Misplaced Pages

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

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 14:57, 10 January 2008 editLawrence Cohen (talk | contribs)13,393 edits →A summary of the problem: Abusive meatpuppetry← Previous edit Latest revision as of 17:18, 24 December 2024 edit undoRemsense (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Page movers, New page reviewers, Template editors58,625 edits →Concern About a New Contributor 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Short description|Noticeboard for reporting incidents to administrators}}<noinclude><!-- Inside the noinclude, because this page is transcluded.-->{{/Header}}</noinclude>{{clear}}
<div align="center">''{{purge|Purge the cache to refresh this page}}''</div>
{{stack begin|float=right|clear=false|margin=false}}
{{Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentsHeader}}
{{User:MercuryBot/config {{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{Administrators' noticeboard navbox all}}
|maxarchivesize = 250K
|maxarchivesize =800K
|counter = 351
|algo = old(24h) |counter = 1174
|algo = old(72h)
|key = cc29a56cbfd7dea72bcccf34ddd4e210
|key = 740a8315fa94aa42eb96fbc48a163504d444ec0297a671adeb246c17b137931c
|archive = Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive%(counter)d |archive = Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive%(counter)d
|headerlevel=2
}} }}
{{stack end}}
]
<!--
]
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-->
<!-- ---------------------------------------------------------- -->
==Obvious sock threatening to take legal action==
<!-- New entries go down at the *BOTTOM* of the page, not here. -->
{{atop|1=VPN socking blocked. - ] <sub>]</sub> 01:41, 22 December 2024 (UTC)}}
<!-- ---------------------------------------------------------- -->
{{atop|result=IP 2409:40D6:0:0:0:0:0:0/32 range block has been blocked for 6 months. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 03:15, 18 December 2024 (UTC)}}
<!-- Vandalism reports should go to ], not here. -->
] has been socking to edit a wide range of caste articles, especially those related to ]s . This range belongs to ] and has been socking using proxies and VPNs too. Many of which have been blocked. Now they are threatening to take legal action against me "{{tq|but how far we will remain silence their various optimistic reason which divert my mind to take an legal action against this two User}}" . - ] (]) 11:51, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
<!-- ---------------------------------------------------------- -->


:Just as ignorant as he is known longtime abnormal activation and especially on those of ] article see his latest revision on ] you will get to urge why he have atrocity to disaggregating ] but pm serious node i dont mention him not a once but ypu can also consolidate this ] who dont know him either please have a eyes on him for a while ] (]) 12:06, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
== 121.45.181.31 removes external references again ==
:But wait a second as per ] i dont take his name either not even so dont even try to show your true culler midway cracker and admin can you please not i am currently ranged blocked as my network is Jio telecom which was largely user by various comers] (])
::Please tell me there's a language issue at play here, and that the IP didn't mention ] and use a racist slur in the same sentence there... —''']''' (]) 12:26, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
:::I think it's both. ] (]) 12:37, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Well, we linguists don't like anecdotal evidence, but I'll provide some: I (non-native speaker of English, with a linguistics PhD) had to look up all the potential candidates for a slur in that post, and when I did find one it's not one I'd ever heard. However, "crackers" is an insult in Hindi, so I'd say it is most likely a PA, just not the one an American English speaker might understand it as. --'']'' <small>] ]</small> 13:02, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
::::At least in the South, an American would recognize ] as a pejorative. '''<span style="font-family: Arial;">] <small>]</small></span>''' 13:19, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::Sure, but the IP user who used the word said they are in India, and their post contains various typical non-native speaker errors. ("culler" instead of "colour", for instance) --'']'' <small>] ]</small> 16:31, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::<small>Funny thing is you go far ''enough'' south it wraps back around again: ] - ] <sub>]</sub> 22:24, 17 December 2024 (UTC)</small>
* Observation: the IP just on the talk page of the ] article. It's peripheral, and the IP is pretty clearly involved. Is this a bad-faith edit by the IP, or should we just take their suggestion and extended-confirmed protect the page?... —''']''' (]) 12:54, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
*:Is there a Dudi ]? Though I will note there is a lot of overlap between the "Indian Subcontinent" and "South Asian social strata" topic areas. —] ] <sup><small>] ]</small></sup> 21:59, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
{{abot}}
*Noting that this person (Truthfindervert?) has taken to using VPNs. I’ve blocked a couple today. --] (]) 22:15, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
{{abot}}


== Disruptive editing and WP:TALKNO by ] ==
Hereby I report trolling behaviour of unregistered user 121.45.181.31 again (previously I did that on 1 Jan at 21:02).<br>
He repeated his actions on 2 Jan, at 07:29
(with comment ''There is no source for this info and it seems to be just an opinion'').<br>
Is he playing dumb?<br>
He has removed the references, that had explicit explanations why are they necessary.<br>
Despite being warned by user Avruch with two messages on 1 Jan at 22:220 and 22:25 , that troll continued with same behaviour. ] (]) 10:56, 3 January 2008 (UTC)


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 .
:Axctually, the section he removed deserved deletion. as to the external links, if they were references, they should've been in-line'd and/or put int he references section, not the EL. I'm more concerned by your most recent edit there, where you switched the reference which the only explanation being some noise about how it was a pdf. the other ref appeared to be a book. ] (]) 13:02, 3 January 2008 (UTC


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 .
Please, ThuranX, if you're not an admin, nor an involved person in this case, don't interfere. <br>
<!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 15:20, 17 December 2024 (UTC)</small>
How can you give right to someone who deletes external links? Are you suggesting the support to trolling behaviour: ignoring of references, section blanking, deleting of references (sources with content that POV-izer don't want to see) that are opponents' arguments that you cannot beat? Where would Misplaced Pages end then? If you can't tell the difference between the scientific article and the book, please, don't mess into encyclopedic stuff. If you don't know the purpose of external links, don't mess. Read wiki-manuals. Don't burden WP:ANI with unnecessarily taken disk space. Sincerely, ] (]) 15:44, 4 January 2008 (UTC)


: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)
::Excuse me? "don't interfere"> Anyone can post here. Any editor can look into any section here, and offer an opinion. Often, that can help admins see their interpretation is supported, or disputed by others, making them give more reasoned explanations of their actions, or rework their actions to a more supported solution. It's a major check/balance on the AN/I. I've read the 'wiki-manuals'. Since all you've said is basic trolling, and no explanation for the change in citation, then move on. The edit was questionable, and I stand by that. ] (]) 06:46, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
::Yes the is indeed about ]. I see the content dispute as stemming from the fundamental conduct issue, which has manifested itself most egregiously with insisting on violating ] repeatedly even after I that I had and that they should refrain from changing the heading again in order to preserve the integrity of the link, after which they went ahead and . ] (]) 16:00, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
:::The heading dispute is between a date heading, and a descriptive heading? that's not really reformulating your entry. ] (]) 17:44, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
::::It's a conduct issue. ] (]) 19:58, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::But what conduct issue? TALKNO doesn't forbid changing headings. In fact the wider guideline makes it clear it's perfectly acceptable "{{tqi|Because threads are shared by multiple editors (regardless of how many have posted so far), no one, including the original poster, "owns" a talk page discussion or its heading. It is generally acceptable to change headings when a better heading is appropriate, e.g., one more accurately describing the content of the discussion or the issue discussed, less one-sided, more appropriate for accessibility reasons, etc. Whenever a change is likely to be controversial, avoid disputes by discussing a heading change with the editor who started the thread, if possible. It can also sometimes be appropriate to merge entire sections under one heading (often preserving the later one as a subheading) if their discussions are redundant.}}" To be blunt, if you don't want editors changing the headings of sections you start, don't use such terrible headings. I definitely recommend you stay away from ANI since changing headings is quite common here. ] (]) 06:25, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::Actually I missed the signature issue. That's far more concerning unfortunately lost IMO partly because you concentrated on silly stuff. ] (]) 06:29, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::&lrm;إيان: I suggest you stop messing around with the section heading since it's a distraction which could easily lead to you being blocked. But if AnonMoos changes your signature again, report it and only that without silliness about section headings, mentioning that they've been warned about it before if needed. ] (]) 06:50, 18 December 2024 (UTC)


I wrote a long and detailed explanation on his user talk page as to why the date-only header is basically useless in that context, but he's still for some peculiar reason fanatically determined to keep changing it back. Frankly, I've basically run out of good-faith reasons that make any sense -- except of course, his apparently unshakable belief that he has certain talk-page "rights", which according to Misplaced Pages guidelines he does '''not''' in fact have (outside of his own personal user talk page)... ] (]) 23:10, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
ThuranX, deleted lines in the article were edited by me, but in that moment I didn't put a reference there, I've done it later, see history. Also deleted references were not connected to deleted text, but to other parts of the article which were not removed by this vandal user. I have rewritten this part of text according to the source, and now it's there: both text and reference - official scientific research and restored other deleted references. An user reported by Kubura is definitely a vandal - in this case removing 5,6 references! For other actions of this anon see previous report by Kubura. Blanking is his/her favourite hoby. Regards. ] (]) 13:42, 6 January 2008 (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)
:No, the lines removed by the IP didn't belong, as they were clear WP:SYNTH violations. Your rewrite is fully sourced, but that doesn't change the fact that the IP made a good call. His actions elsewhere were not dicussed or brought up till now, and remain irrelevant to the eidt in question, which I would have done myself, were I monitoring such pages, which I don't. ] (]) 21:08, 6 January 2008 (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)
::::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)
*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)
IP user 121.45.181.31 has <u>deleted</u> whole section of external links, that gave info about these things. That's blanking. <br>
ThuranX, if you have something to say about this, go to the talkpage, don't burden this page with the things that were supposed to be done on the talkpage. That IP user didn't give explanation. Don't disturb admins' procedure.<br>
If he dislike one section of the text, he could have deleted only that part, but no, he deleted unwanted references, because they were proving him wrong. Finally, "uncited" part was later cited and referenced. Why are you stubbornly defending a troll, ThuranX? ] (]) 10:46, 7 January 2008 (UTC)


== Disruptive editing by ] ==
:Speaking of 'trolling', it's what you're now doing. Let me say this one last time, then I'll just move for a block against you. The edit the IP made was a good one. The ELs he removed were redundant, and the text he removed was uncited SYNTH and OR. That somethign supposedly similar, in your opinion, was later added in a 'cited and referenced' form is irrelevant. What was removed should have been removed. Stop ] the article, and accept that the excuse laden section that was removed was bad, even awful writing, constituting the writer's own ] into why things just didn't count anayways so ignore them, and it was rightly removed. I don't know why you can't see that, other than you wrote it, but it was bad article writing, and the IP was right to remove it. ] (]) 12:38, 7 January 2008 (UTC)


OK people calm down please, no need to argue about such unimportant details. Thuranx please try to understand, maybe you're right - my first edit with no reference was a kind of original research, my intention was to cover it by a source but I simply forgot it - my guilt. However, reported user actually has very short history of undoubtful anti-Croatian contributions, short but very known to Kubura, me and several other users and administrators involved, possibly a sock or meatpuppet of a banned user (an Italian fascism/irredentism extremist) who made a lot of mess in numerous Dalmatia and Croatia related articles during last a year and half. He was always followed by bunch of anons and damage done is so huge that we need 1 year more to repair it this way, since we must constantly clean it, almost every day there is some anon vandalism around in mentioned articles, although "the brain" was banned. Maybe that's why some nervousness is present here. Kubura was just trying to get some help from admins, that's all. Once again, calm down please and happy New Year to both of you. Regards. ] (]) 19:18, 7 January 2008 (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.
:IN order to get the result you speak of, you'd need to provide evidence of ongoing troubles and harrassments. That has not been done here. As Iv'e said, ad nauseum, all that was brought here was one edit, which was perfectly valid and improved the project. That's it. that's all that was put up for review. ] (]) 22:25, 7 January 2008 (UTC)


Wrong! An user blanked a group of references! That's vandalism! ] (]) 07:00, 9 January 2008 (UTC) ] (]) 20:52, 18 December 2024 (UTC)


:@]: It looks like you both are ] on ].<sup class="plainlinks"></sup> That's not particularly helpful, so you should try to have a discussion on the ] as to whether you should include the ] name for the article in the lead/infobox. &#8211;<span style="font-family:CG Times, times">]&thinsp;]<sup>]</sup></span> 20:33, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
:No, he blanked redundant ELs. they aren't' inline cited, and in no way were they specifically tied to the contention within the article which he removed. I realize you don't want to hear anything about this but us fawning over you and gutting him like a fish, but that will not happen. ] (]) 21:33, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
::MJL why and how did you pick out that one article over the many this IP has made recent changes to? The IP has been making disputed edits for months and has been reverted by a number of editors, not just Moroike. ] (]) 01:10, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
:::@]: I am not suggesting that the IP editor isn't being disruptive, but my point is that {{u|Moroike}} isn't making the situation better (using the example of that one article). You can see this by looking at <span class="plainlinks"></span> where {{gender:Moroike|he has|she has|they have}} mostly just reverted this editor without using a summary. &#8211;<span style="font-family:CG Times, times">]&thinsp;]<sup>]</sup></span> 18:02, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
::The IP's edits were removed a total of 13 times on the page regarding the capital city of ], ]. You can't let him continue engaging in further edit wars with other users besides Moroike, can you? ] (]) 17:24, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
Since this IP user won't stop and is stonewalling, either he/should be temporarily blocked, or all the pages he is POV pushing without sources, should be semi-protected, so that only registered users can edit them. ] (]) 21:37, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
:After he/she was blocked for 24 hours, this IP created an account as ] in order to evade the block and has resumed his/her POV pushing. ] (]) 16:51, 24 December 2024 (UTC)


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


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


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


*I have some pretty serious ] concerns about the topic starter here. They came to me for help (no idea how/why me, I have no connection to this dispute) and I repeatedly told them I didn't see any misconduct, and then they started attacking ''me'' when I refused to agree with them. And now this. This is a very simple content dispute, with a very simple ] outcome. I've told them this. It's a disappointing time sink on a rather trivial content dispute. ] ] 00:52, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
{{Unresolved|1=Moved thread over 50kb to ]}} ]<small><sup>\&nbsp;]&nbsp;/</sup></small>
*:At no point was he "attacked". I defended myself after he became hostile with me (as anyone can read in our convo, I stated multiple times that I would leave and did not want to be a burden if they didn't want to engage with this, but he made no such objections and continued). Eventually he just became outright hostile and refused to explain their points any further, devolving the conversation into them repeating themselves over and over, its all there to read on his talk page. As for why I contacted him, I wanted to ensure I chose impartially so I just randomly looked at the currently active admins at the time and he was the first one I found. ] (]) 18:23, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
::Still ongoing via multiple pages. Disruption, wikilawyering, gaming the system, threats, mild trolling on talk pages, and now a new single-user account (]) has showed up as of a few days ago, writing in the same style as Raggz and making the same arguments. Sockpuppet, meatpuppet, or just coincidence, I don't know. &mdash;] | ] 09:33, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
*::The discussion is , if anyone wants to look. The "attack" I'm referring to you is your accusation that I responded to you in bad faith. I was not involved in the dispute, have no stance on it, and had no pre-conceived notions about either of you - what in the world would my motivations be for "bad faith responses"? It doesn't make any sense. You simply didn't get the response you wanted, and proceeded to badger me on it. Did I get vaguely irritated when I volunteered my time to review and comment on a dispute I had no stance or interest in, only to get all sorts of ] responses on it? Yeah, sure, but who wouldn't? ] ] 18:44, 19 December 2024 (UTC)


*I'm here from my input at the 3rd opinion request. This is nothing more than a trivial content dispute, I see no reason for this to be at ANI. I somewhat agree with the claim of ], it becomes more susceptible to incorrect information, and from my analysis it seemed like the claim in the disputed content was completely wrong. Two different sources, from two different time periods. My $0.02: The claim of stonewalling is ridiculous, there was ample good-faith discussion based on existing policy and guidelines. This editor does not ], it appears that he claims that editors disagreeing are acting in bad faith. From him to administrator Sergecross73: {{tq|"I'm not wasting time engaging with you if you aren't going to speak with me in good faith."}} It seems that he roots his argument based on the editor who removed it rather than the content itself. Very unfortunate waste of time. —&nbsp;] ] 15:31, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
Could someone inform ] that consensus on article talk pages ''does not'' override ]. He just claimed that it does ]. &mdash;] | ] 09:52, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
*:Exactly. It's not "stonewalling" that's happening here. PerfectSoundWhatever has discussed at-length at the talk page. They're simply not willing to ''talk circles indefinitely''. And we don't require that of editors. I've urged Sxbbetyy to, rather that spin their wheels arguing with the same person endlessly in a stalemate, to try to get other participants to take part. But they've refused, and instead decided to move their arguing to ANI instead. As I noted to them in one of my last comments to them, if they spent half as much effort in consensus-building as they did complaining and arguing, they could have built a consensus by now... ] ] 17:30, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
:Please use the article subpage for on-topic discussion. --]<small><sup>\&nbsp;]&nbsp;/</sup></small> 16:09, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
*:Reading any of what I wrote in this dispute shows clearly that is not the case. Also, the quoted sentence is completely taken out of context.
::I would love to, but unfortunately this problem is being reported by other editors, and is now duplicated at ]. &mdash;] | ] 06:39, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
*:Here is what was said in the mesaage before that they left out, "Not really the logical conclusion one draws from reading any of what I wrote here, where I asked multiple times for you to explain your reasoning in your replies (instead your response was to repeat yourself without offering further explanation), but if that is what you want to take away from this that's fine by me. I'm not wasting time engaging with you if you aren't going to speak with me in good faith."
*:The message as a whole was replying to was a passive aggressive insult that didn't progress that conversation, hence the response as it was clearly not an example of engagement in good faith.] (]) 18:34, 19 December 2024 (UTC)


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


===Request for closure===
I would like an administrator's advice on how to deal with ] on the ] talk page. I have tried to point out problems with the sources he is using to support his anti-CPM POV, which he regards as the "truth". However, his behaviour is quite aggressive, confrontational and uncompromising. He has now accused me of being a part of "a well-funded group of propagandists and Bengali supremacists employed by the Communist Party of India, paid and financed by the CPM gangsters to persistently whitewash their record on wikipedia." It is difficult to know what to do in such a situation. If he thinks that anyone that disagrees with him is hired by the CPM, then I don't think it bodes well for any meaningful mediation. I am unclear what the "referral for comment" procedure entails. Is this in addition or complementary to discussing it on this noticeboard? Is this noticeboard the first place to raise these issues?--] (]) 00:17, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Despite its large size, the consensus here is quite clear. There's no misconduct here, just standard following of procedures of ] and ], which is perfectly acceptable. Not a single person has suggested taking any action towards PerfectSoundWhatver. Outside of a a potential IDHT BOOMERANG, there's nothing left to be done here. Can someone close this? ] ] 14:02, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
::Might also want to look at the well-sourced ] section that Conjoiner and his drive-by revert buddy are desperately trying to remove
:I second that. If there has been any edit-warring by any party that should be dealt with in the normal way. {{u|PerfectSoundWhatever}} has certainly done nothing wrong, and the OP will get blocked if they don't start listening to people pretty quickly. ] (]) 14:24, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
*: mass blanking as a "minor change"
::Exactly. And even that's probably unlikely, as most of the "edit warring" was singular reverts with days or weeks in between. It's far from a 3RR situation at least. ] ] 15:26, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
*
:{{non-admin comment}} I don't think this conversation is going anywhere fast, other than seemingly coming to the conclusion that @] has done nothing wrong, which seems to be the opposite of what this ANI post was about. There's no edit warring here, and even if there was, it wouldn't be dealt with at this venue. Shut it down! ] (]) 16:48, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
*
:In what way whatsoever is this editor's decision to revert the disputed content during the discussion "standard following of procedures of WP:STATUSQUO"? The literal first words that appear at that link are in bold and say, "'''Avoid reverting during discussion'''", followed by a detailed explanation of the actual proper procedure. And to make it very clear what it says, here is the literal first paragraph verbatim: "To eliminate the risk of an edit war, do not revert away from the '']'' '''during a dispute discussion'''. Instead, add an appropriate tag indicating the text is disputed. For an article, many of the ] are appropriate. For other pages, <code><nowiki>{{</nowiki>]<nowiki>}}</nowiki></code> is good. Leave the status quo and the tag in place until the discussion concludes." ] (]) 02:31, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
*
::In what way is ''that'' your read of the consensus in the discussion above? ] ] 02:49, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
and then using numerous interesting epithets, right before making ] about peer-reviewed sources and trying to discredit them, even after their peer-reviewed status has been independently attested by the .] (]) 03:37, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
:::In what world do you logically come to that conclusion from a message that consist of almost entirely the word for word quote of the procedures described in WP:STATUSQUO, that directly counters the claim you just made? Are you saying it is "against consensus" simply because it presents a viewpoint you don't like and don't want to address? I don't see another reason why you would again twist my words, to the point of lunacy. And this is, once again, despite the fact that all of what has been said is literally within view.
:::Briefly, I would like to make two points; has a edit summary which reads 'rv, minor changes'. This should be understood as revert + minor changes. 2) regarding , the anon user has already been reported in a separate ANI. --] (]) 14:53, 6 January 2008 (UTC)'
:::Also, regarding the consensus. Out of everyone that has actually joined the discussion and all the messages sent (~90% of which are either from myself or you Serge), there have been only three people who have actually said anything in support of your interpretation of this. The rest either did not discuss the topic, did not express an opinion, or were Peter Southwood who supported the interpretation of WP:STATUSQUO as stated on its page. Seems like you're just trying to rush a end to the conversation to get the conclusion you want. ] (]) 15:02, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
::I haven't been 'using numerous interesting epithets', I agreed with the anon user on the rejection of the way the 'Incompatibility with Indian culture' subsection was presented. The epithet raising was done by the anon user, this accusation is merely guilt by association. --] (]) 00:08, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
::::I'm saying there has been no consensus for anything you're arguing here. Not a single person has supported action against PSW. ] ] 15:15, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
::Where is the 'disparaging remarks' in ? Regarding the accusation of 'drive-by reverts', I began arguing at the talk page in early December for the removal of the controversies chapter. --] (]) 00:12, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
::::The status quo ante bellum that shouldn't be reverted from is the version ''without the new content''. ] (]) 15:16, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
:::The climate of discussion has taken yet another step in a downward spiral, as conspiracy theories on Communist-Nazi connections by guilt by association arguments are levelled at the talk page. It is needed that more editors involve themselves in the discussion, so that the article can move forward. --] (]) 20:26, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
{{abot}}
::::I second that. I'm not so bothered by the accusations that I am a "Communist gangster", but there does need to be some mediation/arbitration involved by a neutral party and/or more editors from outside the discussion so we can move on. I don't know why the administrators noticeboard and the referral for comments mechanisms are not producing any results in terms of greater involvement from the Misplaced Pages community.--] (]) 00:55, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
In what I would see as a related issue, ] has begun to include the link to ] in 'see also' sections of ], ], ], etc., a completly ahistorical comparison for pov purposes. --] (]) 12:11, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
See also, . --] (]) 12:21, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
] begins to use the term ] for the Nandigram conflict; --] (]) 12:25, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
:This has now spilled over to ], with ] claim that those who disagree with him as are 'CPI(M) members'. Moreover, launches the conspiracy theory that CPI(M) and CPI(Maoist) are allies, whilst disregarding the campaign of assassinations of CPI(M) cadres by Maoists. --] (]) 15:17, 9 January 2008 (UTC)


== Mgtow definition ==
I can see that writing anything on this noticeboard is farcical. Either administrators are indifferent or they are asleep. The referral for comment has also achieved no results. Can someone suggest any alternative solution which could avert an edit war that threatens to spill over into a vast range of articles? (for instance, the likening of the CPI(M) to an entirely unrelated Italian terrorist group Red Brigade and the portrayal of the West Bengal state government as the Red Terror - both of which are absurd POV-pushing) If no-one is prepared to say anything, then I guess the situation will have to deteriorate to a point where enough people are aggravated into doing something.--] (]) 16:01, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
{{atop|1=Editor was pointed to the talk page and then stopped editing. It looks like this was a case of ]. - ] <sub>]</sub> 03:45, 22 December 2024 (UTC)}}
:A user RfC might help. Otherwise keep on discussing it, insisting on sources, and such individuals eventually go away. ] (]) 13:46, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
There are blatant lies in the wiki definition of "mgtow".
The goal is accuracy, not "man bashing". ] (]) 14:48, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
:@], you should discuss this at ]. This noticeboard is for conduct issues, not content issues. ]&nbsp;] 14:54, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
:Nothing wrong with the definition of MGTOW. Maximum Gross Takeoff Weight is an internationally accepted and used term used by every airplane and airline in the world. ] ] 16:17, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
::The cintent is incorrect. Mvto is NOT "misogynistic". There is no "hate" towards women, only avoidance. ] (]) 20:21, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
:@], you were directed to the talkpage, which includes an FAQ on the term you keep trying to remove, along with extensive discussion. You should start there before just removing sourced content that you don't like. We'll leave aside the absence of required notifications to Black Kite and myself who have warned you for your conduct. '''<span style="font-family: Arial;">] <small>]</small></span>''' 17:41, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
::Where do I find the talk page? ] (]) 20:21, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
:::@], I linked it for you in my comment above. ]&nbsp;] 20:27, 20 December 2024 (UTC)


* Camarogue100's removal of material unfavorable to the subject with an edit summary of indicates to me that they are here to play games, not ]. Any more disruption should result in an immediate block IMO. —] (]) 20:33, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
== Rouge Admin abuse by ]? ==
{{abot}}


== Creating the need to make 400,000 unnecessary edits ==
I want to report that I have been, what I perceive to be, the subject of long term assumption of bad faith and paranoia by self described ] admin ] (also known as FPS). I had joined in June 19. Immediately, banned user ] had accuse me of being a sock of ] to which FPS had


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.
{{quotation|Hi, yes, it might well be the guy is a new Buffadren/Mauco sock. I don't yet see enough evidence to go on for a block, but we'll keep an eye open.}}


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)
At this point I had been posting for maybe 3 days the number of posts you could count on your fingers and already he was monitoring me and assuming bad faith in believing that I may be a "Buffadren/Mauco sock"!
:If you want to discuss {{tl|WikiProject banner shell}}, you should do so at ].
:As for the size of the category, I have no plans to empty it, and was only going to update a few hundred more categories and templates. &nbsp;&nbsp;<b>~</b>&nbsp;<span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:16px;">] (] ⋅])</span>&nbsp; 15:02, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
::You made nearly 2000 of such edits in the last few hours, and when asked to stop pointed me to a category with 400,000 entries. I have no way to know how many more you planned now or in future runs. Starting a discussion at the module would hardly stop you. ] (]) 15:10, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
:::"{{tq|when asked to stop pointed me to a category with 400,000 entries}}": incorrect. Since you wrongly thought I was making cosmetic edits, i.e. "{{tq|no change in output or categories}}", the category was to inform you that they are not cosmetic.
:::Regarding a BRFA for the bulk of the category, that's looking more likely since the category appears to be neglected. &nbsp;&nbsp;<b>~</b>&nbsp;<span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:16px;">] (] ⋅])</span>&nbsp; 15:29, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
::::Unnecessary removing a synonym and then making thousands of edits to remove the hidden cat created by that unnecessary change is not really any better than making cosmetic edits, the end result is that nothing has changed for the affected pages at all. ] (]) 15:33, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::Not unnecessary. The Lua code is very complex and removing the need the support various settings makes the code both easier to read and maintain. As always, editors that don't want to see these edits can hide these by hiding the tag "talk banner shell conversion". ] (]) 12:32, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::It doesn´t look as if the specific code to have these synonyms was very complicated though, the argument that in some cases two synonyms were used on one page with conflicting values was more convincing. And the edits I complained about did ''not'' have that tag, so no, even if people knew about hiding that tag, it wouldn't have helped here at all. ] (]) 16:04, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
:This was discussed in detail on ]. Ideally these edits would be done by an approved bot so they do not appear on people's watchlists. The main benefit is to merge the {{para|blp}} and {{para|living}} parameters. When both are in use, we find they often get conflicting values because one gets updated and the other does not. &mdash;&nbsp;Martin <small>(]&nbsp;·&nbsp;])</small> 17:25, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
::Isn't it more logical to first have a bot cleanup the unwanted parameter, then remove it from the template, and only then start populating the cat with the somehow remaining or since added instances? In any case, this is a typical bot task and shouldn't be done with massive AWB runs. ] (]) 17:39, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Yes, probably. But we have this mechanism already set up and I assumed {{ul|Cewbot}} would deal with these as part of its normal activities. Happy to look at other options - maybe discuss on template talk? &mdash;&nbsp;Martin <small>(]&nbsp;·&nbsp;])</small> 18:23, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
::::I don't know what this is about, but if the OP is correct, it is totally absurd to edit 400,000 talk pages for a tweak. Discussing at a template talk page monitored by those focused on the template would simply hide the issue. ] (]) 03:53, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::Edits like these should ''always'' be bots, so they can be filtered from watchlists. There are numerous other editors who have recently engaged in the mass additional of categories to articles which I had to ask them to stop as my watchlist was flooded. ]] 13:02, 22 December 2024 (UTC)


* Is it just me or are talk pages like ] just perpetual ] issues where a very small number of editors (frequently 5 or less) make major changes that affect thousands of articles, all without involving the broader community through, at minimum, places like ]? ]]<sup>]</sup> 04:03, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
I had tried to but no response from him.
*{{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)
A few weeks later, a sock of banned user and arch sockpuppetier ] . FPS but did not revert the sock puppet tags that the vandal had put on my user page. Perhaps believing that they belonged.


== ] ==
A few weeks later still. An IP sock of arch sockpuppetier ] had started up a . FPS then complete the checkuser request. He also which I absolutely did not do.


At this point I had tried to reason with FPS numerous times to no avail so I decided to wait and let the dust settle and hope that he would chill and I went forward with adding content to the project. Most recently, I tried to make a which FPS in what I perceive as a terse response.


] is making wholesale reverts of my edits in contravention to guidelines. ] (]) 19:17, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
Part of the reason I bring this up is that everytime I have a minor dispute with another editor, that editor brings up the fact that an admin believes me to be a sockpuppet of William Mauco.
:You're removing demographic categories and templates by blanking them out; irreligion still deals with religion no matter your argument. That's definitely not compliant with ] and clearly vandalism. There's no action to take here except that you need to stop removing these categories and templates. <span style="font-family: Roboto;">''']''' <span style="color:#00008B">•</span> <small>''(])''</small></span> 19:42, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
::And you are now '''required''' to cite how your edits meet ]; spamming it in edit summaries is not discussion. <span style="font-family: Roboto;">''']''' <span style="color:#00008B">•</span> <small>''(])''</small></span> 19:47, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
::::While doing routine vandal patrol, I came across what seemed to be a hasty and massive removal of content, being done in a very directed and personal manner.
::::After looking at the persistent removal, and communicating, I restored the well-drawn categories.
::::Hopefully, this is easily resolved.
:::] (]) 20:40, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
::::43*, do not continue to revert these category removals without discussing them first. - ] <sub>]</sub> 22:48, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::THere is nothing to discuss. The guidelines are clear. What needs to be done is editors need to be familiar with the cat guidelines. We don't discuss whether the sky is blue do we? ] (]) 02:05, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
::::THey are not well drawn, it was not hasty, it was not massive, and it was not "personal". It was directed because they all had the same issue. ] (]) 02:07, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Editors should not blindly revert. They should be '''required''' to understand the guideleines. ] (]) 02:08, 21 December 2024 (UTC)


I gave up editing because there were too many problems that the wiki communtity is not sorting out. One of them is treating anon editors as second class wikicitizens.
I demand that Future Perfect at Sunrise clearly state what he needs from me to end what I considered is this long term assumption of bad faith and paranoia. Under no circumstances will I give up my privacy. Once this is met, I demand that he apologize. ] (]) 00:50, 5 January 2008 (UTC)


Another problem is "this is how it is so we are going to leave it like this for years and years" and this is at the expense of the quality of WP.
:The above section relates to the below subsection and the archiver incorrectly archived it so I am bringing it back for continuity sake. ] (]) 03:34, 9 January 2008 (UTC)


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


WP could be sooo much better. ] (]) 02:02, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
When FPS had helped banned user ] file a checkuser against me. I had noticed another user ] which FPS had checkusered against ] and had turned out ]. Future Perfect had saying that he is a likely sock of William Mauco. I believe further scrutiny is required to look at his actions then and his continuing actions. This raised concerns by admin ] (read ]). FPS responded to John_Kenney in that link:


:I'm sorry, but "I don't remember what policy says but I'm right so leave me alone" is an indication you should be trying to do better instead of telling us we should do the same. If you're not willing to actually explain why guidelines vindicate your changes, then being right sometimes isn't enough if you want to make things better. Communication is the process, not something ancillary to it. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>]</span> 02:10, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
{{quotation|This wasn't an easy decision for me either. Anyway, I looked pretty closely at the precise temporal patterns of account creations and edits by Britlawyer, Mauco and his other known socks. I consider that data pretty damning (I can forward it to you). Checkuser isn't magic pixie dust as they say, and we can safely assume the people behind the Transnistrian astroturfing campaign (which undoubtedly exists) have means of concealing their puppetry by using geographically diverse proxies; they only get caught occasionally when they slip. Just look at how Buffadren passed through multiple checkusers seemingly clean, and then suddenly was revealed to have been on MarkStreet's IP after all.}}
::GO and read the guidelines. It does not need discussion. ] (]) 02:15, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Discussion is required when other editors ask you questions in good faith in order to resolve present disputes and prevent future ones. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>]</span> 02:18, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
::Bear in mind this is WP and not social media. ] (]) 02:16, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
::How do you get the impression that "I don't remember what policy says but I'm right so leave me alone". ] (]) 02:18, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
:::No. You brought this here. The ] is on ''you'' to explain how the guidelines justify your edits, not to say "go look it up". Also {{tqq|How do you get the impression that "I don't remember what policy says but I'm right so leave me alone"}} - because that's exactly what you said. - ] <sub>]</sub> 02:19, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
::::It's not unreasonable in many cases to link to a very specific passage of a guideline and expect an editor to understand its meaning as regards a pertinent dispute, but you can't just fail to clearly articulate your argument while also insisting it's vindicated somewhere within the full text of a guideline. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>]</span> 02:21, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
:Content dispute. Bold edits were reverted; next step is discussion, probably at ]. If there is dispute over interpretation of the guideline you can consider leaving a pointer at ]. If there are any categories that shouldn't be used at all that can be discussed at ]. ] (]) 03:31, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
::The content dispute could have been discussed on any of the talk pages. Yet it was brought here first. ] (]) 06:16, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
:::When a content dispute involves several pages it is often <small>though not always</small> best to centralize discussion. Misunderstanding ANIs purpose and bringing content disputes here is a common and understandable error; best just to point people at appropriate ] when that happens. ] (]) 06:53, 21 December 2024 (UTC)


Not overly impressed by 43's comments above. But do wish to note that their ] of ] from at least one BLP appears to have been correct. The subsequent reversion of that removal is misfortune. ] <sup>]</sup> 08:06, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
It looks like he is putting more faith in his sleuthing abilities than the checkuser. I for one can say that if his conduct towards me is any indication, his sleuthing skills need improvement. I recommend that this block as well as his actions be given more scrutiny.] (]) 00:50, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
:I must agree that the account creation and edit patterns just ''scream'' sockpuppet, and that a checkuser cannot be used as "proof of innocence" (editing from a proxy is trivial enough). I can't tell whether FPS is ''correct'', but he certainly seems to have been ''reasonable''. &mdash;&nbsp;]&nbsp;<sup>]</sup> 01:30, 5 January 2008 (UTC)


== Unblock request of Rereiw82wi2j ==
::Possibly so but did it warrant a block? I have posted a request on John Kenney's page and I await what he has to say about this. I also think that some of the principles from ] arbcom descision might also apply here. ] (]) 03:03, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
{{atop|1=Blocked, blocked, they're all blocked. - ] <sub>]</sub> 18:47, 21 December 2024 (UTC)}}
::Just to add, my reason for posting this block is that we know that false positives do occur and since FPS is wrong about me he could also be wrong about others. ] (]) 03:08, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
The user {{u|Rereiw82wi2j}} was blocked for blanking talk page discussions. They were removing discussions they participated in with an now-vanished account, for the purpose of removing their username from the talk page(which isn't removed via a vanishing). I believe that per ] their vanishing needs to be reversed, am I correct? Do they need to be asked to resume using that account?(if they can) ] (]) 20:49, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
:It seems to need reverting because with their previous account, they only edited one article/talk page and when asked what articles they wanted to edit with their new account, they just mention this same article. That violates the entire principle of a clean start account. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 23:00, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
::Could we revoke TPA per ? ~ ] (]) 14:19, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
::: I have revoked their talk page access and declined the unblock request. ] (]) 14:34, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
::::User has created another account {{u|Human82}}. ] (]) 15:39, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::Also now blocked. ]] 16:17, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::There's also ] now. ] (]) 16:32, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::Blocked by PhilKnight. ]] 16:36, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
{{abot}}


== User:ZanderAlbatraz1145 Civility and Content #2 ==
:I have a hard time assuming good faith from anybody who comes here ''demand''ing anything. <font face="Comic Sans">]<sub>'']''</sub></font> 02:50, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
*{{userlinks|ZanderAlbatraz1145}}
This user has engaged in a lengthy display of disruption. Namely through incessant incivility I have noticed .


Instances such as , , on , etc. Users such as {{Ping|Waxworker}} and {{Ping|Jon698}} can speak to their experiences, I'll outline mine.
::Pretty please with sugar on top, could everyone not get caught up on semantics and ] and also ] on my part and address my concerns. Thanks ] (]) 03:04, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
:::{{user5|Britlawyer}} was blocked in May. Am I missing something here? --] (]) 03:34, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
::::It was in may. I posted it here in order to have a look at possible incorrect long term admin behaviour and possible overzealousness. Which I believe I have also been subjected to. ] (]) 03:43, 5 January 2008 (UTC)


On December 10, I noticed on the article ] page several additions were made that didn't adhere to the article's purpose. Zander restored these with an introductory summary rife with . For the most part there was an attempt to discuss the issue we had, but ultimately did not see eye to eye. I asserted I'd be escalating the issue to garner more substantive dialogue around it, Zander's response includes a needless . I made some attempts at engaging the topic at the article's talk page, in addition to WikiProject Film, it was over a week that saw no input. I would go on to state that (at the time) in two days, I would restore the page to it's status quo. I would do so, . Zander , and after another terse interaction, I moved to nominate the article for deletion, finding with the conflicting views of what Unrealized meant, it was too open ended and led to these lists being essentially trivia. Since then, Zander has elected to take an antagonistic approach towards me, making swipes they openly admit , and now that I am putting said comments , Zander is now doing the editing equivalent of mockingly repeating me, with edits such as and .
I am not a fan of admin FPS, he was one of the people who (proposal rejected by arbcom), but I consider legitimate the checkuser he asked regarding possible conection between ] and topic-banned user ]. Generally speaking, is nothing wrong to ask a checkuser if there are suspicions. Mauco was proved as an and the checkuser didn't gave relevant answers regarding ] (the answer was "stale" - is bad that after the arbitration case the checkuser data regarding William Mauco were not kept). I wonder why this sudden demand of an apology for a checkuser asked long time ago and which had no relevant answers (that mean nobody can tell that the suspicions were wrong). To be mentioned that yesterday a ban evasion by ] (banned in the same Transnistria arbitration like Mauco) was discovered, and FPS blocked the IP used for ban evasion, I wonder if it was not this fact who suddenly made Poco angry.--] (]) 04:47, 5 January 2008 (UTC)


This editor displays no interest in conducting themselves cordially or cooperatively on this website. ] 23:20, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
:I care not about Buffadren or Markus Street or whatever other socks that person has used. If it was proven that he was an astroturfer then he deserves to be banned. I am not angry, just determine to put an end to this issue of FPS's suspicions against me. The reason I bring this up now is, as I stated, whenever I get into a minor dispute with another editor, FPS's beliefs that I may be Mauco are trotted out by that editor and I want this to end. This has been occuring on an ongoing basis and has occurred recently (diffs can be supplied if requested). The other reason that I bring this here is that I was not able to resolve this by communicated with FPS on his talk page recently. I clearly stated that I would try to address his concerns if he would communicate these concerns. He did not present me with any way to get to a resolution on this issue with him. I have no problem with the fact that he ran a checkuser but I have a problem with the entire pattern of suspicion that hasn't even been put to rest even now and I have a problem with the fact that he seems to be basing all of this from the allegations of banned users (NokhchiBorz and Bonaparte). ] (]) 05:06, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
:I've given them a warning for canvassing: - ] <sub>]</sub> 04:08, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
: - ] <sub>]</sub> 05:36, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
::And they appear to be continuing editing while ignoring here. - ] <sub>]</sub> 05:39, 24 December 2024 (UTC)


== SPA ] back at it on ] ==
Wow, this was ages ago - I barely remember it. I remember that at the time I thought it was questionable to block a user when the check user suggested that they were not a sock puppet - and perhaps Future Perfect acted hastily. But I would imagine it's quite likely that s/he was right nonetheless. I'm not even sure what to say about this - there does seem to be a fair amount of Transnistrian sockpuppetry going on, but the Romanian side is hardly much better. It's all a fetid fever swamp, really. ] (]) 05:21, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
:if {{Confirmed}} socks are very likely to be blocked regardless of behaviour, that doesn't mean that {{Unrelated}} socks can't be blocked based on their behaviour. Sockpuppet is unfortunately not Magic Pixie Dust. -- ] <sup>]</sup> 10:52, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
::But the indefinite block should come after incorrect or abusive behaviour no? John might not remember now, but in the link I posted John said that Britlawyer was broadly "civil and polite" and "highlighted legitmate sources". ] (]) 17:50, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
:::Indeed, it was my impression at the time that Britlawyer was not behaving in unacceptable ways, aside from the question of whether or not he was a sock puppet. This is worth clarifying. The black was entirely based on the supposition that Britlawyer was a sock puppet, not based on other disruptive behavior. That said, the non Checkuser evidence that Britlawyer was a sock seemed fairly strong to me at the time after Future Perfect explained it to me, which is why I didn't pursue it further. ] (]) 21:51, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
:Lucasbfr, that statement is incorrect. Confirmed sockpuppets might not be blocked if there is a logical explanation (family members, roommates, coworkers) and unrelated users might still be sockpuppets even without technical evidence if the contributions make it obvious. Even in a simple case like only editing from work with one account and home with the other would make technical evidence improbable, but a case could be proven with contributions. I have no earthly idea if this person was socking or not, but "unrelated" doesn't necessarily mean "proven false". --] (]) 18:11, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
::I didn't say that there was no possible legit explanation for a {{confirmed}} (I saw one two days ago), just that most confirmed users are illegitimates socks. Checkusers are wary of that kind of possibilities. Anyway we are looking at the other case here :). -- ] <sup>]</sup> 09:18, 7 January 2008 (UTC)


Hi, all, I'd like some assistance with the SPA ], who's been POV pushing on the ] article since . A quick view of their extremely short edit history shows that their sole focus is on pushing a vaccine-denialist POV on that and similar COVID-related topics. Started out on the talk page and BLPN, but now they've graduated to edit-warring on the article itself; they were active in June, made a single related edit in October, but now they appear to be . They've already , and have received an warning--to which they were . Would appreciate a more permanent resolution, either a COVID-19 topic ban or just an indef considering their SPA status, so they don't just go back into hibernation and then turn up again like a bad penny. (And yeah, given this context, I don't love the implications of the username "Tikitorch2", either.) Thanks, ]&nbsp;]] 05:13, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
I have taken the liberty of copying below the principles from the unrelated but somewhat similar arbcom case (linked above) that I also believe apply here:


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


== Persistent addition of unsourced content by 2601:243:CB00:7F10:0:0:0:0/64 ==
3) Users are responsible for the editorial and administrative actions they undertake, and must be willing and prepared to discuss the reasons for their actions in a timely manner. If a user feels that they cannot justify their actions in public, they are obliged to refrain from that action altogether or to bring the matter before the Arbitration Committee. This does not apply to users carrying out official tasks as authorized by the Foundation or the Committee (including, but not limited to, CheckUser, OverSight, and OTRS activity).<br>
{{Atop|Blocked for one month.--] (]) 14:52, 21 December 2024 (UTC)}}
{{userlinks|2601:243:CB00:7F10:0:0:0:0/64}} - Keeps adding unsourced content to articles, hasn't responded to warnings, and continued after block expired. /64 has previously been blocked on December 8th for a week due to "Persistent unsourced genre changes", and 2 weeks on September 7th due to addition of unsourced content. Recent examples of addition of unsourced content: {{diff|The Iron Giant|prev|1264168891|1}}, {{diff|Joker (2019 film)|prev|1264169891|2}}, {{diff|Candyman (2021 film)|prev|1264170248|3}}, {{diff|Spirited (film)|prev|1264235847|4}}, {{diff|Sausage Party: Foodtopia|prev|1264237619|5}}. ] (]) 10:22, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
{{Abot}}


== Disruptive editing ] ==
5) Administrators are expected to act in a reasonable and transparent manner. Even when reversed, administrative actions that appear arbitrary or capricious, or are based on poor methodology and evidence, have a chilling effect on people's willingness to contribute to Misplaced Pages.<br>
{{atop
| result = I've protected the page for 24 hours. @] and @] are both warned against edit warring, including during the course of this discussion. RR, HR, and .82 should follow ] processes. Further disruptive editing or edit warring after page protection expires will result in blocks. ] (]/]) 21:13, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
}}


] has been trying for about a month now to put across his own opinion about the party' infobox. An opinion which he cannot back up with any source whatsoever. Although it has been pointed out to him by both the user ] and me, continues the disruptive editing. Ιt is worth noting that although other users made the same "mistake", when the lack of sources to support the addition was pointed out to them, they accepted it and did not continue to try to pass on their own opinion.
8.1) Blocking is a serious matter. Administrators should be exceedingly careful when blocking. Blocks should be made only if other means are not likely to be effective.<br>


https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Movement_for_Democracy_(Greece)#5/300
9.1) A decisive response to on- and off-wiki harassment of Misplaced Pages editors should not come at the expense of actions which undermine the core values of the project or the goodwill of honest contributors.}}<br>


https://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Greek_Rebel#Movement_for_Democracy
The questions that I now have are:


https://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Greek_Rebel#Disruptive_editing....again
#Why did FPS ] and assume bad faith and believe that I might be a sock after I had hardly made any edits and had only been a user for 3 days?
#Why does FPS pay so much heed to the allegiations that banned users have against me?
#Why can he not admit that he was wrong, apologize, and end all of this? Does he believe that I have made 7 months of contribution in a multitude of topics just to pull the wool over his eyes that I am a sockpuppet of one of the transnitrian astroturfers?
#Why has he not responded to this section in WP:ANI about his conduct?
#Why has he not responded to my query about his recall criteria? I still don't think it will be necessary but how can one claim to be an admin open to recall and yet not have a recall criteria?
#As per the above arbcom principle #3, did Future Perfect at Sunrise bring the matter of Britlawyer to an Arbitration Committee before applying the indefinite block? He obviously didn't justify his actions in public.
#As per the above arbom principle 8.1, was there no other means of dealing with the possible sockpuppetery of Britlawyer other than an indefinite block? ] (]) 17:46, 6 January 2008 (UTC)


::Pejoratively written "questions" like this aren't actually questions (see ]). ANI can't really deal with this - perhaps you want ] or ]? ➔ ''']''' says: at the third stroke the time will be 20:31, 8 January 2008 (UTC)


] (]) 19:15, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
:::I don't see how my questions can be thought of as loaded questions when I actually don't know the answers and I want the answers. For instance, I don't know why FPS thought I was a sockpuppet of a transnistrian astroturfer after hardly any edits and I want to know the answer. I don't know why he might still believe after 7 months of contribution to a wide variety of subjects that I still might be a sockpuppet of a transnistrian astroturfer and I want to know the answer. I have thought about an RFC but doesn't an RFC require two complainants? ] (]) 03:34, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
:This is a content dispute, not a conduct dispute. Since discussing the issue on article talk has not worked, please follow ] processes, such as seeking guidance at ] or ], or going to ]. ] (]/]) 19:50, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
::@] taking a look because I've been tagged. While there may be content elements to it I think this has gone into a behavioural issue, namely due to it being a user actively edit warring without providing sources but instead endlessly insisting on edits that are entirely ]. ] (]) 20:00, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
::It is not a problem of content but of behaviour. His claim is original research, is his own conclusion and is not verified by any source. He knows it, has admitted it, and yet he insists on adding it. ] (]) 20:02, 21 December 2024 (UTC)


(nac) ] is a moderately stable DAB page, with which I have been involved. I assume this dispute relates to ]. ] (]) 20:59, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
== Userbox ==
{{abot}}


== Sugar Bear returns with personal attacks ==
{{Archive top}}
::''Consider ] for issues that do not require administrator attention. ]<small><sup>\&nbsp;]&nbsp;/</sup></small>'' {{atop|1=/24 blocked for two weeks. - ] <sub>]</sub> 01:36, 22 December 2024 (UTC)}}
*{{rangevandal|166.181.224.0/19}}
I have created this userbox.
*]
{{User:Otolemur crassicaudatus/Userboxes/Anarcho-primitivism1}}


Using the IP range ], Sugar Bear has returned to Misplaced Pages to disrupt film and music articles. After I recognized this fact and began reverting him, Sugar Bear began a campaign of personal attacks at my talk page, using the IP ]. Can we get a rangeblock?
What I need to do? I have listed it in ]. ] (]) 08:18, 6 January 2008 (UTC)


There's a decade-plus history of this vandal attacking me, for instance his creation of the username ]. I can spot his contributions quite easily by now. ] (]) 22:35, 21 December 2024 (UTC)


.I've blocked the current IP, I may not have time to properly investigate the range right now. '''<span style="font-family: Arial;">] <small>]</small></span>''' 22:39, 21 December 2024 (UTC)


::Past disruption from nearby IPs includes the following:
::*] was blocked in 2018 and 2019.
::*] was blocked in 2018 for one month.
::*] was blocked in 2020, identifying Sugar Bear.
::*] was blocked twice in 2020 for personal attacks.
::*] was rangeblocked in 2023 for three years. ] (]) 22:53, 21 December 2024 (UTC)


::I've blocked the current /24 for two weeks, but I see a lot of potential for collateral damage for longer or broader blocks. '''<span style="font-family: Arial;">] <small>]</small></span>''' 22:59, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
:Not sure what the question is. Do you need help from an administrator (as in, does something need deleting, restoring, blocking) or is this a general userbox help question? -- ] 08:21, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
{{abot}}


== Comments by Locke Cole ==
I mean that is this userbox is suitable with wikipedia guidelines? ] (]) 08:24, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
{{atop
:Solution=stop making userboxes and start editing the encyclopedia. ] 08:26, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
| result = No support for a block for either party, and filer is fine with closure. ] ] 16:56, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
::Whoa, John, what made you so cranky that you snapped at a '''good contributor''' like this. Though, seeing like this user has '''only 2000+''' Articlespace edits (and a good deal more on Talk/WP/Userspace) he better ''start editing the encyclopedia''... ]]/] 15:40, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
}}


'''Involved''': {{userlinks|Locke Cole}}
I want to use this userbox. I want to know is this userbox is suitable with wikipedia guidelines? ] (]) 08:29, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
So I honestly think we should both receive a (24 hr) block for our behavior, but bringing it here for that to happen. This started when I posted a list of "keep" votes with no rationale at ]. Comments made by Locke Cole in response to the list include:
:I don't see how your userbox would create a problem. If it's been listed, you and others can start using it. The identifier appears legit, showing you as a member of a clearly defined class, it's not defamatory or uncivil, and others who share your beliefs may also want to use it. Looks like a thumbs up for the content. As to the technical merits (e.g. was it designed correctly, does it transclude correctly, etc.), I'm passing no judgment there as designing userboxes is outside my realm of knowledge. ] (]) 08:34, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
* {{tq|Sour grapes are over there, in case you're lost.}}
:Thank you. I just wanted to know this. ] (]) 08:41, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
::I replied to this with {{tq|What?? Voting on an AfD should be policy-based, not just "keep" or "he's too notable". I'm giving evidence to my claim that keep votes were given unnecessarily large amounts of weight when closing this. Yes, I left out the ones with evidence, because that wasn't the point of the list. Again, would you give weight to the five keep votes that just said "keep"? I believe this is the second time I've had to say this to you, but way to WP:ABF.}}
::I recall categories for Wikipedians by political affiliation being deleted, but I'm not sure about the userboxes themselves. -- ] 09:16, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
* {{tq|Well, you're already violating WP:DRVPURPOSE #8 by casting WP:ASPERSIONS about other editors. Carry on, I look forward to seeing you blocked for being an idiot.}}
:::First, there are categories which have political userboxes, seen ]. Second, the userbox in question is listed on the page. Third, I think we can close this thread now. ] 23:23, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
::And I replied to this one with {{tq|Yes, I removed a comment after realizing it violated our aspersions policy. Do you have an issue with that? Feel free to take this to ANI if you want to continue, as it’s clogging up the DRV.}}
::::Though seeing as how ] rejects all forms of technology as a destructive and corrupting influence on human nature, I'm not sure how many will show up on Misplaced Pages and utilize the userbox. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 17:24, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
This user has a long history of behavioral blocks, including '''six '''civility blocks over a span of nine years. Since this behavior clearly won't be getting better, bringing it here. It's up to y'all to decide if a BOOMERANG should happen, if we should both be blocked, or only one party gets the hammer. :) ]<sub>]</sub><sup>]</sup> 02:41, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::Indeed. I'm sure they're more likely to suffering from the Amish Virus, where you smash your abacus to pieces and then tell everyone you know to do the same with theirs. --''']''' (]) 21:47, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
::::] exactly not rejects technology, ] rejects ] as a whole, and ] is only part of ]. Try to understand the subject very well before criticizing it. Anarcho-primitivism reject all the foundations of civilization, not only technology. Anarcho-primitivism rejects ], ] everything which are part of civilization. Anarcho-primitivism rejects the entire ] as a whole. ] (]) 06:22, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
(Indent reset) Okay guys. This is NOT the appropriate venue for an in-depth discussion on anarcho-primitivism. The issue of the userbox has been addressed, and I believe that we can call this one ''case closed''. ] (]) 06:39, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
{{Archive bottom}}


:I'm not sure that the cited comments are in themselves enough to justify a block. I also note that LC has recently ]. Speaking from experience, I can state that when in deep mourning we are not always at our best. That said, I find LC's block log disturbing.-] (]) 02:52, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
== Can someone double check this please? ==
::While I do get that, and I do respect that and am deeply sorry that happened to them, this behavior has been going on since late 2005, and includes an arbitration request, hence why I brought it directly here. Calling me an "idiot" was 100% an NPA vio, and having a personal loss shouldn't excuse that (also speaking from experience with the loss of my mother from ] in 2014). This is a rare case where I'll say that a block log should give you an idea of whether this behavior will continue. ]<sub>]</sub><sup>]</sup> 02:56, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
:::{{tqq|bolding policies I've added at the end}} - I'll just note that every one of the "policies" you linked to (bar ], where I'm pretty sure you wanted ]) goes to ]. Which is very useful and well-thought-out, and by all means should be used as a tool at AfD, but is not policy. It's an essay ''on'' policy. There's a difference. - ] <sub>]</sub> 03:42, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
::::Okay then, per that I've removed the list. The comments still stand though. ]<sub>]</sub><sup>]</sup> 03:57, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
*So the OP wants themselves and the other party to receive blocks for incivility? Why don't you just stop being rude to each other? Change your own behavior. Opening this discussion is just drawing attention to a few comments that otherwise would have likely been forgotten. I don't see how this post helps the situation at all. Just do better. And if Locke Cole comes to this discussion, I pray this doesn't devolve into bickering. Let's all just get back to editing productively and not taking shots at each other. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 05:23, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
*:I don’t know, maybe I just thought it’d continue and brought it here, likely too early. Is it possible to close this? ]<sub>]</sub><sup>]</sup> 13:19, 22 December 2024 (UTC)


:From what I read from the DRV, it definitely seemed like it got heated, but it definitely seemed to cool down. Trouts for sure, but I don't see why blocks are necessary. As for you, given that you're asking to be punished, you seem to recognize what you did wrong, and you pledge to not continue this behavior. Just change your password for a day or a week and change it back later; I don't think admin intervention is necessarily warranted. ] (]) 11:43, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
behavior makes no sense to me. Can someone double check this please? Is delete the default regardless of fair use justification? Images with name X being used on an article with name X illustrating X are being marked for deletion? Why? Is it acceptable to robotically dismantle wikipedia? ] (]) 11:40, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
::Though as actual admins above have mentioned, their block history is indeed concerning. ] (]) 11:50, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
:Err, did you try his talk page first? ] 11:43, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
{{abot}}


== ] ==
::It appears (from just looking at a couple) that images are being tagged that have no copyright status or fair use rationale. And yes, this is wikipedia policy. Images without a clear copyright tag or use as fair use without a fair use rationale are likely to be deleted. ] (]) 11:46, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
{{atop|result=Just officially closing this discussion as the account involved has been globally blocked. If an editor has Spore on your Watchlist and you see this occurring again, contact your local administrator. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 06:25, 24 December 2024 (UTC)}}
This user made 500 edits to their user page which were all completely useless (] to inflate their edit count) and then once receiving extended-confirmed permissions vandalized ] by copypasting another article. Their user page shows them editing and counting to 500. ]] 04:52, 22 December 2024 (UTC)


:It's a ], and I just reported to AIV. ] (]) 04:58, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
:::What exactly is it you have a problem with? Since you didn't mention this to me and only linked to my contributions, its a bit difficult to see what you might be concerned with. ] <sup>]</sup> 11:48, 6 January 2008 (UTC)


::Would it be possible to put up some kind of filter to alert for this? Something that…say…catches when more than 25 edits are made in a single space (user space for example) or something that would trip if the edits added less than 5 characters consistently? <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 05:15, 22 December 2024 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
As I said '''Images with name X being used on an article with name X illustrating X are being marked for deletion.''' It is fair use to use the cover of a book on an article about that book. Images that say exactly that are being marked for deletion. Images '''with''' a fair use rationale are being marked for deletion. It appears that tags are being placed without actually reading the data about the image. In short it appears to be robot-like tagging. Or maybe someone has a vastly different idea of "fair use". I'm aware that the legal definition and the Misplaced Pages fair use criteria differ, but last I heard, book covers were allowed on articles about that book. Has this changed, or are these tags being placed inappropriately? One or the other is true. ] (]) 01:01, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
:::There is a filter for this. Look at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Special:AbuseLog&wpSearchUser=International+Space+Station0&offset=20241222044736, "New account unusual activity" covers exactly this. ] (]) 05:22, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
*This account has been globally blocked as an LTA so it shouldn't be an issue. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 05:25, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
*:At what point is it appropriate to selectively delete their hundreds of edits of nonsense from the page history?
*:Or is that just something that isn't done? &ndash; ] (]) (]) 05:28, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
*::If you are talking ], there is rarely a good reason for it's use at present. If instead you mean ] see ] and ]. ] (]) 05:33, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::I've gone ahead and revdel'd the lot of them, as cut-and-pasting from other articles without proper attribution is copyvio and thus RD1able. Selective deletion (making the edits go away from the history) is probably not going to happen, if it's even technically possible for an article with almost *9500* revisions (I know ]!). - ] <sub>]</sub> 08:55, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
{{abot}}


== POV IP editor and 2024 Kobani clashes ==
::I found the image you were referring to . It appears you also blindly reverted my tags without fixing the problem. You may wish to review ] which discusses fair use rationales in detail. Per my understanding saying "Fair use is claimed for this low res image of the book cover for use in illustrating the article about the book at ]." isn't sufficient as a fair use rationale. Specifically there is no mention of respect for commercial opportunities or discussion of minimal usage (i.e. why the entire cover is used). ] <sup>]</sup> 12:47, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
{{atop|1=Blocked. - ] <sub>]</sub> 21:36, 23 December 2024 (UTC)}}
This engages in BLP and POV pushing with things like this and this , and then edit warring and then makes personal attacks like this , in a source documenting casualties for all of December instead of the specific date, and then when he is reverted by another editor respond with . I believe this person is ] to build an encyclopedia, and also the ] article should potentially be given semi-protection status as it's part of the Syrian Civil War which has discretionary sanctions. Thanks. ] (]) 05:34, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
:Oh also . ] (]) 05:55, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
::{{an3|b|72 hours}} (]) and pages protected ] 13:15, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
{{abot}}


== Promotional content about Elvenking (band) ==
:::My question to the admins here is "Is it appropriate to demand mention of respect for commercial opportunities or discussion of minimal usage (i.e. why the entire cover is used) in all cases?" I can't see it. It is a minimal size image of a cover that has no obvious commercial use other than illustrating the novel. What sort of discussion could I possibly provide on using say the top half or the bottom half of the image. This strikes me as absurd. This appears to me to simply be deleting images to make wikipedia worse. Wholesale deletion if people who loaded up book cover images years ago and are gone now don't magically show up and jump through absurd hoops. I see a lack of thought and effort and mere robotic labeling in preparation for robotic deletion. I object to this thoughtless trashing of wikipedia. ] (]) 17:08, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
{{atop
| result = There does not appear to be an actionable COI here, just an avid fan. Content issues can be handled through the appropriate channels. {{ping|Elvenlegions}} please be mindful of musical notability and what Misplaced Pages is and isn't for. ] ] 17:03, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
}}


: I may be looking at the wrong version of the rationale, but I was struck by these two sentences: "The book 'Down and Out in the Magic Kingdom' is copyrighted under a Creative Commons license. The copyright status of the cover art is unknown." Isn't this a justifiable case where we should ], & assume a reasonable reproduction of the cover art is allowed on Misplaced Pages until proven otherwise? (And no, I'm not trying to be snarky here, I'm just puzzled over the need to dot i's & cross t's in this one case.)-- ] (]) 19:35, 8 January 2008 (UTC)


I noticed a consistent addition of promotional content about an apparently unencyclopedic band, namely ], with articles being also dedicated to each band member (eg.
WAS: This is not the place to discuss established ]. If you want to change that policy, start a discussion on ], though I doubt that it will get anywhere. Also, per ], fair use may not have to be involved at all, ]. Finally, we need to know which ] is used before we make any assumptions about the copyright status of the image (unless of course we can find proof of an acceptable license for the cover). --'''<font color="red">]</font><font color="green">]</font><font color="blue">]</font>''' @029, i.e. 23:42, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
] and ]) and their unsold discography, which also got a dedicated template ({{tl|Elvenking}}). I also noticed a weird pattern by ], which appears to be either a very big fan or in conflict of interests, as well as other accounts apparently created just to support the band (eg. ]).<span id="Est._2021:1734845816539:WikipediaFTTCLNAdministrators&apos;_noticeboard/Incidents" class="FTTCmt"> —&nbsp;] (] <b>·</b> ]) 05:36, 22 December 2024 (UTC)</span>


:I am indeed a big fan of the band and am trying to update the band's wikipedia information to make it as accurate as possible so people can learn about the band. I hope this helps support the band and also helps wikipedia readers and users who wish to learn more about the band. ] (]) 06:14, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
== ]: Disruption and sockpuppetry ==
:*If these musicians are not notable, you can always tag the articles CSD A7. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 07:42, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
::Understood, Elvenlegions, but ]. If the band, nor its members, nor its discography qualify as notable under the ], then the band's fans will have to learn about it elsewhere. ] 07:51, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
{{abot}}


== Disruptive editor on ] ==
] sockpuppeteer (confirmed by Checkuser admins ] & ], see summary of behaviour ]), has been blocked three times for repeated copyvio contributions, repeated vandalism and repeated disruption. She has a history of abusive sockpuppetry and disruptive edits related to the now deleted ] subject in particular. Articles on Wenocur have been deleted four times already, the fifth is ]. MathStatWoman has not edited since Aug 06 (none have any of her previously identified sockpuppets have edited past Sept 06, except for one, which made edits to userpage removing the sock template ).


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)
The most recent ] article was created by ]. Other pages created by MathStatWoman and since edited by Alfred Legrand include ] (twice survived AfD by non-consensus), and ].


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


=== Irrelevant sources and unnecessary changes to genre list on {{pagelinks|When the Pawn...}} ===
MathStatsWoman complained that ] ought to be deleted , Alfred Legrand's put a prod tag on it (). Alfred Legrand has also created some very odd food-related articles, such as ], the (now deleted) ] and ]. He's also made edits attributing the invention of recipies to R.S. Wenocur, e.g. the pomegranate martini , the harvest moon beer coctail . In a similar edit ] attributes a recipie for ] (note difference in capitaliation from the Alfred Legrand article) to R.S. Winocur .


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.
Not only is ] a transparent ] sockpuppet, but quite aside from the sockpuppetry, these edits are disruptive to the project. Off to file at SSP now. ] (]) 04:51, 7 January 2008 (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
:These personal attacks and this suggestion for deletion of the BLP ] (a WP admin involved in wikiproject mathematics) are reminiscent of ]. In addition donations of $34-89 to ] at the Fibonacci level (the "Archimedes Society" of MSRI), mentioned in the BLP of ], are not made public. This unsourced private detail in the BLP of Wenocur plus a copy of Wenocur's CV in Alfred Legrand's user space (]) suggests that it could be one of her close associates, <s>possibly even Wenocur herself</s>, making these edits. ] (]) 17:45, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
::] (Roberta S. Wenocur) has made a statement here . Alfred Legrand is referred to as ''Dr. Legrand'', contrary to & . ] (]) 20:33, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
:::On Jimbo's talk page ] wrote:
:::<blockquote>« I have had articles about quite noteable persons erased, and have been accused of vandalism when what I added was truth, backed by references. I have been blocked for unknown reasons. »</blockquote>
:::These odd statements about reversions and blocks are not reflected in his history or block log and could be further evidence of sockpuppetry. In addition this user vandalized ] in the the most perverse way here . All the sources are incorrect and the crazy additions seem typical of MathStatWoman. The edit refers to Cro-Magnon characters called "Me Ogg" and "Ugga"; the female "Ugga" counts in base thirty and moreover
:::<blockquote>« Og and Ugga contributed to ], especially ]s. Og say: How many buffolo we catch this moon? Ugga say: three. Og ask: How many we try to catch? Ugga say: thirty. So empitical measure of 3/30 = 0.1 was invented. »</blockquote>
:::It is very hard to assume good faith when editors behave as vandals like this. Or am I missing something? ] (]) 00:53, 8 January 2008 (UTC)


Thank you. ] (]) 19:32, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
::The "suggestion for deletion" mentioned above has now been turned into an actual , but the nomination appears to be incomplete. For obvious reasons I don't want to complete the nomination process or otherwise clean up the mess myself — can someone else do so, please? Thanks. —] (]) 05:09, 10 January 2008 (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)
There's quite a few SPAs showing up out of nowhere at ], if anyone wants to go sort the whole mess out. <font color="blue">]</font><font color="red">]</font> 21:33, 9 January 2008 (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)
:Also ] made a surprise reappearance there, after the mathematical hoaxes by now-blocked ]. These two editors corrected some of the hoax entries with their own user accounts, which seems to confirm Pete.Hurd's charge that one was a sockpuppet of the other. ] (]) 12:34, 10 January 2008 (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)


== User Luke0101 == == Bunch of racist IPs/account ==
{{atop|1=Sent packing. - ] <sub>]</sub> 21:12, 22 December 2024 (UTC)}}
Article: ]
* {{user|GREEKMASTER7281}}
* {{ip|112.202.57.150}}
* {{ip|186.154.62.233}}
] (]) 13:53, 22 December 2024 (UTC)


:Named account indeffed, IPs blocked for 72 hours each. ]] 14:12, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
* {{user5|Luke0101}}
{{abot}}
User Luke0101 is creating difficulties on at least two pages. Luke0101 appears to be editing without communicating. I am not certain why, but I suggest that you review this pattern. ] (]) 06:23, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
: To save time, it would be helpful if you could say what pages, and what the difficulties are. --]]] 06:57, 7 January 2008 (UTC)


== Urgent need for page protection on BLP ==
::The issues seems resolved, thank you. ] (]) 23:45, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
{{atop
"I think I wrote all the changes I made on the discussion page, not the talk page. (I was under the impression that the talk page and the discussion page was the same. My sincere apologies. --] (]) 23:38, 7 January 2008 (UTC)"
| result = Protection applies. Appears admin eyes are on the Talk page. ] ] 19:53, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
:(weird edit conflict) The terms "discussion page" and "talk page" refer to the same thing, at least for articles anyway, and usually everywhere else. --'''<font color="red">]</font><font color="green">]</font><font color="blue">]</font>''' @040, i.e. 23:57, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
}}


There is currently a content dispute going on at ] involving allegations of a mental health crisis with mulitple IPs involved in a dispute over wether the information is reliable or not. A discussion is underway on the article's talkpage, but in the meantime there is revert warring taking place on the article. The page could really benefit from temporary semi protection. -- ] (]) 18:46, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
== User:TTN bulk redirecting episode pages ==
:Looks like ] got it. ] (]) 19:15, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
::{{reply to|DMacks}} Thanks! Yeah. I assume they will also need a third-party closer given the heated nature of the argument. -- ] (]) 19:27, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
{{abot}}


== Multiple users breaking 3RR on Gilman School article ==
* ] is still or again indiscriminately replacing hundreds of pages about episodes of fiction serials by redirects to their parent pages. Some have called this "soft-deleting". This has caused many user complaints in ] (also see its archive pages). I feel that:
** He should be warned to stop this practice. If he wants to "soft-delete" all the episode pages about serial or show X, there should be an AfD discussion for each serial or show X involved.
** Someone or a bot should revert all his edits which are the last edit to a page and are replacing a text page by a redirect. Then we and he can start again, AfD-discussing for each serial or show.
** ] (]) 07:26, 7 January 2008 (UTC)


: His behavior has been to ArbCom and they did not sanction him. Every time I have taken the time to politely request an AfD, I have been obliged. What administrative action do you require? ]<small>]</small> 07:33, 7 January 2008 (UTC)


: Redirecting is a normal editorial decision that doesn't require any more previous discussion than any other content edit. He is making mass edits because there is a mass of trash to clean up. How else would you do it? And why waste more time on the junk? Show me one page, just one, that TTN has redirected in this latest spat of his that even remotely resembles a legitimate encyclopedia page. ] ] 07:36, 7 January 2008 (UTC)


Two users are actively engaged in an ongoing edit war on ], with both {{user13|Counterfeit_Purses}} breaking 3RR , , , and {{user13|Statistical_Infighting}} being right at 3 Reverts
: He was instructed to seek consensus via discussion before pulling this crap. If he's failing that, he's not meeting the expectations of his arbcom case, as amazingly weak as the decision was. ] (]) 07:44, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
, , .


This seems to go back to December 9th, with the first editor (Counterfeit) removing it and , on the 17th, , and then being at the above today.
: I have undone Anthony's revert spree (great, more crap on my watchlist). Talk first next time. --] 07:48, 7 January 2008 (UTC)


] (])
::Would someone consider doing the same for similar reversions of ] by {{user|Mvuijlst}} on ''Gilmore Girls'' articles? / ]<small> ] ]</small> 08:16, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
*E/C applied. ] ] 19:51, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
::: It seems to me that ] is attempting to discredit ] by making sweeping generalisations; I would like to see evidence that his edits are in breach of any guidelines before this complaint is brought here. If these episodes have no ] to demonstrate notability, then I would suggest TNT's edits are '''bold'''.--] (]) 08:31, 7 January 2008 (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)
*Sorry. I am not trying to discredit anyone. For an example of the user complaints about this "soft deleting", see ]. ] (]) 08:59, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
:::@] No problem, I've already given up. I would argue that ] applies here, but there's no sense in pushing against the tide. If you're content to have the lede section of Gilman School include "prominent graduates including "alleged murderer Luigi Mangione", I guess that's fine. It seems to be an unusual thing to include and an obvious case of undue weight given to something that is in the news at the moment. Perhaps someone should start a Wikiproject to add famous murderers to the ledes of other schools? ] (]) 22:00, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
::::{{u|Counterfeit Purses}}, in my view, ] is among our most misunderstood policy documents. It begins {{tpq|In principle, all Misplaced Pages articles should contain up-to-date information. Editors are also encouraged to develop stand-alone articles on significant current events.}} I believe that Mangione is notable, the evolving article is acceptable, and his name belongs in the alumni list. Many, many "bad people" are listed as alumni in countless school articles, and it is not at all unusual. The only unusual thing here is that the lead of this particular school article lists alumni, and so I have removed them from the lead. ] (]) 01:07, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::I'm glad that misunderstanding WP:NOTNEWS is so common because I am going to continue to misunderstand it. I see that Liz Luigi Mangione from the lede before you removed the rest of the list. Acknowledging again that I have given up hope that Mangione will be removed from this article, let me ask you what you think the purpose of these alumni lists is? Including Mangione is an editorial decision. We don't include all notable alumni in these lists, so why should we include Mangione, and why now? It's too soon to know if he will have lasting relevance. ] (]) 04:22, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::{{tqq|We don't include all notable alumni in these lists}} Why not? If someone is Wikinotable and went to a Wikinotable school, then they belong in the "Notable alumni" section of that school's page, ] - ] <sub>]</sub> 04:28, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::@] I'm not saying "we shouldn't", I'm saying "we don't". We don't include every notable alumnus in these lists, nor should we because it would lead to long, unhelpful lists stuck in the middle of articles about the schools. ] (]) 04:49, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::If an alumni list bloats an article, it can be split out. See ]. 11:29, 23 December 2024 (UTC) (Oops, signing) ] (]) 16:01, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::Of course that's always an option, but what I am saying is that it isn't desirable to have every alumnus listed in an article for a school. Ideally, it would be a selection of alumni who have made significant achievements in their field. Otherwise, it's just trivia. Am I wrong? ] (]) 17:21, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::Yes. You're making a value judgment that some alumni (with articles, else they most definitely should not be included) are more notable than others. That is ]. ] (]) 20:05, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::Yes, that's called editorial judgment. Just like deciding not to include every known fact about something in an article. At some point, it is just trivia. Misplaced Pages is not a database. That info would probably be welcome over on Wikidata, which is a database. Alternatively, someone could just add ] (in this case). ] (]) 20:52, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::And a new user, who doesn't understand categories and has no idea Wikidata exists, is relying on the list on the page. - ] <sub>]</sub> 21:35, 23 December 2024 (UTC)


== Persistent addition of unsourced content by 2600:480A:4A72:6000:0:0:0:0/64, yet again ==
*I think that this further highlights the need for a fandom/pop culture Wiki, where secondary sources and notability aren't required. People wouldn't fight so hard over these articles if a good alternative was available. ] 10:12, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
{{atop|1=Genre warrior sent packing. - ] <sub>]</sub> 02:42, 23 December 2024 (UTC)}}
**I think it highlights the need to block people who pull crap like this without discussion. But that's just me. ] (]) 10:30, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
{{userlinks|2600:480A:4A72:6000:0:0:0:0/64}} - Keeps adding unsourced content to articles, hasn't responded to warnings, and continued the same behaviour immediately following the end of a 3 month block. See block log and the two previous ANI threads from September (], ]) related to this /64. Recent examples of addition of unsourced content: {{diff|You Could Be Born Again|prev|1264637321|1}}, {{diff|Kites are Fun|prev|1264637435|2}}, {{diff|Heaven/Earth|prev|1264641723|3}}, {{diff|Stars/Time/Bubbles/Love|prev|1264642096|4}}, {{diff|...Sing for Very Important People|prev|1264642646|5}}. ] (]) 20:33, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
***Yes, indeed. It highlights the need to block people who reinstate crap like this, which is a violation of our non-free content policies and potentially violates copyright. Which is exactly what I intend to do from now on. ] ] 14:49, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
:I see the genre warriors are out today. Don't you realise how childish you are? (Not you, ].) ] (]) 20:37, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
**** Quite. While there is obviously some dispute with certain articles, why on earth people would want to re-instate articles which quite obviously violate WP:NOT, WP:V and WP:N and always will, is beyond me. <b>]</b> 14:53, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
::I thought I was the only one who noticed how many were running rampant today. So exhausting. . . ] (]) 20:45, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
* I can't see any problem with TTN's particular edits here. Unlike some pages, articles like the ] episodes are never going to have enough to be standalone articles, and redirecting is the correct move here. I really don't see why this is controversial at all; if it was another editor than TTN doing it would there be the same problem? <b>]</b> 12:56, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
:::/64 blocked for six months. '''<span style="font-family: Arial;">] <small>]</small></span>''' 22:16, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
{{abot}}


== User:NoahBWill2002 ==
Before anyone goes for another headhunt on TTN, perhaps they should look at the articles he is redirecting and see how they stand up to Misplaced Pages's existing policies. A took a snapshot of some of the articles and all of them fail ] because they are just merely plot summaries. They also fail ] as not a single one of them contains a single independent reliable third-party source. As such, there is no way they can pass ] or any of the other notability criteria. So rather then waist time and sending the articles to ], he is redirecting/merging them into the appropriate list which stands a much better chance at establishing notability. --''']''' (]) 14:53, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
{{atop|1=NOTHERE blocked. - ] <sub>]</sub> 02:42, 23 December 2024 (UTC)}}
*{{userlinks|NoahBWill2002}}
It looks like there's a pretty severe ] issue with this user. Virtually every one of their edits has had to be reverted either for adding copyrighted content/, (), or . Lastly and indicates that they're unlikely to learn from any of this. <br>
(As an aside, I just blocked them on Commons for uploading non-free files after warnings (and having copyright/the issue with their uploads explained them in detail) and uploading out-of-scope files after warnings.)<br>
I think admin action is warranted here. ] (]) 22:09, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
:I 100% agree with ] on this. ] appears completely unable to comprehend and/or follow some of the core rules of Misplaced Pages, especially ] and ], despite multiple editors trying to help them understand. The comment that Squirrel Conspiracy , followed by a series of blatant copyright violations, makes it abundantly clear that this editor is not going to change and is not here to build an encyclopedia. ] (]) 22:47, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
::They have only had an account for a few days. It's seems rather soon to proclaim they are "not going to change". The images they were trying to add have been deleted from the Commons, let's see if they can find other ways to contribute to the project now that they can't promote their artwork here. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 23:09, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Given ], I'm not sanguine about their intention to contribute productively. ] (]/]) 23:11, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
:::They added ] grossly inappropriate religious screed to ] on their third day of editing, then they responded to a warning about it with ]. I had hoped they would get the message but just today they made ] non-NPOV edit apparently based on their religious beliefs. Apart from religious edits, apparently the only other thing they've done is add self-produced fan art to a variety of articles. I'm willing to AGF while they learn what are acceptable edits here but I'd like to see some acknowledgement from them that they understand why all their edits so far have been unacceptable. (It would also show good faith if they would clean up the now-broken links in numerous articles now that their fan art has been deleted from Commons, rather than leaving it for other editors to do.) ] (]) 00:16, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
::::I have indefinitely blocked NoahBWill2002 as not here to build an encyclopedia. ] (]) 01:21, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
{{abot}}


== Vandal encounter ==
It sorta would help to know if TTN's present behavior is objectionable or not. I agree that the ultimate result (merge individual eps to episode list) is appropriate for those that do not demonstrate notability, but as I'm trying to wrap up a rewrite of ], TTN's name comes up nearly once a day, and so we're trying to make sure that there is an acceptable route of actions to dealing with non-notable articles.


] seems to be a vandal who seems to be ready to start an edit war. I have reverted their disruptive edits, and they have begun to add them back.
I pulled out one at random from TTN's latest edits: ] (a Gilmore Girls episode). A user (not TTN) added the {{tl|plot}} tag in September, a random IP added {{tl|notability}} in late November. Outside of the bot edits for these tags, there were two changes made since and both only adding info to the plot. So TTN goes ahead and redirects the article without any additional discussion, neither on the article page or the main Gilmore Girls talk page. A month seems like a reasonable time to wait for notability to be demonstrated, but there's also the lack of notification (as best I can tell) that TTN was going to mass-run through all articles. My only argument against TTN's actions here is that he is not discussing them first with appropriate talk pages even though they were "notified" by the tags that cleanup was needed. --] 15:11, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
:Yes, discussion should occur and consensus should be found as the arbcom bearing TTN's name urged. ] (]) 15:29, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
:: If the actions are controversial, I agree. Deleting (or redirecting in this case) articles which patently fail multiple Misplaced Pages policies is not controversial, however much heat and light it may generate. If these articles went to AfD they would be deleted. Having said that, it might be the best option in order that re-creations of similar articles fell under CSD criterion G4, whereas at the moment CSD is not available for use (and rightly, I think).<b>]</b> 15:36, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
::: The pale fact that his behavior has spawned an arbcom case, multiple threads here and heated discussion at WP:FICT highlights that his efforts are indeed controversial. It is quite silly to say otherwise based on the mounds of evidence to the contrary. ] (]) 07:17, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
:Generally, I use merge tags with series with more than thirteen episodes, those with high "traffic", or those that actually require info to be merged. In the case of the Gilmore Girls, only the pilot has more than fifty edits (and it still has less than one hundred), and it has been around since '05. There is no reason for discussion in that case. The only thing a discussion would lead to is the one user gaining the ability to wikilawyer by claiming that there is no consensus found in the local discussion. ] (]) 15:33, 7 January 2008 (UTC)


diffs: </nowiki>] </nowiki>] </nowiki>] </nowiki>]
::I agree that discussions on episode article Talk pages tend to rally editors whose interest in logging their fandom tends to exceed their concern for policy. Recently such articles, which by ] should have Merge discussions, have been discussed as Articles for deletion. Is something broken here? / ]<small> ] ]</small> 15:42, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
::: Semantics only, I think. Merging and redirecting these episodes to the list article is above called "soft-deleting" (I don't like the phrase, but I see why it's used) as the actual redirects themselves will probably never be searched for. On the other hand, I don't see any reason why the pages themselves couldn't go to AfD as many are obviously unencyclopedic without hope of rescue; it's just that redirecting is less of a waste of everyone's time and effort. <b>]</b> 15:49, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
:::: I do understand that if you bring these types up for discussion, you are going to get the rallying cry. At the same time, when it is done "without warning" (e.g. the case of "A Family Matter"), ] gets hit with requests to drop that guideline (despite the fact that it's built on PLOT and NOTE), and what is partially behind the fact that it's been unstable for about 6 months now. Again, I agree with the general outcome of TTN's edits that the bulk of these articles are non-notable and should not have been created until notability is established, but if you look through WP:FICT's talk page and archives, you'll see that there's a lot of people that want to almost stop TTN from doing what he does, which is making trying to rewrite this more difficult. The best I've been able to add is that at best, merging or transwiking the info to an appropriate wiki is a better solution than AfD, but even these merge actions are being seen as aggressive. --] 16:26, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
:::::Only by a vocal minority. TTN is doing some very useful work - these articles are all garbage. I have not yet seen him redirect a decent referenced episode article. And I have not once seen him refuse to civilly and politely accept any requests from dissenting editors for an article to go to AFD for further discussion. The wailing and gnashing of teeth from those who happily revert back to recreate articles that fail a laundry list of policies because "TTN did it" is the behavioural issue here, not TTN's actions. ] ] 16:37, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
::::::Please refrain from insulting other peoples' work. If you cannot avoid this, please instead avoid the topic. This is an obviously inflammatory matter where a number of people feel that they're not being trated fairly, and ''you're not helping.'' --]<font color="black">]</font><font color="green">]</font> 16:47, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
:::::::The people that create plot-summary-only articles and revert legitimate redirects aren't helping either, and they are a far worse problem than TTN.] (]) 16:59, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
::::::::Sorry, but I don't think that's relevant to civility. --]<font color="black">]</font><font color="green">]</font> 17:01, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
:::::::::I completely echo Neil's comment above; this ''is'' cruft and TTN's efforts are not problematic. As this AN/I discussion is showing (as those before this one), there is general community consensus that our policies, principles and guidelines be enforced. Reference to the arbcom decision in the case where the content is in clear violation of those principles is cross-eyed wikilawyering. ] (]) 19:20, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
::::::::::...And neither is that, or is it? --]<font color="black">]</font><font color="green">]</font> 23:45, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
:::::::::::Neil's right in the action increasingly becoming wrong just because "TTN did it" - ] was trying to get TTN's monobook blanked for reverting a user who was reverting them back against a unobjected wikiproject consensus. ''']''' <sup>(])</sup> 01:28, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
::::::::::::I just noticed a on that very topic. Sincerely, --<font face="Times New Roman">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 01:41, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
::::::I reverted the mass-redirect (or soft delete if you will) of the Gilmore Girls episodes. I have no strongly held opinions whatsoever about those articles. I do doubt the way this was done, certainly in the light of the recent Arbitration Committee decision that urged for a degree of cooperation and consensus. I just checked in the mirror, and nope: neither wailing nor gnashing of teeth. No happily reverting either: regretfully reverting, ''twice'' even, because I think it's the right thing to do. As it's been said elsewhere: there's no hurry. Why not leave things up, and trust the community to come up with a good solution? Sweeping those episode articles under the rug does nobody a favour and only polarises the issue. -- ] (]) 17:02, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
::::::: If (and that's a big if) there was any possibility that these articles could become encyclopedic at any point, I would agree with you. But (in these cases at least) there is not. They fail practically every article-related policy that Misplaced Pages has, as pointed out above. It doesn't matter what the community "consensus" is here - it will never trump policy. I'm sure there are episode articles for other series that are, or may at some point, become good articles - in those cases discussion is the correct way forward. <b>]</b> 18:23, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
::::::::For some of the earlier discussions, please see ] and ]. Sincerely, --<font face="Times New Roman">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 18:47, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
:::::::::By the way, for a clarification on the above, please see ]. Thank you. Sincerely, --<font face="Times New Roman">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 19:34, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
*For each set of episode pages of one serial or show, start an AfD. If that AfD after due discussion says "delete", THEN redirect the episode pages to their main page, with the edit comment "Redirected per AfD ]". ] (]) 00:07, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
**Policy does not require an editor to do that. It's why ] and ] exist. ] ] 02:15, 8 January 2008 (UTC)


I would have put this at AIV, but I have no clue how to edit source. ] (]) 23:43, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
I support fully TTN's actions. He'snot at all totalitarian about this, but completely open to reasonable discussion. To wit, I'm a member of ]. I went to TTN and asked that he skip our project's domain, and let us sort it out. He agreed easily. I think TTN's contributions really do clean up Misplaced Pages. Do we really need that many Gilmore Girls articles? I just wish he'd take on Family Guy. There are WAY too many plot nad pop culture only episodes, and few with actual real-world relevant content. TTN provides Misplaced Pages with incrementally better credibility the more episode articles her turns into redirects, by helping us put the proper emphasis on the wide range of topics we cover. Should editors find his BOLD MERGEs inappropriate, then can easily revert them and improve the articles. ] (]) 03:31, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
:While I agree that ] is doing a good thing overall, he seems to be resorting to edit wars rather than let editors revert the redirects. A glance through the histories of , , , , , and any number of other articles shows repeated reverts to the desired redirect without any discussion on the relevant talk pages, a far cry from the recommended ] pattern that generally works so well. If TTN is serious about making these redirects stick, discussions leading to consensus is the only way to do it. --]-]] 04:06, 8 January 2008 (UTC)


:{{not done}} - Not an admin - I hate to be that person but unfortunately you've not sufficiently warned them, They've only received one warning and their edits aren't gross vandalism so this would only be declined by an admin anyway, If they continue I'll report them to AIV, Thanks, –]<sup>]</sup> 23:47, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
::Oh please. His edit summaries are clear, and people revert because they worked hard on that crap, instead of working hard to get it ABOVE the level of crap. If every time some idiot reverted to the full article with the 'well, a real person is an actor on the show, that's real world info, now we must discuss', TTN's intentions would totally fail. because each and every single article would require the same level of craptastical disputation. Why don't the various editors instead actually improve the articles? The BEST I can see being reasonable is if TTN used a bot to follow behind each redirect, posting a stock new section to the article talk, in which it stated something to the effect of 'due to a lack of Real World Context and Notability, the article has been redirected to the main list of articles. Until such citable information is added, do not restore the article. Please use this talk page to build up a good article, thank you, sincerely, TTN'. But to expect him to go through and explain, ten thousand times a week, that a fifteen paragraph plot summary and a holistic cast and crew section aren't real world context, and fight at it till all the editors understand, is NOT a realistic situation. He's cleaning up this project. Do we really need MORE articles about Gilmore Girls or Family Guy than we do about the statesmen of all the varied nations, or all the animals cataloged by scientists? What's REALLY mroe encyclopedic? ] (]) 05:50, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
::Ah, I see. Thank you! This has been noted for the future. Thank you, again! ] (]) 23:48, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
:::I actually think your tag-along bot proposal is pretty good, but I have to disagree with your assessment of "Redirect per ]. Do not bring this back without adding ]." as a clear edit summary. ] is a disputed policy (] currently lists no less than seven drafts), and ] is an accompanying guideline to ]. I'm of the opinion that until he can demonstrate some sort of broad-based consensus for redirecting and merging episodes and other similar articles, he should follow the slower procedures on ] (including following through with discussion and refraining from edit warring when another editor objects to his actions). --]-]] 09:04, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
:::You're welcome, Happy editing, Thanks, –]<sup>]</sup> 23:51, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
::::I assume you are up here because of the VivianDarkbloom incident report. It's worthy of note that none of the articles involved there would pass any version of ]. They were only plot summaries.] (]) 13:11, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
:::::You assume right :) While this doesn't excuse her actions and I have no intention of contesting your point that the redirects are a Good Thing, edit warring is edit warring even when you're warring for a good cause. Multiple reverts, to help with the reverts, refusing to take issues to the relevant talk pages--these actions do not adhere to the collegial spirit we try to create here.


== ] mass-creating articles for non-notable or nonexistent places ==
:::::While he certainly hasn't slipped into incivility and isn't trying to make a ] with his edits as VivianDarkbloom did, he has also failed to demonstrate that his actions are based on consensus (with the possible exception of the redirects related to the ]). Misplaced Pages is a slow-cook project; I see no need to rush and take care of these articles before ] is settled (after all, an eleventh-hour proposal allowing these articles isn't outside the realm of possibility). Alternately, he could bring the issue up with the relevant WikiProject to ensure some level of consensus and community support before diving in to a given series. Or the simple act of moving it to the talk page could defuse a lot of tempers. There are any number of constructive ways to address the problems he wants to address, and those should be the first stop in undertaking a task of this magnitude. In fact, this is one of the ] suggested in the oft-mentioned ]. As an aside, TTN ] that he would refrain from edit warring and utilize ]s more often.
{{atop
| result = GDJackAttack1 has agreed to no further creation of the problematic articles. Extant ones being handled via usual channels. No further action needed here. ] ] 02:39, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
}}


{{user|GDJackAttack1}} has been mass-creating stub articles for places such as insignificant residential subdivisions and other localities in Alabama and Maryland (]), islands in the Bahamas and Senegal (]), and other insignificant highways and airports around the world. None of these articles are sourced by anything that verifies notability, just databases and maps, which has resulted in at least one article being pointed out as a map misreading and therefore nonexistent community at ]. I can only speculate how many more of these places do not exist and if any of them are ]s.
:::::Speaking of resolutions, has any need for administrative action been raised? --]-]] 14:51, 8 January 2008 (UTC)


There are too many of these articles to send through AfD or PROD manually and there is really no point in draftifying them or converting the articles into redirects since we have little proof that these topics are notable or even exist at all. Their ] consists of nothing but notices of their articles being moved to the draftspace, AfD/PROD notices, and messages informing them to be more careful about article creation, yet they have seemingly ignored these messages and have persisted with spamming these stub articles for no clear reason. <span style="border-radius:9em;padding:0 5px;background:#3366cc">]&nbsp;]&nbsp;]</span> 01:13, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::It's fine to wallow in a feel-good spirit of collegiality, good faith and the like, but don't willfully be an ingenu. The contours of the ongoing struggle over whether Misplaced Pages should be allowed to become a fansite are so vast that the kind of happy back and forth you envision is not only impractical, but serves those who tout such a recourse as a means of gaming the system. ]'s point above is extremely well put. I would add that Misplaced Pages's reputation is heavily unsettled by the fact that we permit 20,000 word articles on subjects like ], crammed with minutiae that reflect the overwhelmingly white American, 20-35 year old, computer literate, rather nerdy, anime-watching, single male that largely defines the content here. With Misplaced Pages's credibility already so shellacked by intensely detailed game guides, and veritably voluminous information on every single transformer to have been schlocked by Japanese marketing mandarins, I submit that removing the navel-gazing, in-universe, trivia laden fancrufty material that is slowly turning Misplaced Pages into TV.com is perhaps rather more urgent than your breezy and wide-armed Weltanschauung implies. ] (]) 17:17, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
:::::::Can you point me towards a discussion about the extent that destruction of content, mass or otherwise, is suitable for defending our reputation? I've seen this used as a justification four times in a short period of time and am quite interested in it. Data on how and how much our reputation is affected would also be helpful. --]<font color="black">]</font><font color="green">]</font> 22:53, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
:::::::Rather than respond directly to your comment (incidentally, what exactly is an "ingenu"?), I'll simply point you to ]'s comment below, as he summarizes everything that I would say. Given that I've already contributed enough to the usurpation of AN/I to discuss something that does not seem to require administrative intervention, I'll refrain from further comments here and simply keep any eye on the more appropriate venues at ]. --]-]] 02:08, 9 January 2008 (UTC)


:I will stop creating these articles. ] (]) 01:27, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
*That depends on the definition of "crap". E.g. I have no interest in ], and to me most football matter is footballcruft and I skip over it; but I know that football is important to many people and I do not go round deleting or soft-deleting dozens of football-related pages. ] (]) 06:50, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
:I tagged one as '''CSD A7''' to see if that would work. ] ] 01:36, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
** Possibly - to repeat myself again - because most football pages don't fail practically every article-related Misplaced Pages policy, which these episode pages (the ones in question) do. Of course, should you find football pages that have major issues, feel free to be WP:BOLD with them. <b>]</b> 07:35, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
::{{replyto|Bgsu98}} Thank you, I also considered PROD-ing them all but I noticed you have so already. <span style="border-radius:9em;padding:0 5px;background:#3366cc">]&nbsp;]&nbsp;]</span> 02:20, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
:::I think I got all of the ones that that Maryland batch, but I’m sure there are more. ] ] 02:22, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
{{abot}}


== User:Glenn103 ==
*'I see some comments above that notice should be given because then editors involved with the topic may oppose the merge. this is a direct repudiation of the principle of community editing and transparency. If wider attention is needed, and a group cabal of some sort is suspected, AfD and dispute resolution is available, Even BRD requires the opportunity for R and D. The opinions above indicate that a number of contributors to this noticeboard think differently than the people at WT:FICTION. I didn't know we decided on article content here, or on the appropriateness of merges. WI did think that what we dealt with here were attempts to subvert the processes of article discussion and policy formation--and mass nomination of anything controversial is in my eyes an attempt to to do that. ''']''' (]) 01:23, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
{{userlinks|Glenn103}} has been mass creating unsourced stubs about Cyrillic letters, most of which have been draftified. They've also disruptively edited in the past, such as: <span style="white-space:nowrap"><span style="font-family:monospace">'''<nowiki>''']<nowiki>]]'''</nowiki>'''</span> (] • ])</span> 01:41, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
::I note that I personally dont care in the least about whatever may happen to articles on this subject--a subject in which I have no actual interest whatever. I became involved in the discussion when i say that repeated attempts were made in various forums here to affect consensus formation by attempting to overwhelm AfD--and similar projects. I accept the good faith of those wanting to purge the encyclopedia in one blow of everything they dislike--but it's not the way we work. at least, not the way we should be working. . ''']''' (]) 01:27, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
:Most of these pages don't even make any sense (eg.: ]). The user also ignores any notice about his articles being moved to draftspace by simply recreating duplicates of them (eg.: ] & ]). Immediate action may be needed. ] (] <b>·</b> ]) 07:38, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
::Given a uw-create4im with directions to come here, let's see what happens. - ] <sub>]</sub> 08:00, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
:::They've continued editing, this time adding infoboxes to the articles, so I don't think the warning worked... <span style="white-space:nowrap"><span style="font-family:monospace">'''<nowiki>''']<nowiki>]]'''</nowiki>'''</span> (] • ])</span> 08:10, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
::::I have blocked them from article space and page moves, and will leave note on talk page to come here. —&nbsp;]&nbsp;] 15:33, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
Honestly, this almost feels like trolling. Their basic procedure seems to be: pick a random Cyrillic letter. Combine it with a random diacritic. Write a short stub on the combination, saying effectively "this letter combination is not used anywhere." The occasional historical mentions ("this combination was used in such-and-such obscure Siberian language") are completely unsourced, of course. (Everything is unsourced.) ] (]) 04:43, 24 December 2024 (UTC)


:Excuse me for detracting from the report, but this was your 4th edit, your last edit was in January 2016... how have you found yourself here of all places?
Anybody who thinks these mass deletions do a service to Misplaced Pages is severly deluded. Two years ago, for example, there were detailed articles on individual characters within the Nickelodeon cartoon ], along. Now there's ], and it alone has been tagged for deletion. I've said it before, and I'll say it again; This is a sabotage mission! And if anybody objects to me saying that, well that's too damn bad! I'm still right about it! ----] (]) 05:39, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
:I mean you might have a point, but wow. &ndash; ] (]) (]) 04:57, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Please note that TTN and Jack Merridew are still edit-warring over Fawlty Towers episodes even when editors are making efforts to improve articles. , . ] (]) 09:15, 9 January 2008 (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)
::::Oh, I believe it. And that's because they have gone on deletion sprees as I and others have tried to improve articles. And ThuranX, you're wrong about your our pereception of what constitutes "real world information," but it's getting to the point where the best we can come up with to save articles from people like you is to say that "a real person is an actor on the show, that's real world info." Of course, even if that alone were enough, you people would still trash them anyway. ----] (]) 03:15, 10 January 2008 (UTC)


==TPA for 83.106.86.95==
:::::No, the best you can come up with is to find real world information about them. The actor voicing a character gets that mentioned on HIS page, and on the show's main article. What you actually need is something like production information, or perhaps a lawsuit over an episode, like Heroes premiere episode, Genesis. That articles' still not at it's best, but real world lawsuits resulting from that airing constitutes legitimate real world context. As to the football comparison, it's false on it's face ,as football constitutes real people playing against other real people, providing thousands of other real people with jobs. Football prompts the construction of notable buildings, creates massive income and expenditures for cities, meaning real world people pay taxes for traffic studies, police presence, inspectors, water and power outlays, and so on and on and on. The real world impact of football is so amply documented, and so easily citable, that I just pulled all that off the top of my head, and it's a horribly minute representation of the impact of football. And I don't even care about football too much beyond beer and subs for the SuperBowl. What you'd need to do for a cartoon is to state things like 'Group X objects to the positive/negative portrayal of magic and fairies on television, citing the core texts and ideas of the group protesting. The group effects protests of the following nature'. that's notable. "The cartoon innovated the animation industry by merging rotoscoping and Ralph Steadman's splotchy inking style by means of a complicated set of algorithms, as detailed in the november issue of UBerAniGeek magazine'. That's notable. 'Timmy saved the earth forty-three times and no one knows his goldfish are faireies' is not notable. Please, I beg of you, find sources in media, or in scholarly literature about the characters themselves, or their effects on children, or ANYTHING like this. Then we can validate the article about that character, that episode, or wahtever. ] (]) 04:26, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
{{atop|1=Done. - ] <sub>]</sub> 02:39, 23 December 2024 (UTC)}}
{{userlinks|83.106.86.95}}


Could someone revoke TPA for blocked IP, based on ? ] (]) 02:07, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
In addition to the above issues, I need to point out that TTN has twice nominated the episode ] for AFD in the space of less than 6 weeks. The first nomination (archived ) was made on Nov 24, 2007 and was closed on Nov. 29 as the result of a ] keep vote. The same episode has been nominated again by the same editor on January 9, 2008 (see ). And at present it appears it'll SNOW again. Isn't there a policy prohibiting the repeated nomination of articles in such a short period of time after surviving an AFD challenge? If not, there should be. ] (]) 15:19, 9 January 2008 (UTC)


:Done and revdel'ed, thanks to JJMC89. ] (]) 02:23, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
:The first close wasn't a ] closed. It also doesn't reflect a true consensue as most of the commenters were ''Blackadder'' fans. Therefore all of the keep arguments were ] arguements and weren't based on policies or guidelines. So it was bound to be renominated sooner or later. --''']''' (]) 17:43, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
{{abot}}


== Can you please help? ==
But seriously, most of these complaints about TTN is getting down right silly. It's nothing more then a lot of huffing and puffing because TTN is taking on their precious wall gardens which already are in violation of Misplaced Pages’s guidelines and policies. --''']''' (]) 17:56, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
] got moved from ] (because his middle name might not be John). But the talk page for this person is at ], and the talk page for the disambiguation page is at ]. I don't know what happened to the disambiguation page, and I don't know how to fix this. ] (]) 02:29, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
:{{done}} Couldn't be moved because the target page had to be deleted; its now fixed. As a note for the future, ] would be a better place for this, since it isn't an 'incident'. That said - ''was'' there a dab page at ] before? - ] <sub>]</sub> 02:38, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
::Thanks to everyone for resolving this. As to the place for this, at some point I was told that "if you're a new user you have no reason to post at ]" or something similar. I appreciate the help. ] (]) 05:28, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
:(edit conflict) I think that the disambiguation page's revisions were merged into the history of the moved page, if I'm reading ] correctly.
:@], can you confirm what happened/fix this? &ndash; ] (]) (]) 02:39, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
::Actually, WAS that the intention (merging the histories)? I have no idea how this works.
::Maybe The Bushranger already did all that needed to be done. &ndash; ] (]) (]) 02:46, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
:::(edited): There was a dab page with two entries. It is now a redirect from William Swainson to William John Swainson and the direction is now different. The full histories are (merged) restored and visible. PS: I have added a hat-note to the one other (far less notable) lawyer - ] - if there are many more entries to be dealt with then the (currently a redirect) page at ] could be reinstated/used. ] (]) 02:59, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
::::(nac) An intitle search turned up no other William Swainson, so I've tagged {{-r|William_Swainson_(disambiguation)}} (which has no significant history) for speedying under ]. ] (]) 06:52, 23 December 2024 (UTC)


== POVPushingTheTruth ==
== OK is the <s>british</s> Australian goverment RS then? ==
{{atop|1=The truth may set you free, but ] will get you blocked. - ] <sub>]</sub> 05:30, 23 December 2024 (UTC)}}
] is clearly NOTHERE. <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> 05:05, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
:Blocked. -- ] (])| <!--Template:Undated--><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added 05:09, 23 December 2024 (UTC)</small><sup>]</sup>
{{abot}}


== North Korean involvement in Russian-Ukraine war discussion ==
OK, given Gavin's comments about secondary sources, how about ] then? Isn't this shifting the goalposts?cheers, ]&nbsp;(]&nbsp;'''·''' ]) 10:39, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
:If you actually look at the government document, you can see that it is a trivial mention. So as a bases of establishing notability, it isn't sufficient. --''']''' (]) 12:21, 9 January 2008 (UTC)


The inclusion of North Korea as a belligerent in the infobox for the "Russian invasion of Ukraine" article has been a point of extensive and protracted discussion since September. A formal Request for Comment (RfC) on this matter ran for several weeks and was closed with a clear consensus to include North Korea as a combatant based on reliable sources and expert analysis. However, despite the closure, the discussion has continued unabated across multiple threads, with certain editors repeatedly rehashing resolved points and questioning the validity of reliable sources, leading to significant disruption.
::The notability guidelines are currently disputed - and folks are interpreting them how they want anyway. Referencing in an independent source is fine by me. I am also aware of books on Rowan Atkinson/Blackadder which a quick search with google will highlight in a few seconds, as well as newspaper articles etc. I don't own said books nor am I likely to go and buy them but there is enough for me to know 3rd party sourcing is out there. cheers, ]&nbsp;(]&nbsp;'''·''' ]) 04:48, 10 January 2008 (UTC)


'''Key Points:'''
== Incivility block on Neutralhomer ==


# '''Prolonged Discussions and RfC Closure:'''
I just blocked {{userlinks|Neutralhomer}} for increasing incivility and would like review from other admins. Here's my blocking reason to him:
#* The RfC on North Korea's inclusion was conducted thoroughly, with a wide range of arguments presented by both sides.
<blockquote>
#* 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.
You have been blocked for 48 hours because of your increasing incivility. Posts such as where you suggest someone "gets a life" and other posts like and are completely inappropriate. In the past weeks you've been getting more and more testy and have showed no signs of stopping. You need to take some time to step away and calm down. ] (]) 14:36, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
#* The close explicitly allowed for reevaluation if new battlefield events or sources emerged, but no substantial new evidence has invalidated the prior consensus.
</blockquote>
# '''Ongoing Disruption:'''
This has been ongoing behavior with him in the last weeks where he has, basically, stalked other users, instigated revert wars, and been somewhat unwilling to discuss with any civility. Any comments, questions, or concerns? ] (]) 14:40, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
#* Despite the RfC's resolution, the same arguments are being repeated across multiple threads, often by the same editors.
: makes for interesting reading. Neutralhomer seems to have been baiting ] nearly continually (JPG-GR has pretty much refused to reply, simply archiving all NeutralHomer's incessant provocative comments). Particularly trite considering NH had a banner on his talk page up until 4 days ago () stating posts from JPG-GR would be immediately deleted. 48 hours is entirely appropriate. ] ] 15:07, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
#* 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).
::I support your decision and the duration here as well, Metros. ] <sub>(] ] ])</sub> 15:11, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
# '''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:'''
:: Indeed, support block. Given his previous , a week off may not have been inappropriate either. <strong>]<small>•]</small></strong> 18:25, 7 January 2008 (UTC)


I respectfully request that administrators address the following issues:
He has returned now and restored his "topdeely" template which asks particular people to stay off his talk page. I have nominated it for deletion at ]. ] (]) 22:11, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
:As I have said on Metros' talk page....the same "incivility" can be said for those "Rouge Admin" userboxes or "rules" on ] talk pages. If one were to delete my "top deely" header on incivility alone, one would also have to delete several userboxes, several talk pages of "rules" and many other things


# Enforce the consensus reached in the closed RfC, as no new evidence significantly alters the previous conclusions.
:You can't call one thing "incivil" and not another when that other could be...and sometimes is...just as "incivil".
# 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.
:I would, though, be willing to make a compromise. The header be allowed to stay with altered text. Something like "Posts from JPG-GR, Betacommand, BetacommandBot and Calton are not welcome. Thank You." or "If users JPG-GR, Betacommand, BetacommandBot and Calton would kindly not post on my talk page, I would greatly appericate it"....or whatever. I just don't want these people posting on my talk page. Messages from these people normally come with a migraine for which I am trying to avoid. - ] <span style="font-size: 0.8em;"><sup>]:]</sup></span> 22:33, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
::BS, there is nothing wrong with the top section of calton's talkpage. I have something very similar. neither are incivil, yours is. ] 22:50, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
UPDATE: I just noticed that North Korea was removed as a belligerent and added to the 'supported by' section, completely violating the consensus.
:::Why, cause it involves you? If it involved ], I betcha it wouldn't be that incivil. Also, when someone has an 11-step reason why you shouldn't post on their talk page and what they will do if you do...that is incivil...big time. So is that "BS" comment. - ] <span style="font-size: 0.8em;"><sup>]:]</sup></span> 22:54, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
] (]) 08:48, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
:Since this report isn't really about an incident and your request is directed towards admins, I think this complaint would be better placed at ] rather than ANI. It will also need more specifics, which articles, which edits, which editors. You'll need to provide that. I also question whether or not these are content standards that the community can't handle on their own. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 09:50, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
::I was going to post it at ] but it said: "'''This noticeboard is for issues affecting administrators generally – announcements, notifications, information, and other matters of''' ''general administrator interest.''
::If your post is about a '''specific problem you have''' (a '''dispute''', user, help request, or other narrow issue needing an administrator), you should post it at the ''']''' (ANI) instead. Thank you."
::I posted it on ANI beecause my specific problem was this dispute ] (]) 12:07, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
:::The original post in this thread appears to resemble LLM output. GPTzero confirms this impression, rating text as "99% probability AI generated". Using AI to generate ANI submissions is highly inappropriate. ] (]) 18:01, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
::::Even when a message appears to be AI-generated, I think it is worth considering whether or not it is pointing out an actual problem. I think editors might be ignoring the results of an RFC, I just don't think asking for administrators to monitor a subject area, without identifying specific articles, is a feasible solution. It does seem like, possibly, a point that could come up in a complaint at AE regarding the Ukraine CTOP area. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 19:55, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::I had a peek and it's a messy RfC and, as is generally the case with a messy RfC had a very involved closure message which seems to reflect that the closer felt constrained by the framing of the RfC. I didn't see any immediate indication in the edit history that anyone had tried to implement the RfC result and been rebuffed (although I might have missed it). So there's some smoke here but, I think, not a ton of fire. ] (]) 20:21, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::Liz, I don't disagree but I'm not at all convinced that use of AI is a positive contribution to CTOP areas. ] (]) 20:27, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::It was written with AI assistance. Not all AI. ai detectors aren’t considered reliable, because you can put the U.S. constitution through one and it says 100% AI generated. Regardless, whether it’s AI or not has nothing to do with the topic. It’s just that there’a been so many discussions and when I checked the info box it said ‘supported by”, violating the consensus of the RFC ] (]) 12:45, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::I think the underlying issue here is that if you use AI to generate text which looks like obvious AI output then readers will wonder "does the end user even have sufficient English to understand what the AI has generated for them?" and "did the end user understand the material prior to deciding to employ AI?". Thus if a user is fluent in English, as you obviously are, it will always be better to communicate in your own voice.
:::::::At the end of the day, a user making a valid point in their own voice is generally speaking going to be taken more seriously than a user employing LLM output.
:::::::There are plenty of other reasons for users not to employ AI (see the recent thread here for extensive coverage) but the argument above seems like a good practical reason for fluent English speakers to always prefer using their own voice.
:::::::You will see from the recent thread that many users here are vehemently against AI use. ] (]) 15:46, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::I understood the material very well, its not like I just used 100% AI out of nowhere. I know the context. I have been involved in this discussion since September. ] (]) 16:43, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::It's a respect thing. It's disrespectful of other editors to make them read chatbot output rather than ''your'' words. ] (]) 16:49, 24 December 2024 (UTC)


== Dispute Over Edits and Use of British Raj Sources ==
===Incivility continues===
{{Atop|Content dispute.--] (]) 15:00, 23 December 2024 (UTC)}}
Neutralhomer's incivility has continued as seen (since removed from my talk page). I was accused of somehow blocking his IP abusively. He's been trying to bait me into more of an argument with taunting lines like "Let's see you get this one deleted". I'm obviously not going to block him myself, but does anyone else have opinions on this? ] (]) 00:19, 10 January 2008 (UTC)


Hello,
:NH has now apparently retired, after going on a speedy-spree on all his pages. However, he was kind enough to violate ] one more time by posting on my talk page. For those of you who don't speak Polish, that would be "fuck you." ] (]) 05:50, 10 January 2008 (UTC)


I’m seeking administrator input regarding a dispute with @] over the content in the the "]" article. The editor removed significant content, citing ] as justification. Here are my concerns:
== Admin threatening use of powers in content dispute ==


'''1. Misapplication of Policy''':
Let me begin this by saying I am ''not'' looking for a pound of flesh. I'm trying to help the administrator in question. I'm trying to head this off ''before'' it happens.


Sitush’s essays are not official Misplaced Pages policy. Content decisions should follow ], ], and ].
{{admin|Faithlessthewonderboy}}, a ], has been involved in a content dispute on ]. He has contributed in part to edit warring on that article over the removal/re-insertion of fair use images onto that article. This post here is NOT about that dispute, how rational it is, or anything of the kind, but rather Faithlessthewonderboy's threatened actions in the matter. In , he threatens to block an editor (me) with whom he is in dispute ("I will block you for incivility"). Whether the rationale for the block is valid or not (if you want to assume it is for the sake of this discussion, fine, it matters not), threatening to use his blocking powers is a breach of his responsibility as an administrator. Previously, administrators have been de-adminned by ArbCom for such actions.


'''2. Dismissal of Reliable Sources''':
Also, I requested and received page protection of the article (again, for the sake of discussion as it's irrelevant, let's assume it was in incredibly poor taste as Faithlessthewonderboy suggests). Subsequent to that, Faithlessthewonderboy indicated he was going to use his administrator powers to revert the article to his preferred version "Therefore, I will revert to the previous version". Once again, this is the sort of action that administrators have been de-adminned for before.


The removed content was based on ]-era sources, which are neutral and historically significant. The editor claims these are unreliable without specific evidence or discussion on the article’s talk page.
Faithlessthewonderboy has been directly involved in this dispute and to use his powers in this way is exceptionally bad and likely to lead to his de-adminning if he takes such action. Please, would some experienced administrator give him some sort of wave-off before he abuses his powers in this way? If he wants to recommend I be blocked, or wants to request another administrator to revert, fine...but using his powers in this way is not what he should be doing. As an inexperienced administrator, I don't think he fully understands the ramifications of using his powers in thisd way. Thank you, --] (]) 17:59, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
:First off, I think both of you need to have ]. I see there's a discussion going on the talk page; let's all use that and figure out what's going on.
:You're right, however, about Faithlessthewonderboy using his admin power to revert to his preferred version. That's clearly an abuse of the admin tools (squarely addressed in the ]) and he should know better. I'm not going to put a note on his talk page about it because I see he was already referred here, but the edit war needs to stop from both sides. Reach consensus first on the talk page; once that's done, the page can be changed (if need be) to reflect that consensus. Getting hot about it and reverting to your preferred version (even if you're correct, and even if Hammersoft was NOT correct in reverting then requesting page protection) is not the way to approach things during an edit war. ] (]) 18:14, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
:(ec) This is incredibly unfortunate. I encourage everyone to read the contents of ]. The conversation was perfectly amicable at first by all parties (Hammersoft included), until out of the blue he threatens to have those who he disagreed with blocked. I repeatedly tried to diffuse the situation, but received only more threats from Hammersoft. I cautioned him repeatedly that our disagreement aside, his uncivil attitude was completely unacceptable, and would likely lead to a block if he persisted. For this caution, I was scoffed at and Hammersoft "dared" me to block him. As I said on said talk page, I was hesitant to take any action against him (even if it was justified), as I was involved in a content dispute with him at the time. I believe the discussion on the talk page more than speaks for itself. While I maintain that I am completely in the right here, I will for the time being recuse myself from editing that article, pending the result of this discussion. Cheers, ] ] 18:18, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
::I'm not looking to have people say I was right or wrong. This section was entirely to get an experienced administrator to head you off at the pass before you did something you could be de-adminned over. It was meant in good faith, was meant to help you in every respect. Every single editor on Misplaced Pages can assume I was absolutely in the wrong if they'd like. It has nothing to do with this attempt to save you from serious problems. If you want someone to acknowledge you're right, and I was flat out in the wrong, fine then; you were right and I was flat out in the wrong. But again, this has nothing to do with attempting to wave you off before you did something that would have caused you serious harm. Since that wave off has been achieved, this succeeded and I am happy for it. I wouldn't want you to lose your admin powers over this. That would be silly. --] (]) 18:23, 7 January 2008 (UTC)


'''3. Unilateral Edits and Dismissive Behavior''':
::(ec) Administrators are still free to act as ordinary editors. They are allowed to revert the same as anybody else, and they can request a block if another editor is acting disruptively on an article they are involved with. Before requesting a block, they can warn the other editor that a block may result if bad behavior continues (though it helps to clarify that they will not place the block themselves). I do not see any diffs here that show abuse of administrative powers, and I do not see any need for administrative action at this time. I hope both parties will take the above advice and head to ] and work out their differences in good faith. ] <sup>]</sup> 18:28, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
:::I agree with Jehochman's analysis of the situation and advice on how to proceed. ] <sub>(] ] ])</sub> 18:30, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
::::The issue here is not with an admin being involved in a content dispute, it's about threatening to use his admin powers to continue the revert war after the page had been protected. That's a clear violation of the protection policy had he done it. Fortunately, it appears that he did not do it, so there was no violation. It still should not have been threatened. ] (]) 19:12, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
:: (multi-ec) The content dispute here involves images. If the page remains protected for a week with all the images orphaned, they get tagged and deleted, which would rather favour one side of this dispute. There was no allegation of actual admin abuse. Hammersoft's userbox is arguably divisive, though, given the current atmosphere. ] 18:32, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
:::Our mission and noting same within the context of fair use is divisive? Wow. --] (]) 18:34, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
:::Also, I've not tagged the orphaned images. --] (]) 18:35, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
:::::Though, five of the eight images removed from the page lack sufficient fair use rationales. Six of them are currently orphaned. Two of them are used improperly. 1: (] on ] (living person,replaceable) and on a gallery at ]). 2: ] on ] (living person, replaceable). --] (]) 18:42, 7 January 2008 (UTC)


Despite my attempts to discuss the matter constructively, the editor dismissed my concerns as "]" and warned me about sanctions under ] and ], discouraging collaboration.]
:::::: Your new userbox is more divisive. Regarding the former userbox, "I support X" is not the same as what you , ''given the current atmosphere''. ] 21:36, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
::::::*My new userbox is exactly what I've been recommending on ], and what many people have been advocating. I hope you're not suggesting that appeasing the huge masses of people who feel fair use should be used liberally is somehow divisive. --] (]) 21:43, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
::::::: Sarcasm can easily be divisive ''given the current atmosphere''. ] 22:32, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
:::::::: It isn't sarcasm. It's how I feel. --] (]) 23:04, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
::::Faithlessthewonderboy should not threaten to use admin powers in a dispute he's involved in. That's all I have to say, it'd be fine if he was uninvolved though, now let's forget it and move on--]]] 18:38, 7 January 2008 (UTC)


'''Evidence''':
:::(ec x 3) Hang on. It seems that Faithlessthewonderboy may have reverted a protected page to his preferred version. Is that what happened? If so, you need to use {{tl|editprotected}} in the future, and make sure not to use any sort of sysop tools nor threaten to do so, if you are involved in a content dispute. The diffs provided do not establish what exactly happened, so I am reading between the lines. If anyone can clarify, that will help. In any case, one mistake does not require any action other than acknowledgement and an understanding how to proceed in the future. ] <sup>]</sup> 18:40, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
:::*Nothing actually happened, other than threats to use his admin powers in the way I said above (and cited). The only action I was looking for was to wave Faithlessthewonderboy off from performing an action he could lose his admin status over. That's been done, thankfully, and Faithlessthewonderboy heeded the advice. --] (]) 18:43, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
::::*Yes, which is why I hope he sees this thread and remembers not to use his powers in a dispute he's involved in, akknowledgement is all that's needed here, so I'll be bold and mark this as resolved.--]]] 18:46, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Conveniently, the first 3 images I checked have been tagged as orphaned, and so are up for deletion in 7 days . But I guess anything goes in a . ] (]) 18:52, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
*I did ''not'' tag them. I've never worked or even spoken with Addhoc. It was his doing on his own. He's never edited the article they were removed from, nor commented on the talk page of that article. His action was entirely separate from anyone else's. A little good faith please? Please? --] (]) 18:59, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
:I just want to add that Faithlessthewonderboy did not threat, he gave a warning after Hammersoft himself threated with blocks for users that were in disagreement with him. We asked Hammersoft not to re-introduce his edits until we reached consensus in the ] of the Minor HP characters article. Everything is in the Talk page, take a look at that before accusing Faithless of taking any action. He was asked not to revert the protected article to a previous version, and he has not do so. --] (]) 19:39, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
::Faithlessthewonderboy did make statements (perhaps you like that wording better) of intent to use his powers on me and on the article, when he has been directly involved in a dispute with me and on the article. That's what I was hoping to avoid. You should be happy that I brought this problem here for an experienced administrator to head him off. I could have chosen to step back and let him use his powers in that way and then *really* nail him to the wall with abuse of his administrator powers and quite probably have his admin status forcibly removed. I'm not sure what it is you're expecting of me, but what I did was for his benefit, not against. --] (]) 19:56, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
:::Well, after your threats about blocks and warnings and stuff, I do not know what to expect. But I will AGF. --] (]) 20:36, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Opeth, thank you for your comments here. If anyone is still reading this, Opeth was the third editor involved in the dispute, so he is aware of what transpired. As for Hammersoft, please let this end. You have repeatedly on this page spoke about me like I am an inexperienced or unknowledgeable editor, and that you were doing me some big favor. I have shrugged it off before now, but I am tired of having my name dragged through the mud, so to speak. I am an admin with roughly fourteen times as many edits as you; while I am far from perfect and, like most people, still have plenty to learn, I do have a pretty solid grasp of how things work around here. I could probably even learn something from you, but do not talk about me like I just registered my account and don't know anything. Remember, I have done ''nothing'' wrong here, and I'm getting tired of you implying that I did, or that you somehow prevented me from doing so. You had been asked several times to remain civil, yet you continued to threaten other editors. Like I've said, if I had blocked you, it would have been for your consistent incivility; it had nothing whatsoever to do with the content dispute. You're trying you're best here to portray me as someone who doesn't know what they're doing, and needs help. This isn't the case, and it's quite offensive that you would misrepresent the situation the way you have. All you've done is wasted the time of a bunch of people and made me look bad, when ''all I did'' was try to keep our discussion civil. In your future dealings with editors, I encourage you to not make baseless threats towards people and respect your fellow editors. Cheers, ] ] 23:46, 7 January 2008 (UTC)


Personally, for me that is, it would be easier if Faithlessthewonderboy could sign his posts with his full handle. Also, perhaps it is a bit confusing that he refers to himself in the third person? ("You're right, however, about Faithlessthewonderboy using his admin power to revert to his preferred version.") --] (]) 08:06, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
:That is actually Gromlakh's comment. They are just indented the same amount one after the other.—] (]) 08:57, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
::You are right. My mistake. In that case, the only thing is with the handle signing, though since the matter is resolved, it does not really matter. --] (]) 10:41, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Faithless, I've no idea what it is you want from me. You accuse me of incivility, and I ask you to provide evidence. All I get from the talk page is "look above". Yet, I've made no insults towards anyone, ever. You threaten me with blocks, as I've cited above, when taking such actions could cause you to lose your powers. Knowing that you would not listen to me, I came here to get an experienced administrator to caution you. You apparently heeded that advice, which is great. Further above, I cow tow to you in every respect noting "If you want someone to acknowledge you're right, and I was flat out in the wrong, fine then; you were right and I was flat out in the wrong." What is it you want from me? What more could you possibly want from me? Do you want me to request a permanent block of myself? Do you want me to advertise to every forum on Misplaced Pages that you were right and I was wrong? What? You go to the extreme of accusing me of having contempt for my fellow editors because I use an asterisk in my comments for formatting. On even that count I must accede to your every wish and desire. There's no quarter with you. I tried to do you a favor, and you accuse me of dragging your name through the mud. Just tell me what it is I can do to restore your good name to angelic status so you will leave me the hell alone! --] (]) 14:02, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
:I just want you, Hammersoft, not to forget that you threaten us with blocks before...
:<blockquote>"If the edit warring continues to attempt to force these images back onto the article, I will recommend blocks." --] (]) 20:23, 5 January 2008 (UTC)</blockquote>
:<blockquote>"If they (some images) are re-instated against policy, I will remove them and recommend blocks." --] (]) 23:04, 5 January 2008 (UTC)</blockquote>
:We asked you to wait a couple of days to get consensus and, if your edits proved to be right, then obviously the images should be removed, but you instead threaten with blocks only because we were in disagreement with you. And then you come here accussing Faithless of warning you? --] (]) 17:30, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
::I will quite gladly threaten blocks when warranted, and will continue to do so. In fact, warning of potential blocks is pretty much required, rather than just going ahead and having someone blocked. What I wanted to achieve was to have an experienced administrator wave him off from using his powers against someone with whom he was in dispute. As I noted, if he wanted to recommend I be blocked to another admin, fine. Mission accomplished. Faithless was warned off, and the abuse of power didn't happen. That's a ''good'' thing. --] (]) 17:58, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
:::Yes, that's a good thing. The ''bad'' thing is the way you threaten everyone that is in disagreement with you. --] (]) 19:30, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
:::*I use threats of blocking as appropriate to the circumstances as they arise. If a person were to vandalize something for example, you do not just move to block the person. You warn them. That's the way it's ''supposed'' to be handled. I handled this entirely appropriately. Policy was being violated. People were edit warring against policy. I warned of potential blocks should that continue. You can debate the application of policy all you like (feel free to ]). Debating a policy does not mean it no longer applies. And before you say policy didn't apply, you're quite in the wrong. Per character images have been removed from hundreds of articles over the last many months by far more people than myself and Betacommand. The difference is that the recent crescendo of acrimony over the removals has effectively suspended the application of policy. I fully intend on continuing to warn and threaten people with blocks when their actions work against policy. If you think this is wrong, your best bet is to request I be blocked since I do fully intend on continuing this pattern. --] (]) 19:42, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
::::When an article is nominated for deletion, it is because it does not meet Misplaced Pages's criteria (notability, tone, style, etc.), but if CONSENSUS says that it should be kept, then it should be kept. The same happens with this images, you did not manage to fully prove you were right, you just provided some link and say you were acting on policy. Acting against consensus is also acting against a policy, so in the end you were wrong anyway. I have nothing more to say, good luck. --] (]) 01:19, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
The thing is, Hammersoft, neither Lord Opeth nor myself did anything even approaching being worthy of a block. Neither of us broke 3RR, we were exceedingly civil in the face of your threats, we tried to work toward consensus while you were making your contempt for consensus abundantly clear, etc. Your threats were not in the least "appropriate," as you claim. On the other hand, the warnings I gave you were warranted, as your incivility and ignoring of several appeals to your better judgment to mind what you were saying are indeed block-worthy; if I had threatened to block you because we were disagreeing, obviously I would deserve to have my admin tools revoked immediately. Of course, this did not happen. Indeed, there was another editor who commented in the discussion who disagreed with me, but she was civil and didn't threaten other users. And you want me to "leave you the hell alone?" I'll remind you that you started this discussion, and now you object to me defending myself? I don't want anything from you; I am simply trying to convey what has really transpired here to anyone who is reading this, lest some stigma remain attached to me from having an utterly unnecessary and unwarranted report of me posted at the admin noticeboard. You have completely misrepresented and then overblown everything that has happened, and I want to stress to everyone reading that I did ''nothing'' wrong here, kept a very cool head in the face of repeated threats and sought consensus instead of edit warring. I was then portrayed as being incompetent and overwhelmed by a user with a fraction of my experience. The very title of this discussion (Admin threatening use of powers in content dispute) is inaccurate; I warned you that you might be blocked because of your '''incivility''', nothing at all to do with a content dispute. Your claiming that you were only trying to 'help me' is similarly misleading. When someone is accused of a misdeed, it very often is irrelevant whether or not the charge is accurate, their reputation is damaged either way. I beseech anyone reading this to peruse ] to see what actually occurred. As far as I'm concerned, the two of us have to agree to disagree and move on. This could go on forever, but nothing positive is going to come from our continued arguing. ] ] 05:27, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
*Without reading anything but the last sentence since my last diff, agree. Bye, --] (]) 14:17, 9 January 2008 (UTC)


== Anti-Cardiff edits ==


90.203.45.168 shows strong indication of anti-] point of view and reflects it in his/her edits to ] (such as removal of information in the ''Media'' section which he/she ironically summarises the edit as ''POV''), ] where he/she removed yet more information and also in ]. User was warned by me but removed the message from his/her user page before making the above edits. Would like administration intervention please. ] (]) 19:49, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
:If it makes a difference, when you have to accuse ''everyone else'' of "anti-Cardiff POV", you need to stop and consider whether it's actually you engaging in "pro-Cardiff POV". ] (]) 20:44, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
::Related: ]. <span style="font-family: Tahoma; font-size: 8pt;">] <span style="font-size: 7pt;">] ]</span></span> 21:26, 7 January 2008 (UTC)


]
::Well, no, because you're the only one appearing to be making such edits. My edits state facts which you obviously don't like ] (]) 22:41, 9 January 2008 (UTC)


== ] ==


'''Request for Administrative Action''':
Earlier today ] was deleted as a result of an ]. In has subsequently been recreated in identical form and the <nowiki>{{db-repost}}</nowiki> has been repeatedly removed by what appear to be ]. As the CSD tag will not stay on the article for longer than 5 seconds please could someone delete the article and if possible salt it too as I think it is going to be some time before these people get bored of the game. Thanks in advance. Kind regards, ] <sup>]</sup> 19:53, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
:Was about to mention this myself. An alternative to salting would be a fully-protected redirect to ], as the word is genuine. ] (]) 20:09, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
::Agree - there was some consensus for a redirect in the AfD. ] <sup>]</sup> 20:10, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
:::The redirect's there at the moment - let's see how long it holds. :) ] (]) 20:12, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
::::I have semi'd it after looking at the deletion log. If semi won't work, I'll call Fort Knox for the ]. -'']'' <sup>(<font color="0000FF">] ]</font>)</sup> 21:31, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
:::::Was there consensus for a redirect? I removed the sponga material from the squeegee article and changed the redirect to just squeegee. Anyways, --] 20:59, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
::::::The official closure statement included "A subsequent redirect to squeegee or mop might be appropriate, but as for which, I leave to editor discretion." There certainly wasn't a consensus for a simple deletion, but if anyone wants to redirect to ] instead, I'm sure it won't be controversial. ] (]) 23:37, 8 January 2008 (UTC)


1. Review the removed content and the editor’s justification.
== ] ==


2. Ensure that disputes are discussed on the article’s talk page.
This user is consistently trying to ] articles relating to the ] area, editing articles to conform to their own POV, and accusing anyone that disagrees of editing with an "anti-Cardiff POV". They then have the audacity to warn ''other users'' for vandalism when an article is edited in a way that they do not agree with - . A browse through the edit history of ] will demonstrate this nicely. Evidence of branding good edits as vandalism: , , , . Evidence of POV editing: (note use of "belittlement") (inflating the position of the city)
(an audacious attempt to change the MoS) (yet more insistence on adding Cardiff ''everywhere'')
. Evidence of inaccuracies:


3. Address the editor’s dismissive tone to foster collaboration.
In all, the user has been warned for , , , and . Despite all of this, the user continues to behave disruptively, placing bogus warnings on other users' talk pages, and then chastising said users for removing them, claiming that "you shall not remove vandalism warnings", when it is clearly established that users and anons ] (removing comments from user talk IIRC is generally regarded as a sign that said user has read those comments). This user clearly shows no sign of changing their behaviour, and no intention of adhering to our policies and guidelines. I ask that something be done. ] (]) 19:54, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
:Related: ]. <span style="font-family: Tahoma; font-size: 8pt;">] <span style="font-size: 7pt;">] ]</span></span> 21:26, 7 January 2008 (UTC)


4. Prevent further disruptive edits/vandalism by IP editors (which hasn't happened yet) And from Autoconfirmed users(e.g. @GrilledSeatJet , -) and even from Extended Autoconfirmed users(@]) by banning such editors and putting an extended protection on the Article which I have once put request ] for but it got denied and now the results are as follows.
I think that 90.203.45.168 should learn the difference between POV and fact ] (]) 22:43, 9 January 2008 (UTC)


Thank you for your time and attention. I’m happy to provide further information if needed.
== ] on ] ==
----Best Regards


--- ] (]) 10:47, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
] appears to be a single purpose account that only desires to attack ]. As per the article talk page, he continued to assert that Newsom couldn't be Catholic anymore because...well, because Igor doesn't think he should be. When pressed, he provided "sources" that in no way stated what he claimed they did. He asked for more input. More input was provided...and every single other editor who contributed claimed that he was wrong. He is edit warring and ignoring every other editor. I am tired of trying to deal with him. <font color="Green">]</font> <sup><font color="Blue">]</font></sup> 22:57, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
{{Abot}}
:] if you tired take a wikibreak, go see a movie or do something else. ] (]) 06:42, 8 January 2008 (UTC)


== Nothing to say about me really bot ==
:I am attempting to make valid contributions to the ] article in good faith. There is evident controversy concerning the issue of Newsom's religious standing, with valid sources discussing his excommunication and separation from the Church. These contributions are being deleted without cause. Further, no consensus has been reached, contrary to any such claims. I would like to make additional contributions but am spending my time on with this matter. I also find at least one of these "editors" on the article talk page to be suspicious and uncivil. I need help dealing with this problem. Thank you in advance. ] (]) 23:09, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
{{atop
::I don't see any incivility on the Talk page. You make claims that IrishGuy is being uncivil on the page, but I don't see it. What I do see is your unsubstantiated POV. (I'm non-Catholic and don't care one way or the other, so I don't have an axe to grind on this issue) <font face="Comic Sans">]<sub>'']''</sub></font> 23:17, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
| result = Locked {{nac}}. <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> 13:34, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
}}


*{{vandal|WilhelminaBlosse}}
::No, as noted on the article talk page the only "source" you have is an which states that the some proposed to the Vatican that certain politicians be sanctioned. That was over two years ago. It obviously never happened. The other "sources" don't even remotely state what you claim they do...and others have pointed this out on the talk page and when reverting you. Yet you continue to act as thought there is "controversy" about this person when there clearly isn't. If you cannot come up with something better than a two year old article it is obviously a non-issue. Which editor do you find "suspicious"? You keep making this claim but you don't elaborate. <font color="Green">]</font> <sup><font color="Blue">]</font></sup> 23:17, 7 January 2008 (UTC)


Please delete the user page, block the bot and report to stewards for a global block, as per ]. Thank you! ] (]) 11:31, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
:"The sources provided by IgorBlucher fail that standard (laughably so, in fact)." Repeatedly deleting my valid contributions and commanding others' behaviour is most certainly uncivil. ] (]) 23:31, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
{{abot}}


== Concern About a New Contributor ==
::I had never heard of Gavin Newsom before this exchange, but a reading shows your contributions are being deleted because they obviously don't belong in the article. Thus, it's not uncivil to delete them. ] (]) 23:36, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
{{userlinks|Kriji Sehamati}}


Dear Wikipedians,
:::I had never heard of the man either. I caught the edit summary of ''you can't marry, divorce and remarry; excommunicate'' in the recent changes and looked into the edit. <font color="Green">]</font> <sup><font color="Blue">]</font></sup> 23:40, 7 January 2008 (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.
:I would like to propose a new sub-section, under "Controversies," on the controversy surrounding Newsom's religious standing. ] (]) 23:31, 7 January 2008 (UTC)


I believe your experience could help address this situation effectively.
::There is no controversy. There are years old articles that clearly led to nothing. <font color="Green">]</font> <sup><font color="Blue">]</font></sup> 23:40, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
:::Wow another Igor, how many Igors does it take to make you listen? ] (]) 23:48, 7 January 2008 (UTC)


Looking forward to your advice on how to proceed.
::::It would only take one with convincing arguments. In any case, {{user|IgorBlucher}} is violating several policies, including ] and ], not to mention edit-warring in an attempt to insert this material against consensus. Either come up with reliable, independent secondary sources demonstrating this is actually a current, notable controversy or stop inserting it. If you continue, you're going to be blocked for ], edit-warring, ] violations, etc. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 00:00, 8 January 2008 (UTC)


Thankyou! ]] 15:21, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
:I have provided valid sources regarding the existence of the controversy. ] (]) 00:08, 8 January 2008 (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.
::Obviously, no one else agrees. I would encourage you to engage on the article talk page, make your case, and try to achieve ]. But in the interim, if you continue edit-warring, you're going to end up blocked. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 00:17, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
:Perhaps if you supplied ] of this behaviour, someone would be able to help? If your issue is that they've nominated 4 articles of which you are a major contributor ''and'' are doing so by going through your contributions in order to find articles to nominate for deletion with specious reasons, then this board would be the place to come. If not, then making your arguments for keeping the articles on the AfDs in question would be your best bet.
:::Igor I strongly recommend to listen to ] he speaks words of ] and ]. Thank you, ] (]) 00:30, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
:By the way is forum shopping. Stop that. ] (]) 16:06, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
:(ec) This is an odd one. As S-Aura failed to provide diffs, I looked at Kriji Sehamati's contribution history. New account (9 Dec) began editing today, created two drafts and made a bunch of edits to those. Then began adding COI tags to articles S-Aura wrote, nominated those articles for deletion, and then left a template on S-Aura's talk page. Really seems to be something weird going on here between those two. (In addition to opening this ANI thread, S-Aura asked for help with basically the same message on the talk pages of Ipigott, Ryan shell, CFA, and BusterD, and S-Aura opened same complaint at AN.) ]&nbsp;] 16:06, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
::I am concerned that ]’s actions, including unjustified deletion nominations and spamming, are disruptive and violate Misplaced Pages’s guidelines.
::She seems to lack understanding of basic Misplaced Pages guidelines, particularly those related ] and ]. ]] 16:40, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
:::You were asked to provide diffs. You did, almost, but then reverted yourself. Those diffs (well, the ones before those diffs) are just the other user nominating articles for deletion (which is allowed) or tagging them for what they believe to be conflict of interest edits (which is also allowed).
:::Please provide some actual evidence that the other user is engaging in chronic, intractable behaviour, rather than just not editing how you would like them to. ] (]) 17:21, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
::::Here are some diffs highlighting her problematic edits. However, I believe that many of her contributions may be in violation of Misplaced Pages’s guidelines. It appears she has specifically targeted me and added the COI tag multiple times to the same page. I would appreciate it if you could review her actions more thoroughly:
:::: •
:::: •
:::: •
:::: •
::::and many more
::::Thankyou! ]] 17:33, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::We wouldn't generally treat an AfD as vandalism. ] (]) 17:39, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::I understand your point about AfDs not generally being treated as vandalism. However, I noticed that the major contribution history of the user seems suspicious. ]] 17:42, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::Not from where anybody else is standing so far. I get that you're upset to have four articles of yours nominated for deletion, and if you have any evidence ''at all'' that you are being deliberately targeted by the other editor, then people will very much act on that. Please provide it. ] (]) 17:58, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::I am here to contribute and edit articles in accordance with Misplaced Pages’s guidelines. However, today a new user targeted me and falsely blamed me for actions that are not accurate. I believe this is unfair and not in line with the collaborative nature of the platform. ]] 18:04, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::Please provide evidence of this. ] (]) 18:06, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::Please check! ]] 18:07, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::The articles that have been nominated for deletion discussion have been reviewed by experienced contributors. These discussions involve articles about judges and lawyers, under ], a valid criterion according to Misplaced Pages’s guidelines. Therefore, the deletion decision was made after carefully reviewing these articles. ]] 18:11, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::Honestly it looks like this user, rightly or wrongly, believes you have a conflict of interest and are acting on the basis of that assumption. I would suggest, if you don't have a CoI, talking to them about this and maybe asking why they've come to this conclusion. ] (]) 18:10, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::They have just started targeting my contributions, and I tried to inform her about the situation. However, she is acting as if she knows everything about Misplaced Pages and is dismissing my concerns. ]] 18:15, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
{{od}}
:{{ping|Kriji Sehamati}} hasn't edited since their AfD spree earlier today, let's wait and see what their response here is when they return to editing. ]&nbsp;] 18:16, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
*We need to stop focusing on the OP's calling this vandalism; it is not. I've changed the header to reflect that. That said, the new user's edits ''are'' problematic and merit scrutiny. As for the UPE stuff, I've removed that post from the OP's Talk page; it's nonsensical coming from a new user and does not merit a response.--] (]) 18:42, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
*It is, of course, not vandalism to nominate articles for AFD discussions as long as a legitimate deletion rationale is provided and the article hasn't just been discussed at a recent AFD. However, I don't think it's a good sign when a brand new editor claims to understand all of Misplaced Pages policies and whose first actions are to nominate articles at AFDs. They are almost never an actual new editor, especially when they know how to even set up an AFD or are familiar with using Twinkle on their first day of editing. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 19:34, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
*:It seems that she is not new to Misplaced Pages and might be operating multiple accounts. It appears she has an issue with one of my contributions, as she created her account just 15 days ago, yet she already has a good understanding of tools like Twinkle and AfD procedures. This level of familiarity suggests prior experience on the platform. I am now requesting her account to be blocked as I am completely disturbed by her repeated allegations and disruptive behavior. ]] 11:32, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
*::I am now genuinely confused—if all my contributions are not good, then why am I even here? Were the experienced editors who reviewed and approved these pages also mistaken? A newcomer, who joined just recently, is now disrupting and questioning the validity of all the work that has been carefully reviewed and maintained by experienced contributors. This situation is deeply discouraging. ]] 11:58, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::Please resolve this situation—either block her for her disruptive behavior. How can i continue working under such constant targeting and stress ? ]] 12:00, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
*::::User:S-Aura, you seem to be making unsupported personal attacks against ]. You should provide specific evidence of wrongdoing, including diffs, or your arguments here will fall on deaf ears (and bring consequences for you). Meanwhile, as a filer on ANI, you have brought all your own edits to close scrutiny by the community. You may have to face that smart people disagree, and this is how we sort disagreements out on English Misplaced Pages. You are not required to edit, but we encourage you to do so. Nobody is going to block Kriji Sehamati at this point, because you've given us no reason to do so. ] (]) 12:01, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::::Meanwhile, in the last few minutes S-Aura has disruptively about this exact issue on this same board, which by another editor. This is intentional disruption. ] (]) 12:07, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
*::::::As to the question "Why am I here?", poets and artists have been trying to answer this question for eons. Epistemology is outside the scope of this board, but there are articles about it. Show up to edit if you want to, but expect disagreement from time to time. (That's actually a sound answer to any epistemology question as well.) ] (]) 12:16, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::::Dear @],
*:::::It means I have been proven wrong, and that user’s contributions have been more focused on me, which is quite insufficient to catch someone’s lie that she is pretending to be new, when in fact she is old.
*:::::Also, I am not against AfD; I am simply expressing my opinion. ]] 13:12, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
*::::::Could you please rephrase your point here? I don't understand. While it's okay to be suspicious that this editor is somehow socking or doing something else deceptive due to the familiarity, it seems unacceptable to deliberately accuse them of such repeatedly without firmer evidence. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>]</span> 13:19, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::::::Dear @],
*:::::::I am not engaged in paid activities on Misplaced Pages, and she claimed that I am connected with the subject, who is a judge, lawyer, etc. You all should understand that this is not a trivial matter; justice is a very respected position. Making such allegations can escalate court cases. I would like to remind you of the Misplaced Pages vs. ANI case. ]] 13:24, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
*::::::::One thing you need to understand immediately is you should never make another post that sounds vaguely like a legal threat, as you've just done above. ] That intonation is seriously not helping us decide who's right or wrong here. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>]</span> 13:27, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::::::::Okay! ]] 13:35, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
*::::::::I will caution you that this is tiptoeing right up to the edge of ] and you'd be advised to avoid making legal threats. ] (]) 13:28, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::::::::Dear @],
*:::::::::I am merely showing that she can potentially do something inappropriate. I am following the guidelines and not making any legal threats. ]] 13:31, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
*::::::::::Accusing another editor of potentially making legal threats is not much better, when there is no concrete evidence that they would do so. Being interested in articles about judges does not suffice. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>]</span> 13:32, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
*::::::::The page of Justice ], who had conducted over the Misplaced Pages vs. ANI court hearing, was also created by me. ]] 13:28, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::::::::<del>State plainly what the implication you are making here is, because what I'm hearing is "I'm familiar with people who have hit Misplaced Pages with a mallet in court before, and I can make sure it happens again".</del> <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>]</span> 13:30, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
*::::::::::This is becoming a rabbit hole. I urge you not to pursue the rabbit further. ] (]) 13:33, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::::::::::Good call, I'll retract the above. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>]</span> 13:34, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
*::::::::::No, that is not what I am implying. ]] 13:33, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::No one has said your contributions are not good. However, it should be noted that a draft being accepted at AfC or a new page having been ] does not guarantee greater scrutiny would not result in a valid AfD nomination. That said, echoing others here it's clear something problematic is up with this user's behavior. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>]</span> 12:02, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
*::You can't both criticize someone for {{tq|lack understanding of basic Misplaced Pages guidelines, particularly those related ] and ]}}, and then argue that she is too familiar with the platform to be a newcomer for knowing how to file an AfD. I wouldn't be surprised if most people here knew how to file an AfD before knowing all 14 notability guidelines by heart. ] (] · ]) 12:59, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::There are detailed instructions on filing an AfD that can be found by googling "how can I get a Misplaced Pages page deleted" - if somebody had some personal reason for wanting to have pages removed it doesn't strain credibility to think that's why they created a WP account and that they just followed the very clear instructions on the appropriate pages.
*:::In fact that might explain why some of the AfD filings were reasonable and some were, on their face, incorrectly filed. If you looked up the AfD ''process'' but not ''criteria'' that is the likely outcome. That's why I find the "new user files AfDs must be a sock" idea here somewhat uncompelling. ] (]) 13:04, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
*I believe we're entering boomerang territory at this point. Opinions? ] (]) 13:35, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
*:I think OP is upset that a cluster of their articles were put up at AfD. This in itself is understandable, but while there's reason to think there might be mischief by Kriji Sehamati, we don't have any real evidence of it. We either need the OP to make it clearer what misconduct, if any, has occurred, or they need to ]. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>]</span> 13:37, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
*::The OP has been intentionally disruptive (by creating a new ANI thread which was reverted), and this thread is going nowhere. IMHO, there's nothing ANI can do here. Everything I'm reading about should be resolved at the page talk and user talk level, in my opinion. The AfDs are underway. If dispute resolution is needed, fine. Nobody is harming S-Aura. S-Aura can't come crying to ANI (or four random user talk pages like mine) anytime someone merely disagrees with them. ] (]) 14:08, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::I'd have said close with trout for all if not for creating the second thread at AN/I. Based on that I'd say the OP should be formally cautioned against such antics in the future. ] (]) 14:10, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
*::I should have added that I largely hold with Remsense in their position. ] (]) 14:15, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::] is definitely a sock puppet on Misplaced Pages, but we don’t have any evidence because understanding Misplaced Pages’s AfD process so quickly can be a bit challenging. I have no problem with AfD regarding my contributions, and it’s a good thing that experienced contributors are giving their feedback. If you believe that the kriji is 100% correct and her activity is not suspicious, then this discussion should be closed. ]] 14:27, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
*::::You need to stop insisting this is definitely the case if you don't have any evidence for it, period. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>]</span> 14:28, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
*::::S-Aura, how did you make the determination {{tq|User:Kriji Sehamati‬ is definitely a sock puppet on Misplaced Pages}}? Please share your process. That's a personal attack, and requires proof to prevent you from being in violation of ]. I've looked at the AfDs and they seem reasonable to me. When you've provided strong sources the article is being kept. So far the jury is out on the others. Both of you seem to be writing articles about obscure living persons who wouldn't normally (by my cursory reading) have a Misplaced Pages article about them because reliable sourcing is not readily found. When I see that, I must suspect COI or undeclared unpaid editing here, but nobody's admitting to it. ] (]) 15:05, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
*::::S-Aura's continuing to issue personal attacks makes it more difficult for us to just close this (without some form of consequence for the editor making unproven personal attacks after they've been warned repeatedly). ] (]) 15:08, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::::I have made a level-four user talk page warning for the personal attack. FYI. We've been very nice about this up 'til now, but we need to stop being so kind. Doing foolish things has real world consequences. ] (]) 15:17, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
* Both editors' apparent use of AI is certainly disruptive. If it continues, it should lead to blocks. <span style="padding:2px 5px;border-radius:5px;font-family:Arial black;white-space:nowrap;vertical-align:-1px">] <span style=color:red>F</span> ]</span> 15:10, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
*:No personal hate intended, but I just found this and thought it would be worth checking. ]] 16:49, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
*::It would be nice if you could explain the significance for those who do not speak Hausa. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>]</span> 16:51, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::She had made contributions to pages in other languages a few months ago. I am attaching her contributions link. ]] 16:59, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
*::::How does this constitute evidence of sockpuppetry if we aren't to know what exactly happened? There's a reason we don't just automatically block anybody who is blocked on another language wiki, and I looked through the edits some and didn't find anything outrageous that made it past the language barrier. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>]</span> 17:01, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::::I agree that it’s important to ensure we have solid evidence before making conclusions. I appreciate your perspective on not automatically blocking users based on blocks from other language wikis. ]] 17:17, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
*::::::Please don't reply to me or others using ChatGPT. It is flat-out rude. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>]</span> 17:18, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
* '''Support BOOMERANG''' - I've been uninvoled and have mainly just been watching the back-and-forths, but the personal attacks and ] mindset, such as "questioning the validity of all the work that has been carefully reviewed and maintained by experienced contributors", concerns me. Not sure for how long, but I don't think anything longer than a months is appropriate given the circumstances. ]<sub>]</sub><sup>]</sup> 15:47, 24 December 2024 (UTC)


== Darkwarriorblake making aspersions ==
:I don't see that "no one else agrees", especially since discussions are ''newly underway''. As for MestCell, I see he speaks words of ], not of wisdom. As for ], i.e., a philosophy of law, either natural or officiated by an institution-- that would be ] violation or threat. I'll ] you didn't mean that. ] (]) 00:44, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
{{atop|result=The OP says they don't care any more which I'm reading as a withdrawal and the other party says they won't be responding again so I'm closing this discussion. My only comment is that both editors in this dispute should have brought this to the article talk page to talk this disagreement out. I don't know if the differences would be resolved but this is what we advise editors to do when their edits are reverted. Now I just have to get that scene in the movie out of my mind. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 05:54, 24 December 2024 (UTC)}}
::Stop ], its not gonna win you any support. The sources you have to support the inclusion of a controversy section appear to be invalid. Go get proper ones and no one will dispute the section, if they're valid--] (]) 00:51, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Postscript: Ah, someone just close this, I don't care any more. &nbsp;— ] <span style="color:#900">•</span> ] 22:56, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
----
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.
::Oh, I would agree that there is controversy, but that's not what IgorBlucher was originally placing in the article, and the conclusions he is reaching are not supported by the sources used. The most recent attempt, a new section, is closer to a solution, but the claims were so far from factually accurate that they had to be removed per ]. ] (]) 00:49, 8 January 2008 (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
:Like http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/12/09/MNQRTM37Q.DTL&type=politics. The section is valid and shouldn't have been deleted.
: ''Reportedly, Liddy was on board until he got to the part where Beeks .''
::Oh, come on, if that's your type of source, then there's no argument here at all. Nowhere does that even mention his having been excommunicated, nor does it call him an ex-Catholic or any other type of Catholic. That's not a source for any of your claims. <font face="Comic Sans">]<sub>'']''</sub></font> 03:30, 8 January 2008 (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'':
:Wikilawyering? Oh, you must mean the ''other'' Igor. ''Stop''-- a command? Couldn't be-- that's a violation of . I'll ] on that one, too. ] (]) 01:15, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
{{text diff|Liddy was interested in the offer until he learned that Beeks becomes the romantic partner of a gorilla.|Liddy was interested in the offer until he learned that Beeks is raped by a gorilla.}}


This was reverted () by {{u|Darkwarriorblake}} with the comment ''not what the source says''.
This is getting tedious. IgorBlucher, if you want to make a claim in an article, you must be ready to present a source that ] covers said claim. ] are inappropriate, especially involving ]; you can't ]. A controversy section is an appropriate section for this article (and there is a modest one, in this case), and specific cited statements may be appropriate to add to such a section, but please do not continue edit warring, ], or being otherwise discourteous. &mdash; ]'']'' 01:42, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
:Exactly. And i was telling you, IgorBlucher, to stop wikilawyering, not anyone else--] (]) 01:50, 8 January 2008 (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.()
:Ah, I understand. You are Wikilawyering. ] (]) 04:01, 8 January 2008 (UTC)


{{text diff|...was offered the role of corrupt official Clarence Beeks. Liddy was interested in the offer until he learned that Beeks becomes the romantic partner of a gorilla. Paul Gleason took the role;...|...was offered the role of corrupt official Clarence Beeks with Paul Gleason eventually taking the role;...}}
::I've now looked in detail at IgorBlucher's contributions and... good grief. Igor, you must read ] which details Misplaced Pages policy on biographical material for living persons. I gather you don't like Gavin Newsom but that's all the more reason you must scrupulously adhere to Misplaced Pages policy in this regard. By now you've repeatedly been warned; next time you do something like this, you'll be blocked. ] (]) 01:57, 8 January 2008 (UTC)


My accompanying comment was ''(a) That was the source's voice, not Liddy's. It's called a euphemism. Demonstrable by how it links to a clip of the scene in which a man is raped by a gorilla. (b) Source says "reportedly" for this claim, without evidence. Poor quality source. Removing claim''
:You gather incorrectly. please ] and remain ].
::Stop complaining about incivility, wikilawyering, and bad faith. When there isn't a single other person who supports your contentions, you might want to look at yourself. You're being disruptive. <font face="Comic Sans">]<sub>'']''</sub></font> 04:03, 8 January 2008 (UTC)


That was reverted by Darkwarriorblake () with the comment ''Nothing wrong with Indiewire as a source, if there is I'd raise it at ]. Until then, there's a talk page for you to use per ]. Your comments sound agenda driven and therefore not Neutral.''
:I'm not complaining, I am asking you and other users, at present a small group acting uncivilly and creating disruptions, to please remain ], while I am making valuable contributions. ] (]) 04:09, 8 January 2008 (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.
::Counting myself, NINE other Wiki-editors find that you are NOT making a valuable contribution, but instead violating numerous policies. Please stop. I support a preventative 72 hour cool-down block for this editor, who can't understand, or won't understand, the problems. ] (]) 04:19, 8 January 2008 (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''.
:A small group, who others may disagree with, myself included. Please ]. My contributions are valuable. ] (]) 06:24, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
::They are not valuable if you have to flat-out disregard ] and our ] ] to make them, and assuming good faith only stretches so far. I count 10 now. -'']'' <sup>(<font color="0000FF">] ]</font>)</sup> 06:33, 8 January 2008 (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 ]''
:Yes, as I said before, a small group. I have not disregarded policies, and am making valuable contributions in good faith. ] (]) 06:45, 8 January 2008 (UTC)


At this point it's gone firmly into the realm of knee-jerk reversions, because if Darkwarriorblake took the time to read the article which they've (is this ]? Kind of feels that way), they would get down to the ] section. Which says "some critics have praised the film while highlighting elements that they believe aged poorly, including racial language, the use of blackface, and the implied rape of Beeks by a gorilla", cited to articles in four major publications. Or, you know, even .
:::Okay, we oferd help, but it looks like you are not interested, so untill you can figure out what to do, stay hear and argue with each other. Nobody is getting banned or blocked! Enjoy, have fun, and learn..:) ] (]) 06:38, 8 January 2008 (UTC)


So anyhow regardless of whether the Indiewire source is deemed suitable or not, I'm just wondering what the feeling here is about someone making goofy assertions on the record that another editor has "an agenda" (what agenda could it be?) and may not be emotionally stable, which really doesn't feel like ] at all. &nbsp;— ] <span style="color:#900">•</span> ] 20:03, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
:Thank you Igor Berger! Your help is appreciated. Onward and upward! ] (]) 06:45, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
:Hrrm, this seems a bit excessive.
:*I've added a second source for the claim. Really this should've been the first option rather than removing the content.
:*The first summary was, as stated, "Don't mince words; the interaction between Beeks and the gorilla is rape played for laughs". "Rape played for laughs" is a loaded comment and not something said in the article or the source text, so it's a personal opinion, it's not neutral, it's agenda-driven.
:*When this was reverted, the editor just removed the content entirely claiming IndieWire was unreliable. There is, as far as I'm aware, nothing wrong with Indiewire. I've since found a second source, the Telegraph, which is reliable per ].
:*The editor ignored WP: BRD when raised, and as an admin they should adhere to policy.
:*The editor states that they are an admin on their page. Assuming this is true, the aggressiveness of their edits, hyper focus on the single area, and use of words like "crap listicle" seemed out of line with what I, personally, would expect from an admin on Misplaced Pages, certainly someone who has been so for nearly two decades. Perhaps the edit summary wasn't the place to have that discussion but, as stated, they weren't adhering to WP: BRD to start a discussion, and in the interim the article needed putting back to the status quo.
:*I find accusations of OWNERSHIP often tend to come when people don't get their way. Which is fine. I have plenty of reversions on the page for people adding unsourced content and there are plenty of changes as well. I find someone removing sourced content and me putting the sourced content back to not ''really'' be something you can fling ownership at.
:*Within the context of the film, Beeks does become the romantic partner of the gorilla, it seemed more appropriate and encylcopedic text than just saying 'rape', and neither source I've added says that either.
:*Anyways, my edit history shows I'm a massive contributor and helper and it's nearly Xmas, and I don't feel like engaging with this any further, good luck Hex. ] (]) 20:27, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
::Of course you don't, having ignored the actual matter of your conduct that I'm raising here. Your comments about the content of the article are irrelevant. &nbsp;— ] <span style="color:#900">•</span> ] 20:43, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
*Hex's position is not wholly supported, although in the entire issue, their toolset is irrelevant. There was no incivility on either part, and an all-out edit war seems to have been averted.{{pb}}Fundamentally the change Hex wanted to make was pure OR; rape may have been intimated—or, as Hex themself admits, implied—but its never overtly stated and is a wholly loaded term. This is the interpretation of an editor, not of secondary sources. If there is a pron=blem with Indywire as a source—currently used in —take it to WP:RSN. If it's disputed that it's a high quality source per WP:FA?, then take it to WT:FAC. Accusations of OWNership are as unhelpful—and as much an aspersion—as accusations of agenda-led editing. In fact, for OWNership, Hex should read the relevant policy: here, it is WP:FAOWN, which not only allows for careful stewardship of featured material, but requires significant changes to the consensus version to be discussed on talk; I don't suppose there's any suggestion that introducing rape—particularly "played for laughs"—wouldn't be a significant addition.{{pb}}Really though, this is an overblown content dispute which should have started with ''one revert'' each, and ended on the talk page. --]'']''] 21:10, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
*:"Never overtly stated... 'played for laughs' be a significant addition" - with John Landis, the director. {{talk quote|One of the executives was deeply appalled by a man being sexually molested by a gorilla. And I said you know, it's a joke and it goes by very quickly. But the first preview was very successful and it all went away. ''''}}
*:Feel free to amend the article on that basis. I'm certainly not interested in spending any more time on it. &nbsp;— ] <span style="color:#900">•</span> ] 22:48, 23 December 2024 (UTC)


===Followup===
::So far your "valuable contributions" amount to two references for the infobox that merely confirm what was never in doubt - Gavin Newsom is Catholic. On the other hand, there are now a lot of editors who are aware of your editing style. ] (]) 06:55, 8 January 2008 (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. ]]
:I am happy to work with other editors interested in working with me. ] (]) 05:36, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
{{abot}}
::Translated to "I am happy to work with other editors who agree with me". <font face="Comic Sans">]<sub>'']''</sub></font> 18:51, 9 January 2008 (UTC)


== Extremely Annoying situation ==
:::agreed. A review of the article talk page shows he continues to single-mindedly pursue his agenda, despite continiued opposition by many others. He repeats his premise, and other statements as a response to any opposition, not unlike that annoying person, who keeps asking a question louder each time the answer is not the desired one. We've seen it on sitcoms plenty of times, and probably experienced it in proximity to small children and their parents. It's no less condescending now. Because he cannot be stopped, I'd support a 96 hour cool off block, so he can take the rest of the week, and weekend, to think about how to better approach the collaborative editing process.] (]) 05:05, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
{{atop
| result = Blocked for one week. ] (]/]) 01:03, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
}}


I reverted by ]. They then times for it. One of these was for "being shovel shenanigans" which I took as a ] and informed them of it.
== Concerns about administrator ] ==


The rest escapes words for me. See these discussions.
Hi, I've been having some difficulties with ], and could use feedback. A little while ago Nat blocked ] after an erroneous report was filed on the 3RR board by ]. Armon was blocked not for violating 3rr but for edit-warring. I didn't think this was the right call; the person Armon was edit-warring with (if was edit-warring), ], had made 5 reversions in 29 hours (And Tiamut, if you're reading this, please know I'm not asking for anyone to block you ;)), quite a bit more than Armon. So I asked for Nat to reconsider the block on his talk page Nat's response? To whisk my post away without comment.


]
I thought he must have seen the message, but wasn't completely sure, so I posted again.
Again, whisked off to an archive without explanation.


] ]
I found this all pretty distressing, but thought it might just be best to let the thing die down. I felt Armon had really been shafted for no good reason, but Armon himself seemed to take it with a great deal of equanimity, so I followed his example and dropped it.


they also used a ] to continue to irk me. I hesitated to bring this to ANI, since they seemed new, and I didn't want to bite, but enough is enough.
Then, recently, I noticed that Nat had unblocked ] (NB: because I had the page Pedro was editing watch-listed, not because I was looking at Nat's actions). Pedro had been blocked for a clear violation of 3rr, see , and in fact, after being unblocked by Nat, Pedro continued right along with the reversion he'd been blocked for making .


] (]) 00:51, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
Given that these blocks concerned Israel/Palestine issues, which are fraught with friction already, and that Nat had blocked a user (who might be on the pro-Israeli side) when he'd not clearly committed a blockable offense, then unblocked a user (who might be on the pro-Palestinian side) when he indisputably had done so, I felt I had to say something. So, with some trepidation, I left a message on Nat's talk page again. . No bonus points for guessing what Nat's response was: .
{{abot}}


== IP vandalism ==
I don't know how others feel, but if this were a regular editor who was responding to concerns from a user in good-standing, I would be concerned. That an admin would do so—would remove posts from his talk page without a single comment—makes it alarming.
{{atop
I would also point to this arbitration case, , a case which Nat I think initiated, wherein this very issue was raised and voted on by arbcom:
| result = Blocked. {{nac}} <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> 03:53, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

}}
<blockquote> 3) Due to the collaborative nature of Misplaced Pages, proper communication is extremely important, and all editors are expected to respond to messages intended for them in a timely manner and to constructively discuss controversial issues. This is especially true for administrators in regard to administrative actions. Such expected communication includes…using accurate and descriptive edit and log summaries; and responding promptly and fully to all good-faith concerns raised about their administrative actions. </blockquote>

Indeed, User:Alkivar was desysopped, in part, for this very practice. I am not calling for Nat to be desysopped, but I do think he absolutely must respond to messages left on his talk page about his admin actions, and I also believe that the admin actions in question have been applied by Nat inconsistently, even erratically, which exacerbates an already tense atmosphere. I would have been much happier to take this up with Nat on his talk page, but obviously couldn't do that in this case. Input is welcome. <font color="green">]</font> 00:49, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

:Hi IronDuke, I apologize for not responding to your messages left on my talk page about my actions as you have listed above. I agree, "''proper communication is extremely important, and all editors are expected to respond to messages intended for them in a timely manner and to constructively discuss controversial issues''", and I am sorry if you felt that I had ignored your posts. In regards to the case of Armon, I admit I might have overlooked the actions of Tiamut. I agree it was a bit unfair that Armon had been blocked and not Tiamut, for as you said, 5 rvs in 29 hours. In the case of ], i did write in the unblock message: "''After re-reviewing the request, the block appeared to be a punitive measure rather than a preventive measure. As that is the case, I have reversed my previous decline of the request and I have granted the request for unblocking for Pedro Gonnet. That being said, '''Pedro Gonnet had indeed violated 3RR''', <u>and as a warning, next time a 3RR violation occurs on PG's part, blocking may be issued without warning.</u>''". Reading through this thread, it seems that you are implying that I have taken a side in this Israeli-Palestinian conflict. I have not. When I make my decisions, I do not notice or pay attention to their political views or affiliations. As that is the case, it is pure coincidence that I blocked a "pro-Isreali" editor and unblocked a "pro-Palestinian" editor. I would like to apologize again for not responding to your messages left on my talk page about my actions, and I would also like to apologize for the fact that it took an ANI thread for me to respond to your concerns. ]] 08:03, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

::Hi Nat. Thanks for your thoughtful reply. First off, please feel free to move this discussion to your talk page (or mine). I don’t believe it requires admin intervention now, if it ever did. And I appreciate the apology—these are often grudgingly given through gritted teeth, when they come at all, and yours clearly wasn’t.

::A few minor-ish points. I wasn’t saying that you are pro or anti anything, FWIW, just that you made two admin actions in a row that could plausibly be said to favor one “side”, which cause for concern, nothing more.

::As for the Pedro block, I must respectfully take issue with your characterizing admin ]’s block as “punitive.” I can’t think of a more by-the-book kind of block, can you? Pedro was edit-warring, went past the electric fence, was rightly blocked, not-so-rightly-unblocked by you, went back to making the same edit he was blocked for, and some people are now saying his block was “overturned,” implying it had not been merited. Do you really think Pedro’s block was any more punitive than any other run of the mill 3rr block? I’d be interested to know why, if you do. <font color="green">]</font> 23:40, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

:::I kind of stumbled over this thread by accident... And there are some minor points I'd like to clarify.
:::As I had written in my unblock request, I had been blocked more than four hours after my last edit. Furthermore, I had reverted from three different editors who did not re-revert and who were probably unaware of the compromise solution that was being worked out, and to which they finally seem to have agreed to. The edit summaries and the following discussion with one of the editors are pretty good indicators that this was ''no'' edit-war.
:::As for the revert after my unblock, it came after a long discussion with the editor who made the change (, as is clearly mentioned in the edit-summary of the you yourself supplied!) in which he agreed to my revert.
:::Duke, for somebody who has that page on their watchlist, you sure missed a lot of edit summaries... <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - ''']''' - 10.01.2008 11:13</small>

== ] ==

Quite a today. She has taken part in edit warring on at least 24 articles, and gone on her own personal antiporn crusade, putting false "db-bio" tags on numerous articles, including articles that included such statements as '''', '''', . Maybe not the most savory of occupations, but clearly '''assertions of notability''', making it hard to believe that these are good faith A7 candidates. After some of these got removed, she proceeded to go on , with what can only be politely called an ''uncivil'' note.] (]) 01:19, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
:She's been by ], and the tagging seems to have died down for the time being. I've removed the last two remaining CSD tags noting that the articles make some claim of importance--although she needs to work on her ] a bit (] might be a first step in dealing with that issue), she does show signs of ]. Unless others have a different take on this or the disruptive tagging starts up again, it seems to me that this issue can be considered closed. --]-]] 02:32, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
::I agree that warning is probably appropriate, but, digging through her contribution history, a specific warning about the misapplication of A7 tags in addition to the one she has received about incivility seems in order to me.] (]) 02:42, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
:::Sounds good to me--I added one . I also looked a little closer at her contributions, and it seems she has a bit of a penchant for edit warring over discussion (particularly against redirects), although to be honest responsibility for a number of these edit wars seems also to lie with ] and ], as they seem equally reluctant to take the issue to the talk page or even explain their reasons for redirecting in the edit summary (with a couple of exceptions). This, however, is a separate issue that would probably be better dealt with at ] or another stage of the ] process. --]-]] 03:05, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
::::Or one of those issues could be ] instead. Remind me to look up in the future >.< --]-]] 03:09, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
::::::It's called ] because he violently disagrees with our fiction redirects and has animus against TTN and me, which I reciprocate at this point. Vivian is a self-admitted sock and a highly disruptive editor who in my view should be blocked. The recent "edit war" consisted of going through my contribution history and undoing - in exact order, I mean you have to admire the gall - my wantonly vandalising efforts in backing up TTN's redirection of fiction related articles. ] (]) 16:57, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
:::::Fully agree that that is where her warring tendencies lie. I suspect the porn crusade is an application of ] -> "If they are going to delete my teen fiction articles, I'll delete their porn stars." I actually wouldn't mind if she treated most of the porn articles the way TTN treats the badly written fiction pieces, but that involves following rules to the letter.] (]) 03:19, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
===New day===
Her today consisted of once again restoring articles that consist only of plot summaries, staying only slightly below the 3RR limit. Her makes it clear that she has no understanding that nominating articles that contain text like '''', '''', via A7 was wholly inappropriate. I think it's time for a bigger hammer.] (]) 00:39, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
:Nobody should be edit warring over a speedy tag or a redirect, on either side, here. If it's contested, just take it to AfD instead of playing cops and robbers. This current handling is only going to cause more animosity on all sides. &ndash; <span style="font-family: Garamond">] (])</span> 01:26, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

== ] ==

{{User|Smith Jones}}
Something probably needs done about this user - a cursory review of his contributions will show them to be full of attacks on other editors for being too "skeptical", and edit summaries like - during him edit-warring to add a npov tag because he objects that the article . A warning might suffice, but the chances of him becoming a productive editor seem very low. ] <sup>]</sup> 03:56, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
:::::you have no diea of my motives and the gall taht is require dfor you to automatically design why i aded that nPOV tag is unbelievalble. as i explained in the talk page, i percieved a disconect between the stated policies fo neutrlaity and letting readers coming up with their own conclusion from he evidence and the statments made on the Uri geller article, which made definiteive statements based on the opiions of sketpics. i have no problem with the mentioning of the controversy, only that the aritlce should NEVER have stated conclusively that uri geller was a fraud since that tshould be somethign that is either videncet to the reader or not. i have read all the regulations that hav ebenn submitted to me and never have i read that wikipedias job was to make decisions for readers, and in fact it seems to be the oposite. perhaps i am wrong, butr i will not concede m mistake until this is explain rationally to me. ] (]) 22:59, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
:I've been interacting with him for a few days now, and I concur with Adam's suggestion that the chance of him becoming a productive editor is very low. My first direct interaction with him was to inform him that the was both against policy and ridiculous, as the Arbitration Committee is not about to hear a case against SineBot (). This conversation ended in him referring to my explanation of talk page signatures as "harassment" and opting out of SineBot, also calling it "harassment". But he didn't threaten to tattle on me, so I guess this is the best conversation I've had with him ever. A informing him, very politely, that his indiscriminate use of all-caps was rude, . After that I told him I'd stop trying to help him if it was bothersome.
:However, the problematic behavior has continued, as has his constant threats to "report to an arbitration committee." I've repeatedly explained what ArbCom is and what it does, and why threatening other users with reporting them to ArbCom is inappropriate, but he has continued. Following the last threat, which Adam links above, I've left him a in regards to his threats and his characterizing good faith edits as vandalism, and will block for a length of time if he continues in that manner.
:::i have apologized erepatedly for my initlial mistakes as to the purpose of an ARbitration committee, and yet my past mistakes continue to be dragged out of the closet to be used agianst me in unrelated disputes. i submit that this is an entirely unfair way of treating me since i have noticed that very few others poeople are subject to such an intense amoutn of scrutiny and judgment as well as to my intentions. i have always taken it under assumption that i am supposed to be judged as acting under good faith unless proven otherswise but so far i have been treated like a criminal or a vandal sfor any disgarement i may have with a fellow editor or any mistakes that i have made regarding the rules and the ways thing soperate on wikipedia. i am not an experience duser and i freely amdit that I have made many mistakes and not been the best editor i could be and I would like to apologize fot to all the people who tried to help me such as user: natalie erin but I also must rmeidn you that even though i make mistakes i am still a human being and a fellow editor sand i would like to be treated iwth respct and my feelings considered before i am submitted to the degree of harassment and mockery that i have been submitted to during my career trying to imrpove this encyclopedia. ] (]) 22:59, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
::::Since this is progressing beyond a strictly admin matter, I'm going to continue this discussion on the user's talk page. ] (]) 18:03, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
:This user does seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of both how the Misplaced Pages community interacts and what Misplaced Pages as a whole is for. Perhaps a half-dozen users have attempted to explain some of these fundamentals to him, but he invariably blanks his talk page and continues in the same manner. The various points he needs to be aware of have also been explained on various talk pages, including ], ], ], and others. A quick perusal of his contributions shows a dedicated single-issue editor, who has apparently take it on himself to champion psychics and quackery. ] (]) 16:19, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
::Also, I didn't see a notification of this discussion on his talk page or its history, so I have notified him. ] (]) 16:21, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
::::::::tha nk you for notifying me it is very rare that i am actual giveen an opportunity to explain myself and i appreciate taht this was brought to my attention by you instead of me having to find about thismuch later. i have already addressed your decision to label me as a psychic and a quacker on the numberous other article talk pages that this has been done to me. ] (]) 22:59, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

::: recent edit summary stuck out on a quick review of his recent contribs. As did this one: (sic). Or . In general, I'm not getting the picture of an especially constructive editor. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 16:54, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
::::To be fair, he was warned about personal attacks shortly after those edits, and hasn't made the same types of statements since. This sort of jibes with the impression I've been getting that there's some sort of real communication hurdle here, short of his soapboxing and misunderstanding of the purpose of Misplaced Pages. I initially thought screen reader and bad computer transcribing because of the numerous spelling and formatting errors, but since then I've noticed other issues that wouldn't be explained by being blind. Smith Jones takes most things incredibly literally, including policy suggestions. The best conversations I've had with him consisted of him suggesting some sources, and myself or someone else explaining exactly what was wrong or right with those particular sources. We may be being trolled, but it's also possible that this is a non-native English speaker, someone with a learning disorder, or a very young person. ] (]) 17:09, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
:::::i am not a troll. i am a Native English speaker, i do not have a learning disorder, and i am over 18 years of age. I am not blidn either. i have been suggested to get firefox because it has a spellchecker but this is evidently not the case because i am Having severe difficulties atually finding the spellchecker. i amdit that sumtimes my spelling is not very clear but that is becuase i have ahrd time keeping my thoughts straight at time sand i should problemably slow down while i Am typing to make sure that spelling errors. i would appreciate it if someone would explain to me how the spellcchecker is supposed to work because i have not noticed on even though i took advice from someonere here to get a spellchecker which i have not until yet been able to operate. i know firefox has one and it used to work for me but ti have not been able to activat eit since. ] (]) 22:59, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

::::Also notice the mess that this user made on ] with absurd claims regarding a pharmaceutics company. ] (]) 17:06, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

:::::::::::::i thank you for your politeness and respect towards my work and i hope that you are treated with the same dignity tin turn in the future. ] (]) 22:59, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

== ] ==

This user's page and talk page should be deleted, per ]. The user and talk page contains personal information (telephone #). Can some one do this? ] 19:35, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
:And while we are on the subject, someone please delete and . ] 19:37, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

::], second door on the right. <span style="font-family:serif;font-size:120%">''']''' ]</span> 19:39, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
:::Argyriou, I e-mailed them almost a week ago concerning this information with the Example page. Nothing was done. ] 19:46, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
: I took care of the user page and talk page. I'm assuming deleted pages don't need to be oversighted (oversought?) because regular users can't see them in the edit history, right? --] <sup>]</sup> 20:01, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
::Yep, only admins can see deleted pages. ] 20:06, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

::Well, they could still be oversight-ed if the user whose personal information is there doesn't want admins to view that information. - ] (]) 20:50, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

:::The two links in Miranda's second sentence probably ought to be oversighted, though I don't know the policy on oversighting spammers. One wants to submit the email address of the spammer to other spammers, but one isn't sure what to do with the phone numbers. Perhaps put them down on a drawing for a time-share? <span style="font-family:serif;font-size:120%">''']''' ]</span> 23:01, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

== ] ignoring consensus on ] ==

This user repeatedly refused and ignored the consensus found on ] against his own depiction of the Italian flag, featuring a grayer shade of white. I am noticing him here due to his latest revertion of his own version, so I am asking for an intervention from another admin as soon as possible. (I am an admin as well, but I already tried to deal with him with little success) Thank you. --] (]) 20:56, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
:Article reverted as user is clearly ignoring consensus. I will monitor situation further. ] <sub>(] ] ])</sub> 21:12, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

:As can clearly be determined via ] and ], ] does not have a particularly good understanding of Misplaced Pages policy, including that of ], which states, among other things, "''In essence silence implies consent if there is adequate exposure to the community.''" He had little success "''dealing''" with me because he kept presenting fallacies that I called him on. ¦ ] (]) 01:06, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

'''::::REISIO i HAVE red the debate on teht talk page and you are clearly in the wrong. i recomemnd that you back off, remember to keep a cool head, and''' comeback to wiipedia when you are ready t o cooperate you with your felow editors. ] (]) 01:09, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

:Ha, look who's talking — nice formatting. If anyone can present a logically sound argument as to why I shouldn't include that image, I'll happily not. ¦ ] (]) 01:12, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

::the reason why you should not add that article is becuase the re is CLEAR ocnsensus on User:angelo romano's talk page stating than the sum of editors who were working on that article agre that it should be included. NOONE on that article aggress with you, and while i will assume good faith is looks very bad for you. if you dont go back to the flag of italy talk page and try to work things out WITHOUT edit warring you could ned up on the administrators noticeboard again, which would make me ver angry with you and your work. ] (]) 02:54, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

:My posit stands. :p ¦ ] (]) 03:28, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I have attempted to work on this, but Reisio remains recalcitrant at the Commons, the Italian Misplaced Pages, and the English Misplaced Pages (I also found the image added at the Dutch Misplaced Pages by an IP). From what I can see, he is ignoring the consensus, or simply interpreting the consensus the way he sees fit.—] (]) 04:03, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

:<span class="plainlinks"></span> ¦ ] (]) 06:56, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

::Okay, now it's enough. I am going to warn this user per ]. --] (]) 08:48, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

== 65.121.24.98 indefinite block nomination ==

Please check 65.121.24.98 's talk page. As you can see the person has been blocked (temp) '''4''' times and is still vandalizing pages. I do request that this person get an indefinite block to help keep the pages of Misplaced Pages vandal-free. <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 22:11, 8 January 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

:You can not indef an anon unless they are static, just report to ]. <font style="font-family: Papyrus, sans-serif"><font color="#775ca8">]</font></font>&nbsp; 22:22, 8 January 2008 (UTC)


::If the whois search is right, this IP belongs to Lowell Observatory. <font style="font-family: Papyrus, sans-serif"><font color="#775ca8">]</font></font>&nbsp; 22:27, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
:::It's been blocked by ] for six months; after reviewing its contributions at length, I was generally inclined to do the same (albeit with account creation enabled). &ndash; <span style="font-family: Garamond">] (])</span> 23:13, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
::::Also IP's can be blocked indefinitely if they are ]. ]] 05:49, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

::I forgot about open proxies, been a long time since I read anything on them. <font style="font-family: Papyrus, sans-serif"><font color="#775ca8">]</font></font>&nbsp; 13:21, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
:::I thought open proxies were only supposed to be blocked for long periods of time, rather than indef, since they occasionally are reassigned. But that obviously might have changed - I don't keep up on OP blocking protocol. ] (]) 18:23, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

:I don't see the point in '''ever''' indef blocking an IP. Even if an IP is a long term problem then block of up to 6 months can be used. It is not hard to deal with a problem IP every 6 months. ] 18:31, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
::Indef-blocks of open proxies are generally deprecated. There is currently a discussion about indef-blocks and open proxy (Tor) block lengths at ]. -- ] <sup>]</sup> 18:33, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

== ] keeps editing my user page ==

I'm not sure if he's clueless or a sock trying to bug me. Could someone intervene? Thanks.] (]) 23:07, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

:Your user page contained some misplaced &lt;noinclude&gt; sections that you'd apparently manually cut and pasted from various userbox templates. Those sections caused your user page to appear in a couple of categories meant only for templates. Babelious was apparently trying to fix that, but his/her edits seem to have included other, unnecessary, changes. I have edited your user page to remove those misplaced &lt;noinclude&gt; sections, but have left it otherwise unchanged. I hope we can now declare this issue resolved. —] <small>(])</small> 23:34, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
::Thank you. That's fine. I tried to get him to tell me exactly what the problem was but perhaps there was a language barrier. I forgot to mention above that he also edited my page as ]. Thanks for your trouble.] (]) 16:24, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
:::He's still editing it . Could you at least put a note on his talk page to get him to stop? Thanks.] (]) 18:16, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

:::You are right, I did edit your user talk page, and there is a language barrier. You didn't tell me the issue was resolved but rather threatened to block me. -]] 18:47, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

:I would like to stress that I am only trying to help Tstrobaugh, and that he needs to take his userpage out of ], and ]. -]] 18:45, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

There is no longer any need for me to edit hhis userpage, and therefore I shall not, just as I said on his userpage. -]] 18:57, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
:He is now personally attacking me ] (]) 21:16, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
::To be fair, it looks like the above message was posted in response to message that ] posted. ] <sub>(] ] ])</sub> 21:23, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
:as you can see above ] admitted there was a language problem, I thought he was serious and was trying to be helpful, could you point out the problem with my post that you apparently think warranted the response of "Mensa elitism"? Thanks for your input.] (]) 21:34, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
::No, I don't think anything warrants incivility, even if it is mild. However, the comment that you posted on Babelious' talk page could be interpreted ad being mildly uncivil as well, which is why I referenced it. To be honest, I can't see why this issue is still open. Babelious already said he wouldn't edit your userpage again and since then he hasn't. It looks to me like the best thing would be for the two of you to both drop the issue and go your separate ways. ] <sub>(] ] ])</sub> 21:40, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
:::In fact he even took my advice and put the user box up so I don't know what your point is.] (]) 21:42, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
::::My point was that suggesting he use {{tl|User en-2}} directly ''could be'' interpreted as saying "you're not very good at English", which would be a mildly uncivil comment. So anyway, are you willing to drop the issue, since it seems to have blown over? ] <sub>(] ] ])</sub> 21:54, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
:::::On a sidenote, you are more than entitled to remove anything from your user talk page if you don't like it, per ]. ] <sub>(] ] ])</sub> 21:57, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
:Yes, but he's edited my user page 16 times over the past 10 days, is your solution to just ignore it? For how long?] (]) 22:04, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
::Babelious said he would stop modifying your userpage, and he has not edited it since he said that. I'm ] on his part that he will be true to his word. He seems well aware that if he edits it again you will consider it vandalism and he may be subject to a block or other sort of enforcement. What solution would you propose? ] <sub>(] ] ])</sub> 22:10, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

== death threat made by IP ] ==

<div style="margin: 1em;" class="resolved"><span style="border: 1px solid #ccc; background: #f9fbf9; margin-right: .5em; padding: 6px;">] ]</span>{{#if: {{{1|}}}|<span style="font-size: 85%;">{{{1}}}</span>}}</div>
In [http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Samuel_Adams&diff=prev&oldid=183081562
this edit], an IP (])
made death threats against a named person. Can one of the admins follow up on this?
-- <span style="font-family:serif">]</span> 01:29, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
:IP blocked & edits deleted. Thanks for reporting it, ˉˉ<sup>]</sup>] 01:37, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

== Repeated Vandalism by 209.152.67.222 ==

This are purely vandalism and he needs to be blocked to prevent further blatant vandalism.
] (]) <small>—Preceding ] was added at 02:49, 9 January 2008 (UTC)</small><!--Template:Undated--> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:Seems to have stopped, and you can report vandals to ]. ]] 05:45, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

== User John Celona ==

I would like to request a block for this user. He has disregarded the consensus for an article which took days to determine, has blatantly used inflammatory/hateful language on edit summaries despite requests from other editors to stop, and now he is making POV edits in a vindictive way. Others have experienced the same thing, pls see: http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:John_celona -- there are many editors who have asked him to stop with the repeated bad faith accusations -- pls see Peter Yarrow talk page...Oh, and I forgot to mention that he has made several edits to the article using a suspected sockpuppet, pls see: http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:David_in_DC#Checkuser_.3F--- --] (]) 03:02, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
: I believe I made exactly one post having forgotten to sign in. So much for sock puppets. User Jkp212 should be blocked as he has posted inflamatory language falsely claiming that a judge claimed a 14 year old girl "coerced" a 30 year old man into sex. This is not true. In fact, the child "resisted the advances" of the molester. ,, Despite being asked four times to provide a source for this alleged quote (made at 20:00 on the ] discussion page) user Jkp212 is unable to provide such a source.] (]) 04:46, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

::I dispute Jkp212's primary charge, that John celona has disregarded consensus on . The minor content issue in question (whether to describe a prison term as "short" or "three months long") hadn't been specifically agreed-upon. Regarding the other charges some diffs or other evidence would help. Editing without logging-in isn't sock puppetry unless the editor attempts to make it appear that he's different people to violate 3RR or skew consensus. I don't see any blockable offense. ]] ] 07:06, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Will, User John Celona did much more than try to add "three month". That is a huge misrepresentation -- pls read his edit history. He repeatedly added inflammatory material to the article and edit (without discussing it on the talk page) DESPITE being asked kindly to avoid such edits. He attacked every other editor on the page, and he made vindictive POV edits as a fighting tool. Have you actually looked at his edits? And yes, there WAS a consensus reached, which is why several editors kept asking John to respect the consensus. --] (]) 16:34, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

:::Any fair reading of the Yarrow talk page shows Misplaced Pages at its best, including one RfC that reached a resolution, thru December 15th. From December 21st on, the date of John Celona's first edit that upset the work of a hard won consensenus, everything degenerates. In this case, reading the actual talk page, with a keen eye to the chronology, tells the story better than any recapitulation would. ] (]) 16:26, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

::::On Dec 21, user Sarcastic Idealist asked John to avoid use of the word "molest" and other inflammatory language in edit summaries. He did so on the talk page, and John clearly saw this, and then went on to use the word and other inflammatory language in edit summaries numerous times. --] (]) 16:57, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
:::: No, the word "molest" is in any number of the verifiable links I posted on the disussion page. I believe 10 of them were posted. On the talk page, not the article. ] (]) 01:33, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
:::::I agree that the user in question is being somewhat ] (as is, truth be told, ] from time to time), but I don't think we're anywhere near blocking territory. ] (]) 18:01, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Amen to that: if anyone deserves to be warned about anything it is Will and Jkp212. They are trying to bite a newbie because he disagrees with them. Yes John seems to be seems to be a bit tendentious at times but he seems to be learning from his mistakes.

John Celona is adding to the problem by making ] edits to Gene Krupa and Charles Lahr. ] (]) 02:08, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Willbeback and Sarscastic idealist But allow me to put things in another perspective by saying that John celona is a newbie who seems to be learning from his mistakes while David and Wkp212 are continuing to try and find ways to vilify him for haying opinions that are at variance with there own. : ] (]) 09:47, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

== Neutral Good ==

* {{User5|Neutral Good}}
* {{article|Waterboarding}}

Can someone please tell this person to lay off the accusations, innuendo, and personal attacks? He has received final warnings from two admins (Henrik and Jehochman) and is still continuing. He just caused ] to be reprotected a 5th or 6th time with another edit war. More chestnuts:

*
*

He had posted the same text on Ned Scott's page on ANI, and then pulled it. I have several times publically asked this person to stop with this poisonous atmosphere, and have largely abandoned that damned page because of his POV pushing and harassment. <span style="font-variant:small-caps"><font color="#800080">]</font></span> 04:04, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

:Lawrence is leading a cabal of meatpuppets from the ] artiole, pushing his own POV with a Caterpillar bulldozer (which is what attracted my attention in the first place), and trying to intimidate editors who disagree with them by making false accusations of sockpuppetry, in an obvious effort to ] the article. An illustration of how Lawrence tells you only half the truth: both Henrik and jehochman have taken his side in this content dispute. Lawrence is in the habit of marching over here to ] or ] on an almost daily basis, telling half the truth and spin-doctoring it as well, in an effort to get editors who disagree with him blocked. I survived two consecutive findings of {{unrelated}} on RFCU within a week. That is the Misplaced Pages equivalent of a body cavity search. And I'm supposed to just shut up and take it? Get him off my back, and stop him and his meatpuppets from ]ing the article. Allow me to thank any admin in advance who is contemplating an effort to get Lawrence Cohen and his meatpuppets under control. ] (]) 10:07, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

::This is not an endorsement of Neutral Good's methods but I have a problem with this posting by Lawrence. Both Lawrence and Jehochman are active and biased editors on the article in question. They disagree with Neutral Good. I have detected a consistent pattern on the part of Lawrence and Jehochman to eliminate people from the article who disagree with them using administrative measures and influence to the point that it may reach to harassment and could cause someone to say the sorts of things that Neutral Good said. Other editors that Lawrence and Jehochman agree with are left untouched by these complaints even if they are also problematic. Jehochman has engaged in general threatening of editors on the page on very flimsy grounds. Lawrence has engaged in personal attacks. If I were another neutral admin, I would proceed cautiously and not automatically assume that either Lawrence or Jehochman come with entirely clean hands to the matter.
::Incidentally, I consider the edit war to be the result of actions by another editor, not even mentioned here, who initiated edit changes witout consensus. However, Lawrence happens to agree with this other editor so he could not be the source of the problem. --] (]) 11:34, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
:::Blue tie, I disagree strongly with your analysis. In the case of ] I identified a group of checkuser confirmed sock puppets. In a second case ] I identified yet another group of editors who had collaborated off wiki and then put forward a proposal without identifying their connections to each other. Both situations were serious violations of policy. Alison decided to unblock Shibumi2 early because he had come to an agreement with her via email. That may be forgiveness, not vindication. ] <sup>]</sup> 14:16, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
:::: For the record, that was forgiveness and understanding but not vindication - ] <sup>]</sup> 15:42, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
::I'm only peripherally acquainted with this article, but the claim by ] that it was POV-pushing that "attracted his attention" to the article strikes me as rather rich, given that he is a single-purpose account, 99% of whose edits are to this article and related talk pages. <b>]</b> 13:38, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

:::Reliable sources almost unanimously state that waterboarding is torture. A few fringe sources, as well as editorials and political pundits claim that waterboarding is not torture. Blue tie and Neutral Good have been attempting to ] the viewpoints of these different sources to say that the classification of waterboarding as torture is controversial. This is not a verifiable fact; it is their own ]. As a matter of verifiable fact, there is no legitimate dispute that waterboarding is torture. (See ], the RfC page.)

::: Misplaced Pages is not a battleground, but Neutral Good in particular appears to be to making it one. He appears to ] against consensus. His editing has contributed to the article being protected endlessly. ] <sup>]</sup> 14:16, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

:::::Notice how deeply involved Jechochman is in the article content. Though this particular page that we are reading right now has NOTHING to do with the content of that article, he brings the whole debate from that page here, where it is irrelevant. I will forego proving his contentions wrong, as they belong on that page not this one. But, the important thing to notice is how he is using wikipedia administrative practices to push around people that he disagrees with on the article. Before any action is taken based upon his words, his motives and demeanor should be examined as well. --] (]) 02:57, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Completely false statements by both Neutral Good and Blue Tie. I came into that article after an edit war I found via RC, and that Alison locked down. I stuck around, and occasionally helped out on talk over the months, and finally helped to get it unprotected--I have nearly no edits to the article itself, beyond gnome work like reference formatting. I have ''consistently'' asked for more people to look at and watch the mess on ] as the situation had begun to deteriorate: why would I do that, exactly, on multiple noticeboards over the past 6-7 weeks, if I was doing something illicit or trying to hide some nefarious activity? If there is some sort of contested situation I believe the only people who would not want more attention drawn to it are the people who are ''wrong'', and arguing from a position either not supported by policy or by facts. I've ''told'' both Neutral Good and Blue Tie to get more attention from admins on the article themselves if they wanted. They complain rather loudly when I do so, myself. Why is it they want ''less'' attention drawn to ]...?

The waves of SPAs then all arrived en masse for whatever American election cycle reason. Either way, this has ''nothing'' to do with the waterboarding article specifically in ''this'' posting I did--it is not a content matter. It is about the aggressive SPA Neutral Good, who does not contribute to anything but one topic (Waterboarding), runs around this site in my wake, waging some sort of campaign against me. He appears to be either a troll or bad hand account. <span style="font-variant:small-caps"><font color="#800080">]</font></span> 14:44, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

(conflict)
:That "waterboarding is torture" is indeed reported by many reliable sources. That "waterboarding" is an buzzword that has a variety of confounding meanings with other tortures -- even within those hallowed sources deploring it -- seems to be irrelevant. ] (]) 14:48, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
::What does this have to do with Neutral Good running around Misplaced Pages, leaving nasty messages about me after receiving final warnings from two administrators, and complaining bitterly when I ask admins to review the only page he focuses on? <span style="font-variant:small-caps"><font color="#800080">]</font></span> 14:51, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Neutral Good has spoken out (unfortunately in a sarcastic and confrontational manner) about a problem that has concerned many of us on the Waterboarding article. Please do not disregard what he says simply because of the way that he says it. Lawrence, Jehochman and their friends came up empty-handed on their first two Checkuser attempts, were partially (and only briefly) successful on their third and, despite all of their caterwauling, the influence of the Harvard Law students has been positive, thoughtful and well-measured. They are abusing the administrative processes in an attempt to ] the article, and should be banned from it for a week. Maybe even a month. Regards, Bob ] (]) 15:47, 9 January 2008 (UTC) {{SPA|68.31.166.239}}

::And now, if you don't mind, I'll respond to the preceding sneaky, underhanded attempt to delegitimize me by labeling my account as an SPA. I happen to choose to edit anonymously from an IP address, as I have every right to do. I happen to have an ISP that gives me a rapidly shifting IP address; otherwise, I could point to a trail of thousands of edits on hundreds of unrelated articles, going back more than two years. This SPA tag is precisely what I'm talking about when I say, "They are abusing administrative processes in an attempt to ] this article." There is a constant level of low-level needling and baiting coming from them and it is destroying ]. I will not tolerate being delegitimized in this fashion. Please do something effective about this sneaky little pack of trolls. Forgive me for this outburst, but they are really getting on my last nerve. Regards, Bob ] (]) 18:34, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

===Proposal: Temporary topic ban===
OK, as I've become more frustrated with the ability of tendentious single-purpose agenda-driven editing to stall improvement of articles, I'm going to propose something here, as an admin uninvolved in this dispute. {{user|Neutral Good}}, based on current contribution history, appears to be an aggressive single-purpose agenda-driven account with evidence of edit-warring and tendentious editing. S/he is by no means the sole problematic presence at the Waterboarding page, but his activity has been signficantly unconstructive and is unbalanced by positive contributions elsewhere.

I propose that Neutral Good be banned from article/talk pages relating to waterboarding, loosely defined, for a period of 1-3 months. This will provide an opportunity for this user to contribute elsewhere on the encyclopedia (they have expressed an interest in improving several unrelated articles: , ) and develop a track record of positive contribution. The waterboarding article will still be there in a few months. I'd like to hear thoughts on this proposal, ideally from uninvolved editors and admins. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 19:21, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

:As long as it is the first step, and that any other edit warriors who pop up get the same treatment, I would endorse this. ] (]) 19:29, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

::Yesterday I protected the article ''again'' only a few days after it came out of the previous protection. It's clear that what we've been doing up to now hasn't worked. I don't know the positions or histories of the combatants, but any admin who has the fortitude to dive in and start topic banning (or blocking) the most troublesome edit warriors has my support. ] (]) 20:23, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

: (ec) I like the imagination behind this solution. "If you aren't a single-purpose account, then prove it by editing other articles for a while." This solution should be used more often. -- ] (]) 20:27, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

: Support a topic ban. I believe that without this editor the Waterboarding dispute will be resolved more quickly, and allow Neutral Good to improve unrelated articles in the meantime. <strong>]<small>•]</small></strong> 20:29, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

And what were the lot of you planning to do about the editors who "are abusing administrative processes in a campaign to ] the article"? Three-month article bans for them as well? That would be the only fair solution. If you're going to ban Neutral Good from the article for three months, ban the people who have been abusing admin processes in their effort to harass Neutral Good and others who disagree with them. Otherwise, you endorse abuse of admin processes, and you endorse this violation of the Misplaced Pages policy known as ]. ] (]) 20:44, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
:Suddenly, I hear crickets chirping rather loudly ... ] (]) 21:06, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
::I'm sorry that 20 minutes were allowed to lapse before your comment got a response. I don't see evidence of "abuse of administrative processes in a campaign to own the article." I see a tense situation involving a number of otherwise productive contributors and at least one tendentious, single-purpose agenda account. My instinct is to remove the single-purpose agenda warrior from the equation temporarily and allow the other editors, who generally have track records of constructive collaboration and encyclopedia-building, a chance to work it out. On Misplaced Pages, it's very easy for one person shouting at the top of their lungs to drown out 10 people trying to be reasonable. If you have actual diffs and a more compelling argument that some sort of abuse of process is taking place, then please present them, but rhetoric alone is not particularly convincing. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 21:34, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, I couldn't help noticing that the endorsements of a block for Neutral Good were coming like machine-gun fire about two minutes apart, and in fact encountered an edit conflict with one another; but the moment I suggested some equity, the machine gun fell silent. If you want diffs, I'll look them up tonight and post them on your Talk page in the morning. Fair enough? In the meantime, try reviewing the ] page and the edit histories of {{User|Badagnani}}, {{User|Inertia Tensor}}, and {{User|Lawrence Cohen}} over the past couple of weeks. That's where I'll be looking. Thanks. ] (]) 21:44, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

:{{user|Inertia Tensor}} certainly looks bad from a brief skim, but has not edited in the past 2 weeks, so I'm not sure what you expect me to do with him unless he acts up again. I'd recuse myself from any action regarding {{user|Badagnani}}, since I seem to recall we've had some fairly heated discussion on diet-related articles. {{user|Lawrence Cohen}} has a track record of positive collaboration and encyclopedia-building, including several FA/GA's, and I don't see anything in his contribs there warranting sanctions, though diffs are always welcome. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 22:09, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I've gotta stick my nose in this. I keep seeing SPA being thrown around as a pretty bad thing over and over lately. It is not inherently a bad thing. It is not against policy. Some here do seem to be trying to turn it into a bad word though. ] (]) 21:46, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

:SPA's are not inherently bad. Some of our best articles are written largely by SPA's. However, SPA plus ] plus ] is a noxious and all-too-common combination. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 22:02, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Neutral Good has already explained, on ], that he had an extensive history of editing as an anonymous IP. Again, that is not inherently a bad thing, nor is it against policy, but some her do seem to be trying to turn it into a bad word. ] (]) 21:52, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

:Leaving aside the SPA issue, are Good's edits tendentious or needlessly provocative? Looking no further than his contributions from today, I see edits along the lines of this. ] (]) 21:55, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

::Yeah not a particularly good comment. However, considering the heat on the topic, my completely uneducated, uninformed, worthless opinion is that it isn't worthy of a topic ban of any sort. ] (]) 22:03, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Support ban as a marginally involved editor with this page watchlisted for a while. &#10154;]! 02:05, 10 January 2008 (UTC)


:::It seems to me that a 3 month ban for violating something that is not policy (SPA) is extreme. If the problem is ], I was unaware that TE was a policy either. If you are going to exercise a ban, it really should be for something that the community has agreed to by policy. But realizing that wikipedia does not always operate by either consensus or policy but on some other indescribable basis, I would at least suggest that there should be better evidence of evil than has been presented here. The frustrations of two highly biased admins (at least on this topic) who are pushing other editors away from that page should not be sufficient testimony for extreme actions. I do not like to communicate the way that NG does, but as with Arkon, I just do not see a serious violation in his comments. And I believe it is incorrect to say that NG was the cause of most of the protections on the article and it is inconceivable that he is the only cause ... yet he is the only one accused. I get the feeling that this is a case of scapegoat.--] (]) 03:08, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

:::: I think every good editor agrees that incivility and disruptive editing are not helpful or wanted on wikipedia. Accusing admins of being biased is not going to help. They are chosen for their track record in good editing practice. If you find yourself in confrontation with one you should be questioning your behaviour and your bias. In my opinion there is clearly enough evidence on the talk page. --<span style="background: white;">neon</span><span style="color:white; background: black;">white</span><small> ] ]</small> 03:39, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

:::::You're damn straight, Blue Tie. Here's what I've seen in Internet communities and this one is no different. The trolls pick on the new guy. The new guy reacts a little strongly. The community, to the astonishment of the new guy and any detached observers, rises up in defense of their trolls because they are, after all, '''THEIR''' trolls. ] (]) 03:24, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

:::::::Well, on the other hand, you sort of play right into it and do yourself no favors by calling people trolls. I suspect, like many people, you are getting emotional over these things (feeling targeted can do that too). I recommend that if you feel emotional, you take some time off to cool down. --] (]) 03:33, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

:::::I take time off to cool down on a regular basis. In fact, I just came back around Christmas from (approximately) two months of Wikibreak and saw this mess. I also take at least two eight-hour periods off every day, to work and to sleep. There appear to be several editors on the article who don't even do that. ] (]) 03:39, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

::A BETTER PROPOSAL would be to instead LOCK the article and the talk page thread each for 16 hours each day to allow editors a hance to cool off and relax withoitu worrying that the others guys are fucking around with the original ocntent. ] (]) 03:46, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

:::That makes no sense. ] is a subset of ]. Which is a guideline. As I said, Neutral Good is not the only problematic presence on the article, nor is s/he the root of all evil. On the other hand, the other editors currently involved generally have a track record of being able to work collaboratively elsewhere. Neutral Good has a track record of unmitigated tendentiousness. The idea behind the topic ban is not to excuse everyone else, but to a) temporarily remove a particularly inflammatory and unconstructive presence, and b) to give Neutral Good a chance to build up a better track record of collaborative editing on other articles before returning to ]. Trust me, the article and the issue will still be there in 3 months. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 03:46, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

::::I see a problem with you last statement based upon the history there. Previously (before I edited there), there were apparently disputes. Supposedly they came to some consensus. Some of the editors now claim that regardless of right wrong, left right, etc. they are simply seeking to preserve consensus. The argument boils down to "We already decided so it must not change". If that philosophy prevails, then when he returns in 3 months, the chorus will be "We already decide now go away". I must have missed it, because I do not see NG's edits as being especially bad on that page, and I think it should bear some weight on the matter that he was, almost immediately accused of being malicious (as I recall) based upon the fact that he was new but seemed to know wiki-editing. When an editor is greeted with that, and treated badly by a small mob, their reaction to that treatment can look like tendentious editing. And perhaps it is. But it is not exactly one sided.
::::I believe a real solution to the problems on that page would be to ban anyone who insists on only one form of wording and nothing else. The only folk left then would be those who are willing to consider other wordings. Such people are able to negotiate and eventually come to consensus. People who are intractable, not just on principles but on exact wording cannot come to consensus if anyone else disagrees with them. That is a big part of the problem there. --] (]) 06:35, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

===A summary of the problem===
Yes, it's long. Sorry. Please read it anyway.

The problem is that ] is a massive hot potato in the current American election cycle, which is attracting more and more people that want to install an American-centric POV onto the article, irregardless of minor details such as the fact that American politics are a tiny fraction of what has significance and weight in Misplaced Pages articles. ]. The ones that say "not" are all American, right-of-center types. One political viewpoint of one idealogical bent getting to install modern American POV onto a topic that dates back to around the year ], ''predating'' the United States, is the problem, but no one is hardly willing to come out and say that in the interests of ]. I'm going to suspend AGF a moment here, which I ''know'' I shouldn't do, but someone needs to try to summarize this mess. If this goes to Arbcom this is probably going to be my statement.

That is the crux of the ''entire'' problem--it's a pure push to minimize and downplay the wording and effects of the article, specifically in calling waterboarding "torture". That simple facet is a content dispute, but an extremely, extremely weakly positioned one, that virtually ''every'' new person to the waterboarding page has agreed is a weak position--the views of the American Right are a lone viewpoint in general, and the view that waterboarding is not torture is a very, very small minority viewpoint. Various courageous warriors however are trying to inflate this fictional disparity into something on the level of the debates on ], ], or ]. It simply isnt. It's a small number of Americans saying that after 9/11, it's not torture. It doesn't work that way, because that violates NPOV. It can argued it ''may'' be disputed in some American political circles, but it's preposterous to say that globally waterboarding is contested as a form of torture. Any suggestions that the article and in particular it's lead reflect a '''global world view''' primarily are met with scorn. One person even was so bold as to say that foreign opinion is irrelevant, because they haven't been through what we Americans have.

That is the problem: a tiny minority group of ''very'' vocal tenditious editors are insisting that a minority American point of view needs to have elevated, weight-enhanced authority to preserve NPOV. Everyone else says that in the interests of NPOV, the exact opposite needs to happen, with the minority American POV (that is held by very few sourced, notable authorities) being relegated to the ] side of things per ]. Neither side is willing to budge, and with each verbal body check it just gets worse each day, until the past 24 hours when we finally had people running around virtually waving their arms screaming "FIRE! FIRE! FIRE!" in all directions, on every side, following the Harvard class experiment that en masse decided to decend on the waterboarding debate to weigh in (just when you thought it couldn't get any more bizarre).

Before waterboarding was on the news media '''every day''' the page and talk were quite manageable. Things went downhill civility-wise here (no offense: just saying this based on chronology, not saying they were directly responsible) after Neutral Good arrived; after , a confirmed IP address of ]/] arrived, and several weeks after Blue Tie arrived further. Those were the basic landmarks for downward progress as I recall. Add in the confirmed per ] sockpuppetry involving Shibumi2 and others, and the random ever changing massive cloud of Sprint Wireless IPs that sometimes (but not always) calls itself "Bob" was just the icing on the cake. Other than that, debate had been ''quite'' civil, barring the occasional drive-by lunacy, until roughly the past three weeks.

I am routinely astonished that one side of the debate goes ballistic with anger and innuendo whenever any user attempts to get more eyes on the problem. I and others have been derided for having the nerve to ask in places like the RS noticeboard, Fringe theory noticeboard, and here on ANI, and was accused of using requests for more people to review a situation as an attempt at canvassing. If some were so convinced that they were truly defending Misplaced Pages in the name of NPOV, why would they be so upset at the fact that I wanted more people to review the situation? If the defense of NPOV was true, then all the "new" people would side with the correct side of the NPOV debate here. The fact that nearly ''every'' single "new" person has sided with the "Is torture", global sourced view, over the past week since this got wide exposure after civility went out the door, has caused civility on the talk pages to completely flush itself down the toilet in response. Make of all that what you will. <span style="font-variant:small-caps"><font color="#800080">]</font></span> 07:14, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

::I disagree. The problem has nothing to do with the Election Cycle. The fundamental problem is simply that the issue is disputed in society at large and wikipedia, for better or worse, reflects society. However, that basic problem is compounded when editors not only refuse to assume good faith but actively look and seek for ways to discredit anyone who disagrees with their perspective. The post above is an example. Sure... he does not "say" that certain people are responsible, but he names names, one after the other, of people who disagree with him and says the last one "puts icing on the cake". It throws gas on the fire for an admin to take a strong partisan view and then post about the guilt all around him, while he and fellow sympathizers are innocent victims tolerating hoodlums. One would think that only the people who disagree with Lawrence are causing problems. I guess if everyone who disagree with him would go away, things would be just fine. But that works both ways. Sure, he's not canvassing for support. He's just dragging the content debate from that talk page over to this one -- and complaining. No, that's not canvassing. That's getting "more eyes". Look at how hard he tries to convince everyone here that his position is the right one... even before you get to that talk page! But its all in the name of keeping you neutral when you arrive. And to emphasize how neutral his position is, he asserts that all the new people agree with his view. He then asserts that these new people joining up on that side have enraged some small minority to ferocity, apparently because they are somehow outnumbered. Well, from the perspective of editing suggestions for the article New editors have stated that the firm stance that the article takes "Waterboarding is torture" is not correct and should be adjusted. In fact, there really has not been a terribly uncivil situation on that page that I have seen. It has been very active. Sometimes heated. But the uncivility has not been all that bad until tonight when an admin imposed new rules on the page, but then did not enforce them -- leading to a sense that things were "unfair". THAT is the problem and it will soon die away. But meanwhile, Lawrence comes here and salts the well against the people who disagree with him by claiming that they are unreasonable, uncivil and basically horrible --- so all fair minded admins can know exactly what they should do or who they should target when they arrive if they are even remotely sane or good people.
::Other than the fundamentally difficult nature of the topic, the most important contribution to that article's heat has been a constant drum-beat of subtle and overt provocations and bullying actions by admins who take a strong pov in the debate. Perhaps due to the nature of the issue, it is impossible for an admin to be unbiased. But I do not agree with the causes that Lawrence postulates above. --] (]) <small>—Preceding ] was added at 08:13, 10 January 2008 (UTC)</small><!--Template:Undated--> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:::What you decline to mention was that was the pre-made meatpuppetry from Harvard, that has already been discredited here: those people are all the admitted Harvard classmates that made a decision ahead of time, in real life, then all came to Misplaced Pages to post that ''very section''. Abusive meatpuppetry. <span style="font-variant:small-caps"><font color="#800080">]</font></span> 14:57, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

:I originally got involved after a posting by Lawrence on ] asking for uninvolved editors to contribute. After watching for a few weeks, I will agree with him that the presence of certain editors is extremely disruptive to the consensus building approach. Almost every posting by a certain editor is designed to drive other editors apart and provoke confrontation and endless argument. The endless contributions from anonymous Sprint wireless IP addresses, the confirmed sockpuppeting from those addresses, Neutral Good's Request for Adminship for the sock-puppeteer, the support of those addresses here etc. I don't know how these editors are connected, but it seems to involve ] somehow. While all of this is going on, any attempt to build consensus will fail, and editors will be driven away from the article.

:I also agree with Lawrence (and disagree with Blue Tie): this disruption is completely about American politics. There are absolutely no citations from before 2001 questioning the status of waterboarding as a form of torture. The dispute is wholly as a result of its use by the CIA, and those who wish to justify that use. ] (]) 12:40, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

== ] and socks at it again ==

Hello, this another request for page protection due to vandalism from Jon Awbrey and socks he has instigated . Could someone please get all the pages that are unprotected? You can find them ]. Thanks, ] (] | ]) 04:16, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

:Was an IP check ever done here? - ] (]) 04:29, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
::Not sure what you mean by that. Most of the users anyway are now blocked and tagged with <nowiki> {{sockpuppet|Jon Awbrey}} </nowiki>, but more and more keep getting created. I thought IP addresses of usernames could only be obtained by checkusers - correct me if I'm wrong. There were a few IPs originally, but I can't find them. Let me look for some. ] (] | ]) 06:12, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
:::Checkuser can indeed find the IP addresses of usernames - there's an IP check section on ]. Jon Awbrey has been suspected of using 12.75.19.10, 217.237.149.143, 12.75.18.31, 12.75.20.26 and 12.75.22.13 which looks like a dynamic range to me. All the articles he blanks are now semiprotected so he's forced to use sleeper socks to blank the pages. '''''<font color="#FF0000">]</font>''''' 07:48, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

::::Yes, the IP check section is what I was referring to. I am no expert on ranges, but is there no way to knock out most of those with a range block? - ] (]) 16:50, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't see the point in IP checking, since it's hardly likely Awbrey doing this. There is an oustanding request over on WR for ''anybody'' to come over here and disrupt these articles. It's more likely these people are meatpuppets. And what purpose does doing an IP check accomplish, anyway? The vandal will get blocked, the pages reverted, rinse, repeat. <font face="Comic Sans">]<sub>'']''</sub></font> 18:37, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

* Last time CheckUser was run it turned up a number of sleepers. Awbrey is clearly not going to give up, this obsession behaviour is part of what got him banned, so it's not a waste of effort to run checkuser when a new batch of socks starts to mess about - better than locking the articles, since that reduces the chances of their being expanded and/or merged. Andif anyone feels like starting that ] article to merge the stubs on terms only he really used, now would be a good time :-) <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 23:46, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

::i have nto been folowing the controsversiy but it hitnk that it would be betetr if jon awbery were listened to. he might have some valid auobjections to the way wiki proceudr eworks sna dit would be betert to listen tohim and get his input to se eif he is genuinely trying to be construcitve or is actually just an ordinary vandal. if he is genuniately trying to be constructive, then it would be best to appease him by bbaning all of his sockpuppets except one andf orce him to use his remaining account to take on a leading role in repairign adn reorganizing the articles he damaged. i am a firmly believer in diploamcy as a way for encyclopedic success sand he current fascist slash-and-burn tactics of only hunting down the symbtoms of a potential vandals' behaivor rather than the root cause is antithetical to both the idea of fredom of speech and that of diplomacy. ] (]) 23:52, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

:::Actually, from what I gather from all the activities of the sock/meatpuppets, they seem to be blanking the pages based on a remark made by SlimVirgin on ] Awbrey's work; according to them, she said "... it's probably all original resource for which a realiable source might be hard to find." Awbrey took offence at that comment and instructed users on WR to blank the pages. Am I correct? ] (] | ]) 00:46, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

::iv that is indeed the case that it would be beter for this issue to be taken to arbitration betwen slimvirgin, jw awbrey and this thugs, and user; jimbo whales to discuss this issue. baning random sockpupets wll only increase teh amount of restnetment int hte atmosphere, leading to a rbeakd own of order on wikipeida and a lot of hurt feelings on either side. it might ahve the neegative efect of even driving away awbrey and causing him to even stop blanking th pages, which would be an unfortunate since the loss of ANY editor, no mater how seemingly problematic, robs this encylcopedia of a valuble and priceless source of experince, dedicaiton, and wisdom. ] (]) 00:52, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

:::I think this is more of an overreaction to one editor's comment by another editor. I don't think ] is required for something like page blanking and simple vandalism, even if it is on behalf of the author; I'm fairly certain that Awbrey's work on the logic articles <s>(in fact, pretty much all of his article space)</s> <small> Never mind, it was universally agreed upon that that is ''not'' true; only logic-related articles were useful. ] (] | ]) 02:49, 10 January 2008 (UTC) </small> was much appreciated; however, in Misplaced Pages- and other spaces, he created several disruptive pages (see for the discussion that let up to his ban). Wiki-editors make comments that others construe as offensive. Maybe we should accept that everyone here does not know everything and move on. ArbCom is not needed for something like this. Awbrey was warned to stop with the "project-spam" and didn't. ] (] | ]) 02:45, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

::you may be right about arbcom but then again i never actally mentioned Arbitration Committess- that was an issue that you brought up, wich many people might see as a ]. when i said the word 'abritration' i meant an informal dispute resolution betweenthe two users either on the talk pages, on this page, or privately via email or osme kidn of chat program. obviously slimvirgin and awbrey are having an intense, unresolvable dispute regarding whether or not certain thigns should have been said or not said, but that does not mean that we should rnadomly accuse someone of vandalism and block the to solve the problem. arbitray rule-enforcements only isnpire resentment and lead to further vandalism and bad faith assumptions down the road. the best and the onyl realy moral and decent path is conflict resolution that invovles both parties on an equal disucssion ground rather than having one person act as an inquisitor and the other serve as a tdefnese. this is really disturbin and if the behaivor does not stop then a permanent ban from the internet might be required but it woudl bemuch better if this can he headed off since it would be far beter to have awbrey continue to blank pages here than to have him banned forever and lose anoter great mind that can help use improve this encyclopedia for both our generations and genreations to come. ] (]) 03:21, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

:::Hmm... From what I can tell, the general term for taking something to the Arbitration Committee is "arbitration." The more general term is "dispute resolution," which is I now see what you actually meant. Also, as said above, it may not be Awbrey himself that is doing this, but rather a parade of ]puppets. The proposition about letting Awbrey come back to edit is an interesting one - however, this is a community thing, so the Misplaced Pages community should be the one to decide whether or not Awbrey merits a second chance. As an aside, this is getting a bit long, maybe it can be moved to a user talk page? ] (] | ]) 05:34, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

One slight complication is that Awbrey apparently has, or has had, some sort of proxy- or account- sharing arrangement with other abusive users such as MyWikiBiz - previous checkuser requests have come across nests of sockpuppets that seemed to have both Awbrey and MyWikiBiz sockpuppets intertwined with each other. But either way, if a sockpuppet is disruptive, we can simply block it no matter who it is. :) '''<font color="#ff9900">]</font><font color="#ff6699">]</font>''' 05:45, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

== ] is issuing threats ==

] appeared a week or so ago on the State Terrorism by the United States page and began making massive deletions. At one and the same time he claimed to be a new user, while also justifying his deletions with wiki-policy notes -- "WP:NPOV", "WP:OR", and so on. Regardless, today he issued a clear threat on my talk page, saying that if i did not allow his deletions then he would "pursue other means". In light of the recently exposed cabal headed up by MONGO, Tom Harrison, and Morton Devonshire, i consider this threat to be a grave and actionable matter. While it may be the case that Raggz is unaffiliated with this group, his recent behavior follows the same modus operandi and line of argument that has characterized this group over the last few years. I am here formally drawing attention to it; any feedback would appreciated. Thank you. ] (]) 04:24, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
:Stone, perhaps you should read ] and ], it would be a good start for you of what the project is all about. Misplaced Pages is not a soapbox for POV pushing of fringe views. While we have articles on fringe views in the world, we do not ramrod them into mainstream articles to suit our fancy. Interesting you should comment on other user's behavior, ie: as an SPA. It looks like Raggz is trying to work with others here. I suggest you do the same. ] <small>]/]</small> 04:41, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

::That "threat" looks innocent enough; "We may debate these issues on TALK and ''there'' strive for Consensus, or I will need to seek an alternative solution." Looks like he's threatening you with ]. ] (]) 04:45, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
:::And also note the assumption of bad faith by Stone put to sky, ''"n light of the recently exposed cabal headed up by MONGO, Tom Harrison, and Morton Devonshire."'' Um, citation needed anyone? ] (]) 04:48, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

::::As a note here, Ragzz and Stone put to sky are currently engaged in a content dispute in the article ], which, as no doubt most of you regulars know, has a long and checkered history. The thing really ought to be scrubbed out with a mop as it is STILL full of WP:SYNT violations. But anyways, with regards to these two users, well, look at the article's talk page. ] (]) 05:50, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
:::::The issue is disruptive editing by Ragzz, not a content dispute. Have you seen the outrageous claims he has made ]? Please read it. &mdash;] | ] 21:45, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

See also: ]

Raggz has issued the same threats against me, and new single-user accounts are popping up on article talk pages. There are arbcom rulings against removing well-sourced material. Raggz is not a new editor, and I'm wondering how many editors have to come to this noticeboard before someone admits there is a problem; there have been at least four different editors in the last 48 hours who have commented about the disruption Raggz is causing in multiple articles. Raggz has had a year to learn the policies and guidelines and still doesn't understand them. When confronted with this, he has stated on the incident sub-page that he has a traumatic brain injury. I don't know if this is true or an attempt to elicit sympathy for his edits, but Raggz needs help, either from administrators or a mentor. The problem is, that in addition to his disruptive behavior, while Raggz deletes sourced material he also adds unsourced OR. I propose that Raggz both discuss his deletions ''before'' making them, and add sources to any new content that he writes. This will partly solve the problem. &mdash;] | ] 20:51, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I've looked at Raggz' edits to the article I linked above, and at least the recent ones (modifying the intro) seem to be in good faith. ] (]) 22:58, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
:On Raggz' talk page, you have referred to the concerns about his editing as nothing more than "wild accusations". Since you are such a staunch defender of this user I would like to ask you to consider becoming his mentor, or at least find him one that will guide him through the forest. &mdash;] | ] 06:08, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

===Rationale for the Iraq War===
The content deletions with and without edit summaries are continuing on ], and ], except this time, a single-purpose account named ] which showed up out of the blue to work with Raggz is now helping him disrupt multiple pages, claiming that there is "tacit formal consensus" to remove all criticism from the article.. This is the exact same behavior Raggz had been engaged in earlier in the day in the same article and previously in other articles like ] where he removed criticism wholesale and claimed he had consensus on the talk page to do so. Raggz also used the same wording as Ryder Spearmann to justify his wholesale deletions just a few days earlier, claiming, "Tacit consensus may be reached when the discussion settles out..." According to arbcom, "Removal of sources is generally met with bans on editing the articles in question in conjunction with penalties issued for POV editing". These two users, ] and ] are working together to disrupt multiple articles by removing sourced content and claiming consensus between the two of them as their justification. &mdash;] | ] 07:07, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

== Deletion & Redirecting of an Article Without Consensus ==

{{main|Talk:Adult-child_sex#Deletion_.26_Redirecting_of_an_Article_Without_Consensus}}
<small>'''''moved to talk page for continuity of discussion, especially as discussion was complete here.'''''</small>

== Ursasapien and WP:EPISODE ==

As some may be aware, there has been a lot of discussion of late over whether ] should exist as a guideline or be merged into ]. The guideline was tagged for merging on December 21st by ] . Discussion commenced and there was no clear consensus for a merge (equal number of supports and objectors with valid arguments on both sides. Despite the lack of consensus and on-going discussion, on January 7th, Ursasapien decided to "be bold" and redirect ] to ] with the edit summary of "redirect per ] and ].". It was reverted as vandalism after a few hours, but Ursasapien just redid it minutes later now claiming it was based on consensus. His redirect was undone by a different editor and a note left on Ursaspien's talk page. On the 8th, Ursaspien tried a different tactic and replaced ] with a "disambigutation" page. I reverted as, again, there was no consensus and the discussions were still on going.. I also left a note on his talk page. He redid within minutes, and a different editor reverted moments later.

Despite now having four different editors undoing his actions and even more telling him to stop, he continues to try to argue the case. He claims he is "enforcing" policy and removing "guideline cruft". He is deriding those who have undone his edits as a "local consensus" and only acknowledges arguments supporting his own position. He also put in a call for more comments at ]. In his message there, he blatantly lies by falsely claiming there was consensus for his actions and in claiming that the people who reverted his edits never participated in the discussion (while at the same time claiming two of the people who have reverted his attempts to clear WP:EPISODE as supporters of his efforts on his talk page). (historical links in case of changes: and .

At first, Ursasapien was given the benefit of the doubt, probably because he's only been editing for about a year and seemed to be acting in good faith, but his actions are becoming more and more disruptive. He waited just long enough on his last revert to not quite fit 3RR, but he continues to ignore multiple editors telling him he is not acting appropriately. I feel at this point an administrator needs to deal with this as he has made it very clear that he does not care what other editors think or what consensus is dictating. ] (]) 07:37, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

===Response by ]===

I have been editing WP since September 7, 2006 but many of those edits were before I registered. I have been very active in television projects but I have varied interest. There was a long discussion regarding whether or not ] violated ] and ]. This led me to propose a merge and redirection of the disputed guideline into ] and ]. Further discussion ensued, but since it was over the holiday break, it was agreed that discussion should continue through January 7th. Discussion appeared to have ended by January 2nd. The discussion seemed to be split between those who saw the merge as a good idea and those who said, despite this guideline violating policy, ] and it should be kept. I boldly implemented policy and consensus. I was reverted. I discussed and made the change again. I was reverted a second time. I reopened the discussion and answered objections. I got further guidance and won over those who had previously objected. I boldly attempted to implement the change again but was immediately reverted. Despite ]'s contention, I feel I have not been given the benefit of the doubt, have been sujected to ], and have been treated ]. My actions were done in good faith but I misinterpreted suggestions and, apparently, moved too fast. I have not been "disruptive" by '''any''' stretch of the imagination. I consider this report to be vindictive and just another attempt to wear down opposition to policy violations. However, I have agreed to wait for further discussion and to get another editor to make these corrections. ] <small>]</small> 08:30, 9 January 2008 (UTC)


I don't think we need any admin action here. We're all a little frustrated about these things, that's all. Given a little time, this should be fully resolved on ], ], and ]. -- ] 09:06, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

:I might agree if Ursasapien had acknowledged he made an error and acted hastily. However he continued reverted despite multiple editors telling him otherwise and only stopped when he would have violated 3RR. He also continues to state that he is only enforcing policy, despite not having a clear agreement that ] violates any policy, and seems to be out to make a ] more than anything. He continues to discount the words of other editors, repeating the same mantra over and over. Perhaps he will be more willing to acknowledge and adhere to remarks of an administrator. ] (]) 09:47, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

::I'm sorry. I meant for the sentence, "''My actions were done in good faith but I misinterpreted suggestions and, apparently, moved too fast''," to be an admission that I messed up. I have not seen an apology regarding your incivil discourse, assumptions of bad faith, and vindictive filing of this request (despite the situation already being resolved). You appear to discount everything I have said and assume the worst motives on my part. I welcome an administrator looking at our respective post, but I think it is a waste of time as this "content issue" is resolved, for now. If you have a problem with my editing, I encourage you to work through the steps of dispute resolution. ] <small>]</small> 10:35, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

:::There is nothing vindictive in my filing. I don't ANI people just cause I don't like them. I feel your actions need reviewing and possible admin comment or action. You decided on your own that consensus had been reached, when it clearly had not. You decided to take action against the guideline and what that action when be (without even knowing the proper way to do it). You then continued trying to remove the guideline after you your first attempt was undone and you were told no, consensus wasn't reached yet and you shouldn't be doing it by no less than four editors. You arbitrarily decided that discussion from December 22nd was no longer relevant to justify your saying that those who reverted hadn't participated in the discussion (when, in fact the comments are recent enough to still be very much relevant). While you stopped shy of breaking 3RR, I feel you were disruptive to the point of needing administrative attention. This isn't a content issue, it is a much bigger issue regarding your inappropriate actions regarding a Misplaced Pages guideline that some could view as vandalism, and your snide and uncalled for remarks against anyone who reverted your efforts.

:::I also find it disturbing that you are keeping an ] that seems to be more of a like a list of editors you don't like, and it seems odd that you would have such a list for any good purpose considering the remarks and diffs you've made by some of them. ] (]) 16:19, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

::::Yeah, that has to go. Considering I had to remove a whole two people from -my- userpage listed under "list of people whom I think should not be able to use the edit button", that is way in excess. ] (]) 02:59, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

::::There is a long history of editors keeping list of other editors. This list serves many purposes. This list has nothing to do with editors I like or do not like. To be honest, some of the list was used to compile evidence of incivility. Others are editors that I truly admire and wish to emulate. Some editors turned out to be sockpuppets, as I suspected. Perhaps the list needs to be trimmed a bit, as some of the editors are no longer interesting to me. There is nothing derogatory like ]'s list. I find it disturbing that ]'s assumptions of bad faith have now sent him on a witch hunt. ] <small>]</small> 05:49, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

:::::For future reference, I'm a she not a he. I am not on a witch hunt. I stumbled on the list after you added me to it. ] (]) 06:30, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

== Sock puppet, edits despite COI warnings, biased article ==

I have been trying to 'clean up' the ] article and have encountered lots of problems in trying to do so by user {{user|Ghagele}}. I have recently created a descriptive paragraph on the talk page to describe the issues I see thus far: ]

All in all, {{user|Ghagele}} has received two warnings about editing the CRSQA article and has continued to do so with no administrator intervention, to my great, great surprise. He has also now unknowingly admitted to using his IP as a sock-puppet to circumvent the warnings to edit the CRSQA article by editing the talk page without logging in as Ghagele.

I am desperately looking for some logical administration on the subject, as I believe the information I have provided on the talk provides provides premises for some pretty obvious actions. --] (]) 07:46, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

::I see implicit threats of legal action from Ghaegel by extensive references to legal action against web site operators elsewhere, and a discussion by both him and SirDecius about the true identity of Misplaced Pages users. 12:09, 9 January 2008 (UTC) With respect to the article itself, attention is being paid to it by another admin. ''']''' (]) 12:11, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
:::Hi DGG - If you are referring to Bearian he has declared: 'I'm moving on. I will not bother changing anything more' as per my talk page, which is why I have requested additional assistance. Thanks for your response, and I believe this will be my last attempt at cleaning up that article. --] (]) 21:03, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
::::] appears to have strong feelings about the ] and in the last month has edited little outside that area. The spirit of the ] guideline indicates that editors with strong views should work very cautiously on articles relating to their intense interests. Over at ] I offered to make a compromise draft that was as neutral as possible and avoided ] problems. SirDecius has so far not agreed to support this plan, yet he has made several requests for admin help. I encourage him to return to the Talk page conversation in a cooperative spirit. SirDecius strongly supports the inclusion of a link to an external website called http://www.usaeyes.info that describes the CRSQA as a 'cynical marketing ploy' and asserts that Glenn Hagele is engaging in false advertising. I have tried, so far in vain, to persuade him that BLP is not happy with this kind of a link. ] (]) 21:34, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

== Primetime ==

{{vandal|Primetime}} is back. Or more precisely, he never left. Recently-discovered sock puppets included one that started editing the day after his last socks were discovered, back in May '07. Under his new name, {{user|Gnfgb2}}, he was engaged in contentious editing, several noticeboard disputes, and even aspired to become an admin. Now that he's been discovered again he's going on a rampage. He's been vandalizing my user talk page, such as . He's also been reverting every edit I make, going back 50 edits at a time using popups and possibly a tabbed browser, such as . It turns out that he's been creating dozens of sleeper sock accounts dating back months. The history is mostly in ] and ]. A number of admins and editors have been helpful in fixing the recent damage. Thanks to Irishguy, Pairadox, Kurt Shaped Box, MBK004, SqueakBox, SirFozzie, Random832, Durova, Bielle, Lcarscad, Bongwarrior, Jersyko, Luna Santin, Slakr, 12 Noon, and everyone else. I've moved my talk page archives and history so that there's nothing left to vandalize. I'm not sure what else we can do about this guy. ]] ] 07:56, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

== User:Jayjg ==

On 3rd January I suggested and the deletion of on the ] page and it’s replacement with a summary on the grounds of relevance (for it’s current detailed form). Some editors agreed and the section was deleted by another editor. Several editors disputed and reverted. These editors gave reasons such as the deletion violated ] and was ] but none addressed the issue of relevance. I replied to this stating I had no problem with the reliability of the sources used but that my concern was that the section was being used to reach a specific POV not proven by the evidence given by the sources. I had already given a RS that reached this same conclusion so my concern had a basis apart from my own OR. I pointed out that a ] would not be reliable due to ] and asked for reasons for relevance instead.
At this point ] basically accusing me of anti Semitism. Jayjg posted the following examples of edits I had made over the previous year as proof of my “''interests''”:

*I claimed Israeli’s were responsible for 9/11.

The edit actually made no claim of responsibility and Jayjg ignored other 9/11 edits I made that debunked Israeli involvement such as this , and .

*Israel was culpable in the liberty incident. .

This was a reply to a question from another editor in talk and I made no claim at all.

*David Irving is a legitimate historian .

I claimed he was a "British" historian discredited for his views on the holocaust. The dispute was over whether he was discredited for everything else not related to Jews.

*I ”''Passionately''” defended Ernst Zundle on the Zundle talk page .

I was defending the inclusion of NPOV content not his views. In the previous edit I said Zundle was "''an idiot with ridiculous ideas''" which supports this.

*Jayjg claimed that because I had edited the Hamas and Ahmadinejad articles this was a clear indication of my bias. However he did not point out any edits as proof.

I was, and am, deeply offended by being accused of anti semitism on such flimsy grounds. These were obviously the worst edits he could find as he had to go back up to a year to find them which would have taken considerable effort. The accusation seems to be for no other reason than an attempt to discredit my work and I asked for an apology. I also asked for an explanation of why the section is relevant. Not only did he not apologise but replied to me saying “''the section is relevant and should remain. Please respect that consensus''”. I have used Jayjg's talk page before when we've had conflict and his "I am right, you are wrong" attitude has led me to believe doing so for this would be a waste of time and also pointless as he has offended me in public. This arrogance has upset me to the point that I am reconsidering continuing with WP if this behaviour is condoned. Because of the high profile Jayjg has on WP I feel I can expect to now be dismissed as an anti semite whenever I try to edit anything remotely controversial in future. Something should be done to censure Jayjg and clear my name with the WP community. Thank you. ] (]) 09:15, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

:Wayne, as I'm sure you're aware, the Israeli/Palestinian conflict is perhaps the most bitter dispute on the Internet, and tempers will flare. Personally, I've decided to steer clear of it for now, despite having some expertise in that area, because I'm sick and tired of being accused of bias. It becomes especially difficult when an administrator is making the accusation against you. Please be patient. If an admin hasn't addressed this situation within the next few hours, I'll try to get someone's attention. ] (]) 10:12, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

::Before this thread gets out of hand (not aimed at the above comments but at the usual result of threads regarding this) you may wish to take part in the ArbCom case regarding this and present your evidence there. ] (]) 10:16, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Instead of focusing on one editor, these types of conflicts need to have a ''permanent'' neutral mediator assigned to the articles to maintain stability on a daily basis. I recommend that the Mediation Cabal and the Mediation Committee get together to try and figure out a solution. &mdash;] | ] 11:18, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

::I have just given an outside opinion on the articles supporting the inclusion of the material as supported by the scientific consensus--basically supporting Jayjg's position. But the comment made by Jayjg is entirely out of line, and seem to represent a straightforward personal attack. No WP editor should be making dubiously based accusations of anti-semitism about another editor on an article talk pafge. If I were to do it, i would expect to get immediately blocked. ''']''' (]) 13:35, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
:::Hi DGG, can you point/link to the post where Jayjg accuses this user of anti-semitism. I don't see it above. TIA --] 16:43, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
::::Wayne appears to be referring to edit. ] 17:22, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
:::::That's quite unfair a comment to make. It goes against both ] and ]. Also, this issue was discussed in the Arbcomm on . At the time, editors expressed concern about the chilling and poisonous effect such comments have on the editing environment. Jayjg's name was mentioned at the time, but the arbitrators chose not to include anything on the subject in the Proposed decision. The entire case was closed without any conclusion. Perhaps this should be taken to the Arb Comm currently in place for Palestine-Israel articles ? <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 23:07, 9 January 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

::::::If any more parties are added to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict RfArb, I think the conflict itself will end before the RfArb for it does. -- ''']''' 00:09, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

:::::::What do you suggest be done then, Tariqabjotu? ] 00:46, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

::::::::Ban them all and let God sort it out. --] (]) 06:41, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

:Everyone has a personal bias. From each person's point of view, one's own views are precisely neutral and everyone else has some bias or other. To interpret what Jayjg wrote to be an accusation of anti-Semitism, one would have to make the unwarranted assumption that Jayjg thinks everyone who has a bias other than pro-Israel is anti-Semitist. Please ] that Jayjg is assuming good faith. --] (]) 02:35, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
::::Can a personal attack be in good faith? If I showed a marked bias then maybe, but I ask you to check the above edits and decide if they support what Jayjg intimated they did. The problem I have is that most editors wont check them but accept Jayjg's word that I'm anti semitic. I'm sorry but anti Semitic is the only word I can find that applies to these "interests" I supposedly have and is a word many who read his post will assume. ] (]) 08:05, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
:::::Please strike out the words "Jayjg's word that I'm anti semitic" in your comment above or provide a supporting diff in which that word and that allegation actually appear. --] (]) 13:35, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
::Unfortunately, this is hardly the first time that ] has made accusations of this sort. ] isn't set in stone (it's a guideline, not a policy), and it shouldn't be used as an excuse to defend indefensible personal attacks. ] (]) 02:47, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
:::Jayjg's comment doesn't actually accuse Wayne of anti-Semitism, but it continues the use of subtle and condescending personal attacks that Jayjg uses to attempt to obtain the upper hand in content disputes, in addition to off-wiki canvassing and cabalism (). Since the "Allegations of Israeli Apartheid" ArbCom decision apparently hasn't stopped this nonsense from Jayjg and his associates, then perhaps it needs to be brought to the ArbCom's attention again. ] (]) 02:54, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

== persistent posting of personal/unsourced information on a BLP ==

a block of user Lewinsky and IP 60.242.9.146 is requested for repeatedly posting personal and unsourced information on the page of Evan Thomas.

] (]) 12:37, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

:Actually, the IP complaining here should list both ] and ] in this complaint. both are SPA accounts. ] (]) 12:59, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

::And maybe they should be informed as to ''why'' the info is being removed? So far there hasn't been so much as an edit summary explaining why, much less a comment on the article talk page or to any of the offenders. AN/I should not be the first recourse. ] (]) 13:05, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

:::A note is on teh article talk now. should further edits occur, I will bring them here. ] (]) 21:31, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

:::I apologize. You'd think I kibbitz here enough to check the edit dates more carefully. All this happened in August, not this week or month. I think an admin can mark this resolved, and we can be done with it. ] (]) 05:09, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

== Please delete ] ==

This userbox was deleted at MFD recently, was recreated and deleted again per CSD G4, and has been recreated yet again. Please delete it again and prevent recreation. ] (] • ]) 16:34, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
:Already deleted. ] <span style="color: #999;">// ] // ] //</span> 16:50, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
::I'm going to go ahead and ] it; since its deletion via ] it's been recreated twice. I also warned its creator to stop remaking it and visit ] if s/he disagrees with the verdict from MfD. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 18:52, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
:::Probably a good call, that. ] <sub>(] ] ])</sub> 18:53, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

:Rather than opening up a new section, I am opening this one again as this is related. Following the deletion(s) of the above userbox, ] has now come up with the following gem;

: {{User:8thstar/ubx/Marxist}}

:and inserted it into every user's page who used the previous one. Inappropriate? ] ] (]) 20:31, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

::Definitly inappropriate; however I'm struggling to think what it breaches. I'm not too familiar with the finer points of userspace policy... ] <sup>] ]</sup> 20:38, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
:::Seems disruptive to me. Blood Red Sandman, I don't know if it violates any specifically laid out rule about user space, but there is a general prohibition against editing other people's pages, mostly out of courtesy. Obviously that doesn't count if someone is violating another, more important rule, on their user page, such as the fair use policy. But I think in this case the user is not right to be adding this to multiple user's pages. It also seems deliberately disruptive for the purposes of ]. ] (]) 20:41, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
::::There is no such prohibition, only a very, ''very'' general sense of "hey, don't be a jerk about it". I've never thought twice about editing someone's userspace; it's whether or not the edit is constructive that matters. In this particular case, the edits to other peoples' userspaces are perfectly valid, as he's only fixing a broken transclusion. The only objectionable element is ''what'' he's adding (a T1 speedily deleted userbox), not the editing in and of itself. ] <span style="color: #999;">// ] // ] //</span> 20:47, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

:::::It's not actually the original deleted userbox, it's a new one created in response, it appears, to the deletion, that is being added. ] <sup>] ]</sup> 20:50, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
::::::EVula, I guess I'm a little confused then, because a user's editing each other's pages when there isn't a compelling reason to (reverting vandalism, removing fair use or attacks, and so on) is generally treated as unwelcome. Obviously, I'm aware that no one owns their own user space or has ultimate control over it, but I've always gotten the impression that unnecessarily editing someone else's user page is considered rude. To clarify, I didn't mean prohibition in the sense of a policy, more like an aspect of etiquette. ] (]) 21:38, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
:::::::There are some users that, yes, specifically ask people to stay out of their userspace, but fixing broken links is different from, say, changing actual content on a page. By your own examples, I'd consider fixing a broken template a "compelling reason" (though not quite on par with removing vandalism or Fair Use imagery).<br />I suppose it can be considered rude, but I think it is too trivial to even call that. :) ] <span style="color: #999;">// ] // ] //</span> 05:00, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

::::I was certainly aware he shouldn't be adding it to other user's pages. Shall we get to rollbacking the additions? ] <sup>] ]</sup> 20:47, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

:::::Reads like a ] violation, for the sole sake of spite and disruption. ] (]) 21:27, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

::::::Sort of a canonical ] violation, as he was politely directed toward ] to address his grievances and is instead spamming a userbox claiming he's been censored. This is on the heels of recreating the MfD'd userbox twice, necessitating its salting. I've blocked him for 24 hours; I'd suggest going ahead with the rollbacks. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 21:49, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
:::::::I've started removing them. This would have been quicker if the closing admin on the XfD had removed the links to the deleted userbox, though. ] (]) 22:18, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

== Controversial userbox ==

]

I just wonder that how after deletion this userbox can be restored. This userbox is clearly supporting ]. How this userbox is being tolerated? ] (]) 17:55, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
:::I'm not sure how a userbox that only states a belief/opinion that isn't hate filled or otherwise offensive is against the rules. I wonder if anyone would be so keen to delete one that supported the ]? ] seems to be on missions to delete anything his/her sensibilities doesn't agree with. The consensus spoke in the DRV. Leave it at that. --]''' 22:03, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
:The userbox was restored following the . ] (]) 18:16, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

::You can still take it to ]. '''''<font color="#FF0000">]</font>''''' 18:32, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

:::Take it to ] is you disagree with the box and the community will decide. ]]/] 23:34, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

== Harassment Notice ==

Yes, I am currently being harassed by the admin known as Jeske. He has recently threatened me for no reason on my talk page and merely provided a very vague reason why. Someone apparently vandalized my talk page, yet he chose to accuse me of it days after he gave his threat. Now, he has been trying to bait me on and on into arguments with him, and I have my best to avoid him. Yet, he is always around no matter where I go.] (]) 19:45, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

*<small>] has been of this discussion. - ] (]) 19:52, 9 January 2008 (UTC) </small>

:Oh dear. Why not forget about this dispute and go edit some articles? What you're doing here certainly does not look like you're trying to avoid him. ] ] 19:51, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

:: :( It's no use Friday... Wherever I go, he's there right behind me...] (]) 19:53, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

* For background see ]. <font face="Comic Sans">]<sub>'']''</sub></font> 19:54, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

*Just for the record, my eyes just sort of glaze over when I read "admin harassment" and it isn't followed by diffs showing the accused administrator's actions. Can you provide said diffs? ] <span style="color: #999;">// ] // ] //</span> 20:54, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

:Although not an administrator, I would like to note that, having witnessed these clashes from the very beginning, I do not believe ] to have done anything wrong. ] has claimed above that Jéské "threatened" him for a vandal's comment, yet and the several subsequent edits show differently. Jéské merely warned him against making further personal attacks after it came to his notice when another user, ] removed that comment over a month later (for the record, after Orange Boomerang removed that comment, V-Dash posted on their talk page stating "." V-Dash's conduct towards other editors has been poor at best, and I do not think it is surprising that conflict has arison. V-Dash has previously accused Jéské of Wikistalking, created at least one sockpuppet in an effort to have Jéské banned, has created several other sockpuppets used for other purposes, and has dared Jéské to ban him at several points in time; something that Jéské has refused to do because he is a part of the conflict.
:Having observed this conflict from the moment that it started to the present moment, and V-Dash's conduct to other editors prior to his clashes with Jéské, I do not believe that Jéské has harassed V-Dash at all. I am under the impression that Jéské has dealt with the situation admirably considering all that has occurred, at one point even offering to protect V-Dash's ] from the heavy amounts of vandalism that were occurring from anonymous IPs; an offer that V-Dash was quick to accept. ] (]) 21:12, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
::One thing that I think is telling of V-Dash's attitude is his userpage; in it he states that " is always right." Further, other users have come in - I believe them to be GFAQs members - and have stated (with accuracy, as I have noticed) that V-Dash has selective vision and flat-out disregards anything that does not fit with his view or involving his behavior (as can be seen on my TP). Also, as his RfC (and the evidence on it) points out, the assumption of good faith between V-Dash and I was never reciprocal: V-Dash always jumped to conclusions and accused me of sockpuppetry, WikiStalking, and trying to get him banned (while the latter has merit, I only asked for bans because it was, and still is, becoming increasingly apparent that V-Dash is merely being disruptive now).
::While I have blocked V-Dash in the past twice - once before the conflict (a 3RR block on ]) and once even more recently (a mistaken block I later rescinded after checkuser confirmed he was not {{user|SPD V}} - initially "Inconclusive"), each time I made a mistaken block I rescinded it. Part of this problem is GFAQs user PolluxFrost ({{user|Dash Jr}} here), whom seems to know how V-Dash acts and uses this information to successfully impersonate him via sockpuppetry. Not helping the matter is the fact that V-Dash ] by cursing them out on his user talk page and their own TPs.
::In closing, I have little doubt that this AN/I thread is an attempt to get me sanctioned because I have told him - in no uncertain terms - that he will end up blocked and/or banned if he continues on the way he is now, and he decided to ignore that warning. What little good faith I had in him has vanished, and I thus made the RfC to bring this to wider attention. Any more discussion from me on this matter will take place there. -'']'' <sup>(<font color="0000FF">] ]</font>)</sup> 23:59, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

== Personal atacks ==

] is being disruptive to the discussion on ] and is now engaging in personal attacks with rather vulgar language --] (]) 21:19, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
:I've warned him. In the future, try venues like ], since this does not (strictly speaking) require admin intervention --] (]) 21:30, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
::To be fair, he did remove those comments himself moments later, and you never told him about bringing this to ]. --] (]) 21:34, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

== ] ==

{{resolved|Page semi-protected. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 21:59, 9 January 2008 (UTC)}}
Previous ssues with revisions to this page and vandalism on my userpage were dealt with when the user's IP account was blocked two days ago. However, it seems that s/he is back and operating from another IP. An attempt (and all previous attempts) to communicate have gone for naught, and there is consensus from other editors that the IP user's edits are not constructive. I've reverted the edits a number of times, as has another editor and it's getting nowhere. Would it be possible to request semi-protection for the page? Thanks. ] (]) 21:28, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
:I've semi-protected the page for 2 weeks. Hopefully they will find a new hobby. In the future, you can use ] for these kinds of requests. --] (]) 21:38, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
::Oops, looks like we conflicted. I was gonna semiprotect the page for a week, and I've blocked the offending IP for 24 hours. But whatever is fine with me. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 21:39, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
:::Much thanks. Next time I'll use ], sorry about that. ] (]) 21:51, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
::::No problem. Good luck. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 21:59, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
== ] ==

{{discussion top|No administrative attention required... involved statements usually go before uninvolved statements, but it's really not a big deal. Further discussion can take place at the ]. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 00:06, 10 January 2008 (UTC)}}
I have made a staement as an uninvolved at the Above. Alison has inserted Here name (with no Comments) above my statement. Thus gives a false impression of the synchrosity -Is this acceptable? ] (]) 23:41, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
:I don't see why not, Aatomic the edits in question were, A) Alison inserting herself as an involved party (as she was the one who created the RfC in question on the user), and B) Alison placing a placeholder statement as an involved party (she's not feeling well, and wants to add her statement as an involved party when she can think straight. ] (]) 23:45, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
::My point entirely - She jumped her place.] (]) 23:50, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

:::No, she is an involved party. She SHOULD appear before uninvolved parties. ''']''' <small>]</small> 23:52, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
::::Also, the proper place to bring this up would be on ],not here, I would think. ] (]) 23:53, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
: Aatomic1 - could you not have asked me directly instead of marching over to ]? I'd have been happy to clarify the matter. As an involved party (I filed the unsuccessful ] in an attempt to resolve the issue), there is no "place jumping" - ] <sup>]</sup> 23:56, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
::Then I should be grateful if you would point me to the relevant page. ] (]) 00:01, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
::Wow, this is silly. Place jumping? Are we 5? <span style="font-variant:small-caps"><font color="#800080">]</font></span> 00:04, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

{{discussion bottom}}

: Please note that ] is now doing the rounds of the Arbitrators that have accepted the case, making similar noises. - ] <sup>]</sup> 00:07, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

::Has anyone seen a ] lying around? We seem to be in desperate need of one today. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 00:15, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

:::Considering the past (recent) history between Aatomic1 and Alison (Alison placing Aatomic1 under probation under the terms of "The Troubles" ArbCom, and Aatomic1's protests after the fact), this is rather ]y, don't you think? I've tried to provide him with the propler place to complain if he wants (the Arb Talk Page).. but.. well.. you see what's going on. ] (]) 00:20, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

::::Any can read the timestamps. - ] (]) 00:25, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

== Static IP persistently vandalising after expiry of block ==

*{{userlinks|208.108.81.37}} -- John <span class="plainlinks" style="font-family: Verdana; font-variant: small-caps; font-size: 11px; text-align: center;">(]<span style="font-weight:bold;">&nbsp;·</span> ]<span style="font-weight:bold;">&nbsp;·</span> ])</span> 00:36, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
**The 24h block expired November 10 2007, and it is a shared IP (see the IP's talk page). <span style="font-family: verdana;"> — ] • ] • </span> 01:19, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

== ] ==

Hello. ] has made an unblock request. He was blocked for making a disruptive sock puppet. He says that he will "I will help translate articles. (english -bulgarien ). I will fight vandalism and also review articles. I will help stop sockpuppetry and assume good faith."

There's a few problems I have with this. Before his block, he did his share of vandal fighting. And although he states he wants to crack down on sock puppetry, he appears to be using a sock puppet {{Ipvandal|69.113.203.57}} himself. Perhaps another admin could weigh in on this? Thanks. ] (]) (]) 01:04, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
:My impression of the original unblock request could probably be summed up quickly: neither particularly hopeful, nor particularly hopeless -- sort of a nether spot where I'm not entirely comfortable unblocking or leaving them blocked, at least not without more discussion. &ndash; <span style="font-family: Garamond">] (])</span> 01:22, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
:To be honest I think the 1 week block is fair. Considering that the account is blocked for 3 more days, if someone wants to unblock feel free. -- ] <sup>]</sup> 11:07, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

== ] ==

A vandal moved ] to a nonsensical title, a move which I reverted. However, I believe two identical page histories now exist, one with the spurious title. Maybe someone can remedy this? Thanks, ] (]) 02:24, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
:Nope, sometimes there are problems with the display of the page history after a page move or a history merge. Setting the history length to anything other than the default of 50 usually fixes this problem. However I've deleted the redirect. ''']'''<font color="green">]</font> 02:31, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
::Thank you! ] (]) 02:35, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

== Could someone take a look at this... ==

Recently, I filed an SSP case against a user. This evening, upon returning to Wiki, I see that the case has been closed by one ]. I've checked the list of admins, he / she is not on it. First question: shouldn't this SSP case have been closed by an admin? Secondly, the SSP template was ''removed'' from the puppetmaster userpage. Second question: shouldn't the template's resulting "confirmed" page have been updated to reflect the additional confirmed sockpuppet instead? Next, there is absolutely no indication that either user has been blocked, however Ember of Light states that the puppetmaster account has been blocked for a week. (Please see , and the archived case at . Could an admin that is experienced with the particulars of closing an SSP case please take a look at this? On the face of it, this looks like the case was closed by someone inexperienced in dealing with these instances... ] (]) 03:05, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

== Last time I'm doing this: ] (again) ==

Tonight's reading of total warfare:

First read: ]

Second read (next section down): ]

I expect this to end up at Arbcom in 1-2 weeks in a major politically motivated mess if something isn't done. I have no idea what needs to be done. I'm very sorry if people are sick about reading about this; I'm not going to touch that page again myself. It's a complete madhouse now from crazy IPs and SPAs. <span style="font-variant:small-caps"><font color="#800080">]</font></span> 03:10, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

:Alright, I'm going to piggyback on MastCell's suggestion above for Neutral Good. Would there be a general suggestion to set three-five NEUTRAL administrators (one who have not posted on the article) who would be willing to act as monitors for this article, say till the end of Feb 08? Let's say any monitor can place any particular edit-warrior or incivil account on probation, to be defined as 1 Revert per week on Waterboarding and any article that can relate to waterboarding, as well as civility parole? If some one on probation continues to edit war, then they can be topic banned or blocked. I'm willing to volunteer, but there needs to be consensus on this. ] (]) 03:15, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
::I won't object to anything up to and including riding crop beatings at this point, to be frank, and will only watch that page. I pre-authorize ANY admin to block me 5 minutes as a reminder if I post on Waterboarding or any talk pages under it between now and the 2008 Elections are over here in the US. I really want nothing to do with it again. I would also recommend this parole thing for the article and related pages to last until November 4 2008, by the way. <span style="font-variant:small-caps"><font color="#800080">]</font></span> 03:21, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I've returned the article to full protection again after only 5 hours. When (if?) the article next comes off full protect it needs heavy oversight by the ] of admins. ] (]) 03:27, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

:I think SirFozzie is on the right track. I wouldn't oppose his suggestion, but the problem with appointing "neutral" admins to arbitrate is that inevitably they will get sucked in to the dispute. I don't think we need a protracted course of hand-wringing here. In a bar fight, the bouncers don't wait for consensus to develop and for the combatants to agree on a neutral set of referees. They just grab people, starting with what appear to be the worst offenders, and eject them to go home and sober up. I've given my reasons for starting with {{user|Neutral Good}}. But s/he is obviously not the sole problem, and if it becomes apparent in his absence that someone else has taken over the role, then we can go from there. Also, 3 months away from ] is not, pardon the expression, torture. Misplaced Pages is full of things to do. Work on something else for awhile, then come back. Anyhow, that's my 2 cents. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 03:53, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

: Well, protecting gives us some breathing space to discuss how to make work on the article more productive. Of course, you can't *actually* work on a protected article, so when the time comes to let consensus do its work again, the article will have to be unprotected. <scratches head>
: So the "new" (actually very old) rules don't look too bad. Those might help. Also, splitting out the controversial material from the article might sound like a bad idea, but it might help as a temporary solution. That way you can have a pretty solid article about waterboarding before 2001, and we can later figure out a way to include information from 21st century sources, once people are done fighting over it.
: Does that make any kind of sense?
: --] (]) 04:05, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

:Oh man. Why aren't we just throwing them into an arena? One side can be ] and the other ]. Best dance number gets their way? ...no? then how about heading to ArbCom, and ULTRA-LIBERALLY topic blocking all involved, including the mystery IP. This is as bad as the Irsaeli-Palestinian Conflict mess, which has also made it to ArbCom. I think community patience withe POV warriors of all stripes is wearing thin. This is as serious an issue as is the constant litany of excuses and policy-wonking that gets some editors 50 to 100 chances to get away with ], and I suspect we've got three or four major issues that should also go to ArbCom. I kind of wish we could have a consensus by polling page, where we could get registered editors to vote on things like " per these 10 sources, Waterboarding is Torture, per these 10 sources, waterboarding is just plain silly fun. Waterboarding is A) torture, B) silly fun, C) a disease caught from tacos.
:Really, this needs the long term examination of a group of serious, trusted, generally outsider editors, which is what ArbCom is. ] (]) 04:15, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

::I am not in favor of jamming to arbcom, though I consider the recent influx of arbiters to be fantastic. But I happen to believe a firm application of wikipedia policy fixes the problem without any need for rancor or appeal to any higher authority. If I have a blind spot that is making me silly in all of this it is simply that I really believe that the fix is already found in policy.

::With regard to outside editors something interesting happened. A group like that did look at the article. Although not trusted, they were reasonable and took a serious look. They came up with a solution to the core issue. They came up with . I found it interesting in that it would require everyone to bend and I thought of the old hack about compromise -- a solution that makes everyone equally unhappy.
::I have thought about mediation, but I despair that it would not work. Some people are not willing to consider any alternatives to their perfect ideal. There is no way that they will compromise. I think the fastest way to get consensus would be to ban anyone who refused to consider various alternative wordings. If the only editors left were people who ... while retaining their views, were also open to alternative wordings (and compromise) the article might be workable. --] (]) 04:32, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

::: I'm open to an experiment of that nature. We'll have to try some things out sooner or later, right?
::: Since people don't typically enjoy being banned on an experimental basis :-P, It should be made easy for anyone so banned to get themselves unbanned again after a short period of time for review.

::: --] (]) 04:38, 10 January 2008 (UTC)


:::And if any old group of uninvolved folks can't get anything to move, even though they certainly COULD have socked in a new consensus, (and we're glad they didn't), then there's really nothing left but ArbCom. as to "the recent influx of arbiters" we're getting dismissed left right and center, be the editors like myself, or admins. It doesn't matter WHAT happens. There are some editors who refuse to see waterboarding as torture. Why we can't get a simple solution is beyond me. The 'controversy' section title, as edited by Black Kite, seemed a great approach, as it could detail the US government's position on the issue, and how that has changed since it was considered torture. We could detail how the US Gov't now describes the differences. But we can;'t even get that. This (article) is circular, pointless, and aimless. Let's get Arbcom here. ] (]) 04:49, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
::::, posting a diff because it'll get archived sooner or later. The problem is that both sides fundamentally see NPOV differently. Unless we get everyone and their second cousin to watchlist this, and weigh in on the NPOV matters, and the true, real way of how NPOV should be is held up by everyone with no way around it (either way, "is or isn't torture"), this will never end without arbitration since people are digging in deeply with political stances. It's an absurd binary question, based on sourcing. Is it, or isn't it? If the US conservative POV has more weight, it isn't. If the global, sourced historical worldview has weight, it is. Neither side is willing to give an inch, and the various uncivil people are just making everyone go round the bend, making things worse and unproductive. <span style="font-variant:small-caps"><font color="#800080">]</font></span> 07:22, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I too came to this article as an uninvolved admin. See ]. It is becoming more obvious that the only way of fixing this problem is via ArbCom, who, especially with the newly elected arbs, I have every faith will see through the fog created by a number of users.<b>]</b> 07:55, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
:Wow I had it on my watchlist and was meaning to keep an eye on it, since I knew it would remain a mess, but that really getting ugly now... And that's probably a ]. Since I think any controversial measures will be contested up to arbcom anyway, it might be a good idea to launch the case. -- ] <sup>]</sup> 09:21, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

:: I have now done so. ] <strong>]<small>•]</small></strong> 11:50, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

== User mixtape-review-board ==

] appears to be a sockpuppet of ]. The evidence is on ]. <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 03:22, 10 January 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

== Request for rollback review ==

*{{Usercheck-short|El_Greco}}&nbsp;<tt>|</tt>&nbsp;<span class="plainlinks">
:I fight vandalism on a daily basis. Atleast half of my edits on a daily basis are unduing some sort of vandalism. <sub>]</sub><sup>(])</sup> 00:17, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
::I'm not sure about this, you have a 3RR block from September. ] 00:20, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
::{{not done}} Visit ] and get consensus, and this will be done. ] (''']''') 00:24, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

:::'''Comment for review''' I don't think a 3RR I had with an IP user, who unfortunately got on my nerves should be the deciding factor in RFR. How many users haven't had an encounter with 3RR? I've cooled off since then and will discuss any content related issues. I felt there were too many photos on the Athens page (sort of making it look like a tourist advertisement) and the IP user disagreed, but in the process which spun into a 3RR the IP user kept reverting actual edits, and that's basically what happened. As per my reason above, I fight vandalism on a daily basis. Atleast half of my daily edits are some sort of vandalism related, and I watchlist 1,200 articles (so I can see a lot of it). I mean the first thing I do when I log on to Misplaced Pages is check my watchlist for vandalized pages. <sub>]</sub><sup>(])</sup> 03:27, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
::::Honestly, the rollback tool is about judgment, and rightly or wrongly there are some users who question yours. My advice: sit it out for a while, ask again later. - ] &#124; ] 03:34, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
(u)The block was back in September, El Greco's explained what went on, and, appears to understand how to handle the situation in the future. Also, I've looked through a couple pages of El Greco's contribs, and, they seem to use "Undo" just fine. I see no reason to withhold rollback. ]] 12:07, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

== Consensus discussion ignored ==

At: {{la|Chris Crocker (Internet celebrity)}}

This article came off full protect today and not long after, {{User|Reginmund}} removed a section that he has been quite uncivilly fighting on the article's talk page to remove and which is why the article was on full protect in the first place. The consensus discussion on this particular section he keeps removing has not reached a consensus but he took it upon himself to remove it anyway as soon as the article was finally unprotected, and when he did so, he cited "no concensus". As I understand it, content is not to be removed until a consensus is reached and the discussion closed, which is not the case here. is where he removed the content after the article was unprotected. is where I restored the content because the consensus discussion was still ongoing. is where he has removed the content again.

An admin needs to restore the content pending the outcome of the consensus discussion and I feel the article should go back on full protection. -- ]] 04:00, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
:So you're saying is that the article is currently ]? Admins are not empowered to rule on content disputes. ] (]) 05:47, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
:The article is in fact unprotected since 09:12, 9 January 2008. -- ] <sup>]</sup> 11:01, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

== IP user being problematic ==

This isn't really vandalism, so I brought it here and not ]. There is an IP user, {{user|24.59.103.158}}, that continues to revert edits of other users, and refuses to engage in any talk page discussion, despite repeated attempts to do so. The issue is largely around the article ]. Several users collaborated at the talk page, and decided to make changes to the article. These changes represent a full consensus at the talk page, and this IP user simply reverts them without edit summary or comment. Good faith would at first indicate that the user disagrees with the changes, but despite MANY attempts to get them to take it to the talk page, they simply refuse to do so. What can be done? Can an IP address be blocked for this? Its usually not more than 3 times per day, but it is still disruptive and has been going on for several days now.--]|]|] 04:50, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

:I already submitted this user to ]. Some users have to be blocked for a very short time just to get them to notice that they have a talk page. -- ]] 04:54, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

::Also - as far as I care a violation of the 3-revert rule '''is''' vandalism. -- ]] 05:00, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

:::He's still at it. I continue to leave messages at his talk page, and I don't want to get nailed for a 3RR myself, but this is getting annoying. What can be done about this? --]|]|] 05:11, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

::::It appears he has a 24-hour block now. -- ]] 05:19, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

:::::Maybe that will get his attention. I would still like to keep this "on the record"; this users has shown this behavior over several days, he may continue the same behavior once the block expires. --]|]|] 05:27, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

== user Countdowncafe ==

I am not sure whether this is the right place to report this. ] is adding external links to articles which are pointing to his own site. This is clearly against ]. The importance of the links which the user is adding is being debated at ]. He is basically adding links to movie trailers on a movie article. I tried talking to the user on his talk page but was not able to convince him. Can someone help me in getting him to follow the policy?. Thanks. ] (]) 04:50, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

==]==
This user has major problems keeping things civil and avoiding personal attacks. He just left on my talk page. In addition he has been leaving uncivil remarks and personal attacks on ] talk page. I believe he deserves an immediate block. Please see ] for more info. ] (]) 05:08, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
:I have no opinion on the notability of ] (the subject of an article whose deletion seems to have led to this mess) ''but'', I fully endorse a block. Alfred's been warned many more times (9? 10?) than regular vandals without any sign of improvement. --]] 05:13, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
::The user has been indefinitely blocked. -- ]] 05:33, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
:::There is already a thread about this user, related issues and possible sockpuppetry above. ] (]) 13:03, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

== ] reverting my edits to ] ==

Basically, in the article, someone put that 2 extra skaters, Neversoft Mascot and Voodoo Doll are available on the XBOX 360, however, I have the game, fully beaten and they aren't there. Then ] came along and re-added back in. I asked him not to revert my edits, but he's done it twice now, so I figured I'd report him here. ] (]) 06:53, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

== Ehud Lesar ==
] was blocked, then unblocked, and then reblocked for allegations of being a sock of temporarily banned ]. The block was made on arbitrary basis, without a single proof supporting such allegations, just because some admins believe that the 2 users might be related. However checkuser showed no relation between these 2 users:
I don't think that permanently blocking people without any reliable evidence is appropriate. I would like to ask for independent investigation of this situation. I believe that before blocking people some sort of an official investigation should be conducted to verify any connections between the two accounts. However this was not done, and this block is highly questionable. Thanks. ] (]) 07:29, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
:Checkuser cannot prove a negative. ] is worth a look. (I speak this neutrally). <font face="Verdana">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 11:03, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

::But that report cannot be a proof of anything. It is just a collection of unrelated diffs, put together with an obvious purpose. Has anyone tried contacting Ehud and verifying his actual personality? I just received a communication from Ehud, he told me that he is willing to provide any information that admins may require to ascertain that he is a real person, not related to Adil in any way. ] (]) 11:10, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
:: Also note that Fedayee's accusations were rejected by the admins at ] board: ] (]) 11:24, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

== ] ==

Article tagged with AfD and that has been removed.] (]) 09:50, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
:The deleting user was warned on her/his talk page. If it doesn't happen again, I'd say let the matter drop. ] (]) 10:07, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
::Article was G12ed. -- ] <sup>]</sup> 10:15, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

:::And recreated as ], it appears. ] (]) 11:02, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Can someone else have a look at this? The copyvio and self-admitted OR problems are the same, but I would like to have someone else review this matter (I deleted the article the first two times). ] (]) 11:06, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
::::Unless we doubt his story that the blog's his, I don't see a speedy rationale. I've opened an AfD for the new page; if it results in deletion, any future clones can be G4'd. ] (]) 11:15, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
:::::], if you're interested. ] 11:27, 10 January 2008 (UTC)


== I'd like some help ==

As those who know me know, I'm not much involved with anti-vandalism patrolling. I revert merely when I notice it. Which, by corrollary, means that I don't do much blocking (again, typically only if I come across some incident, or whatever).

That said, I find myself currently dealing with two separate users who are evading indefinite blocks/bans.

The first is merely a POV pusher who became disruptive, and refused to change/learn in spite of months of trying to help the user understand. They '''''still''''' are doing the same, and now it's a matter of chasing down IP addresses, and multiple accounts.

The second is just a "mess". This is someone mostly preoccupied with userspace/user templates (userboxes)/user categories. That would be perfectly fine with me (how someone chooses to ''positively'' contribute seems immaterial to me), except that the user was indef blocked in relation to several disruptions, including a suicide note/claim. Since then, the user claims to have edited using a friend's account, and just generally has been freely evading their block, including harassing other good faith editors.


This user: ] seems to be on a spree of Vandalism, which they are summarising in the edit summaries as 'reverting vandalism'. Example: ] <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 02:39, 24 December 2024 (UTC)</small><sup>]</sup>
Note that I didn't link to anything above, and just posted some general information.


:including racist edits summarized as reverting racist texts. Example ] (]) 03:06, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
I just want to know what can be done to deal with those who evade blocks in this way.
::The IP is already blocked. To OP: Consider reporting obvious vandalism like this at ]. &ndash; ] (]) (]) 03:34, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
{{abot}}


== User Stationmanagerskidrow removing information on ] page ==
I will say plainly that though I did a fair amount of reading, and feel I now understand range blocks, and so on, I'm somewhat insecure about it, do to the concern about accidental fall out.


(Note that I did ask ] who gave me what I felt was a good answer, and I've asked a checkuser about that on their talk page, but received no answer.)


] 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)
So is there anything else that can be done? Or just checkuser on the range, and (hopefully) range block, and continually watchdog and revert on sight?


:User is now editing using ] ] (]) 03:34, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
If the latter, I think I'm going to ask if someone else would help be the "watchdog".


::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)
So anyway, that's the help I'm asking - information, and possibly some volunteers. - ] 12:06, 6 January 2008 (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)
:If you gave us the details of the relevant users, we may be able to give you better help. If you're complaining about sock-puppetry, try ]. ] ] 13:58, 6 January 2008 (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)
::Jc37, if you are quite sure that another account is being used, I'd just indef and be done with it. For the first user, there isn't a lot else you can do, short of filing a RFCu and applying a range block, if the range is small enough. But if this has been a long term consistent problem (i.e. a new account shows up every few days or so) a range block won't even be especially helpful, as they are supposed to be short-term blocks (under an hour, I think).
::] 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)
::If the second user is socking to harass people, I again would say that blocking on sight is perfectly fine. It would be one thing if they returned and made a good-faith effort to contribute, or ask for their block listed, but they've decided to use someone else's account to mess around. Personally, I'd indef block the "friend's" account, with a clear block reason and message on the talk page. If there really is a friend, and that person is interested in editing, they will keep their goof-off friend off their account from then on. If there is no friend, or the friend is just as interested in nonconstructive contributions, then the indef block is perfectly justified. The information about range blocks from the first situation also applies - you may just have to monitor, block, and ignore. Eventually they'll get tired of it and go away. ] (]) 00:18, 7 January 2008 (UTC)


== Insults ==
:::That's pretty much what I thought. At what point do we just throw up our collective hands and give up? If it's clear that we really can't stop the problems, then why try? - ] 11:21, 8 January 2008 (UTC)


Anyway, as for the request for more info, for the first example, here's a subpage with some information (] has quite a few more sub-pages): ]


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)
And for the second example, here's a note that I placed on ] :
:Hello, Psychloppos. What action are you seeking to happen here? <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 09:42, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
::I have no idea which actions are warranted here. Maybe an admin could leave a message to this IP and this registered user and remind them that they should ] ? It would also be nice to remind them about ] and ]. Saying that I am "fuelled by an unhealthy obsession" or questioning my sanity do not seem to respect those guidelines. ] (]) 09:52, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
==Nlkyair012 and LLM chatbots ==
*{{Noping|Nlkyair012}}
This editor has been constantly using AI chatbots to respond and write messages. They are a single purpose account for glorifying the ] caste using unreliable ] era sources, I and several other experienced editors have taken time and effort to respond to their endless queries and ] generated using ChatGPT. They have posted AI generated walls of text on multiple noticeboards such as ] and ] and including here , accusing me of vandalism.


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


:Hello @Ratnahastin,
I don't know if you're still currently involved with issues involving this user, but they've become rather disruptive. See ] and rather specifically at ] for admissions of what they claim was/is going on. since then it's been a stream of IP addresses. See ] for the most current set of disruptions. (] seems to be ] issues, and is probably the person as well.) I've been reading up on range blocking, as this may be what needs to be done as a "final" step. I'd appreciate your thoughts (and help). - ] 23:14, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
:To start with I should admit that I am sorry for all the inconvenience that I may have caused as a result of my actions. It was never my intention to take people’s time or skew the conversation in a certain way. I appreciate the core idea to contribute the thoughts to the Wiki and share it borne in mind the overall rules and policies of this program.
{{archivebottom}}
: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)


== Potential vandal trying to start edit war on the page for Frisch's. ==
Of the two, (if I have to choose) I think I'd really like someone else to "take over" patrolling on the second. (Though, since I've now gone through nearly all the editor's edits, I have no problem being a "helpful resource".)


This user keeps using IP addresses in order to revert creditable information about who makes their tartar sauce. Please look into this user. IP Addresses used were 67.80.16.30, 66.117.211.82, and 216.24.107.180. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 15:17, 24 December 2024 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
Thanks for any and all help/insight/etc. - ] 11:21, 8 January 2008 (UTC)


:Courtesy link ]. ] (]) 17:02, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
:(Restored from archive, still hoping for some help.) - ] 11:58, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
==]==
*{{Usercheck-short|Heliac}}&nbsp;<tt>|</tt>&nbsp;<span class="plainlinks">
:I'm an avid vandalism patroller, who has been forced into early retirement by recent developments in ] that make them broken in internet explorer 6, my browser of choice. This new privillage would allow me return to wikipedia. I promise never to use it abusuively. thank you--] (]) 12:50, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
:*Whilst I take your comments on board about your browser, I am nervous that you have made no edits at all in around seven months. Reversion is not the only thing to do. I am concerned that you will have sufficent policy/process knowledge due to your apparent extended break. This is not an out and out decline however, and I would appreciate other admin input. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">] : ] </span></small> 12:54, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
{{not done}} extended break only just returned. ]] 13:15, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
:Where does it say that's a valid reason to decline? all you're doing by setting this precident is '''encouraging''' anon vandalism, by showing them what rediculous hoops you have to jump through to get an effective, internet explorer 6 compatible revision tool.--] (]) 13:18, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
::Alas, there isn't really a lot of hard and fast policy associated with this process at the moment. The best I can advise is to take this thread to ] for a further review. Sorry. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">] : ] </span></small> 13:21, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
:::Edits from today ( ) leave me with little faith in your ability to use this tool correctly. ] 13:48, 10 January 2008 (UTC)


== ] inaccurate edit summaries ==
:I think the concern here is that a user's recent contribution history (say, 3-6 months, per the talk page) is what admins review in granting or declining Rollback tools. In this case, unfortunately, there is not much in that time period to review. As Pedro rightly notes, there isn't much firm policy on the matter, either. My recommendation, and this is purely as a non-admin, would be for you to edit without the tool for a while, showing that not only are you back for good, but that you are familiar enough with policy to properly deal with vandalism. Then, I'd re-request, and see what happens. Best, ] <sup> ] </sup>~<small> ] </small> 13:51, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
::Echoing John's comment, above, I'd note further that IP edits are not always vandalism, and that you should show that you are exercising due diligence in making sure that you are reverting vandalism, and that your reversion properly removes the vandalism (instead of keeping it, as with ). ] <sup> ] </sup>~<small> ] </small> 13:56, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Whilst I stated originally that my comments were not an "out and out decline" I'm afraid that the diff's given by John would harden my position in delcining. I do understand the browser issue, but that is not enough reason IMHO. Sorry. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">] : ] </span></small> <small>—Preceding ] was added at 14:07, 10 January 2008 (UTC)</small><!--Template:Undated--> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->


==DYK late==


It's way late again and we have a big backlog, which means that more users are missing out on promotions. Any chance someone here could post it? Thanks, ] (]) 13:27, 10 January 2008 (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)


== Blocking ] on Checkuser findings == == ] Semi-Protection ==


] was semi-protected back in 2019. Now that five years have passed, could the semi-protection be lifted? ] (]) 16:25, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
I usually directly block, but the check is 4 days old and I fear this might be taken as punitive if there is no discussion beforehand. ] was reported at ] by ] for vandalizing his, and an other user's page. (]). Where it gets interesting, is that ] was blocked for a week at the end of December for oh wait abusing multiple accounts after being reported by ] (]). My guts tell me to block ] also for a week, but I'd like to have your opinion first. -- ] <sup>]</sup> 13:41, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
:Note: ] -- ] <sup>]</sup> 13:44, 10 January 2008 (UTC)


::'''Comment''' - Well all I would say is that I would abide the decision of the board. ] (] • ]) 14:29, 10 January 2008 (UTC) :Ask at ] ] ] 16:28, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 17:18, 24 December 2024

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

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

    When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough.
    You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

    Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)

    Start a new discussion Centralized discussion
    Noticeboard archives
    Administrators' (archives, search)
    348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357
    358 359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367
    Incidents (archives, search)
    1155 1156 1157 1158 1159 1160 1161 1162 1163 1164
    1165 1166 1167 1168 1169 1170 1171 1172 1173 1174
    Edit-warring/3RR (archives, search)
    471 472 473 474 475 476 477 478 479 480
    481 482 483 484 485 486 487 488 489 490
    Arbitration enforcement (archives)
    327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336
    337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346
    Other links

    Obvious sock threatening to take legal action

    VPN socking blocked. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:41, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

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

    IP 2409:40D6:0:0:0:0:0:0/32 range block has been blocked for 6 months. Liz 03:15, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

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

    This IP range has been socking to edit a wide range of caste articles, especially those related to Jats . This range belongs to Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Truthfindervert and has been socking using proxies and VPNs too. Many of which have been blocked. Now they are threatening to take legal action against me "but how far we will remain silence their various optimistic reason which divert my mind to take an legal action against this two User" . - Ratnahastin (talk) 11:51, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

    Just as ignorant as he is known longtime abnormal activation and especially on those of Jat article see his latest revision on Dudi you will get to urge why he have atrocity to disaggregating Jat articles but pm serious node i dont mention him not a once but ypu can also consolidate this User:TheSlumPanda who dont know him either please have a eyes on him for a while 2409:40D6:11A:3D97:D46A:3CB4:A474:99A0 (talk) 12:06, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
    But wait a second as per WP:NOPA i dont take his name either not even so dont even try to show your true culler midway cracker and admin can you please not i am currently ranged blocked as my network is Jio telecom which was largely user by various comers2409:40D6:11A:3D97:D46A:3CB4:A474:99A0 (talk)
    Please tell me there's a language issue at play here, and that the IP didn't mention WP:No personal attacks and use a racist slur in the same sentence there... —C.Fred (talk) 12:26, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
    I think it's both. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:37, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
    Well, we linguists don't like anecdotal evidence, but I'll provide some: I (non-native speaker of English, with a linguistics PhD) had to look up all the potential candidates for a slur in that post, and when I did find one it's not one I'd ever heard. However, "crackers" is an insult in Hindi, so I'd say it is most likely a PA, just not the one an American English speaker might understand it as. --bonadea contributions talk 13:02, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
    At least in the South, an American would recognize Cracker as a pejorative. Acroterion (talk) 13:19, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
    Sure, but the IP user who used the word said they are in India, and their post contains various typical non-native speaker errors. ("culler" instead of "colour", for instance) --bonadea contributions talk 16:31, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
    Funny thing is you go far enough south it wraps back around again: Florida cracker - The Bushranger One ping only 22:24, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Disruptive editing and WP:TALKNO by User:AnonMoos

    The main issue with this editor at the moment is disruptive editing based on continuous abuse of WP:TALKNO and failure to get the point. Issues began when this editor removed 5000+ bytes of sourced material. They did it again and again and again.

    Instead of starting a discussion on the talk page of the article, the user came to my talk page to let me know of their opinion of my contributions. When I started a discussion on the talk page of the relevant article, the user edited my signature and changed the heading of the discussion I started according to their POV. When I let them know that this was highly inappropriate according to WP:TALKNO, both in that discussion and on their talk page, they responded on my talk page stating ever since the stupid Misplaced Pages Dec. 2019 encryption protocol upgrade, to able to edit or view Misplaced Pages at all from my home computer, I have to use an indirect method which involves a non-fully-Unicode-compliant tool. I couldn't even really see your signature that way, and so didn't know to try to avoid changing it, which I had never heard of. In any case, they kept reverting the content supported by the reliable source, they also kept attempting to apply their POV to the discussion heading again and again and again. I finally explained that I had sought a third opinion and that they should refrain from changing the heading again in order to preserve the integrity of the link, and they went ahead and changed it again anyway. — Preceding unsigned comment added by إيان (talk • contribs) 15:20, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

    The other user in this case is User:AnonMoos? This looks like a content dispute over whether the article is on the English version of a German-Arabic dictionary or the dictionary itself. Secretlondon (talk) 15:47, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
    Yes the is indeed about User:AnonMoos. I see the content dispute as stemming from the fundamental conduct issue, which has manifested itself most egregiously with insisting on violating WP:TALKNO repeatedly even after I explained that I had sought a third opinion and that they should refrain from changing the heading again in order to preserve the integrity of the link, after which they went ahead and changed it again anyway. إيان (talk) 16:00, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
    The heading dispute is between a date heading, and a descriptive heading? that's not really reformulating your entry. Secretlondon (talk) 17:44, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
    It's a conduct issue. إيان (talk) 19:58, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
    But what conduct issue? TALKNO doesn't forbid changing headings. In fact the wider guideline makes it clear it's perfectly acceptable "Because threads are shared by multiple editors (regardless of how many have posted so far), no one, including the original poster, "owns" a talk page discussion or its heading. It is generally acceptable to change headings when a better heading is appropriate, e.g., one more accurately describing the content of the discussion or the issue discussed, less one-sided, more appropriate for accessibility reasons, etc. Whenever a change is likely to be controversial, avoid disputes by discussing a heading change with the editor who started the thread, if possible. It can also sometimes be appropriate to merge entire sections under one heading (often preserving the later one as a subheading) if their discussions are redundant." To be blunt, if you don't want editors changing the headings of sections you start, don't use such terrible headings. I definitely recommend you stay away from ANI since changing headings is quite common here. Nil Einne (talk) 06:25, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
    Actually I missed the signature issue. That's far more concerning unfortunately lost IMO partly because you concentrated on silly stuff. Nil Einne (talk) 06:29, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
    ‎إيان: I suggest you stop messing around with the section heading since it's a distraction which could easily lead to you being blocked. But if AnonMoos changes your signature again, report it and only that without silliness about section headings, mentioning that they've been warned about it before if needed. Nil Einne (talk) 06:50, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

    I wrote a long and detailed explanation on his user talk page as to why the date-only header is basically useless in that context, but he's still for some peculiar reason fanatically determined to keep changing it back. Frankly, I've basically run out of good-faith reasons that make any sense -- except of course, his apparently unshakable belief that he has certain talk-page "rights", which according to Misplaced Pages guidelines he does not in fact have (outside of his own personal user talk page)... AnonMoos (talk) 23:10, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

    @AnonMoos: I don't see a problem with changing the heading but why on earth did you change their signature multiple times ? That is indeed a clear violation of WP:TPOC since the signature was perfectly valid per WP:NLS. In fact your change was far worse since it changed a perfectly valid signature which would take other editors to the contributor's talk page and user page into an invalid one which lead no where. If you're using some sort of plugin which does that, it's your responsibility to manage it better so it doesn't do that ever again especially if you're going to edit talk pages where it might be common. If you're doing that intentionally, I suggest you cut it out or expect to be indeffed. Nil Einne (talk) 06:48, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
    User:AnonMoos, this is not good to see. Don't rewrite or reformat other editor's signatures. There is no reason to be doing this unless you are trying to provoke the other editor. Liz 07:51, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
    For what it's worth, AnonMoos stated earlier that the changing of the signature was a unintentional technical issue, due to his use of some "non-standard tool" in accessing the internet . This seems plausible, as similar apparently unintentional changes to non-Ascii character data have happened in edits of his before (e.g. ). But if he knew of this issue, it's rather disappointing he let it happen again some days later . Equally disappointing is the extremely aggressive rhetoric and acerbic tone with which he has been escalating this essentially harmless, good-faith content dispute from the beginning. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:25, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
    I just can't fathom what tool they're using to get around the HTTPS requirement to edit Misplaced Pages securely. — The Hand That Feeds You: 17:42, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
    Should be impossible as it's required to even access the site in the first place according to WP:SECLakesideMiners 16:41, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
    Looking at his talk page it's been going back to at least 2011LakesideMiners 16:17, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
    Guys, I do not deliberately set out to modify signatures, and when it happens, I am not usually aware of doing so. As I've already explained before in several places, since the December 2019 encryption protocol upgrade (NOT 2011!), the only way I can edit (or view) Misplaced Pages at all from home is by an indirect method which is not fully Unicode-compliant. To change this, I would have to get a completely different type of Internet connection, which would permanently disconnect my older computer, which I still use almost every day.
    Meanwhile, this thread has been set up so I can't add a comment to it from home without affecting Unicode characters, so I was unable to reply here for 36 hours or so. If I'm silent in the future, it will be for the same reason. AnonMoos (talk) 01:14, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
    Misplaced Pages uses Unicode characters (UTF-8 encoding). Anyone who cannot edit without corrupting such characters should not edit. Johnuniq (talk) 03:47, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
    Whatever, -- I was using them perfectly fine until December 2019, and still use them perfectly fine on public WiFi, but in December 2019 a requirement was imposed that you can't access Misplaced Pages at all unless you can handle encryption algorithms and protocols that weren't introduced until the mid-2010s. I have a 2012 web browser on my home computer that handles UTF-8 just fine, but 2012 simply wasn't good enough for the Misplaced Pages developers -- you had to have software that was almost up to date as of 2019, or you would be abruptly totally cut off. If you can drag up the relevant archive of Village Pump Technical, I and others complained at the time, but our concerns were not listened to or considered in any way. The basic attitude of the developers was that if you weren't running almost up-to-date software, then screw you, and if your computer is not capable of running almost up-to-date software, then double screw you! The change was announced for January 2020, but was actually implemented in mid-December 2019, apparently because they were so eager and anxious to start excluding people. It wasn't one of Misplaced Pages's finer moments. Since that time, I have had to use an indirect method to access Misplaced Pages from my home computer, and I don't feel particularly guilty about it (other people's obnoxious behaviors in 2019 have done away with most of the guilt I might feel)... AnonMoos (talk) 20:59, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
    ...HTTPS was created in 1994, and became an official specification in 2000, not "mid-2010s". I'm not sure what 2012 web browser you're using, but if it's not able to handle HTTPS not being able to access Misplaced Pages with it is the least of your browsing concerns, given that 85-95% of the World Wide Web defaults to it now. Also I hate to think of how many security holes your ancient computer has. I'm going to be honest: with a brower setup that old it isn't safe for you to be on the web at all, and the security hole that lets you access Misplaced Pages without using a secure connection should be fixed, because that is not working as intended and is - as mentioned - a security hole. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:18, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
    You unfortunately don't know what you're talking about. New ENCRYPTION ALGORITHM AND PROTOCOL METHODS have been introduced within HTTPS from time to time. I was using HTTPS perfectly happily until December 2019, when the developers arbitrarily ENCRYPTION ALGORITHM AND PROTOCOL REQUIREMENTS. AnonMoos (talk) 00:57, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
    And even leaving that aside, as Johnuniq mentions - if you can't edit without corrupting Unicode characters, and by your own admission you don't know when it happens, you shouldn't be editing. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:20, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
    This is probably a reference to when Misplaced Pages started requiring TLS 1.2 (because earlier versions were deprecated). Anyone who was/is still on Windows XP at that point couldn't connect any more. MrOllie (talk) 01:29, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
    I'm not talking about when the update happening, I'm talking about how you have known about this issue, and have been getting complainants about it since 2011and are still not taking any steps to do anything about it. What kind of internet connection would not support your PC? What on earth are you even using? Dial-Up? Because that still is supported by even Windows 10. LakesideMiners 02:59, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

    :::Also, how did you see me saying "this has happened since 2011" as me saying that the update happened in 2011? Can you clarify. LakesideMiners 03:07, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

    The problem didn't start in 2011, and I have no idea what you're referring to when you mention 2011. The problem started in December 2019 when the developers arbitrarily imposed new ENCRYPTION ALGORITHM AND PROTOCOL REQUIREMENTS... AnonMoos (talk) 00:57, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
    Apologies. I was extremely tired when I wrote both above. I have striken the date parts. Rest of my comments still stand. LakesideMiners 01:06, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

    None of this matters

    I don't care what tool this guy uses or what his excuse is. If he can't edit without screwing up people's sigs, then he must not edit. AnonMoos shouls consider himself on notice now that if one of his edits messes stuff up one more time, he'll be blocked until he can give assurance that he's come into the 21st century. EEng 18:05, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

    That's nice -- and also totally inaccurate. I was in the 21st century, and using 2012 tools, up until December 2019, when the developers pitchforked me backwards by arbitrarily imposing HTTPS ENCRYPTION ALGORITHM AND PROTOCOL REQUIREMENTS which my home computer hardware is not able to run. Notice that I had no problem complying with character-set handling -- the problem is with arbitrary ENCRYPTION ALGORITHM AND PROTOCOL REQUIREMENTS. AnonMoos (talk) 00:48, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
    The century imagery is irrelevant. You have been warned. EEng 03:14, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
    That was six years ago, which is IMO about 3-4 years too long to keep using it as an excuse. Technology changes over time, so whatever this non-standard thing you think you need to do to edit here, it may be time to make a choice. Zaathras (talk) 00:56, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
    As I said, to fix the problem, I would have to get a completely different type of Internet connection which would permanently disconnect my old computer, which I still use almost every single day. I would basically have to change my workflow and overall habits/methods of working because of an arbitrary decision by Misplaced Pages developers about encryption protocol updates. Anyway, when editing through public WiFi, I'm 100% Unicode compliant, and by exercising a little prudence, I can also avoid most problems when working from home. If I was constantly mangling Unicode right and left, there would have been a chorus of complaints long before now. But occasionally I can't anticipate a problem... AnonMoos (talk) 01:06, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
    And just to say for the third time: you're out of chances. "Occassionally" is too often. Once more is too often. And if and when that happens, your attitude of entitlement displayed here will pretty much ensure an indefinite block. EEng 03:14, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
    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)
    • The response by AnonMoos to feedback about this problem is bizarre. I don't really care what the excuse or the history behind it. If you are unwilling to edit Misplaced Pages using tools that work in 2024 then you should stop editing. The behavior is completely unnecessary and it seems like you don't understand the disruption. Nemov (talk) 14:45, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
    • AnonMoos hasn't really explained in any detail what their technical limitations are. They don't have to, but we can't really give advice otherwise. If as others have suggested their computer can't negotiate TLS 1.2, I'm surprised that they're able to use any websites at all from that computer. Requiring TLS 1.2 is not controversial; Misplaced Pages wasn't doing anything unusual in dropping TLS 1.0/1.1 around that time. Mackensen (talk) 15:02, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

    Disruptive editing by User talk:185.146.112.192

    The User talk:185.146.112.192 is engaging in disrupte editing. Neither does this IP provide sources and is POV pushing. And this IP has been warned multiple times for this on his/her talk page.

    Moroike (talk) 20:52, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

    @Moroike: It looks like you both are edit warring on Kichik Bazar Mosque. That's not particularly helpful, so you should try to have a discussion on the article talk page as to whether you should include the Talysh language name for the article in the lead/infobox. –MJL ‐Talk‐ 20:33, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
    MJL why and how did you pick out that one article over the many this IP has made recent changes to? The IP has been making disputed edits for months and has been reverted by a number of editors, not just Moroike. CMD (talk) 01:10, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
    @CMD: I am not suggesting that the IP editor isn't being disruptive, but my point is that Moroike isn't making the situation better (using the example of that one article). You can see this by looking at their last 50 contributions where they have mostly just reverted this editor without using a summary. –MJL ‐Talk‐ 18:02, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
    The IP's edits were removed a total of 13 times on the page regarding the capital city of Azerbaijan, Baku. You can't let him continue engaging in further edit wars with other users besides Moroike, can you? Nuritae331 (talk) 17:24, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

    Since this IP user won't stop and is stonewalling, either he/should be temporarily blocked, or all the pages he is POV pushing without sources, should be semi-protected, so that only registered users can edit them. Moroike (talk) 21:37, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

    After he/she was blocked for 24 hours, this IP created an account as User talk:Ibish Agayev in order to evade the block and has resumed his/her POV pushing. Moroike (talk) 16:51, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

    Request for closure

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

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

    Mgtow definition

    Editor was pointed to the talk page and then stopped editing. It looks like this was a case of WP:GRENADE. - The Bushranger One ping only 03:45, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

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

    There are blatant lies in the wiki definition of "mgtow". The goal is accuracy, not "man bashing". Camarogue100 (talk) 14:48, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

    @Camarogue100, you should discuss this at Talk:Men Going Their Own Way. This noticeboard is for conduct issues, not content issues. Schazjmd (talk) 14:54, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
    Nothing wrong with the definition of MGTOW. Maximum Gross Takeoff Weight is an internationally accepted and used term used by every airplane and airline in the world. Canterbury Tail talk 16:17, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
    The cintent is incorrect. Mvto is NOT "misogynistic". There is no "hate" towards women, only avoidance. Camarogue100 (talk) 20:21, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
    @Camarogue100, you were directed to the talkpage, which includes an FAQ on the term you keep trying to remove, along with extensive discussion. You should start there before just removing sourced content that you don't like. We'll leave aside the absence of required notifications to Black Kite and myself who have warned you for your conduct. Acroterion (talk) 17:41, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
    Where do I find the talk page? Camarogue100 (talk) 20:21, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
    @Camarogue100, I linked it for you in my comment above. Schazjmd (talk) 20:27, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Creating the need to make 400,000 unnecessary edits

    Can we please dp something about editors who make unnecessary changes to widely-used modules, and then need to change 400,000 talk pages to get the same result we had before the change? Thanks to this change from last week, which removed the parameter "living" from the bannershell, we now have more than 400,000 pages in Category:Pages using WikiProject banner shell with unknown parameters. After the "cleanup" by User:Tom.Reding (and perhaps others), we will have the exact same result as we had last week, no new functionality, no new categories, no improvement at all, but a lot of flooded watchlists.

    I tried to get him to stop at User talk:Tom.Reding#Cosmetic edits, to no avail. This isn't the first time, as you can see from that discussion. Fram (talk) 14:57, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

    If you want to discuss {{WikiProject banner shell}}, you should do so at Template talk:WikiProject banner shell.
    As for the size of the category, I have no plans to empty it, and was only going to update a few hundred more categories and templates.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  15:02, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
    You made nearly 2000 of such edits in the last few hours, and when asked to stop pointed me to a category with 400,000 entries. I have no way to know how many more you planned now or in future runs. Starting a discussion at the module would hardly stop you. Fram (talk) 15:10, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
    "when asked to stop pointed me to a category with 400,000 entries": incorrect. Since you wrongly thought I was making cosmetic edits, i.e. "no change in output or categories", the category was to inform you that they are not cosmetic.
    Regarding a BRFA for the bulk of the category, that's looking more likely since the category appears to be neglected.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  15:29, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
    Unnecessary removing a synonym and then making thousands of edits to remove the hidden cat created by that unnecessary change is not really any better than making cosmetic edits, the end result is that nothing has changed for the affected pages at all. Fram (talk) 15:33, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
    Not unnecessary. The Lua code is very complex and removing the need the support various settings makes the code both easier to read and maintain. As always, editors that don't want to see these edits can hide these by hiding the tag "talk banner shell conversion". Gonnym (talk) 12:32, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
    It doesn´t look as if the specific code to have these synonyms was very complicated though, the argument that in some cases two synonyms were used on one page with conflicting values was more convincing. And the edits I complained about did not have that tag, so no, even if people knew about hiding that tag, it wouldn't have helped here at all. Fram (talk) 16:04, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
    This was discussed in detail on Template talk:WikiProject banner shell. Ideally these edits would be done by an approved bot so they do not appear on people's watchlists. The main benefit is to merge the |blp= and |living= parameters. When both are in use, we find they often get conflicting values because one gets updated and the other does not. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:25, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
    Isn't it more logical to first have a bot cleanup the unwanted parameter, then remove it from the template, and only then start populating the cat with the somehow remaining or since added instances? In any case, this is a typical bot task and shouldn't be done with massive AWB runs. Fram (talk) 17:39, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
    Yes, probably. But we have this mechanism already set up and I assumed Cewbot would deal with these as part of its normal activities. Happy to look at other options - maybe discuss on template talk? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:23, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
    I don't know what this is about, but if the OP is correct, it is totally absurd to edit 400,000 talk pages for a tweak. Discussing at a template talk page monitored by those focused on the template would simply hide the issue. Johnuniq (talk) 03:53, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
    Edits like these should always be bots, so they can be filtered from watchlists. There are numerous other editors who have recently engaged in the mass additional of categories to articles which I had to ask them to stop as my watchlist was flooded. GiantSnowman 13:02, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
    Meanwhile, the category has grown to over 800,000 pages. Perhaps next time an RfC to determine whether creating such a large cleanup task is warranted, would be better? Fram (talk) 16:34, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

    User:Augmented Seventh

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Unblock request of Rereiw82wi2j

    Blocked, blocked, they're all blocked. - The Bushranger One ping only 18:47, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

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

    The user Rereiw82wi2j was blocked for blanking talk page discussions. They were removing discussions they participated in with an now-vanished account, for the purpose of removing their username from the talk page(which isn't removed via a vanishing). I believe that per WP:VANISH their vanishing needs to be reversed, am I correct? Do they need to be asked to resume using that account?(if they can) 331dot (talk) 20:49, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

    It seems to need reverting because with their previous account, they only edited one article/talk page and when asked what articles they wanted to edit with their new account, they just mention this same article. That violates the entire principle of a clean start account. Liz 23:00, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
    Could we revoke TPA per this? ~ Pbritti (talk) 14:19, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
    I have revoked their talk page access and declined the unblock request. PhilKnight (talk) 14:34, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
    User has created another account Human82. Lavalizard101 (talk) 15:39, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
    Also now blocked. GiantSnowman 16:17, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
    There's also User:ResearchAbility now. win8x (talk) 16:32, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
    Blocked by PhilKnight. GiantSnowman 16:36, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User:ZanderAlbatraz1145 Civility and Content #2

    This user has engaged in a lengthy display of disruption. Namely through incessant incivility I have noticed they were previously reported for.

    Instances such as ordering IP editors to stop editing articles, hostilely chastising them, making personal attacks in edit summary on several occasions, etc. Users such as @Waxworker: and @Jon698: can speak to their experiences, I'll outline mine.

    On December 10, I noticed on the article Luca Guadagnino's unrealized projects page several additions were made that didn't adhere to the article's purpose. Zander restored these with an introductory summary rife with bad faith assertions about my intelligence and asserting they'd engage in edit war behavior. For the most part there was an attempt to discuss the issue we had, but ultimately did not see eye to eye. I asserted I'd be escalating the issue to garner more substantive dialogue around it, Zander's response includes a needless "bite me". I made some attempts at engaging the topic at the article's talk page, in addition to WikiProject Film, it was over a week that saw no input. I would go on to state that (at the time) in two days, I would restore the page to it's status quo. I would do so, asking it not to be reverted. Zander reverted anyway, and after another terse interaction, I moved to nominate the article for deletion, finding with the conflicting views of what Unrealized meant, it was too open ended and led to these lists being essentially trivia. Since then, Zander has elected to take an antagonistic approach towards me, making swipes they openly admit add nothing to the discussion threads they're added to, and now that I am putting said comments behind collapsable tables for being offtopic, Zander is now doing the editing equivalent of mockingly repeating me, with edits such as this and this.

    This editor displays no interest in conducting themselves cordially or cooperatively on this website. Rusted AutoParts 23:20, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

    I've given them a warning for canvassing: - The Bushranger One ping only 04:08, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
    And more personal attacks here - The Bushranger One ping only 05:36, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
    And they appear to be continuing editing while ignoring here. - The Bushranger One ping only 05:39, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

    SPA User:Tikitorch2 back at it on Martin Kulldorff

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

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

    Persistent addition of unsourced content by 2601:243:CB00:7F10:0:0:0:0/64

    Blocked for one month.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:52, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

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

    2601:243:CB00:7F10:0:0:0:0/64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Keeps adding unsourced content to articles, hasn't responded to warnings, and continued after block expired. /64 has previously been blocked on December 8th for a week due to "Persistent unsourced genre changes", and 2 weeks on September 7th due to addition of unsourced content. Recent examples of addition of unsourced content: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. Waxworker (talk) 10:22, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

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

    Disruptive editing Movement for Democracy

    I've protected the page for 24 hours. @Rambling Rambler and @Hellenic Rebel are both warned against edit warring, including during the course of this discussion. RR, HR, and .82 should follow dispute resolution processes. Further disruptive editing or edit warring after page protection expires will result in blocks. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:13, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

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

    User:Hellenic Rebel has been trying for about a month now to put across his own opinion about the party' infobox. An opinion which he cannot back up with any source whatsoever. Although it has been pointed out to him by both the user Rambling Rambler and me, continues the disruptive editing. Ιt is worth noting that although other users made the same "mistake", when the lack of sources to support the addition was pointed out to them, they accepted it and did not continue to try to pass on their own opinion.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Movement_for_Democracy_(Greece)#5/300

    https://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Greek_Rebel#Movement_for_Democracy

    https://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Greek_Rebel#Disruptive_editing....again

    diff1 diff2

    diff3 130.43.66.82 (talk) 19:15, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

    This is a content dispute, not a conduct dispute. Since discussing the issue on article talk has not worked, please follow dispute resolution processes, such as seeking guidance at WT:GREECE or WT:POLITICS, or going to WP:DRN. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:50, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
    @Voorts taking a look because I've been tagged. While there may be content elements to it I think this has gone into a behavioural issue, namely due to it being a user actively edit warring without providing sources but instead endlessly insisting on edits that are entirely WP:OR. Rambling Rambler (talk) 20:00, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
    It is not a problem of content but of behaviour. His claim is original research, is his own conclusion and is not verified by any source. He knows it, has admitted it, and yet he insists on adding it. 130.43.66.82 (talk) 20:02, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

    (nac) Movement for Democracy is a moderately stable DAB page, with which I have been involved. I assume this dispute relates to Movement for Democracy (Greece). Narky Blert (talk) 20:59, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

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

    Sugar Bear returns with personal attacks

    /24 blocked for two weeks. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:36, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

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

    Using the IP range Special:Contributions/166.181.224.0/19, Sugar Bear has returned to Misplaced Pages to disrupt film and music articles. After I recognized this fact and began reverting him, Sugar Bear began a campaign of personal attacks at my talk page, using the IP Special:Contributions/166.181.250.216. Can we get a rangeblock?

    There's a decade-plus history of this vandal attacking me, for instance his creation of the username Banksternet. I can spot his contributions quite easily by now. Binksternet (talk) 22:35, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

    .I've blocked the current IP, I may not have time to properly investigate the range right now. Acroterion (talk) 22:39, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

    Past disruption from nearby IPs includes the following:
    I've blocked the current /24 for two weeks, but I see a lot of potential for collateral damage for longer or broader blocks. Acroterion (talk) 22:59, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Comments by Locke Cole

    No support for a block for either party, and filer is fine with closure. Star Mississippi 16:56, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

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

    Involved: Locke Cole (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) So I honestly think we should both receive a (24 hr) block for our behavior, but bringing it here for that to happen. This started when I posted a list of "keep" votes with no rationale at Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Log/2024 December 21. Comments made by Locke Cole in response to the list include:

    • Sour grapes are over there, in case you're lost.
    I replied to this with What?? Voting on an AfD should be policy-based, not just "keep" or "he's too notable". I'm giving evidence to my claim that keep votes were given unnecessarily large amounts of weight when closing this. Yes, I left out the ones with evidence, because that wasn't the point of the list. Again, would you give weight to the five keep votes that just said "keep"? I believe this is the second time I've had to say this to you, but way to WP:ABF.
    • Well, you're already violating WP:DRVPURPOSE #8 by casting WP:ASPERSIONS about other editors. Carry on, I look forward to seeing you blocked for being an idiot.
    And I replied to this one with Yes, I removed a comment after realizing it violated our aspersions policy. Do you have an issue with that? Feel free to take this to ANI if you want to continue, as it’s clogging up the DRV.

    This user has a long history of behavioral blocks, including six civility blocks over a span of nine years. Since this behavior clearly won't be getting better, bringing it here. It's up to y'all to decide if a BOOMERANG should happen, if we should both be blocked, or only one party gets the hammer. :) EF 02:41, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

    I'm not sure that the cited comments are in themselves enough to justify a block. I also note that LC has recently suffered a personal loss. Speaking from experience, I can state that when in deep mourning we are not always at our best. That said, I find LC's block log disturbing.-Ad Orientem (talk) 02:52, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
    While I do get that, and I do respect that and am deeply sorry that happened to them, this behavior has been going on since late 2005, and includes an arbitration request, hence why I brought it directly here. Calling me an "idiot" was 100% an NPA vio, and having a personal loss shouldn't excuse that (also speaking from experience with the loss of my mother from Cancer of unknown primary origin in 2014). This is a rare case where I'll say that a block log should give you an idea of whether this behavior will continue. EF 02:56, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
    bolding policies I've added at the end - I'll just note that every one of the "policies" you linked to (bar WP:ABF, where I'm pretty sure you wanted WP:AGF) goes to Misplaced Pages:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. Which is very useful and well-thought-out, and by all means should be used as a tool at AfD, but is not policy. It's an essay on policy. There's a difference. - The Bushranger One ping only 03:42, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
    Okay then, per that I've removed the list. The comments still stand though. EF 03:57, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
    • So the OP wants themselves and the other party to receive blocks for incivility? Why don't you just stop being rude to each other? Change your own behavior. Opening this discussion is just drawing attention to a few comments that otherwise would have likely been forgotten. I don't see how this post helps the situation at all. Just do better. And if Locke Cole comes to this discussion, I pray this doesn't devolve into bickering. Let's all just get back to editing productively and not taking shots at each other. Liz 05:23, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
      I don’t know, maybe I just thought it’d continue and brought it here, likely too early. Is it possible to close this? EF 13:19, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
    From what I read from the DRV, it definitely seemed like it got heated, but it definitely seemed to cool down. Trouts for sure, but I don't see why blocks are necessary. As for you, given that you're asking to be punished, you seem to recognize what you did wrong, and you pledge to not continue this behavior. Just change your password for a day or a week and change it back later; I don't think admin intervention is necessarily warranted. guninvalid (talk) 11:43, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
    Though as actual admins above have mentioned, their block history is indeed concerning. guninvalid (talk) 11:50, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User talk:International Space Station0

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

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

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

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

    POV IP editor and 2024 Kobani clashes

    Blocked. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:36, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

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

    This this IP address engages in BLP and POV pushing with things like this 1 and this 2, and then edit warring and then makes personal attacks like this 3, in a source documenting casualties for all of December instead of the specific date, and then when he is reverted by another editor respond with this. I believe this person is WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia, and also the 2024 Kobani clashes article should potentially be given semi-protection status as it's part of the Syrian Civil War which has discretionary sanctions. Thanks. Des Vallee (talk) 05:34, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

    Oh also this. Des Vallee (talk) 05:55, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
    Blocked – for a period of 72 hours (User talk:88.243.192.169#Block) and pages protected El_C 13:15, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Promotional content about Elvenking (band)

    There does not appear to be an actionable COI here, just an avid fan. Content issues can be handled through the appropriate channels. @Elvenlegions: please be mindful of musical notability and what Misplaced Pages is and isn't for. Star Mississippi 17:03, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

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


    I noticed a consistent addition of promotional content about an apparently unencyclopedic band, namely Elvenking (band), with articles being also dedicated to each band member (eg. Aydan Baston and Damnagoras) and their unsold discography, which also got a dedicated template ({{Elvenking}}). I also noticed a weird pattern by User:Elvenlegions, which appears to be either a very big fan or in conflict of interests, as well as other accounts apparently created just to support the band (eg. User:Neverbuilt2last). — Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 05:36, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

    I am indeed a big fan of the band and am trying to update the band's wikipedia information to make it as accurate as possible so people can learn about the band. I hope this helps support the band and also helps wikipedia readers and users who wish to learn more about the band. Elvenlegions (talk) 06:14, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
    Understood, Elvenlegions, but Misplaced Pages is not a webhost or a promotional site. If the band, nor its members, nor its discography qualify as notable under the standards we set for musical notability, then the band's fans will have to learn about it elsewhere. Ravenswing 07:51, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Disruptive editor on When the Pawn...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Bunch of racist IPs/account

    Sent packing. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:12, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

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

    Article: Anti-Turkish sentiment

    Beshogur (talk) 13:53, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

    Named account indeffed, IPs blocked for 72 hours each. GiantSnowman 14:12, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Urgent need for page protection on BLP

    Protection applies. Appears admin eyes are on the Talk page. Star Mississippi 19:53, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

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

    There is currently a content dispute going on at Kay Granger involving allegations of a mental health crisis with mulitple IPs involved in a dispute over wether the information is reliable or not. A discussion is underway on the article's talkpage, but in the meantime there is revert warring taking place on the article. The page could really benefit from temporary semi protection. -- Lenny Marks (talk) 18:46, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

    Looks like User:Schwede66 got it. DMacks (talk) 19:15, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
    @DMacks: Thanks! Yeah. I assume they will also need a third-party closer given the heated nature of the argument. -- Lenny Marks (talk) 19:27, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Multiple users breaking 3RR on Gilman School article

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

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

    Awshort (talk)

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

    Persistent addition of unsourced content by 2600:480A:4A72:6000:0:0:0:0/64, yet again

    Genre warrior sent packing. - The Bushranger One ping only 02:42, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

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

    2600:480A:4A72:6000:0:0:0:0/64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Keeps adding unsourced content to articles, hasn't responded to warnings, and continued the same behaviour immediately following the end of a 3 month block. See block log and the two previous ANI threads from September (1, 2) related to this /64. Recent examples of addition of unsourced content: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. Waxworker (talk) 20:33, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

    I see the genre warriors are out today. Don't you realise how childish you are? (Not you, Waxworker.) Phil Bridger (talk) 20:37, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
    I thought I was the only one who noticed how many were running rampant today. So exhausting. . . Shovel Shenanigans (talk) 20:45, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
    /64 blocked for six months. Acroterion (talk) 22:16, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User:NoahBWill2002

    NOTHERE blocked. - The Bushranger One ping only 02:42, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

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

    It looks like there's a pretty severe competence is required issue with this user. Virtually every one of their edits has had to be reverted either for adding copyrighted content/derivative works, adding their own art to Fan art (and then doing it again after being warned), or adding personal opinion to articles. Lastly this comment is quite inappropriate and indicates that they're unlikely to learn from any of this.
    (As an aside, I just blocked them on Commons for uploading non-free files after warnings (and having copyright/the issue with their uploads explained them in detail) and uploading out-of-scope files after warnings.)
    I think admin action is warranted here. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 22:09, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

    I 100% agree with The Squirrel Conspiracy on this. User:NoahBWill2002 appears completely unable to comprehend and/or follow some of the core rules of Misplaced Pages, especially WP:COPYVIO and WP:NPOV, despite multiple editors trying to help them understand. The comment that Squirrel Conspiracy highlighted, followed by a series of blatant copyright violations, makes it abundantly clear that this editor is not going to change and is not here to build an encyclopedia. Opolito (talk) 22:47, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
    They have only had an account for a few days. It's seems rather soon to proclaim they are "not going to change". The images they were trying to add have been deleted from the Commons, let's see if they can find other ways to contribute to the project now that they can't promote their artwork here. Liz 23:09, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
    Given this comment, I'm not sanguine about their intention to contribute productively. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:11, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
    They added this grossly inappropriate religious screed to Babylon on their third day of editing, then they responded to a warning about it with more proselytizing. I had hoped they would get the message but just today they made this non-NPOV edit apparently based on their religious beliefs. Apart from religious edits, apparently the only other thing they've done is add self-produced fan art to a variety of articles. I'm willing to AGF while they learn what are acceptable edits here but I'd like to see some acknowledgement from them that they understand why all their edits so far have been unacceptable. (It would also show good faith if they would clean up the now-broken links in numerous articles now that their fan art has been deleted from Commons, rather than leaving it for other editors to do.) CodeTalker (talk) 00:16, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
    I have indefinitely blocked NoahBWill2002 as not here to build an encyclopedia. Cullen328 (talk) 01:21, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Vandal encounter

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

    diffs:

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

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

    User:GDJackAttack1 mass-creating articles for non-notable or nonexistent places

    GDJackAttack1 has agreed to no further creation of the problematic articles. Extant ones being handled via usual channels. No further action needed here. Star Mississippi 02:39, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

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

    GDJackAttack1 (talk · contribs) has been mass-creating stub articles for places such as insignificant residential subdivisions and other localities in Alabama and Maryland (example), islands in the Bahamas and Senegal (example), and other insignificant highways and airports around the world. None of these articles are sourced by anything that verifies notability, just databases and maps, which has resulted in at least one article being pointed out as a map misreading and therefore nonexistent community at this AfD. I can only speculate how many more of these places do not exist and if any of them are phantom settlements.

    There are too many of these articles to send through AfD or PROD manually and there is really no point in draftifying them or converting the articles into redirects since we have little proof that these topics are notable or even exist at all. Their talk page consists of nothing but notices of their articles being moved to the draftspace, AfD/PROD notices, and messages informing them to be more careful about article creation, yet they have seemingly ignored these messages and have persisted with spamming these stub articles for no clear reason. Waddles 🗩 🖉 01:13, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

    I will stop creating these articles. GDJackAttack1 (talk) 01:27, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
    I tagged one as CSD A7 to see if that would work. Bgsu98 (Talk) 01:36, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
    @Bgsu98: Thank you, I also considered PROD-ing them all but I noticed you have so already. Waddles 🗩 🖉 02:20, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
    I think I got all of the ones that that Maryland batch, but I’m sure there are more. Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:22, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User:Glenn103

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

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

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

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

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

    TPA for 83.106.86.95

    Done. - The Bushranger One ping only 02:39, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

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

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

    Could someone revoke TPA for blocked IP, based on ? LizardJr8 (talk) 02:07, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

    Done and revdel'ed, thanks to JJMC89. LizardJr8 (talk) 02:23, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Can you please help?

    William Swainson got moved from William John Swainson (because his middle name might not be John). But the talk page for this person is at Talk:William John Swainson, and the talk page for the disambiguation page is at Talk:William Swainson. I don't know what happened to the disambiguation page, and I don't know how to fix this. Oholiba (talk) 02:29, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

     Done Couldn't be moved because the target page had to be deleted; its now fixed. As a note for the future, WP:AN would be a better place for this, since it isn't an 'incident'. That said - was there a dab page at William Swainson before? - The Bushranger One ping only 02:38, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
    Thanks to everyone for resolving this. As to the place for this, at some point I was told that "if you're a new user you have no reason to post at WP:AN" or something similar. I appreciate the help. Oholiba (talk) 05:28, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
    (edit conflict) I think that the disambiguation page's revisions were merged into the history of the moved page, if I'm reading Special:Log/Shyamal correctly.
    @Shyamal, can you confirm what happened/fix this? – 2804:F1...60:4C25 (::/32) (talk) 02:39, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
    Actually, WAS that the intention (merging the histories)? I have no idea how this works.
    Maybe The Bushranger already did all that needed to be done. – 2804:F1...60:4C25 (::/32) (talk) 02:46, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
    (edited): There was a dab page with two entries. It is now a redirect from William Swainson to William John Swainson and the direction is now different. The full histories are (merged) restored and visible. PS: I have added a hat-note to the one other (far less notable) lawyer - William Swainson (lawyer) - if there are many more entries to be dealt with then the (currently a redirect) page at William_Swainson_(disambiguation) could be reinstated/used. Shyamal (talk) 02:59, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
    (nac) An intitle search turned up no other William Swainson, so I've tagged William Swainson (disambiguation) (which has no significant history) for speedying under WP:G14. Narky Blert (talk) 06:52, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

    POVPushingTheTruth

    The truth may set you free, but WP:THETRUTH will get you blocked. - The Bushranger One ping only 05:30, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

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

    User:POVPushingTheTruth is clearly NOTHERE. C F A 05:05, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

    Blocked. -- Euryalus (talk)| — Preceding undated comment added 05:09, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    North Korean involvement in Russian-Ukraine war discussion

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

    Key Points:

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

    Request for Administrative Action:

    I respectfully request that administrators address the following issues:

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

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

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

    Dispute Over Edits and Use of British Raj Sources

    Content dispute.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:00, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

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

    Hello,

    I’m seeking administrator input regarding a dispute with @Ratnahastin over the content in the the "Kamaria Ahir" article. The editor removed significant content, citing User:Sitush/CasteSources as justification. Here are my concerns:

    1. Misapplication of Policy:

    Sitush’s essays are not official Misplaced Pages policy. Content decisions should follow WP:RS, WP:NPOV, and WP:VERIFIABILITY.

    2. Dismissal of Reliable Sources:

    The removed content was based on British Raj-era sources, which are neutral and historically significant. The editor claims these are unreliable without specific evidence or discussion on the article’s talk page.

    3. Unilateral Edits and Dismissive Behavior:

    Despite my attempts to discuss the matter constructively, the editor dismissed my concerns as "AI-generated" and warned me about sanctions under WP:GSCASTE and WP:ARBIPA, discouraging collaboration.Check here for the warning

    Evidence:

    Diff of my original version

    Diff of their first edit

    Diff of their second edit

    Ratnahastin talk page


    Request for Administrative Action:

    1. Review the removed content and the editor’s justification.

    2. Ensure that disputes are discussed on the article’s talk page.

    3. Address the editor’s dismissive tone to foster collaboration.

    4. Prevent further disruptive edits/vandalism by IP editors (which hasn't happened yet) And from Autoconfirmed users(e.g. @GrilledSeatJet , -Their Diff) and even from Extended Autoconfirmed users(@Ratnahastin) by banning such editors and putting an extended protection on the Article which I have once put request (please find it here) for but it got denied and now the results are as follows.

    Thank you for your time and attention. I’m happy to provide further information if needed.

    Best Regards

    --- Nlkyair012 (talk) 10:47, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

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

    Nothing to say about me really bot

    Locked (non-admin closure). C F A 13:34, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

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

    Please delete the user page, block the bot and report to stewards for a global block, as per m:NTSAMR. Thank you! 81.2.123.64 (talk) 11:31, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

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

    Concern About a New Contributor

    Kriji Sehamati (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Dear Wikipedians,

    I hope you’re doing well. I wanted to inform you about a new contributor @Kriji Sehamati, despite lacking experience, has repeatedly attempted to vandalize multiple articles. These articles were properly aligned with Misplaced Pages’s guidelines and reviewed by experienced contributors, but he/she seemed unwilling to understand or respect their adherence to the policies.

    I believe your experience could help address this situation effectively.

    Looking forward to your advice on how to proceed.

    Thankyou! 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 15:21, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

    "Vandalize" is a very loaded word here with a specific meaning. As far as I can tell, what they've done is nominate 4 articles for deletion, and your response has been to accuse them of vandalism, ignoring dispute resolution procedures and making personal attacks – none of which I can see at a glance through their contributions.
    Perhaps if you supplied evidence of this behaviour, someone would be able to help? If your issue is that they've nominated 4 articles of which you are a major contributor and are doing so by going through your contributions in order to find articles to nominate for deletion with specious reasons, then this board would be the place to come. If not, then making your arguments for keeping the articles on the AfDs in question would be your best bet.
    By the way is forum shopping. Stop that. 81.2.123.64 (talk) 16:06, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
    (ec) This is an odd one. As S-Aura failed to provide diffs, I looked at Kriji Sehamati's contribution history. New account (9 Dec) began editing today, created two drafts and made a bunch of edits to those. Then began adding COI tags to articles S-Aura wrote, nominated those articles for deletion, and then left a possible UPE template on S-Aura's talk page. Really seems to be something weird going on here between those two. (In addition to opening this ANI thread, S-Aura asked for help with basically the same message on the talk pages of Ipigott, Ryan shell, CFA, and BusterD, and S-Aura opened same complaint at AN.) Schazjmd (talk) 16:06, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
    I am concerned that User:Kriji_Sehamati’s actions, including unjustified deletion nominations and spamming, are disruptive and violate Misplaced Pages’s guidelines.
    She seems to lack understanding of basic Misplaced Pages guidelines, particularly those related WP:GNG and WP:NPOL. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 16:40, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
    You were asked to provide diffs. You did, almost, here but then reverted yourself. Those diffs (well, the ones before those diffs) are just the other user nominating articles for deletion (which is allowed) or tagging them for what they believe to be conflict of interest edits (which is also allowed).
    Please provide some actual evidence that the other user is engaging in chronic, intractable behaviour, rather than just not editing how you would like them to. 81.2.123.64 (talk) 17:21, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
    Here are some diffs highlighting her problematic edits. However, I believe that many of her contributions may be in violation of Misplaced Pages’s guidelines. It appears she has specifically targeted me and added the COI tag multiple times to the same page. I would appreciate it if you could review her actions more thoroughly:
    •
    •
    •
    •
    and many more
    Thankyou! 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 17:33, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
    We wouldn't generally treat an AfD as vandalism. Simonm223 (talk) 17:39, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
    I understand your point about AfDs not generally being treated as vandalism. However, I noticed that the major contribution history of the user seems suspicious. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 17:42, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
    Not from where anybody else is standing so far. I get that you're upset to have four articles of yours nominated for deletion, and if you have any evidence at all that you are being deliberately targeted by the other editor, then people will very much act on that. Please provide it. 81.2.123.64 (talk) 17:58, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
    I am here to contribute and edit articles in accordance with Misplaced Pages’s guidelines. However, today a new user targeted me and falsely blamed me for actions that are not accurate. I believe this is unfair and not in line with the collaborative nature of the platform. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 18:04, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
    Please provide evidence of this. 81.2.123.64 (talk) 18:06, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
    Please check! 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 18:07, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
    The articles that have been nominated for deletion discussion have been reviewed by experienced contributors. These discussions involve articles about judges and lawyers, under WP:NPOL, a valid criterion according to Misplaced Pages’s guidelines. Therefore, the deletion decision was made after carefully reviewing these articles. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 18:11, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
    Honestly it looks like this user, rightly or wrongly, believes you have a conflict of interest and are acting on the basis of that assumption. I would suggest, if you don't have a CoI, talking to them about this and maybe asking why they've come to this conclusion. Simonm223 (talk) 18:10, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
    They have just started targeting my contributions, and I tried to inform her about the situation. However, she is acting as if she knows everything about Misplaced Pages and is dismissing my concerns. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 18:15, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
    @Kriji Sehamati: hasn't edited since their AfD spree earlier today, let's wait and see what their response here is when they return to editing. Schazjmd (talk) 18:16, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
    • We need to stop focusing on the OP's calling this vandalism; it is not. I've changed the header to reflect that. That said, the new user's edits are problematic and merit scrutiny. As for the UPE stuff, I've removed that post from the OP's Talk page; it's nonsensical coming from a new user and does not merit a response.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:42, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
    • It is, of course, not vandalism to nominate articles for AFD discussions as long as a legitimate deletion rationale is provided and the article hasn't just been discussed at a recent AFD. However, I don't think it's a good sign when a brand new editor claims to understand all of Misplaced Pages policies and whose first actions are to nominate articles at AFDs. They are almost never an actual new editor, especially when they know how to even set up an AFD or are familiar with using Twinkle on their first day of editing. Liz 19:34, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
      It seems that she is not new to Misplaced Pages and might be operating multiple accounts. It appears she has an issue with one of my contributions, as she created her account just 15 days ago, yet she already has a good understanding of tools like Twinkle and AfD procedures. This level of familiarity suggests prior experience on the platform. I am now requesting her account to be blocked as I am completely disturbed by her repeated allegations and disruptive behavior. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 11:32, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
      I am now genuinely confused—if all my contributions are not good, then why am I even here? Were the experienced editors who reviewed and approved these pages also mistaken? A newcomer, who joined just recently, is now disrupting and questioning the validity of all the work that has been carefully reviewed and maintained by experienced contributors. This situation is deeply discouraging. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 11:58, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
      Please resolve this situation—either block her for her disruptive behavior. How can i continue working under such constant targeting and stress ? 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 12:00, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
      User:S-Aura, you seem to be making unsupported personal attacks against User:Kriji Sehamati. You should provide specific evidence of wrongdoing, including diffs, or your arguments here will fall on deaf ears (and bring consequences for you). Meanwhile, as a filer on ANI, you have brought all your own edits to close scrutiny by the community. You may have to face that smart people disagree, and this is how we sort disagreements out on English Misplaced Pages. You are not required to edit, but we encourage you to do so. Nobody is going to block Kriji Sehamati at this point, because you've given us no reason to do so. BusterD (talk) 12:01, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
      Meanwhile, in the last few minutes S-Aura has disruptively created a second thread about this exact issue on this same board, which was reverted by another editor. This is intentional disruption. BusterD (talk) 12:07, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
      As to the question "Why am I here?", poets and artists have been trying to answer this question for eons. Epistemology is outside the scope of this board, but there are articles about it. Show up to edit if you want to, but expect disagreement from time to time. (That's actually a sound answer to any epistemology question as well.) BusterD (talk) 12:16, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
      Dear @BusterD,
      It means I have been proven wrong, and that user’s contributions have been more focused on me, which is quite insufficient to catch someone’s lie that she is pretending to be new, when in fact she is old.
      Also, I am not against AfD; I am simply expressing my opinion. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 13:12, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
      Could you please rephrase your point here? I don't understand. While it's okay to be suspicious that this editor is somehow socking or doing something else deceptive due to the familiarity, it seems unacceptable to deliberately accuse them of such repeatedly without firmer evidence. Remsense ‥ 论 13:19, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
      Dear @Remsense,
      I am not engaged in paid activities on Misplaced Pages, and she claimed that I am connected with the subject, who is a judge, lawyer, etc. You all should understand that this is not a trivial matter; justice is a very respected position. Making such allegations can escalate court cases. I would like to remind you of the Misplaced Pages vs. ANI case. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 13:24, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
      One thing you need to understand immediately is you should never make another post that sounds vaguely like a legal threat, as you've just done above. Seriously. That intonation is seriously not helping us decide who's right or wrong here. Remsense ‥ 论 13:27, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
      Okay! 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 13:35, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
      I will caution you that this is tiptoeing right up to the edge of WP:NLT and you'd be advised to avoid making legal threats. Simonm223 (talk) 13:28, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
      Dear @Simonm223,
      I am merely showing that she can potentially do something inappropriate. I am following the guidelines and not making any legal threats. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 13:31, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
      Accusing another editor of potentially making legal threats is not much better, when there is no concrete evidence that they would do so. Being interested in articles about judges does not suffice. Remsense ‥ 论 13:32, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
      The page of Justice Subramonium Prasad, who had conducted over the Misplaced Pages vs. ANI court hearing, was also created by me. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 13:28, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
      State plainly what the implication you are making here is, because what I'm hearing is "I'm familiar with people who have hit Misplaced Pages with a mallet in court before, and I can make sure it happens again". Remsense ‥ 论 13:30, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
      This is becoming a rabbit hole. I urge you not to pursue the rabbit further. BusterD (talk) 13:33, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
      Good call, I'll retract the above. Remsense ‥ 论 13:34, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
      No, that is not what I am implying. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 13:33, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
      No one has said your contributions are not good. However, it should be noted that a draft being accepted at AfC or a new page having been patrolled does not guarantee greater scrutiny would not result in a valid AfD nomination. That said, echoing others here it's clear something problematic is up with this user's behavior. Remsense ‥ 论 12:02, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
      You can't both criticize someone for lack understanding of basic Misplaced Pages guidelines, particularly those related WP:GNG and WP:NPOL, and then argue that she is too familiar with the platform to be a newcomer for knowing how to file an AfD. I wouldn't be surprised if most people here knew how to file an AfD before knowing all 14 notability guidelines by heart. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 12:59, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
      There are detailed instructions on filing an AfD that can be found by googling "how can I get a Misplaced Pages page deleted" - if somebody had some personal reason for wanting to have pages removed it doesn't strain credibility to think that's why they created a WP account and that they just followed the very clear instructions on the appropriate pages.
      In fact that might explain why some of the AfD filings were reasonable and some were, on their face, incorrectly filed. If you looked up the AfD process but not criteria that is the likely outcome. That's why I find the "new user files AfDs must be a sock" idea here somewhat uncompelling. Simonm223 (talk) 13:04, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
    • I believe we're entering boomerang territory at this point. Opinions? BusterD (talk) 13:35, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
      I think OP is upset that a cluster of their articles were put up at AfD. This in itself is understandable, but while there's reason to think there might be mischief by Kriji Sehamati, we don't have any real evidence of it. We either need the OP to make it clearer what misconduct, if any, has occurred, or they need to drop the stick. Remsense ‥ 论 13:37, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
      The OP has been intentionally disruptive (by creating a new ANI thread which was reverted), and this thread is going nowhere. IMHO, there's nothing ANI can do here. Everything I'm reading about should be resolved at the page talk and user talk level, in my opinion. The AfDs are underway. If dispute resolution is needed, fine. Nobody is harming S-Aura. S-Aura can't come crying to ANI (or four random user talk pages like mine) anytime someone merely disagrees with them. BusterD (talk) 14:08, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
      I'd have said close with trout for all if not for creating the second thread at AN/I. Based on that I'd say the OP should be formally cautioned against such antics in the future. Simonm223 (talk) 14:10, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
      I should have added that I largely hold with Remsense in their position. BusterD (talk) 14:15, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
      User:Kriji Sehamati‬ is definitely a sock puppet on Misplaced Pages, but we don’t have any evidence because understanding Misplaced Pages’s AfD process so quickly can be a bit challenging. I have no problem with AfD regarding my contributions, and it’s a good thing that experienced contributors are giving their feedback. If you believe that the kriji is 100% correct and her activity is not suspicious, then this discussion should be closed. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 14:27, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
      You need to stop insisting this is definitely the case if you don't have any evidence for it, period. Remsense ‥ 论 14:28, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
      S-Aura, how did you make the determination User:Kriji Sehamati‬ is definitely a sock puppet on Misplaced Pages? Please share your process. That's a personal attack, and requires proof to prevent you from being in violation of WP:NOPERSONALATTACKS. I've looked at the AfDs and they seem reasonable to me. When you've provided strong sources the article is being kept. So far the jury is out on the others. Both of you seem to be writing articles about obscure living persons who wouldn't normally (by my cursory reading) have a Misplaced Pages article about them because reliable sourcing is not readily found. When I see that, I must suspect COI or undeclared unpaid editing here, but nobody's admitting to it. BusterD (talk) 15:05, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
      S-Aura's continuing to issue personal attacks makes it more difficult for us to just close this (without some form of consequence for the editor making unproven personal attacks after they've been warned repeatedly). BusterD (talk) 15:08, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
      I have made a level-four user talk page warning for the personal attack. FYI. We've been very nice about this up 'til now, but we need to stop being so kind. Doing foolish things has real world consequences. BusterD (talk) 15:17, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
    • Both editors' apparent use of AI is certainly disruptive. If it continues, it should lead to blocks. C F A 15:10, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
      No personal hate intended, but I just found this and thought it would be worth checking. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 16:49, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
      It would be nice if you could explain the significance for those who do not speak Hausa. Remsense ‥ 论 16:51, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
      She had made contributions to pages in other languages a few months ago. I am attaching her contributions link. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 16:59, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
      How does this constitute evidence of sockpuppetry if we aren't to know what exactly happened? There's a reason we don't just automatically block anybody who is blocked on another language wiki, and I looked through the edits some and didn't find anything outrageous that made it past the language barrier. Remsense ‥ 论 17:01, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
      I agree that it’s important to ensure we have solid evidence before making conclusions. I appreciate your perspective on not automatically blocking users based on blocks from other language wikis. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 17:17, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
      Please don't reply to me or others using ChatGPT. It is flat-out rude. Remsense ‥ 论 17:18, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
    • Support BOOMERANG - I've been uninvoled and have mainly just been watching the back-and-forths, but the personal attacks and VESTED mindset, such as "questioning the validity of all the work that has been carefully reviewed and maintained by experienced contributors", concerns me. Not sure for how long, but I don't think anything longer than a months is appropriate given the circumstances. EF 15:47, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

    Darkwarriorblake making aspersions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Followup

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

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

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

    Extremely Annoying situation

    Blocked for one week. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:03, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

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

    I reverted this edit by this IP. They then trouted me multiple times for it. One of these was for "being shovel shenanigans" which I took as a PA and informed them of it.

    The rest escapes words for me. See these discussions.

    on my page

    On theirs

    they also used a second IP to continue to irk me. I hesitated to bring this to ANI, since they seemed new, and I didn't want to bite, but enough is enough.

    Shovel Shenanigans (talk) 00:51, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

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

    IP vandalism

    Blocked. (non-admin closure) C F A 03:53, 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: user:76.67.115.228 seems to be on a spree of Vandalism, which they are summarising in the edit summaries as 'reverting vandalism'. Example: 1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Terrainman (talk • contribs) 02:39, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

    including racist edits summarized as reverting racist texts. Example irisChronomia (talk) 03:06, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
    The IP is already blocked. To OP: Consider reporting obvious vandalism like this at WP:AIV. – 2804:F1...57:88CF (::/32) (talk) 03:34, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User Stationmanagerskidrow removing information on Radio Skid Row page

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

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

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

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

    Insults

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

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

    Nlkyair012 and LLM chatbots

    This editor has been constantly using AI chatbots to respond and write messages. They are a single purpose account for glorifying the Kamaria Ahir caste using unreliable WP:RAJ era sources, I and several other experienced editors have taken time and effort to respond to their endless queries and WP:SEALIONING generated using ChatGPT. They have posted AI generated walls of text on multiple noticeboards such as WP:RSN and WP:DRN and including here , accusing me of vandalism.

    Despite my repeated requests and even a final warning to them (including a request by @ActivelyDisinterested:) they are still continuing to do it. Their messages are repeating the same argument again and again and are frankly just hallucinations that bring up fictitious guidelines or misrepresent the existing ones. Several editors have told them that Raj era sources are not reliable yet they continue to ask for more evidence on why that is the case based on AI generated claims of supposed academic value or neutrality. This is getting very disruptive and taking up valuable contributor time to respond to their endless AI responses which take a few seconds to generate. I have alerted them about WP:GSCASTE and WP:ARBIPA, I would appreciate it if someone could enforce a restriction on this user from at minimum caste area. - Ratnahastin (talk) 13:07, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

    Hello @Ratnahastin,
    To start with I should admit that I am sorry for all the inconvenience that I may have caused as a result of my actions. It was never my intention to take people’s time or skew the conversation in a certain way. I appreciate the core idea to contribute the thoughts to the Wiki and share it borne in mind the overall rules and policies of this program.
    I understand your fears about the AI utilities you have mentioned on your site. Even when I was using AI for the grammar check or, for instance, to elaborate on some point in the text, I saw to my mismanagement that over the process we probably confused the readers and repeated the same information and thoughts, which I would never wish to happen again. From now on I will ensure that in the future the input which I provide to wikipedia fits the Misplaced Pages standard and is more personal. I will also not write walls of text and will not make assertations that do not have substantiated evidence in sources.
    As for subjects that concern the Raj and the sources from this period and the discussions we have had it seems that I have gone too far in demanding clarification for the same thing. That being the case, with the understanding that the consensus will be acknowledged, I shall not be inclined to reopen this discussion unless new substantiated evidence is produced. I don’t want to prolong the conversation or bring any more stress.
    I will strive to learn from my experience to be more productive in my interactions going forward. If there are other limitations or additional rules to which I have to stick to, I will receive them with pleasure.
    In the same respect, let me specially apologize for the inconvenience and thank all of you for bearing with us. That was why I wanted to remind all of us that we can and should keep collectively improving Misplaced Pages as a resource. Nlkyair012 13:31, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
    This comment also has a typical LLM feel and contains meaningless statements such as "I understand your fears about the AI utilities you have mentioned on your site" and differs substantially from your usual (non-AI) writing style, although GPTzero said this is human input. - Ratnahastin (talk) 13:38, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
    It seems human in that it contains some composition and grammar errors that I don’t think an LLM would produce. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 13:56, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
    Thanks for the reply sir, I can't explain how frustrated I'm feeling from this morning which this user made me experience Nlkyair012 14:02, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
    The time when I messaged Vikram banafar I was casual not formal and second of all your saying doesn't prove anything "and differs substantially from your usual (non-AI) writing style" that's a straight up false accusation and utter nonsensical point and 3rd point being that GPTzero stated that this is a human input then that's an human input end of the question. Nlkyair012 14:01, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
    No it's really not the end of the story if GPTZero says "likely human". In fact I'd actively discourage people depending on tools like GPTZero in favour of their human senses which are better at detecting LLM outputs than yet another computer program. And, frankly, what you're hearing from people here is we'd rather your casual, human, flaws-and-all style of writing over ChatGPT output "formal" report templates. They are doing the opposite of what you're looking for and have become disruptive. Simonm223 (talk) 14:05, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
    Man you still wanna do this? @Zanahary also says this doesn't seems AI generated to him and he used his actual "Human senses" to lean that way Nlkyair012 14:10, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
    Admitting that you have used AI for writing your comments and then saying that you have not used AI is not going to help your case. - Ratnahastin (talk) 14:36, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
    You know what I think this is getting to the WP:NOTHERE point. Having to tell somebody to have the basic respect of other editors to not subject them to text-walls of chatGPT garbage over and over again is a disruptive distraction from what we should all be doing. Simonm223 (talk) 14:38, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
    This ain't getting anywhere Nlkyair012 14:59, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
    I really don't understand the problem. Cuz I literally also said many where that yes I used AI but for expanding and grammar correction Nlkyair012 14:54, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
    If this combative approach is your "casual" style, perhaps your use of AI and its over the top politeness was an attempt to mask it. In any case, I think you are not here for building an encyclopaedia but for caste glorification given your obsession with a certain sub-caste. - Ratnahastin (talk) 14:33, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
    im not obsessed with a certain subcaste but am sure is obsessed with British Raj sources. Nlkyair012 14:56, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
    I don't think that's better. Shovel Shenanigans (talk) 15:44, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

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

    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)

    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

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

    Ask at WP:RFPP EvergreenFir (talk) 16:28, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
    Category: