ]</sup> ]</sub> 07:42, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
*Accumulating at ]. --] 08:19, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

This is getting out of hand. A range block of that Texas IP is in order. --] 07:48, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
:Anything we can do to prevent the individual behind Mariam83 from editing Misplaced Pages is warranted.] 07:54, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
::]. One day she will get tired. -- ] - <small>]</small> 08:21, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

== How do we do a spam block again? ==

I think someone is in the testing stages of a bot spam attack. There used to be a spammer constantly adding links to serialkillercalendar.com -- which was just a calendar for sale featuring artwork of killer. Today links to PainandPaintings.com showed up on ] and some other articles about killers, which has the exact same art work, site design, etc. as the serialkillercalendar.com, including a link at the bottom to go to the other site to pruchase the calendar... so exact same purpose, exact same spam. When I removed it the anon IP address who had added it created an account to repost it and to yell at me with threats to "have you blocked for senselessly deleting links". So I removed it again... and another editor got it on the new add at ].

But I just went to ] and see about five different accounts adding the link -- some anon IPs, some registered accounts, and sometimes in External Links, sometimes in References and sometimes at the top of the page as if it were a disambiguation link! And I think it's a bot because at one point in a manner of not too many minutes the page had accumulated some six or more links to the same site.

I've never gone about getting a site blocked or trying to track various IPs and stuff as sockpuppets like this, but it looks like it needs to get done. Plus I have to get to sleep here soon and can;t follow up on this. Can someone else take over on this please? ] 07:52, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

:The following accounts/IPs all added the link just to ] in about an hour and a half (which means I've been editing here way longer than I should be tonight anwyay):

:] </BR>
:] </BR>
:] </BR>
:] </BR>
:] </BR>
:] </BR>
:] </BR>
:] </BR>
:] </BR>
:]

:And I think I spotted at least one other IP adding the same link to another article about a killer, but I didn't check it against the main list to know if it was a repeat... and I don't have more than a handful of such articles on my watchlist, so it may be spreading across a bunch of others at this very moment. ] 08:16, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

::No it's not. you can check by doing a search at . If the spamming gets bad it can be added to the on meta. But I don't think it's necessary at the moment. ] | ] 08:39, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
:::That's handy to know about. There are some other frequently spammed sites I look for periodically, and that'll be useful.

:::By the way, the person who did this that it was the result of posting a note on MySpace calling for people to come here and add the link. We could be in for more of this later. ] 08:43, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

== ] ==

This user's first ever edit was to my talk page: . This edit s/he made was in response to me dedicating 2.5 hours of my time to fix re-directs. I replied calmly on his/her talk page, and when asked why s/he was behaving this way, responded with this edit: . Later, after giving a Welcome note and encouraging him to maintain healthy relationships with other users on Misplaced Pages, replied by leaving vandalism on my talk page, as well as a death threat: . Something needs to be done about this disruptive user, who has also left similar notices on a couple other pages, threatening other users for no particular reason. &ndash;&ndash;''']'''<small>]</small> 08:24, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
:Blocked indef because of death threats and trolling of course. Happy editing. -- ] - <small>]</small> 08:30, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

::Thank you, greatly. This was bothering me tremendously because I spent a huge amount of time making (at my count) 136 edits in a span of less than 2 hours, and only one user noticed... unfortunately, s/he failed to notice my hard work and resulted in death threats, which s/he later tried to reconcile for it by apologizing, telling me he think's I'm cool. Not a good way to begin using your editing privileges, as far as I'm concerned. But this bothered me greatly that another user could try to make me feel like my edits weren't appreciated when I spent a great amount of time on them. &ndash;&ndash;''']'''<small>]</small> 08:35, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

:::He to my talk page, commenting on an article I just barely created. Weird. I support the indef block based on his edits to your user talk page. ···]<sup>] · <small>]</sup></small> 08:41, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
::::A very infamous tactic of trolls. -- ] - <small>]</small> 10:30, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

:::::This particular one wasn't very effective as, on further consideration, I think he might have been trying to elicit an angry response from me. However, I took it as just a weird comment and responded with that in mind. Maybe it made him mad that he couldn't tweak me. >:) ···]<sup>] · <small>]</sup></small> 19:18, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

== Xratedguy leaving deviously-constructed messages ==

{{resolved|Blocked indef by Ryulong}}
Here is the text left on various pages by {{vandal|Xratedguy}}. I gave him a uw-vandal2 warning, but don't have time to monitor his activities.
: Roland Rance has studied this for years and has discovered that Trotskyite feces tastes better than the alternatives
It's SPAM and vandalism rolled into one. I have reverted his 8 or so identical contributions. Please watch out for this guy.--] 08:32, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

::This is yet another sockpuppet of ], who has so far created over 200 false IDs and defaced nearly 200 articles in his obsessive stalking of me. See ]. S/he is almost certainly llinked to the ] and ] serial vandals. It appears that we are powerless to stop this character, and can only go around clearing up after him/her. ] 08:57, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

== Account to be blocked ==

{{resolved|Account blocked.}}
As per ] {{vandal|Mouse Pad of Doom}} is a confirmed open proxy SPA and likely JB196 puppet that needs blocking, anyone care to oblige? &ndash;&ndash; ''']'''<sup><small>(])</small></sup> 09:26, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

:It's been done. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 16:43, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

== A very particular debate at ] involving a presumably husband and wife ==

{{resolved|Sockpuppetry case closed.}}
Well, this issue has been brought to the ANI a few days before. It can be found . This is a situation where ] and his alleged wife ] are being accused of sockpuppetry. The problem is that it is hard for both claiming parties to claim it is true or not. Personally, my first opinion about this matter is that i don't buy that they are married. I brought this issue here in order to get more feedback about this issue. -- ] - <small>]</small> 10:24, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
:Just when I'd removed my own report. This is completely ridiculous. Is there a policy that states that ''Misplaced Pages is not clueless,'' or would this be trumped by ]? Besides remote proxies, there can be no better example of how CU cannot solve our sockpuppet problems, as here it is admitted that CU will give a match. We need responders who can tell two people from one by contributions alone and are willing to act on this judgment.] 10:32, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
::I've done enough researches about vandals/trolls/socks/disrupters today and i am feeling tired of that. If you could provide some diffs showing that they are controversially editing the same articles than i can use my bat. -- ] - <small>]</small> 10:37, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

:::I don't think it matters, really, whether they're married or the same person for our purposes. The practical difference between sockpuppets and meatpuppets is nil. There's evidence at the SSP report that the accounts have been used to reinforce each other, give the impression of greater support, double-vote, etc. I propose indefinitely blocking Caprisa as a sock/meatpuppet, and applying a block of ~72 hours to Tovojolo. Any objections? ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 15:48, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
::::Sounds reasonable. -- ] - <small>]</small> 15:57, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

:::::Done. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 16:16, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

== ] pushing his political POV in inappropriate places ==

<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-->
''Please don't bring personal grievances and sour grapes to this board. It won't achieve anything but annoy the community. I'm afraid, though, that the conflict in hand is bound to an ArbCom case, for too much bad faith, bad blood, personal attacks and stalking by all sides therein (it's not for me to judge the respective amounts)'' ]<span style="font-size:70%;">]</span> 13:56, 11 July 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.
Latest examplew was when that user continues trolling on AfD page which have no relevance to the current discussion in hand. He has been called to stop it several times but instead of this he continues. This behaviour is not only related to the article in hand, but also several other places. ] 10:39, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
:Well, we don't know about other articles unless you help us providing some diffs. As for the AfD, i really do not see anything alarming. It is a debate and one has to expect some comments that would hurt although within Misplaced Pages policy. -- ] - <small>]</small> 10:43, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
::Well, comments on the order of "Estonians are evil Nazis who must be hated" in context of an article on ] are certainly inappropriate, wouldn't you think?
::The real story here, however, is not so much as POV-pushing, as ]ing. ] is making inflammatory remarks not because he wants his POV to be seen, but because he wants the AFD participants to be inflamed, in the hope that this would derail the discussion. ] 11:27, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
:::This is what he said exactly ''Yes, the Nazis are primarily responsible for the extermination of 99% Jews in Estonia. '' Are you refering to that? If yes than where is the problem? Remember that the AfD is a debate and as i said above, in heated debates you would expect things you'd not like to hear. Obviously, in our case, i really do not see any problem with unless other editors or admins can prove me wrong. -- ] - <small>]</small> 11:33, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
::::No, I'm referring to the fact that he would make irrelevant accusations in the AFD. And, well, then, there are . ] 11:43, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
:::::I've seen more than a thousand of similar ways of debating AfD's in Misplaced Pages and i don't remember someone was blocked because of that. Have you tried to approach him re the matter? I don't see any edit at his talkpage refering him to this thread! -- ] - <small>]</small> 11:53, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
::::::Once, there was a time when I actually tried to contact ] every once in a while. His reactions, such as , have convinced me that this is futile. ] 12:13, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't care about the trolling of Digwuren and Co., either on this page or elsewhere, but I'm concerned to see how low ] has degenerated. I'm surprized that the community still tolerates a bunch of meatpuppets, apparently based in the same dorm, who have turned one of the most quiet segments of Misplaced Pages into a never-ending battleground, without bothering to contribute a single meaningful sentence to the project. "Don't feed the trolls" is still as valid a policy as ever, as is "Don't publicize the dispute where there is none". That their regular rants on this page are not summarily removed serves to encourage their disruption and effectively spawns new bouts of trolling, as the number of one-purpose accounts seems to be increasing steadily. Digwuren's activity is especially disruptive: each of his edits is either revert or trolling. If he had appeared a year or two ago, I'm sure he would have been banned within a month or two, but, given the current lack of interest in sanitizing Misplaced Pages, he is allowed to roam freely. This is my first and last reply to this. --]<sup>]</sup> 12:09, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
: Wait a sec. How are those diffs supposed to be trolling? Please explain. ] 12:13, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
:: Wanna bet no explanation will ever come? ] 12:14, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
::: It most definitely will not. However, Ghirla, once again, prove the meatpuppet accusation - or apologize. You expect your editcount to carry you through everything - but you still must follow Misplaced Pages rules. Which you have not done for a long, long time. ] 12:16, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

::::Please calm down guys. If you are talking about that specific AfD then be sure that you are mistaken. If you are talking about his general behaviour which you think it is not acceptable than → ] and/or ]. Are you newbies? no. -- ] - <small>]</small> 12:20, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

::may I point out that this user has in the very recent past ended up on this very board already twice, ] and ]!
::--] 12:30, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
:::If that is the case than why not try the links to RfC or RfA i gave you above? -- ] - <small>]</small> 12:31, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
:::: Have you ever put together RfC? I have, against another user with a bit less of rudeness and more of POV push. It got tossed out because apparently we had not made enough effort in making up with the user. Under constant accusations and in spite overabundant amount of diffs... So, Ive lost all faith in that procedure. As to arbitration. Hes been trough that one with another, and it is in suspension since February IIRC. And hes still around. --] 12:39, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
:::::Yes, it is not easy i suppose! But hundreds of other cases succeeded. I think it is about providing proofs. Here neither as we can't block someone relying on vague accusations. It is just like i can't block you just because he believes you are meatpuppeting (vague accusations). -- ] - <small>]</small> 12:46, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
:::::::If it had been rejected because of lack of proof, it would be fine. It was not. There was so much proof that some commented it was TOO much. It was because we did not try hard enough to get along... Witch is VERY hard when every other word is an insult either directly or in a roundabout way.--] 12:52, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
::::::::], as an administrator, you can access deleted pages. Check out ] so you can see first-hand the amount of evidence, and make informed assessment. ] 13:22, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Could you please stop commenting as everyone is repeating himself? Wait for another admin to help out. I said enough above. -- ] - <small>]</small> 12:58, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Here's a non-repeating remark. ] has made unveiled accusations against me so many times, despite his standing ], and refused to back them up, that I'm recommending administrative action to deal with the continuous ] violation. ] 13:14, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
:::* the case I refered to is ]. It was dismissed because ] became inactive.--] 13:27, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
:::* Digwuren, I repeat for the umpteenth time: I don't consider myself in dispute with you and I don't care about Estonia-related articles, in general. I have not seen you, much less talked with you, for several weeks, until I saw you and other Tartu accounts enflaming this page behind my back. I don't consider you or your friends an asset for Misplaced Pages, rather one of its greatest liabilities at the moment, and I challenge anyone to prove the contrary, as I have done many times before. --]<sup>]</sup> 13:46, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

:Please don't take content disputes and political quarrels to this board, Suva, Digwuren, and Alexia. Alexia, your remark that Ghirlandajo "has in the very recent past ended up on this very board already twice" defies all logic. "Ended up"? No, this isn't a place where people "end up". It's a place where anybody can post an attack on any user. Anybody who doesn't care what the board is for, that is. That Ghirlandajo has been attacked previously here isn't an indictment of him, but of the people who have no scruples about clogging up the administrators' noticeboards with irrelevancies. Have you read, any of you, the instructions at the top of the page? "This page is for reporting and discussing incidents that require the intervention of administrators...''' this is not the Misplaced Pages complaints department.''' If your problem concerns a content issue and does not need the attention of admins, please follow the steps in ]." So, what do you expect administrators to to about your collective beef with Ghirla? Block or warn him for ''trolling'' at that AfD? (After they look at the way Digwuren behaves on the same AfD, yet? Come off it.) ] | ] 13:28, 11 July 2007 (UTC).
::What's wrong with my behaviour there? ] 13:31, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
::: "Another form of trolling can occur in the form of continual questions with obvious or easy-to-find answers" (]). --]<sup>]</sup> 13:42, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
::* My comment about "ending up" was made without any hidden agenda, if it was out of place Im sorry, English is not my native language. '''To general public''' - ] was the admin who rejected the RfC above so she has a little insight to the troubles of Ghrila. Making accusations and overall trolling is an incident, that IMHO needs admin attention. The rest is explanation as to WHY we feel it needs admin attention, because apparently nobody cares and all is well.--] 13:40, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
::*: Dear, I was informed that you are in contact with a Ukrainian editor who advised you and your friends to follow the strategy pioneered by ] and bring every petty grievance to this noticeboard, so as to inflate them into huge threads and to represent your opponents as inveterate troublemakers. This is an old trick, perhaps as old as the noticeboard itself, to slander a person without notifying him about the ongoing discussion. -]<sup>]</sup> 13:46, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
:::*:I have NO clue who you are referring to...--] 13:55, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
:''The above 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, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.''<!-- from Template:Archive bottom --></div>

I find Ghirla's remarks about my person (and about others), very incivil and I do hope the readers of this noticeboard will not stand for continuing accusations that certain users are trolling or spamming this board with petty grievances. Considering how often Ghirla's actions are brought here, and by how many various editors, we are far and long past any coincidences. FI do agree that this board is not a substitute for complex DR such as incidents involving Ghirla; steps of DR should be taken instead of discussions here; for the record, at least ] in which Ghirla is a party, has presented evidence and had evidence presented about him is still active.--<sub><span style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]|]</span></sub> 13:57, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
:Indeed. Your forum-shopping activities on this very page are still under scrutiny on ]. --]<sup>]</sup> 14:09, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
::Your mutual grievances are an old story. Like I said, I won't be a judge (although I do have my opinion). The best course of action for both of you is to disengage from each other. Please. Continued grievance on this board won't persuade anyone who is familiar the situation to change any opinion he might have formed so far; rather, they just show both of you in the worst light. Your mentioning of Piotrus on an unrelated problem was less than helpful. Piotrus's reply was even less helpful. How about each of you writing a DYK article? Helps relieve the stress. ]<span style="font-size:70%;">]</span> 14:20, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

== Requesting opinions on constant deletion of image from pages ==

The following image ] has been constantly deleted from pages it has been placed on, mostly by anonymous editors who leave no summary or label the image as "vandalism". The image is a quality image of a bodybuilder who released the rights of the image to me which I uploaded to Commons. The consensus to place the images on thepages it has been placed on has been discussed on all of the talk pages it's on. Therefore I ask this, Would simply erasing the image without a summary despite the consensus on the talk page be considered vandalism? Especially after the person has been asked to discuss their changes on the talk page and refuses to do so? I don't want to violate 3rr by re-adding the image over and over on a page without being sure. Thanks. ] <sup>]</sup> 12:23, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

:It depends. Repeatedly deleting the image from a page where there is consensus to use it could be vandalism, yes. To avoid 3RR problems, it's better to let another user (like me, for instance) know what's going on, and let someone else re-add the image if it's called for. If you let us know what page it's being removed from, that will help. All the best, &ndash; ] <sup>(]) (])</sup> 12:35, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

::That would be great if you could take a look at the situation and determine if removing the image over and over constitutes vandalism. The image is placed on the following pages.

:]
:]
:]
:]
:]
:]
:]
:]
:]
:]
:]

::You could add them to your watchlist, I think all of them have talk pages where the image placement has been discussed and either a consensus exists for the image or all except the one who removed it supports it's being there, which sometimes just includes 2-3 others which may or may not constitute a "consensus". Most of the objections to the image are blatantly absurd, for instance in the ] talk page, the image of the bodybuilder was called "Small and girly" in an attempt to get it taken down. ] <sup>]</sup> 12:40, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


'']'' 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.
:::An Anon IP has removed the image from ] again. Same IP as last time and still no summaries. See the talk page of the article.] <sup>]</sup> 14:21, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
:::I just blocked a couple of editors for ] over this image at Bodybuilding a few days ago. Anon removal with no summary can be reverted as vandalism (and if the same IPs are making a habit of this I'd say take it to ] so blocking can be explored), but as I said when I blocked the editors in question, if there is a dispute about using this image in any of those articles it should be ''discussed on the talk page''.--] 14:24, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
:::It should be pointed out too that there has been some "discussion" of this at ] by the anon, though not especially useful or civil discussion.--] 14:29, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
::::He seems to be a troll from my determination. I tried explaining the situation clearly and calmly but I was told to "Get a life" and that I "Should be banned". Do you think I should revert this persons edits as vandalism? Perhaps you could revert them for me so I don't get close to violating 3rr. ] <sup>]</sup> 14:32, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
:::::He's been warned. If it continues, hit my talkpage with diffs and I'll deal with the situation. On a side note, looking at that articles it appears that the image is warranted in most of the articles (especially the one or two that didn't previously have images), but I can see at least one article where it seems redundant.--] 15:35, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


The article states that ] demurred being cast in the role upon finding that out. for this claim is a ] on ], which contains the sentence
== Messed archives ==
: ''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'':
Not sure which Administrator help page go to. I've messed up trying to move my archive talk pages. I tried to match the history with that archived pages. I realised things weren't right and I tried correct things back. I tried to #redirect them, but ended up worse. I've stopped any #redirects now, but can't sort it out.
{{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.}}
The pages involved are:
*]
*]
*]
*]
*] (don't know what I was thinking with that one)
*] which doesn't now have the original history
*even ] which I didn't realise at first.
Hopefully you can sort things out. I've saved any posts and sandbox records, so if neccessary they can be deleted. The only page I know is fine is my main ] page. Really sorry for all this. ] ] 13:52, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


This was reverted () by {{u|Darkwarriorblake}} with the comment ''not what the source says''.
:Okay, finally found where the history of your talk page is - it's at ]. I'll fix it now, hold on. ]&nbsp;] 14:51, 11 July 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.()
::Your talk page archive is now at ]. The history has been dredged up and moved back to ], where it probably should be. As all talk page edits are signed and dated (or should be), you don't need to worry about the history going with the archive to retain the appropriate GFDL attributions. ]&nbsp;] 15:00, 11 July 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;...}}
:::Thanks very much for sorting things out. ] ] 15:07, 11 July 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''
== Apparent Muslim anti-Israel POV pusher at the current events portal ==


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.''
Given the prominence of ], this is a rather urgent matter. There is currently an anti-Israel POV pusher at ], who insists on adding "Israel's nuclear program" to the sidebar with no reason. It currently isn't a current event, nor is it being actively discussed worldwide. The name of the user, {{userlinks|Fâtimâh bint Fulâni}}, suggests that the user is Muslim (see ]). She has been warned about it, and this is fast becoming a POV revert-war. Admin intervention required. ] ] 14:37, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
:. The fact that the user emphasises that this were her first edits (and yet seems to have a good grasp of NPOV) is highly suspicious to me, because no user would emphasise "notice these are my very first edits", as if that clears them of any policy violation. ] ] 15:20, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
::Further, and in contradiction of ] but following the doctrine of ] the ] seems rather elaborate and well structured for a self proclaimed newbie. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">] | ] </span></small> 15:33, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
:::I would like to point out that it might be possible the user has been active in other language variants of wikipedia before registering and editing here. There is not enough evidence that would warrant sockpuppet suspicion, I could not find "similar" edits by other editors that are now blocked or something. --] (] • ]) 18:04, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
It is rude to talk behind someone's back.--] 16:53, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


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.
== User:Thedec ==


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''.
{{resolved|Indefinitely blocked.}}
{{usercheck|Thedec}} recently made the folowing edit to my . As can be seen from the usercheck links, he was previously investigated (at my instigation) for sockpuppeting following earlier vandalism and inappropriate comments on my talkpage. At that time he claimed that the sockpuppeting had a come about as the result of a schoolmate coming into possession of his password, but that he had now changed the password and his main account was secure again. I, and the admin who reviewed the sockpuppet case, took this at face value and his account was not blocked (for the sockpuppeting). It now appears that either the account has been compromised again, or he was lying in the first instance. The account seems to have made few useful contributions, but there is a fair amount of vandalism and inane comments on talkpages. He doesn't seem to be here to improve the encyclopaedia. ] 15:11, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


This was reverted - again - by Darkwarriorblake () with the comment '' How are you an admin? "rape played for laughs" is an agenda, this went through FA as is so ] and ] apply. You must go to the talk page, not I. I don't know if you're going through a bad time or something but this isn't how an admin should be acting or communicating with others, up to and including ]''
:Either he was lying the first time around, or his account is unforgivably insecure and prone to being hacked. My money's on the former, but either way it's time for an indefinite block, which I've applied. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 15:40, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


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 .
::Thanks, good faith only stretches so far... ] 15:56, 11 July 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===
Somebody admin needs to fix the mess {{vandal|Hindduking}} just left. ] 16:03, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
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 think it's all fixed now. ] <small><font color="red">(aka ])</font></small> 16:18, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


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. ]]
== ]: Threatening Behavior? ==
{{abot}}


== User Stationmanagerskidrow removing information on ] page ==
This is an interesting question for the Misplaced Pages community: Does posting a link on a member’s Talk page to a YouTube video of yourself firing a weapon constitute threatening behavior?


'''Background:''' In the article about San Francisco Supervisor ], I have been debating BillyTFried about whether the article should include information about Daly’s support of a 2006 gun control ballot initiative, ]. I said it shouldn’t because Daly was only one of four sponsors of the initiative, and the initiative wasn’t especially controversial in SF (it won with 58% of the vote). However, because the initiative was controversial in the eyes of many pro-gun groups, it made national headlines with Daly’s name featured in newspaper articles, etc., BillyTFried thought Proposition H should be included in the Chris Daly article.


] 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)
'''YouTube video:''' Yesterday night, BillyTFried posted ] along with . (In case the video gets taken down, it is 1:43 minutes long and shows BillyTFried firing weapons at a shooting range while thrash music plays. BillyTFried occasionally leers at the camera. The video is titled “Shoot Em' Up!”.)


:User is now editing using ] ] (]) 03:34, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
Last night when I read his post, I thought it was just plain weird and creepy, but I didn’t feel threatened. This morning, however, I mentioned it to my wife, who was horrified. She pointed out that BillyTFried lives in the same town as me (he told me the cross streets where he lives) and that his post on my Talk page with the video link was made in the context of a gun control debate. She thought he was threatening me.


::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)
I did not take up this matter with BillyTFried because, frankly, after watching his video, I don't want anything to do with him. I’m just curious what the community thinks of this and whether some action should be taken against BillyTFried. ] 16:14, 11 July 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)
:(statement from non-admin and completely uninvolved party Pfagerburg, who happened to notice this thread as I was checking to see if the vandal came back.)
: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)
:Check the date the video was uploaded - early January of this year, not yesterday. Lots of people take videos of themselves, family members, or friends firing weapons at the range. BillyTFried was trying to make a point that there are some gun-owners living in SF. He made it poorly, and clumsily, but I don't see it as a threat. To be a threat, the video would have to be linked with the text "you're next" or "stay out of this debate or else." Or your name would have to be involved somehow, like "warning to Griot - don't try to take my guns!" That would be a criminal threat for which the threatener ought to be prosecuted. Possibly ] or ], but nothing criminal. ] 16:30, 11 July 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)


== Insults ==
::I understand that YouTube is full of videos of people at shooting ranges and people blasting away at bottles and cans in the great outdoors. But this video was presented to me in the context of gun control. BillyTFried understands my dislike of guns but he posted the video link anyway on my Talk page. If I was a vegetarian and he posted a video link to slaughterhouse video, would that be okay? ] 18:16, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
:(An additionally totally univolved editor ]) I would find that the context of the video being put on a Griot's user page as threatening or at least an attempt to intimidate the debate. If billyt had put it on his own page, that would be a totally different scenario. --] 18:31, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
::I've issued a warning to the editor. At best it was just really poor judgment and as Rocksanddirt said, at worst it has the appearance of an attempt to intimidate.--] 18:40, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


:::No, it (vegetarian and the slaughterhouse video) wouldn't be OK. It would be boorish. And ]. The same applies to the gun video. And in the days of Columbine and Virginia Tech, it borders on just plain stupid. It's a good way to get the police interested in speaking with you, but in the end, the police and the DA would probably conclude it was not criminal.


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)
:::I'm not trying to defend BillyTFried's actions, but rather present what I feel is the middle ground, the two extremes being "quit whining" and "OMG! Call the cops!" He probably owes you an apology, but I don't think he threatened you, either in the WP sense or in the criminal sense. My opinion (that and 50 cents will buy you a coke) is that he ought not to be blocked, but it wouldn't hurt for the admins to have a chat with him. ] 18:40, 11 July 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)
::I have no idea which actions are warranted here. Maybe an admin could leave a message to this IP and this registered user and remind them that they should ] ? It would also be nice to remind them about ] and ]. Saying that I am "fuelled by an unhealthy obsession" or questioning my sanity do not seem to respect those guidelines. ] (]) 09:52, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
==Nlkyair012 and LLM chatbots ==
*{{Noping|Nlkyair012}}
This editor has been constantly using AI chatbots to respond and write messages. They are a single purpose account for glorifying the ] caste using unreliable ] era sources, I and several other experienced editors have taken time and effort to respond to their endless queries and ] generated using ChatGPT. They have posted AI generated walls of text on multiple noticeboards such as ] and ] and including here , accusing me of vandalism.


Despite my repeated requests and even a final warning to them (including a request by {{ping|ActivelyDisinterested}}) they are still continuing to do it. Their messages are repeating the same argument again and again and are frankly just ] that bring up fictitious guidelines or misrepresent the existing ones. Several editors have told them that Raj era sources are not reliable yet they continue to ask for more evidence on why that is the case based on AI generated claims of supposed academic value or neutrality. This is getting very disruptive and taking up valuable contributor time to respond to their endless AI responses which take a few seconds to generate. I have alerted them about ] and ], I would appreciate it if someone could enforce a restriction on this user from at minimum caste area. - ] (]) 13:07, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
Isotope23, I saw your edit after I saved mine. Rocksanddirt has a valid point as well. Let's hope the warning has the desired effect. ] 18:52, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


:Hello @Ratnahastin,
'''WHAT A JOKE!!! Christ you couldn't win a debate against me where you tried to censor valid information on the ] page and TALK page: http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Chris_Daly#Gun_control, so instead to accuse me of threatening you simply because after you insinuated that everyone was anti-gun in "Liberal SF" I replied that I was in fact MYSELF a San Francisco resident and avid gun owner, and posted a video of myself enjoying my hobby, legally, and safely, as visual proof of it. Your assertion that it was somehow a threat is just more hysterics from a person who has already shown ridiculously bizarre behavior by trying to censor valid information on Misplaced Pages, despite protest from everyone else involved. It's also very interesting that you DELETED all my comments on your talk page EXCEPT that one. If anyone want to see the whole conversation it is reproduced on MY TALK PAGE''' --] 19:05, 11 July 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.
:Billy, you don't seem to get it. Posting a video of yourself shooting a weapon on another editors talk page when you know full well they are a gun control advocate was very poor judgment and not in any way ] and it isn't hard to see how someone could take that as an attempt at an intimidation tactic on your part. As I said on your talk page, I expect this will not happen again; future incidents like this will likely result in a block.--] 19:11, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
:I understand your fears about the AI utilities you have mentioned on your site. Even when I was using AI for the grammar check or, for instance, to elaborate on some point in the text, I saw to my mismanagement that over the process we probably confused the readers and repeated the same information and thoughts, which I would never wish to happen again. From now on I will ensure that in the future the input which I provide to wikipedia fits the Misplaced Pages standard and is more personal. I will also not write walls of text and will not make assertations that do not have substantiated evidence in sources.
: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. ==
:Then the proper way to point out that not everybody in SF is anti-gun would have been to write "but '''I''' live in SF and I am '''not''' anti-gun." If Griot had challenged your residence or position, '''then''' the cross streets and the video might have been appropriate.
{{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)
:I don't think your video was at all a threat, but in today's "it doesn't matter what you meant, it's what the other person perceived" environment (you normally hear this in sexual harassment cases), you really need to be more careful what you say and how you say it.
:<del>This sounds a '''lot''' like the same edit warrer I dealt with on ], down to the false accusations of vandalism, removal of sourced information, and apparent use of proxies (all the IPs geolocate to different places). I wouldn't be surprised if this is the same person.</del> I've asked RFPP to intervene. ] &#124; ] 21:05, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
::NVM, checked MaxMind for geolocation and they all are in the same general area. ] &#124; ] 21:08, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
{{abot}}


== ] inaccurate edit summaries ==
:I've been to SF, and I've never felt more un-safe anywhere else in the country. That city's gun-control measures have made sure that only the criminals are armed. But if you don't calmly refute the argument with facts, and instead start yelling about it, you hand them the victory. ] 19:17, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


== ] edit war ==


There seems to be a long-going edit war on this page; at least one of the editors has been warned several times before for edit warring there. Both are now at 3RR point - for the umpteenth time.--] (]) 17:58, 11 July 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)
:I've blocked ] for 24 hours as he was warned for the same thing two days ago. I've warned ] as he's received no warnings. ] 18:07, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
::Scrap the above, I've blocked ] as well now as he had been warned but removed the warnings. ] 18:11, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


== Lil Dicky Semi-Protection ==
in addition, some vandal fiddled with a couple related articles. http://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Contributions/86.129.118.185 --] 18:26, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
:I've blocked the vandal for 24 hours. ]<sup>]</sup> 19:08, 11 July 2007 (UTC) {{atop|1=] is thataway →. - ] <sub>]</sub> 22:34, 24 December 2024 (UTC)}}
] was semi-protected back in 2019. Now that five years have passed, could the semi-protection be lifted? ] (]) 16:25, 24 December 2024 (UTC)


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


== Request for Review of Neutrality and Repeated Actions ==
There is at least a possibility that the above user is a sock of community banned ], with a similar style (removing Fangraph links) and this person only started editing on the 6th of July, which is right after Tecmobowl was banned. It was brought up to my attention because I was the one who implemented the CN ban. I do not want to make the decision (I'm about to take a few days Wikibreak because of an illness) on a quick read. I think there's a strong circumstantial case. Could someone with a bit of free time investigate this? Is RfCU the best place to go? ] 18:13, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
{{Atop|This complaint has no merit and does not require administrative intervention.--] (]) 18:08, 24 December 2024 (UTC)}}


Dear admin,
== Personal attack by 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.
* As no urgent administrative action appears warranted and this discussion is ongoing at ], I'm going to archive this. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 19:15, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
{{discussion top}}
The user ] has launched a personal attack against me here .<br />
Furthermore, the current debate there seems to be turning out of hand as some of his cronies have come to defend him by using certain straw-man tactics, and I alone cannot defend myself if he and zillions of his cronies are intentionally ignoring half of what I'm saying. <big>'''<u>Impartial</U>, decent'''</big> admins are invited to monitor this situation in case it unfurls into chaos.<br />
You will note that this is the 3rd personal attack that ] has launched against me. I will find the other two and post them here. ] 18:43, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
:I'm not going to say that you didn't deserve that, but I agree it was over the top. Nobody would tell me to "edit articles or shut up you whining twat" (at least I think not), and that is rather incivil even if you do deserve it. -] <small>]</small> 18:47, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
::Dude, your user page was protected for 4 days, '''7 months ago.''' What possible purpose could you have in dragging this up now? Move on. ] 18:54, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
:::I like to think that admins are held accountable for their actions in some way, don't you? Anyways to answer your question, it's appropriate right now. ] censored my userpage because of what he called a ] piece (which was actually constructive criticism about Misplaced Pages), and then goes and puts a ] piece on his userpage. Seven months later I'm taking the opportunity to point it out, that's all. Now that you've successfully detracted from the issues at hand...] 19:00, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
::::Rfwoolf, Guy's ] does not justify your name-calling ("cronies"). Please refrain from such comments. -- ''']''' <sup>''(])''</sup> 19:01, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
:::::Regardless of the issues, JzG's comments cited in the diff look like unacceptable NPA violations to me, although I appreciate they may have been taken out of context. ]<sup>]</sup> 19:04, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
::::*Re: Black Falcon. Whom did I call cronies? Was it a personal attack? I don't remember calling anybody a crony. I don't believe in this case it counts as a personal attack. Perhaps another impartial admin can correct me if I'm wrong ] 19:10, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


I kindly request that you review this matter and take appropriate steps to ensure that all users adhere to neutrality standards. If possible, I would also appreciate guidance on how to address such situations constructively in the future.
Misconduct has no statute of limitations in Misplaced Pages. This is not to say if there was or wasn't misconduct. If someone wants to consider what happened, do it now and then forget about it, shake hand, and resume writing.] 19:05, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
: It's perhaps better if Rfwoolf doesn't resume writing, considering ] 19:08, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


Thank you for your attention to this issue. Please feel free to reach out if further clarification is needed.
Rfwoolf, if lots of different people are honestly ignoring what you are saying, then perhaps what you are saying doesn't warrant people paying any attention to it. Please consider that you could be in the wrong here as much as anybody else. ] 19:10, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Hazar ] (]) 17:45, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
:Nick, in order to provide me with the '''right of reply''', I'd need to be able to see the link to your quoted "damining evidence". I cannot access it. Please either give me access to it, or explain what it is. Secondly, I always maintain that I could be in the wrong as much as anybody else as a philosophical rule. However, it would be nice if reason and civility were implemented, even logic perhaps, and using straw-men tactics, as you may pick up they are doing, is not nice. The focus of the debate there was supposed to be about <u>censoring my userpage because of soapboxing, and then going and soapboxing on his own page, and the hypocracy thereof</u>. Now go read the debate and see what they're doing -- talking about anything and everything else, bringing up all sorts of dead skeletons to try and discredit me in the discussion. Hense my use of the word cronyism ] 19:17, 11 July 2007 (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 ==
{{discussion bottom}}
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 disapprove of this being archived so soon. At least one admin has agreed that JzG violated ]. What action is going to be done about it? Furthermore I have been deprived of a right of reply over a link by Nick: "Damning evidence". How am I supposed to respond? Also JzG has done a personal attack 2 other times... This unilateral archiving seems blatantly unfair ] 19:21, 11 July 2007 (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)
== ], etc. and ] ==


:"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)
'''Third time's a charm?''' I seriously need an admin to intervene here. Among many other things, A Jalil is:
::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)
He is generally avoiding talk pages and blind reverting several articles, along with ] and to a lesser extent ]. Please someone assist me here. -]·]·]·] 19:11, 11 July 2007 (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 02:07, 25 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)
    This feels par for the course for Zander frankly. As noted with the bit about Zander reverting after an explicit edit summary saying not to and there being two days worth of me saying that edit would be made and they made no objections until the move was made. They disengaged from discussion but only re-engaged when the situation changed to their disliking. Rusted AutoParts 02:07, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

    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: