| Revision as of 00:59, 17 July 2007 editBakasuprman (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users19,844 edits reply← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 01:14, 26 December 2024 edit undoThe Bushranger (talk | contribs)Administrators156,618 edits →Incivility, aspersions, WP:NOTHERE from Cokeandbread: indef'd | ||
| 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 = 271 | |||
| | |
|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 . | |||
| == Help == | |||
| <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— 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) | |||
| {{resolved|Blocked 24 hours by ]}} | |||
| ::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) | |||
| ] keeps making disruptive edits to ]. When I warned him several times he is now threatening me on my talk page and his user page. I want someone to help me put a stop to this please.] 18:45, 13 July 2007 (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) | |||
| ::Symbiotespidey blocked 24 hours for the physical threats. BlueShrek warned for being incivil and biting. ] ] ] 18:57, 13 July 2007 (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) | |||
| :::::::‎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) | |||
| BlueShrek wasnt uncivil Iwent by the rules.] 19:00, 13 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::You certainly did not. You were uncivil, biting to the new user (and you yourself are a new user) and you both have ownership issues. ] ] ] 19:08, 13 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) | |||
| Hes still making threats somehow. He just left me a message. I need help against this vandal.] 19:05, 13 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) | |||
| ::I had forgotten to click ok on the block. He's blocked now. ] ] ] 19:08, 13 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *If it's that much of a problem for his computer, go and buy a new computer. It would certainly be better than whining about how Misplaced Pages broke his ability to edit without screwing things up for other users.] (]) 07:06, 25 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ==New sock of ] blocked indefinitely== | |||
| {{Further|], ]}} | |||
| I've just blocked indef another sock of this disruptor. {{Vandal|Irrer}} is waiting for an admin to unblock the account. -- ] - <small>]</small> 19:26, 13 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Meh. None of ''this'' matters. Signatures sometimes get accidentally fucked up. This is an encyclopedia, not a forum, and this signature thing is not a real disruption to the creation of encyclopedic content. <span style="position: relative; top: -0.5em;">꧁</span>]<span style="position: relative; top: -0.5em;">꧂</span> 07:21, 25 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| One more → ]. -- ] - <small>]</small> 21:38, 13 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::While true, it's still a violation of ], and if it's accidentally changing characters in signatures, who knows what ''else'' it might be doing that isn't getting caught or reported? - ] <sub>]</sub> 07:27, 25 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::It is safe to assume there more than a few of the editors taking part in this discussion have years and decades of technological experience under their belts, myself included. I do not think The Accused is straight-up lying about the technical hurdle, but clinging to the "I refuse to change my system of operation, therefore it's Misplaced Pages's fault for (6 years ago) making the change!" excuse is the real problem here - this is at the heart a ''behavioral'' discussion, not a technical one. Consistently violating the norms of the community is indeed a real disruption to the creation of encyclopedic content. ] (]) 16:29, 25 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| One more → ]. -- ] - <small>]</small> 23:22, 14 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::It's not inherently about the signatures. It's that he's stubbornly insisting on using an outdated system that introduces errors into ''other content''. — <b>]:<sup>]</sup></b> 17:40, 25 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::agree on this. Incidental changing of signayures due to the tech issue is not a small problem itself but that clearly has potential to impact a much wider range of mainspace content. I have a hard time believing that there is not a browser that supports https and can run on a decade old computer (something like Opera even). Claiming inability to switch or upgrade needs to be explained in detail or otherwise this has potential to be a bigger problem. ] (]) 17:55, 25 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Disruptive editing by ] == | |||
| One more → ]. -- ] - <small>]</small> 09:20, 15 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) | |||
| ..... → ]. -- ] - <small>]</small> 14:15, 16 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :@]: It looks like you both are ] on ].<sup class="plainlinks"></sup> That's not particularly helpful, so you should try to have a discussion on the ] as to whether you should include the ] name for the article in the lead/infobox. –<span style="font-family:CG Times, times">] ]<sup>]</sup></span> 20:33, 19 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Mass date-delinking campaign by ] == | |||
| ::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. –<span style="font-family:CG Times, times">] ]<sup>]</sup></span> 18:02, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::The IP's edits were removed a total of 13 times on the page regarding the capital city of ], ]. You can't let him continue engaging in further edit wars with other users besides Moroike, can you? ] (]) 17:24, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| Since this IP user won't stop and is stonewalling, either he/should be temporarily blocked, or all the pages he is POV pushing without sources, should be semi-protected, so that only registered users can edit them. ] (]) 21:37, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :After he/she was blocked for 24 hours, this IP created an account as ] in order to evade the block and has resumed his/her POV pushing. ] (]) 16:51, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| == Creating the need to make 400,000 unnecessary edits == | |||
| This user has taken up a contentious stylistic campaign that has caused much disruption in the past: indisciminately stripping articles of all year-alone datelinks, using bot-like methods to run through large numbers of articles at high speed. The same thing has been done in the past by ], who finally gave up only after repeated rounds of escalating blocks, hiatuses and resumptions, and by ] (under Bobblewik's initial influence), who somehow escaped blocking but acted likewise, breaking off under pressure each time the campaign attracted notice and opposition, only to quietly resume it at a later date. (For this background, see Bobblewik's block-log and talk-page, and Hmain's talk-page in its history, repeatedly, almost from the get-go: , and straggling on through the summer, , .)<br>Long discussions at ] have failed to reach a consensus either for linking years or for de-linking them, giving the matter a status alike to that of other stylistic differences (e.g. "British" versus "American" spelling) for which there's a general principle of "don't go around articles changing the style from one way to the other". It was for stubbornly breaking this principle that Bobblewik was repeatedly blocked.<br>Now Lightmouse is repeating the very same pattern of behaviour: First as ], and then under his present name, he's been stripping articles of all year-alone datelinks. Quite a number of other editors have complained, but Lightmouse has mostly ignored their complaints. A month ago I warned him to stop, filling him in on the background. He laid off for a month, then resumed making edits such as . I warned him again, more strongly, earlier today, but he has since carried on with edits such as . He's made no effort to get consensus for his campaign by re-opening discussions at the MOS page.<br>His edits are not all bad, and I, personally, even agree with some of his year-delinkings, because he tends to concentrate on articles for quite recent stuff. He also does much other, largely useful editing at the same time, with units and such -- but this almost makes matters worse, because it means that a straightforward revert of the date-delinking also undoes the good stuff. (He's gotten complaints about some of that other stuff, though, and reacted to them with equal stubbornness.)<br>Anyhow, since complaints and warnings have failed, admin intervention seems to be the only way of handling this. I hope this is the right place to ask for it. -- ] 00:02, 14 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :I don't see any harm in it myself. What difference does it make? These links are not of any real use anyway. --] 00:17, 14 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::That is your opinion. Not policy nor consensus. ] 01:52, 14 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::There's no policy or consensus either way, right? – ] <sup>(]) (])</sup> 01:56, 14 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| I have left him a stern final warning. Please report further activity of this type here. --] 01:53, 14 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :What policy is he violating? The BC/BCE thing was decided by the ArbCom, that no one should change one to the other. But there's been no such decision here, has there? Or am I missing something? – ] <sup>(]) (])</sup> 01:58, 14 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Not as far as I know. Why would he get a "stern final warning" for something like this? --] 02:01, 14 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::]. ] 02:25, 14 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Right. There's no general consensus either way. So I shouldn't threaten to block people for linking years, and I also shouldn't threaten to block people for de-linking them. At least, that's how I read it. – ] <sup>(]) (])</sup> 02:37, 14 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. | |||
| OK, I admit that this is an ambiguous situation. I researched it before I left the warning. I researched it again quickly and revisited my thinking after reading Quadel's comment. | |||
| I tried to get him to stop at ], to no avail. This isn't the first time, as you can see from that discussion. ] (]) 14:57, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| I think we all understand that there is no consensus to link or de-link years. ] clearly indicates that it is permissible to link years (else why would they show how to do it?). | |||
| :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. <b>~</b> <span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:16px;">] (] ⋅])</span> 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. <b>~</b> <span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:16px;">] (] ⋅])</span> 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. — Martin <small>(] · ])</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? — Martin <small>(] · ])</small> 18:23, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I don't know what this is about, but if the OP is correct, it is totally absurd to edit 400,000 talk pages for a tweak. Discussing at a template talk page monitored by those focused on the template would simply hide the issue. ] (]) 03:53, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Edits like these should ''always'' be bots, so they can be filtered from watchlists. There are numerous other editors who have recently engaged in the mass additional of categories to articles which I had to ask them to stop as my watchlist was flooded. ]] 13:02, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::Hiding bot edits from watchlists is not a viable option for many editors, since it also hides any non-bot edits that predate the bot edit (], 2007, unassigned). Users ], ], ], ], {{lang|la|et al}} edit with such high frequency that hiding their edits leads to an unacceptable proportion of watchlist items not appearing. {{Small|(Also, Citation bot's edits should usually be reviewed, since it has a non-negligible error rate and its activators typically don't review its output, exceptions noted.)}}{{pb}}The code for maintaining two aliases for one parameter cannot possibly be so complex as to warrant a half million edits. If one of the two "''must''" undergo deprecation, bundle it into Cewbot's task. If the values don't match, have the banner shell template populate a mismatch category.{{pb}}In general, if a decision is made to start treating as an error some phenomenon that has previously not been a problem, and that decision generates a maintenance category with tens or hundreds of thousands of members, it is a bad decision and the characterisation of the phenomenon as "erroneous" should be reversed.{{pb}}At minimum, any newly instanced maintenance task scoped to over a hundred thousand pages should come before the community for approval at a central venue. ] (]) 15:19, 25 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::{{Small|Also, like, if only one of {{para|blp}} and {{para|living}} {{tqq|gets updated}}, shouldn't the net result be pretty obvious? Valid updates should really only go one direction. ] (]) 15:24, 25 December 2024 (UTC)}} | |||
| * Is it just me or are talk pages like ] just perpetual ] issues where a very small number of editors (frequently 5 or less) make major changes that affect thousands of articles, all without involving the broader community through, at minimum, places like ]? ]]<sup>]</sup> 04:03, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ] suggests that it is ok to be ] but that, if someone else objects, then you should discuss and develop a consensus. | |||
| *{{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) | |||
| Someone (]) has objected to Lightmouse's de-linking and asked him to stop pending formation of a consensus. Ignoring the opinions of others and editing unilaterally in the face of opposition is disruptive. | |||
| :{{re|Fram}} this is logical. We should also make it a policy (or at least a guideline), something along the lines "if change would lead to edits/updating more than XYZ pages, a consensus should be achieved on a venue with a lot of visibility". Like {{u|Silver seren}} mentioned above, sometimes a formal consensus/discussion takes place, but it happens on obscure talk pages. —usernamekiran ] 14:01, 25 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == User:ZanderAlbatraz1145 Civility and Content #2 == | |||
| According to the BRD model, it would have been permissible to revert Lightmouse's edits. However, that probably would have been more confrontational than necessary. | |||
| *{{userlinks|ZanderAlbatraz1145}} | |||
| This user has engaged in a lengthy display of disruption. Namely through incessant incivility I have noticed . | |||
| Instances such as , , on , etc. Users such as {{Ping|Waxworker}} and {{Ping|Jon698}} can speak to their experiences, I'll outline mine. | |||
| I don't think any admin relishes the idea of having to go through each of Lightmouse's edits and rolling them back if the consensus were to decide against his de-linking campaign. | |||
| 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 . | |||
| Blocks are meant to be preventative; not punitive. The purpose of a block in this case would be to limit the de-linking until the issue can be discussed in an appropriate forum. | |||
| This editor displays no interest in conducting themselves cordially or cooperatively on this website. ] 23:20, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| Discussion and consensus are crucial to working in a collaborative community. | |||
| :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 ] == | |||
| --] 03:27, 14 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Applaudere. -- ] - <small>]</small> 05:50, 14 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, ] ]] 05:13, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :Well said Richard. However, I think the best would be to help coach Lightmouse towards making more productive edits, rather than talking about blocks for what seem to me, from a very cursory sampling, to be more good than bad edits; edits with which I too see certain problems, but which are undoubtedly well-intentioned. Discussion and consensus are vital here and I'm disappointed at how little attempt at dialogue was made with Lightmouse about his edits before threatening him with a block and reporting him here. Experience has shown repeatedly that the community is not able to attain a consensus either for or against linking standalone years, and that there are editors on both "sides" who passionately believe they should or shouldn't be linked. I should say that I often delink standalone years as part of a copyedit myself. Perhaps the solution to this issue would lie in discussing with Lightmouse on an individual basis the merits of his edits. If there is a concern that he edits somewhat robotically, then perhaps he could be restricted to a certain speed of editing. Finally I'd say, with all respect to everybody involved in this, it really doesn't seem worth anybody falling out over, to me. --] 06:49, 14 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :I've left the editor a message inviting some coaching. Wikignoming is not inherently bad, you know, and this energy to make formatting changes could surely be tapped rather than thwarted. We'll see if they want to work with me. --] 00:09, 15 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Thanks, John. I agree with what you wrote. In my defense, I admit that I was editing under time pressure yesterday and reacting to an existing series of exchanges between LonewolfBC and Lightmouse. I was simply trying to reinforce what LonewolfBC was saying. Comparing LonewolfBC's exchange with Lightmouse against your exchange with him shows that there is indeed a "kinder, gentler" way to communicate. It is a lesson for me to learn. --] 08:50, 15 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::OK, here's my approach. --] 09:07, 15 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::Applaudere2. -- ] - <small>]</small> 09:17, 15 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :]? ] (]) 06:25, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| Further to this, Hmains lately has been "testing these waters" again, with edits such as , made under the edit-summary "copyedit".<br>I'm quite disappointed that anyone would suggest that this datelink-stripping is okay on the suppositious grounds that the links are not useful. The whole point is that there is no consenus about the worth of the links, and that in the lack of such consensus it is not right to go burning through articles in a bot-like manner, indiscriminately nuking every year-alone date-link. An equally speedy and thoughtless campaign of adding such links would be just as bad. I'm also disappointed at legalistic suggestions that some formal ruling is needed before preventative action may be taken against this. Surely a commonsense application of principles is enough, and if not then how is it that Bobblewik was repeatedly blocked for his date-link stripping? For all I know there has even been a ruling, but I don't think it ought matter whether there has or has not.<br>With regard to approaches to Lightmouse, and the fittingness of mine or Richard's, one must read through his talk-page's history to judge that well. Complaints about the date-link stripping have been continual, and Editore99/Lightmouse had "blown off" every one before mine, in one way or another. The same has been generally true of other complaints he has gotten. When entreaties have already failed, warnings are in order (followed by enforcement, if the warnings are not heeded). If Lightmouse has seemed more receptive to John's "kinder and gentler" approach, that might well have to do with his being under threat of a block. That said, I wholly agree that Lightmouse is doing plenty of good work and that this energy ought be "tapped rather than thwarted".<br>-- ] 17:00, 16 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::{{duck}}. I'm sending this ]. - ] <sub>]</sub> 11:16, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::, so might just be generic disruption. - ] <sub>]</sub> 22:47, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :What are you implying with regard to my username? My edit history has been limited to trying to correct two red flags that stood out so much that I followed the citations when I was searching these scientists who were in the news for censorship. It has been enlightening learning how wikipedia selectively chooses secondary sources but discourages the use of primary sources to help discriminate which secondary sources are credible. | |||
| :For my two attempted contributions to Misplaced Pages, the two red flags were pretty dramatic to prompt me to check out the citations--Sunetra Gupta's article implied more than 1 in 1000 people in England died from Covid in spring 2020 in an effort to discredit her, which was trivially easy to google as untrue. I corrected that without really changing the overall narrative. The article for Martin Kulldorff...I would probably not have spent time looking at the sources or realized how unscientific Kulldorff's critics were had there not been such superfluous "Wikivoice" editorializing and synthesizing suggesting Kulldorff lied in an essay to the public. ] (]) 06:30, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::] are not to be used for anything but simple facts about a subject. They absolutely are not to be used {{tqq|to help discriminate which secondary sources are credible}} because that is ]. - ] <sub>]</sub> 08:57, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::Not sure why you felt the need to repeat what I said. Maybe I am the sock puppeteer! ] (]) 03:33, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::What I am implying is that such a username in the context of an account pushing COVID-denialist rhetoric that flies in the face of the sources and Misplaced Pages policy is . Anyway, this editor continues to be a drain of editor time and attention. ] ]] 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) | |||
| == Disruptive editor on ] == | |||
| :I don't have a problem with Hmains' edit except maybe that the edit summary is less than wholly accurate. I do have a problem with edit you made with the edit summary " rv illicit datelink-stripping", which looks rather ]y to me. I'm also not sure if it is helpful to bring together these two editors whose only common factor is that they delink date fragments. So do I and many other users. If you ever see any user "burning through articles in a bot-like manner, indiscriminately nuking every year-alone date-link", and you believe it matters, feel free to come back here and raise it again (though preferably after you have made a proper effort to establish dialogue with the user). I see no evidence of this in the edits of Hmains. --] 17:15, 16 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| User ] has repeatedly removed reliably sourced refs to the genres infobox by removing ] simply because they don't believe it to be correct as the ref is "new" and that the artist isn't that genre. I had sent them two warnings now and also explained that's not how this works, so they decided to add more genres with refs that don't even mention the genres they included. I do not believe this editor is going to cooperate. ] (]) 08:27, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::If his past behavior is any guide, it will only be a matter of time before Mr. Mains returns to "burning through articles in a bot-like manner, indiscriminately nuking every year-alone date-link", unless it is made clear to him that this is no more acceptable than it has been in the past. He generally has begun his rounds of this activity tentatively, but soon throttled up to spending all or substantial portions of editing-days making such edits. The issue is identical to that with Lightmouse -- indeed, the pattern of editing behavior and of interaction with other editors is eerily alike -- so this seems like the sensible place to raise it. The context is all here. I would not put anyone in the same category who delinks year-alone dates merely in the course of judiciously editing articles. -- ] 19:16, 16 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. | |||
| == User:76.182.220.150 == | |||
| :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). ] ] 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...}} === | |||
| I am deeply concerned about the edits I see by {{user|Garry Denke}} (who also apparently contributes as {{ipuser|76.182.220.150}}). He has recently spammed a number of talk pages with fairly well-written pseudoscientific/pseudohistorical religious "theories". By itself, this is a problem but easily dealt with. My bigger concern is that Garry Denke has contributed to and started a variety of semi obscure articles over the last two years (e.g. ], ]), and made small factual changes to topics like ]. Some of these contributions appear legitimate, some are transparently false (e.g. magnetic reversals do not occur in less than 39 years), but others are plausible sounding statements that I am unqualified to judge. I worry that he may have inserted a variety of problematic content that was too obscure to notice. | |||
| 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. | |||
| I would appreciate it if others would investigate his edit history and take appropriate action as necessary. Particularly useful would be someone '''knowledgable''' about ''']'''. ] 07:00, 14 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 | |||
| : | |||
| Thank you. ] (]) 19:32, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| <copy of abstract removed. ] 15:29, 14 July 2007 (UTC)> | |||
| :Why do people have to argue about what genre music is rather than just listening to it, and hopefully enjoying it? ] (]) 19:58, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::The genre list was fine and accurate and uncontroversial until this user decided to remove the entire thing. It's important that the genre list is accurate. People find albums through genres. There's other reasons as well. ] (]) 20:38, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::This is neither here nor there, but I thought albums are generally sorted in alphabetical order by band name or the musician's last name. | |||
| :::Please, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, or my information is incomplete. ] (]) 22:28, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I was trying to explain the important of listing genres accurately. If you go to a record store then yes, albums are listed in alphabetical order. But they're still put in categories of genres. ] (]) 22:43, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::If we were going to list musical genres "accurately," we wouldn't bother at all. Except in very broad strokes ("rock," "punk," "Baroque," etc), so many of these horribly subjective "genres" are made up by bored media writers and bands that hate the notion of being The Same As Everyone Else. Get ten people to listen to ten different tracks of heavy metal, and you won't get as many as a third of them agreeing on any of them on the doom/grudge/dark/death/Goth/Viking/sludge/*-grind/*-core/etc etc etc spectrum. Beyond that, arguing whether any given artist is "that genre" is ''very'' highly subjective. (Hell, I've sung Baroque, classical, folk, rock, ethnic, shape note, so many genres I can't readily count.) ] 15:12, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Multiple users breaking 3RR on Gilman School article == | |||
| :Speaking of '''knowledgeable''' | |||
| :One entry found. | |||
| :knowledgeable | |||
| :Main Entry: knowl·edge·able | |||
| :Pronunciation: \ˈnä-lij-ə-bəl\ | |||
| :Function: adjective | |||
| :Date: 1829 | |||
| : having or showing knowledge or intelligence | |||
| :— knowl·edge·abil·i·ty \ˌnä-li-jə-ˈbi-lə-tē\ noun | |||
| :— knowl·edge·able·ness noun | |||
| :— knowl·edge·ably \-blē\ adverb | |||
| :John | |||
| ::Okay, so it's nonsense that some scientist believed in the 1980s. "n analysis of the available sediment records of the four most recent polarity reversals ... yield an average estimate of about 7,000 years for the time it takes for the directional change to occur." (Clement, ''Science'', 2004 ). If one only cares about the time it takes to go from slightly S oriented to slightly N, then obviously the time required is neglible because you catch it just on the transition, but that is not at all the same as asking how long the reversal takes as the pole slides through a 180 degree arc. ] 15:29, 14 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::Oy, a bit high brow for Clement. Dipole flip is three (3) days. The whole arc; degrees / minutes / seconds. ''Homo erectus'' is the discoverer. The discovery date; ]. ''In the beginning'' top "Ionian" Stage. Here is the discoverer's "]". "So easy a Caveman can do it". Go ahead and laugh, whatever. Watch one, then you correct Wiki. I know that you dislike ancestors. However; give the founder full credit! ] for ''Homo erectus''! Garry Denke 19:11, 14 July 2007 (UTC), ], ] Garry Denke 14:39, 15 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Garry, you're not helping your cause out by using the ]. You're only proving Dragons flight correct. ] 19:14, 14 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Dragons flight Chewbacca (Trojan horse) Defense employs non-dipole technical jargon, vs., Earth's dipole "so easy a Caveman can do it" ''Homo erectus'' eyewitness account, The Evil Spartan. Just thought you'd like to know you've buried Dragons flight with your link. John | |||
| ::::Hey Dad, how do you spell ''']'''? John | |||
| :::::. Universal Magnetic Field. Garry Denke 23:55, 15 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == {{vandal|Mmbabies}} and TV station articles == | |||
| 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 | |||
| This user was back in February. Since that time, he has continued to edit pages under various Houston-based IPs. The edits are vandalism/nonsense (changing TV station affiliations/call signs/channel numbers) and some . After months of this abuse, I send a boilerplate message to the vandal's ISP, but that didn't work. I've placed the Houston TV stations on semi-protection, but the vandal has moved on to Bakersfield TV stations, and ] members are ] for a range block. As I do not really understand the range block parameters, I'm asking here. | |||
| , , . | |||
| 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. | |||
| The IPs which have been used include: {{vandal|71.147.18.159}}, {{vandal|66.139.10.84}}, {{vandal|75.18.56.133}}, {{vandal|75.6.214.82}}, {{vandal|68.92.33.195}}, {{vandal|71.156.123.70}}, {{vandal|72.236.190.51}}, {{vandal|65.34.130.240}}, {{vandal|75.18.56.90}}, {{vandal|68.94.98.93}}, {{vandal|75.18.56.133}}, {{vandal|71.147.16.30}}, {{vandal|75.21.56.35}}, {{vandal|75.1.22.253}}, {{vandal|68.90.246.160}}, {{vandal|68.90.232.60}}, {{vandal|70.132.151.112}}, many others. <font color="#0000FF">]</font> 09:44, 14 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ] (]) | |||
| As a member of TVS, I support something of a limited range block--require AT&T users in this range (the Houston area) to create an account before editing. It's unfortunate that it has to come to this, but clearly the ISP isn't taking it seriously (despite the fact that AT&T's TOS requires users to abide by the policies of third-party sites). To refresh some people's memories--he was ] in part for exactly this behavior, including threats to the life of ]. At the very least, requiring him to create an account would make it easier to keep track of him. As it is, his vandalism is almost a weekly occurrence. ]] 11:30, 14 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *E/C applied. ] ] 19:51, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :'''Support''' - I don't like blocking a whole city, but it really is necessary. ''']''' <sup>(])</sup> 12:54, 14 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::{{u|Counterfeit Purses}}, please be aware that the ] article was kept in a recent Articles for Deletion debate, so the consensus of the community is that he is notable. Edit warring to keep his name off the alumni list is a ''really bad idea''. ] (]) 20:14, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :'''Support''' -- I concur; if AT&T won't do something about it, we have to do something to keep him off for good, or at least, make it harder for him to vandalise. As long as there are loopholes, Mmbabies has the "keys" to the Misplaced Pages "kingdom". P.S. -- In addition to bakersfield, he also vandalised some Dallas / Fort Worth stations in the past; and his vandalism stunts are actually almost a '''daily''' thing. -- ] 19:00, 14 July 2007 (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) | |||
| :'''Comment''' One of the IPs he's used is ] from editing anonymously ... with this guy's history, it should be extended to the whole range, as suggested above. ]] 00:21, 15 July 2007 (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) | |||
| :'''Support''' I was not involved with the originial block, but this guy needs to be stopped. Sadly, blocking an entire metro area might be the only way. - ] <span style="font-size: 0.8em;"><sup>]:]</sup></span> 00:27, 15 July 2007 (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) | |||
| :'''Support''' I think all of us are very tired of his nightly "fun", which includes death threats to and ]'s and a 'my way/highway' attitude towards Houston TV and every show airing on Daystar. Sad that it is to block AT&T access for Houston without an account, this guy needs to be reined in somehow. I would give this range block around six months, and then reopen for a review to see if he's finally been discouraged. I have only reverted him a few times since GridlockJoe, Postoak and Azumanga have done an admirable (and probably wearing) job keeping Mmbabies reined in, but I do keep a couple of Houston TV articles on watch just in case he might try something funny late when I'm on. ] 08:33, 15 July 2007 (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) | |||
| :*'''Comment''': I think with the now three seperate death threats, that we should also let perhaps the Houston area police department know. Even though they are the rantings of an obviously disturbed person, we should let the police know. Perhaps they can track the guy down. - ] <span style="font-size: 0.8em;"><sup>]:]</sup></span> 03:08, 16 July 2007 (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) | |||
| ::*'''Comment on Comment''':I agree, especially since we already have 131 "leads" as of tonight (7/15), ]. -- ] 04:21, 16 July 2007 (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) | |||
| == User:Glenn103 == | |||
| === Banned user vandalizing from IP? === | |||
| {{userlinks|Glenn103}} has been mass creating unsourced stubs about Cyrillic letters, most of which have been draftified. They've also disruptively edited in the past, such as: <span style="white-space:nowrap"><span style="font-family:monospace">'''<nowiki>''']<nowiki>]]'''</nowiki>'''</span> (] • ])</span> 01:41, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :Most of these pages don't even make any sense (eg.: ]). The user also ignores any notice about his articles being moved to draftspace by simply recreating duplicates of them (eg.: ] & ]). Immediate action may be needed. ] (] <b>·</b> ]) 07:38, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::Given a uw-create4im with directions to come here, let's see what happens. - ] <sub>]</sub> 08:00, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::They've continued editing, this time adding infoboxes to the articles, so I don't think the warning worked... <span style="white-space:nowrap"><span style="font-family:monospace">'''<nowiki>''']<nowiki>]]'''</nowiki>'''</span> (] • ])</span> 08:10, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I have blocked them from article space and page moves, and will leave note on talk page to come here. — ] ] 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? | |||
| Check out this edit from {{User|68.90.62.217}} before a current vandalism spree —] <small>(] ])</small> 02:43, 16 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :I mean you might have a point, but wow. – ] (]) (]) 04:57, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :{{user|MMBabies}} doesn't exist. Anon misspelled the username, if there was a username. ] 03:06, 16 July 2007 (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) | |||
| ::Just a thought -- I suggest putting a freeze on new members with that username, just in case the other Mmbabies entertains any thoughts. -- ] 20:57, 16 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Good catch, and looking at the contribution histories it {{duck}}. Changing the block to indef as a sock accordingly. - ] <sub>]</sub> 07:22, 25 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::No need, Azumanga ... any users with nicknames similar to him will be hard-blocked on sight, per ]. Usernames similar to known vandals are verboten. ]] 22:28, 16 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :{{User|Mmbabies}} exists though. ]] 03:53, 16 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::That's probably what he meant. Where in Houston do you buy guts that big? He exposes the WMF to serious legal danger with his threats and has a large chunk of his hometown unable to edit for some stretches, and he wants to be unblocked????? ]] 22:26, 16 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == North Korean involvement in Russian-Ukraine war discussion == | |||
| == User: Jeffrey Vernon Merkey == | |||
| 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. | |||
| This user has repeatedly deleted cited material over and over from the ] and has been violating the NPOV and AGF policy with false comments about the Freedmen descendants and pushing his POV all while claiming that the article is filled with “uncited materials”. I made changes to the article, but he deletes each change over and over again. He claims that I committed vandalism and “libel” to the page, but if you look at the entire page history, I have contributed to the article with multiple numbers of cited materials and the user whose he claimed I vandalized states that I didn't vandalize the page . He's accused me of being some user named "JohnC1" in the “talk” section and I've deleted his edits to my information page, but more have taken its place . He tagged my page with "This user is a sockpuppet of JohnC1" and I had no idea what that was until a fellow user told me. I welcome an Admin to check my IP and see that this claim is garbage. This person keeps harassing me on the page and now he wants users who have contributed to the article blocked (as you can see from the page history link above) and making some bogus claim that people contributing are "Freedmen that should be blocked" with another piece of unfactual information . Someone constantly manipulating the page to push his agenda makes no sense and I'm hoping that an Admin can resolve this because this is out of control.] 14:35, 14 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :This is a tough one. Clearly a content dispute. That being said, nothing rankles me more than one hair-brained editors accuse other editors of "vandalism", as if we can't tell the difference. ] But seriously, can't you guys work this out on the talk page? ] 20:18, 14 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::A user suggested ], but that's not doing any good since he keeps doing the reverting, the "he's a sockpuppet", and the "libel" and "vandalism" claims. And reading all this other stuff below about me....if I'm a "sock" then why did I say "I welcome an Admin to check my IP and see that this claim is garbage"? Now I'm a "sock", an "SPA", a "SPA sock", an "Anti-Merkey SPA", a "SCOX troll", a "Freedman who should be banned", AND "JohnC1"?! It would be easy to just look at the page history or talk page and see what I contributed that warrants speculation and to see Merkey's actions with not only me but other users. This is exactly why I would like an Admin to straighten this out and to see that Merkey is causing disruption in the Freedmen piece and unwarranted harassment. ] 21:55, 16 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| '''Key Points:''' | |||
| Mr Merkey has a habit of calling anyone who disagrees with him a troll, sockpuppet, etc etc. | |||
| See SCOX Issues User:Kebron here, http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive269 | |||
| as well as User:Stormshadows00 here, | |||
| http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive270 | |||
| He has been banned from Misplaced Pages twice before for EXACTLY what he is doing now. http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:List_of_banned_users&oldid=74046215 reverting edits that are CITED and claiming that HIS POV edits can remain. --] 22:00, 14 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Hmm…, …] 22:48, 14 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Please... continue to make vague accusations all you want. The truth remains... Mr Merkey makes wild POV changes to articles. I and others revert them and are accused without proof trolling, of being sockpuppets of this user or that. I have asked over and over if there was anything wrong with my edits and the only thing wrong was that I was editing articles that Jeff Merkey edited. --] 23:06, 14 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::And the truth remains that anti-Merkey SPAs continue to troll this noticeboard.] 23:16, 14 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::Oh come on. Is there any evidence to call Stormshadows00 an 'anti-Merkey SPA'? SPA yes, but the edit history seems to consist of good-faith edits to a single article, and a resulting conflict with Merkey's rather vexatious editing practices. ] if nothing else. --] 09:08, 15 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::The trouble is that AGF is exactly what the anti-Merkey SPAs have very consciously abused. We could have one hundred and one anti-Merkey only SPAs here and each would assure us from the bottom of their keyboards that they have no idea what we're talking about, while we would be required by the quaint tenets of our religion to overlook the obvious. Merkey can be a problematic editor, but how often does that result in posts to ANI by relatively new editors? Where Merkey is concerned, it happens all the time. | |||
| ::::Stormshadows is an SPA. Maybe the quick post to ANI which is characteristic of anti-Merkey trolls is coincidence. Okay, but you can't get around . That's not just an SPA, but an ''anti-Merkey-only'' SPA, and one who's been allowed to contribute for several years now.] 10:27, 15 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Pretty unlikely that is anyone's forty first edit.] 10:41, 15 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Except that a few days previously, Merkey had used the same forum to about Stormshadows00, so, newbie or not, this forum had already been brought to Stormshadow's attention as the appropriate forum to complain about other editors. In any case, not even Merkey claims that Stormshadows00 is an anti-Merkey troll - that's your invention. Merkey is accusing Stormshadows00 of being John Cornsilks, who is not a SCOX user or troll, but a Cherokee that Jeff has clashed with on Cornsilk's message board, and he was trying to leverage that accusation against Stormshadows00 in this content dispute (since John Cornsilks' account was blocked from WP, for non-Merkey related reasons). Please keep up. When you're seeing anti-Merkey trolls that not even Jeff sees, then I suggest you reevaluate your methods.--] 12:34, 15 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::I did not say that ''Stormshadows00'' was an anti-Merkey account, but an SPA and not a new account. Which is fine, but suspicious. What is far beyond suspicious are the contributions of the other editor who has commented above, which admit only one common denominator.] 20:56, 15 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Erm, you made one reference to 'Anti-Merkey SPAs' plural in this thread (after pointing at the user contribs of only two editors, one of which was Stormshadows00), and then a reference to him as an SPA doing something 'which is characteristic of anti-Merkey trolls'. Forgive me for not overlooking the obvious but what you wanted to imply was fairly clear and warranted refuting with facts. --] 22:59, 15 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| As a totally uninvolved user (I had never even heard of Mr. Merkey before, let alone edited anything related to Native Americans) I find Mr. Merkey's behavior troubling in this instance. When confronted with a user that claimed to be new, he not only reverted him several times, but would not initially answer on the article talk page, other than to accuse ] of sockpuppetry. Would someone more knowledgeable look at this please? (I realize that Mr. Merkey seems to get continuously trolled, but that is absolutely no excuse for this ]ish behavior.){{unsigned|Simonfairfax}} | |||
| # '''Prolonged Discussions and RfC Closure:''' | |||
| I think Proabivouac is, in good faith, trying to thwart the announced intentions of certain users on the Yahoo! SCOX message board to come over here to Misplaced Pages and harass Merkey. Naturally, he's therefore suspicious of anyone who (a) has a short edit history, and (b) engages in conflict with Merkey. However, Merkey's editing behavior is so chronically problematic that nearly all editors who encounter him, newbie or veteran, become embroiled in some sort of conflict with him, even if they try to give him the utmost benefit of the doubt. So, while a new account that has rapidly clashed with Merkey ''could'' be a SCOX troll, the likelihood that it's not is great enough to mandate ] of the new account, unless there is further evidence to demonstrate that its purpose is harassment. And, even if it were a SCOX troll, the concerns expressed here by Stormshadows00 are concrete enough to be verifiable. Giving a disruptive editor like Merkey yet another free pass on his behavior, simply because someone offsite ''said'' they'd try to harass him here, seems to be focusing on an immaterial threat and disregarding a known, ongoing problem. It should be easy enough for an administrator to take a look at Merkey's edit history and determine for herself or himself whether Stormshadows00's complaints are baseless or well-founded, and whether Merkey is a disruptive influence on Misplaced Pages or not. ] <sup>/]/</sup> 13:45, 15 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| #* The RfC on North Korea's inclusion was conducted thoroughly, with a wide range of arguments presented by both sides. | |||
| #* The closing administrator, S Marshall, determined there was a clear consensus to include North Korea as a belligerent based on reliable sources and the strength of arguments. | |||
| #* The close explicitly allowed for reevaluation if new battlefield events or sources emerged, but no substantial new evidence has invalidated the prior consensus. | |||
| # '''Ongoing Disruption:''' | |||
| #* Despite the RfC's resolution, the same arguments are being repeated across multiple threads, often by the same editors. | |||
| #* This behavior includes undermining reliable sources, misrepresenting their content, and insisting on a higher standard of verification (e.g., requiring firsthand evidence of North Korean combat, which is unreasonable given the context). | |||
| # '''Reliable Sources Confirming North Korean Involvement:''' | |||
| #* Multiple reputable outlets, including the BBC, Reuters, and Pentagon statements, confirm North Korean military involvement and casualties in the conflict. | |||
| #* Experts from institutions like Chatham House and RUSI have explicitly stated North Korea's role in combat, aligning with the community's decision. | |||
| # '''Impact on the Community:''' | |||
| #* The continued disruption consumes editor time and resources, detracting from the article's improvement. | |||
| #* These actions disregard Misplaced Pages's consensus-building principles and guidelines for resolving disputes. This dispute has been ongoing for months, with multiple threads being opened and closed on the same topic. | |||
| '''Request for Administrative Action:''' | |||
| :::I can see at least three SCOX trolls listed above. I think this Stormshadows account is an SPA sock and these others accounts are SCOX trolls here to revert. I need to be sysoped so I can deal with them since they seem to still be here. Perhaps Jimbo will sysop me for 24 hours to clean up this mess. ] 02:24, 16 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| I respectfully request that administrators address the following issues: | |||
| ::::All due respect, I think that's a very bad idea. You're directly involved, and thus, lack the neutral view on the problem to sort things out in a way that maintains oversight and such. Instead, let us find a sysop to whom this can all be explained, as well as your preferred resolution, and let a more neutral, calm voice sort things out. This should help us keep our actions transparent and accountable. ] 02:34, 16 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Yes, this is exactly why we ask uninvolved admins to act rather than ones in the middle of some conflict... ] 20:52, 16 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| # 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. | |||
| This user has now gone beyond pushing it too far. He was already warned for, after asking a reasonable question at ], taking it to the level of trolling (blanking other's comments, calling Americans idiots, etc.). Now it's cemented on his talk page (calling, for example, me a dick). At risk of sounding rude, is this user just young, is he dense, or is he trolling? ] 19:10, 14 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Thank you for your attention to this matter. | |||
| :Whatever, he is now warned. ] 20:23, 14 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| UPDATE: I just noticed that North Korea was removed as a belligerent and added to the 'supported by' section, completely violating the consensus. | |||
| ::...and blocked for 24hours. ] 20:42, 14 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ] (]) 08:48, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::...and now protected the page to stop Billzilla from removing blocknotice. ] 22:06, 14 July 2007 (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 read the heading as ] and I was wondering what on earth she was doing in a content dispute. ]] 01:42, 15 July 2007 (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.'' | |||
| ::You could have warned me before I clicked Bishzilla's name to see who ''you'' were talking about!! Phew (or should that be ''"aaaiieeeeeeee!!!"''?)! ;~) ] 12:47, 15 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::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 did too, Viridae - I cannot imagine what kind of dispute 'Zilla could have been involved in (well, that left anyone un-crispied enough to post here, anyway!) ]<sup>]</sup> 15:36, 16 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::I posted it on ANI beecause my specific problem was this dispute ] (]) 12:07, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::The original post in this thread appears to resemble LLM output. GPTzero confirms this impression, rating text as "99% probability AI generated". Using AI to generate ANI submissions is highly inappropriate. ] (]) 18:01, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Even when a message appears to be AI-generated, I think it is worth considering whether or not it is pointing out an actual problem. I think editors might be ignoring the results of an RFC, I just don't think asking for administrators to monitor a subject area, without identifying specific articles, is a feasible solution. It does seem like, possibly, a point that could come up in a complaint at AE regarding the Ukraine CTOP area. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 19:55, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I had a peek and it's a messy RfC and, as is generally the case with a messy RfC had a very involved closure message which seems to reflect that the closer felt constrained by the framing of the RfC. I didn't see any immediate indication in the edit history that anyone had tried to implement the RfC result and been rebuffed (although I might have missed it). So there's some smoke here but, I think, not a ton of fire. ] (]) 20:21, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Liz, I don't disagree but I'm not at all convinced that use of AI is a positive contribution to CTOP areas. ] (]) 20:27, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::It was written with AI assistance. Not all AI. ai detectors aren’t considered reliable, because you can put the U.S. constitution through one and it says 100% AI generated. Regardless, whether it’s AI or not has nothing to do with the topic. It’s just that there’a been so many discussions and when I checked the info box it said ‘supported by”, violating the consensus of the RFC ] (]) 12:45, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::{{tq|you can put the U.S. constitution through one and it says 100% AI generated}}{{snd}}Well, I just put it through GPTzero and got ''97% human''. Might be best if you don't just make up random "evidence". ]] 17:25, 25 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::I think the underlying issue here is that if you use AI to generate text which looks like obvious AI output then readers will wonder "does the end user even have sufficient English to understand what the AI has generated for them?" and "did the end user understand the material prior to deciding to employ AI?". Thus if a user is fluent in English, as you obviously are, it will always be better to communicate in your own voice. | |||
| :::::::At the end of the day, a user making a valid point in their own voice is generally speaking going to be taken more seriously than a user employing LLM output. | |||
| :::::::There are plenty of other reasons for users not to employ AI (see the recent thread here for extensive coverage) but the argument above seems like a good practical reason for fluent English speakers to always prefer using their own voice. | |||
| :::::::You will see from the recent thread that many users here are vehemently against AI use. ] (]) 15:46, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::I understood the material very well, its not like I just used 100% AI out of nowhere. I know the context. I have been involved in this discussion since September. ] (]) 16:43, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::It's a respect thing. It's disrespectful of other editors to make them read chatbot output rather than ''your'' words. ] (]) 16:49, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| {{external media|video1=}} | |||
| ::::::::::Rc2barrington's user page says {{tq|This user believes in the bright future AI and robotics will bring}}, so there's probably no point in arguing here. However, I simply observe that in any kind of discussion where you're trying to convince other people, don't use a method that aggravates a significant number of readers (probably a significant ''majority'' of readers). It really is that simple. ] (]) 19:11, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::<p>Putting the use of LLM aside, however you compose your message you should comply with the basics of ANI. This includes not making allegations without supplying evidence. This would normally be in the form of diffs but in this case just links might be fine. But ] has provided none. </p><p>Probably because this is because their initial complaint appears to be unsupported by what's actually happening. They claimed "{{tqi|Despite the RfC's resolution, the same arguments are being repeated across multiple threads, often by the same editor}}". But where is this? I visited the talk page, and what I see is here ] there was a request for clarification from the closer, something which is perfectly reasonably and which the closer followed up on. The OP then offered an interjection which frankly seemed unnecessary. There was then a very brief forumish discussion. To be clear, AFAICT no one in the follow up discussion was suggesting any changes to the article. So while it wasn't he most helpful thing as with any forumish discussion; it's hardly causing that much disruption especially since it seems to have quickly ended and also cannot be called "the same arguments" since there was no argument. No one in that discussion was actually suggesting changing the article. </p><p>Then there is ]. There was again some forumish discussion in this thread which again isn't helpful but wasn't that long. But there was also discussion about other things like the name of the article and whether to restructure it. To be clear, this isn't something which was resolve in the RfC. In fact, the closer specifically mention possible future issues in a non close comment. </p><p>Next we see ]. Again the main focus of the discussion is in how to handle stuff which wasn't dealt with in the RfC. There is a total of 2 short comments in that thread which were disputing the RfC which is unfortunate but hardly something to worry ANI about. </p><p>Next there is ]. DPRK was briefly mentioned there but only in relation to a suggestion to change the infobox for other countries. No part of that discussion can IMO be said to be disputing the DPRK RfC. Next we have ]. Again DPRK was briefly mention but only in relation to other countries. No part of that discussion can be said to be disputing the RfC. AFAICT, the only threads or comments removed from the talk page since the closure of the RfC was by automated archival. The only threads which seem to be post close are on ] and none of them seem to deal with North Korea. </p><p>So at least on the article talk page I don't see what the OP has said is happening. The tiny amount of challenging of the RfC is definitely not something ANI needs to worry about. Even the other forumish or otherwise unproductive comments aren't at a level that IMO warrants any action IMO. If this is happening somewhere else, this is even more reason why the OP needed to provide us some evidence rather than a long comment without anything concrete, however they composed it. </p><p>] (]) 10:15, 25 December 2024 (UTC)</p> | |||
| == |
== Concern About a New Contributor == | ||
| {{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, | |||
| {{Admin|VirtualSteve}} has blocked {{userlinks|DreamGuy}} giving , which suggests to me that his main reason for imposing such a hefty block—three days— is that Dreamguy speaks rudely of admins in general. IMO admins should practice ignoring that kind of thing. We have too much power to act out a sense of grievance—collective or individual—with a Power Answer. It also worries me that VS blocks an editor he has just been edit warring with; that he hasn't posted the block on ANI for review; and also somewhat that he signed out as "unavailable" 25 minutes after blocking. I'm quite tempted to unblock without further ado myself, as these actions make it in practice impossible to discuss the block with the blocking admin; but having in the past been perceived as a "champion" of DreamGuy, I feel I'm not the best person for such an action. ] | ] 21:37, 14 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. | |||
| ::As I have said elsewhere, I feel the length of the block to be excessive. At this time I think he has been unblocked by another administrator. Regards, ] 21:45, 14 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::: Pascal.Tesson has . <b>] ]</b> 21:53, 14 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::(edit conflict)The block has been reduced to 18hours by ]. I was prepared to unblock had DreamGuy agreed to not attempt to delete the disputed image, but I have deferred to Pascal.Tesson's decision. As there is a discussion relating to the image at ] I think another admin (or PT) might wish to further consider the block length. ] 21:56, 14 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| I believe your experience could help address this situation effectively. | |||
| :How about someone removing the block completely with a note that says 'oops. Shouldnt block someone you edit with. It's called COI and admin-advantage.'. <small>Peace.</small>] ] 23:40, 14 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Looking forward to your advice on how to proceed. | |||
| :While I'm at it, and since I'm in a pissy mood anyway.. Block comment '''Attempting to harass other users'''. What sort of weasel block comment is that? Either he harassed or he didnt. If he 'failed' at his attempt at harassment, thats sufficiently embarassing. Besides, blocking for 'attempted harassment' with someone you are edit warring with? Geez. <small>Peace.</small>] ] 23:50, 14 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Hmmm... "''Attempting'' to harass..." is a value judgement; are you going to wait until they succeed (one which will work against the majority of editors)? The attempt shows the perpetrator is acting in bad faith. It is the same for ''attempted murder''; you don't only arrest them when they manage to do the deed. | |||
| ::However, the above has nothing to do with DreamGuys situation. If I had known that the blocking admin was previously edit warring with the blockee I would have unblocked without requiring conditions. I don't know the situation but the fact that there was no request for review does not look good. ] 00:03, 15 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::Actually, in fairness, yes, we wait until actual harassment occurs. There is a law addressing 'attempted murder', but I'm unaware of a clause for 'attempting' to harass in our policies or guidelines. Either the behavior counts as harassment or it doesn't. If we use 'value judgment' for 'attempted harassment' then (overused or not) AGF says 'value judgment' also says 'not attempting to harass but perhaps overzealous'. Pre-emptive blocking is bad. It creates a 'trail' of block logs which may, or not, accurately reflect a history and lead to excessive escalations. And, I'm not going to pretend that DreamGuy is the most polite editor on wikipedia. But blocking where you're involved, is wrong. Blocking for 'attempted' is wrong. Sorry for my shortness above, I'm tired, it's been a long day and my patience grows short at times. <small>Peace.</small>] ] 02:17, 15 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Thankyou! ]] 15:21, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''To assist in the closure of this matter''' and so that my comments are made on open record for all other wikipedia editors I have added the following:<br>Thank you to ], ], ], ], ], ] & ] for taking an interest in this matter. I appreciate the views you have provided and understand them all to be in good faith. I detail the following comments for historical purposes: | |||
| #For the record I do not get upset by comments made towards me on wikipedia. If you feel that I have, those feelings are incorrect, and I wish to go on the record as saying that I do not have any personal issue with or feelings against DreamGuy in any way. | |||
| #People will have different views on edit-warring. That was absolutely neither my intention nor, in my view a reflection of my actions in regards to ]. DreamGuy placed a tag initially on July 5th that said, '''''This images has been deleted probably some 20 times now under various names.... no fair use, not cover art that was used as cover, needs a speedy delete as recreation of deleted image, and the guy who keeps uploading it needs to get blocked so he knows not to pull this crap.... I mean, seriously, how many times do we have to delete this thing, he's just stubbornly refusing to listen'''''. | |||
| #:I assume as a part of his admin role ] removed that tag as detailed . | |||
| #:Dream Guy's reply (unknown to me at the time) was to suggest that Evilclown93 was a sock of the uploader. | |||
| #:It was only a few days later that I, also as a part of my admin role came across the speedy delete request and confronted with the above rationale, agreed with Evilclown93 views and removed the request stating in my edit notice: ''reverted edits by DreamGuy to that of Evilclown93 - who is not a "sock" but an admin. Pls use only correct speedy tags before replacing (if at all)''. | |||
| #:A further four days later, again just as a part of my admin role (see history of my admin work for that day) I came across the renewed speedy request, again with the above rationale. Confronted by no more information, I removed the speedy noting in the edit summary: ''Speedy deletion tag removed - awaiting a NPOV request that retains civility!'' You will note that I was talking about the content of the speedy deletion tag request of which I considered words such as '''''the guy who keeps uploading it needs to get blocked so he knows not to pull this crap....''''' to be misplaced, no matter the frustration felt by Dream Guy. I then left the matter. | |||
| #:DreamGuy it appears renewed his request again and without alteration at which point ] removed it, it was renewed and then Butseriouslyfolks put it up at ]. | |||
| #:I came across it a day later and after I had left an adjusted canned message (which as most of you know includes a welcome to wikipedia line) on DreamGuy's talk page that also said, politely, '''''Please assume good faith in relation to tagging an image for Speedy Delete. The reason that two (and now 3 admins) did not agree with your tag was made more and more obvious to you. Quite simply your request was polluted with a non-neutral POV and did not nothing to assist us in attending to the request. Please do not continue to suggest speedy deletion in this method - no matter what editor is frustrating you with their additions as it belittles your otherwise good work. Keep editing!''''' My warning therefore was in relation to his edit-warring with three admins who did not agree with his method. | |||
| #In relation to blocking ... Following the posting at ] - at which I note Dream Guy has commented, he still reverted Butseriouslyfolks' removal of the speedy tag, even after Butseriouslyfolks wrote in his edit summary, ''Let's discuss it first, please?''. Finding another reversion, despite an ongoing request at ] and noting that DreamGuy has been warned before and blocked before, and most importantly that whatever any admin did DreamGuy would revert, I blocked him for a period which I considered at the time to be commensurate with his previous block and the continued reversions. To the extent that others consider that amount of time excessive I thank you, and particularly to ] for his revision of the time line. | |||
| #I note the comments above (on my talk page) that in the opinion of an other editor Dream Guy ''is not the most polite individual on wikipedia, but he damned sure isn't the most acrid either'' and I agree totally. Whilst DreamGuy may not be able to accept that my message to him as detailed above was positive - I reiterate here again for all and sundry that I believe he is an otherwise good editor that was confronted by enormous frustration over the image he has been trying to delete. HOWEVER my job as I understand it is to assist in the protection of wikipedia. For those edits that relate to this matter - in my opinion DreamGuy needed to be blocked so that the process of deletion or otherwise of this image could be dealt with, without having to battle his continuing nose thumbing at the Good Faith decisions being made - especially with regards listing the matter at '''WP:FUR'''. | |||
| #I should end by also indicating that my becoming unavailable at the time I did had everything to do with it being 2.00am in the morning at my location (bed and pillow beckoned) and no other reasoning. | |||
| Again thank you all for your comments. Please let me know if anything at all needs further explaining. | |||
| With best wishes --] <sup>]</sup> 02:11, 15 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :], thank you for taking the time to respond. I understand your reasoning and I still believe that since you had been 'fighting' over the tag, you were potentially emotionally involved and should have opened an AN/I for an uninvolved opinion. If for no other reason than for appearance and perception. (Perception is reality). Perhaps DG would have been blocked anyway, perhaps not. <small>Peace.</small>] ] 02:20, 15 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *Again a helpful and informative comment - thank you - it is noted.--] <sup>]</sup> 02:47, 15 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :I hesitated to simply lift the block as well. I reduced it to 24 hours instead (6 elapsed + the 18 I added) because the fact is that DreamGuy was being pretty stubborn in his fighting over the tag and because as an experienced user (who has been blocked a few times before) he should know better than to be overly confrontational and uncivil on such trivial matters. ] 09:59, 15 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :"Vandalize" is a very loaded word here with a specific meaning. As far as I can tell, what they've done is nominate 4 articles for deletion, and your has been to accuse them of vandalism, ignoring dispute resolution procedures and making personal attacks – none of which I can see at a glance through their contributions. | |||
| :::I'm sorry, I'm not quite ready to join the above group hug yet. I just posted a response to VirtualSteve's defense of his block on DreamGuy's page, not realizing that it was here on ANI as well. Since this is the more public place, I'm pasting my request for some more explanation here: | |||
| :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. | |||
| ::#VirtualSteve, I see you don't comment above on your "adjusted canned message" with its "Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia." I can fully understand DreamGuy's irritated reaction to that. Yes, the template includes a newbie greeting; so why use it? Please see ]: "if the template's tone isn't appropriate, don't use the template." There's nothing like leading by example when you call for civility from users, and your "Welcome" template use was not civil and not delivered "politely." And, er, how is it that you get to assume bad faith and tell DreamGuy he deleted your template "to hide the fact"? *I* might easily have deleted that annoying template, if you'd put it on my page, and it wouldn't have been to hide anything. | |||
| :By the way is forum shopping. Stop that. ] (]) 16:06, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::#I didn't mean, in my , to suggest that you deliberately made yourself unavailable after placing the block. Certainly not! But I did mean that it's a poor idea to place a controversial block at all when you are about to ge to bed. Let somebody in another timezone do it. | |||
| :(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.) ] ] 16:06, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::#I notice that you have nothing to say about your failure to post what you surely knew to be a controversial block on ANI for review. That was one of my main criticisms. Altogether, you scarcely engage with anything I said. I'm sorry to see that. Since you're a new admin, I went to some trouble to make myself clear, and hoped my commentary might be helpful. ] | ] 14:28, 15 July 2007 (UTC). | |||
| ::I am concerned that ]’s actions, including unjustified deletion nominations and spamming, are disruptive and violate Misplaced Pages’s guidelines. | |||
| *Thank you for your further comments and questions Bishonen. I will answer frankly: | |||
| ::She seems to lack understanding of basic Misplaced Pages guidelines, particularly those related ] and ]. ]] 16:40, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| #I have provided a detailed set of reasoning to this issue above. Administrators (both new and old) do make mistakes. I appreciate that you feel that I have done so in two or three areas and I will take those views on board. However I also note that others do not feel that I have made a mistake in blocking - other than imposing too long a ban - to which I have already provided a comment and my thanks. | |||
| :::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). | |||
| #Other editors/administrators have commented on DreamGuy's style of editing and his previous blocking - and of course I note that he continues to bombast his talk page on this issue. I also note the unreasonable hyperbole that he adds to his comments such as the discourse he attempts ]. Realistically if that energy had been put in adding an informative and helpful speedy delete request to the image in question (which is what a good editor would have done) - rather than reverting all attempts to remove the item from speedy under its current tagging then this matter would have gone away - to DreamGuy's benefit (in terms of the image deleted or adjusted with appropriate fair use) - at least a week ago. | |||
| :::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) | |||
| #In terms of meeting your initial question - well to be honest (and of course I acknowledge that you are the first to note this), your comments do come across as *championing* DreamGuy and to that extent they are one-sided in his overall favour. For example what you consider to be edit-warring I consider to be removal of a template and a request for further information. I wonder if you would not also have reverted the speedy tag in the case of any other editor constantly putting it up, especially when that editor was actually reverting the tag against a total of 3 administrators who had an unwillingness to speedy delete the image as it stood. As you probably know ] is populated by 100's of items a day, to which administrators take personal time (as volunteers) to consider and delete. This is a thankless task - every editor that has created an article or image wants the item kept, and every editor that has tagged an item wants it deleted. That task is not made any easier by the tagging of an image in the way that it has - and please remember I was actually the last administrator to deny its speedy deletion. Finally and to put this point in a nutshell your interest in admonishing me would come across as far more reasonable to me if you also spent some considerable time instructing your friend that as an experienced editor his actions were inappropriate. | |||
| ::::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: | |||
| #I do and have appreciated the point about listing this at ] - and certainly I can see that it would have been easier to do so. However whilst you say I have nothing to say about this point - I had actually (yesterday) acknowledged this point to Lsi john above. | |||
| :::: • | |||
| #Finally I tend to continue working wikipedia until I stop - in other words I do not spend the last 30 minutes or 60 minutes etc just looking. There is work to do and I tend to knuckle in and do it. | |||
| :::: • | |||
| I have a strong feeling that I will not be able to say anything to totally appease your "supportive of DreamGuy views" on this matter - but I hope that you will see that I have attempted to do so as congenially as possible. Best wishes. --] <sup>]</sup> 22:48, 15 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::: • | |||
| :Steve, so sorry, but has it occured to you that you were very rude with your template, and any editor can remove any template or manually written message whatsover from their talk page? I'm also somehow missing the part where you have any reason at all to block DreamGuy. Please clarify this. "Attempting to harass" (but presumably, failing utterly to actually harass) doesn't seem to appear on the ] page. ]<sup>]</sup> 15:15, 16 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::: • | |||
| :I too fail to see where DreamGuy was harassing anyone. Being blunt and harassing are two different things. Also, please be careful about any blocks you do to established editors you may be having a dispute with...post here or at AN to have a completely neutral admin examine the evidence before a block is done. Why was the original block for 3 days? Lastly, any block of an established editor, no matter what you may think of them, needs to be posted for other admins to review.--] 19:33, 16 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::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. ] ] 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"> ‥ </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"> ‥ </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"> ‥ </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"> ‥ </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"> ‥ </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"> ‥ </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"> ‥ </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"> ‥ </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"> ‥ </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"> ‥ </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"> ‥ </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 == | |||
| == Copyright issue == | |||
| {{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. — ] <span style="color:#900">•</span> ] 22:56, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ---- | |||
| I'm posting here after a particularly underwhelming interaction with an editor in the form of edit summaries. I'll need to provide the context of a brief content dispute which hopefully won't take too long and then get to the point. I'm not asking for anyone to take my side in the dispute. | |||
| '']'' is a widely acclaimed comedy film from 1983, which is also widely acknowledged to have problematic elements by modern standards, including a scene in which the villain of the piece, stuck in a gorilla costume, is locked in a cage with a real gorilla, which is implied to sexually penetrate him without his consent. | |||
| {{resolved}} | |||
| A website - http://www.fonejacker.tv/Kayvan_Novak.shtml - appears to have copied a Misplaced Pages article and placed their own copyright tag on the page. I wasn't sure of where to report this so I guessed this would be the best place. The article is ], see also the discussion at ]. — ] <small>(])</small> 21:39, 14 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Normally, the procedure is to list it at ], and to contact the website to ask them to remove the content. I'd do it but it's probably best if one of the editors involved in the article takes care of it. -- ] <sup>]</sup> 09:27, 15 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::I and another editor contacted the website and looking at the page now, http://www.fonejacker.tv/Kayvan_Novak.shtml, they have removed the copyright logo and give credit to Misplaced Pages and IMBD now. — ] ] 19:21, 15 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 | |||
| == Copyvio uploads used in ] and other related articles == | |||
| : ''Reportedly, Liddy was on board until he got to the part where Beeks .'' | |||
| {{resolved|1=Or seems to be, for now. Haven't seen them since. – <span style="font-family: Garamond">] (])</span> 22:40, 16 July 2007 (UTC)}} | |||
| 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'': | |||
| {{User|Deleti}} (doesnt that sound like delete?) had been repetitively uploading same copyrighted images . He has been . I request admin intervention. --<small> ]</small> <sup>]</sup> 22:33, 14 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| {{text diff|Liddy was interested in the offer until he learned that Beeks becomes the romantic partner of a gorilla.|Liddy was interested in the offer until he learned that Beeks is raped by a gorilla.}} | |||
| :I checked over the last few contributions of Deleti to the PKK article, and they are mostly images that are later deleted. I have indef blocked Deliti for uploading copyvio images but would welcome other admins review of my actions. ] 22:55, 14 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::I would probably have used a shorter definite block initially, had the user at least acknowledged the warnings. Since they just kept at it, IMHO an indefinite block is warranted. ]<small> (]·])</small> 23:20, 14 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::The images still need to be deleted. Though I would reccomend keeping the PKK flag as "fair use". I'll write a rationale now. --<small> ]</small> <sup>]</sup> 07:28, 15 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::On a second thought delete the flag too, it was from FOTW and was poorly converted from gif -> png. I have reuploaded it as a gif with proper format, source, fair use license and rationale. --<small> ]</small> <sup>]</sup> 07:44, 15 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::All images were deleted and deleti was indef blocked. --<small> ]</small> <sup>]</sup> 22:46, 15 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| This was reverted () by {{u|Darkwarriorblake}} with the comment ''not what the source says''. | |||
| {{user|Delefi}} is uploading copyvios despite the indef block. Please end his misery. --<small> ]</small> <sup>]</sup> 22:46, 15 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Indeffed this one, too -- obvious sockpuppet. – <span style="font-family: Garamond">] (])</span> 22:48, 15 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::I have filed a ] to identify the puppetmaster. --<small> ]</small> <sup>]</sup> 22:50, 15 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.() | |||
| == Request for independent Admin oversight == | |||
| {{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;...}} | |||
| Recently ] has become involved in ]. While I appreciate the assistance of an admin in trying to sort the issue out, I feel that because I already been in conflict with SV on a discussion of Richard Gere/Cindy Crawford BLP, I feel he is not impartial enough to deal with my edits. Notably, he has removed well-sourced criticisms I made of the Baker case (that appear in three independently verifiable newspapers) and has made a long diatribe about my COI even though I have not edited the article directly in some time. He has even asked me not to discuss my proposed edits on the article talk page. He has now threatened to block me, and I feel I am being bullied by an Admin. | |||
| 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'' | |||
| I would like to refocuss the discussion on the text to be reincluded, which has strong support from other editors. the discussion is here: | |||
| 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.'' | |||
| I would like to request that SV recuse himself from the article and that some other independent admins look at the issue with respect to gaining consensus on the disputed text. Thank you for your time. -- ] <small>]</small> 01:35, 15 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Its a she. Have you tried to discuss this with her on her talk page before bringing it here? ]] 01:40, 15 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. | |||
| ::We have been discussing on the article talk page. I ask that SV refocuss her efforts on building consensus, and not on trying to stifle my ability to comment on the text by saying I cannot discuss the proposed edits on the article's talk page. -- ] <small>]</small> 01:46, 15 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::Per ], all BLP restrictions apply to talk pages as well as articles. ] 01:52, 15 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::My criticisms of Baker's case were picked up by three independent sources in the UK. They come well withing BLP guidelines. -- ] <small>]</small> 01:55, 15 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::That's not the issue. The point is that BLP concerns '''''are''''' allowed to 'stifle' anyone's ability to discuss things on the article's talk page. ] 02:13, 15 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| There's one final back and forth which was enough to motivate me to post here. First, I reverted that revert (, my only time using the actual "Undo" button today), with this comment: ''a good source doesn't say "reportedly" (ie, spread a rumor), it specifies the origin of a fact. My only "agenda" is with a crap listicle being used as a reference, regardless of who published it. Take it to talk if you want to argue for the continued inclusion of a trash ref in a featured article, or source the claim properly yourself''. | |||
| :I support Sparkzilla's side in the content dispute, but don't agree with him that SV has been acting in bad faith. She unprotected the page and the only reason me or someone else hasn't readded the deleted material is that we're still working through the issue on the article's talk page. ] 01:59, 15 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 ]'' | |||
| :::I won't go into detail here because of BLP. In brief, Sparkzilla has been engaged in a real-life campaign against two individuals for the last couple of years. He has brought this campaign onto Misplaced Pages, and has repeatedly added details of his allegations against them to a BLP about one of them. The allegations involve legal and financial fraud. Several editors and admins have asked him to stop, to no avail. Therefore, I asked him today, per ], ], and ] to stop commenting on those individuals, whether in articles or on talk pages (he has been posting links to the offending material on several talk pages in an apparent attempt to spread the allegations). Our discussion is . | |||
| 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 . | |||
| :::As for his claim that I've been in a previous conflict with him, this is simply an attempt to play the "she's involved" game. My only involvement with Sparkzilla is when he arrived at BLP in May and started posting endlessly to the talk page about a dispute he was having at ], which I was not involved in. He then tried to change the policy to suit his position. His changes were reverted by myself and others, and he was asked by several of us to take his dispute about Gere to that talk page. That's my only involvement with him, and I didn't even recognize his name when I started dealing with the current BLP issue. I do, however, recognize the same intensity of approach that caused him a problem on the BLP page. I'll be issuing a block if he continues to allude to the disputed allegations, because the situation has gone on long enough, and previous requests from other editors and admins seem to have made no difference. <font color="Purple">]</font> <small><sup><font color="Blue">]</font><font color="Green">]</font></sup></small> 02:10, 15 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I support Sparkzilla's involvement in the talk page discussion of the Nick Baker article, because his relationship to the subject is stated and the journal that he runs is, in my opinion, a credible English source of investigative journalism here in Japan. SV's opinion in the dispute is also appreciated and, like I said, we're working through the issues involved. ] 02:23, 15 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. — ] <span style="color:#900">•</span> ] 20:03, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Sparkzilla runs a free city guide with a limited circulation for English speakers in Japan. It's not a strong-enough source for allegations of fraud. The only newspapers that have picked up on the story are three local advertising sheets (which may also be freesheets) in the UK, and even they didn't repeat the substance of his claims. Contentious BLP claims need strong sources, and in this case that would mean the mainstream press. | |||
| :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. — ] <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. — ] <span style="color:#900">•</span> ] 22:48, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ===Followup=== | |||
| :::::Also, as the city guide appears to be self-published (by Sparkzilla and his wife), V also kicks in, which says that third-party self-published sources are not allowed in BLPs. <font color="Purple">]</font> <small><sup><font color="Blue">]</font><font color="Green">]</font></sup></small> 02:32, 15 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. | |||
| 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. ]] | |||
| ::::::Just because ''Metropolis'' is free doesn't mean that it isn't a credible news source. It does contain a city guide, but every edition usually contains an article or articles on issues going-on in Japan, usually issues that non-Japanese living in Japan might have interest in. The article's author's names are on the articles (as opposed to most mainstream Japanese press stories, which don't state the author's names, but are still considered to be credible) and the article's sources of information are stated. Those local newspapers in the UK also appear to be credible, even though they're not mass-market publications. I believe the sources pass the credibility test. But, why are we discussing this here instead of the article's talk page? ] 03:01, 15 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| == User Stationmanagerskidrow removing information on ] page == | |||
| Sparkzilla, if the fact that a trusted administrator has enforced a particular policy in the past were to mean that she could not enforce it in the future, who would be left to do so? All administrators are expected to enforce BLP. If you find yourself repeatedly in conflict with SlimVirgin over BLP, it is probably a sign that your edits fall too often on the wrong side of that policy.] 02:37, 15 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::SV, do not misrepresent our previous conflict. I took the Gere/Crawford issue to the BLP policy page because there was/is a valid issue regarding what I saw was the abuse of the word "sensitive" in the policy. At no point did I change the text of the main BLP page article -- I discussed proposed changes on the talk page only. I suspect you have serious ] issue on the BLP page so I let it go. After you basically told me to go away I knew it would only be a matter of time until you came back. | |||
| ] 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) | |||
| :::::Also please do not misrepresnt my magazine. It is a weekly 80-page city guuide with 30,000 distribution. It is the No 1 English magazine in Japan read by 50% of the foreigners who live here. It has already been established that it is not self-published. For god's sake, what else are you going to try? | |||
| :User is now editing using ] ] (]) 03:34, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Even so, my allegations against Baker's support group are in '''three independent newspaper sources''' that were published in Baker's home area. They are notable, relevant and verifiable and well within BLP policy. After you deleted the items without reason, the disputed text has been discused by other editors on the page -- all except you. Other editors disagree with your asessment of the content and your attempt to use COI issues on what is basically a content sidpute is not appreciated. I feel strongly that you are trying to stifle discussion of a content issue using the authority of an Admin. | |||
| ::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) | |||
| :::::Given your continous denigration of my edits, and my magazine, and the reliable third-party sources which note my criticisms of Baker's case it is reasonable to suggest that you are carrying a grudge and I once again ask that you recuse yourself from further comment on the article -- there are plenty of other admins who can deal with this issue. -- ] <small>]</small> 02:40, 15 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Sparkzilla, if you are indeed the publisher of the disputed material, it would seem that it is rather you who should recuse yourself, per ].] 02:43, 15 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Following COI policy I have been discussing the proposed edits on the article talk page. -- ] <small>]</small> 02:48, 15 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::Okay.] 02:51, 15 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::Sparkzilla, once you have admitted you are COI, and have been told to back off, you should do just that. Let other neutral editors deal with the situation. My guess is that there is no one there with a POV in the issue, except you. The rest just want to make sure that BLP, V, NOR, NPOV and UNDUE are carefully adhered to. ] 02:59, 15 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::As above, ith respect to COI policy I am allowed to discuss proposed edits on the article talk page. I am also happy to abide by the consensus of the editors on the page. Actually, I have been working to remove POV by Baker's supporters who like to present claims as facts ;) -- ] <small>]</small> 03:07, 15 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) | |||
| ::::::::::Your posts must not attempt to repeat the disputed allegations, or link to websites or previous posts that repeat them. Please be very clear about that. <font color="Purple">]</font> <small><sup><font color="Blue">]</font><font color="Green">]</font></sup></small> 03:12, 15 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :The page was longer, but sourced (all but?) soley to the station's site and it's been trimmed down to what it is now. Given the repeated edit-warring by IPs I've semi-protected the page for two days for now. - ] <sub>]</sub> 07:59, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::Posts and allegations are well within BLP. Three independent sources. I suggest we both take some time away from this issue and let the other editors discuss the proposed text on the article's talk page. -- ] <small>]</small> 03:15, 15 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 == | |||
| ::::::In case anyone wants to read my previous interaction with Sparkzilla, given he's claiming it makes me "involved," it was on BLP talk in May, in several sections starting with , , and . But most of it is in , and . | |||
| ::::::As you can see, I was one of a number of editors who were opposing his proposals and asking him to stop posting so much about Richard Gere. To quote Risker: "Sparkzilla, you have been asked repeatedly, by many editors and administrators, to keep the questions about Richard Gere in either the talk page of that article or the BLPN section with reference to that article. Your continued insistence on discussing it here, in the talk page of a policy that applies to hundreds of thousands of articles containing biographical material about living persons, has become disruptive. Please stop." <font color="Purple">]</font> <small><sup><font color="Blue">]</font><font color="Green">]</font></sup></small> 02:56, 15 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| I'd like to report an incident related to ]. A person under IP already accused me of being "obsessed". Now someone (possibly the same person) . Please also see . I guess we can always agree to disagree with other people, but this is going a bit too far. Thank you. ] (]) 09:30, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::If you will recall there were actually two discussions: The first was a discussion of the actual Gere/Crawford issue. The second was a discussion of changes to BLP policy that used the Gere conflict ''as an example'' (something you clearly did not understand at the time). Each item for discussion was in the correct place for discussion. I was bullied off of the BLP page by you at the time, but chose not to persue it at the time. You have admitted that you were in conflict with me then and given that conflict, I once againa sk you to recuse yourself and to let another admin deal with this issue. -- ] <small>]</small> 03:03, 15 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) | |||
| :::Normally this starts with warnings on the user's Talk page, but it seems you two have already hashed that out. So unless this account does it again, there's no further action to be taken. — <b>]:<sup>]</sup></b> 18:25, 25 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| === Request for Review of Neutrality and Repeated Actions === | |||
| ::::::::Given the fact that Sparkzilla has been warned-off this article by two trusted admins and other editors - I am curious why he would bring this here. He misrepresents that his current position has strong support from other editors. At the latest count three for and three against. He also misrepresents the position of his magazine here. There are over 2,000,000 foreigners in Japan - is he suggesting that his magazine (which is restricted to the kanto area around Tokyo) has over 33 readers for every single copy? An amazing feat!!!] 09:20, 15 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| {{Atop|This complaint has no merit and does not require administrative intervention.--] (]) 18:08, 24 December 2024 (UTC)}} | |||
| :::::::::I suggest that you read the header; Sparkzilla would like the views of a third party administrator on a particular matter. He then gives his reason, a past history of dispute with the other party. It is quite simple, and this is the correct place to make the request. | |||
| :::::::::It then gets a little muddied by the content of the debate, and the basis of the previous conflict, being bought here by the parties involved. Despite this being an entirely inappropriate venue for the discussion it does give some indication why a neutral admin is being requested (and what said admin is likely to encounter). ] 12:11, 15 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Dear admin, | |||
| ===Complaint regarding unwarranted ban by SlimVirgin - Abuse of Admin powers in content dispute === | |||
| 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. | |||
| Sorry this is so long, but I would like to register a strong complaint regarding my recent ban by SlimVirgin. I feel strongly that this ban was unwarranted, and that it was an abuse of admin powers in what is a basic content dispute. | |||
| I kindly request that you review this matter and take appropriate steps to ensure that all users adhere to neutrality standards. If possible, I would also appreciate guidance on how to address such situations constructively in the future. | |||
| This discussion revolves around the removal by SlimVirgin of text and sources that support my real life citicism of the support group of ] . This material had already passed through an RFC and was deemed acceptable as long as there were extra sources -- two new sources were subsequently provided by other editors. After the text's deletion without discussion by SlimVirgin I sent a mail to the RFC respondents to ask for their opinion on its removal. A copy of the mail is | |||
| Thank you for your attention to this issue. Please feel free to reach out if further clarification is needed. | |||
| Sending this mail resulted in a six-hour ban by SlimVirgin on the basis of COI and BLP violations. These claims are unfounded. The ban followed attempts by SlimVirgin to stop me discussing the disputed text on the talk page with other editors. In this lengthy diatribe about my COI issues she said, in violation of COI policy, that "I'm going to ask Sparkzilla to stop editing this article and refrain from commenting further about the Bakers on this or any other talk page". | |||
| Hazar ] (]) 17:45, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :@], whether the NPOV tag is needed or not should first be discussed on the article's talk page. Also, see the large notice at the top of this page: you are required to notify the editor you are reporting. ] ] 17:53, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::The editor is also called Psychloppos, not Psycholoppos. I have notified them for the OP. – ] (]) (]) 17:59, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :I wouldn't give a chatbot-written thread the time of day. HS, ]. —] ] <sup><small>] ]</small></sup> 18:05, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| {{Abot}} | |||
| * Note: I moved this retaliatory post to be a sub-heading of the original issue. — <b>]:<sup>]</sup></b> 18:34, 25 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| There is no COI issue. Since I declared my COI on the article I have only discussed edits involving sources that reference my commentaries or my magazine on the article's talk page. There is also no BLP issue as stated on the ban because there are three independent newpapers that have referenced my claims and the claims have also been addressed by Baker's supporters. Three editors on the talk page currently think the text should be reinstated. | |||
| ==Nlkyair012 and LLM chatbots == | |||
| My points | |||
| *{{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) | |||
| # It is easy to say I have COI issues, but after COI discussions several months ago which ended in me revealing my identity, any proposed edits concerning my own magazine and commentary have only been posted on the article talk page ''in full conformance with COI policy.'' | |||
| # The so-called BLP violation is part of a content dispute which is supported by '''three independent newspaper sources''' currently being discussed on ]. I have to wonder how we can discuss the sources without linking to them? | |||
| # The disputed text and sources was removed unilaterally by SlimVirgin without any consultation with other editors on the page and with no reference to the previous RFC | |||
| # The disputed text (after more sources were added) was deemed acceptable in a previous RFC | |||
| # Criticisms of the support group have been an integral part of this article since its very early days | |||
| # There are three editors on the talk page who support re-inclusion of the material | |||
| # I have been in conflict with Slim Virgin in the past and I have already asked for assistance to stop what appears to be a vendetta against me in the section above- unfortuantely no action was taken. | |||
| # SlimVirgin refused to recuse herself from the page to let another admin deal with the page. Why is it so important that she alone must deal with it? | |||
| # SlimVirgin also defensively denigrated my magazine's notability and that of the other sources. Why do this if this was simply a COI/BLP issue? | |||
| # I was then banned for asking for help from respondents to the original RFC and my mails to those editors deleted. | |||
| :Hello @Ratnahastin, | |||
| I did an RFC and I added sources; I have only discussed proposed edits on talk pages. There are multiple independent sources that support my commentary. I have followed policy properly only to find myself banned. I would like to ask once again for SlimVirgin to recuse herself from the article and to ask non-involved admins to check the sources and confirm whether or not is acceptable for me and other editors to discuss them on the article talk page. This is a simple task -- the sources are short . | |||
| :To start with I should admit that I am sorry for all the inconvenience that I may have caused as a result of my actions. It was never my intention to take people’s time or skew the conversation in a certain way. I appreciate the core idea to contribute the thoughts to the Wiki and share it borne in mind the overall rules and policies of this program. | |||
| :I understand your fears about the AI utilities you have mentioned on your site. Even when I was using AI for the grammar check or, for instance, to elaborate on some point in the text, I saw to my mismanagement that over the process we probably confused the readers and repeated the same information and thoughts, which I would never wish to happen again. From now on I will ensure that in the future the input which I provide to wikipedia fits the Misplaced Pages standard and is more personal. I will also not write walls of text and will not make assertations that do not have substantiated evidence in sources. | |||
| :As for subjects that concern the Raj and the sources from this period and the discussions we have had it seems that I have gone too far in demanding clarification for the same thing. That being the case, with the understanding that the consensus will be acknowledged, I shall not be inclined to reopen this discussion unless new substantiated evidence is produced. I don’t want to prolong the conversation or bring any more stress. | |||
| :I will strive to learn from my experience to be more productive in my interactions going forward. If there are other limitations or additional rules to which I have to stick to, I will receive them with pleasure. | |||
| :In the same respect, let me specially apologize for the inconvenience and thank all of you for bearing with us. That was why I wanted to remind all of us that we can and should keep collectively improving Misplaced Pages as a resource. <span style="font-family:Georgia,serif; color:#FF4500; font-size:120%; font-weight:bold;">]</span> 13:31, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::This comment also has a typical LLM feel and contains meaningless statements such as "I understand your fears about the AI utilities you have mentioned on your site" and differs substantially from , although GPTzero said this is human input. - ] (]) 13:38, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::It seems human in that it contains some composition and grammar errors that I don’t think an LLM would produce. <span style="position: relative; top: -0.5em;">꧁</span>]<span style="position: relative; top: -0.5em;">꧂</span> 13:56, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Thanks for the reply sir, I can't explain how frustrated I'm feeling from this morning which this user made me experience <span style="font-family:Georgia,serif; color:#FF4500; font-size:120%; font-weight:bold;">]</span> 14:02, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::The time when I messaged Vikram banafar I was casual not formal and second of all your saying doesn't prove anything "and differs substantially from your usual (non-AI) writing style" that's a straight up false accusation and utter nonsensical point and 3rd point being that GPTzero stated that this is a human input then that's an human input end of the question. <span style="font-family:Georgia,serif; color:#FF4500; font-size:120%; font-weight:bold;">]</span> 14:01, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::No it's really not the end of the story if GPTZero says "likely human". In fact I'd actively discourage people depending on tools like GPTZero in favour of their human senses ] than yet another computer program. And, frankly, what you're hearing from people here is we'd rather your casual, human, flaws-and-all style of writing over ChatGPT output "formal" report templates. They are doing the opposite of what you're looking for and have become disruptive. ] (]) 14:05, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Man you still wanna do this? @] also says this doesn't seems AI generated to him and he used his actual "Human senses" to lean that way <span style="font-family:Georgia,serif; color:#FF4500; font-size:120%; font-weight:bold;">]</span> 14:10, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Admitting that you have used AI for writing your comments and then saying that you have not used AI is not going to help your case. - ] (]) 14:36, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::You know what I think this is getting to the ] point. Having to tell somebody to have the basic respect of other editors to not subject them to text-walls of chatGPT garbage over and over again is a disruptive distraction from what we should all be doing. ] (]) 14:38, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::This ain't getting anywhere <span style="font-family:Georgia,serif; color:#FF4500; font-size:120%; font-weight:bold;">]</span> 14:59, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::I really don't understand the problem. Cuz I literally also said many where that yes I used AI but for expanding and grammar correction <span style="font-family:Georgia,serif; color:#FF4500; font-size:120%; font-weight:bold;">]</span> 14:54, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::If this combative approach is your "casual" style, perhaps your use of AI and its over the top politeness was an attempt to mask it. In any case, I think you are ] but for caste glorification given your obsession with a certain sub-caste. - ] (]) 14:33, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::im not obsessed with a certain subcaste but am sure is obsessed with British Raj sources. <span style="font-family:Georgia,serif; color:#FF4500; font-size:120%; font-weight:bold;">]</span> 14:56, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::I don't think that's better. ] (]) 15:44, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::If we just temporarily put aside the AI-generated comments, can Nlkyair012 accept the view of experienced editors on Raj era sources and not push any viewpoint on a particulary caste? Because, to be honest, editors who have done this in the past usually end up indefinitely blocked. There is a low tolderance here for "caste warriors". <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 19:27, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Potential vandal trying to start edit war on the page for Frisch's. == | |||
| I would also like to ask the following questions: | |||
| {{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)}} | |||
| # Is it WP policy to block a user for sending a letter of request for help to previous RFC respondents? | |||
| 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">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 15:17, 24 December 2024 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| # Is it acceptable for an admin to ban someone based on COI issues when they have been following COI policy? | |||
| # Does BLP policy means that controverisal claims, however well sourced, cannot be referenced in talk pages? | |||
| # Is it WP policy to use admin powers to suppress participation in a content dispute? | |||
| :Courtesy link ]. ] (]) 17:02, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| I also sincerely hope that I will not face further sanction for bringing this issue up. The actions of powerful admins should be always be allowed to be questioned in an open environment without fear of reprisals from either them or the people who support them. Thank you for your time. -- ] <small>]</small> 17:53, 15 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :<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. ] | ] 21:05, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::NVM, checked MaxMind for geolocation and they all are in the same general area. ] | ] 21:08, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| == ] inaccurate edit summaries == | |||
| :Considering the above, I'm surprised the block was only for six hours. You seem to have a vested personal COI interest in this case, and it is best for all considered, you in particular, to leave off editing the article. Period. ] 20:13, 15 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::I have not edited the main article concerning my edits at all, in full conformance with COI policy. -- ] <small>]</small> 01:20, 16 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 completely agree with ]. When you are an obvious COI, you should walk on eggs. Take a back seat, let the neutral editors work on the article, and limit yourself to pointing out obvious factual mistakes, '''once'''. Don't lobby or promote your COI POV in any way, and when told to back off, do so. In this case, there are many neutral editors involved, the facts are known, the issue remaining is how to best present the information given our very strict BLP related rules, combined with V, NOR, NPOV, UNDUE, etc. Stop attacking a neutral admin who is simply following our BLP rules. ] 22:31, 15 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Lil Dicky Semi-Protection == | |||
| ::Which is exactly what I have been arguing for. I took an RFC, I added sources, I refrained from directly editing the article, I discussed on the talk pages - all according to policy. Now that the text was arbitraruily deleted any attempt to discuss it on the article talk page or with previous RFC respondents has resulted in a ban. -- ] <small>]</small> 01:20, 16 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) | |||
| : I just learned that user Sparkzilla is the author of the op-ed that started this dispute. On that basis alone, Sparkzilla should not edit that article. He can comment in talk and provide any sources he wants added, leaving other editors to assess the material on its merit. ] <small>]</small> 23:34, 15 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| == Disruptive behavior from IP == | |||
| :::Whatever you think of my COI, I have followed policy properly. I have not edited the article directly regarding my commentary. I have commented in talk and provided sources in full comopliance with policy. -- ] <small>]</small> 01:20, 16 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| For the past month, {{ip|24.206.65.142}} has been attempting to add misleading information to ], specifically trying to use the unofficial "777-200LRF" designation beyond first mention in the relevant section and passing it off as official (, , , , , , , , , , ). Their behavior died down for a few weeks, but restarted several days ago (, ), including that {{u|Fnlayson}} is "okay with it". They have been asked numerous times on ] to either stop or provide evidence of official use of the designation, but they have failed to do so and have continued their disruption. - ] <sub>]</sub><span style="color:#6B8E23">\</span><sup>]</sup> 19:51, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| I forgot to mention that this user has used at least two other IPs; {{ip|24.206.75.140}} and {{ip|24.206.65.150}}. 24.206.65.142 is the most recent to cause disruption. - ] <sub>]</sub><span style="color:#6B8E23">\</span><sup>]</sup> 20:10, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::Jossi, FYI, I've also asked him to stop commenting on talk — and in fact to stop commenting on the Bakers anywhere on Misplaced Pages — because he was engaged in a real-life campaign against them. He has been posting his opinions widely on various talk pages, urging editors to add material for him, and including links to the disputed editorial and other articles he's written in real life, which is all being cached by Google. I feel he needs to withdraw entirely from being involved in this on Misplaced Pages for reasons of BLP and COI, and to allow the other editors on that page to write the article and discuss it without his constant requests that material written by him be restored. <font color="Purple">]</font> <small><sup><font color="Blue">]</font><font color="Green">]</font></sup></small> 23:44, 15 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :"777-200LRF" is not misleading, some cargo airlines do use that designation. Today I reverted to a previous version that ] was okay with . I feel that ] is going overboard with charges of misinformation and disruptive editing. ] (]) 19:59, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Once again you misrepresent me. I have not posted info about Baker "widely" on other talk pages, other than to to discuss this COI issue and to ask for help from the previous respondents to the RFC, who had accepted the text. According to COI policy I am both allowed to cite my own sources, and I am allowed to comment on the talk page of the article. It is also not unreasonable that I should also be allowed to discuss the text with editors who previously approved the disputed text on an RFC without incurring a ban. -- ] <small>]</small> 01:20, 16 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::It is misleading to remove any mentions of it being unofficial. Boeing has never made a "777-200LRF", no aftermarket conversion has ever been offered under that name, nor has the FAA or any other regulatory agency ever certified such an aircraft. To pass such a designation off as official is by definition misleading and misinformation. Likewise, to continuously do so after you have been told to stop by multiple people and falsely claiming that others support your arguments is by definition disruptive. - ] <sub>]</sub><span style="color:#6B8E23">\</span><sup>]</sup> 20:06, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::Of note is the fact that this is not the first time the IP has claimed to have Fnlayson's support. ] not to assume support without a specific statement, yet it seems they've also ignored that. - ] <sub>]</sub><span style="color:#6B8E23">\</span><sup>]</sup> 20:23, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::Its not misinformation as here are the sources which use "777-200LRF", including GE Capital Aviation (the engine supplier for most Boeing 777) and Leeham News (to avoid confusion with the upcoming 777-8F). ] (]) 21:06, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I have asked you for sources from either Boeing or the FAA, yet you still either refuse to do so or (more likely) cannot because they don't exist. Only Boeing and the FAA can designate factory-built Boeing aircraft. Airlines and misinformed news websites have no authority to do so, and any alternative names they use are purely unofficial and should not have anything more than a single brief mention in the appropriate article section. Your ] to get that after numerous people have told you is disruptive. - ] <sub>]</sub><span style="color:#6B8E23">\</span><sup>]</sup> 22:14, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::None of those are ] suitable for sustaining the edit you want to make. #1 would only support that airline claiming to have that kind of plane. #2 is a model manufacturer, and #3 is a blog. — <b>]:<sup>]</sup></b> 18:37, 25 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :Relevant range is {{rangevandal|24.206.64.0/20}}, in case somebody needs it. ] | ] 21:02, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *Semiprotected ] for two days. - ] <sub>]</sub> 22:33, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Rude and unfestive language in my talk page == | |||
| ::::Please note that I brought the original RFC precisely so that non-involved ediotors could comment irrespective of any COI. This is what the policy says: : ''Those who feel the need to make controversial edits, in spite of a real or perceived conflict of interest, are strongly encouraged to submit proposed edits for review on the article's talk page, or to file a request for comment.'' | |||
| ::::I have strictly adhered to this guideline, yet now I have been banned. The policy exists to help editors like me who have a conflict of interest deal with the situation. What is the point of the policy if following it correctly results in a ban?-- ] <small>]</small> 01:20, 16 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::I would agree with that. Disclosing a COI does not eliminate it, and it appears it is going to be difficult for this editor to adhere to ]. We're each supposed to write content in NPOV fashion, not advocate our respective self-interested positions to meet in the middle. --'''<span style="background:Black;color:White"> ]|]|] </span>''' 23:56, 15 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| My esteemed editor collegue ] just left on my talk page, on Christmas Day no less. Not really in the spirit of the season, I'd say. Considering that he was sagaciously advising me on the importance of tact and etiquette in the very same thread, he should be held to the same standard. ] (]) 17:54, 25 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Once again, I have not edited the article directly and have conformed with COI policy throughout. I have also provided independent sources to deal with NPOV issues. Please tell me the actual BLP policy that I have broken and tell me why I am not allowed to ask for help restoring the approved text without incurring a ban? -- ] <small>]</small> 01:20, 16 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :{{u|Vector legacy (2010)}} and {{u|Marcus Markup}}, you both should stop that childish behavior and disengage from one another. ] (]) 18:10, 25 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::: Just do not edit the article. Provide sources and recommendations in talk and let others make the changes if they think that these are necessary. Avoid giving personal opinions on LPs: discuss the article and not the subject, and you will be fine. Misplaced Pages should not be used as a soapbox for personal opinions of others. ] <small>]</small> 01:39, 16 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == User:Ryancasey93 == | |||
| :::::::That is exactly what I have done. However, given that I have been doing exactly as you say and have been banned for it, I wonder if you can assure me that if I was to comment or assist other editors regarding my sources on the article's talk page or in mail discussions with RFC respondents such as yourself that I would not be banned again? -- ] <small>]</small> 02:00, 16 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| {{atop|1=31-hour block. - ] <sub>]</sub> 01:06, 26 December 2024 (UTC)}} | |||
| *{{userlinks|Ryancasey93}} | |||
| Over at ], a user by the name of {{u|Ryancasey93}} requested that their YouTube channel be cited in a passage about them () that was added by {{u|TheLennyGriffinFan1994}} (). The talk page discussion was removed by {{u|AntiDionysius}} as being promotional in nature. Ryancasey93 then decided to ] to cite their channel, which was declined by {{u|LizardJr8}}, who then proceeded to remove the passage as being unsourced. | |||
| I then brought up concerns with ] and ] with Ryancasey93, who then proceeded to respond in a needlessly confrontational and hostile manner, and pinging me and LizardJr8. Ryancasey93 then proceeded to where they said we were "very rude and belittling" to them, told us they sent an email complaint against us, called us "the most cynical, dismissive, greedy, narcissistic, and ungrateful people I ever met in my entire life", accused us of discriminating against Autistic people (I am autistic myself, for the record), and called us "assholes". | |||
| Response to Sparkzilla: I think you are missing the point. As an admitted COI, the issue is not your editing of the article, but your promotion and lobbying for your own publications as a source for a highly controversial BLP article. As I noted above, you should provide your material '''once''', which you have already done, and then step back and let neutral editors handle the BLP and sourcing issues. When an admin removes your controversial material per BLP, you don't restore it as you've done - you step back. This applies to anywhere on the Misplaced Pages site. So just sit back, the neutral editors already have your material, let them work with it. And do not under any circumstances restore controversial BLP material that has been removed, or you'll be blocked. ] 01:35, 16 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Simply put, I feel as if Ryancasey93 does not have the emotional stability required to contribute to Misplaced Pages, having violated ], ], and ], and a block may be needed. ]<sup>(])</sup> 19:47, 25 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :Firstly, I took the original text once to RFC. Secondly, after its removal by SV without discussion I did not restore the disputed text to the article, but followed policy by commenting on the text in the article's talk pages, or to ask for help from previous respondents to the RFC. I am concerned that I was penalised for following policy, and concerned that I will be punished again for discussing it on the article's talk page in future, even though this is part of COI policy. -- ] <small>]</small> 01:55, 16 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :I just logged on while digesting turkey, and was alerted of the pings and this report. I don't really appreciate the messages from the user (I'm on the spectrum too, FWIW) but I think @] gave a good response, highlighting the need for secondary reliable sources. I should have done that better when I removed the unsourced information. I would like to see if there is any further activity from the user before getting into a block discussion. ] (]) 21:10, 25 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| Sparkzilla doesn't seem to be getting it. If this continues, I support another block to get his attention, since the first one just wasn't long enough to provide enough time for proper reflection and reading of the relevant policies is seems. The only question is, how long this time? ] 01:42, 16 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Looks like they've been blocked for 31 hours by {{u|Cullen328}}. ]<sup>(])</sup> 23:15, 25 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::Yes, that last comment was unacceptable in several ways. ] (]) 00:57, 26 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| == User:24.187.28.171 == | |||
| :Please tell me the exact policy I have broken. -- ] <small>]</small> 01:55, 16 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| {{atop | |||
| | result = Blocked for 3 months for edit warring. ] (]/]) 23:32, 25 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::] for starters. How about ] as well. ] 01:59, 16 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| }} | |||
| *{{userlinks|24.187.28.171}} | |||
| :::It's not disruptive to ask for assistance regarding a content dispute. It is not disruptive to question the removal of well-sourced material from an artcile. It is not disruptive to discuss a ban, which apears to the the result of following policy. Can you tell me the policy violation regarding COI or BLP please? Also can you tell me who I am supposed to be harassing? -- ] <small>]</small> 02:09, 16 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| IP has been blocked before for previous infractions. Now, they continue to perform persistent disruptive edits contradicting the Manual of Style, either by deliberately introducing contradictions or undoing edits that resolve the issue. The user has also violated ] at ], though that remains unresolved for some reason. The IP has done all of this despite a backlog of warnings dating back to 2023. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 22:48, 25 December 2024 (UTC)</small> | |||
| :@]: could you please provide specific diffs? ] (]/]) 23:23, 25 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::I would add ] - restoring improperly sourced controversial BLP material that has been removed, after several warnings, is a blockable offense. ] 02:04, 16 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| :::It was established in the RFC that the material was acceptable. Confimation that I criticised the support group is available in three independent reliable sources, easily satisfying verifiability and NPOV issues. -- ] <small>]</small> 02:09, 16 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :: Sparkzilla, let me clarify this for you. This is a case of COI aggravated by the fact that you are involved in case about third-parties. COI on subjects you are involved yourself, such as editing an article about yourself, or your newspaper, is difficult enough. When the COI involves comments your newspaper is making about others, it is even more difficult, and to such extent that you simply should avoid any ''perceptions''' that may be construed as improper. So, I would advise you to make your comments in talk page, allow others to make the edits, and avoid any type of canvassing for the material's inclusion. Hey, if the material is notable, significant and and well sourced, I will re-add it myself. ] <small>]</small> 02:12, 16 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::All I asked for initially was for some external help to deal with the issue. I appreciate your offer to help. -- ] <small>]</small> 02:17, 16 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::: Please, to avoid making this more difficult for yourself, accept the feedback given to you and take a break. I believe it will do you good. ] <small>]</small> 02:15, 16 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Since you have kindly indicated your desire to help I will leave the issue for now. Thank you. -- ] <small>]</small> 02:17, 16 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::: Sparkzilla, once an admin, or any established user for that matter, declares controversial BLP material as improperly sourced and removes it, you may not restore it, regardless of any previous RfC decisions. The proper way to handle that is to discuss it, and reach consensus prior to restoring. Additionally, if you are an admitted COI, and in your case also the author of the controversial material, you should not be promoting your COI POV - you should stick to providing raw facts, and let neutral editors discuss the BLP issues. ] 02:19, 16 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I ''was'' discussing it to reach consensus on the talk page and with previous RFC respondents - but was banned for doing so! It was the attempt to suppress that discussion that I am concerned about. Please note that I have only discussed what is in the external sources and have not promoted any agenda (in recent memory) on WP that is not already inside those sources. -- ] <small>]</small> 02:23, 16 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Constantly repeating poorly sourced ] violations is indeed a ] violation, and given your campaign against the individual in question, you should simply stay away from commenting on them ''at all'' on Misplaced Pages. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 03:43, 16 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::'''There is absolutely no BLP violation.''' The items are not poorly sourced according to ]. My comments about the case were reported in three independent newpapers in the UK. Three other editors on the page, and the repondents to the RFC agreed that my commentary can be cited as a claim with the sources provided. -- ] <small>]</small> 03:59, 16 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| (outdent) Sparkzilla, you say "There is absolutely no BLP violation" - can you appreciate that as a COI pushing his own contentious BLP material as source, you are in no position to be a neutral judge of that? This is why you must step back and let neutral Misplaced Pages editors deal with the BLP issues. ] 04:07, 16 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :You are completely right. That's why I... 1) took it to an RFC that said that my commentary could be used if sourced appropriately. 2) There is no further COI issue from me as I have discused the re-istatement of the text only on the article's talk page and with the repondents to the COI (and here). I have behaved properly when it comes to my COI. In fact, it is SlimVirgin who has gone against consensus by removing this material, and I would like to ask why it was removed without discussion when it is porpoerly sourced, has pased through an RFC, and why I was banned for challenging that removal? -- ] <small>]</small> 04:13, 16 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::If I am "completely right", then you should just step back. As the author and publisher of the material in question, you are not neutral, hence you can't judge the merits of a BLP case. The RfC, as I explained to you, means nothing, since BLP issues evolve, and an established user removing contentious BLP material can only be reverted by subsequent consensus - certainly not by the COI whose material was removed. So please stop this campaign, as it's becoming very disruptive. ] 04:31, 16 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ===Metropolis=== | |||
| It also appears that Sparkzilla is controlling the content of ], a free city and classified-ad guide in Tokyo that he and his wife publish. The history shows him removing negative content and fighting to restore anything positive, not all of which is reported accurately. | |||
| For example, the article said: "In 1999 the magazine started "Glitterball", an annual Halloween party at Velfarre, a large club in Roppongi. The party, which has about 2,000 attendees, raises funds for various children's charities in Japan, including Make a Wish Foundation and the YMCA Challenged Childrens' Project." | |||
| The edit was sourced to '']'' with a dead link. In fact, the Japan Times article is still online, and it does not entirely support the edit. In a March 2006 article entitled , the newspaper writes: | |||
| {{quotation|Another popular evening out on the cheaper end of the scale is Metropolis magazine's Glitterball party. The Tokyo-based English weekly holds its annual Halloween dance party at Velfarre in Roppongi.<p> | |||
| It is not traditionally a charity fundraiser, but for the October event the magazine advertised that some of the money raised would go to the Make-A-Wish Foundation of Japan and the YMCA.<p> | |||
| However, advertisements for the party did not specify how the money was to be raised.<p> | |||
| Mark Devlin, CEO of Crisscross KK, Metropolis' publisher, admitted the group was not as organized last October as they had been in previous years.<p> | |||
| "We did not have a clear idea of who to give (the money raised) to," Devlin said.<p> | |||
| As they have been doing since 2003, 500 yen of the 3,000 yen advance and 3,500 yen door ticket prices was earmarked for charity, while those who received free tickets were asked to give a 500 yen donation at the door.<p> | |||
| Devlin clarified the event, which had about 2,000 attendees last year, also makes a "moderate profit" for the magazine.<p><p> | |||
| Crisscross donated 503,000 yen each to the two charities, according to Devlin.}} | |||
| I've fixed the article so that it sticks more closely to what the source said. <font color="Purple">]</font> <small><sup><font color="Blue">]</font><font color="Green">]</font></sup></small> 02:06, 16 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Why bring a mnor edit on a minor page not relevant to this discussion if not to muddy the discussion? Please do not distract the issue. The older edits to Metropolis were already the subject of a COI discussion where Mangojuice said "I feel his behavior on the central articles (Metropolis, Crisscross) was not so problematic, because he's trying to follow policy. I really don't think the removal of negative information was inappropriate: the negative information was out of balance and not well sourced in any of the cases. Generally speaking, as long as they stick to policy, people are allowed to edit with a conflict" -- again my actions were well within COI policy. Personally, the party is not as big a deal as you have made it, but I will leave that to other editors to work with your changes. -- ] <small>]</small> 02:14, 16 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::You're quoting selectively again. It's neither a minor issue nor a distraction; it goes to the heart of the discussion, which is about how you seem to be editing Misplaced Pages to further your business interests and personal campaigns. You created the article in the first place, which was not a good idea; you're reporting what sources say inaccurately; you inserted a dead link to a source you misrepresented, even though the article was available online, which meant people couldn't easily check what it said; you're removing negative material that appears to have been sourced correctly; and Mangojuice actually said that your inappropriate editing has to stop. That was back in May, yet here we are again. Your actions in several articles are a clear example of a deeply problematic COI, and it really ''does'' have to stop this time. <font color="Purple">]</font> <small><sup><font color="Blue">]</font><font color="Green">]</font></sup></small> 02:36, 16 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::Firstly, I did not insert a dead link - the Japan Times has recently changed their archive policy to allow non-registerd users to access their archive - so all links have recently become broken. Secondly, my company is notable and has multiple independent sources to say so. Thirdly, the page has been under constant attack by people who would like to insert libelous material, which I have removed according to COI policy and which was confirmed as appropriate by MangoJuice after an extensive COI discussion . I would like to bring this discussion to a close now, and I hope you will also do me the courtesy. Thank you.-- ] <small>]</small> 02:47, 16 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ===RFC is about SlimVirgin not Sparkzilla === | |||
| I'm not going to discuss any of Sparkzilla's COI or ] "violations" here. This incident is reporting innapropriate actions of ] regarding his dealing with Sparkzilla. | |||
| Sparkzilla canvassed my talk page, with a valid concern. I have been both for and against some of Sparkzilla's stances on certain webpages. | |||
| SlimVirgin promptly removed this request from my talk page saying it violated BLP. I do not understand how it could be violating BLP. ] maybe, but not BLP. Sparkzilla describes his problem and asks me to give comments/advice about appropriate steps. | |||
| The removal of another editors talk page comments, and citing an innapropriate guideline is Harassment.--] 03:24, 16 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :In fact, Sparkzilla added the ]-violating content to your Talk: page, which is why it was removed. ] applies everywhere on Misplaced Pages, even User talk: pages. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 03:42, 16 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::'''There is absolutely no BLP violation'''. SlimVirgin is acting against the consensus of the RFC repondents and of the current editors on the page. As ZayZayEm says this issue is not about my actions, but about the abuse of admin powers to restrict my right to discuss properly sourced material on the article's talk page and with the RFC respondents. -- ] <small>]</small> 04:07, 16 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::Per my comment above, you as a COI promoting your own contentious BLP material to be used as a source, cannot possibly be neutral, thus you cannot judge the BLP violation. A previous RfC does not trump any established user who decides to remove contentious BLP material - there is always new evidence and developments in a case. In any case, it is not for you to determine, but for the neutral editors. ] 04:13, 16 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::but BLP supercedes consensus in cases where the BLP limitations and consensus for inclusion conflict. It's that simple. SV seems to me to have enforced BLP zealously, and against some possible COI. I don't see why this whole debate's still ongoing. ] 04:11, 16 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::There is absolutely no BLP violation. The material is sourced appropriately. -- ] <small>]</small> 04:18, 16 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Sparkzilla, given your campaign against the individual in question off Misplaced Pages, please accept that you are in no position to comment on whether or not this material violates ]. As I said above, going forward it would be best if you didn't comment ''at all'' about this individual on Misplaced Pages, here, on someone's User talk: page, or on the article Talk: page. Focus on other articles - there are about 1.5 million from which to choose. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 04:19, 16 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::There is no BLP violation. The consensus on the article's talk page and on the RFC is that the sources ARE approporiate. Are you really trying to tell me that three independent newpapers that reported on my comments in the UK are NOT appropraite sources? Don't tell me to go away. Even with my COI, I have a right to discuss the removal of properly sourced material on the article's talk page and I also have the right to complain when I am harassed and banned by an admin while discussing the removal of that material against consensus. -- ] <small>]</small> 04:26, 16 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::This distortion has to stop. The more you write, the more I see how unclearly you describe events, and that makes me wonder even more about using your publication as a source. | |||
| :::::::The background, one last time: You and your wife publish a small, classified ad and city guide for English expats in Japan. In that publication, you have written very critical material about a living person who was convicted of a crime. You wanted to add to the Misplaced Pages BLP about that living person that he and his mother had lied to the public to obtain fraudulent financial donations and political support. You claimed that your allegations were based on a defence document that someone had leaked to you, which you published on your website. This had no signature, no date, nothing on it to indicate its provenance. It was apparently originally in Japanese, but someone had translated it; again, we don't know who. You then sent out 25 e-mails to various publications and other interested parties in the hope they would pick up on your story. Three very small classifed-ad papers in the UK did, papers that are local to the area the accused and his mother came from. They are not independent sources, or reliable sources for this kind of claim. They are taking their information entirely from you, and you're not a journalist or professional researcher — in fact, I found an interview you gave in which you explicitly say your magazine doesn't hire people with publishing, editorial, or journalistic backgrounds. Even those papers only alluded to your allegations, but also didn't dare publish them in their entirety. Your publication has no editorial oversight, and apparently the person whose name was on one of the articles doesn't exist. | |||
| :::::::It terms of BLP and COI, it '''could not be worse'''. Despite this, you've spent huge amounts of time posting these claims in one form or another on various talk pages, trying to get someone to add the material back for you, either entirely or in part. It has to stop, and there's no point raising it whenever you can, because it's a crystal-clear case of a serious BLP and COI violation. And in the article about your city guide, an article you created, I see more of the same attempt to talk up whatever you do, and remove any criticism. | |||
| :::::::The bottom line is that you must stop focusing on self-promotion. <font color="Purple">]</font> <small><sup><font color="Blue">]</font><font color="Green">]</font></sup></small> 04:29, 16 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Actually, yes, even I am trying to say stop. Using external sites to validate your own statements, to add to an article you're editing, about something you're working against, is COI of the greatest level, and that COI leads to BLP violations, becaues it's making an end run around basic libel to multi-stage libel. Just move on. ] 04:32, 16 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| (outdent)Why do you insist on completely misereprenting my publication and the sources? I find it amazing that you can know so much about me and my magazine without having lived in Japan. Firstly, my magazine is the No 1 English magazine in Japan, an 80-page weekly city guide with a certified (ABC) distribution of 30,000 copies/week. Its readership of 67,500 covers 50% of the foreigners in the Tokyo area. It employs 40 staff and has an independent editorial team of four full-time people which has produced hundreds of articles and commentaries over the 12 years it has been in publication, including many, many articles more contentious than Mr Baker's issue. Over the years we have employed hundreds of freelance writers, and currently employ or have employed writers who have worked at ], {{The Japan Times]], ], ], ] and other well-known newspapers and magazines in Japan and throughout the world. I have been profiled many times as a leading publisher in Japan (see sources on the Metropols WP page). A casual look at the magazine's website will easily show that your claims are bogus. | |||
| I also forgot to mention that I also published my commentary about Baker's support group on my news site Japan Today. Japan Today (check on Google - no link so I am not accused of promotion) is the largest news and discussion site about Japan in the world with two million page views/month and an Alexa ranking of approx 20,000 which is equivalent to the website of the Japan Times, Japan's largest distribution Englihs-language newspaper . The site is run by an editor who has 20 year's experience at ]. | |||
| So I am not just the editor of a "small, classified ad and city guide for English expats in Japan". That is why my comments regarding the bahaviour of a Japan-based support group's media strategy are relevant and notable in their own right. | |||
| As an aside, why are you bringing up the removal of the defense documents? I did not contest your removal of the defence documents and it is not related to this issue. My editorial team will shortly make a public statement regarding their authenticity. My claims are not based on that document alone. Even so, the fact that I made such a claim was reported in other sources. | |||
| Each of the newpaper sources that reported on my criticism of the case fully statisfy ]: They are independent of me, they have independent editorial teams and they are widely distributed in Baker's home area. Whether they are free or not is immaterial (although se below). These sources are deemed acceptable by the RFC repondents AND by many editors on the article's talk page. | |||
| Further, if you were really concerned about this issue you should have submitted your comments like other editors on the article's talk page as part of consensus building instead of trying to force me off the page and then banning me when I ask for help regarding your removal of the material under the pretext of a bogus BLP and COI violation. In fact on the article's talk page right now you are being asked by two editors why you have gone against consensus in this case. | |||
| It is pretty clear given the kind of bogus research you are doing on me and my company that you are not interested in consensus regarding the actual sources, but are instead interested in denigrating and harassing me. I ask you to stop harassing me and misrepresenting the sources (see below) -- ] <small>]</small> 04:50, 16 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| FACT CHECK UPDATE: I checked the sources website and The Citizen , which reported on my criticisms of the case, is actually a PAID-FOR newspaper with a weekly circulation of 32,000 copies (readership 80,000 copies). Pretty reliable source, I'd say. -- ] <small>]</small> 05:09, 16 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| FACT CHECK UPDATE 2: I checked the Swindon Advertiser, which despite its name is also a PAID-FOR newspaper (circulation around 20,000 every day with 58,000 readers). These sources are clarly reliable. '''There is no BLP violation'''. My ciriticisms of the case are reliably sourced and should never have been taken out without discussion. Banning me for daring to object on the article's talk page is an abuse of admin priviledge.-- ] <small>]</small> 05:17, 16 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :This disruption has gone on long enough. We're long past the point of decreasing returns accomodating Sparkzilla here; there's only so much disruption of this page and the project we're expected to put with for such a trifling set of gripes. It's time for Sparkzilla to drop this and move along: there's 1,885,720 articles at Misplaced Pages, and if he's genuinely interested in contributing to the project he'll have no problem finding some not related to those that gave rise to the imbroglio that need improvement. Otherwise he simply confirms the objections already voiced here about his method of participation and makes further blocking all the more likely. ] 05:17, 16 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::It is not distruptive to question the actions of an admin. I want to know, given that there was no BLP or COI violation, if I can expect to be banned for continuing to follow COI policy, or for asking RFC reposndents for help, or for asking that properly sourced material be restored by an admin who deleted it without consensus. This is a fair question. ] <small>]</small> 05:23, 16 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::: Indeed. But as advised to you on these pages as well as via email, you are not doing yourself any favors in pursuing this the way you are pursuing it. Listen to the feedback given to you by your peers here and elsewhere and take a well deserved break from commenting on this subject, before making it worse for yourself. ] <small>]</small> 05:28, 16 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::: If you are asking, my opinion is that the sources you provided are not reliable sources for the claims made. ] <small>]</small> 05:31, 16 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Please discuss why on the article's talk page and come to consensus with the other eiditors. -- ] <small>]</small> 05:37, 16 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::Sparkzilla, please stop it. Your amount of posting here, to promote a personal COI agenda, is clearly excessive. I would urge you to start editing other unrelated articles, not connected to your COI, or you could be blocked for disruptive behavior. ] 05:29, 16 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I would like to ask, most humbly, why I should be further penalised for highlighting an administrator's abuse of WP rules, when I, in turn, have now proven that I have done wrong with respect to COI or BLP policy? I made an RFC, I brought in reliable sources. I only discussed on the talk page. Yet I was harassed of the page and banned by an admin when I asked for help regarding the removal of text without discussion. Surely this request, which has been focussed on my actions for some time now, is actually about SlimVirgin's actions, which were against COI policy, BLP policy and admin priiledge? | |||
| ::::I would also like to ask if I am banned again for being so bold to report an admin, where I can take this issue next?-- ] <small>]</small> 05:36, 16 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Dude. You're looking for ways to get your opinion into the article. "they quoted me" still presents a COI. Get over it. You know youre' wrong, and almost a dozen editors have told you to drop it and move on. Why don't you understand that no one is going to let you put your own quotes into the article? ] 05:44, 16 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::I am sorry you are getting frustrated, but it's frustrating for me too. I don't see why I am being penalised when my actions have been in line with COI and BLP policy. If I can get an answer to my question above I will be happy to move on. -- ] <small>]</small> 05:50, 16 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Sparkzilla, I believe you would get a more sympathetic hearing here if this claimed 'consensus' that BLP was not being violated by your links was actually demonstrable by support of that statement on this page. I see no such support, and as such am forced to the conclusion that there was no such consensus. ] 06:18, 16 July 2007 (UTC)c | |||
| ::::::::Sparkzilla, amongst all the well-connected journalists you claim write for your magazine, I cannot find one google entry for a "Kirsten Holloway" the reporter who is credited with writing the feature which contains the majority of the contentious material you are trying to include in this article. Why is that?] 14:06, 16 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::You are discssing the wrong item. We are talking about my commentary and its reporting in three newspapers, not the Metropolis round-up of the case. ] <small>]</small> 14:36, 16 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| (outdent) Well, one might have thought so, but since you edit of an hour or so ago, where you introduced the credentials of the writers working for your magazine, it seems entirely pertinent to raise the question of the bona-fides of the reporter on this Metropolis article to which you attach much importance. ] 14:54, 16 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :She wrote the article for us, with the help of our editor (who had worked on the previous article) and left Japan shortly after. -- ] <small>]</small> 14:59, 16 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Forgive me, but given the nature of the feature in question, would it be correct to describe the writer as an 'investigative' reporter, or at least a "journalist"? Am I to understand from your response that Kirsten Holloway, wrote just the one article in her career (where-ever she is now in the world) or was she writing under a pseudonym?] 15:06, 16 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::I am sorry, but we have had hundreds of freelancers work for us. Some stay a while but most come and go. I have no idea where she is now or what she is doing. However, I was satisfied with the work she and our editorial team did on the article. -- ] <small>]</small> 15:14, 16 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Thank you. You response speaks volumes.] 15:19, 16 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ===Summary of discussion so far=== | |||
| A brief summary. In the section above I have clearly established that... | |||
| # I followed COI policy correctly at all times by only discussing the removed text on the article's talk page | |||
| # I provided multiple reliable sources -- which have been established to be daily paid newspapers with medium circulation numbers)-- therefore there was no BLP violation | |||
| # My own publications have a very wide readership in the foreign community in Japan | |||
| # I am a leading publisher in Japan and have enough notability to comment on the media activities of a support group | |||
| And that... | |||
| # The admin removed material without consultation | |||
| # When I questioned the deletion the admin tried to silence my opinion on the article talk page - a clear abuse of COI guideline. | |||
| # The admin then blocked me stating bogus reasons (COI and BLP issues) when I contacted previous RFC respondents | |||
| # The admin defended themselves by denigrating my company, my position and the sources (all of which is bogus) | |||
| So I would like to ask my questions once again as nobody seems to want to answer them... | |||
| # Is it acceptable for an admin to tell me not to discuss an issue on the article talk page in violation of COI guidelines? | |||
| # Is it acceptable to be blocked for asking for help from RFC respondents using the pretext of COI and BLP issues, when there are no such issues? | |||
| # Why has no admin here even questioned SV's behaviour - is it typical for admins to stick together when one is accused of misconduct? | |||
| # Why am I now being warned off of this topic, told to that stop, that this is the "wrong way" and that I am being "disruptive"? I have done nothing wrong, so why am I being treated as the accused? | |||
| # Is it is typical WP policy to label an editor who is trying to defend themselves against admin abuse "disruptive" so they can be blocked or that they may give uip (and so that the questions remain unanswered? | |||
| # If I am doing this the "wrong way", what exactly is the right way? Is there a WP oversight process that deals with admin misconduct, or is this as good as it gets? | |||
| # Is it ''ever'' possible to have any action taken against admin abuise - are admins above reproach by ordinary editors? | |||
| These are serious and reasonable questions that require proper answers. I appreciate your efforts to answer them. Thank you for your comments. -- ] <small>]</small> 14:36, 16 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *Nothing that derives from an editorial constitutes a reliable source. See ]. If a reliable source reported ''as fact'' that certain things happened, that is reliable, under our meaning of the word. If a reliable source reports, "John Smith, publisher of the ''Arkham Advertiser'', today accused Dr. Henry Armitage of Miskatonic University of dabbling in the dark arts," that is merely proof that John Smith made a certain accusation. Any attempt to use such a source as proof that Armitge does ''in fact'' dabble in the dark arts is merely ]. ] 15:50, 16 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::I understand that. In accordance with WP policy the text has always been stated as being a claim. That the claim exists can be reliably sourced. Check the discussion on the article's talk page for proposed texts stating it as a claim.. -- ] <small>]</small> 15:58, 16 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::It's '''very existence''' as an unproven claim made in an unreliable source '''bars its inclusion'''. The fact laundering essay was written in response to an Arbitration case regarding ], a controversial religious leader. One of the issues in that case is that a former colleague had self-published a critical newsletter against Hyles, alleging marital infidelity and other misdeeds. At one point, the ''Chicago Post'', in reporting on Hyles, wrote, "a former friend and colleague has accused Hyles of infidelity and other misdeeds." At the time, I too thought this was sufficiently reliable to include in the article. I have since changed my view, and parties here are advised to read through the ]. If it is impermissable for Misplaced Pages to report "John Smith cheated on his wife" because the only source is unreliable for some reason (celebrity gossip magazine, self-published by Smith's political or business rivals, etc) then it is also impermissable to ''suggest'' that Smith cheated on his wife by referring to an unreliable accusation. See ] and especially ]. ] 16:17, 16 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :OK, that was a good answer. I wonder why it has taken so much effort to get here, but I am grateful for your input. Now, would you say 1) that my magazine is a reliable source 2) is my op-ed on the Baker case considered to be self-published? Secondly, there is a follow-up feature story in my magazine which supports the assertions in my op-ed, specifically it mentions the fact that Baker came to Japan two month's before his arrest. I am worried to add the link in case I get blocked again :( The article is the only investigative piece written on the Baker story, and was completed after the trial wehn other media had lost interest. Is this follow-up feature considered self-published, and can it be used as a reliable source to confirm the op-ed? -- ] <small>]</small> 16:45, 16 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :: Doesn't appear the the media had forgotten about the case, the Japan Times has not lost interest - they ran an article on Sept 13, 2005 and also Oct. 21, 2005 about the pending appeal] 18:02, 16 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::Not printing an article for two years -- one article being a non verifiable opinion piece another off the kyodo wire -- sounds like they have lost interest to me] 23:06, 16 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::They printed like 5 articles on the subject - I think the lag might have something to do with him being convicted...and they reported on the subsequent appeals in 2005.] 23:17, 16 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| === Sparkzilla blocked=== | |||
| I have blocked Sparkzilla without expiry while the community and admins debate how best to manage this problem. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 20:20, 16 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :I was about to suggest a ban from editing ], ], or any other article on a topic where his newspaper has taken an editorial stand, ''including their talk pages'', enforceable by blocks, for a period of time (say 3 months at the outset) to see if he can learn and adapt to our culture. However, his last response to me suggests a glimmer of hope. I will write a more detailed answer about the content question on the article talk page. I'm not sure whether to go ahead with a topical ban anyway or to give him another chance. His disputatiousness is certainly a concern. ] 20:34, 16 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Whew. His contentious arguing per above as well as all over the place were getting exhausting. He either doesn't get what COI and all of the people in this discussion are trying to tell him, or he just wants to try to bully his way through with no regard for Misplaced Pages policy. He should remain blocked unless he promises to stop editing any article which has any connection to him, whatsoever. ] 23:24, 16 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| The article was listed on 4th July and procedurally correctly relisted as ]. (the 3rd nomination (from 2006) now sits on the 4th July 2007 list of archived Afds). I have been struggling to get the original nominator to relist it, he seems unwilling to and I do no want the Afd to close with no consensus so that it can raised again on afd. It is a waste of everybodies time. I have even told the nominator that I am willing to change my comment to delete if it will push consensus one way or another. | |||
| I feel that the Afd hidden from scrutiny, not listed and still open after 11 days is abuse of process. | |||
| any suggestions? ] 03:07, 15 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| '''Please note''' this is not an invitation to comment at the afd. When the afd is correctly relisted or you comment using the article afd notice, that is good faith. Commenting at the afd using this link isn't welcomed. ] 03:27, 15 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *Anyone can comment on AFD until it's finally closed. At any rate, AFDs are normally only relisted due to lack of participation... this one is eligible to be closed now. --] 03:50, 15 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| **Something's weird here... was this AFD ever properly listed? The version listed on 7/04/2007 was the third nom (closed by me, coincidently). If the fourth nom was never listed on an AFD day log, it is not fully valid. Sorry if I misread your initial post. --] 03:55, 15 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Offhand, I would suggest closing AFD4 as invalid and relisting, and notifying everyone who participated in AFD4 of what happened and link to AFD5. Mike33 is right, linking to it only from the article can give a skewed consensus. --] 03:57, 15 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| I've relisted the Afd. Just a reminder to editors who do rename Afds to ensure that you also update the Afd log to take note of the rename. There is nothing more frustrating that being unaware that you are involved in an orphaned afd. ] 04:34, 15 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Are you suggesting it needs further mass debating? --]] 09:24, 15 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| The AFD is now closed. There was a complete 11 days to gather consensus, which was achieved. If anyone is dissatisfied with the result, they may seek review at ]—] (]) 18:25, 15 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *It was never properly listed so the consensus is invalid. --] 19:43, 15 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == ] being flooded by spa keep votes == | |||
| Since about 23:00 this AFD has been flooded with Keep !votes by new users with no previous contributions, as if it was publicized on a blog or mailing list, with many of them unidentified. I saw at least one AFD semiprotected not that long ago. Is there a way to at least task a bot with identifying the unsigned contributions? It is just about impossible to keep up with the flood by searching the history file to identify them as spas. Thanks. ] 03:15, 15 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Great God in a bottle. I can't even find the original deletion reason in that utter mess - oh, wait, there it is, just below the SPA tag. Might I suggest that it should be thrown out and restarted, this time semiprotected? I can't see anyone digging through there to find the signal in the noise... ] <small>] ]</small> 03:36, 15 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Is it supposed to be closed today? —''']''' 03:39, 15 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::Looks like, yeah, in a few hours. ] <small>] ]</small> 03:48, 15 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::] bit the bullet and closed as delete. Angry ] in five... four... three.... ] <small>] ]</small> 05:20, 15 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| I found edit to the AfD to be very troublesome. Can we block this <s>clown</s> gentleman? ] <small>] | ]</small> 04:16, 15 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Hello! Just as a quick note, I do not think it really appropriate to call that editor a "clown." Best, --<font face="Times New Roman">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 04:30, 15 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::The nonsense on that AfD frustrated me. I probably shouldn't have called the editor a clown. ] <small>] | ]</small> 05:14, 15 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::Anybody who nakes threats like that should be immediately blocked. ] 20:20, 15 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| In the edit which ] cited above by ], , Atari2600a says "Misplaced Pages can handle a Dynamic Denial of Service (or 'DDoS') attack from a single hacker, but imagine tens, hundreds, possibly thousands of hackers DDoSing Misplaced Pages at once. This can spell nothing good. Just leave the article up." Does this sound to any one else like a threat? Or just a user expressing concern that "something bad" might happen to Misplaced Pages if we deleted a particular article? ] had 6 sensible edits before this AFD, dating back to last November. I'm not sure whether the flurry of Keep !votes toward the end was an effort by one user with a variety of hijacked computer accounts, or the result of a posting somewhere asking people to come to Misplaced Pages and "save" the article about the movie. Typically they would sign the Keep vote with their first name and their location, in a very consistent pattern, without having created a Misplaced Pages logon, and without using four tildes. This consistent pattern suggests it is either the work of one person, or that someone told readers somewhere to click on a link to the AFD, then add a Keep vote and sign with their name and city. In most cases, when I tracked down the IP addresses in the history file and checked them with Whois, the city matched the claimed city, such as "Henry W in Boston, but that same IP address was used to post a vote by "Scott in Wisconsin" "Bryan in California" was indeed from California, and added 2 keep votes. "Marcel Netherlands" was from there. "Fornequiem Canada" was from there. "Steve from Ontario" and "Eckostream from Quebec" were from where claimed. These votes were still of an unusual and distinctive pattern. ] 19:56, 15 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of songs about masturbation (4th nomination): apparent vandalism == | |||
| * The AfD discussion ] has been closed, but at its start instead of the verdict "keep" or "delete" is a short vulgar poem. Its history says that this is not the result of an edit after the AfD was closed. ] 09:25, 15 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::I have replaced this colorful poem with a proper close. Folks, please remember that this is supposed to be a respectable academic enterprise.] 09:37, 15 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::: No it's not, it's supposed to be a good-faith attempt at a ''reasonably'' serious encyclopaedia. Have we lost ''all'' sense of humour? I'd have clarified it, perhaps, but I'd certainly have left the quote in For Great Justice. Maybe that's because I'm old enough to instinctively respond "We are Devo!" when asked "Are we not men?" but it's a bit harsh to slap the guy for it. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 14:49, 15 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :The AFD was really not valid, it was only listed at AFD for a few hours (see above thread on this AFD). It needs to be re-opened and allowed to run the full 5 days, I have left a note with the closing admin. --] 09:50, 15 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::It looks like it's been listed since the 4th, then reposted for consensus. Then it seems to have snowballed to a delete. --] 09:52, 15 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::Please read above as I requested... it was not listed on any AFD page until a few hours before it was closed, so only people who had the article watchlisted would see the AFD. --] 09:55, 15 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::It was listed , although incorrectly (as 3rd nomination instead of fourth), on July 4.--] (]) 10:49, 15 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Which means the 4th was not listed. --] 14:44, 15 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::The 4th got listed as the 3rd. Everyone was able to see it listed as such from the 4th of July. I don't think a miscount of which nomination it was, makes the whole Afd null and void.--] (]) 18:21, 15 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::The 4th never appeared on the AFD page... the 3rd did, which was long since closed... people just looked past it as some weird error. it was also not linked to by AFD moniters. It was simply an invalid listing. Listing some random past version of an AFD is not a substitute for listing the current AFD. --] 18:35, 15 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Alright, I wasn't aware of that.--] (]) 18:44, 15 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Removal of warnings from talk page == | |||
| {{user|Ghirlandajo}} was warned a few times about his recent contributions. However, he decided to , which goes against Misplaced Pages's best practices. In addition to that, he called me a troll in the edit summary. Please take a look at the warnings that he removed from his talk page. His behavior is unacceptable. And removal of warnings about his unacceptable behavior is also unacceptable. — ]<sup>(]|]|])</sup> 11:24, 15 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| : By the way, he just restored his structure at the AFD he participated in (see ). This can be considered offensive by some users and is meant to influence the vote for deletion. — ]<sup>(]|]|])</sup> 11:26, 15 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::He is allowed to remove the warnings if he so wishes. ]] 11:30, 15 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::: There is no maybe about his uncivil behaviour and personnal attacks, he even summarily accused all Ukrainian editors of Russophobia. This is the user with the longest rap sheet of name calling and gross incivility and here he goes again with personal attacks and uncivil insinuations. This behaviour needs to stop.--] 11:35, 15 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::: Oh, so you want another thread to slander me behind my back in retribution for ? How long should I defend my edits against nationalist 15-year-olds who coordinate their attacks off-wiki? If a passerby is free to paste some outrageous allegation on my talk page, anyone is free to remove it as well (especially as the relevant "case" was closed by an non-involved sysop with the summary "beyond ridiculous"). --]<sup>]</sup> 11:37, 15 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: I would like you to please refrain from personal attacks and get your facts straight (I'm not 15). I've seen even ten year olds make great contributions to Misplaced Pages. As long as a user is unbiased and makes good contributions, it should not matter how old the user is. It was my choice to post my age, and I've done so at my own discretion. I feel I'm a fairly neutral person (yes, I know everybody says so), but I guess I'm not the one to judge. But neither is a person who calls everybody a troll, makes personal attacks, and violates many of Misplaced Pages's policies. — ]<sup>(]|]|])</sup> 11:41, 15 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::: ''"nationalist 15-year-olds who coordinate their attacks off-wiki"'' can be considered inflammatory and a personal attacks. If you have some evidence, just put it on the table. Dont just make accusations. Its our job to evaluate on the basis of edits not by looking at onse birth certificate or passport. --] <sup>]</sup> 11:43, 15 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| To administrators: this report isn't as much about the removal of warnings as it is about the user's behavior. As you can see here, he continues to make personal attacks, even after being warned. And after making personal attacks he tries to hide the evidence by removing warnings from his talk page. This is exactly why I reported him, something definetly needs to be done. Steps in dispute resolution were already tried (including RFC), and this user was warned in an ArbCom case to refrain from personal attacks. I believe it was AndriyK's ArbCom case, if this qualifies for ArbCom enforcement. — ]<sup>(]|]|])</sup> 11:45, 15 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| : Indeed, here's the bit that can qualify for ArbCom enforcement: ]. — ]<sup>(]|]|])</sup> 11:47, 15 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::: Again, from discussing the issue Ghirlando is starting his usual name calling and frivolous accusations. After numerous RfC's and ArbComs about his incivility this attitude still persists. What will it take for him to get the message?--] 11:49, 15 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Here's another message left by a user that was subsequently removed by Ghirlandajo: . — ]<sup>(]|]|])</sup> 11:58, 15 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::So what? ] | ] 17:32, 16 July 2007 (UTC). | |||
| :I thought this wasn't "as much about the removal of warnings" (despite the heading). Aren't users permitted to edit their talk page as they see fit? ---] ] 12:37, 15 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Well, within reason. There's certainly nothing prohibiting users from redecorating their talk pages, or deciding what their structure ought to be. But it's unacceptable to make other people say what they didn't say on one's talk page, and removing serious warnings is generally frown upon. ] 14:40, 15 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::No, Digwuren. Removing warnings is fine, whether "serious" or not. "Frowning" is possible in ''some'' situations--it's all according--but that's not carte blanche for you to pester somebody you're in conflict with by restoring warnings they have removed, as you do . What's the interest, anyway? If Ghirlandajo removes a message from his own page, it shows he's read it; what more do you want? ] a battleground. Please leave the pages of other users alone unless you have something to say to them. Ask yourself: am I adding information that the user wants or needs? The only legitimate use you can put another's talk page to is constructive communication with the user. It's not a noticeboard for displaying stuff that you think ''other'' people need to see. ] | ] 17:30, 16 July 2007 (UTC). | |||
| ::::This is one of several recent threads in which someone takes umbrage at a contributor removing warnings. Have we somehow been unclear on this? Any editor, regardless of block log, validity of warning, or who left said warning, may remove warnings for any reason or no reason. If anyone replaces the warning, they are engaging in edit warring on another contributor's talk page, and that is Not Acceptable Behavior. ]<sup>]</sup> 18:11, 16 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| I don't get why nobody has done anything about it yet. Ghirlandajo keeps reorganizing the AFD. The AFD can't be protected from Ghirlandajo's edits, because that would prevent others from voting. I'm going to report his reverts to the 3RR section. — ]<sup>(]|]|])</sup> 22:34, 15 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| : Well, looks Like I can't report it to the 3RR noticeboard, but I feel this requires some kind of punishment. When has a user gotten away with so much trolling, personal attacks, and revert warring? I know you might tell me to go to ArbCom, but what makes a long-term abusive user so special over a short-term one? If nobody can do anything, at least please explain why, that way I know what to do if this happens in the future. — ]<sup>(]|]|])</sup> 22:42, 15 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::It is my experience, after a few years here, that users who have been with the project for several years are are relatively active (and known), are allowed to bend (or break) the rules to an extent that new users would find it impossible. Further, ] is the only policy that is seriously observed; violations of ] and ] are common and rarely penalized, particularly if they come from 'older' editors. It is a sad occurrence, but there is no other explanation I can provide for why epithets like "nationalist 15-year-olds who coordinate their attacks off-wiki" go unpunished. Unfortunately, the only way you can try to deal with that is to start a lengthy process - with RfC, mediations, and eventually ArbCom in the end. Even more unfortunately, judging by the ], it is likely that such violations of those policies will remain unpunished and commonplace. And perhaps the most unfortunate is that this is paving a way for Wiki to degenerate into the level of flaming Usenet discussions, with all editors who can't stand such uncivil environment gone from the project :(--<sub><span style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]|]</span></sub> 13:16, 16 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::: In order to prove that my statement is not factual you need to demonstrate: 1) that the author of this thread is not a minor; 2) that he is not a nationalist; 3) that he does not coordinate his attacks on fellow wikipedians off-line. As far as I'm concerned, this argument is impossible to sustain. --]<sup>]</sup> 13:40, 16 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::: LOL. I think Misplaced Pages operates under ]. It is you who have to prove he is, in fact, what you claim him to be.--<sub><span style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]|]</span></sub> 14:03, 16 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Ghirlandajo's idea that the one accused should demonstrate his innocence reminds me of the ] 'justice'. In many cases, the defendants were explained, that ''they'' must prove that they are not guilty - not that the NKVD was obliged to point out alleged guilt. ] 17:52, 16 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::: Well Ghirlandajo should be the one that demonstrates his innocence then. — ]<sup>(]|]|])</sup> 21:36, 16 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::: I'm getting sick and tired of it. Another act of incivility. Ghirlandajo leaves a comment on my talk page, I respond, and then he doesn't respond back, the comment I left on his talk page. If this continues and everybody refuses to do something about it, I WILL file for ArbCom. — ]<sup>(]|]|])</sup> 22:21, 16 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: As people keep telling you, there's no policy violation in someone refusing to talk to you. If you believe that there is an underlying policy abuse beyond the discussion, you can take it to (an uninvolved admin, here, etc), but they will not be sanctioned for removing the talk page comments. They're allowed to do that. It's ok. ] 23:34, 16 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == ] declaring his work here as copyrighted == | |||
| See the . I assume it's a protest of fair use policies, just my guess. ] ] 18:44, 15 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :I was leaving the user a talkpage note about this, and by the time I had finished, Ryulong had already blocked him. ] 19:00, 15 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::Someone should remove that "licensing withdrawn" message. He can't withdraw the license on his edits made under GDFL and any claim to the contrary is confusing and disruptive.--] (]) 19:02, 15 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| {{userlinks|Cjmarsicano}} stating that he no longer contributes under a license that is compatible with the Wikimedia Foundation (CC-NC-ND 3.0) which is blatantly stated on his userpage. In a lack of what to do in this situation (and the fact that he editted following his withdrawal of the GFDL from all of his contributions), I have currently blocked him indefinitely. This user has been on Misplaced Pages longer than I have, and I know that this is because of the fair use policies and how it forbids him from adding nonfree images of ] members as they are living individuals. But what should really be done here (my indefblock lifted, or does he go the way of {{user|Alex756}})?—] (]) 19:04, 15 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :See thread immediately above. I was going to give him a little time to respond to my note before blocking. But given that you've blocked, we'll see if he posts an unblock request and what he might say in it. ] 19:07, 15 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Sounds a lot like <s>ParthianShot</s>Pioneer-12, who was ]. --] 20:07, 15 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::It appears this has been resolved. ] (]:]) 20:15, 15 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::How is this resolved? His Talk page still says ''This user affirms and believes that the First Amendment supersedes the Wikimedia Foundation's ill-advised policy on so-called "non-free images" and that the use of these same so-called "non-free images" is protected by the Fair Use Clause of the US Copyright Act of 1976.''. In other words, he seems to feel that he has a legal right to post whatever he wants, regardless of whether his postings follow Misplaced Pages policy. US law has no bearing on Misplaced Pages policy. ] 20:28, 15 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I've agreed to with Ruylong to multi-license under GDFL and a CC license within Wiki's grounds to be determined later by me. As for the talk page notice, I still maintain my right to publicly state my views on what I see as a heavily flawed policy regarding such imagery. ] 20:32, 15 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::You do understand that this is a privately-owned website, and as such, US law has zero meaning here. right? US copyright law has as little meaning on Misplaced Pages as the First Amendment does. Misplaced Pages makes its own policies. Its policies may be more restrictive than US copyright law, and that is the case here. And you just said above, that the copyright you will follow is to be determined by you. No, it is to be determined by Misplaced Pages, or else you need to edit elsewhere. ] 20:46, 15 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::I think you have misread or misinterpreted what I said. Many Wikiusers have multi-licensed their contributions before, I have not yet decided on what the full scope for my contributions will be. --] 20:58, 15 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::: Well, U.S. law does have some bearing on our policies, but we reserve the right to make our policies a superset of the law, and to formulate them in such a way that minimizes legal exposure. --] 20:50, 15 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::I feel that the Fair Use Clause of the US Copyright Act would more than adequately protect Misplaced Pages against "legal exposure" (a term ] would no doubt have a ball with: "Legal exposure? That sounds like you could whip your dick out in public but not wave it at someone!"). Ryulong, at my request, provided me with a link to the resolution in question... oi vey, what a mistake those guys made! --] 20:55, 15 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::I am glad that you "feel" that, but you have yet to show that your interpretation abides by Misplaced Pages policy. Until such a time, you should take down your "feeling" from your Talk page. ] 21:04, 15 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::That's where I draw the line. The statement on my Talk page will remain. ] 21:17, 15 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::Regardless of what you feel (or think), the Board has determined that a stricter interpretation of the Fair Use parts of US Copyright Law is what is best for the Foundation. As Misplaced Pages is owned and operated by the Wikimedia Foundation, that stricter interpretation applies here, too. You aren't the one who has the potential to be sued for improper fair use. And as others have pointed out, the Bill of Rights (of which the First Amendment is a part) does not apply to a privately owned site. The Bill of Rights only applies to the government. Period. ···]<sup>] · <small>]</sup></small> 21:08, 15 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == {{user|69.142.43.130}} == | |||
| User repeatedly reverting content without explanation or discussion. Already blocked twice for disruption. ] 19:25, 15 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Um... I only saw wikilinking and adding uppercase to proper nouns. Can you provide diffs for reverts? ] 21:47, 15 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::The wikilinks are of items already linked, hence ]. Not a huge deal, but it's been going back and forth for a while. ] 22:01, 15 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::I've left a more detailed request to desist on the talkpage. As this is an ip it cannot be certain that the historical non Godzilla edits were this particular individual. If the complained edits continues after the warnings/requests then perhaps a short block to get the editors attention might be in order. ] 22:13, 15 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == User refusing to remove image from his signature == | |||
| Per , users are not allowed to have images in their signatures because it increases the load on the servers. {{User|Cunado19}} is to remove the image after I asked them to remove it. Maybe they'll listen if an admin told them. --] <sup>(]•])</sup> 19:31, 15 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :I don't think I'll make any arguments that a non-admin won't be able to make, but I'll talk with Cunado19. ] 19:36, 15 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :: As Cunado19 has explicitly pointed out to you, it's not a policy, it's a guideline. And if you'd bothered to read his talk page you'd have found several previous discussions of the issue, in which he's already explained at length why he thinks the rationale for the guideline doesn't apply in this case. That's his right. If you disagree, feel free to address his argument, on his talk page. ] 19:43, 15 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::Was that a reply to me or to Matt57? ] 19:48, 15 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::Where are the "rights" to do anything on Misplaced Pages elucidated? So far as I know, there are only two rights - fork or leave. ] 20:29, 15 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == User demanding to know identity of another user == | |||
| On my talk page, ] has that I reveal my real life identity. This seems contrary to wikipedia policy and seems to be harrassment. I have posted the usual wikipedia warning template about the protection of anonymity both on my talk page and on his. --] 19:45, 15 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :It was a request, not a demand, and seems to have been asked in light of claims on your part. If you're using your academic credentials to bolster your arguments, it's likely people want to verify your credentials. ] 19:56, 15 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Did you try a simple 'no'? It seems a reasonable request. If you make any claim on Misplaced Pages, you should expect to be asked to back it up with some evidence. It's when they ''tell'' you what your identity is that you have problems. -- ] <sup>]</sup> 19:59, 15 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::(edit conflict) PS He also appears to have asked this after you challenged his assertion of someone else's credentials. In other words, you told him that he failed to supply evidence to support his claim of someone else's credentials, now he has asked you for yours. "You claimed that Rabounski is a "professor of mathematics", yet this does not appear to be the case. '''You have supplied no evidence to support your claim.'''" I think this is a minor request on the part of one user to ask another for credentials. IMO a simple decline would probably be more than enough, Mathsci. ] 20:01, 15 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::It seems zzuuzz has the same idea. ] 20:01, 15 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::Gee, could it possibly bring Misplaced Pages into disrepute if an editor claimed to have all sorts of academic degrees or professional accreditation or be a college faculty member when arguing from authority in editing disputes? ] 20:05, 15 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::: An administrator has confirmed on my talk page that demanding or requesting my identity is contrary to WP policy. How could I possibly have made my recent mathematical edits without being a professional pure mathematician? ] 20:07, 15 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::It appears that that is the question, Mathsci, how could you have made them without being a professional pure mathematician. And the administrator is in the wrong, as '''''no demand for identify has been made'''''. ] 20:09, 15 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::: This is not a very informed remark. Please look at the article on ] and ] before making further comments. --] 20:18, 15 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Both articles need serious work to their introductory sections. ] 20:26, 15 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::: Did you find a mathematical error? --] 20:28, 15 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::No, and I haven't looked for one. What I found was an error in introducing the concepts to a general audience. This can be done, and should be done for articles in a general encyclopedia. Please look at ] for ideas. If you rewrite the introductions for a general audience, post a request on my user talk page, and I will review them. ] 20:36, 15 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::: These are topics which are only covered in advanced postgraduate courses. I would not expect anybody without a knowledge of ] for unbounded operators even to have a motivation for looking at the article on ]s. Why do you think you could contribute to an article at this level? Why do you think all mathematics articles should be written for a general audience? --] 22:54, 15 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Unindent -- This appears to be rather about your personal desire to show you know more about math than other people, than it is about math articles on Misplaced Pages. This is an unusual tactic for a mathematician, one I'm unused to encountering. Advanced postgraduate courses? Sorry, general prerequisites would be Linear Algebra and a good Probability course--and you know this, or you're not a mathematician. But I'll promise to try not to solve anything with compact operators, while you're discussing unbounded operators, showing my mathematical idiocy any more than I already have--good grief. (Don't worry for the mathematically less genius, I didn't say anything, I just guessed at some random words and popped them down--wouldn't know a differential from a split dual salt shaker if I were paid to know.) ] 04:28, 16 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| : This remark is completely uninformed. Look for example at the 250 or so articles in the . Almost all of them are at a postgraduate level. A large number of wikipedia mathematics articles, probably the majority, constitute a sort of mathematical encyclopedia. There are several of these reference works in existence in print and the wikipedia is providing its own valuable version. These articles are usually written by practising mathematicians. Some might find this revelation surprising, but that is no excuse to attack the messenger. --] 13:43, 16 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::] a scientific journal for a small group of experts? ] 23:01, 15 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::: Unfortunately mathematics on the wikipedia, as in real life, has a rather complex hierarchic structure. That is why for example the articles on ] or ] assume some prior knowledge. If you don't like them, you can always try to improve them or vote for their deletion.--] 23:21, 15 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::That argument would only make sense if people who are not professional mathemeticians invariably make mistakes, which is not true. -] <small>]</small> 20:32, 15 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::: I'm not sure that what you say is true. People with no mathematical training would almost invariably make mistakes when editing articles on higher mathematics. If they did not understand the particular piece of higher mathematics, they normally wouldn't have a clue about what they were writing. They might not make mistakes if they were simply copying and pasting something written by somebody else. --] 00:57, 16 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| (unindent)''Appeals to authority'' are discouraged (with prejudice) at Misplaced Pages, for exactly the reasons indicated above; certification of identity is not possible. Professional mathematicians (or any other expert or professional) should have access to the reliable sources that can be used in the article to support whatever position they are maintaining on the talkpage. If it cannot be cited then it cannot be in the article. ] 22:30, 15 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :: I agree that all statements in wikipedia articles should have verifiable sources, e.g. biographies of living people. When a user such as Georgiev makes an elementary error in mathematics on a talk page, such as confusing ] and ], all that can be done is for WP editors to point this out and hope that he/she understands. If it is a typical calculus error made by freshmen, that is unfortunately what it is. It is quite unfair to confuse such a statement with an "appeal to authority". --] 23:06, 15 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I considered<blockquote>''How could I possibly have made my recent mathematical edits without being a professional pure mathematician?''</blockquote> to be an appeal to authority, albeit in good faith. Simply, it is an unanswerable statement when there is no ability to verify editors credentials (see ] detailing why this did not/cannot happen) on Misplaced Pages. It is best to stick with the strengths of your argument - and the good faith assumption that folks can understand it - than refer to qualifications that cannot be easily checked. ] 23:28, 15 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: FYI I did in fact reveal my real-life identity by private email to ] in my first talk archive (September 2006). He did advise me there that more detail should be provided on my user page to avoid exactly the kind of confusion that has arisen here. Apart from quoting interchanges like this with other WP editors or administrators, I see no other way of confirming the statement on my user page while retaining my anonymity. --] 23:49, 15 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Another userpage of mine needs protecting... == | |||
| {{resolved}} | |||
| Can an admin protect ], per more vandalism from IP's, including . Much appreciated. ] 20:22, 15 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Protected by ]. – <span style="font-family: Garamond">] (])</span> 20:42, 15 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Sockpuppets of ] == | |||
| {{resolved|1=Taken care of in lower threads, looks like. – <span style="font-family: Garamond">] (])</span> 07:57, 16 July 2007 (UTC)}} | |||
| This indef blocked editor (he may have been community banned, I'm not sure) has been using socks, please see the . Would someone please block these socks? ] 20:49, 15 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Per the results of , and Kirbytime's failure to heed the suggestions of which resulted in an indefinite block, per <s>Jpgordon's</s> Kirbytime's ] suggestion, it may be appropriate to affirm a community ban. Additionally, sockpuppets ] and ] have not yet been blocked.] 23:26, 15 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :FYI, I've permablocked Fâtimâh bint Fulâni and Xveolgvzr. —] (]) 00:18, 16 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Removal of deletion tags on spam article == | |||
| {{resolved|1=page deleted, reverter warned] ] ] 22:58, 15 July 2007 (UTC)}} | |||
| The article for ] is blatant advertising and does not demonstrate sufficient notability for inclusion. The page's creator, ], has repeatedly deleted the tags that identify it as such. ] 20:54, 15 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :If someone is removing the speedy tags, do a regular nomination for deletion. If they keep removing those tags, then further steps can be taken. ···]<sup>] · <small>]</sup></small> 20:58, 15 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :You've replaced the Db tag with a prod tag, which doesn't do any good. The creator of an article may not remove a db tag, but they are perfectly within their rights to remove a prod tag. You should warn them about removing db tags and after four warnings, take it to ]. ] 21:06, 15 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Also, you should have used {{tl|db-band}} instead of {{tl|db-spam}}. I've placed the proper tag. --] <small>(])</small> 22:18, 15 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::{{user|Eclipica}} has now twice removed the db-band tag. Since his only contributions are to ] and apparently does not want to play by the rules, I suggest a short block. --] <small>(])</small> 22:32, 15 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::I removed the {{tl|db-band}} as it's obvious the notability is disputed. Please take it to ]. ···]<sup>] · <small>]</sup></small> 22:52, 15 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Disputed does not mean invalid. There was not a shred of an assertion of notability, and it was a blatant CSDG11. Deleted. ] ] ] 22:58, 15 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Inappropriate use of user namespace? == | |||
| {{resolved|pages deleted, users warned}} | |||
| ] and ] appear to have created usernames in Misplaced Pages solely to post supposed sexual solicitations (and phone numbers) on eachother's pages. Don't know if this violates any one policy, but it's certainly a misuse of Misplaced Pages that's fraught with ethical and legal issues. - ] 22:07, 15 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Both deleted. Misplaced Pages is not free webhosting. They were clearly not here for the encyclopedia. Not blocked, but I suspect they won't come back anyway. ] <font color="green">]</font> 22:13, 15 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :(ec) The good news is that 1800-IMA HOTTIE WITH A BODY!!!!!! is probably not a real phone number. :) That's school like vandalism. I warned them both, please tell me if they continue, but I dont see a good enough reason to block them at the moment. ---- ] <sup>]</sup> 22:15, 15 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Thanks for the quick response and action. - ] 22:15, 15 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Repeated speedies and removal of refs == | |||
| {{user|XAndreWx}} is re-adding removed "speedy deletion" tags to more than one article, and removing references from ]. ] | ] 22:13, 15 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| 0 | |||
| :Perhaps a word with their mentor ] might help? ] 22:22, 15 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::I've blocked him for 3 hours to cool off. My rationale for doing so is that he is editing in a distruptive manner, and basically, he just needs to cool off. '''<font face="Arial">]</font>''' 22:23, 15 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == {{user|63.227.40.66}} is link-spamming == | |||
| {{resolved|1=spammer warned ···]<sup>] · <small>]</sup></small> 23:03, 15 July 2007 (UTC)}} | |||
| {{user|63.227.40.66}}'s only ] are adding the same to several pages. I've cleaned them all out. Can someone take care of the spammer? --] <small>(])</small> 22:59, 15 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Done. Feel free to place a warning such as {{tl|spam}} yourself as an admin is not needed for that. ···]<sup>] · <small>]</sup></small> 23:03, 15 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::I thought spammer IPs were usually soft-blocked. --] <small>(])</small> 23:07, 15 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::Everyone deserves to be warned first as they may not be aware of the specific policies or guidelines prohibiting their behavior. The IP hasn't done anything since being warned, so unless they continue, there's no reason to block the IP. ···]<sup>] · <small>]</sup></small> 01:04, 16 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == This may be a problem... == | |||
| {{resolved|1=Or seems to be, pending further developments. – <span style="font-family: Garamond">] (])</span> 07:56, 16 July 2007 (UTC)}} | |||
| I went to help an editor asking at the help desk about "How do I post an article to wikipedia?" Upon checking out his page I found this. Which may be a problem. I have to leave right away, so I can not tend to this as I would like, and trust that some bright spark amongst you would take up the gauntlet, so to speak. Good luck! ] 23:56, 15 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :I've blanked both the userpage and the usertalk page. Both should be speedily deleted. -] 00:01, 16 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Deleted. <font color="Green">]</font> <sup><font color="Blue">]</font></sup> 00:05, 16 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Requesting block for indef sock puppet == | |||
| {{resolved|1=Or seems to be? – <span style="font-family: Garamond">] (])</span> 07:55, 16 July 2007 (UTC)}} | |||
| Could someone block {{userblock|Fâtimâh bint Fulâni}}, a of Kirbytime? I have a question: When clerks do the checkuser and they find a likely or confirmed sock of a banned user, shouldnt the sock puppet be banned right then by the CU admin? --] <sup>(]•])</sup> 00:18, 16 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :I just blocked Fâtimâh bint Fulâni. No comment on the CU question... —] (]) 00:19, 16 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Thanks. --] <sup>(]•])</sup> 00:20, 16 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::''"Typically, enforcement of policy (up to and including blocks for ]) are the responsibility of the applicant. Applicants who are not ] can forward requests to the ] for enforcement, if needed. Clerks who are administators are invited, but not required, to assist with the enforcement of relevant policies."'' ''']''' 00:39, 16 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Thanks, will do from now. --] <sup>(]•])</sup> 00:41, 16 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::''Clerks'' are just editors who help to keep the page organized; they do not have checkuser access. Generally the checkusers prefer to leave enforcement to others so they don't have to put up with charges of conflict of interest. ] 23:11, 16 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Bush vandalism == | |||
| {{resolved|vandalism reverted -- ] <sup>]</sup> 00:50, 16 July 2007 (UTC)}} | |||
| Someone has, I think, vandalized this page:http://en.wikipedia.org/Bush | |||
| I will copy/paste so you can see what I mean: | |||
| "George H. W. Bush, U.S. President 1989–1993, his First Lady a shit load of fathers ago from your moms dad, but you get the picture" | |||
| would someone mind fixing this please? Thanks! | |||
| :Fixed. For future reference, see ] -- ] <sup>]</sup> 00:50, 16 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Bigoted comments on my talk page. == | |||
| ] made edit to my talk page. First, his insinuation that I can't edit because I am a ] is very prejudiced. Second, ] is a religious slur and was very hurtful. Third, I was only reverting a large edit this user made to the article on ], a respected Muslim figure, without discussing it first on the talk page. He then reverted my revert and insulted me again in his edit summary. I request a temporary ban on this user to let him know this isn't acceptable, though I will abide by any decision that is made. Thank you for any help, this is very distressing. ] 01:00, 16 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Strange image deletion requests == | |||
| ] uploaded several images going back several months with comments like "Picture taken by me" and tagged them cc-by-sa2.5. Now, the user is requesting that they be speedily deleted because: "This item is unquestionably a copyright infringement of picture taker has claimed legal action after i accidentally uploaded thinking i could upload his picture as mine, and no assertion of permission has been made." That's quite an accident. Should we go through and delete all of the user's "self-made" images on the theory that we cannot trust the user's claims? Should the user be blocked? Is anyone else suspicious that the account may have been compromised? There's something odd here. --'''<span style="background:Black;color:White"> ]|]|] </span>''' 01:10, 16 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Don't believe those would be the actions of a compromised account, so he probably shouldn't be blocked. To be safe, I think that speedy deleting any images he has tagged as this incident, not all of the images he ever uploaded, should be deleted and restored if permission is granted. — ] ] 01:20, 16 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::You might try asking the user if anything else he uploaded as "his" might have mistakenly not been taken by him. ] <sup>]</sup> 04:46, 16 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::I'm particularly concerned about ], which has already been copied to Commons, but he seems to be dealing with them there. There's a little more explanation at his ]. -- ] (]) 08:15, 16 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::OK, I asked him, , and I'm satisfied now that he hasn't left us with any problematic images. I skimmed through his upload log and it looks like all the others are album covers and logos. The story about his father threatening litigation still doesn't sit right, and I'm not happy with his repeated statements here and at commons that he took the photos himself, but as long as the images are gone, I guess it's not worth thinking about. --'''<span style="background:Black;color:White"> ]|]|] </span>''' 08:49, 16 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Banned user vandalizing from IP? == | |||
| :''see ] (combined with older discussion)'' | |||
| :I've combined this heading with that of the ]; please comment below that heading. ] 08:31, 16 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Another possible sock of Kirbytime (impersonating an admin) == | |||
| {{resolved|1=The real one dealt with him. I think it's time we stop randomly accusing trolls of being Kirbytime.—] (]) 04:17, 16 July 2007 (UTC)}} | |||
| {{userblock|Jerpeegordon}} impersonated an admin (,) and is most likely another sock puppet of Kirbytime. He's trolling as usual and playing with Misplaced Pages. All his other edits are strange blank edits with no input. Could someone block this user as well? thanks. --] <sup>(]•])</sup> 04:14, 16 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Why, whats wrong with that? It wasnt ''random''. This editor created his account at the time of Kirby's CU report and impersonated an admin. Its reasonable to assume that its Kirby again.--] <sup>(]•])</sup> 04:23, 16 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Didn't check contribs. Anyway, it's dealt with.—] (]) 04:25, 16 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == ] consistently pushing POV == | |||
| The article ] was first edited by ] <sup>(]•])</sup> on the 13th by adding balant non-sourced POV attack wording and then moving the page to "Oluja Genocide". The changes were reverted, following which he reverted back to his version no less then 5 times in the last three days. I fear this will just continue. He was warned by ] on his talk pages to read about NPOV, to no effect. ---] 06:01, 16 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Forgot to mention, during the reverting, he also violeted the 3RR rule on the 13th. ---] 09:01, 16 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Admin review of mass deletion/moves of talk page sections please? == | |||
| ] went to a dozen comic character talk pages, removed the deb ates about merging alternate forms of characters, and relocated them to the WP:COMIC discussion on the same, three weeks after his move to merge ALL alternates ended in a no consensus. It looks like he's trying to shore up support for his opinion, but at the same time he's taking the choices out of the hands of the editors of those pages, which is the opposite of the apparent lack of consensus on the WP page, where editors instead called for figuring out standards for such merges and so on. This seems like some sort of unethical behavior but maybe there's a policy I don't know about allowing this? ] 06:03, 16 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Attempt at deleting a single revision appears to have failed == | |||
| I have twice tried to perform a selective deletion of a single revision within ] that contains a phone number in its edit comment, without success. Can someone else try this, and tell me if they can make it work? -- ] 09:21, 16 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :You've done it just fine. You've left your revert in, but that particular revision is now deleted. --] <small>]</small> 09:26, 16 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::I find that I have to make a null edit to the page (ie. add a space here, remove a space there) for the edit history of an article I've "history-cleansed" to be updated ''for me''. Maybe that was the problem? ''']''' 09:50, 16 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::Even after a purge? That usually works for me (remember a purge can be done by going to edit the page and then changing action=edit to action=purge, or many people have it as a tab thanks to custom monobook.js code) ++]: ]/] 11:04, 16 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::I tried a purge, and it made no difference. Could database server lag have been the problem? -- ] 12:06, 16 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Repeated moves from experienced editor == | |||
| ] claims on his userpage to be an experienced editor on the Farsi WP. In recent days he has four times moved ] and although I twice left warnings on his Talk, he has not responded, nor left any messages anywhere. I hope this is just a misunderstanding, but the most recent move ended with another user cutting and pasting, and if this keeps up, the disruption will only get worse. I've contacted a Farsi-speaking user to try to sort things out, and I've move protection for the interim. Any ideas? <font style="color:#22AA00;">''']'''</font><font style="color:#888888;"><sup>]</sup></font> 09:49, 16 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :That's probably not a fantastic thing to be happening, given ]. ''']''' 09:53, 16 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Block on New England == | |||
| {{resolved|--] <small>]</small> 18:32, 16 July 2007 (UTC)}} | |||
| <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--> | |||
| Yesterday a disturbing situation arose on the nomination page for TomStar81 for admin. New England accused me of having nominated him, Tom, bec ause he nominated me for admin. This is provably false, Stillstudying nominated me. This page shows the series of exchanges between that user and myself, I blocked him for 24 hours, and lifted it after telling him I would block him again if he continued false statements. I was concerned at the time, and still am, that these false accusations would color the election process. I warned him that continued false statements would result in another blocking, and he made additional false statements last night on the RfA talk page. He stated I have no right to block him for making false statements - at some point, I do have to do just that, or give up any pretense of enforcing our policies! This was so obviously wrong that I felt I had to act this morning when I read it. I have blocked him for one week for making false accusations. I made Deskana, a crat, aware of this, and he advised me to post the block, and the reasons for it, so they cuold be reviewed. I believe he is absolutely correct. My comments to him are here, I hope you will support me, and make a stand for our policies on false accusations and wikipedia assume good faith which he has grossly violated. I cannot stay on wikipedia if users are allowed to simply lie about us, repeatedly, without any consequences! I spend at least 20 hours a week working on articles, and I try to get along with everyone, but I simply cannot stand by and let this person continue to lie about me. At some point, there has to be some accountability for this kind of slander. I felt I had to take a stand and do something about it. If I am wrong, the block should be lifted, and I will leave wikipedia. I cannot stay and have false statements made about me repeatedly. It is simply wrong, and against our basic policies of not allowing personal attacks. Thanks to anyone who reviews this matter. ] 10:17, 16 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Object to this block. Admins should not block users with whom they are in conflict for any reason, regardless of how good their reasons may be. ] ] 10:50, 16 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :The block is problematic as the blocking admin was involved in a dispute with the blocked user and should be undone by an uninvolved administrator so that New England and OWB can seek dispute resolution. <small>-- ] <sup>]</sup></small> 10:58, 16 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::I have unblocked per my reasoning above and similar reasoning provided by Daniel and Deskana . ] ] 13:20, 16 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| I guess I should post my version of the story here. The first comment that I made on the ] was that "it seems a little weird that Oldwindybear nominated you soon after you nominated him" . Soon after TomStar told me not to "ead to much into it. I didn't ask him to nominate me, it came up unexpectedly when he discovered I wasn't already an admin" . And I replied saying I wasn't opposing because of this . TomStar then replied that he laughed at it himself (presumably being nominated) . eventually, oldwindybear decided to bloc me the first, and unblocked me. He didn't wish for the comments to stay on the RFA page, so I moved them to the talk page, but he quickly reverted this, and threatened me with a block on his talk page (not mine). But another user reverted bear's edits back to my version. Bear would then later post this on the RFA talk page , to which I replied with (the action I presumably blocked for), and then notified 'crats via ] of the situation. Deskana then called it a non-issue and , but I was blocked anyway. ''']''' 13:43, 16 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :And for what its worth, TomStar never said on his RFA, its talk page, or my talk page, that he wasn't the one to nominate oldwindybear. In fact, I'm not sure he really takes issue to my comments. ''']''' 13:59, 16 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Then I suppose I should put my story here too. I was the nominator of oldwindybear. New England had to know that, I told him, before he posted here. So once again he is openly posting false statements. This whole incident arises out of his insinuations that the bear nominated TomStar in return for nominating him, when in point of fact, I nominated the bear, which anyone who read the record knew. I am leaving wikipedia, except for following up on this, because I am outraged that New England gets to post false accusations all over the encyclopedia, and is protected in doing so. ] 14:14, 16 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Why don't you review my statements and find me the part where I said there was conspiracy. You and OWB are the only two to talk about such a plot. ''']''' 14:38, 16 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I can not and will not speak for the Bear. For me, your insinuations run rampant. Your wording is clear, at least to me. You knew I nominated the bear, and kept repeating the same lies. And you came here, after knowing, beyond a doubt, that I had nominated the man, and repeated the same old false accusations. What other conclusion could a rational person draw than something was inappropriate about the alleged "you nominate me, I will nominate you" scenario you draw. The only thing wrong with it, was you knew it was false, and that I nominated him! I find it incredible that you are protected while making slander after slander, despite knowing it is false. ] 14:56, 16 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :OWB should've either dropped it and written NE off as a jerk for ignoring the facts when brought to his attention, or brought it here for an uninvolved admin to review. That said, NE should've admitted he was wrong and moved on instead of digging in his heels about it. This may be what happens when immovable object means immovable object. Mutual apologies and move on, perhaps? ] 15:00, 16 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Would be fine with me, I think the record is clear. I would certainly stop arguing if NE admitted he was wrong. I can't say I blame the bear for blocking him when he kept repeating what he knew was a lie, but that said, as you said, he is not going to gain from this. ] 15:04, 16 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::I would too, but I don't like tone in the above statement. and OWB needs to apologize too. ''']''' 15:13, 16 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I cannot speak for oldwindybear, but my interaction with him over a year tells me he would probably apologize if he was online to do so. I will certainly apologize if NE admits he was wrong, and I will write the bear and make him aware that everyone is willing to resolve this with no further quarrelling, which I think is reasonable. I would prefer to resolve this, and not go away, I worked half the weekend on rewriting a movie review. ] 15:37, 16 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ''Via Email, and posted at his request'': | |||
| "oldwindybear is at work, and cannot access wikipedia. He will apologize to ], if ] admits that the bear was not nominated by Tom, but by ]. Everyone can agree that this was poorly handled, by everyone, and we can all go about writing articles, instead of arguing! for oldwindybear who will post at 4pm or thereabouts." | |||
| --] 16:06, 16 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Ha! I knew the bear was not able to go online! I personally don't think he did anything wrong, but too many people disagree, so I will admit I was not perfect either, if NE finally admits he should have stopped when he knew that the bear was nominated by me, and there was nothing involving Tom in the nomination except he formatted my nomination.] 16:11, 16 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Seriously man, what is this about? You're trying to get a confession? "I'm sorry I said TomStar nominated you when the first edit to your RfA page that's viewable in the page history was by him"? This has crossed the line from a non-issue to quite possibly the most ridiculous request for a confession ever. --] <small>]</small> 16:30, 16 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :I would agree to it if you two (SS and OWB) agreed that I never mentioned a conspiracy or anything of that type (and you admit that you cannot blame me for your interpretation of my comments, as they are not within the realm of my control). I would also like OWB to admit he was wrong in blocking me b/c of COI and because a 'crat had declared it a non-issue. And I want SS to apologize for calling me a "pathological liar" as he did . And I ask that OWB block you (one day) for violating ] and that immediately afterwards he honorably surrenders his adminship. ''']''' 16:30, 16 July 2007 (UTC) amended 17:04, 16 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::] Hey, I am sorry you feel this is absurd or ridiculous, but blame me for this, the bear is evidently at work and unable to say a word. All I wanted, personally, was an admission that I nominated the man, and that anything said otherwise was wrong. I am sorry you feel that is ridiculous, but frankly, i feel you have gone way over the line in protecting someone for making false statements. BECAUSE IT WAS FALSE. As for NE, you are being fairly reasonable, actually, and I personally would apologize for distressing you, since you have been reasonable of late, and never mention you again - I cannot speak for the bear, but messgaes on my talk page indicate he is not happy with me for pursuing this, so I would assume he would do most anything to end this, ha. (He is probably afraid of you Deskana, I am not - I only have 500 edits, and am not an admin, so there is not much you can take away from me!)] 16:50, 16 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| To NE, yes, I would apologize for calling you a pathological liar, that was unreasonable, if you admit finally that I nominated the guy. I actually find you being reasonable, which frightens me. ] 16:50, 16 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Agree with Deskana here. The whole thing sounds like a tremendous waste of encyclopedia-writing time. I'll never get back the few minutes I spent reading it. Move along folks... —] (]) 17:01, 16 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::Well, you are right, and move along I will, between laughing. I cannot speak for the bear, but since NE is the only person who has mentioned his giving up his adminship, I would laugh at that. I doubt he will, and would urge him not to. I have to agree with ] that this has been a tremendous waste of time we could have been writing articles. I suspect you can demand all day, and get nothing. Even Deskana, who is blunt to a fault, has not mentioned blocking me, or the bear surrendering his adminship. Actually, the bear asked Deskana to review this, and the tone was he would accept Deskana's ruling, it was me that has argued. In any event, I see we will solve nothing. I won't ask to be blocked, and I urge the bear to stand his ground, though I expect him to take a more reasoned tack, which is just his way, I would be genuinely surprised if he yielded an adminship which got not one opposing vote because of this. Even if he was wrong, he asked Deskana to review, and anything further was said by me. I won't apologize to you with those conditions, and I won't write anything more either, as Deskana and wknight are right that this is wasting time. You can demand all day, and get nothing, and at least ] acknowledged you were wrong on the issue of who nominated who. ] 17:18, 16 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Looking at this from the outside, it seems like a non-issue which was escalated into a conflict despite efforts to calm things down by outside editors. That in and of itself is mildly problematic. However, ] then used admin rollback and blocked ]. The block was completely and utterly against policy; not only was there not much there to warrant a block, but Oldwindybear blocked someone with whom he was in the middle of a heated argument. If you find yourself in a dispute and believe the other party is violating policy and needs to be blocked: ''don't do it yourself''. Post it to ]; there are over a thousand uninvolved admins who will step in and, if appropriate, administer the block. This was an out-of-process and abusive block; I endorse the unblock. Admins generally aren't desysopped for one episode of bad judgement, but ''please'' learn something from this - especially as a new admin (and I count myself in that category), it's wise to err on the side of caution when using the tools and seek outside opinions here ''before'' doing something like this. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 17:48, 16 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| '''Hoping this marks the end of this, OWB has asked me to post the following:''' | |||
| "Let me settle this matter, so we all can concentrate on real issues, lol. I have asked ] to post it for me, as I am at work, and cannot. This needs to be settled, I should not have imposed the block, despite feeling I was under personal attack. What the heck, it was my first controversy, and I did ask ] an outstanding crat, to review my decision literally seconds after making it, so I tried to ask for appropriate review. I acknowledge I should have come here, and posted the problem, along with the record of Stillstudying nominating me, and let someone else make the decision. I will say I asked immediately for crat review, and posted the issue here, when advised to do so. I was not online, so could not remove the block, which I would have, once ] found it inappropriate. Live and learn! New England, it appears I should not have blocked you, so I owe you an apology for doing so, and apologize. I still feel your conduct was wrong, but others dont, and so be it, the system has spoken, I accept it. I will not resign. 66 people voted for me, without a single opposing vote, and you are the only person who has called for my resignation. I wish Stillstudying had let this go, I was at work, and unable to contact him. I sent messages to his talk page by email to editor Jonashart, who can confirm the emails, and that I asked Still to stop. (see ] I think I handled this appropriately after the block, and have learned from that. I will do better next time. Now I have articles to write, and as far as I am concerned, the matter is closed. ] is right that enough time has been wasted on this matter. I am sorry I was at work, and unable to settle this earlier. ] by ] by email" | |||
| :"you are the only person who has called for my resignation"- Uhhh, where? I've not seen any statement to the effect of that. --] <small>]</small> 18:01, 16 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::I stated that earlier. ''']''' 18:03, 16 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::] Deskana, I am not trying to irritate you, since oldwindybear, who I respect, has asked me to stop, but he got that from reading this by New England, which is posted on this page: "'''and that immediately afterwards he honorably surrenders his adminship.''' New England 16:30, 16 July 2007 (UTC) amended 17:04, 16 July 2007 (UTC) I assume the bear can read this from work, but cannot log in, which is typical of employers. But it is on the page, New England asked him to resign. ] 18:06, 16 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::Well, NE is unblocked, OWB has apologized and learned from the experience, and I think we're done here. The good thing about admin actions is that they're (virtually) all reversible. Live and learn, as OWB said, and let's move on. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 18:10, 16 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Accept that I now have two blocks on my log for alleged ] violations. ''']''' 18:12, 16 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| And Deskana can strike those from your record. I should have listened to the messages oldwindybear sent me to stop. I still feel NE was wrong, but I should have stopped. ] 18:15, 16 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Can Deskana do that? Not to my knowledge unless he changes your username. Anyway, just gather up diffs explaining the situation in case anyone asks. Or even make a user page explaining it all ---- in a nice way of course! —] (]) 18:20, 16 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::No, blocks cannot be expunged from the block log. However, you do also have the unblock noted, with the summary that the block was incorrect. Another thing you can do is make a permalink to this discussion (like ) and keep it on your userpage or talk page. If the block log ever becomes an issue, you can point to this discussion as evidence that the blocks were inappropriate. Unfortunately, that's the best that can be done. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 18:24, 16 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::This is a good example of why extreme care needs to be taken when blocking. —] (]) 18:28, 16 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Interesting, I thought a bureacrat could do anything! I stand corrected! ] 18:28, 16 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::MastCell and Wknight95 are correct, I can't expunge block log entries. Every single thing an admin does can be undone by another admin, so that's the end of this issue. --] <small>]</small> 18:32, 16 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> | |||
| == Edit Warring and removal of citation tags == | |||
| There is an extensive edit war going on at ]. One user is repeatedly removing citation requests without providing any citations.--] 11:54, 16 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :I've started a section on the talk page. Perhaps you'd care to comment? ] | ] 12:39, 16 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Looks like this is being discussed; feel free to mention any edit warring that crops up, but I'm tempted to slap a {{tl|resolved}} on this, for now. – <span style="font-family: Garamond">] (])</span> 19:54, 16 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Complaint about user Petri Krohn == | |||
| A whole long tirade of accusing Estonians of being Nazis based on '''rumors''' and without any sources, with in my mind is just an attempt to wage emotional warfare against anybody identifying themselves as Estonian. The final statement however('''I would not be surprised if some of the editors contributing to this trollfest were hiding Nazi skeletons in their closet.''') is the worst and that in my mind falls under category 'gross incivility'. I Hope something is done to stop these attempts to drive certain editors away sole based on their nationality.--] 12:08, 16 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Could we somehow ban Korps! Estonia accounts from this noticeboard? It is annoying to spend the better part of a day watching their endless and meaningless diatribes on high-traffic noticeboards. The purpose of this page is not to entertain them on a daily basis. --]<sup>]</sup> 13:06, 16 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Troll ignored.--] 13:18, 16 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| : I read this case with skepticism because Alexia Death, in my opinion, does a lot of tendentious editing. However, in this case, Alexia Death's claims appear valid. The AfD comment by ] is off-topic, inflammatory, incivil, and violates ] if the person he names is still alive (unclear). Rather than bring this case here, Alexia, did you try asking nicely for Petri to strike his inappropriate comment? That's the normal first step. ] <sup>]</sup> 13:10, 16 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Take a look at his talk. Theres a discussion about this. He shows no remorse. As to striking, this AfD was archived soon after his comment, so that cant be done.--] 13:18, 16 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::: I don't think the edit is particularly problematic, as Korps! Estonia was indeed exceedingly reluctant to admit the fact of the Holocaust in Estonia and the participation of the Estonians in the extermination of Jews in the country. I will remove Petri's comment to prevent misunderstandings. --]<sup>]</sup> 13:24, 16 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::And I have undone that removal. It is an archived page.--] 13:30, 16 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::: I see that your goal is to escalate the problem rather than defuse it. Sigh... --]<sup>]</sup> 13:36, 16 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| As to my ] violations, i take it quite kindly when proven wrong nicely. So far all I've gotten is flaming. By nature my goal is neutrality. Next time, if I seem to be doing that, I ask that somebody let me know, preferably with sources/reasons and without accusations?--] 13:22, 16 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Furthering to ] acouple of days ago, i must say that your content and personal disputes must have an end. Answering Petri's message at earlier today, i'd say that there are many admins who had balls out there. It just would take time for a single admin to block around 12 editors from both parties. Blocks can vary from 24h to indef according to ''']''' and ''']''' for starters. As you'd note from Ghirla's talk page, no admin has agreed w/ their actions (i.e. sorting by nationality) as it is the case w/ the opponent side actions as well, and the majority of 1700 admins won't agree as well. I am afraid admins would start to block all the involved accounts once similar and related issues are brought again to the ANI. -- ] - <small>]</small> 13:22, 16 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :: So your view is that there are problems, but lets not deal with them?--] 13:26, 16 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::: You have been ill advised to bring every petty dispute to this page hoping that your opponent will be blocked. The view that block shopping is efficient has some currency in the project (see Piotr's message above), but I assure you that no amount of ANI bickering will resolve your dispute with history and fellow wikipedians. You are mistaken in believing that regular abuse of this page (look how the heading is phrased) will result in character assassination of your opponents. --]<sup>]</sup> 13:36, 16 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Im rather getting the feeling that character assassination is being attempted on me... As to abuse or advice, I'm a thinking person, and I believe that seeing wrongdoing and doing nothing is like letting cancer grow, you are spared of radiation therapy, but you will die. Ultimately I believe what I am doing now is to the good of the project.--] 13:43, 16 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::: You'd have been blocked by now as per my message above. You and others (from both camps) are lucky to be still responding here. As i explained, it is a bit tiring for a single admin to block all the accounts involved in this mess. But, we'll wait for other admins view if they are willing to help in that matter or not. -- ] - <small>]</small> 13:34, 16 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::: I beg your pardon? Id like to see policies i've violated(with diffs) to deserve a block in your mind. Ive always tried to be civil, to keep my cool and ignore provocations... I'm always willing to have a meaningful discussion without accusations. I'm at a loss for words at this point...--] 13:39, 16 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Are you really. 's a nasty personal attack on Ghirlandajo, in this very thread where you assert your civility and cool and bemoan the "accusations" and "character assassination" you're victim of. Do you have any idea of of the amount of valuable work Ghirla has done for the encyclopedia? It's shameful, no matter what your present disagreement, to call him a "troll". I've never seen even any of his professed and long-standing opponents/enemies say such a thing. (Piotrus? Am I right?) And it's pretty oblivious to paint yourself as the put-upon innocent in the very same thread. ] | ] 21:18, 16 July 2007 (UTC). | |||
| ::::::: I admit, Tad uncivil, but block material? I will refine from reacting in the future. If I will be blocked for this I expect that Ghrila is blocked in proportion to his incivility and hostility compared to mine.--] 21:24, 16 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::It's important to remember the distinction between being "civil" by using the prettiest words you can find and actually being civil by working to get along with people and minimize drama. – <span style="font-family: Garamond">] (])</span> 21:30, 16 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::I agree wholeheartedly. Unfortunately the second part is much harder to achieve than the first when one party as openly declared that the other should somehow be stopped from even being in the discussion(or getting them to leave WP would be dong the project a favor)....--] 21:51, 16 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| I ''support'' handing out blocks in all directions. This has got to stop, WP admins don't have time to prance around with every incidence of provincial hatemongering breaking out on Afd. Hand out blocks with circumspection (a few hours at first to show we mean it, and after that escalate block lengths until the situation improves). Anyone "pouring some more gasoline on this flamefest" (P. Krohn) should be smacked with a block. Anyone wikilawyering or forum-shopping for blocks, or reverting attempts to defuse the situation (A. Death) should be blocked. I will back any admin taking this approach, even if they err somewhat on the draconic side (but do keep blocks short at first), or if they don't catch every offender at first go. ] <small>]</small> 13:46, 16 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :: I admit, that I undid the diffusion attempt without reading the advertisement on this page and under impression that editing an archived page was the right of ether the author or and admin. If this was wrong, I apologize and wont do it again. --] 13:53, 16 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :: Another note, As long as blocks are given fairly and on BOTH sides by a neutral admin, I support it. The situation is out of hand, and if the solution is my time out then so be it. As long as this hostility stops.--] 13:56, 16 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :: One more note, I will not own up to wiki-lawering and forum-shopping as I do not see myself having done either. I did not report this to get Petri blocked, i reported this so it would be publicly condemned and he warned from not doing it again.--] 14:05, 16 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Diffs for which each editor is blocked should be presented here, and blocks will be issued if needed. Certainly both sides are to blame, but block duration may vary depending on level of aggreviation and past behaviour.--<sub><span style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]|]</span></sub> 14:01, 16 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| : I here by call ANYONE to post any and all diffs offenses I should be blocked for. How can I learn if if no-one points at my faults objectively. Blanket accusations without diffs are not welcome. If no diffs appear, I shall assume that acusations were made with intent to scare me away.--] 14:56, 16 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::I left you a at your talk page. -- ] - <small>]</small> 17:06, 16 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ===Getting the admin tools ready=== | |||
| Here we are. I've just issued a block of 48h to ] for <s>tedious</s> tendentious editing at ] while violating ], ] and ]. Also ] was blocked for 72h for provocative comments and random accusations at AfD. Shall we stop here or wait for another offender? -- ] - <small>]</small> 16:56, 16 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :If we are going to block people for "tedious editing," we are going to be very busy indeed. ] 17:38, 16 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Blocking ''inveterate'' edit warriors (of all sides on all issues) for persistent WP:OR violation (read: trolling!) is in general a very good idea. I think you should pay attention to nationalist namecalling and civility issues as well. Without a tough line against dominant “trolls and their enablers”(]) Misplaced Pages-like projects will never win reliabilty. I'd suggest that high edit count will not be regarded as giving a sort of immunity. If one has much to contribute he should do it, taking into account that this is not his ego-project, but a collective one. New users should be encouraged to join in by a tolerant and warm atmosphere, which is non-existent as of now. <br>After all I can only concur with Piotrus's complaint that “it is a sad occurrence... epithets like "nationalist 15-year-olds who coordinate their attacks off-wiki" go unpunished”. I've hear such unfounded accusations - initially by petri Krohn, then by Ghirlandajo - for months now, and there's been no sign of this ever stopping. ] 17:46, 16 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::I've said it before and I say it again. I support tough line as long as its dealt fairly by an unbiased admin(s), because its the only way to have order, even if it means that when I am out of line, I get put into a time out.--] 17:44, 16 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| To NYB. Have you checked his contribs in question? Restoring non-stop his OR? This case has been brought to the ANI several times lately and as everybody knows about both camps' extreme POV pushing and incivility. Is there any other solution? -- ] - <small>]</small> 17:50, 16 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :I wasn't commenting on the substance of the block, just on your apparent slip of typing "tedious" for what I assume was meant to be "tendentious." Regards, ] 18:05, 16 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Oh thanks and sorry for the inconvenience NYB. I've corrected it. By the way, it is tedious indeed. -- ] - <small>]</small> 18:41, 16 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| {{userlinks|Digwuren}} blocked for a period of a week for their tendentious editing an edit warring at ]. (i.e. tags and redirects). -- ] - <small>]</small> 19:16, 16 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| === ] blocked for 72 hours === | |||
| FayssalF, thank you for demonstrating that block shopping on ] is so efficient these days. "This case has been brought to the ANI several times lately" - and, given your prompt "reaction", you will see tons of forum shopping on this page from the same accounts. "Tedious editing" - this is a nice justification to block a person who never revert-wars and who '''alone''' has the stamina to oppose a dozen one-purpose Tartu accounts in their attempts to white-wash Estonian authorities of charges of Nazi collaboration. I point out that no disruptive Korps! Estonia account has been blocked to maintain some semblance of objectivity. ] is happily "at work" on his "new" masterpieces: ] and ]. Instead, a productive non-Estonian, non-Russian contributor was chosen as a victim. In short, words fail me. This is beyond ridiculous. --]<sup>]</sup> 18:37, 16 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :]. As i said many times, if we'd go digging the past we'd end up having almost everybody involved being blocked. So i decided to start from today's violations. If there's any other admin willing to go ahead than i'd be helping but i can't waste 48h of my time doing that alone. So, i've decided to block on the spot. Of course, it is ''ridiculous'' for you because you are directly involved as well. -- ] - <small>]</small> 18:52, 16 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :: Excuse me, but "if we'd go digging the past we'd end up having almost everybody involved being blocked" is a bad rationale. This is not the approach I expect from experienced administrators. This is both a token of the admins' ineptitude to handle a rather complex editing dispute and a potent signal to the trolls what they are expected to do in order to have their opponent blocked from Misplaced Pages for a considerable period of time. It was not Petri who started flamefests on this page. He is a contributor with a long history of valid contributions, something which can't be sad about any of this detractors. They stirred up trouble in order to have him blocked, and there you have it. It so happens that I learned about the incident while discussing the ArbCom's latest ruling that "'''In non-emergency situations, administrators should use on-wiki channels of discussion before blocking, for an extended period of time, long-standing contributors with a substantial history of valid contributions'''". Could you refer me to such a discussion in the present case? --]<sup>]</sup> 19:02, 16 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::This is the rationale Ghirla. If someone accuses others of hiding Nazi agendas than they shoudl be blocked. -- ] - <small>]</small> 19:20, 16 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::: While I agree that his comment was deplorable, it should be viewed within the context of the wider debacle which saw trolling accusations flying in all directions. Furthermore, I believe that 72 hours is way too harsh, given that: 1) he had no prior blocks for incivility; 2) did not abuse AN or ANI for forum shopping; 3) maintains the policy of one revert per day; 4) has a long history of valid contributions which have nothing to do with Estonia. --]<sup>]</sup> 19:27, 16 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :FayssalF is doing the right thing. I fully support his approach and the blocks. ] <sup>]</sup> 19:22, 16 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :: Now it's too late to support. There should have been some sort of prior discussion. This is no "emergency situation". --]<sup>]</sup> 19:27, 16 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::Late? Do you still think that my actions were half legit? Prior discussion? There have been many and we won't waste our time again and again. These blocks are meant to to stop the bleeding in times of "emergency situations". -- ] - <small>]</small> 19:33, 16 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::It is interesting to read Ghirlandajo's pontification on the rights and wrongs on this case, but we should not forget his own disruptive and unfortunate actions in this whole sorry debacle. I am referring to his attempted of editors by nationality in the course of AfD discussion. If blocks are being handed out liberally, this outrageous action by Ghirlandajo seems qualify him for one as well, if we are to be fair here. ] 19:26, 16 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: Block shopping again, Balcer? I recall that the relevant discussion was archived. If you need to reopen the can of worms, please go to ]. I see nothing criminal in calling you Polish. People voted along the ethnic lines, there's no denying that. The entire vote spotlighted the power of ethnic cliques in Misplaced Pages, it is hard to deny that too. When I attempted to put the sad truth to words, three ethnic cliques created an outcry. In other words, we are expected to put up with the ethnic cliques and keep silence, or to be subjected to outrageous accusations of racism. I'm not going to oblige them. Ethnic cliques '''are''' a problem that undermines the foundations of Misplaced Pages's NPOV policies. --]<sup>]</sup> 19:29, 16 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::This is obviously not true as I voted for deleting the article, definitely not along the ethnic line existing in your imagination. ] 19:53, 16 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Please stop using the noticeboard to snipe at each other. ] <sup>]</sup> 19:31, 16 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Question about "customer confidentiality" in coporate articles == | |||
| I reverted and warned ] for deletions of large sections of the article ]. He then reinstated his changes with edit summaries like . I'm reasonably certain that we don't give in to tactics of this type, but I wanted to check first, since I've never dealt with this particular situation before. I'm also going to bang a note on his talk page asking him to be more specific, since this info seems to be readily available anyway. ] 13:51, 16 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *If the info is readily available, it can be ] - facilitating the argument that nothing confidential is being released. ]<font color="FF8800">]</font> 14:34, 16 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *Marcomm is editing as "cls corporate". That's a COI and needs to be stopped. ] 18:02, 16 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *It may be wise to refer this to ], if it continues to escalate. – <span style="font-family: Garamond">] (])</span> 19:58, 16 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == "Bloating" == | |||
| http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Chaos_Space_Marines&action=history | |||
| The user Xezbeth persistently deletes additions to the page which are trying to make the page not problematic. The page lacked any third party sources and has almost no information about the actual subject. He claims that the page is being "bloated" even though the additional text has done nothing but provide vital information and could be trimmed down. He also removes links that add third party information on the subject. | |||
| On the Articles for Deletion, which I put forth, two people have said to delete the page, one person has said to merge all the pages, and one person has stated that the main page needs to stay but the others need to be checked for deletion. One user, Xezbeth, just makes and attack and is starting trouble. The guy even blatantly lied in his subject heading by saying no one suggested a merge when the third person, Haemo, did, and a merge would be the obvious way to reconcile the split view point where most people agree that the pages have serious issues. Xezbeth didn't even bother putting a real answer for his vote and then he thinks that he can try and keep the page from being improved? ] 14:05, 16 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Have you tried contacting Xezbeth on a talk page yet?-] 14:32, 16 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Yes. ] 14:35, 16 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :How good of you to ignore the multiple keep !votes on the AfD. Anyway I don't think there's anything warranting admin attention here. ] ] 14:33, 16 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Four multiple keep votes. 2 only said keep for the main page. One was his and he said it was just abuse of rules without a legitimate reason. Then he keeps others from trying to fix the page. Obviously if I am trying to improve the page that I am not ignoring keep votes. ] 14:35, 16 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::With your very first edit being the nomination for deletion of said article, I can understand how Xezbeth is somewhat miffed. I also have to wonder if you're not someone's sock with a very specific agenda. New users generally don't jump into article deletion right from the start. That said, Xezbeth does seem to be reverting sourced additions to the article without much thought. Someone with more knowledge of the subject matter should look into that.--] (]) 14:37, 16 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I already began the entry on the delete that I had to create a registered name just so I could propose a delete. It was more than what a prod could handle. I was happy to just go around and comment on articles or point out problems without a name but this article needed to be put up for lacking third party sources that establish notability. No one has been able to establish notability for the other pages, only the main page. And being new gives Xezbeth the right to edit in that way or to follow me to other pages? could an admin please readd the third party sources or give me an explanation on why they are not appropriate on a page that lacks them? ] 15:02, 16 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Disclaimer: I am involved in this issue. The fact that the ] pages are not high quality has been noted by ], although admittedly nothing has happened about it. As such, I don't think that a good faith effort to improve the pages (possibly including merging them all to ]) would be rejected. However, that's not what has happened here. NobutoraTakeda has edited in a very aggressive style, including many comments (eg ) which are uncertainly uncivil and at least verge on being personal attacks, and as such there is a understandable reaction that he his not necessarily editing in good faith, which has led to his changes to ] being reverted. My suggestion here would be that Nobutora attempts to edit in a more friendly fashion, and perhaps that he produces what he considers to be an improved version of the page in a sandbox somewhere, after which it can be compared with the current version when this has cooled down a bit. --] 15:06, 16 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::What does "an aggressive style" even mean? You linked to a page in which a guy is owning the page because of his name, a page of a person who has issues with me and is trying to bother me, and two pages in which people attack me for being new. My edits to Chaos Space Marines added third party information. I tried to compromise by improving a page I criticized. If that is aggressive and not good faith, I don't think anyone could ever be editing in good faith ever. ] 16:03, 16 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::: "An aggressive style" means edits involving phrases like "You keep accusing others, but you seem to just erase anything that wasn't put in by you", "You also blatantly lied", "The person who reverted my edit is a blatant liar", "You have a problem with the truth" and "You were unnecessarily rude and you have no excuse for being rude". See ] and ]. --] 19:34, 16 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Cut and paste move == | |||
| ] 14:30, 16 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :So what's the problem?--] (]) 14:42, 16 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::The clue is in the title. It's not a cut and paste move, though, Heimm Old; it's a ]. The article ] has been merged into ]. This is fine. ] ] 15:04, 16 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :And the requester is a sockpuppet of a banned user attempting to get other people to flame up his old wars. ] | |||
| == Vandalism == | |||
| {{resolved}} | |||
| I recommend that {{vandal|Roaringbug9}} should be blocked. Whilst not particularly offensive, the majority of postings from that user id have been puerile.{{unsigned|81.178.12.224}} | |||
| :Blocked indefinitely, obvious ]. You can list similar situations on ] in the future.-] 14:52, 16 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Possible sock of banned user ] == | |||
| On May 11, 2007, JzG indefinitely blocked ]. On May 16, Coelacan blocked ], apparently as a Libsmasher sockpuppet. Both blocked accounts displayed a great deal of interest in ], especially in posting a biased account of his role in helping an injured prisoner in El Salavador. , | |||
| Now a new anon, ], has surfaced and is making very similar edits. Back in May, the banned user posted to a right-wing website about his/her banning and said, "I'll be back." I suspect that this promise is being kept and the new anon is a sock of the banned user. | |||
| I've rewritten the Mike Farrell entry for NPOV and RS, but I don't have time to check all the new anon's edits. ]<small> ] ]</small> 15:19, 16 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :I dunno... Libsmasher and his IP sock were focused on adding that same LA Times citation, which the new IP has also added. However, the tone of the new IP is a little different, and the new IP maps to Canberra, Australia, for what it's worth (the old IP was a military IP in Virginia). I'm a little hesitant to declare it a sock right off the bat, but it's worth keeping an eye on. Other thoughts? ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 17:28, 16 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Jem Godfrey/Frost* == | |||
| The articles for ] and ] are being repeatedly vandalised, in part by Godfrey himself judging by his blog. I've reverted them both to archived pages from some time ago, probably losing some useful edits along the way, but I couldn't see any other way of removing the erroneous content. Would a block on editing be in order? ] 15:42, 16 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| : ... and see ] also, and I suspect further related pages. ] 15:45, 16 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::I've permablocked {{vandal|Gullpepper}} for vandalizing the ] article among others. Which others do you suggest? From a quick scan, other accounts have enough good-faith-looking edits that I didn't want to block without further details. —] (]) 16:42, 16 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| The above article has been drastically edited by {{user|62.49.39.98}} without NPOV. This user is clearly supporting OpenDocument. He has added many points to "Shortcomings of Office Open XML" section without any reference, and removed some points from "Shortcomings of OpenDocument" saying "I do not believe this is true" and asking for "discuss first - links." (He has never participated in discussion.) | |||
| This user has been warned by {{user|Kirrages}} on 2007-05-30 for not following ] and his edits on the same article have been reverted by many users. I'm concerned that this user's behaviour is likely to extend to a revert war. <span style="background:#CDF;width:4em;font:.9em;text-align:center;">]</span> 15:46, 16 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Ew. AFD'd. ''']''' <sup>(])</sup> 16:01, 16 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Unresponsive newbie POV-vandalising == | |||
| Can somebody please put ] on their watchlists while I'll be away? It's been under rather persistent attack by a somewhat clueless n00b who insists on blanking it because he doesn't like it. Currently blocked, but likely to come back. Thanks, ] ] 16:53, 16 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Added to my watchlist. ] 17:08, 16 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == ] - User repeatedly adding copyvio spam == | |||
| ] (aka ]) keeps adding a large amount (roughly 4k) of copyrighted text to ] (see for most recent diff). The material in the table is diectly copied off the manufactuerers' websites, complete with warranty terms and the like. Even ignoring it being a copyvio, it is COI-spam, and the list of companies whose websites he steals the content from happens to be identical to the list of sponsors on his own website. I have tried to explain this to the user (see ], as have other users, however he has once again reverted the content back into the article. His most recent revert removed edits to the other parts of the article as well. Since it's both copyvio and spam, I'll be re-deleting it, but I expect it'll be back in short order. Since I've tried explaining this to him the best I can (and citing the 27 or so relevant policies), I think it's time for an admin to have a talk with him... Thanks, ] 17:10, 16 July 2007 (UTC). | |||
| :I agree that this is unsuitable material, but is it actually a copyright violation? Simply including information from manufacturers' websites is not necessarily violation - did he lift exact wording? ] (]:]) 18:45, 16 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Yes, every word of it is directly lifted from the manufacturers' pages, copy and paste. ] 20:17, 16 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::I've reverted it myself and left a comment on the article talk page. ] (]:]) 18:50, 16 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::: any random set of words indicates a copyvio.-] 18:52, 16 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| He tried replacing the page with a redirect to his web site, I reverted it again... ] 20:18, 16 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :And now he seems to be vandalising it ... ] 20:31, 16 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Fun. He's headed for a block if he keeps this up. ] (]:]) 20:33, 16 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Got a hornet's nest that needs sorting out == | |||
| Last night, I blocked ] for 3 hours after a final warning for ] and ] violations, when he used edit summaries to attack another editor ] like "replaced stuff lost by Vintagekits sloppy and careless edits (again) . Why don't you actually read and cogitate on other editors work rather than just spasm your revert reflex, Vinnie?". Combined with repeatedly referring to a fairly new editor ] as a sock of a user who had previously used his Right To Vanish, after ignoring requests from myself and ] to not do so. | |||
| Since I'm peripherally involved (I am Vintagekits mentor from previous editing conflicts in this area) in this, I asked a couple other admins to check it over. They agreed that the incivility and 3RR violation deserved a longer break. . | |||
| ], who is currently in an ArbCom case of his very own on related issues relating to Northern Ireland/Ireland articles ], used the platform to attack me. Since things are probably not going to be sorted out amicably, and as the initiating party on the ArbCom case Mark is in, I would like to have some uninvolved admins take a look at the conversation on ], and sort things out. ] 17:22, 16 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Especially considering the latest comments, referring to Irish Republicans as Green Nazis. ] 17:26, 16 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::That’s it as far as I’m concerned on Misplaced Pages, having had to put up with this crap for long enough with this , and being advised not to edit this article. I then get this from an administrator , , , , because he disagrees with me. I then have to put up with this , and this user is running amok all together on this user . And now this '''Green Nazis'''. So what’s it going to be, open season on Irish wikipedians, or those interested in Republican or Irish history. Could someone around here tell me what articles I can edit without being abused? I can take the abuse don’t get me wrong, but only if I’m allowed dish some of it out or at least respond. --] 18:55, 16 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| As an outside/neutral admin, I've been asked to look into this, which I will do later this afternoon. However, in the meantime, I have blocked ] for 24 hours for calling other editors "Green Nazis" shortly after coming off a 3-hour incivility block. That comment, IMHO, is completely uncalled for and quite offensive. More sorting out to come. ''']'''<sup>]</sup> 20:47, 16 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == User continuing to violate fair use policy after warnings == | |||
| ] has on multiple occasions re-inserted fair use album covers onto discographies in violation of our policies as expressed at ] items #3(a) and #8. For examples; . I have informed the user of policy regarding this issue , after which the user continued doing so. Following that, I warned him that I would recommend he be blocked if he continued . Subsequent to that, he continued re-inserting the fair use images . I've undone the editor's changes and request a temporary block of this editor. Thank you, --] 17:27, 16 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :I have blocked for 31 hours. Please review as necessary. (])<sup>(])</sup> 17:34, 16 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| Just for information: {{vandal|172.143.209.80}} (using a different IP) a ] thread on ]. I it as per ], and he then added in again (now using the IP listed, which he used from this point on). I deleted it again. He reverted me for the second time, and I warned him on his talkpage as I reverted. I'm now stuck at ]. The editor then a rather unpleasant note on my talkpage, which I . However, his threat to simply change IP shows bad faith; Eagle-101 on ] advised me to report this here.--] (]) 17:46, 16 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :I've left a note on the IP's talk page. If the IP continues inserting commentary not directed at improving the article, you may go past 3RR.-] 18:40, 16 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Be very carefull sanctioning Rambutan's actions. ] (which is a guideline, not a policy) does in fact not condone in any way the removal of other people's comments. The removed comment was indeed discussing a tie-in website. Rambutan also has a habit of twisting the rules to his advantage, often regressing into a wikilawyering contest and a ] spree. Just take a look at ] to see what I'm talking about. --] <small>(])</small> 19:06, 16 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::I don't see how that thread lends itself to improving the article. – <span style="font-family: Garamond">] (])</span> 20:51, 16 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::] ''does'' condone removal of comments, where it says "...are '''subject to removal'''". And, Edokter, I'm not twisting any rules, it's not directed at the article. Everyone else: thanks for your support/help.--] (]) 21:34, 16 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Request for admin assistance on ] and ] == | |||
| ] claims to be Michael Menkin, who is the proprietor of stopabductions.com. For the last several months he sporadically pops up on the ] and ] articles and posts self-promotional material about his experiments with a polymer-based "thought screen helmet". He was blocked for vandalizing ] in February. I have been deleting the material and attempting to explain why it violates various and sundry policies of ours, namely ], ], ], etc. He has also objected to the redirect of his AFD'd biography to the "Tin-foil hats and paranoia" section of ], which, though it could have been a less insulting redirect, did link to a small discussion of his "research". The redirect was deleted and salted by ] a couple of months ago in response to an OTRS ticket. Today ] began posting lenghty diatribes about me on his ], as well as repeatedly posting a long essay about his helmets at ]. Based on what he has said about me on his talk page I feel like I will inflame the situation if I participate any further. Could an admin intervene? Cheers, ] 17:55, 16 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == user 89.241.165.69 == | |||
| he appears to be vandalising or bullying on the wordsley school wikipeida page about pupils can someyone please block the user of stop the page being edited thanks <small>—The preceding ] comment was added by ] (] • ]) 18:12, 16 July 2007 (UTC{{{3|}}})</small> | |||
| :For future reference, please report vandalism at ]. I will check this one out. ]<sup>]</sup> 18:16, 16 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Multiple IP's all adding the same comment over a period of several days. I semiprotected the article for two weeks until the end off school term to give the chance to tire if the 'fun'. ] | ] 18:37, 16 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Good call, I was debating that myself. Thanks for saving me the trouble. :) ]<sup>]</sup> 18:40, 16 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Harassment/Invasion of Privacy == | |||
| Since 26 April, ] (see also ]) has been demanding I confirm his speculations about my personal identity, has publically stated who he thinks I am based on those speculations, and threatened that upon my refusal to confirm or deny his speculations about who I am, he will remove a link that I had added, which he has now done, see and the dialogue here ]. There is no policy requiring disclosure of personal identities based on such threats or speculation, no policy requiring removal of a link based on such threats or speculation until I confirm or deny his assertions about my identity, and the point is irrelevant since other editors have supported keeping the link. Furthermore, if all links could be challenged and removed on such a flimsy basis, there would be utter chaos. Such threats to reveal someone's alleged identity and remove material if not done, and then actual removal of material as threatened in retaliation for failure to induldge such extreme behavior, should not be tolerated. I've warned Sethie about his actions to no avail, now I expect strong action taken against Sethie to have the harassment, invasion of privacy, and general intimidation stopped. --] 19:46, 16 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Administrator ] abuse == | |||
| I would like to report an administrator abuse in the article {{article|Anti-Estonian sentiment}}. The abuse consists in administrator {{user6|FayssalF}} blocking one party in the dispute {{user6|Digwuren}}. The dispute is between the the named user Digwuren, who created the page with the following content: | |||
| ::''Anti-Estonian sentiment, also referred to as Estophobia (Estonian: Estofoobia) generally describes dislike or hate of the Estonian people or the Republic of Estonia. | |||
| ::''See also | |||
| ::''Estophilia | |||
| ::''Russian-Estonian relations'' | |||
| and the user {{user6|Mikkalai}}, who redirected the article to ]: | |||
| ::''Russian-Estonian relations were established on February 2, 1920, when the Bolshevist Russia recognized the independence of the Republic of Estonia '' | |||
| Timeline (from and history): | |||
| *16:50, 10 July 2007 User Digwuren creates the page | |||
| *18:16, 16 July 2007 Mikkalai (Talk | contribs) (40 bytes) (←Redirected page to Russian-Estonian relations), first edit of user Mikkalai on the article | |||
| *18:58, 16 July 2007 Digwuren (Talk | contribs) (264 bytes) (Undid revision 145046753 by Mikkalai (talk) Reverted blanking.) | |||
| *18:26, 16 July 2007 (UTC) and 19:09, 16 July 2007 (UTC) {{user|Alexia Death}} comments in the talk page that the page move might not be appropriate No person bothers to answer. | |||
| *17:03, 16 July 2007 | |||
| *17:16, 16 July 2007 FayssalF leaves a message on Digwuren's talk page: | |||
| ::''Hi. Please avoid commenting at User talk:RJ CG at the time being. Let admins deal w/ that. Otherwise you'd be blocked according to WP:HARASS. Thanks. | |||
| *19:15, 16 July 2007 FayssalF blocks user Digwuren and gives reason totally different than that of the warning: | |||
| ::''Blocked for your tendentious editing an edit warring at Anti-Estonian sentiment | |||
| *19:17, 16 July 2007 in the article the folloing occures: Mikkalai (Talk | contribs) m (40 bytes) (Reverted edits by Digwuren (talk) tow last version by Mikkalai), i.e. page move | |||
| There is no sign of warning given to user Digwuren prior to blocking him. (See the ) As a result, User:Digwuren would be prevented from editting other articles . | |||
| Requested action: | |||
| *24 hour block (or 7 day suspention of sysop powers) for ] for abusing sysop power (absence of warning for the reason given at the time of block, taking sides in a dispute and blocking one side) | |||
| *unblock the user Digwuren, due to incorrectness of block (if user Digwuren has be warned for something else, that's a different question, treat it separtaely, and apply the policy as needed) | |||
| *undo the | |||
| *put a delete tag for that page and start a RfD, discuss it there. :] 20:00, 16 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ---- | |||
| *I have protected the redirect of ] to ]. ] <sup>]</sup> 20:03, 16 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *I have thought about this in length and even tho this particular block is a bit flimsy on the evidence side, I support ] in his actions to achieve adhering to the policy, and at least basic Civility. I actually support in these cases the modus operandi of block on sight and then discussion about the length, because certain sections of WP have become near intolerable.--] 20:10, 16 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *I'm not sure exactly what's going on, here, but it seems likely that ] was going to be built into a duplicate of the recently deleted ] (see ]). – <span style="font-family: Garamond">] (])</span> 20:14, 16 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *:Indeed. I call that a ]y disruption of Digwuren an article which has just been deleted. -- ] - <small>]</small> 20:30, 16 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *Digwurren on his unblock request claims that this is not the case and stub was created as a fresh start without the faults of the deleted article... Believing him falls under ]. --] 20:22, 16 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *I would say the block time is definitely too long. Comparing it to other editors incivility who got blocked in this digwuren could have earned a max 48 hour block, not one week. So I would request the block time to be shortened. ] 20:15, 16 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *I support extension of Digwuren's block to one month per his long history of incivility, revert-warring, trolling, and disruption. I specifically refer to such attack pages as ] and ]. --]<sup>]</sup> 20:17, 16 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| **How about blocking User:Digwuren for disagreeing with User:Ghirlandajo in a number of previous discussions. The discussion here is not about block of Digwuren, but block of Digwuren ''for reason of edit warring of the article ]''. Address my objection, not the general relations between Digwuren and Ghirlandajo, in which I am not interested.:] 20:25, 16 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *** Your assertion that I engaged in discussions with patent trolls does not hold water. I have never discussed anything with Digwuren, because trolling is not a valid ground for discussion. I'm prepared to scrutinise your and Digwuren's concerted efforts to add biased material into Transnistria-related articles. If you are found to have transgressed the principles of ], the issue will be reported on ]. --]<sup>]</sup> 20:55, 16 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *] is asking about my 7 day suspention of sysop powers. I haven't answered you yet as you haven't asked me before! Have you approached me Dc76. Let me assure you guys i never block someone for 1 day if s/he had been blocked before for 1 month. That what would be ridiculous. -- ] - <small>]</small> 20:22, 16 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| **No, I have not asked you before. Should I have? I thought that blocking without warning was an obvious abuse. You have state 100% clear your reason when blocking, and you can not block without giving prior warning. On the second issue, I fail to understand you comparison 1 day/1 month. Could you explain, please. tahnk you.:] 20:28, 16 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *:Look. Too many warnings are already TOO MUCH. Please count them , . Do you believe that we have to warn people every single day when it is clear that their POV pushing and edit warring is so extreme? How many formal or informal warnings have all these 3 people received so far? -- ] - <small>]</small> 20:36, 16 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *::What 3 people? Digwuren. What 2 other users you have blocked today? Please, check the links you show me: they tell me nothing. The second link is to ''the block you applied today''. I've seen that. Don't point me agoint to it, point to something ''new'' you have to say. The first link ou give me is you sharing oppinion with Digwuren about incivility in the discussion that he and Petri Krohn have. If it is the case, show the exact differences with the exact incivil remarks, and block them ''for that''. Don't give x as reason when you are blocking for y. And no, I do not see evidence of Digwuren "extreme POV pushing and edit warring", I am not telepatic. Give 3-4 diffs. Otherwise, it's talk in vain. :] 20:52, 16 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *::: The charges of incivility, revert-warring, trolling, and disruption leveled against Digwuren are irrefutable. That he supported Dc76 in POV advocacy on Transnistria-related articles is not a valid ground for unblocking. --]<sup>]</sup> 20:44, 16 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *::::Digwuren never edited ]. Either give diffs, or don't floud this with empty accusations. If you have problems with Digwuren's edits, discuss those part edits. What does all of this have to do with transnisria??? :] 20:52, 16 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *I hereby feel its appropriate to state that if such heavy handed blocks(witch i approve) are being handed out, they should be handed out to ALL participants. I here currently see one active participant in this whole mess, who is in spite numerous civility warnings still allowed to continue his emotional warfare... I have no doubt however that reminding this will earn me a block as well.--] 20:43, 16 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :I told you many times that i can't follow your circus here. Admins are editors as well. There are 1700 admins who had balls out there. If anyone of them is willing to block all of you or unblock the 3 then i'd have no problem. I can't do that alone. I've got plenty of things to do. I can't be blocking and answering your questions in the same time. Please don't label admins as abusers if they do block all the competing teams' members. -- ] - <small>]</small> 20:51, 16 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::I support your actions for the most part and I would never scream admin abuse so lightly. Unfortunately what this mess needs is an uninvolved admin with a heavy and fair hand who HAS time to sort this out and place the deserving on the naughty chair. Or it will get much worse, I fear...--] 21:01, 16 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Dear FayssalF, You blocked without giving proper reason. Anyone reading the reason should be able to find the evidence. You this case, there was not evidence to support the reason you gave. And that says it all. About other behavior of Digwuren, please block him for ''that'', not for something else. And give diffs that can be checked. Am I supposed to just believe you without evidence? Is it so hard to organize things well when you block? This should be a good lesson for you to be better organized. How can you "fight vandalism" when you are unable to properly present the evidence? You are an admin, and people expect you to be an example of shortness and clearness, not longlyness and vagueness. I have nothing against you personally, but the admins are not "to have balls", they first have to have some basic traning.:] 21:06, 16 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::It was tendentious editing and edit warring, right? So? "has balls" was an expression used by at Ghirla's talkpage. I just gave it a context here! As for my block rationale of Digwuren, then you must keep in mind that he was of ] 90 minutes before he was . So are you satisfied w/ my level of training now and experience? -- ] - <small>]</small> 21:26, 16 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::No offence, please, but no, I'm not. :-) Seriously, I am not. You've just shown me one of the diffs that I have presented above when I introduced the case (are you assuming I did not read what I introduced?): your warning at 17:16, given about something else, not about your reason for the block, which based on an edit he did at 18:58. Your warning did not say: "if you edit one more article the way I don't like, you'll be blocked". B/c that's the only thing which, if you would have said at 17:16, would be violated by his action at 18:58. Why do you consider his action at 18:58 was related in any way to the previous disputes you two have? I see no connection, and so will any passer by. If this would have been as part of a long patern of disruptive editting on 7 articles, you would have said so and you would have listed all 7 articles. But you wrote something else: "''Blocked for your tendentious editing an edit warring at Anti-Estonian sentiment''". So, stop justifying now and waste everyone's time. Undo your actions, and next time, when you block, argument correctly. And yes, I do expect higher quality from you than from anyone you block. :] 21:59, 16 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I think we have different POVs. I don't agree w/ you. I told you we do block for tendentious edit. We don't have to give warnings to same user everytime Misplaced Pages is in trouble. So according to your logic i can harass someone once before receiving a warning and go edit warring twice expecting to get another friendly warning? It doesn't work this way and there are admins above who fully endorse my actions. I am not sure if they are of high quality according to your standards. | |||
| ::::You haven't even informed me or approached me before coming here. Shall i consider that sommething of ''bad taste''? You said you don't have to. Fine and really it doesn't bother me. Cheers.... -- ] - <small>]</small> 22:25, 16 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Here's another one, Fayssalf: I warned Digwuren about a different instance of WP:HARASS earlier the same day. You do the math: the contributions of this editor add up to a net negative. They eat up and deflect the energies of potential actual content contributors. I support the block, and I support briskly lengthening blocks if he keeps up the disruptiveness. The wikilawyering about the warning versus the block is pathetic. Misplaced Pages is not a system of law, it operates on common sense. The principle to invoke here is quite simple: we don't let people who're not here to build the encyclopedia roam free. In the long round, we don't keep them around. ], it's ] a battleground. ] | ] 22:27, 16 July 2007 (UTC). | |||
| : You probably refer to . Who deleted it and on what grounds? Petri Krohn was blocked for a more civil comment for 72 hours. It seems to me that some editors have a licence to badmouth their opponents. --]<sup>]</sup> 20:47, 16 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *Considering that Digwuren in the past has been blocked for 3RR mostly, and for incivility related matters up to 3h only, I am suprised with the block duration of a week. The user may have wanted to rewrite the deleted article into something more civil and neutral, and we should not assume bad faith that he was attempting to be disruptive by recreating afd article. Recreation of that article, if confirmed, would indeed merit a block for disruption - although I think 24h would be enough. Currently, however, I am not sure we have grounds for blocking: was Digwuren uncivil, revert warring, or creating content forks? On the other note, there is certainly no reason for blocking of FayssalF, and even if we reach a consensus that his block was too strong, if he agrees with it, there would be no need for any suspension of sysop powers (unless it can be shown that bad judgment was not an accident, but a common pattern).--<sub><span style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]|]</span></sub> 20:50, 16 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| : Dear Piotrus, I recall your similar statements in regard to ]. Your attempts to shield that troll from blocks (and associated wheel-warring) had a detrimental effect on a large swath of articles for an extended period of time (the issue of "pet trolls"). I don't see substantive differences in the behaviour of Digwuren and Molobo. Furthermore, I am surprized that you can take Dc76's demands seriously. This is not what I expect from an editor of your experience. --]<sup>]</sup> 21:02, 16 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::''']''' and blocks would be issued on the spot as i said above. -- ] - <small>]</small> 21:00, 16 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *I think this issue should be left alone. Digwuren has a block review template on his page, that should be enough. — ]<sup>(]|]|])</sup> 20:53, 16 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| '''Motion to close the discussion''': I have to say one last thing: the issue I've rased by bringing up this case has not been addressed in the dicussion. The answers received from FayssalF are more troubling than I would have thought: instead of admitting it as an error and correcting on the spot (I would have disagreed it was an error -it was not- but well ... it would have been a way out to save face), he only tries to jusify himself, giving me as "new evidence" one of the diffs that I provided when introducing the case, and the diff showing he has put the block in question. This is sign of ''incompetence'' (the admin is not able to properly present the case. forget if there is a case or not. not even to present the case correctly!) And what his "blocks would be issued" means, a threat? I expect action as requested when I introduced the case, and if Digwuren was indeed guilty of something, unblock and block him properly. :] 22:24, 16 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Read my response . -- ] - <small>]</small> 22:28, 16 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| '''Decision of the reviewing admin:''' FayssalF rocks! ] <sup>]</sup> 22:48, 16 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == ] is modifying my talk page comments == | |||
| All began when i added an OR tag to a map in the article ], that claimed to be based on the Ukrainian 2002 census, but actually conflated two ethnic self identification (Romanians and Moldovans) in just one: Romanians. ] quickly deleted my tag, including a personal attack in his edit summary: Since I did not want to participate in an edit war (another supporter of the Romanian POV began reverting me in the mean time) i decided to discuss the matter on the talk page. However ] deleted part of my message, changing its meaning: . Assuming good faith, i decided to warn him that this behaviour is unacceptable on wiki (using a standard template, as the policy recommends): . However, he deleted this warning claiming it's a , and when i tried to restore my original message, he modified it again, this time using personal attacks in his edit summary: . This happened again when i tried a second time to undo his modification, personal attacks in edit summary included: . Note that i have nothing against user deleting comments from their own userspace, but this time i considered necessary to note the deletion of the warning by ] to show admins that the warning was refused and had no effect (on the contrary, after the warning, he began to attack me).] 20:14, 16 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :First of all, ] it's well known as an disruptive editor, who is always in conflicts with other normal editors, which are really trying to improve that kind of articles disrupted by Anonimu. The warnings which he did put on my talk page, were a result of an edit conflict, so were removed immediatly (however, I preserve my right to administrate my talk page exactly how I want). Also, I didn't personal attacked Anonimu, he must misunderstood me. When I said the word "communist", I was reffering to his edits (my personal opinion is that his edits are communist - that's definitely not a personal attack), not directly to him. Content added/removed by Anonimu is usually removed/included back by many other effective users. --] 20:25, 16 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Please note the continuos slander by ].] 20:34, 16 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::The rv of Anonimu (See ]) come with "per consensus on the talk page", while the consensus there is actually the opposite of what Anonimu does. :] 20:30, 16 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::While this has nothing to do with the above, i must assume good faith and ask you to check again the talk page of the article you refer.] 20:34, 16 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Guys, please stop bickering here. This page is not part of our dispute resolution procedure. Don't forget what the ]: "Accounts whose contributions focus on only a single narrow topic area, especially one of heated dispute, can be banned if their behaviour is disruptive to the project, for instance if they persistently engage in edit wars or in POV advocacy that serves to inflame editorial conflicts". Do you really want reprisals? --]<sup>]</sup> 20:38, 16 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :What i really want is the community to see my comments the way i intended them to be seen (i.e. the way i wrote them).] 20:43, 16 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Uh... Anonimu? Just a bit of advice: ''Don't report other people for conduct that's no worse than your own in the same dispute''. | |||
| <br/>A term like, "communist vandalism" ''is'' inappropriate. However, so was, "nationalist vandalism", which was ''your'' term, which the "communist vandalism" comment was ''directly in response to''. Don't bait people and then complain when they take the bait. | |||
| ::How should i call the disrespect for the self identification of 70,000 people and the imposition of the term those people did not use? (Note that my edit was nothing more than an OR tag) | |||
| <br/>Also, you should know that any and all users ''are allowed'' (not encouraged, but still allowed) to remove warnings from their talk pages. It is considered acknowledgement that they've read it. Putting it ''back'' after they've removed it ''is not acceptable''. So, don't complain about them removing something that you had absolutely ''no right'' to put there in the first place, okay? | |||
| ::where did i put back messages deleted by users from their userspace? This was about another user tendentiously modifying my comment on a talk page of a mainspace article. (of course, if you consider the talk page of ] ]'s own talk page, that's another matter)] | |||
| <br/>Seriously, I'd take Ghirlandajo (did I spell that right?)'s advice and ''stop bickering''. And, especially, stop behaving just as bad as (or worse than) the people you report, expecting people to take your side. ] 20:51, 16 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::i hope this was only a misunderstanding due to you not checking the diffs with enough care. otherwise, i expect some excuses for your accusations.] 21:07, 16 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::If you don't mind, I'll reply all in one block. (You should really try to avoid breaking up other people's comments like that unless it's entirely necessary. It makes it hard to tell who said what, especially considering my name is only appended to one third of my comments now.) | |||
| :::I suppose I may have been slightly glib with my take on your adding warnings to his talk page. Twice, within the same conflict, you added warnings to his page, where neither was terribly appropriate. ( and ) I suppose you're right, they weren't the ''same'' tag... just two different warnings, related to the same dispute, on the same person's talk page. Wow. Big diff. But, you're right. Still ''technically different''. | |||
| :::As for the more personal stuff, like, for example, how you should take the disrespect etc etc etc... I'll just say this: When ''you'' characterize someone's edit as "nationalist vandalism", ''their'' response of "communist vandalism" is, in '''no way''' any worse than your own. And, though ''his'' edit summary wasn't appropriate or to be condoned, it still remains true that it was in direct response to ''your'' edit summary, which made your action just a little bit worst. (That is, if I ever say to someone, "you, sir, are a moron!", and he replies with, "No! It is YOU who are an idiot!", then you better believe I won't complain to people about having been called an idiot.) | |||
| :::Also, just a note: You should avoid claiming that people edited your ''comments''. The diff you provided () shows him changing the ''subject heading''. That's substantially different. You believe it was nationalist, that's your opinion. However, there's no need to ''poison the well'' right in the heading. It's far more appropriate to simply choose a neutral heading, and ''then'' address your concerns. Is changing the header necessary? Nah. But it is '''not''' the same as changing your '''comments'''. Huuuge difference. If he'd changed your ''comments'', then it'd be treated ''far'' more seriously. ] 21:18, 16 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Timothy Boham == | |||
| {{Resolved}} <small>Posting IP user has been blocked ] 21:58, 16 July 2007 (UTC)</small> | |||
| there is someone with the user name Justiceleague1 | |||
| that keeps posting slander in the dissusion section about | |||
| me. I will not tolerate it, Period. | |||
| What is on Boham's page is true! | |||
| I would be more then happy to fax you a retainer agreement | |||
| signed by myself and Mr. Boham, just let me know. | |||
| I'm going to see if there is any way I can get an IT person to find | |||
| out who this person is! | |||
| Sincerely, | |||
| <personal information removed for privacy reasons> <small>—The preceding ] comment was added by ] (]) {{{Time|{{{2|}}}}}}</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> | |||
| :This IP and its sockpuppet users have been blocked. ] (]:]) 20:50, 16 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==Appeals process for banned editor with protected talk page== | |||
| Some time ago, I (among a number of other admins) dealt with an editor who was banned for ongoing personal attacks directed at, and abuse of, another editor. His talk page was also permanently protected at the time of his final indefinite block, as he had been using it for soapboxing and further abuse. | |||
| The banned editor emailed me recently demanding that I unprotect his talk page so that he could file an apppeal on the basis that his block was 'absurd'. (It later came to my attention that this editor had made the same request of another admin, who also denied his request.) | |||
| He insists that ] compels me to unprotect his talk page so that he may use the {{tl|unblock}} template to explain why he should be unblocked. I feel that I am under no such obligation. I ''have'' advised him that blocks can be appealed through the unblock-en-l mailing list or by emailing a member of ArbCom. Have I missed anything? ](]) 20:50, 16 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Er, no... it doesn't compel you to unprotect his page if he has bee using it for disruption. He can email unblock-en-l or a member of arbcom. Of course if he is continuing to be disruptive and harassing via email he can always be reblocked with email functionality turned off...--] 20:54, 16 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Although you are under no obligation to do so, I think the user should be given a second chance with his user talk page. If he then uses it to appeal the block, that can be dealt with under the normal rules of Misplaced Pages. Make it clear, though, that if he abuses it once more, it will be protected and never unpretected again. ] ] 20:57, 16 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::Sorry; I should have mentioned that this editor had had his talk page protected on a previous occasion for making personal attacks while blocked. The page spent some time unprotected following a commitment to avoid further attacks. The present indefinite protection resulted from an insistence on pursuing further harassment. ](]) 21:06, 16 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::In that case, they've shown just about what they're probably going to do, if you unprotect it this time. Unless it's been a good long time, since the last incident, I don't see much reason to entertain this. As you mentioned, they can contact unblock-en-l or ArbCom for appeal. – <span style="font-family: Garamond">] (])</span> 00:25, 17 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==Socialdemocrats== | |||
| Relatively new user ] seems to have gotten a very raw deal. He has repeatedly been warned for vandalism and was actually blocked for 24 hrs two weeks ago. The problem is I've gone through ] and I cannot find a single diff of vandalism. Apparently another user accused him of vandalism (months ago) over a content dispute, Socialdemocrats removed the warning from his talkpage, and other users have reverted him since them, accusing him of "vandalism" every time he reverts. While he has not been civil (telling other users to "fuckoff") no one ever bothered to tell him ]. I suggest someone ], archive it for him, and coach him. ] 21:09, 16 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :After reading his list of contribs and wars, I don't see any reason to unblock. ] 21:36, 16 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Edit warring, removal of sources, and controversial edits == | |||
| One of the articles started and written almost entirely by me, ], which has the status of GA-article, has entered a dispute. An editor, ], came out of nowhere and started to change the name of Vlad III Dracula to Vlad Tepes. After a great effort invested by me, where I used sources to help my argument, Str stopped changing the name. After a while, however, he changed the name of the article without attempting to discuss the matter, even saying that "''I do not need to discuss everything on the talk page prior to making edits. I followed the advice of "being bold".''" The two discussions can be found and . I have been civil throughout the discussion and decided not to react to rude comments such as "educate yourself." The move of Stefan Báthory to Istvàn Báthory of Ecsed is, in my opinion, a wrong decission to make, because in English, he is known as either Stephen Báthory or Stefan Báthory--with the latter being the more popular version of the two. Addentum: I forgot to say that Str had also removed sourced material in the Aftermath section, leaving only one line intact. . --] 21:17, 16 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| : Anittas, I agree that it's not appropriate to move ] to ]. Only nationalism may be behind this proposal. --]<sup>]</sup> 21:24, 16 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Nationalism? I am not Hungarian. And I have asked Anittas to tell me whether I should move the articles to Stephen. I am more than ready to do this but I have got no reply but a note that I was reported (for what I wonder)? | |||
| :::I don't know what his intentions are, altough he claimed to have made the move in order to distinguish him from the other Bathorys. I only know that it is wrong. On top of that, it is quite a coincidence that a while after we had our first dispute, he went on to add a controversial edit to ], knowing well that . --] 21:42, 16 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::: We have the naming conventions to go along with. "Generally, article naming should prefer what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize" (]). "Istvàn Báthory of Ecsed" is not acceptable, because it is not used in the English-language academia. Please compare and . If you need a third opinion, just let me know. --]<sup>]</sup> 21:45, 16 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Anittas jumped much to quickly as many things he complains about, only a few are true. | |||
| ::I am quite disappointed as after our rocky start (regarding the Dracula issue, which I still think justified) he seemed to be a bit more cooperative. | |||
| ::(PS. He violated 3RR yesterday and I did not report him. And now he reports me though I have done nothing. (So much for turn-around is fair play.) This a content dispute. ] ] 21:31, 16 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::You had an equal guilt in that edit warring, as I did. Changing a title and removing sourced material, as I have shown above, is not what I would call "nothing." --] 21:42, 16 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Str1977 is an experienced and careful editor; I would be very surprised if he were motivated by anything but a desire for accuracy. Maybe a ] would be useful, to the extent that Ghirlandajo has not already given one. ] <sup>]</sup> 21:34, 16 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::After edit conflict: It may well not be an appropriate move, but Str has expressed an interest in discussion on the article talk page, and no one has responded. Please Get Thee Hence to discuss - amicably and civilly is always best - as this is a content dispute (in other words, This is not the page you're looking for.) As a further suggestion, "FYI: Your recent actions are being discussed on AN/I" is more polite than "I have reported you" (what is he, a miscreant child you're telling tales on?) and "Str1977 put a paragraph break in" is more accurate than "removed sourced material in the Aftermath section, leaving only one line intact" - please re-examine the dif. ]<sup>]</sup> 21:35, 16 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I believe that you talk first and then act; not act and then talk about what you've done. --] 21:42, 16 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::(Double edit conflict) From reading the talk page, it sounds as though discussion is ongoing and that Str1977 is asking "what are your specific objections?" I think this simply needs a ] and consensus about the content. Possibly a ] to get more opinions about the title of the article as well as content. I'm not convinced admin attention is needed - at least not yet. —] (]) 21:36, 16 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::: Then it is recommended to archive this thread. This page is not the place to ask for third opinions. --]<sup>]</sup> 21:45, 16 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Indeed, please archive it. I am astounded at the vitriol directed at me. Though I have asked Anittas to clearly state his objections and to reply specifically on the Istva issue, he has not done so. Nevertheless, I have now moved the Istvans to Stephens, as I had already considered that alternative too. | |||
| :::::Thanks KC and Tom for your postigns. Thanks Ghirlandajo for your reasonable attitude (no hard feeling about the first reaction). ] ] 22:04, 16 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==Request for Action to Protect ]== | |||
| Unfortunately admin Coelacan is the target of an Internet smear campaign by an anon user. . Needless to say, all of the accusations of this anon are false. He was implored repeatedly by Coelacan and others to discuss and not edit war.. However, he kept on moving to other articles which were then rightly protected to prevent his edit warring. In addition, this user may be a ] seeking to harass editors on this project. Perhaps permanent bans and other action is appropriate. ] <sup>]</sup> 21:39, 16 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Coelacan is an admin. He can protect his userpage if he wants to. There haven't been any edits there since 2 July; conversely, there's no need for anons to be able to edit it. ] <sup>]</sup> 21:55, 16 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::My concern is not about Coelacan's web page. But rather the continued destructive behavior of this anon. He is going to other Internet sites spreading lies, and may be involving law enforcement in this campaign. Is there nothing that can be done to stop this. I have a strong feeling this is just the beginning. ] <sup>]</sup> 22:03, 16 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::: There are kooks out there. This one seems contained to a single website. I don't think it's worth bothering. ] 23:43, 16 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| I have fully protected ]'s user page. As is stated above, he is an admin, and can if he wishes unprotect when he returns. I have left his talk page open at present.--<font color="Red">]</font><sup><font color="Black">]</font></sup> 23:52, 16 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| I suggest that Coelacan consult with the Office to determine if they have any comments or suggestions on this situation. ] 23:52, 16 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Indefinite block of ] == | |||
| == Incivility, aspersions, ] from ] == | |||
| I am posting for review and comment an indefinite block that I have just placed on {{User|Dangerous-Boy}}. This user was a party to the recently concluded case of ], in which the decision emphasized that the parties were immediately to discontinue all forms of harassment of and personal attacks against one another. Nonetheless, on three successive days, Dangerous-Boy placed offensive quotations on his userpage mocking two of his former adversaries in this case. That the quotations were aimed directly at these two users is apparent not only from the selection of the quotations themselves, but from direct evidence including links in the edits and the edit summaries. Dangerous-Boy persisted in this conduct in the face of two strongly worded warnings by this administrator and went so far as to post a link to ] on his userpage to express his disdain for my input on his edits. | |||
| I think it is well-known that I am not quick to block, certainly not to block indefinitely, and view doing so as a true last resort. I have advised Dangerous-Boy that in this context, an "indefinite" block does not necessarily mean a permanent one, and that I will lift the block if he clearly and unambiguously promise to stop this type of behavior. Given the sad history of this overall situation and the clear ArbCom ruling, however, I felt that this behavior could not be allowed to continue. Review of and comments on my action and the reasons for it are welcome. ] 00:46, 17 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ] is a few-month-old account whose area of greatest focus has been creating (and defending) two promotional pages for social media influencer-types: ] and ]. Cokeandbread has refused () to answer good-faith questions (, ) about whether they are operating as a paid editor ( to one of them with {{tq|Don't threaten me}}) and posted a copyvio to Commons (). Despite warnings (), the editor has been engaging in bludgeoning/disruptive behavior at the Jimmy Rex AfD (bludgeoning and attempting to !vote multiple times (, ) and has made uncivil remarks to other editors (, , ), while {{tq|respect}} in the other direction. Recently, Cokeandbread posted the following on their user page: {{tq|The way some people in AfD discussions move, you just know some people commenting are under demonic influence. Stay away from me and mine.}} (). Despite another warning (), which Cokeandbread removed when blanking their talk page (), this aspersion is still up. If we're at the point where an editor is accusing other editors of being demonically influenced, I think we're well into ] territory. Given the lack of response to non-admin warnings and requests, I'd ask for admin intervention here. ] (]) 23:34, 25 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :Arbcom was very clear that ]. You and dboy had a dispute about quotes from macbeth, wild allusions to the Roman empire and some perhaps taunting edit summaries. Since dboy is doing things on his own userpage, not on talk, mainspace, and usertalk pages, I find this block highly inappropriate. However, because you are a fair admin, I'm willing to ] here unlike ]. DaGizza does not seem to have lost sleep about the "offensive quotations" and I fail to see why you would, considering that the arbcom fiasco is over. Its not like Dboy has been sockpuppeting, meatpuppeting, and vandalizing. He's only ranting on his userpage, probably getting something off his chest. I dont see how this he is being "dangerous" (haha) at all. Perhaps time to cool down, but an indef block, especially when he has never been (legitimately) blocked before is a little outlandish.<b>]]</b> 00:59, 17 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *You're absolutely right. Editors should not be accusing other editors of being demonically influenced. They should ]. ]] 00:04, 26 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *I concur, and have accordingly blocked. - ] <sub>]</sub> 01:14, 26 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 01:14, 26 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 | |
This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems.
- Before posting:
- Read these tips for dealing with incivility
- If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page
- Try dispute resolution
- Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly.
- Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem
- Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight.
When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough.
You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.
Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)
Start a new discussion Centralized discussion- Voluntary RfAs after resignation
- Allowing page movers to enable two-factor authentication
- Rewriting the guideline Misplaced Pages:Please do not bite the newcomers
- Should comments made using LLMs or chatbots be discounted or even removed?
| 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)
- 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)
- But what conduct issue? TALKNO doesn't forbid changing headings. In fact the wider guideline makes it clear it's perfectly acceptable "
- It's a conduct issue. إيان (talk) 19:58, 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)
- 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)
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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- ...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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
:::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)
- 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)
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)
- Think it's time to draft up a formal proposal at this point? LakesideMiners 18:29, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- And just to say for the third time: you're out of chances. "Occassionally" is too often. Once more is too often. And if and when that happens, your attitude of entitlement displayed here will pretty much ensure an indefinite block. EEng 03:14, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- If you have DSL or even DialUp. That still works with modern machines. LakesideMiners 01:08, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- Heck, I am on DSL (and have been since, if I recall right, 2008). I have no idea what sort of ancient Internet connection AnonMoos is claiming to be using, but it's clearly one that was already obsolete before this change he's still up in arms about six years later was made. - The Bushranger One ping only 05:44, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- The response by AnonMoos to feedback about this problem is bizarre. I don't really care what the excuse or the history behind it. If you are unwilling to edit Misplaced Pages using tools that work in 2024 then you should stop editing. The behavior is completely unnecessary and it seems like you don't understand the disruption. Nemov (talk) 14:45, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- AnonMoos hasn't really explained in any detail what their technical limitations are. They don't have to, but we can't really give advice otherwise. If as others have suggested their computer can't negotiate TLS 1.2, I'm surprised that they're able to use any websites at all from that computer. Requiring TLS 1.2 is not controversial; Misplaced Pages wasn't doing anything unusual in dropping TLS 1.0/1.1 around that time. Mackensen (talk) 15:02, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- If it's that much of a problem for his computer, go and buy a new computer. It would certainly be better than whining about how Misplaced Pages broke his ability to edit without screwing things up for other users.Insanityclown1 (talk) 07:06, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
- Meh. None of this matters. Signatures sometimes get accidentally fucked up. This is an encyclopedia, not a forum, and this signature thing is not a real disruption to the creation of encyclopedic content. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 07:21, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
- While true, it's still a violation of WP:TPO, and if it's accidentally changing characters in signatures, who knows what else it might be doing that isn't getting caught or reported? - The Bushranger One ping only 07:27, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
- It is safe to assume there more than a few of the editors taking part in this discussion have years and decades of technological experience under their belts, myself included. I do not think The Accused is straight-up lying about the technical hurdle, but clinging to the "I refuse to change my system of operation, therefore it's Misplaced Pages's fault for (6 years ago) making the change!" excuse is the real problem here - this is at the heart a behavioral discussion, not a technical one. Consistently violating the norms of the community is indeed a real disruption to the creation of encyclopedic content. Zaathras (talk) 16:29, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
- It's not inherently about the signatures. It's that he's stubbornly insisting on using an outdated system that introduces errors into other content. — The Hand That Feeds You: 17:40, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
- agree on this. Incidental changing of signayures due to the tech issue is not a small problem itself but that clearly has potential to impact a much wider range of mainspace content. I have a hard time believing that there is not a browser that supports https and can run on a decade old computer (something like Opera even). Claiming inability to switch or upgrade needs to be explained in detail or otherwise this has potential to be a bigger problem. Masem (t) 17:55, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
Disruptive editing by User talk:185.146.112.192
IP blocked 24 hours, and then kept digging and created an account to evade the block, which has now been indef'd. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:43, 24 December 2024 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The User talk:185.146.112.192 is engaging in disrupte editing. Neither does this IP provide sources and is POV pushing. And this IP has been warned multiple times for this on his/her talk page.
Moroike (talk) 20:52, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Moroike: It looks like you both are edit warring on Kichik Bazar Mosque. That's not particularly helpful, so you should try to have a discussion on the article talk page as to whether you should include the Talysh language name for the article in the lead/infobox. –MJL ‐Talk‐ 20:33, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
- MJL why and how did you pick out that one article over the many this IP has made recent changes to? The IP has been making disputed edits for months and has been reverted by a number of editors, not just Moroike. CMD (talk) 01:10, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- @CMD: I am not suggesting that the IP editor isn't being disruptive, but my point is that Moroike isn't making the situation better (using the example of that one article). You can see this by looking at their last 50 contributions where they have mostly just reverted this editor without using a summary. –MJL ‐Talk‐ 18:02, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- The IP's edits were removed a total of 13 times on the page regarding the capital city of Azerbaijan, Baku. You can't let him continue engaging in further edit wars with other users besides Moroike, can you? Nuritae331 (talk) 17:24, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- 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)
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)
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)
- 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)
- 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)
- "
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- Hiding bot edits from watchlists is not a viable option for many editors, since it also hides any non-bot edits that predate the bot edit (phab:T11790, 2007, unassigned). Users AnomieBOT, Cluebot III, Lowercase sigmabot III, Citation bot, et al edit with such high frequency that hiding their edits leads to an unacceptable proportion of watchlist items not appearing. (Also, Citation bot's edits should usually be reviewed, since it has a non-negligible error rate and its activators typically don't review its output, exceptions noted.)The code for maintaining two aliases for one parameter cannot possibly be so complex as to warrant a half million edits. If one of the two "must" undergo deprecation, bundle it into Cewbot's task. If the values don't match, have the banner shell template populate a mismatch category.In general, if a decision is made to start treating as an error some phenomenon that has previously not been a problem, and that decision generates a maintenance category with tens or hundreds of thousands of members, it is a bad decision and the characterisation of the phenomenon as "erroneous" should be reversed.At minimum, any newly instanced maintenance task scoped to over a hundred thousand pages should come before the community for approval at a central venue. Folly Mox (talk) 15:19, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
- Also, like, if only one of
|blp=and|living=gets updated
, shouldn't the net result be pretty obvious? Valid updates should really only go one direction. Folly Mox (talk) 15:24, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
- Also, like, if only one of
- 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)
- Is it just me or are talk pages like Template talk:WikiProject banner shell just perpetual WP:LOCALCONSENSUS issues where a very small number of editors (frequently 5 or less) make major changes that affect thousands of articles, all without involving the broader community through, at minimum, places like Misplaced Pages:Village pump (technical)? Silverseren 04:03, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Fram, Tom.Reding, Kanashimi, and Primefac: I got AWB working again. If cewbot would take time for making the changes, and if this needs attention soon, then should I file a request for that particular bot task? —usernamekiran (talk) 06:20, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- The robot is in operation... Kanashimi (talk) 09:09, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- yay! —usernamekiran (talk) 16:04, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- The robot is in operation... Kanashimi (talk) 09:09, 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? Fram (talk) 16:34, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Fram: this is logical. We should also make it a policy (or at least a guideline), something along the lines "if change would lead to edits/updating more than XYZ pages, a consensus should be achieved on a venue with a lot of visibility". Like Silver seren mentioned above, sometimes a formal consensus/discussion takes place, but it happens on obscure talk pages. —usernamekiran (talk) 14:01, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
User:ZanderAlbatraz1145 Civility and Content #2
- ZanderAlbatraz1145 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
This user has engaged in a lengthy display of disruption. Namely through incessant incivility I have noticed they were previously reported for.
Instances such as ordering IP editors to stop editing articles, hostilely chastising them, making personal attacks in edit summary on several occasions, etc. Users such as @Waxworker: and @Jon698: can speak to their experiences, I'll outline mine.
On December 10, I noticed on the article Luca Guadagnino's unrealized projects page several additions were made that didn't adhere to the article's purpose. Zander restored these with an introductory summary rife with bad faith assertions about my intelligence and asserting they'd engage in edit war behavior. For the most part there was an attempt to discuss the issue we had, but ultimately did not see eye to eye. I asserted I'd be escalating the issue to garner more substantive dialogue around it, Zander's response includes a needless "bite me". I made some attempts at engaging the topic at the article's talk page, in addition to WikiProject Film, it was over a week that saw no input. I would go on to state that (at the time) in two days, I would restore the page to it's status quo. I would do so, asking it not to be reverted. Zander reverted anyway, and after another terse interaction, I moved to nominate the article for deletion, finding with the conflicting views of what Unrealized meant, it was too open ended and led to these lists being essentially trivia. Since then, Zander has elected to take an antagonistic approach towards me, making swipes they openly admit add nothing to the discussion threads they're added to, and now that I am putting said comments behind collapsable tables for being offtopic, Zander is now doing the editing equivalent of mockingly repeating me, with edits such as this and this.
This editor displays no interest in conducting themselves cordially or cooperatively on this website. Rusted AutoParts 23:20, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- I've given them a warning for canvassing: - The Bushranger One ping only 04:08, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- And more personal attacks here - The Bushranger One ping only 05:36, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- And they appear to be continuing editing while ignoring here. - The Bushranger One ping only 05:39, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- 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)
- And they appear to be continuing editing while ignoring here. - The Bushranger One ping only 05:39, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
SPA User:Tikitorch2 back at it on Martin Kulldorff
Hi, all, I'd like some assistance with the SPA User:Tikitorch2, who's been POV pushing on the Martin Kulldorff article since June. A quick view of their extremely short edit history shows that their sole focus is on pushing a vaccine-denialist POV on that and similar COVID-related topics. Started out on the talk page and BLPN, but now they've graduated to edit-warring on the article itself; they were active in June, made a single related edit in October, but now they appear to be back at it. They've already been notified about the CTOP status of COVID-19, and have received an edit-warring warning--to which they were less than receptive. Would appreciate a more permanent resolution, either a COVID-19 topic ban or just an indef considering their SPA status, so they don't just go back into hibernation and then turn up again like a bad penny. (And yeah, given this context, I don't love the implications of the username "Tikitorch2", either.) Thanks, Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 05:13, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- User:Michael.C.Wright? 173.22.12.194 (talk) 06:25, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
Looks like a duck to me. I'm sending this to SPI. - The Bushranger One ping only 11:16, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- SPI says unrelated, so might just be generic disruption. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:47, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- What are you implying with regard to my username? My edit history has been limited to trying to correct two red flags that stood out so much that I followed the citations when I was searching these scientists who were in the news for censorship. It has been enlightening learning how wikipedia selectively chooses secondary sources but discourages the use of primary sources to help discriminate which secondary sources are credible.
- For my two attempted contributions to Misplaced Pages, the two red flags were pretty dramatic to prompt me to check out the citations--Sunetra Gupta's article implied more than 1 in 1000 people in England died from Covid in spring 2020 in an effort to discredit her, which was trivially easy to google as untrue. I corrected that without really changing the overall narrative. The article for Martin Kulldorff...I would probably not have spent time looking at the sources or realized how unscientific Kulldorff's critics were had there not been such superfluous "Wikivoice" editorializing and synthesizing suggesting Kulldorff lied in an essay to the public. Tikitorch2 (talk) 06:30, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- Primary sources are not to be used for anything but simple facts about a subject. They absolutely are not to be used
to help discriminate which secondary sources are credible
because that is original research. - The Bushranger One ping only 08:57, 22 December 2024 (UTC)- Not sure why you felt the need to repeat what I said. Maybe I am the sock puppeteer! Tikitorch2 (talk) 03:33, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- What I am implying is that such a username in the context of an account pushing COVID-denialist rhetoric that flies in the face of the sources and Misplaced Pages policy is not an accident. Anyway, this editor continues to be a drain of editor time and attention. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 14:58, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- Ah an absurd, convoluted, and contrived personal attack. Assuming anyone but you knew tiki torches were present at a political event where someone was killed, why would I choose my username based on that? Tikitorches provide light, warmth, and keep the mosquitos away. I guess its not surprising an editor named writ keeper attacks the editor rather than effectively debating the subject of the edit. Tikitorch2 (talk) 03:28, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- Even if it was a personal attack, making one back isn't going to fly here. Knock it off. - The Bushranger One ping only 04:04, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- User:Tikitorch2, your edits are being examined at ANI. This is not a pleasant experience, I'll admit. So, it's best for you not to dig yourself into a hole. I know the instinct is to defend yourself but it doesn't help your situation to come out swinging. It's probably to your benefit to address any concerns that have been raised and say no more than that. Liz 04:30, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- Primary sources are not to be used for anything but simple facts about a subject. They absolutely are not to be used
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)
- You didn't actually strike any comments. To do so, do this <s>Comment</s> which will make it look like this
- Okay, I strike. Longislandtea (talk) 21:17, 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)
- @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)
- 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)
- @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)
- 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)
- @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)
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)
- 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)
- 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)
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.
- E/C applied. Star Mississippi 19:51, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- Counterfeit Purses, please be aware that the Luigi Mangione article was kept in a recent Articles for Deletion debate, so the consensus of the community is that he is notable. Edit warring to keep his name off the alumni list is a really bad idea. Cullen328 (talk) 20:14, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Cullen328 No problem, I've already given up. I would argue that WP:NOTNEWS applies here, but there's no sense in pushing against the tide. If you're content to have the lede section of Gilman School include "prominent graduates including "alleged murderer Luigi Mangione", I guess that's fine. It seems to be an unusual thing to include and an obvious case of undue weight given to something that is in the news at the moment. Perhaps someone should start a Wikiproject to add famous murderers to the ledes of other schools? Counterfeit Purses (talk) 22:00, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- Counterfeit Purses, in my view, WP:NOTNEWS is among our most misunderstood policy documents. It begins
In principle, all Misplaced Pages articles should contain up-to-date information. Editors are also encouraged to develop stand-alone articles on significant current events.
I believe that Mangione is notable, the evolving article is acceptable, and his name belongs in the alumni list. Many, many "bad people" are listed as alumni in countless school articles, and it is not at all unusual. The only unusual thing here is that the lead of this particular school article lists alumni, and so I have removed them from the lead. Cullen328 (talk) 01:07, 23 December 2024 (UTC)- I'm glad that misunderstanding WP:NOTNEWS is so common because I am going to continue to misunderstand it. I see that Liz removed Luigi Mangione from the lede before you removed the rest of the list. Acknowledging again that I have given up hope that Mangione will be removed from this article, let me ask you what you think the purpose of these alumni lists is? Including Mangione is an editorial decision. We don't include all notable alumni in these lists, so why should we include Mangione, and why now? It's too soon to know if he will have lasting relevance. Counterfeit Purses (talk) 04:22, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
We don't include all notable alumni in these lists
Why not? If someone is Wikinotable and went to a Wikinotable school, then they belong in the "Notable alumni" section of that school's page, Q.E.D. - The Bushranger One ping only 04:28, 23 December 2024 (UTC)- @The Bushranger I'm not saying "we shouldn't", I'm saying "we don't". We don't include every notable alumnus in these lists, nor should we because it would lead to long, unhelpful lists stuck in the middle of articles about the schools. Counterfeit Purses (talk) 04:49, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- If an alumni list bloats an article, it can be split out. See Category:Lists of people by school affiliation. 11:29, 23 December 2024 (UTC) (Oops, signing) Narky Blert (talk) 16:01, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- Of course that's always an option, but what I am saying is that it isn't desirable to have every alumnus listed in an article for a school. Ideally, it would be a selection of alumni who have made significant achievements in their field. Otherwise, it's just trivia. Am I wrong? Counterfeit Purses (talk) 17:21, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- Yes. You're making a value judgment that some alumni (with articles, else they most definitely should not be included) are more notable than others. That is WP:OR. Narky Blert (talk) 20:05, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, that's called editorial judgment. Just like deciding not to include every known fact about something in an article. At some point, it is just trivia. Misplaced Pages is not a database. That info would probably be welcome over on Wikidata, which is a database. Alternatively, someone could just add Category:Gilman School alumni (in this case). Counterfeit Purses (talk) 20:52, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- And a new user, who doesn't understand categories and has no idea Wikidata exists, is relying on the list on the page. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:35, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- @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)
- 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)
- Counterfeit Purses, in my view, WP:NOTNEWS is among our most misunderstood policy documents. It begins
- @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, 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)
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)
- 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)
- 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)
Honestly, this almost feels like trolling. Their basic procedure seems to be: pick a random Cyrillic letter. Combine it with a random diacritic. Write a short stub on the combination, saying effectively "this letter combination is not used anywhere." The occasional historical mentions ("this combination was used in such-and-such obscure Siberian language") are completely unsourced, of course. (Everything is unsourced.) Oddwood (talk) 04:43, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- Excuse me for detracting from the report, but this was your 4th edit, your last edit was in January 2016... how have you found yourself here of all places?
- I mean you might have a point, but wow. – 2804:F1...57:88CF (::/32) (talk) 04:57, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
Similar behavior to PickleMan500 (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) and other socks puppeted by Abrown1019 (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki), which also made tons of drafts on Cyrillic characters that cited few sources (and none with in-depth coverage). Most drafts have been WP:G5'd, of course, so only those with admin perms can verify the deleted contribs. Since these socks have been banned (WP:3X), I haven't notified them of this discussion. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 17:08, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- Good catch, and looking at the contribution histories it Looks like a duck to me. Changing the block to indef as a sock accordingly. - The Bushranger One ping only 07:22, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
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:
- 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.
- 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:
I respectfully request that administrators address the following issues:
- 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. Thank you for your attention to this matter. UPDATE: I just noticed that North Korea was removed as a belligerent and added to the 'supported by' section, completely violating the consensus. Rc2barrington (talk) 08:48, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- Since this report isn't really about an incident and your request is directed towards admins, I think this complaint would be better placed at WP:AN rather than ANI. It will also need more specifics, which articles, which edits, which editors. You'll need to provide that. I also question whether or not these are content standards that the community can't handle on their own. Liz 09:50, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- I was going to post it at WP:AN but it said: "This noticeboard is for issues affecting administrators generally – announcements, notifications, information, and other matters of general administrator interest.
- If your post is about a specific problem you have (a dispute, user, help request, or other narrow issue needing an administrator), you should post it at the Administrators' noticeboard for incidents (ANI) instead. Thank you."
- I posted it on ANI beecause my specific problem was this dispute Rc2barrington (talk) 12:07, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- The original post in this thread appears to resemble LLM output. GPTzero confirms this impression, rating text as "99% probability AI generated". Using AI to generate ANI submissions is highly inappropriate. Axad12 (talk) 18:01, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- Even when a message appears to be AI-generated, I think it is worth considering whether or not it is pointing out an actual problem. I think editors might be ignoring the results of an RFC, I just don't think asking for administrators to monitor a subject area, without identifying specific articles, is a feasible solution. It does seem like, possibly, a point that could come up in a complaint at AE regarding the Ukraine CTOP area. Liz 19:55, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- I had a peek and it's a messy RfC and, as is generally the case with a messy RfC had a very involved closure message which seems to reflect that the closer felt constrained by the framing of the RfC. I didn't see any immediate indication in the edit history that anyone had tried to implement the RfC result and been rebuffed (although I might have missed it). So there's some smoke here but, I think, not a ton of fire. Simonm223 (talk) 20:21, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- Liz, I don't disagree but I'm not at all convinced that use of AI is a positive contribution to CTOP areas. Axad12 (talk) 20:27, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- It was written with AI assistance. Not all AI. ai detectors aren’t considered reliable, because you can put the U.S. constitution through one and it says 100% AI generated. Regardless, whether it’s AI or not has nothing to do with the topic. It’s just that there’a been so many discussions and when I checked the info box it said ‘supported by”, violating the consensus of the RFC Rc2barrington (talk) 12:45, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
you can put the U.S. constitution through one and it says 100% AI generated
– Well, I just put it through GPTzero and got 97% human. Might be best if you don't just make up random "evidence". EEng 17:25, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
- I think the underlying issue here is that if you use AI to generate text which looks like obvious AI output then readers will wonder "does the end user even have sufficient English to understand what the AI has generated for them?" and "did the end user understand the material prior to deciding to employ AI?". Thus if a user is fluent in English, as you obviously are, it will always be better to communicate in your own voice.
- At the end of the day, a user making a valid point in their own voice is generally speaking going to be taken more seriously than a user employing LLM output.
- There are plenty of other reasons for users not to employ AI (see the recent thread here for extensive coverage) but the argument above seems like a good practical reason for fluent English speakers to always prefer using their own voice.
- You will see from the recent thread that many users here are vehemently against AI use. Axad12 (talk) 15:46, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- I understood the material very well, its not like I just used 100% AI out of nowhere. I know the context. I have been involved in this discussion since September. Rc2barrington (talk) 16:43, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- It's a respect thing. It's disrespectful of other editors to make them read chatbot output rather than your words. Simonm223 (talk) 16:49, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- 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 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)
- 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)
- 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)
| External videos | |
|---|---|
 Rc2barrington's appearance on Jeopardy |
- Rc2barrington's user page says
This user believes in the bright future AI and robotics will bring
, so there's probably no point in arguing here. However, I simply observe that in any kind of discussion where you're trying to convince other people, don't use a method that aggravates a significant number of readers (probably a significant majority of readers). It really is that simple. Axad12 (talk) 19:11, 24 December 2024 (UTC)Putting the use of LLM aside, however you compose your message you should comply with the basics of ANI. This includes not making allegations without supplying evidence. This would normally be in the form of diffs but in this case just links might be fine. But User:Rc2barrington has provided none.
Probably because this is because their initial complaint appears to be unsupported by what's actually happening. They claimed "
Despite the RfC's resolution, the same arguments are being repeated across multiple threads, often by the same editor
". But where is this? I visited the talk page, and what I see is here Talk:Russian invasion of Ukraine#Post RFC discussion there was a request for clarification from the closer, something which is perfectly reasonably and which the closer followed up on. The OP then offered an interjection which frankly seemed unnecessary. There was then a very brief forumish discussion. To be clear, AFAICT no one in the follow up discussion was suggesting any changes to the article. So while it wasn't he most helpful thing as with any forumish discussion; it's hardly causing that much disruption especially since it seems to have quickly ended and also cannot be called "the same arguments" since there was no argument. No one in that discussion was actually suggesting changing the article.Then there is Talk:Russian invasion of Ukraine#North Korea RFC aftermath discussion. There was again some forumish discussion in this thread which again isn't helpful but wasn't that long. But there was also discussion about other things like the name of the article and whether to restructure it. To be clear, this isn't something which was resolve in the RfC. In fact, the closer specifically mention possible future issues in a non close comment.
Next we see Talk:Russian invasion of Ukraine#Follow up to the previous discussion (Request for comment, can we add North Korea as a belligerent?). Again the main focus of the discussion is in how to handle stuff which wasn't dealt with in the RfC. There is a total of 2 short comments in that thread which were disputing the RfC which is unfortunate but hardly something to worry ANI about.
Next there is Talk:Russian invasion of Ukraine#Can we add a Supported by section for Ukraine in the infobox?. DPRK was briefly mentioned there but only in relation to a suggestion to change the infobox for other countries. No part of that discussion can IMO be said to be disputing the DPRK RfC. Next we have Talk:Russian invasion of Ukraine#Remove Belarus from the infobox. Again DPRK was briefly mention but only in relation to other countries. No part of that discussion can be said to be disputing the RfC. AFAICT, the only threads or comments removed from the talk page since the closure of the RfC was by automated archival. The only threads which seem to be post close are on Talk:Russian invasion of Ukraine/Archive 20 and none of them seem to deal with North Korea.
So at least on the article talk page I don't see what the OP has said is happening. The tiny amount of challenging of the RfC is definitely not something ANI needs to worry about. Even the other forumish or otherwise unproductive comments aren't at a level that IMO warrants any action IMO. If this is happening somewhere else, this is even more reason why the OP needed to provide us some evidence rather than a long comment without anything concrete, however they composed it.
- Rc2barrington's user page says
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)
- Please check! 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 18:07, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- Please provide evidence of this. 81.2.123.64 (talk) 18:06, 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)
- 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 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)
- We wouldn't generally treat an AfD as vandalism. Simonm223 (talk) 17:39, 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)
- 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)
- This is becoming a rabbit hole. I urge you not to pursue the rabbit further. BusterD (talk) 13:33, 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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 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)
- 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 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)
- 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)
- 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 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- No personal hate intended, but I just found this and thought it would be worth checking. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 16:49, 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)
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 | + | 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 | + | ...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)
- "Never overtly stated... 'played for laughs' be a significant addition" - here's an interview with John Landis, the director.
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
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)
- Normally this starts with warnings on the user's Talk page, but it seems you two have already hashed that out. So unless this account does it again, there's no further action to be taken. — The Hand That Feeds You: 18:25, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
- 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)
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)
- Note: I moved this retaliatory post to be a sub-heading of the original issue. — The Hand That Feeds You: 18:34, 25 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- im not obsessed with a certain subcaste but am sure is obsessed with British Raj sources. Nlkyair012 14:56, 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
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)
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)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.Disruptive behavior from IP
For the past month, 24.206.65.142 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has been attempting to add misleading information to Boeing 777, specifically trying to use the unofficial "777-200LRF" designation beyond first mention in the relevant section and passing it off as official (, , , , , , , , , , ). Their behavior died down for a few weeks, but restarted several days ago (, ), including baseless claims that Fnlayson is "okay with it". They have been asked numerous times on their talk page to either stop or provide evidence of official use of the designation, but they have failed to do so and have continued their disruption. - ZLEA T\ 19:51, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
I forgot to mention that this user has used at least two other IPs; 24.206.75.140 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 24.206.65.150 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). 24.206.65.142 is the most recent to cause disruption. - ZLEA T\ 20:10, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- "777-200LRF" is not misleading, some cargo airlines do use that designation. Today I reverted to a previous version that User:Fnlayson was okay with . I feel that User:ZLEA is going overboard with charges of misinformation and disruptive editing. 24.206.65.142 (talk) 19:59, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- It is misleading to remove any mentions of it being unofficial. Boeing has never made a "777-200LRF", no aftermarket conversion has ever been offered under that name, nor has the FAA or any other regulatory agency ever certified such an aircraft. To pass such a designation off as official is by definition misleading and misinformation. Likewise, to continuously do so after you have been told to stop by multiple people and falsely claiming that others support your arguments is by definition disruptive. - ZLEA T\ 20:06, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- Of note is the fact that this is not the first time the IP has claimed to have Fnlayson's support. They have been told before by Fnlayson not to assume support without a specific statement, yet it seems they've also ignored that. - ZLEA T\ 20:23, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- Its not misinformation as here are the sources which use "777-200LRF", including GE Capital Aviation (the engine supplier for most Boeing 777) and Leeham News (to avoid confusion with the upcoming 777-8F). 24.206.65.142 (talk) 21:06, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- I have asked you for sources from either Boeing or the FAA, yet you still either refuse to do so or (more likely) cannot because they don't exist. Only Boeing and the FAA can designate factory-built Boeing aircraft. Airlines and misinformed news websites have no authority to do so, and any alternative names they use are purely unofficial and should not have anything more than a single brief mention in the appropriate article section. Your failure or refusal to get that after numerous people have told you is disruptive. - ZLEA T\ 22:14, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- None of those are reliable sources suitable for sustaining the edit you want to make. #1 would only support that airline claiming to have that kind of plane. #2 is a model manufacturer, and #3 is a blog. — The Hand That Feeds You: 18:37, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- Semiprotected Boeing 777 for two days. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:33, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
Rude and unfestive language in my talk page
My esteemed editor collegue Marcus Markup just left this rude message on my talk page, on Christmas Day no less. Not really in the spirit of the season, I'd say. Considering that he was sagaciously advising me on the importance of tact and etiquette in the very same thread, he should be held to the same standard. Vector legacy (2010) (talk) 17:54, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
- Vector legacy (2010) and Marcus Markup, you both should stop that childish behavior and disengage from one another. Cullen328 (talk) 18:10, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
User:Ryancasey93
31-hour block. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:06, 26 December 2024 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- Ryancasey93 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Over at Talk:Anti-Barney humor, a user by the name of Ryancasey93 requested that their YouTube channel be cited in a passage about them () that was added by TheLennyGriffinFan1994 (). The talk page discussion was removed by AntiDionysius as being promotional in nature. Ryancasey93 then decided to make an edit request to cite their channel, which was declined by LizardJr8, who then proceeded to remove the passage as being unsourced.
I then brought up concerns with WP:GNG and WP:COI with Ryancasey93, who then proceeded to respond in a needlessly confrontational and hostile manner, creating a chain of replies and pinging me and LizardJr8. Ryancasey93 then proceeded to go off on a tangent where they said we were "very rude and belittling" to them, told us they sent an email complaint against us, called us "the most cynical, dismissive, greedy, narcissistic, and ungrateful people I ever met in my entire life", accused us of discriminating against Autistic people (I am autistic myself, for the record), and called us "assholes".
Simply put, I feel as if Ryancasey93 does not have the emotional stability required to contribute to Misplaced Pages, having violated WP:NPA, WP:ASPERSIONS, and WP:PROMOTION, and a block may be needed. The Grand Delusion 19:47, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
- I just logged on while digesting turkey, and was alerted of the pings and this report. I don't really appreciate the messages from the user (I'm on the spectrum too, FWIW) but I think @Tamzin gave a good response, highlighting the need for secondary reliable sources. I should have done that better when I removed the unsourced information. I would like to see if there is any further activity from the user before getting into a block discussion. LizardJr8 (talk) 21:10, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
- Looks like they've been blocked for 31 hours by Cullen328. The Grand Delusion 23:15, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, that last comment was unacceptable in several ways. Cullen328 (talk) 00:57, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
- Looks like they've been blocked for 31 hours by Cullen328. The Grand Delusion 23:15, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
User:24.187.28.171
Blocked for 3 months for edit warring. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:32, 25 December 2024 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- 24.187.28.171 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
IP has been blocked before for previous infractions. Now, they continue to perform persistent disruptive edits contradicting the Manual of Style, either by deliberately introducing contradictions or undoing edits that resolve the issue. The user has also violated WP:DOB at Huntley (singer), though that remains unresolved for some reason. The IP has done all of this despite a backlog of warnings dating back to 2023. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EdrianJustine (talk • contribs) 22:48, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
- @EdrianJustine: could you please provide specific diffs? voorts (talk/contributions) 23:23, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
Incivility, aspersions, WP:NOTHERE from Cokeandbread
Cokeandbread is a few-month-old account whose area of greatest focus has been creating (and defending) two promotional pages for social media influencer-types: Jimmy Rex and Hammy TV. Cokeandbread has refused (diff) to answer good-faith questions (diff, diff) about whether they are operating as a paid editor (responding to one of them with Don't threaten me
) and posted a copyvio to Commons (diff). Despite warnings (diff), the editor has been engaging in bludgeoning/disruptive behavior at the Jimmy Rex AfD (bludgeoning and attempting to !vote multiple times (diff, ) and has made uncivil remarks to other editors (diff, diff, diff), while demanding respect
in the other direction. Recently, Cokeandbread posted the following on their user page: The way some people in AfD discussions move, you just know some people commenting are under demonic influence. Stay away from me and mine.
(diff). Despite another warning (diff), which Cokeandbread removed when blanking their talk page (diff), this aspersion is still up. If we're at the point where an editor is accusing other editors of being demonically influenced, I think we're well into WP:NOTHERE territory. Given the lack of response to non-admin warnings and requests, I'd ask for admin intervention here. Dclemens1971 (talk) 23:34, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
- You're absolutely right. Editors should not be accusing other editors of being demonically influenced. They should WP:ASSUMEGODFAITH. EEng 00:04, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
- I concur, and have accordingly blocked. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:14, 26 December 2024 (UTC)