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 13:28, 13 January 2008 editStone put to sky (talk | contribs)2,113 edits →User:Stone put to sky← Previous edit Latest revision as of 16:43, 24 December 2024 edit undoRc2barrington (talk | contribs)109 edits →North Korean involvement in Russian-Ukraine war discussion: ReplyTag: Reply 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Short description|Noticeboard for reporting incidents to administrators}}<noinclude><!-- Inside the noinclude, because this page is transcluded.-->{{/Header}}</noinclude>{{clear}}
<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 = 352
|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)
== Hezbollah userbox ==
: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 ] ==
{{Unresolved|1=moved continuing discussion to ]. ]<small><sup>\&nbsp;]&nbsp;/</sup></small>}}


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 .
== User:Raggz ==


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 .
{{Unresolved|1=Moved thread over 50kb to ]}} ]<small><sup>\&nbsp;]&nbsp;/</sup></small>
<!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 15:20, 17 December 2024 (UTC)</small>


:The other user in this case is ]? This looks like a content dispute over whether the article is on the English version of a German-Arabic dictionary or the dictionary itself. ] (]) 15:47, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
== User John Celona ==
::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)
* {{User5|John celona}}


:{{replyto|AnonMoos}} I don't see a problem with changing the heading but why on earth did you change their signature multiple times ? That is indeed a clear violation of ] since the signature was perfectly valid per ]. In fact your change was far worse since it changed a perfectly valid signature which would take other editors to the contributor's talk page and user page into an invalid one which lead no where. If you're using some sort of plugin which does that, it's your responsibility to manage it better so it doesn't do that ever again especially if you're going to edit talk pages where it might be common. If you're doing that intentionally, I suggest you cut it out or expect to be indeffed. ] (]) 06:48, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
I 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)
::], 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)
: 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)
::: 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)
::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)


== Disruptive editing by ] ==
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)


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.
::::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)


] (]) 20:52, 18 December 2024 (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.


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


== User engaged in edit warring to remove disputed content prior to consensus ==
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)
{{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 -->
You have got to be kidding, Albion. We have tried numerous times to make very civil requests on Celona's talk page or on article talk pages (as have you), and his edits seem to be getting more combative. disruptive, and POV, with absolutely no good faith toward any editor. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Frank_LaGrotta&diff=prev&oldid=183323574 or take a look at the yarrow talk page. --] (]) 15:57, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
:It would help if you named the editor and signed your name to figure out what you are talking about; a noticeboard only works if you give us notice about the subject and what is happening. <span style="font-family: Roboto;">''']''' <span style="color:#00008B">•</span> <small>''(])''</small></span> 23:39, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
::The editor appears to be {{u|PerfectSoundWhatever}}, based on the under the word "this" as well as . — ]&nbsp;<sub>]</sub> 23:51, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
::My apology, this is my very first time making such a post. The other pages o have spoken on seemed to have signed themselves automatically. Will remember this going forward. And yes, that was the user, posted this using my phone so I didn't want to mis-spell their name, just linked instead. ] (]) 17:01, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
:{{non-admin comment}} IMO the best practice is that in the event of a content dispute, the article should be reverted to the status quo of how the article's content appeared before the dispute started, until such a time that consensus is established to re-add it (see: ]). It seems like the beginning of the content that is in dispute was added on 18 August 2024, the dispute began a few weeks later on 23 September 2024 and has been ongoing ever since.{{pb}}In this case, since the article existed in a relatively steady state for several months (or even years?) previous to the disputed material being added, I think it'd be wise to leave the disputed content out of the article until the discussion comes to a close. ] (]) 00:07, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
::I have been seeing this opinion from a few editors and even one admin on how to interpret this article. However, the first few sentences in that section do outright state to avoid reverting the disputed content prior to a consensus. And prior to opening this report, I asked several admins on the topic and got a response that reverting the disputed content immediately is incorrect per WP:STATUSQUO as it bypasses the consensus building process. I was advised that the content should instead be tagged as disputed rather than be outright removed. The offending user was made aware of the relevant policies but has nonetheless engaging in edit warring to keep it reverted, hence this report. ] (]) 17:13, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
:::The status quo of an article constitutes implicit consensus (]). The person trying to include disputed content in an article despite it not being status quo is the one that could be construed as attempting to bypass the consensus building process, not the person trying to maintain status quo until discussion takes place. ] (]) 17:20, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
::::Correct, and at no point was the definition of what constitutes the status quo ever in contention. In fact, if you review the edit history of the article you can see that the disputed content was the status quo via implicit consensus at the time PSW chose to first outright revert the content, and then continued to revert it as others tried to restore it (both before and after the consensus discussion began). ] (]) 23:38, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::{{tq|1=the disputed content was the status quo via implicit consensus at the time PSW chose to first outright revert the content}}<br>Not really, I personally wouldn't define "been there a few weeks" as status quo.{{pb}}I think maybe the other replies to this thread provide pretty good reasoning to take a step back and say "hey maybe I'm the one in the wrong here" instead of talking in circles ] (]) 00:30, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::Personally I think the number of contributions since the edit where it has gone unchanged is a more useful metric, especially on low traffic pages such as this one. Regardless, per the policy you cite, there seems to be no official Misplaced Pages stance on what exact criteria are needed for a contribution to be considered the current status quo, beyond it having been unchallenged in subsequent contributions (which is the case here).
::::::As for the rest of your comment, there seems to be a high amount of band wagoning and "]" going on in the rest of this. Or people trying to use this report as an extension of the dispute discussion on the article's talk page. Hopefully more actual admins to chime in on the topic as I don't actually want to waste my time talking in circles.
::::::On that note thanks for actually taking the time and baseline minimal effort to engage in a discussion where you actually support your point and don't just devolve into repeating the same talking points over and over. It's a nice change of pace. ] (]) 02:48, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
:I am the editor being discussed here. I'll provide a summary of events since the initial statement by Sxbbetyy is misleading.
:Myself and the editor had a content dispute at ] (]) and following circular discussion, I stopped engaging since I felt I had laid out my points. Per ], I maintained the state of the article to before the dispute. I requested for a ], which was answered by {{ping|BerryForPerpetuity}}, who agreed the statement should be removed, albeit for a different reason than mine. I took this 2-1 as rough consensus. I also posted the dispute on two WikiProjects, and have received no response so far. Sxbbetyy reached out to three admins about the matter, {{ping|Sergecross73|Oshwah|Pbsouthwood}}. The ] can be summarized as Sergecross believing that I haven't engaged in misconduct, and that I have presented a "plausible, good-faith interpretation of ]". Sxbbetyy then accused Sergecross73 of not acting in good faith. Oshwah did not respond to the post on ], but {{ping|BusterD}} did, essentially agreeing that the sourcing does not back up the claim in the content dispute. Sxbbetyy received help on ] about responding to a content dispute. And now we're here.
:Throughout these interactions, Sxbbetyy has demonstrated a failure to assume good faith, refuses to accept ], and ]s talk pages, refusing to let the other editor have the last word. Frankly, this is a massive waste of editor time: it should have been a brief talk page discussion then an RfC. Apologies for all the pings. — ] (]; ]) 00:23, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
::This summarization in itself leaves out critical context, (such as berry's concern being alleviated and them no longer expressing a desire to remove the content), the specifics of why that conversation with Serge ended the way it did despite my repeated attempts to engage with them in good faith, and the entire discussion with pbsouthwood (who quite definitively explained that the behavior PSW was engaged in was not correct). So I urge all involved to go read those topics to get the correct context through your own eyes and then discuss any concerns from what you see here. That being the case, it seems pretty clear cut imo. ] (]) 17:20, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Just to be clear, in no way did I express that I didn't want the content to be removed. I did not receive a notification for your reply, and I wouldn't have engaged either way. —&nbsp;] ] 17:24, 19 December 2024 (UTC)


: Yes, I would leave that material out of the article. Whilst it may not exactly be synthesis ''per se'', it is certainly editorialising ("the removal of that amount of marine debris is of negligible consequence...") ''unless'' there is an actual source that says this by making a link between between the two statistics (the amount of waste removed by Team Seas and the rate at which waste is entering the ecosystem). And even then, I would say that such an edit would need to say something like "However, ARandomNewspaper pointed out that ...". ] 00:34, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
:I agree that http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Frank_LaGrotta&diff=prev&oldid=183323574 is combative, disruptive, and POV, with absolutely no good faith toward any editor. &nbsp; — ] (]&#124;]) 17:56, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
::That is actually no longer the content that is being disputed. If you look at the that got reverted on the article you can see the current version. I had made edits to it precisely because of valid WP:NPOV concerns brought to my attention by PSW. However, their dispute with the content remains with the claim that is is synthesis rather than any other concern. Which they have been thus far unable to obtain a consensus on. ] (]) 17:27, 19 December 2024 (UTC)


*I have some pretty serious ] concerns about the topic starter here. They came to me for help (no idea how/why me, I have no connection to this dispute) and I repeatedly told them I didn't see any misconduct, and then they started attacking ''me'' when I refused to agree with them. And now this. This is a very simple content dispute, with a very simple ] outcome. I've told them this. It's a disappointing time sink on a rather trivial content dispute. ] ] 00:52, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
::In addition, ] stated that "The final solution is a hoax" in concerning articles ] and ]. He has not backed down from that statement. ] is uncivil and offensive. &nbsp; — ] (]&#124;]) 18:30, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
*:At no point was he "attacked". I defended myself after he became hostile with me (as anyone can read in our convo, I stated multiple times that I would leave and did not want to be a burden if they didn't want to engage with this, but he made no such objections and continued). Eventually he just became outright hostile and refused to explain their points any further, devolving the conversation into them repeating themselves over and over, its all there to read on his talk page. As for why I contacted him, I wanted to ensure I chose impartially so I just randomly looked at the currently active admins at the time and he was the first one I found. ] (]) 18:23, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Actually, you will find that was in reponse to a threat from a user on another page to my posting of my mother's experience in WWII France. The user threatened that by posting my mother's truthfull recollections I would be prosecuted in France! My response, while "in your face" and sardonic was not unprovoked by such a ludicrous coercive threat] (]) 00:39, 12 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)
:::: Are these the "truthful recollection" that you refer to, which are essentially Holocaust Denial? : http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:The_Holocaust&diff=prev&oldid=144901749 <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 01:31, 12 January 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->


*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)
:::That comment, while offensive and totally a jerk move, was also 7 months ago. The time to complain about it was then, not now. I agree, however, that running to other articles to edit them to his idea rather than find consensus and then act isn't the best solution, and that having been asked to wait for that consensus, any further edits of the sort are POINTy. A warning is urgently needed for such system-gaming, and maybe a block. ] (]) 18:44, 11 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)
::::I don't see how a BLP dispute on one page has any connection to pages on deceased persons to whom the BLP doesn't apply. If an administrator tells me to desist from putting these verifiable links to pages on dead people I will do so. ] (]) 00:39, 12 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.
::::It seems that user Celona has violated the 3RV policy over the last day or two. --] (]) 19:49, 11 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."
:::::Okay, could you provide us with one article where that is the case?] (]) 00:39, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
*: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)
::::::Gene Krupa --] (]) 01:18, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
:::::: ::::::False. As anyone who goes to the revision page can plainly see. ] Please point out where I made more than 3 reverts? If I had, you would have had me blocked in 5 minutes flat. Perhaps you should be blocked for posting false information, removing properly sourced material from non-BLP articles for BLP rationales and posting false and unsourced material (as you did on the ] page at 20:00 on January 8, 2007) claiming a Judge stated a child "coerced" her adult molester into sex while the sourced material clearly states she "resisted the advances" of her molester. ] (]) 01:43, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
(outdent) I've reviewed the edit history of the article, and while there's clearly some edit-warring going on (for which it takes two), I don't see a ] violation. Could you provide diffs of the three offending edits by John Celona? ] (]) 01:26, 12 January 2008 (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.
: Below are some of the edits. I will note that there were a number of editors who had requested that he not make those edits at this point.
: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).
: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Gene_Krupa&diff=prev&oldid=183097877
: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)
: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Gene_Krupa&diff=prev&oldid=183112037
::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)
: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Gene_Krupa&diff=prev&oldid=183304527
:::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)
: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Gene_Krupa&diff=prev&oldid=183320993
:::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.
: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Gene_Krupa&diff=prev&oldid=183531276
:::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)
:http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Gene_Krupa&diff=prev&oldid=183624764 --] (]) 01:40, 12 January 2008 (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)
:: I should add that I'd rather not have anyone blocked, and if user Celona now understands how disruptive this type of thing has been, and avoids doing it, then I would prefer that there not be a block. --] (]) 01:52, 12 January 2008 (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===
::From 23:19 8 Jan and 21:56 9 Jan, he reverts three times to a version initially edited in just a couple hours earlier. If it's not an actual textbook 3:24 ratio, it's close enough, especially in light of the repeated requests for him to wait and find consensus. Add to that his current wiki-lawyering attitude, and it's enough for a block to prevent more reversions without consensus, and to allow consensus to begin to form. That way, after 24 or 48 hours, there will be some premises regarding consensus to whihc he can add a statement, one which he'll have 24-48 hours to prepare. ] (]) 01:51, 12 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)
:::I don't think there is cause for a block here. He didn't exceed 3RR, those edits occurred days ago, he's been discussing the matter on talk pages, and there isn't a consensus one way or the other. Wikilawyering charges may be leveled all around. Page protection, rather than an individual block, would be more appropriate. ]] ] 01:09, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
:I second that. If there has been any edit-warring by any party that should be dealt with in the normal way. {{u|PerfectSoundWhatever}} has certainly done nothing wrong, and the OP will get blocked if they don't start listening to people pretty quickly. ] (]) 14:24, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
::Exactly. And even that's probably unlikely, as most of the "edit warring" was singular reverts with days or weeks in between. It's far from a 3RR situation at least. ] ] 15:26, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
:{{non-admin comment}} I don't think this conversation is going anywhere fast, other than seemingly coming to the conclusion that @] has done nothing wrong, which seems to be the opposite of what this ANI post was about. There's no edit warring here, and even if there was, it wouldn't be dealt with at this venue. Shut it down! ] (]) 16:48, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
:In what way whatsoever is this editor's decision to revert the disputed content during the discussion "standard following of procedures of WP:STATUSQUO"? The literal first words that appear at that link are in bold and say, "'''Avoid reverting during discussion'''", followed by a detailed explanation of the actual proper procedure. And to make it very clear what it says, here is the literal first paragraph verbatim: "To eliminate the risk of an edit war, do not revert away from the '']'' '''during a dispute discussion'''. Instead, add an appropriate tag indicating the text is disputed. For an article, many of the ] are appropriate. For other pages, <code><nowiki>{{</nowiki>]<nowiki>}}</nowiki></code> is good. Leave the status quo and the tag in place until the discussion concludes." ] (]) 02:31, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
::In what way is ''that'' your read of the consensus in the discussion above? ] ] 02:49, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
:::In what world do you logically come to that conclusion from a message that consist of almost entirely the word for word quote of the procedures described in WP:STATUSQUO, that directly counters the claim you just made? Are you saying it is "against consensus" simply because it presents a viewpoint you don't like and don't want to address? I don't see another reason why you would again twist my words, to the point of lunacy. And this is, once again, despite the fact that all of what has been said is literally within view.
:::Also, regarding the consensus. Out of everyone that has actually joined the discussion and all the messages sent (~90% of which are either from myself or you Serge), there have been only three people who have actually said anything in support of your interpretation of this. The rest either did not discuss the topic, did not express an opinion, or were Peter Southwood who supported the interpretation of WP:STATUSQUO as stated on its page. Seems like you're just trying to rush a end to the conversation to get the conclusion you want. ] (]) 15:02, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
::::I'm saying there has been no consensus for anything you're arguing here. Not a single person has supported action against PSW. ] ] 15:15, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
::::The status quo ante bellum that shouldn't be reverted from is the version ''without the new content''. ] (]) 15:16, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
{{abot}}


== Mgtow definition ==
In his latest less-than-helpful edit, this editor has now accused me of being a stalker, on my talk page. I've responded to him there. If one views the totality of this editor's contributions, one is left wondering why this editor, who might fairly be called a troll, is being enabled to the extent that he is. ] (]) 05:12, 13 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)}}
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)
== Neutral Good ==
{{abot}}


== Creating the need to make 400,000 unnecessary edits ==
* {{User5|Neutral Good}}
* {{article|Waterboarding}}


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


I tried to get him to stop at ], to no avail. This isn't the first time, as you can see from that discussion. ] (]) 14:57, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
*
:If you want to discuss {{tl|WikiProject banner shell}}, you should do so at ].
*
:As for the size of the category, I have no plans to empty it, and was only going to update a few hundred more categories and templates. &nbsp;&nbsp;<b>~</b>&nbsp;<span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:16px;">] (] ⋅])</span>&nbsp; 15:02, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
::You made nearly 2000 of such edits in the last few hours, and when asked to stop pointed me to a category with 400,000 entries. I have no way to know how many more you planned now or in future runs. Starting a discussion at the module would hardly stop you. ] (]) 15:10, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
:::"{{tq|when asked to stop pointed me to a category with 400,000 entries}}": incorrect. Since you wrongly thought I was making cosmetic edits, i.e. "{{tq|no change in output or categories}}", the category was to inform you that they are not cosmetic.
:::Regarding a BRFA for the bulk of the category, that's looking more likely since the category appears to be neglected. &nbsp;&nbsp;<b>~</b>&nbsp;<span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:16px;">] (] ⋅])</span>&nbsp; 15:29, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
::::Unnecessary removing a synonym and then making thousands of edits to remove the hidden cat created by that unnecessary change is not really any better than making cosmetic edits, the end result is that nothing has changed for the affected pages at all. ] (]) 15:33, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::Not unnecessary. The Lua code is very complex and removing the need the support various settings makes the code both easier to read and maintain. As always, editors that don't want to see these edits can hide these by hiding the tag "talk banner shell conversion". ] (]) 12:32, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::It doesn´t look as if the specific code to have these synonyms was very complicated though, the argument that in some cases two synonyms were used on one page with conflicting values was more convincing. And the edits I complained about did ''not'' have that tag, so no, even if people knew about hiding that tag, it wouldn't have helped here at all. ] (]) 16:04, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
:This was discussed in detail on ]. Ideally these edits would be done by an approved bot so they do not appear on people's watchlists. The main benefit is to merge the {{para|blp}} and {{para|living}} parameters. When both are in use, we find they often get conflicting values because one gets updated and the other does not. &mdash;&nbsp;Martin <small>(]&nbsp;·&nbsp;])</small> 17:25, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
::Isn't it more logical to first have a bot cleanup the unwanted parameter, then remove it from the template, and only then start populating the cat with the somehow remaining or since added instances? In any case, this is a typical bot task and shouldn't be done with massive AWB runs. ] (]) 17:39, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Yes, probably. But we have this mechanism already set up and I assumed {{ul|Cewbot}} would deal with these as part of its normal activities. Happy to look at other options - maybe discuss on template talk? &mdash;&nbsp;Martin <small>(]&nbsp;·&nbsp;])</small> 18:23, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
::::I don't know what this is about, but if the OP is correct, it is totally absurd to edit 400,000 talk pages for a tweak. Discussing at a template talk page monitored by those focused on the template would simply hide the issue. ] (]) 03:53, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::Edits like these should ''always'' be bots, so they can be filtered from watchlists. There are numerous other editors who have recently engaged in the mass additional of categories to articles which I had to ask them to stop as my watchlist was flooded. ]] 13:02, 22 December 2024 (UTC)


* 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)
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)
*{{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)
: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.)


] is making wholesale reverts of my edits in contravention to guidelines. ] (]) 19:17, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
::: 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)
: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.
:::::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)


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.
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 ]...?


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.
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)


WP could be sooo much better. ] (]) 02:02, 21 December 2024 (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)


: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)
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}}
::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)
::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)


== Unblock request of Rereiw82wi2j ==
===Proposal: Temporary topic ban===
{{atop|1=Blocked, blocked, they're all blocked. - ] <sub>]</sub> 18:47, 21 December 2024 (UTC)}}
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.
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 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)
*{{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.
: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)


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 .
::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)


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


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


:]? ] (]) 06:25, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
:: I'm sorry that I didn't respond sooner, but I only look in on WP:AN/I about once every day or two -- I find it more enjoyable to spend my time working various articles than to opine on disputes. But I stand by my earlier statement: if a given editor appears to have no other other goal than to force her or his own point of view on an article, that person should be encouraged to work on other parts of Misplaced Pages for a while -- regardless of allegations of "administrative abuses" or whether I agree or disagree with the point of view in question. The fact is that we have over two million articles here; getting into a long, tedious fight over one of them is counterproductive at best -- & self-destructive at worst. -- ] (]) 07:07, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
::{{duck}}. I'm sending this ]. - ] <sub>]</sub> 11:16, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
:::, so might just be generic disruption. - ] <sub>]</sub> 22:47, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
:What are you implying with regard to my username? My edit history has been limited to trying to correct two red flags that stood out so much that I followed the citations when I was searching these scientists who were in the news for censorship. It has been enlightening learning how wikipedia selectively chooses secondary sources but discourages the use of primary sources to help discriminate which secondary sources are credible.
:For my two attempted contributions to Misplaced Pages, the two red flags were pretty dramatic to prompt me to check out the citations--Sunetra Gupta's article implied more than 1 in 1000 people in England died from Covid in spring 2020 in an effort to discredit her, which was trivially easy to google as untrue. I corrected that without really changing the overall narrative. The article for Martin Kulldorff...I would probably not have spent time looking at the sources or realized how unscientific Kulldorff's critics were had there not been such superfluous "Wikivoice" editorializing and synthesizing suggesting Kulldorff lied in an essay to the public. ] (]) 06:30, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
::] are not to be used for anything but simple facts about a subject. They absolutely are not to be used {{tqq|to help discriminate which secondary sources are credible}} because that is ]. - ] <sub>]</sub> 08:57, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Not sure why you felt the need to repeat what I said. Maybe I am the sock puppeteer! ] (]) 03:33, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
::What I am implying is that such a username in the context of an account pushing COVID-denialist rhetoric that flies in the face of the sources and Misplaced Pages policy is . Anyway, this editor continues to be a drain of editor time and attention. ]&nbsp;]] 14:58, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Ah an absurd, convoluted, and contrived personal attack. Assuming anyone but you knew tiki torches were present at a political event where someone was killed, why would I choose my username based on that? Tikitorches provide light, warmth, and keep the mosquitos away. I guess its not surprising an editor named writ keeper attacks the editor rather than effectively debating the subject of the edit. ] (]) 03:28, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
::::Even if it was a personal attack, making one ''back'' isn't going to fly here. Knock it off. - ] <sub>]</sub> 04:04, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::], your edits are being examined at ANI. This is not a pleasant experience, I'll admit. So, it's best for you not to dig yourself into a hole. I know the instinct is to defend yourself but it doesn't help your situation to come out swinging. It's probably to your benefit to address any concerns that have been raised and say no more than that. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 04:30, 23 December 2024 (UTC)


== Persistent addition of unsourced content by 2601:243:CB00:7F10:0:0:0:0/64 ==
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)
{{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 ] ==
:{{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)
{{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.
:: '''Inertia Tensor''': I've been silent recently, because I've been in this cyclical wheel for a long time, as see no point in repeating myself on the talk page. I've been staying off the article main page, and even the talk recently as it is pointless. As soon as consensus is achieved, the article is unlocked, it then hits the fan again. If people would rather I would keep on ....? I'm tired of being baited by puppets and trolls there. You will note I did not get involved in this latest go at Neutral Good. Since when was backing off bad? Unrelated, I have no issue with IP editors, I preffered to do so as an IP but eventually had to switch to user with all the RfCs to vote (as annoyingly, IPs are banned there) - plenty of bay area comcast IPs before the creation of this Inertia Tensor account were me. ] (]) 08:23, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


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


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


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


] (]) 19:15, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
Support ban as a marginally involved editor with this page watchlisted for a while. &#10154;]! 02:05, 10 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)
{{abot}}


== Sugar Bear returns with personal attacks ==
:::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)
{{atop|1=/24 blocked for two weeks. - ] <sub>]</sub> 01:36, 22 December 2024 (UTC)}}
*{{rangevandal|166.181.224.0/19}}
*]


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?
:::: 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)


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)
:::::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)


.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)
:::::::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)


::Past disruption from nearby IPs includes the following:
:::::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)
::*] 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)
::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)
{{abot}}


== Comments by Locke Cole ==
:::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)
{{atop
| result = No support for a block for either party, and filer is fine with closure. ] ] 16:56, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
}}


'''Involved''': {{userlinks|Locke Cole}}
::::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.
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 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)
* {{tq|Sour grapes are over there, in case you're lost.}}
::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.}}
* {{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.}}
::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.}}
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)


: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)
===A summary of the problem===
::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)
Yes, it's long. Sorry. Please read it anyway.
:::{{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)
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.
::Though as actual admins above have mentioned, their block history is indeed concerning. ] (]) 11:50, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
{{abot}}


== ] ==
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.
{{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)
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).


::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-->
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.
:::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 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)
{{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) ==
::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.
{{atop
::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-->
| 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)
:::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)
}}
:::::Probably because it was not discredited.--] (]) 19:43, 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 noticed a consistent addition of promotional content about an apparently unencyclopedic band, namely ], with articles being also dedicated to each band member (eg.
: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 ]) 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 think it is possible that there are no sources prior to 2001 that use the term waterboarding at all. If you have seen any, I would be very excited to read them. --] (]) 19:45, 10 January 2008 (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. ] (]) 06:14, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
:*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 ] ==
:::The origin of the English word "waterboard" is an interesting question, but does not affect the meaning of what I wrote: every reliable source reported the drowning technique as torture when done by the Spanish, Japanese, Vietnamese, Khmer Rouge etc. Nobody claimed the technique might not be torture before 2001. ] (]) 20:23, 10 January 2008 (UTC)


User ] has repeatedly removed reliably sourced refs to the genres infobox by removing ] simply because they don't believe it to be correct as the ref is "new" and that the artist isn't that genre. I had sent them two warnings now and also explained that's not how this works, so they decided to add more genres with refs that don't even mention the genres they included. I do not believe this editor is going to cooperate. ] (]) 08:27, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
::::It seems to have been used at least as early as 1946 in UN documents. All evidence I have is the second entry on this Google Books search, I have no easy access to these documents to check it any further. ] (]) 14:40, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


:User:Pillowdelight changed the genre list of When the Pawn... which originally had been a variation of certain genres: Art pop, jazz rock, art rock, alternative rock, jazz pop, chamber pop, all of which are somewhat accurate and agreed upon by various editors of this page over many years. It was changed to just Alt pop, a genre that is used to describe the newer sounds of pop in the early 2010s with Lorde, Sky Ferreira and Lana del rey. It is not a genre that fits the album hence it has never before user:Pillowdelight been described as such beyond what her poor source says, a Fiona Apple revisit (that is not even about When the pawn.. specifically) from a new, small and virtually unheard of web magazine. Sources such as Rateyourmusic, allmusic and Pitchfork are far more accurate and robust and that's why this album has never been described as alt pop. That genre did not exist at the time of the release of the album. The source needs to be accurate, it is not. It's not an album review, it is a fluff article about Fiona Apple by a small web magazine. It's not even about When the pawn... specifically, it makes no sense. I think the other editors agree, it is inaccurate.
: I've been watching infrequently and endorse Lawrence's summary of the situation given above. ] 05:35, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
:Allmusic and pitchfork are far better sources. I have added both as sources. I didn't change the genre list, I simply changed it back to the genre list that had stood there the longest before user:Pillowdelight changed it a few months ago for the first time, having never touched this page before yet complaining about other editors. ] (]) 18:52, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
::{{ping|Longislandtea}} I removed the genres because they're unsourced, which I stated in many edit summaries you keep reverting, as well as on your talk page. It doesn't matter that just because you believe a source another user added calling the album alternative pop is incorrect and unreliable because it's "new, small and virtually unheard of" is a ridiculously excuse. Read ] it states — {{xt|genres must be stated and referenced in the body of the article; personal opinions or original research must not be included.}} The sources you have added specifically from Pitchfork don't state the genres you've listed. ] (]) 20:12, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Sources need to be '''legitimate''' and''' relevant'''. Your source is not relevant and it is disputed. Pitchfork is added because they describe the album as an alternative album several times in the review and the genre category is ROCK. What is alternative and rock? Alternative rock. That is how the album was marketed. You can't cherrypick a single article to make a case for a genre that the album absolutely is not in. I will remove the Pitchfork source, that's fine. There's numerous ones including from Allmusic that clearly state that it is an alternative rock album. The album was even added to Misplaced Pages's page for alt rock albums ages ago. This is very uncontroversial. Just having alternative rock is also lacking; jazz fusion, art pop (the album is already added on the wikipedia page for art pop albums) and art rock are accurate too and have been there for ages but alas! Let's get rid of it all to only serve your opinion. Numerous albums have unsourced genres might I add, but the vast of amount of editors agree to it because they know these accurately describe the album, these are the scenes that the album and artist comes from and sourcing for genres can often times be lacking. In that case, rather than trying to look for BAD sources, it's better to agree with the consensus. In our case, we do have sources. Rateyourmusic has been used as a source for adding art pop, alternative rock, jazz pop, fusion, art rock and chamber pop as genres before. ] (]) 20:54, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
::::Here's the page for what is considered acceptable sources {{lw|Acceptable sources}}.
::::''Relevance. Sources must be relevant--there must be some reason for the reader to care about what the author has to say. For example, the opinion of a random individual on the presidency of George W. Bush, as published in a letter to the editor of a major newspaper, is not relevant; and thus should not be included--even though it is published, traceable to its author, and given in a reputable publication. Relevance can be imputed several ways--through explicit personal knowledge, through subject-matter authority, through general notability of the author, through demonstrable correlation with the opinion(s) of a large group of people, etc.''
::::A large group of people, the editors of When the Pawn...'s page throughout the years, thousands of people on music reviewing sites and numerous music journalists from legitimate publications do not agree with what this one article you cherrypicked states.
::::''Note that this policy is the minimum standard for inclusion as a reference in Misplaced Pages. Sources may meet this standard and still not be authoritative, reliable, accurate, free from bias, or undisputed. Sources which meet this minimum standard but which fail to meet stricter standards may be used, but should be used with caution. In particular, such sources should be explicitly attributed to their author(s) or publisher(s) in an article's prose (rather than being presented as fact with the author only given in the notes), and disputes considering the source's veracity should be described.''
::::Meaning you can't just add any genre because some random source says it when it goes against larger and more reliable sources as well as it is controversial.
::::Thank you and please stop vandalizing pages on topics of music you do not understand. ] (]) 21:04, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::]. Note that accusing editors of vandalism when they are not, in fact, vandalising can be considered a ], so I'd suggest you strike that comment. - ] <sub>]</sub> 21:14, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::Okay, I strike. ] (]) 21:17, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::You didn't actually strike any comments. To do so, do this <nowiki><s>Comment</s></nowiki> which will make it look like this <s>Comment</s>. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 22:17, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::<s> please stop vandalizing pages on topics of music you do not understand.</s> ] (]) 22:26, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
::::{{ping|Longislandtea}} How is the source considered not relevant and where was this dispute? AllMusic ''does not'' call the album alternative rock at all within its article. Rate Your Music is also not a source it's user generated which is against Misplaced Pages. I really wish an admin would comment on this because this is getting absolutely nowhere. ] (]) 21:05, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::Here's another source describing it as an alternative rock and jazz fusion album
:::::https://www.the-solute.com/the-solute-record-club-fiona-apple-when-the-pawn/
:::::Alt pop is not accurate. If you're so adamant about alt pop, please argue why. It is completely inaccurate and you have one singular source over music journalists and music sites. Allmusic does categorize it as alternative rock, Pitchfork has categorized it as rock since 1999 of its release. There was NO Alt-pop at the time. It still isn't. These are different genres. Art pop is not Alt pop. You edited the page one time in October 2024 only to get rid of the genre list that editors agreed upon to add Alt pop which makes no sense whatsoever. ] (]) 21:17, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::I have now added a new source to the genre list. If you have any problems with the new source, tell me. But it's much more accurate this way. It's still sad to see the whole genre list that was originally there, so much more descriptive and fitting, hacked away but oh well. ] (]) 21:31, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::Pitchfork's categorizations mean basically nothing. They have ten categories, one of which is "Pop/R&B", and another of which is "Global". By the way, you should just stop caring about this, because sources misclassify genres of music chronically and everywhere you look. Take your passion to RateYourMusic. <span style="position: relative; top: -0.5em;">꧁</span>]<span style="position: relative; top: -0.5em;">꧂</span> 18:16, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
:All of this discussion should be taking place on the article's talk page (which neither editor has used). ]&nbsp;] 21:36, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
::{{ping|Schazjmd}} I'm awaiting for an admin to respond. This conversation is getting nowhere hence the reason why I brought it here in the first place. I've tried to explain to the user on their talk page along with this entire thread and it's getting nowhere. {{ping|The Bushranger}} you left a comment but could you please share your opinion on the dispute? Or possibly ping an admin who's familiar with music if this isn't your area of familiarity? ] (]) 21:49, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
:::There was no reason to bring this conversation here. I talked to you directly but go no real reply or any arguments despite adding sources and explaining why it's not an Alt pop album. I've explained to you well enough. Please stop trying to get admins to ban me simply because I (and other editors) recognize that the genre list that you got rid of was far more fitting. There's a new genre list now with sources but it is not Alt-pop. The album was already added to the wikipedia album pages for Alternative rock and art pop. I'm familiar with these genres and Fiona Apple specifically to know that it's accurate hence why the genre list has been that way for years. If you're adamant about sources, there is a source. Accusing me of not sourcing should be considered a false accusation at this point. Not all sources are equal either and I've tried explaining that to you. ] (]) 21:55, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
:::], you were given good advice which is to have this discussion on the article talk page which neither editor has posted at yet. This is a content dispute. If no action has been taken yet by an administrator, it's likely because they don't agree with your statement that action needs to be taken. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 22:22, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
::::Okay, will do. Thank you Liz. ] (]) 22:24, 22 December 2024 (UTC)


=== Irrelevant sources and unnecessary changes to genre list on {{pagelinks|When the Pawn...}} ===
== ] and socks at it again ==


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.
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)
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
: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)


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


== Bunch of racist IPs/account ==
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)
{{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)
* 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)
{{abot}}


== Urgent need for page protection on BLP ==
::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)
{{atop
| result = Protection applies. Appears admin eyes are on the Talk page. ] ] 19:53, 22 December 2024 (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)
:::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)
:Looks like ] got it. ] (]) 19:15, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
::::(side-remark,
::{{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)
::::* The related discussion is archived at ]
{{abot}}
::::* A subsection of that section (]) dispels at least part of SlimVirgins contentions.
::::* Making a link to that archive subsection (e.g. in an edit summary ) appears to talk sense to those who thought wise to follow JA's advise.
::::Hoping for non-confrontational solutions... --] (]) 21:54, 11 January 2008 (UTC))


== Multiple users breaking 3RR on Gilman School article ==


::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)


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
::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)
, , .


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.
:::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)


] (])
::whose talkpage?> i dont like it when peopel post things to my talkpage a lot and im not sure tha tit belongs on your talk page either. mayb e if jon awbrey could login or somethign twe could continue it there. and i agre ewith your reservationsr egarding the community; my sugestion was only a suggestion that the admins or the wikipeida community at large to consider. a full iunvestigation sohould be launched to make surte that it s acutally aubrey who deserves to be baned and if there is no other way to resolve this disupte otherwise. oh, and i dont think that the word "abritration" was invented by the Arbcom and they shouldn tbe the only ones who can control that words meaning. ] (]) 20:24, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
*E/C applied. ] ] 19:51, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
::{{u|Counterfeit Purses}}, please be aware that the ] article was kept in a recent Articles for Deletion debate, so the consensus of the community is that he is notable. Edit warring to keep his name off the alumni list is a ''really bad idea''. ] (]) 20:14, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
:::@] No problem, I've already given up. I would argue that ] applies here, but there's no sense in pushing against the tide. If you're content to have the lede section of Gilman School include "prominent graduates including "alleged murderer Luigi Mangione", I guess that's fine. It seems to be an unusual thing to include and an obvious case of undue weight given to something that is in the news at the moment. Perhaps someone should start a Wikiproject to add famous murderers to the ledes of other schools? ] (]) 22:00, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
::::{{u|Counterfeit Purses}}, in my view, ] is among our most misunderstood policy documents. It begins {{tpq|In principle, all Misplaced Pages articles should contain up-to-date information. Editors are also encouraged to develop stand-alone articles on significant current events.}} I believe that Mangione is notable, the evolving article is acceptable, and his name belongs in the alumni list. Many, many "bad people" are listed as alumni in countless school articles, and it is not at all unusual. The only unusual thing here is that the lead of this particular school article lists alumni, and so I have removed them from the lead. ] (]) 01:07, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::I'm glad that misunderstanding WP:NOTNEWS is so common because I am going to continue to misunderstand it. I see that Liz Luigi Mangione from the lede before you removed the rest of the list. Acknowledging again that I have given up hope that Mangione will be removed from this article, let me ask you what you think the purpose of these alumni lists is? Including Mangione is an editorial decision. We don't include all notable alumni in these lists, so why should we include Mangione, and why now? It's too soon to know if he will have lasting relevance. ] (]) 04:22, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::{{tqq|We don't include all notable alumni in these lists}} Why not? If someone is Wikinotable and went to a Wikinotable school, then they belong in the "Notable alumni" section of that school's page, ] - ] <sub>]</sub> 04:28, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::@] I'm not saying "we shouldn't", I'm saying "we don't". We don't include every notable alumnus in these lists, nor should we because it would lead to long, unhelpful lists stuck in the middle of articles about the schools. ] (]) 04:49, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::If an alumni list bloats an article, it can be split out. See ]. 11:29, 23 December 2024 (UTC) (Oops, signing) ] (]) 16:01, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::Of course that's always an option, but what I am saying is that it isn't desirable to have every alumnus listed in an article for a school. Ideally, it would be a selection of alumni who have made significant achievements in their field. Otherwise, it's just trivia. Am I wrong? ] (]) 17:21, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::Yes. You're making a value judgment that some alumni (with articles, else they most definitely should not be included) are more notable than others. That is ]. ] (]) 20:05, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::Yes, that's called editorial judgment. Just like deciding not to include every known fact about something in an article. At some point, it is just trivia. Misplaced Pages is not a database. That info would probably be welcome over on Wikidata, which is a database. Alternatively, someone could just add ] (in this case). ] (]) 20:52, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::And a new user, who doesn't understand categories and has no idea Wikidata exists, is relying on the list on the page. - ] <sub>]</sub> 21:35, 23 December 2024 (UTC)


== Persistent addition of unsourced content by 2600:480A:4A72:6000:0:0:0:0/64, yet again ==
:::The issues between Awbrey and Misplaced Pages are not at root a personality conflict; at least, nobody's personality except his. Awbrey considers himself an expert on certain subjects in which he is not considered by many to be an expert, and in which he has no formal training to the best of my knowledge. This led him to attempt to write a number of Misplaced Pages articles slanted towards his own personal POV without sourcing in most cases and without regard for bias and undue weight, since his ideas and theories do not conform to the established academic consensus on them. When informed that Misplaced Pages's policies ] did not permit what he was doing, he attempted to change Misplaced Pages policies to let him publish his theories here and was disruptive in so doing.
{{atop|1=Genre warrior sent packing. - ] <sub>]</sub> 02:42, 23 December 2024 (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)
:I see the genre warriors are out today. Don't you realise how childish you are? (Not you, ].) ] (]) 20:37, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
::I thought I was the only one who noticed how many were running rampant today. So exhausting. . . ] (]) 20:45, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
:::/64 blocked for six months. '''<span style="font-family: Arial;">] <small>]</small></span>''' 22:16, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
{{abot}}


== User:NoahBWill2002 ==
:::Essentially, Awbrey was banned for being a disruptive user who refused to accept certain set-in-stone policies. Whether or not any personality conflicts resulted, I submit that the results would not be changed either way; Awbrey's beliefs and attitudes conflict with what we're trying to do here and thus with fundamental Misplaced Pages policies, and he has been extremely disruptive when Misplaced Pages users and admins prevented him from ignoring Misplaced Pages policy. ] (]:]) 20:36, 10 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 ==
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)


] 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.
If you look at my contribs from January 7, you'll see that using checkuser, I blocked a whole lot of Awbrey socks. I think I got most or all of them that existed at that time. I also range blocked him to make sure he can't register anymore. If you see any new Awbrey socks popping up (new as in they edited after Jan 7) please let me know. ] (]) 22:02, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


diffs: </nowiki>] </nowiki>] </nowiki>] </nowiki>]
== Deletion & Redirecting of an Article Without Consensus ==
{{resolved}}<!-- 03:02, 9 January 2008 -->
{{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>


I would have put this at AIV, but I have no clue how to edit source. ] (]) 23:43, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
== User:Jayjg ==


:{{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)
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.
::Ah, I see. Thank you! This has been noted for the future. Thank you, again! ] (]) 23:48, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
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''”:
:::You're welcome, Happy editing, Thanks, –]<sup>]</sup> 23:51, 22 December 2024 (UTC)


== ] mass-creating articles for non-notable or nonexistent places ==
*I claimed Israeli’s were responsible for 9/11.
{{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.
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 .


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)
*Israel was culpable in the liberty incident. .


:I will stop creating these articles. ] (]) 01:27, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
This was a reply to a question from another editor in talk and I made no claim at all.
:I tagged one as '''CSD A7''' to see if that would work. ] ] 01:36, 23 December 2024 (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 ==
*David Irving is a legitimate historian .
{{userlinks|Glenn103}} has been mass creating unsourced stubs about Cyrillic letters, most of which have been draftified. They've also disruptively edited in the past, such as: <span style="white-space:nowrap"><span style="font-family:monospace">'''<nowiki>''']<nowiki>]]'''</nowiki>'''</span> (] • ])</span> 01:41, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
:Most of these pages don't even make any sense (eg.: ]). The user also ignores any notice about his articles being moved to draftspace by simply recreating duplicates of them (eg.: ] & ]). Immediate action may be needed. ] (] <b>·</b> ]) 07:38, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
::Given a uw-create4im with directions to come here, let's see what happens. - ] <sub>]</sub> 08:00, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
:::They've continued editing, this time adding infoboxes to the articles, so I don't think the warning worked... <span style="white-space:nowrap"><span style="font-family:monospace">'''<nowiki>''']<nowiki>]]'''</nowiki>'''</span> (] • ])</span> 08:10, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
::::I have blocked them from article space and page moves, and will leave note on talk page to come here. —&nbsp;]&nbsp;] 15:33, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
Honestly, this almost feels like trolling. Their basic procedure seems to be: pick a random Cyrillic letter. Combine it with a random diacritic. Write a short stub on the combination, saying effectively "this letter combination is not used anywhere." The occasional historical mentions ("this combination was used in such-and-such obscure Siberian language") are completely unsourced, of course. (Everything is unsourced.) ] (]) 04:43, 24 December 2024 (UTC)


:Excuse me for detracting from the report, but this was your 4th edit, your last edit was in January 2016... how have you found yourself here of all places?
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 mean you might have a point, but wow. &ndash; ] (]) (]) 04:57, 24 December 2024 (UTC)


==TPA for 83.106.86.95==
*I ”''Passionately''” defended Ernst Zundle on the Zundle talk page .
{{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)
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.


:Done and revdel'ed, thanks to JJMC89. ] (]) 02:23, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
*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.
{{abot}}


== Can you please help? ==
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)
] 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 ==
: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)
{{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 ==
::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)


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.
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)


'''Key Points:'''
::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-->


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


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


I respectfully request that administrators address the following issues:
::::::::Ban them all and let God sort it out. --] (]) 06:41, 10 January 2008 (UTC)


# Enforce the consensus reached in the closed RfC, as no new evidence significantly alters the previous conclusions.
: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)
# Discourage editors from rehashing resolved discussions, particularly when arguments have been repeatedly addressed and dismissed.
::::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 <s>word</s> (implication) 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)
# Consider imposing a topic ban or other appropriate measures on editors who persist in disrupting the article with repetitive or bad-faith arguments.
:::::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)
::::::Thank you for striking out the "word". What "personal attack"? You claimed that you ''"have no personal bias"'' and Jayjg disputed that. You've also <s> that others are biassed </s> <small>mentioned COI and POV in connection with other editors</small>-- were those personal attacks? Re checking the edits: If you wish to discuss factual errors, my suggestion is that you post corrections on the article talk page or an appropriate user talk page, or if really necessary, bring it to this noticeboard, but not in a thread in which you also make an exaggerated and inflammatory accusation. --] (]) 23:47, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
::::::::Jayjg disputed my claim by posting my edits and making incorrect claims for their intent. When this was pointed out, by me posting corrections on the article talk page, he refused to apologise (which i would have accepted) as he should and would have done if he had made the claim in good faith. That makes it a personal attack. As you appear to support Jayjg's attack on me as justified I ask you to point to what in those four edits even implies possible prejudice on my part. I didn't claim bias. As there were no actual facts in dispute and none of the dissenting editors would support their claim of relevance despite being asked, my claiming COI (personal interests) and POV (a mental position) was justified and not a claim of bias (unfair influence) against anyone. Check the dictionary for the meanings of those three terms, it's called semantics.<br />Let me point out that I made that claim after an editor suggested the purpose of the edit was to hide information. The discussion was relatively civil until Jayjg (who had never posted here before) jumped straight in with his accusation. ] (]) 08:39, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
::::::I wonder if you would also consider striking out or modifying ''"being accused of anti semitism"'' earlier in this thread? --] (]) 02:23, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
:::::::Sorry NO. It's correct English. From my high school dictionary:"anti-Semitism • noun: hostility to ''or prejudice'' against Jews." Prejudice is what he accused me of. ] (]) 08:39, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
::::::::Please provide a relevant diff in which Jayjg used the word "prejudice", and then replace "anti semitism" with "prejudice" in your comment closer to the beginning of this thread. Until I see such a diff, it's my understanding that Jayjg disputed your claim to have "no personal bias", but that "bias" and "prejudice" are not the same thing. It's important to be very precise with words when discussing these highly inflammatory issues. --] (]) 14:30, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
::::::::I've struck out a comment by me about "bias" above, but note that in the comment I struck out, I didn't say that you "accused" anyone of "bias": I used the word "implied". Note that I've nevertheless struck it out. You could similarly strike out your words above where you say something about Jayjg "imply(ing)" anti-Semitism. Since he did not use that word, I think words can be found, not using that particular word, to summarize what he said that would give a more accurate impression.
::::::::I'm not defending any attack by Jayjg and I'm not making any judgement in this situation as to whether what Jayjg posted was or was not accurate or was or was not an attack. If you had brought forward an accusation against Jayjg without yourself making an exaggerated and inflammatory claim, I might have followed some other path. --] (]) 14:44, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
::::::::There are very intense emotions connected with this topic. It's important to act in such a way as not to engage those emotions in others any more than necessary. If someone accuses you of "prejudice", while it might according to the dictionary be correct to say "anti semitism", it would also be correct to say "prejudice"; and saying "prejudice" would have the advantage of not bringing in a word which also has other definitions, definitions which will tend to pop into peoples' minds at least briefly when they read your comment, inflaming those emotions. In this particular detail, I gently suggest using the least inflammatory wording that correctly conveys the situation. --] (]) 15:13, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
He's not an 8 year old kid. I am crediting Jayjg with enough intelligence to know that many if not most editors would assume that is exactly what he meant. That's the way I took it and I doubt many here can claim they would not have at least considered that was what was meant. This is upsetting enough without being condemned for complaining. Leave it for the admins to work out as they have access to more info than either of us and can make up their own minds about what was said and meant. ] (]) 19:03, 11 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)
::::Tying up arbcom with endless disputes doesn't work. I think my solution will work best and produce immediate results: modify the controversial article template, adding new parameters that allow editors to request mediators ''on the talk page'' rather than separate mediator subpages. Mediators can watch categories for these changes. Now, for enforcement, add "admin requested" params. that will also populate watched categories. Anyone abusing these requests will be warned and if needed, blocked. This will reduce the load on admin noticeboards by 50 percent, and require active particpation in analyzing and resolving conflicts, rather than passive discussion and arbitrary decisions. Mediators will participate where needed, and neutral admins will step in to enforce. Problem solved, and everyone can get back to writing great articles. &mdash;] | ] 00:10, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


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.
== Harassment Notice ==
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
UPDATE: I just noticed that North Korea was removed as a belligerent and added to the 'supported by' section, completely violating the consensus.
] (]) 08:48, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
:Since this report isn't really about an incident and your request is directed towards admins, I think this complaint would be better placed at ] rather than ANI. It will also need more specifics, which articles, which edits, which editors. You'll need to provide that. I also question whether or not these are content standards that the community can't handle on their own. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 09:50, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
::I was going to post it at ] but it said: "'''This noticeboard is for issues affecting administrators generally – announcements, notifications, information, and other matters of''' ''general administrator interest.''
::If your post is about a '''specific problem you have''' (a '''dispute''', user, help request, or other narrow issue needing an administrator), you should post it at the ''']''' (ANI) instead. Thank you."
::I posted it on ANI beecause my specific problem was this dispute ] (]) 12:07, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
:::The original post in this thread appears to resemble LLM output. GPTzero confirms this impression, rating text as "99% probability AI generated". Using AI to generate ANI submissions is highly inappropriate. ] (]) 18:01, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
::::Even when a message appears to be AI-generated, I think it is worth considering whether or not it is pointing out an actual problem. I think editors might be ignoring the results of an RFC, I just don't think asking for administrators to monitor a subject area, without identifying specific articles, is a feasible solution. It does seem like, possibly, a point that could come up in a complaint at AE regarding the Ukraine CTOP area. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 19:55, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::I had a peek and it's a messy RfC and, as is generally the case with a messy RfC had a very involved closure message which seems to reflect that the closer felt constrained by the framing of the RfC. I didn't see any immediate indication in the edit history that anyone had tried to implement the RfC result and been rebuffed (although I might have missed it). So there's some smoke here but, I think, not a ton of fire. ] (]) 20:21, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::Liz, I don't disagree but I'm not at all convinced that use of AI is a positive contribution to CTOP areas. ] (]) 20:27, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::It was written with AI assistance. Not all AI. ai detectors aren’t considered reliable, because you can put the U.S. constitution through one and it says 100% AI generated. Regardless, whether it’s AI or not has nothing to do with the topic. It’s just that there’a been so many discussions and when I checked the info box it said ‘supported by”, violating the consensus of the RFC ] (]) 12:45, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::I think the underlying issue here is that if you use AI to generate text which looks like obvious AI output then readers will wonder "does the end user even have sufficient English to understand what the AI has generated for them?" and "did the end user understand the material prior to deciding to employ AI?". Thus if a user is fluent in English, as you obviously are, it will always be better to communicate in your own voice.
:::::::At the end of the day, a user making a valid point in their own voice is generally speaking going to be taken more seriously than a user employing LLM output.
:::::::There are plenty of other reasons for users not to employ AI (see the recent thread here for extensive coverage) but the argument above seems like a good practical reason for fluent English speakers to always prefer using their own voice.
:::::::You will see from the recent thread that many users here are vehemently against AI use. ] (]) 15:46, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::I understood the material very well, its not like I just used 100% AI out of nowhere. I know the context. I have been involved in this discussion since September. ] (]) 16:43, 24 December 2024 (UTC)


== Dispute Over Edits and Use of British Raj Sources ==
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)
{{Atop|Content dispute.--] (]) 15:00, 23 December 2024 (UTC)}}


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


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:
: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)


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


Sitush’s essays are not official Misplaced Pages policy. Content decisions should follow ], ], and ].
* For background see ]. <font face="Comic Sans">]<sub>'']''</sub></font> 19:54, 9 January 2008 (UTC)


'''2. Dismissal of Reliable Sources''':
*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)


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.
: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)


'''3. Unilateral Edits and Dismissive Behavior''':
True, while I have being a bit harsh to this Pollux and Dash_Jr characters, Jeske's behavior is still a bit questionable as an admin. He's constantly tried to bait me into arguments with him. He even argued me down for weeks about me calling DnD a board game. Now I did NOT even touch the article on DnD, yet he has constantly harassed me about it asking me for these websites and such. He's even cussed at me on his talk page. He's supposed to be an admin, yet he's one of the main ones who tends to incite arguments rather than try to calm them down as other admins like Friday has done. See how he blamed me for being SPD despite me being sick the day those edits happened?] (]) 15:30, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
:That debate about Dungeons and Dragons happened because of your query on the Dungeons and Dragons talk page, IIRC, which was then continued on the user talk page. Asking for sources to back up a statement =/= harassment. ] (]) 18:28, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
::Actually, Melicans, I challenged him on it on Talk:Diamond and Pearl to begin with. However, I still requested proof of his accusations (i.e. "D&D is a Board Game") and all he came up with was a picture of a minis campaign in progress and a board-game website that also sold D&D materials (and a wealth of miniature wargaming materiel); not definitive proof. I have since dropped the argument - V Dash has stated that he hated the game, and I realized then that debating him on it is like debating Jimmy Hoffa on not vanishing into thin air. -'']'' <sup>(<font color="0000FF">] ]</font>)</sup> 18:38, 10 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.]
He admitted it see... I told you Jeske esculated that argument on the DnD Board. It actually started on the Pokemon D/P Board before he incited a debate to occur on the DnD. Afterwards, he's been harassing me since about my statement on DnD.. How can an admin try to calm things down when he's the one who starts them?] (]) 21:39, 10 January 2008 (UTC)


'''Evidence''':
:::v-dash RAISES a good point. perhaps it woudl bet better if someone else form the editors or another admin come in to mediate this bedispute. i am not assuming bad faith on th epart of Jeske but it owuld be more fair if someone neutral and uninvolvedin the dispute were to enter into this debate. ] (]) 21:45, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
::::That's part of the reason why I opened the request for comment above. -'']'' <sup>(<font color="0000FF">] ]</font>)</sup> 21:54, 10 January 2008 (UTC)


Jeske, you know you were wrong just as much as you accuse me. Remember, you have esculated several of those arguments. I mean, this all stemmed from the DnD incident you went overboard about.] (]) 22:01, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
:I dropped that argument long ago and have no ill will over it, V-Dash. You, however, seem to think I'm my own ] (I don't even have the secret password yet!) -'']'' <sup>(<font color="0000FF">] ]</font>)</sup> 22:06, 10 January 2008 (UTC)


An argument is still an argument regardless how old it is Jeske. Or did you forget about the very vague warning you put on my talk page? Sorry, but rules can't apply to one party and not apply to the other.] (]) 19:01, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
:Anyone here can see I apologized for it. The only reason you can't is because you tuned out the warning that went with it and thus the whole paragraph. -'']'' <sup>(<font color="0000FF">] ]</font>)</sup> 19:47, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


Jeske Jeske, let's not even forget about the part where you cussed me just because I questioned your vague warning. See, this could've been avoided had you not came onto my talk page and tried to incite me into an argument with you. Quite frankly, I'm very suspicious of your behavior as an admin. I mean, how can you uphold things when you're the one who causes them? Yes, I am accusing you of something. Remember the DnD arguments? Yes, YOU told ME to go to the discussion page and call it a board game. Then you berated for weeks just because I refused to see it your way.] (]) 21:41, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
:Diffs or it didn't happen, V-Dash. After you call "Admin Abuse" or "Harassment", you need to provide proof. -'']'' <sup>(<font color="0000FF">] ]</font>)</sup> 01:28, 12 January 2008 (UTC)


]
Proof? What the fudge did you think I was talking about earlier Jeske? Remember the vague warning? The constant banter at me for calling DnD a Board game?] (]) 02:28, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
:<Jack Sparrow>But where have the diffs gone?</Jack Sparrow> -'']'' <sup>(<font color="0000FF">] ]</font>)</sup> 02:32, 12 January 2008 (UTC)


So you're referring to movies now Jeske..] (]) 04:23, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
:<]>Also, you have one second to name any administrator's noticeboard where coming without evidence is a good idea. Time's up. That's what I thought.</Yahtzee> -'']'' <sup>(<font color="0000FF">] ]</font>)</sup> 05:10, 12 January 2008 (UTC)


'''Request for Administrative Action''':
See? He's doing it again...] (]) 16:12, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
:<]> You show me a guy who's sitting there giving evidence to back up his accusations and I'll show you a guy who's not causing any fucking trouble.</Carlin> I am also going to note that this is the third thread V-Dash has started against me, and, like the last two, he has provided no proof and simply made accusations sans evidence. -'']'' <sup>(<font color="0000FF">] ]</font>)</sup> 18:23, 12 January 2008 (UTC)


1. Review the removed content and the editor’s justification.
Can you guys take this somewhere else? There's no plausible case being made that administrator action is needed here. ] ] 18:25, 12 January 2008 (UTC)


2. Ensure that disputes are discussed on the article’s talk page.
You see Friday? We're back at circle one. See, all Jeske had to do was kindly explain his vague warning on my talke page when I asked, and this argument and report wouldn't have been started. I believe he did that warning on post so he can hopefully get me into an argument in order to make it like I'm doing something wrong.] (]) 19:37, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
:To all those reading this topic, . -'']'' <sup>(<font color="0000FF">] ]</font>)</sup> 19:40, 12 January 2008 (UTC)


3. Address the editor’s dismissive tone to foster collaboration.
No excuse Jeske. Btw, you said something different than you did here. You said you saw the post and just decided to give me a warning regardless. But it took you like two days to finally answer why I got the warning AFTER someone warned you about it.] (]) 19:55, 12 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.
== Ehud Lesar ==


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


--- ] (]) 10:47, 23 December 2024 (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)
{{Abot}}
:: Also note that Fedayee's accusations were rejected by the admins at ] board: ] (]) 11:24, 10 January 2008 (UTC)


== Nothing to say about me really bot ==
:::I handled the unblock request in this case. I did not see any evidence linking the two, so I accepted the request. It has sense been overturned after a conversation on ]. As I stated there, I do not agree with this method of blocking and did not endorse the reblocking of this user. ''']''']''']''' 15:25, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
{{atop
| 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}}
I think it would be much easier if blocking, unblocking or independent administrators simply contact each of the blocked users to verify their identity. I have asked for this earlier at ] as well. After all, the verification of physical identity to determine that Adil Baguirov is not Ehud Lesar is more legitimate than a wholesale assumption, based on nothing but ]'s speculations, often including simply ] and attacks on the identity of ]. I mean look at this ,, what does the proclaimed Jewish identity of Ehud Lesar have to do with this? Or does it really mater in Wiki what ethnicity the contributor is? Or should any Jew from Azerbaijan editing in Misplaced Pages be assumed and blocked now as a sock of Adil Baguirov, just because ] believes so?


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)
But there is more, which has to do with AdilBaguirov than with Ehud Lesar, because ] was inactive, for several months. Then he suddenly shows up and blocks ], as a sock of ]. Checkuser denies any connection, and I would also like to remind that right before getting blocked after the first ArbCom, ] attempted to file an RfC - on ] conduct, which, however, didn't gather enough support. So perhaps, sudden reappearance of ] and blocking of just anyone as a sock of Adil, based ]'s speculations, has something to do with their conflict.
{{abot}}


== Concern About a New Contributor ==
As far as ]'s conclusions go, I shall remind him that previously, he also mistakenly blocked ] on a conviction that it was a sock of ] - , an allegation which turned out to be untrue later . On another instance ] unblocked the reported and even as a sock ] of ], against the protests from admin ] - . Yet later ] was again caught with another sock . So perhaps, assuming good faith, Alex Bakharev's conclusion is mistaken in Ehud Lesar case as well, and needs another review. Regards. ] (]) 20:04, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
{{userlinks|Kriji Sehamati}}


Dear Wikipedians,
:Alex and Khoikoi are the two admins who know Adil Baguirov’s way of using socks the best, there is Francis Tyers who comes next and who was an Admin, Francis_Tyers was the first to submit a checkuser because he thought it was Adil and this much before the evidence was accumulated. Then there is Golbez to ask, but since you have ''ousted'' him, I doubt you will listen to anything he says.


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.
:The evidence provided is not the only one I have. The Church of Kish alone is a giveaway. The Church of Kish doesn’t even qualify as very notable. Less than 5 people have studied it and published anything about the church. One of those who 'studied' it was Adil Baguirov. (from his zerbeijan website he initiated the ''Albanian'' nature of the Church) scroll and you will see his picture with the church, and his 'research.' The person who created the church article was a throw away account who created an article on Adil’s OR. That account was created at the beginning of March (the period in which Adil created his other Jewish account ) and was obviously Adil. Ehud was engaged on that article and another which both were also edited by Adil socks in the same period of time. Another giveaway: ''You're free to be either obsessed with or pretty much '''obviously impressed by him,''' but please stop dragging me into "being" someone I am not just NOT.'' Here, Ehud Lesar, who claims to be a Jew and uses this to make himself sound neutral, is claiming that another member is obviously impressed by Adil who thinks a lobbyist who acts as an ambassador of Azerbaijan in the United States is someone to be impressed about. He repeats this more recently: '' I must say that it's'' rather positive that you're so impressed'' by Adil Bagirov; so impressed that you happen to follow his life cycle, but I think you should free your mind from the name Ehud Lesar.'' Ehud knows that we know he is Adil, this comment is the same sort of sarcasm Adil was using or his other socks were using.


I believe your experience could help address this situation effectively.
:Also, all of Ehud’s theories are identical to Adil’s, here in his defence he provides himself more evidence , In the part that starts with ''secondly'' you will see the subject of the speeches Adil Baguirov gives whilst his lobbying outside Wiki and at large Azerbaijani-American gatherings. And it was according to him that Misplaced Pages should be edited to ''balance'' this myth he believes in.


Looking forward to your advice on how to proceed.
:Putting the emphasis on checkuser when the rest of the evidence is screaming ''I’m Adil'' is irresponsible. It would take one user registering an account to proxy for him, and this fixes the issue of open proxy and IP address, checkuser will fail. This was why Vartan and I brought Elsanaturk and from Ehud’s answer it seemed that there was something true in there. The reason we suspect Elsanaturk is that there is evidence that he already proxied for him, but this is another issue and unless it could change anything on the blocking of Adil, I don’t think at this point it is necessary to post the evidences. When we brought the issue, Ehud’s reply was this Neither I or Vartan said this explicitly anything such, we only said that we believe that Elsanaturk might be involved. Not that he was Ehud, Ehud expanded this and insinuated and blew it out of proportion to discredit us.


Thankyou! ]] 15:21, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
:I am ready to furnish more evidence upon the demand of the administrators.


:"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.
:And BTW, Londium was a sock of Adil, Alex was right; checkuser should not be run to catch Adil, many of the socks of Adil, which were registered the same days as other confirmed socks, failed the checkuser test when they were obviously Adil. Ehud is one example. - ] (]) 21:31, 10 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.
: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)
* '''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 ==
::Fedayee, you're going to furnish evidence that Ehud Lesar is a person Adil Baguirov? Or in statements like , who is "we", are you claiming you have a group "working on Adil/Ehud case"? Will you also please produce physical evidence that user Ehud Lesar is the identity of Adil?
{{atop|result=The OP says they don't care any more which I'm reading as a withdrawal and the other party says they won't be responding again so I'm closing this discussion. My only comment is that both editors in this dispute should have brought this to the article talk page to talk this disagreement out. I don't know if the differences would be resolved but this is what we advise editors to do when their edits are reverted. Now I just have to get that scene in the movie out of my mind. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 05:54, 24 December 2024 (UTC)}}
Postscript: Ah, someone just close this, I don't care any more. &nbsp;— ] <span style="color:#900">•</span> ] 22:56, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
----
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.
::Your evidence here does not establish such link, it only makes allegations about Adil having used socks. The fact that both users referred to the fact of Zangezur and Geycha republic is not an evidence of sock- or even meatpuppetry. And let me remind you of evidence you did not include in your report, while reciting various usernames in your assumptions of bad faith:
::* I, Atabek, was once blocked at ] - , reported for reverting the edit of one of those sock accounts attributed to ] - .


The article states that ] demurred being cast in the role upon finding that out. for this claim is a ] on ], which contains the sentence
::And again, what does the ethnicity of Ehud Lesar or your conclusions about them have to do with Misplaced Pages? I believe pursuing someone's identity or attempting to expose their ethnicity, especially when you're not an administrator in Misplaced Pages authorized to do so, is considered falling under ] policy. I recall there was another user "blocked indefinitely" for doing so, .] (]) 23:23, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
: ''Reportedly, Liddy was on board until he got to the part where Beeks .''
http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&action=edit&section=62#copyright
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'':
::ibe leive that this issue is a simple makstake, but i must cuation all the admins involved to avoid any esemalance of impropriety. when problems go wrong its easy to just round up and get rid of all the jews but history should so now that its the wrong decison to make. ethnic claims sould not be used solely as a deicsion whether or not to blok or unlblock a user, since even if the block was otherwise justified sit makes it seem like itwas an expression of racial hatred REGARDLESS of the admins' intent. i would recomend having this case looked over by a panel of admins to make surethat there were no mistakes or fualty assumptiosn makes on the behalf of any of hte usurers hereon this bebopard. ] (]) 23:29, 10 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.}}
:::Read Fedayee's evidence carefully. There was no ethnic motive behind the block at all. <span style="background:#E0FFFF;color:#007FFF;font-family:Georgia;">] (])</span> 23:36, 10 January 2008 (UTC)


This was reverted () by {{u|Darkwarriorblake}} with the comment ''not what the source says''.
Hi all, just my 2 cents, I don't know Ehud or Adil, just general thoughts. The checkuser uses IP address, so once changed it doesn't work. Now to detect user by his behaviour can only humans that knew him for some time and his style of communication, and humans are pretty good at it. So Fadayee and Vartan, who knew Adil confirm Ehud to be Adil based on the little clues lie type of communication etc. And they are pretty confident that he is Adil. They didn't accuse any other user, like Grandmaster or Atabek or me to ne Adil, the specifically targeted Ehud, so there is a reason why. Now what are the reasons for anybody else to believe that he is not Adil other then failed checkuser? I didn't find any. It looks like evrybody knows that he is Adil and Azeri side is interested to keep this user Adil even under different name... ] (]) 23:38, 10 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.()
Also this Adil is blocked in "Misplaced Pages for a period ending August 23, 2008" so only 8 more month and he is free? Shouldn't there be more harsh mathods applied to this user who is using sockpuppets? ] (]) 23:41, 10 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;...}}
: Steelmate, your question is very illogical. How can anyone accuse me of being Adil’s sock, if I was here long before Adil joined? I’ve been editing for more than 2 years and have more than 10,000 edits, accusing a long time editor will not work. Same with Atabek, he is a long time user and he is well known to everyone involved in editing region related articles. Ehud was targeted for a simple reason that he is a relatively new user with a very limited number of contribs. So it is relatively easy to link him to a banned user and get him banned. This happened despite no real evidence being presented and cu returning negative results. ] (]) 06:09, 11 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''
::::Nishkid, in such cases a questioning admin may contact individual contributors and ask them to identify themselves instead of blocking contributors based solely on the report of the individual from another side of conflict. Fedayee's evidence as well as list of users he cites in his report is based on ethnic motive, which is already known and defined in two relevant ArbCom cases, to which he was a participant. I believe if there is continuous assumption on behalf of some admins that Ehud is Adil based on Fedayee's report only, while others ask for additional review, then it may be expedient to perhaps request ] to investigate the issue and identify whether Ehud is Adil or not. ] (]) 23:45, 10 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.''
:::::Evidence was posted by an individual on the other side of the conflict. Three neutral administrators familiar with the AA situation evaluated Fedayee's evidence. Furthermore, Jimbo is human, so asking him is just the same as asking any other administrator. They have their own take on the evidence, which means they have no real way of knowing the truth. Also, I contacted Ehud and asked him what proof of identity he was willing to give (Grandmaster mentioned above that Ehud could confirm his identity). <span style="background:#E0FFFF;color:#007FFF;font-family:Georgia;">] (])</span> 00:13, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
:::::: Nishkid, at least 3 other admins, including those handling reports at ] on a regular basis did not find Fedayee's evidence compelling. Clearly, there's no consensus among the admins that this user is a sock and that Fedayee's evidence can be taken seriously. And Khoikhoi's sudden appearance looks very strange. Have you personally tried contacting Ehud and verify his real life identity? If not, why haven’t you done so? ] (]) 05:53, 11 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.
::Nishkid, returning to Misplaced Pages after a two-month break to block a contributor based on Fedayee's report or attributing several socks to a banned user, when they're found later not to be such, is not quite neutral. And especially shows that evidence needs to be reviewed again by another administrator. Thanks. ] (]) 01:49, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
:::Khoikhoi was asked to review this user's edits a while ago. He took his time, but he finally reached a conclusion and then issued a block. As a neutral administrator, I reviewed the evidence posted by Fedayee and other stuff brought to my attention. I re-blocked because I believe the evidence shows that Ehud Lesar is a sockpuppet of AdilBaguirov. <span style="background:#E0FFFF;color:#007FFF;font-family:Georgia;">] (])</span> 04:26, 11 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''.
Smith Jones, I apologize, I did realise that an element of the evidence seems just that. It was perhaps my fault since I did not develop about the relevancy of that bit about Jews. What is questioned here is that Ehud is a Jew to begin with. If you browse the evidence you will see that Adil pretended to be several ethnic groups with several names. The evidence about the ethnicity was that Lesar is Sephardic, even the thesis that he was from Azerbaijan does not make sense, most Jews in Azerbaijan are not Sephardic, and most names are Russianized, Lesar can not be an Azerbaijani Jewish name (which would have been the only escape route). The point here is that he falsified an identity like he did previously and even after he created that account.


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 ]''
The other evidence about the Algerians and Jews also is not meant to have any ethnic motive. The claim of Algerian Genocide is mostly defended in the international arena by lobbyists of the Turkish republic, one of the most active ones on the web run a journal in which Adil contributes in.


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 .
Atabek’s request on the identity of Lesar should be considered as invalid given that in the past an obvious sock and throw away account has requested such and was unbanned. Adil has relations across the globe and would have anyone proxy for him giving fake identity, he is not just some user. The Lesar family (David Lesar at its head) runs Halliburton which has a major contract in the Baku-Tbilisi Ceyhan main oil export pipeline project, Adil work for those projects too. The sock created the name by association (the Israeli prime ministers name, and the president of the Halliburton familly name).


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)
Also Atabek, unlike what you write, Zangezur and Geycha claim was in fact specific to Adil, there is no published material anywhere which claims a republic such as Geycha. Ehud dismissing it qualifies as evidence and on several occasion when this was brought he failed to provide any source. Having failed to do such, this remains specific to Adil Baguirov.
: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===
One more thing which fails comprehension. Grandmaster, how in the world did Ehud contact you when it is impossible to email him, because he did not provide an email address. He could not have emailed you unless both of you communicate elsewhere and he would have known your email address off wiki. Please provide some explanations here as someone can not contact if that person does not have an email address set. - ] (]) 01:19, 11 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. ]]
:Fedayee, I don't believe Misplaced Pages registration anywhere says that new user needs to ask approval of Fedayee to register a certain name. Ehud has a right for his name as well as his claimed identity. I don't know what makes you believe that you're granted a right to question someone's ethnicity and use that as a justification for blocking him. There are thousands of Jews and mixed people living in Azerbaijan, often under Azerbaijani, Jewish, Russian, or mixture of names. And I believe you need to one more time review ]. Adil Baguirov has a publicly available profile, , publications, which everyone can view, read and interpret, and already have been discussed across various articles in Misplaced Pages, such as ] for example. Where is your proof that everyone reciting his writing is just him? ] (]) 01:49, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
{{abot}}


== Extremely Annoying situation ==
And Fedayee, per your claim from your report that "Zangezur and Geycha claim was in fact specific to Adil Baguirov" - here . Is this also Adil Baguirov? Again, I believe administrators need to be seriously familiar with the topic of the conflict, before reading your report and making conclusions over it to block people. ] (]) 02:05, 11 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.
:It’s not his claimed identity which is given justification, but the fact that he created sockpuppets to sound as neutral non-Azeri or non-Armenian contributors. There are thousands of Jews living in Azerbaijan, but Lesar is not an Azerbaijani Jew name and Fedayee proved that in his evidence.


The rest escapes words for me. See these discussions.
:This is becoming ridiculous, do you really think that the claim that Ehud might be reciting Adil publications hold water? No one bothered reading or reciting his work on Geycha alleged republic here on Misplaced Pages, but Ehud Lesar, who happens to have registered hours after it was a confirmed that Adil will be banned. This same person who happens to have read something which was not used by any other contributor, also was the only one who was missing when Adil's sockpuppets were at their pick, and the sockpuppets only stopped when Ehud reappeared. There was a clear correlation between Ehud's presence and the end of the sockpuppetry issue. Also the Church of Kish, which was again obviously created using Adil’s OR and you guys continued editing it. Then when it was questioned, Ehud came in and defended using Adil’s OR or the other socks which were at the time just recently blocked.


]
:Also Atabek, you misunderstood Ehud's claims. The link you provide relates to 1992, where few Azeris near Sevan and Zangezur created a flag claiming independence as opposition to the declaration of the NKR. Adil Baguirov's claim has nothing to do with that flag, his claims are pre Soviet Union. In fact, the only claim on the web coming close to it, is from Adil’s website. ] (]) 03:25, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


] ]
::VartanM, there was a South-West Caucasus Republic in 1918, an unrecognized Muslim Turkic state created for few months on the territory of Erivan governorate, what's now called Armenia. There is a reference and as far as I remember a whole paragraph or two about it in Firuz Kazemzadeh, ''Struggle for Transcaucasia: 1917-1921'', New York Philosophical Library, 1951. Also, there were 200,000 Azeris prior to final exodus from Armenia in 1988, and the historical name of "Sevan" is Lake Goycha (Gokcha), that's how it's recorded on maps in references of that period. What Adil was doing with Zangezur and Goycha, and whether Ehud was reading his material online or not, is the separate business. But you can't claim that was Adil also. ] (]) 13:27, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


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.
:: This case can be easily resolved. One of the admins needs to contact Ehud and verify that he is a real person, and not a sock. This can be done by phone call, chat or even a webcam chat. There are many ways of doing it. So far none of the admins even attempted to do that, and this shows that no serious investigation has been conducted. Strange appearance of Khoikhoi after many months of absence also shows that he was apparently contacted off wiki and given misleading info. There were too many arbitration cases covering Armenia - Azerbaijan issues, do we really need another one? Why this issue cannot be resolved without the need to get involved in a lengthy litigation? ] (]) 05:46, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
:::Khoikhoi independently reviewed the contributions of this user over a long period of time. I was informed that Khoikhoi was reading through this user's contributions more than a month ago. This tells me that he did not make some quick decision. He examined the user's contributions, and found evidence of a connection to AdilBaguirov. I contacted Ehud about confirming his identity. He suggested a webcam chat. A webcam chat or a phone call would not prove anything. How would I know from a webcam chat or a phone call that I am talking to the real "Ehud Lesar"? Also, put aside the AA differences (doubt this will happen, but it's worth the suggestion). It seems this whole issue has escalated to mudslinging from both sides. I will ask some other uninvoled administrators to review the evidence and make their judgments. <span style="background:#E0FFFF;color:#007FFF;font-family:Georgia;">] (])</span> 05:56, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
:::: Actually, this is what I'm asking for, a real investigation, and not a block based on personal assumptions. Webcam is not the only way of proof, Ehud can give you more personal details proving that he is a real person. Just ask him for whatever proof you need. It is no good that you don't even attempt to make any real check. Also, I find it very strange how some admins handle this sort of issues. Just a few days ago a compelling evidence of disruptive activity of ] across multiple wikimedia projects, English wikipedia included, was presented, but no action has been taken against that user. At the same time Ehud was blocked without any real evidence or investigation. Is this a proper way of dealing with this sort of issues? ] (]) 06:22, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


] (]) 00:51, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
===Evidence===
{{abot}}
*Ehud account was created the same day it was confirmed that AdilBaguriov will be blocked for a year by AA1
*Ehud Lesar claims to be Askeranzi Jew from Azerbaijan, but the last name is not Azkeranzi and neither it is Azerbaijani Jewish
*Ehud edited the same articles and supported the position of Atabek and Grandmaster, just like Adil used to do
*Ehud edit warred in the ] article which is hardly notable both in wiki and realife. Adil has a webpage devoted to the topic and has writen about it extensivly.
*Ehud had the same exact claims as Adil about Geycha republic, which no other Azeri user claimed. And the only thing is even remotely written about this is again Adil's website.
*Ehud never contributed when there were other Adil socks and only came back when others were blocked.
*Adil's socks so far impersonated Armenians, Jews, Russians and English.


== IP vandalism ==
There are way to many coincidences to AGF and think otehrwise. ] (]) 06:39, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
{{atop

| 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)
: None of the above is a proof that Ehud is a sock and does not exist in real life. Admins need to verify his personality, and Ehud is willing to cooperate. ] (]) 08:22, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
}}

Here is another non-confirmed, blocked as a SPA, then unblocked, most likely Adil account , Batabat also claimed that his not an Azerbaijani, voted in support of Atabek and Grandmaster and pressured administrators that he wanted to call them and that he can prove it on webcam. We've been habituated with Adil's tricks long enough. There should be limits to all of this. ] (]) 08:31, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

: Just look at you arguments.

: ''Ehud edited the same articles and supported the position of Atabek and Grandmaster, just like Adil used to do''

: And you and Andranikpasha edited the same articles, to which most of other Armenian users did not contribute, does it mean that you two are socks? Of course not.

: ''Ehud edit warred in the ] article which is hardly notable both in wiki and realife. Adil has a webpage devoted to the topic and has writen about it extensivly''.
: ''Ehud had the same exact claims as Adil about Geycha republic, which no other Azeri user claimed. And the only thing is even remotely written about this is again Adil's website''.

: There are plenty of publications about both church and Geycha in Azerbaijani press, the fact that you are not aware of any is not a proof that Ehud is a sock. I mean how can anyone seriously consider such arguments as a basis for a permanent block? And Batabat was not a sock either, the allegations about him were proven false. ] (]) 08:39, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

::Oh good lord, where is this going to end. Grandmaster, if Batabat is not Adil, then he is some clone. These are his first four contributions on Misplaced Pages. , , , . Very Adil (we can actually use his name as a verb now) of him to replace Persian with Turkic. Then the next thing he does is to go to Khoikhoi's talkpage to defend Adil, ehmmm…, I mean "Dr. Baguirov" from his words. , . Then the next thing he does, he votes to keep the FORK article , , which was deleted regardless after you guys voted en mass by coordination to keep it. Then he voted with you guys to oppose an FA article. He becomes member of the Azerbaijan Wikiproject. Then he pushes Adil’s sarcasm to its end, with a 100% Adil comment on his userpage. After that comment he is blocked as a sock. This obvious sock then wants to be unblocked. , he emails an Admin and wants the email to be posted here. Check the similarities, he proposed to call him or webcam him to prove his identity. Batabat after being unblocked claims that he has to finish two books excusing his future absence. This was on March 13, two days after the Church of Kish article was created. The logical explanation would be that the email to the Admin was made hours or a day or two later, which closes the gap for those two days. Fedayee’s assertions are without a doubt correct, such obvious cases with a mountain of evidence would nomrlaly not even require a checkuser. Also Gm, your claim as well as Atabeks on so called "Geycha" does not make sense. Firuz Kazamzadeh's reference was regarding the Ottoman backed territory, which was away from "Geycha", "Geycha" wasn’t even included in the maps of the Azeri representatives at the Paris Peace Conference. Only Adil came up with these bogus claims. --<big>''' ] '''</font></big><sup><small>]</sup></small> 21:09, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

::: Eupator, your speculations are not a proof of Ehud being a sock. The Geycha argument is simply ridiculous. Since when two different people cannot mention the same topic? How could that be considered a proof of sockpupputery? Then Hetoum and Meowy are socks, because they tried to use the same Armenian source on Church of Kish. Any independent and real investigation will prove that Ehud and Adil are not related, and I'm gonna get such investigation carried out. For the moment I'm just trying to work out some solution that could help us avoid lengthy litigations. ] (]) 07:50, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

::::It's not two different people. It's the same person. Best case scenario a single purpose account and a meatpuppet but i'm still convinced it's just another one of his socks. Look how many socks Adil had and just like with this one, you used to claim that his other socks weren't socks either yet we saw how that turned out. The evidence against Adil's sock Ehud is a lot more than just both of them using the same source. You know Hetoum and Meowy have nothing to do with eachother so what's the point of your analogy? I find it odd that you are spending so much time on Adil and his socks instead of contributing to articles like you used to ages ago. No Azeri articles in need of improvement?--<big>''' ] '''</font></big><sup><small>]</sup></small> 17:22, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

"''I just received a communication from Ehud"'' Ehud doesn't have an email address. How did he contact you? Where did he get your email address? ] (]) 08:52, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
: Ehud emailed me a couple of days ago, after this whole harassment campaign against him started. I did provide my email address, and I receive plenty of communication from wiki editors, Armenian users included, btw. Is this against the rules or what? ] (]) 08:57, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Ehud doesn't have an email in his account, he could not have emailed you, unless he knew your email address before hand. Do you have a diff where he asks you or you give him your email address? ] (]) 09:01, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

::Not true, he can email '''to''' anyone, who hasn't disabled receiving through Misplaced Pages, even if he disabled receiving email '''from''' Misplaced Pages to his email account. Once he emails someone, his address becomes available for reply through regular email interface of the respondent. ] (]) 15:27, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

: I don't know how he did it, but he emailed me. If he chose not to receive email from other users, it does not mean that he doesn't have an email in his account. He might have chosen not to receive mail from others, but in that case he can still email other users. And what does it matter? Does it somehow prove that Ehud does not exist in real life and is a sock? ] (]) 13:50, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

:He's been in communication via email with me as well. He first emailed me to thank him for unblocking, then again when he was confused about not being able to edit again (not realizing he had been reblocked). Since then, I've received several additional emails regarding his desire to prove his identity. Apparently, Adil lives in DC or NY. Ehud, according to himself, resides in TX. He has offered to do a webchat, log onto Misplaced Pages and post whatever I request on his talk page while on cam. If that's not enough, he seems willing to do what's necessary to prove his identity. ''']''']''']''' 14:20, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

::VartanM and others, '''you can email any contributor while being blocked, by using "E-mail this User" feature''', on the left hand side of the menu. This can be done as long as both sender and recipient have email address added to their Misplaced Pages account. It's frankly a waste of time to question these technical features.

::Per your comment above, VartanM, what's really ridiculous is that a group of 3-4 people attributes one person to another without having any physical evidence of identity, having checkuser turned down, with a clear purpose, of eliminating the contributor, just because he claims to be Jewish and supports "the other party". I am not sure how far does Misplaced Pages go in terms of "presumption of innocence" or what's known here as ]. But I don't see it as normal that user gets blocked first based on obviously dubious report, '''no checkuser evidence''', and supported by some admins and rejected by others, and only then, while blocked, is being asked to help prove that he is himself, and not someone else. Moreover, he is being charged that his username is inappropriate and he should call himself something else just because other party wants so. How does username Ehud Lesar violate any Misplaced Pages rule?

::And Nishkid64, per your comment that Khoikhoi was reviewing evidence for several months, are you claiming that Khoikhoi was absent from Misplaced Pages for 2 months just to review claims against Ehud Lesar vs. Adil Baguirov? Interesting, I wonder what would be a reason for such a strong interest on behalf of what you perceive as a neutral admin, so as to take a time off Misplaced Pages for that. And I wonder why far more serious and checkuser confirmed allegations like this ] and with relevant discussion on ANI are simply ignored, while all concentrate on fact-lacking report of Fedayee. ] (]) 13:27, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

VartanM and Fedayee, apart from this comment of Fedayee: ''The evidence about the ethnicity was that Lesar is Sephardic, even the thesis that he was from Azerbaijan does not make sense, most Jews in Azerbaijan are not Sephardic'', falling simply under ] policy, what do you mean by ''most Jews in Azerbaijan'', how about those who are not ''most''? I shall remind you that President of Armenia, Robert Kocharian's last name, comes from Turkish word "kochari", which translates as nomad/migrant. So do many other Armenian last names have Turkic roots. Does it mean that he is not from Armenia but something else? Such form of claims are simply baseless. ] (]) 13:52, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

: This is a really strange situation. A couple of admins blocked a guy for no good reason, claming that he was a sock despite the lack of any evidence, now the guy who was blocked says that he is willing to prove that he is not a sock, but whatever he suggests is being rejected. Webcam is no good, it might be someone else sitting there, phone call is no good for the same reason, well then, Nishkid64, you propose something. We know that you are a good admin with plenty of knowledge about Misplaced Pages system. What does it take to prove that one is a real person and not a sock? What kind of proof do you want? Name it, Ehud said that he is willing to cooperate and provide any evidence that is necessary, he just wants to know what exactly he needs to do to prove that he exists in real life. We are all human begins, we all make mistakes, and admins make mistakes too. But if a mistake is made, there should be some way of correcting it. What is it in a situation like this? Any useful advice will be appreciated. ] (]) 16:52, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
::So, Ehud claims to be from Texas. Coincidentally, Adil Baguirov works for an energy consulting firm based out of Houston, Texas and Washington, D.C. Grandmaster, I would like to see some sort of documentation (passport, for example; he can blank out sensitive info with a screenshot), but I'm not even sure if Ehud's willing to consent to that. <span style="background:#E0FFFF;color:#007FFF;font-family:Georgia;">] (])</span> 17:32, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
::: I'm sure you know how many people live in Texas. It's not a small village, is it? If Ehud presents you the proof that you want, will you lift his block? ] (]) 17:47, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Nishkid, mind ]? To be honest, this is a first time I see an administrator publicly asking for someone's passport number at ANI. Perhaps, it would be more appropriate for you to contact Ehud directly and discuss with him what you need, just like Lara says she did above, instead of reposting sensitive information here. And nice comment about Texas :), and George Bush is from Crawford, Texas and lives in Washington D.C. too, he could be Adil's sock. Hope someone still has a sense of humor in this whole ordeal. ] (]) 18:13, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
:Atabek, it was only a suggestion. I'm fully aware of ], and I know that he can refuse if he wants to. There is no sensitive information (how could talk about a passport be sensitive???) posted here. Ehud suggested the same thing (webcam chat) to Lara as he did to me. I argued that it wouldn't prove any identity. If you have ideas for a definite ID confirmation that would not violate Ehud's privacy, let me know. <span style="background:#E0FFFF;color:#007FFF;font-family:Georgia;">] (])</span> 19:48, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

::I've advised Ehud to send an image of his identification showing photo and name through ]. So let's allow this time to happen. ''']''']''']''' 20:17, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

:: Lara, as VartanM said, he can send you id of his friend, that is not going to prove ''his'' identity. I think the only reliable way is to verify that IP address used is not registered for person under name ''Adil''. This way we can find out if he is Adil (in case his name is registered as user of the IP address) but he might have been using public places for internet, so it ''might'' not work as well. ] (]) 20:48, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Also I think this guy is Adil, as many people have identified, otherwise why would they? I am a new user as well but nobody identified me to be a sockpuppet of anybody else, be it Adil or Artaxaid or other "smart" people... Grandmaster could have been sockpuppet of Adil that he is running for more then 2 years, but also no claims regarding him being sockpuppet of Adil. Unfortunately the Misplaced Pages has no technical measures to establish identity of the user. So people remain it's main force that can bring forward evidences of his activity. ] (]) 21:08, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

The Lesar family lives indeed in Texas, like Ehud Lesar (because he's Adil Baguirov) as Ehud confirmed himself. Adil works as an energy consultant in Houston Texas from where the Lesar family runs its Halliburton:

Lesar family and Adil Baguirov work together for the construction of pipelines to export oil from Azerbaijan. I wonder how further Atabek wants this to be pushed, I didn't want to post this piece of evidence but you guys have pushed me to do it. I have more involving more users. I am done with this. So Lara, they will furnish you any evidence you want, they have all the resources they want, they could have one of the members of the Lesar family furnish their ID to have Adil here if they wanted. We're dealing with more than just innocent members. You don't know the situation, some Admins like Khoikhoi are aware of it. - ] (]) 21:39, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

: Fedayee, none of your speculations is a proof that Ehud is a sock. It is a pity that people in Misplaced Pages can be banned on the basis of speculations, without any real proof of being socks. ] (]) 06:45, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

::Your way of dismissing evidence and then claiming no evidence has been provided is starting to be fishy. Grandmaster, don't you realise that you are accusing a couple of Admins to have blocked someone without evidence when they said the evidence is compelling? Do you mean to say that they are lying? The house is on fire and you dismiss it claiming that the claim of fire is speculation. Adil has used the name of the Lesar family one of his clients to post here; I think the gravity of the situation would require an indefinite block on Adil's account as such actions are unacceptable. - ] (]) 18:13, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
::: There's simply no evidence to address. Admins are human being and can make mistakes. What you call "evidence" is simply a collection of unrelated diffs which prove nothing. i addressed some of Vartan's claims above. Compelling evidence would be something like this: , which for some strange reason resulted in no action. This particular issue can be resolved very simply by verifying the existence of Ehud in real life. So far we have not received any clear instructions on how to do that. From what I see, no matter what Ehud does to prove his existence, it will be rejected by certain people, who are unwilling to accept that they made a mistake accusing this user. The gravity of the situation actually requires immediate investigation of all circumstances that resulted in this block and how certain users were lobbying for it. But I hope the issue will be resolved without the need to take it to other authorities. ] (]) 19:30, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

::::Grandmaster, putting our national conflict aside, I am saying this as someone who has contributed alongside you for a long time. Disengage yourself from this; you will say things which you may regret. Claiming no evidence and so energetically pushing this makes this whole affair sound even fishier. And your comparison with Andranikpasha’s case can under the circumstance sound as you are attempting the change the subject. Grandmaster the evidence provided on Andranikpasha was not denied; we questioned its validity in regards to Andranikpasha’s contribution here on English Misplaced Pages, where he is behaving. So under no circumstances can it be called dismissal of evidence. - ] (]) 20:10, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
::::: Why should I disengage myself from this and let the innocent person remained blocked for no reason at all? On the contrary, I will be actively engaged in this until the problem is resolved, and I always stand by whatever I say. I don’t see that I said something that needs regretting. As for the rest, were not made in en wiki? ] (]) 08:54, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

===Response from blocking admin===
Hi all. Before I explain my reasons for my block, I would like to request that people assume good faith on my part. Although I have been inactive, I still check up on these kind of things from time to time. I have known Adil for years, and this type of behavior matches that of ] in addition to Adil himself. It was very typical of Adil to come out of nowhere and jump into edit wars (, ). In addition, compare some of his comments (, ) to Adil's messages (, ). ] said on his talk page, "", and that's exactly what I did. <tt class="plainlinks">]]</tt> 07:58, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

: Hi Khoikhoi. I'm glad that you joined this discussion. No one is assuming bad faith here with regard to your intentions, but people make mistakes, and this clearly is the case here. Ehud is a real person in real life, and not anyone's sock. He is willing to prove that, and I hope you will make some time to talk to him. ] (]) 08:29, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

: Btw, I fail to see any similarity in the diffs that you posted. Maybe it is just me and you could explain us which line or part you believe is similar? You are making a mistake, and it is not too late to correct it. Just give Ehud a chance, talk to him in person.

: And the argument that coming out of nowhere and jumping into edit wars was very typical of Adil does not make much sense to me either. If we use it as a basis for a permanent block, I can recommend analyzing behavior of a number of other people here. Fresh example, almost every Armenian editor turned up to vote for deletion of the category of Azerbaijani khanates:

: Some of those users turned up after quite a prolonged absence for the sole purpose of voting there. See for example ], who has not contributed since 11 December 2007, but somehow became aware of the voting on 5 January. Before voting he made only one edit in December, one edit in November, and no edits in October. Is Davo a sock? Using the same logic, he must be. I mean, we need to be reasonable here and give Ehud a fair chance to prove his existence. He has a right to keep his real life identity secret, plus, even presenting a scan of ID is not considered a sufficient proof by some people here. Ok then, what is the way for a blocked user to prove that he is not a sock? Is there any at all? I know Khoikhoi for many years as a fair admin, and I'm sure he will help us to find a way of resolving this issue. ] (]) 09:43, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Khoikhoi, assuming good faith with regards to your actions, can you please, provide a list of conditions/requirements that must be met in order to confirm Ehud Lesar's identity is not that of Adil. It seems like Nishkid laid out some conditions, but then whatever is done does not work for him, and seems like the objective is simply to keep Ehud Lesar blocked and off the Misplaced Pages and permanently accuse Adil of socks without any real proof. It's really disturbing that a contributor on Misplaced Pages can be just accused and blocked without any real proof of identity, moreover, accused by Fedayee of not being truly Jewish. Are you supportive of such line of argument?
Users Fedayee, VartanM, Andranikpasha always show up on various pages in order or simultaneously and revert, etc. often bringing similar positions as say banned Artaxiad (with 34 checkuser confirmed sock accounts) and Fadix. But this does not establish a ground to assume summarily, without proof of identity, that they're socks of each other. So, I simply ask for some reasonable approach, perhaps, contacting both Adil (whom you know for years) and Ehud, and confirming their separate identity, by defining your conditions.
Moreover, this kind of summary block of checkuser unrelated users establishes a dangerous precedent. Who can guarantee that tomorrow one of the conflicting sides will not try to establish a sock account posing as the user from the opposite side, making similar edits, just to get that long-time user blocked? Thanks. ] (]) 10:12, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

:I'm not sure that there is an effective way to prove real-life identity in this case without having Ehud edit with a trusted user looking over his shoulder (literally) while the banned user (who is actually willing to cooperate here) edits at the same time (even then, some may argue that the password for the latter was given to a proxy). Short of a polygraph test, what can he do? ] 10:36, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
:: Good question. Is there some sort of an established procedure that needs to be followed in situations like this? ] (]) 15:54, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
:::Ehud refused to provide identification to me. However, I told him he could send the picture of his passport through ]. He said he would do this. We'll see what happens now. <span style="background:#E0FFFF;color:#007FFF;font-family:Georgia;">] (])</span> 17:50, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

::::A picture is hardly any evidence... - ] (]) 18:26, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand why the burden of proof is being placed on the accused. If you can't prove he is a sock, I don't see how you have a right to block him. If there is only speculation and assumption regarding possible sockpuppetry, he should be treated as an individual editor and any action should be based on his editing patterns as opposed to those of another, in this case Adil. If he's edit-warring, having civility or NPA issues, then block accordingly. Otherwise, leave him to his editing. ''']''']''']''' 17:54, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
:There is contribution evidence linking Ehud to Adil. There are certain things that Adil did in his edits. These things have also been found in Ehud Lesar's editing. I don't see how that's speculation or assumptions. The people who say he is not a sock are the ones who Ehud sides with - the Azeris (Grandmaster and Atabek). They are just dismissing Fedayee's evidence and Khoikhoi's analysis of the contributions because they do not want to lose one of "their" editors and they think this is some ethnically-motivated block (apparently, they think that because an Armenian provided the bulk of the evidence in the case, then it must be clearly biased). So far, they argue that Ehud's innocence can be proven by his real-life identity. I haven't seen any of the Azeris show on-wiki evidence, showing that Ehud is not AdilBaguirov. Lara, there's another thing you should know about the AA case. Most of these editors (both Azeris and Armenians) spend their time edit warring and making Misplaced Pages a battleground. This is why the dispute has gone to ArbCom twice. Adil was banned until February 2008 (later extended to August) because he was one of the worst offenders. Since then, Adil has resurfaced under a number of socks, some of which were never detected by CheckUser. When you see evidence that a new editor, who just happened to start editing at the same time it was determined that Adil would be banned from Misplaced Pages, makes contributions similar to those of AdilBaguirov, then you naturally will suspect that there might be something going on. Fedayee provided a comprehensive list of similarities in the contributions of these two editors. Khoikhoi, an admin on Misplaced Pages who has spent more than 2 years in the midst of the AA situation, examined the contributions of Ehud Lesar, and found that he was definitely a sockpuppet of AdilBaguirov. <span style="background:#E0FFFF;color:#007FFF;font-family:Georgia;">] (])</span> 18:18, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
::Also note that there are four (possibly 5, if you include Daniel Case, who declined the unblock request) neutral administrators (FrancisTyers, Khoikhoi, Alex Bakharev and myself) who independently determined that Ehud was a sockpuppet, by looking through the user's contributions and/or through Fedayee's evidence. <span style="background:#E0FFFF;color:#007FFF;font-family:Georgia;">] (])</span> 18:21, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

::Are you serious? Lara, Adil has used countless socks and many are not on the list right now. Did you take a look at Batabat, the same claim, the same request… he wanted to call and webchat. We aren’t even talking about any evidence. We are not dealing with a user who was banned then is using another sock, we are dealing with a user who runs this account in parallel to several others to disrupt. Then let’s invite other banned users and say as you say. Adil is living in Houston Texas and Washington DC. I guess he didn’t mention you this important piece about Texas. Even the location points to him, neither that one of his major client is the Lesar family (and that he usurped their name). And we aren’t even at the beginning there as we aren’t even discussing about the conflict of interest and Adil’s involvement off wiki, including meatpuppeting off wiki to bring people to ''fight'' Armenian propaganda. - ] (]) 18:26, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Grandmaster, Davo has been a member of Misplaced Pages for nearly two years, and you know why he does not contribute much on English Misplaced Pages and you kow that he still checks it. Stop using analogies which you know aren’t accurate.

You never have you addressed all the evidence posted here, on my evidence page and the arbitration enforcement. Singling some of them and answering to them with obviously wrong analogies is far from dismissing the evidence provided. When taking all the evidence together and treated together, there can be no resonable doubt. - ] (]) 18:43, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

: Nishkid64 is providing inaccurate info by saying that only Azeris dismiss Fedayee's info. Fedayee's allegations were rejected at ] board by at least 3 admins: If the evidence was so compelling, why do you think it was rejected before? I think Nishkid64's persistence to have Ehud blocked is simply gonna result in another arbcom case on this topic. We still haven't received any explanation what a blocked person needs to do to prove that he is not a sock and why someone actually needs to prove that he is not sock, when there's no proof that he is a sock? Nishkid64 is simply siding with one of the sides of the dispute, i.e. with Armenian users, who want to get rid of one of Azerbaijani editors, blindly accepting their "evidences" and not giving the unfairly blocked user any chance to defend himself. Such approach is not acceptable, and will lead only to further escalation of the conflict in this part of Misplaced Pages, which as we know usually result in another arbcom case. ] (]) 19:17, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
::You are escalting things unnecessarily. You are also exaggerating Ehud as an editor and misleading everyone else by polarizing this case as "us vs them". What does it mean: '''Armenian users, who want to get rid of one of Azerbaijani editors'''? That's quite strong language there. Ehud is by no means just another Azeri editor as Grandmaster is trying to portray him. Some might even read your last few comments as borderline threats. Again, any neutral party reading the mountain of evidence compiled against Ehud can tell that it's a single purpose account and a sock of Adil. --<big>''' ] '''</font></big><sup><small>]</sup></small> 19:27, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
::: It was a response to Nishkid, who actually introduced this us vs them terminology in this thread. He said in his above post: ''The people who say he is not a sock are the ones who Ehud sides with - the Azeris (Grandmaster and Atabek)''. Somehow he failed to mention that neither Lara, no admins at AE board are Azeris. Using Nishkid's language, people who were lobbying for Ehud's block belong to another national group. I don't see any necessity to stress national affiliation here, but since Nishkid started doing it, I have to address it. ] (]) 19:34, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
::::Fedayee's original claims were unfounded, because uninvolved admins at AE did not have any specifics of sockpuppetry. Much of the admin involvement came before Fedayee had organized his evidence and posted it on a user subpage. Picaroon commented that he wanted more behavioral similarities and that he was a bit confused about the whole Geycha thing. Jayvdb read it, but never commented on its merits, as far as I know. Thatcher closed the discussion because there was "no confirmation of sockpuppetry" and placed Ehud Lesar on revert parole. Judging from , I don't even think Thatcher read the evidence. He made his judgment based on the discussion of AE. So, Fedayee's allegations were not rejected or dismissed at AE by at least 3 administrators, as Grandmaster claims. In fact, it appears only one user actually commented on Fedayee's evidence - Picaroon. Apparently, he wanted some sort of behavioral analysis of the two users' editing patterns. I don't take sides in the AA dispute. I just enforce policy. I did not blindly accept their evidence. I also told Ehud Lesar last night on Google Talk (read above) to send a picture of his passport through ]. I've been more than cooperative in these dealings. As for the "us vs. them" thing, I only brought it up because of your numerous references to AA ArbCom cases and Armenia vs. Azerbaijan. Also, my previous response was directed to LaraLove. Why would I would refer to her if I'm talking directly to her? <span style="background:#E0FFFF;color:#007FFF;font-family:Georgia;">] (])</span> 19:44, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
::::: So you are saying that threads at ] are being closed without actually being read? If not, what in your opinion "no confirmation of sockpuppetry" supposed to mean? ] (]) 20:43, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
::::::See the diff I posted of Thatcher's contributions. He closed the Eupator section on AE at 03:06, 31 December 2007, and the Ehud Lesar section two minutes later. The time differences for his previous contributions show that he was editing every few minutes. I don't think you could grasp all the evidence posted by Fedayee in just a few minutes. <span style="background:#E0FFFF;color:#007FFF;font-family:Georgia;">] (])</span> 23:31, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
::::::: This does not mean that he did not read the page before, while discussion was in progress. ] (]) 07:58, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Here is my take on this situation. I know that I am as qualified as the other side, but I think my insides should be considered. First of all guys, the evidence posted here alone should be enough not even needing to read what is on Fedayee's page. The relation between Adil and the Lesar family should not have been exposed here. It is obvious that Adil made a mistake by choosing this name without the knowledge of the Lesar family. So it is understandable that he will try to do everything to prove he is not Adil. We are dealing with a potential usurpation from Adil’s part of the family name of one of his clients. I acknowledge that by saying this: I am not making things more simpler because now Adil will be attempting with more energy to prove that he is not Adil, but given the evidence, this leaves no doubt anymore. It is Adil’s interest to bring this to arbitration because he has nothing to lose. So all the administrators involved here should prepare more evidence (I don’t believe more is needed though). If the block becomes definitive, it is also maybe a good idea to contact the Lesar family to report Adil's abuse. It’s their family name which is used to post this nationalistic bombast and nonsense anyways. Regards, --] (]) 23:03, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

:Will I be not assuming good faith if I point out that Grandmaster wrote above: ''with Armenian users, who want to get rid of '''one of Azerbaijani editors,'''...'' Correct me if I am wrong, but did I miss something? Was Ehud Lesar not claiming to be Ashkenazi Jew? If Grandmaster is admitting that he is an Azerbaijani editor he is basically admitting that Ehud Lesar was a fake name. I wonder what are the chances that there is an Azerbaijani Jew with a Sephardic name (Sephardics are a very small minority of the Jews from Azerbaijan) living in Texas mysteriously just like Adil, and where the Lesar family lives. Whitepages don't have any records about Ehud Lesar, and most if not all Lesar’s from Texas are from the Lesar family. One way is to contact ], he probably knows all the Lesar's from his hometown. But what I suggest is for Adil to drop this and leave it at that, because I personally will not accept some pictures which can easily be forged as valid evidence. I am just fed up with this, Armenian and Azerbaijani editors have enough problems to coexist on Misplaced Pages without Adil's disruptions. ] (]) 03:03, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

VartanM, your argument about Ehud Lesar's username has absolutely no relevance to the question whether he is Adil or not. There is no Misplaced Pages rule that says a contributor is not allowed to register a username of his choice. Just because MarshallBagramyan has a username does not mean he is Marshall Bagramyan. In fact, such arguments as questioning contributor's ethnic identity based on his username or to claim that person being a sockpuppet of another is simply a violation of ], ], ] and ].

Nishkid, your argument that only Azeri contributors are in support of Ehud not being Adil is an accusation without basis and an assumption of bad faith as:

:* 1) You have so far produced no legible proof that Ehud is Adil, but only trying to justify the block after fact;
:* 2) Just about every Armenian (that's opposite party) contributor above has been commenting claiming Ehud is Adil's sock, having no proofs either.

So there is an obvious interest to get rid of a contributor along national lines. And now you're essentially accusing myself or Grandmaster of lying that Ehud is not Adil, pouring accusation on a banned ], who can't even defend himself here, and blocking another contributor ] based on VartanM or Fedayee's ethnic claim that "he is not a Jew" (as if that disqualifies someone from editing Misplaced Pages). This does not seem to be quite neutral administration, especially when you have no proofs for your accusation.

And it does not matter if 4 or 104 administrators support you, this is about finding the truth, clearing people of false charges, and preventing from future dangerous precedents of frivolous blocking. Ehud Lesar case should be pursued further, and if necessary, with the involvement of ArbCom and ], until his identity and baseless charges against him are cleared. I personally will seek no further interest in editing Misplaced Pages, if people are just being blocked frivolously just because someone else accuses the person of not being Ashkenazi or Sephardic Jew. Supporting such reports by an administrative action, in my opinion, is a gross violation of any form of civility let it alone the definition of the term 💕. ] (]) 05:20, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

: I will be definitely be pursuing this further until the issue is resolved. But at the moment I'm trying to get the problem resolved by consensus with the blocking admins. If it does not work, we will have to take further steps prescribed by Misplaced Pages rules for the dispute resolution. ] (]) 08:35, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

== Uploads of ] ==

This user has uploaded an undetermined number of fair use files that have fair use rationales consisting of a few words. Needless to say, they do not conform to ]. I've already tagged three for di, but was unsure whether to continue (] adds a warning to his talk page every time... flooding etc). There may be a large number of others. --'''<font color="red">]</font><font color="green">]</font><font color="blue">]</font>''' @087, i.e. 01:05, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
:Actually, you do need to explain why these rationales don't conform with ], otherwise your contest is without basis. If you think that these rationales are in some way deficient, please feel free to expand them or detail your concerns at the respective image description pages. The primary concern remains whether the current ''use'' of these images is consistent with the NFCC, the inadequacy of rationales is secondary. ˉˉ<sup>]</sup>] 01:11, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
::The problem is that he has a ''large'' number of these things, none of which provide a valid ]. The first one was three words long. He is missing entire criteria in all three. None of the three are more than a sentence in length. ] is a guideline, and ] are only made when there is an actual (common sense) reason for doing so. Laziness is not a reason. --'''<font color="red">]</font><font color="green">]</font><font color="blue">]</font>''' @096, i.e. 01:18, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
:::Why do you think these rationales are not valid? Which specific parts of FURG do they violate? Don't judge a rationale by its length, there is no guideline that requires a set number of paragraphs and most rationales are plagued by redundancy. The concerns that have to be addressed include image quality, replaceability, and purpose for use; Norton's rationale of "low res, dead, no revenue loss" may be concise, but it does address these concerns. And please, don't throw out accusations of laziness. ˉˉ<sup>]</sup>] 01:26, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
(outdent, ec, late comment) It did not address purpose of use on any occasion. --'''<font color="red">]</font><font color="green">]</font><font color="blue">]</font>''' @135, i.e. 02:14, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
:The purpose of using a photograph to identify a person is self-explanatory. Even so, if the lack of a statement on the purpose is your sole concern, then say so in the tag. ˉˉ<sup>]</sup>] 02:39, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
::Here I echo Wikidemo's comment (further down). --'''<font color="red">]</font><font color="green">]</font><font color="blue">]</font>''' @192, i.e. 03:35, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
*The guidelines are going to keep evolving, and new templates created. We shouldn't delete the older material, we should fix it each time a new guideline comes out. The purpose is to have a useful reference work. Any new editor can format the rationale to whatever the new standards are, but to delete the material is just silly, and does no service to this reference work. --] (]) 01:54, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
::(edit conflict, rewrote comment) They (the images) are not old enough for that; one of them was uploaded last August: ]. Did you read ] before uploading? . Even then it required a purpose of use. Not sure what you're getting at here. --'''<font color="red">]</font><font color="green">]</font><font color="blue">]</font>''' @134, i.e. 02:12, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
*The fair use rationale is there, just not formatted pretty. The pretty templates came later. And more changes will come in years to come, the question is ... do we delete what we don't like, or do we fix and upgrade to accommodate new changes. We don't ''delete articles'' with old infoboxes, we upgrade the article with the new infobox. Deletion is for ego satisfaction, fixing is for creating a good reference work. Why are we deleting an image because someone doesn't like the format for the rationale, why not fix? If everyone deleted, we would have nothing. --] (]) 07:41, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
:::Richard, a little cut-and-paste work will spare the drama. I'm assuming good faith but the tone of the use rationales is a little dismissive. You can at least use a template or something. Also, the article name ought to be associated with the rationale, not the image as a whole (in case it gets used in more than one article someday). One criterion that's missing from your analysis is the explanation of why the image is important to the article (criterion #8) and not replaceable (#1). Neither "low res" nor "dead" explains that, and "no revenue loss" is a conclusion, not a justification. The area in which you're operating, historical photos, is one that is not an obvious case like record covers, logos, or book jackets. ] (]) 02:36, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
::Richard, that would be a good argument, except that there ''were'' templates when you uploaded that image. Click on my link. I'm still assuming good faith, but it's becoming more difficult. I still believe that there is a rational explanation for this -- specifically, you forgot to read the guideline. That's all I can come up with. Of course, if you have a rational explanation, feel free to post it. --'''<font color="red">]</font><font color="green">]</font><font color="blue">]</font>''' @918, i.e. 21:02, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
:::The good faith explanation you're missing is this: ignoring instruction creep is entirely appropriate in some cases. The phrase "forgot to read the guideline" implies that you think every Wikipedian has your guideline on their watchlist, so they can do things differently every time it changes. Richard Arthur Norton has been improving the encyclopedia, so don't attack him for improving it in what you consider to be slightly the wrong way. ] / ] 10:40, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

== ] ==

I ask that the actions of this editor be reviewed. I still feel threatened and feel like I am being treated in a uncivil manner. I think this editor may have jumped the gun in warnings and threats when he knew that they were not necessary. I think he may have simply done the bidding of another user, chrisjnelson, who has been banned before for uncivil posts. I simply ask that those with power to block be fair and juducicial, rather than what I think may have been a knee-jerk, unfair, abuse of his powers. ] (]) 01:34, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

::this was Pats1's response to me when I said I wanted this to be reviewed . . . is this acceptable?] (]) 01:45, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
::::::Don't hold your breath for too long... ] ]/] 01:30, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
:I noticed that you seem to be very interested in bringing this admin to justice... from reading your talk page and his, I think this is a misunderstanding at best, and an ip troll at worst. Of course we ] best case. I think you should read ] and objectively look at your actions. I advise you not to continue this dispute, as it may lead to blocking or banning, which we seriously ] to do, but ]. You might try ]. If you disagree with me and believe that there are widespread abuses, then ultimately you should go to ], but you should know that these cases are not accepted lightly, and you should attempt to resolve the issue outside of arbitration, through venues such as an ], or request for comment, which is slightly more formal than talk page discussion, and/or mediation. --'''<font color="red">]</font><font color="green">]</font><font color="blue">]</font>''' @175, i.e. 03:11, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

::::::I guarantee this is not an "IP" troll, whatever that is. I have contributed to wiki and think I should be valued as much as anyone else. I do disagree with you, but I do not claim widespread abuses. I agree this is a misunderstanding. I think if you look at what happened, I have remained calm and deliberate. Pats1 was been the one who is, in my view, being uncivil and also keeps changing his story. If you would put yourself in my shoes for a moment you would see that this was a "gang-up" situation, where a misunderstanding excalated, due to Pats1, threatening to block me without a valid reason. I have tried to get Pats1 to be reasonable, yet as you can see, he is still defiant and I see no reason why it is me who is under the scrutiny. As you say I need to assume the best, but it seems to me, and this is just my opinion, there seems to be some "editor" protections I am not aware of. It seems that since I choose to be anonymous that my word is not as good as someone else's. I have asked for fairness. I admit that I am not perfect, however, it is I who have followed the rules. At every step it seems I have been blocked, pardon the pun, from what is fair and right. I cannot comment on how arbitration or mediation would be appropriate---I don't know the process of either. ] is a new thing to me altogether. I guess I think it is fair that those in power are the ones who should help me in this process, rather than hinder it. I think other editors should look at Pats1's action objectively, not look at him as "one of you" are that he is part of a clique. I understand that is natural . . . but when it is Pats1 who overreacted to a request of chrisjnelson, then threatens to block, even though I had asked for a solution prior to that means that he may have been abusing his power. You see, it is easy to get your way when you have power. In that situation I was at Pats1's mercy. Understand? I had asked that the problem go to dispureresolution. Pats1 says that "means nothing" to him. Well, it meant something to me. SO, this is ultimately not up to me. I have zero power here. I cannot make anyone do anything they don't want to. In a sense, as an IP minority, I have no franchise, but I thought I had the protections afforded anyone else. Now, as far as ], ], ] I don't know. Clearly, the most informal should be first. However, it is my view that Pats1 will be defensive about ANY of those. I could not get him to talk to me before he threatend to block me, and he's shown his attitude by his posts . . .
::::::::] (]) 01:45, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
:::::::::::Don't hold your breath for too long... ] ]/] 01:30, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

....So, if I am wasting my time by asking for a review, formal or informal, then so be it. Then it may be the above statement is considered CIVIL. In my book it is not. ] (]) 02:45, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

:From what I've read about this whole issue, it seems to be about an incredibly minor issue. The whole conflict between 72.0.36.36 and {{user|Chrisjnelson}} I think could've been avoided. Based on my observations, correct me if I'm wrong, when {{user|Pats1}} got involved with the revert war between 72~ and Chrisjnelson, I understand the basis of which Chrisjnelson, and later Pats1, made the reverts. I won't say who I believe was right or wrong.

:Now, for 72~'s claim that he was unfairly warned/threatened. The two warnings visible on his talk page right now cite that 72~ had deleted portions of "page content, templates or other materials." The only thing that I've seen that 72~ did was remove {{tl|trivia}} from the ] article. Now, here is my view of how the situation was handled.

:I think that Pats1 knew that the edits that 72~ was making were disputed. The warnings that Pats1 gave out are generally used for users deliberately blanking all or part of an article in a deliberate act of vandalism. There is nothing that indicates to me that 72~ was vandalizing the article. It is my belief that the warnings Pats1 gave to 72~ were not necessary, and made the conflict into more than what it needed to.

:In either case, Pats1 is a great contributor and a good admin. I don't think that anybody's behavior needs to be reviewed. But I do side with 72~ about the "unfair warnings", and that has nothing to do with my previous conflicts with Chrisjnelson or Pats1. I think that the best way to resolve this would be for both sides to just go their separate ways and try not to make this issue anything more than it needs to be. I see no reason why any action needs to be taken because this is just one incident. It's not indicative of anybody's overall behavior. ''']'''<small>]</small> 04:32, 12 January 2008 (UTC)


'''This is Pats1 attitude'''
:::::::Be prepared to stay in that mode for a long, long, long time (possibly forever, but research on the subject varies). Your AN/I entry has been archived and most likely won't be seen again - like I said before, but you didn't want to listen. Nobody is "looking at it." ] ]/] 04:04, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

::::Well, okay, if that's the ruling, I can abide by that. I posted Pats1 most recent post to my talk page. It is not what I call civil, but there are often different standards. Like I said, I can abide this, no problem. I will go my separate way he Pats1 can go his. It is enough for me that there was some sort of review process and now Pats1 is aware that I will assume good faith, but not to a fault. Thanks ] I appreciate the review.] (]) 04:53, 12 January 2008 (UTC)



::::Be prepared to stay in that mode for a long, long, long time (possibly forever, but research on the subject varies). Your AN/I entry has been archived and most likely won't be seen again - like I said before, but you didn't want to listen. Nobody is "looking at it." ] ]/] 04:04, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

:::::: Is ''']'''<small>]</small> 04:32, 12 January 2008 (UTC) nobody? Besides Pats1 this conversation is between myself and ]. What exactly is the purpose for you to comment? That is another example, I think, of your bullying behavior and it is not civil and is yet anotehr example of you flaunting the rules in my face. I don't get why you do that. Perhaps you think you need to hold it over me that you have more power and connections in WIKI than I do, I don't know. I think you and I should take the advise of "nobody" and go our separate ways. I have documented your actions, someone has reviewed them and please go your way, I'll go mine.] (]) 04:58, 12 January 2008 (UTC)


===Pats 1 uncivil?===
:Ksy92003 can read it or respond to it all he wants. You quite simply have a false assumption of how Misplaced Pages processes work and I've tried to help you fix that, but to avail. This is going nowhere. ] ]/] 03:00, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

::I don't think there is any evidence that Pats1 tried to help at all. I don't think that is truthful. He clearly does not think]'s opinion is worthy of his attention. I find Pats1 attitude to be uncivil . . . however, if WIKI rules cannot do anything and other admins are not "peer reviewed" as it were then I can kind of understand why this kind of abuse can go on. The very fact that he has such contempt for the process is quite interesting in that it goes unchecked. ] (]) 07:11, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

== ] ==

Turtescrubber is inserting material into an article that is already in the article. I reverted , and he reverted back. I do not want to get into an edit war, and so the article now contains several paragraphs that are repeated twice. Perhaps an admin could look into it?] (]) 02:45, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
:Note, Ferrylodge has been blocked before, several times before, see . ] (]) 02:51, 11 January 2008 (UTC) But not Turtlescrubber, see [
http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:Turtlescrubber]. ] (]) 02:54, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
::And does that end the discussion, Bearian? ArbCom overturned the ban against me. How is that relevant to the issue I raised above?] (]) 02:57, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
::Ferrylodge is going against an article consensus that left the article locked for weeks. He never really accepted the consensus to keep the section in the article and has a horrible case of wp:own. He has worn all the editors on the page down with his constant bickering. I cant take him anymore. I recently stood up for him when a group of editors wanted him to be banned again, I wish I hadn't. I cannot assume good faith with him anymore. ] (]) 02:58, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
::My point. ] (]) <small>—Preceding ] was added at 02:59, 11 January 2008 (UTC)</small><!--Template:Undated--> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

:::Bearian, no article should contain multiple duplicate paragraphs. This article was previously protected in response to . Now he is edit-warring to repeat material that is already in the article.] (]) 03:05, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
::::I am following talk page consensus, something you obviously have a problem with. Why did you get banned in the first place. You were the one who stripped the article in the first place and you are slowly doing the same thing again. You should be ashamed of yourself. ] (]) 03:15, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
:::::It is not "stripping" an article to remove duplicate paragraphs. There was no consensus anywhere to have duplicate paragraphs. You have repeatedly inserted duplicate paragraphs today, and that needs to stop.] (]) 03:18, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
::::::Stop twisting my words, its a bad habit you have. You were, in part, responsible for the original protection of the page because you kept stripping the article of any religious content. Now you are slowly doing the same thing, first you remove the CONSENSUS Section on Mitt Romney's religion. When you have the material scattered throughout the page, you are going to slowly delete or "phase out" or the material. I have seen you do it before, there are reams on the talk page about this, you are going completely against consensus, again. The funny thing is that you wrote the damn section to get the page unblocked and as soon as it was unblocked you started whining and trying to dismantle the section and shuffle the information off into the void. You are a Mitt Romney supporter who does not like the fact that him being a mormon is detrimental to his election chances. You have a serious case of CONFLICT of INTEREST and you do not OWN the page, no matter how many edits you make. If anyone wants to see a good example of this users talk page and editing style, look to the fetus article talk page. Ferrylodge is doing the exact same thing there and pissing everybody off. Par for course. ] (]) 03:44, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
::::::::People can go see for themselves. Every paragraph that Turtlescrubber has jammed into the article today was already in the article. Now each of his preferred paragraphs appear twice in the article. Is this so complicated?] (]) 03:48, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
:::::::::I reinserted the consensus version. You are the one that went against consensus and scattered information throughout the page. If they appear twice then we should removed the scattered non-consensus material, then everybody is happy. Is that what you want? That would be fine with me. Instead, I think this is your excuse and the only argument you have. I say leave the consensus derived paragraphs in the article, it tooks us weeks to all agree on that section. ] (]) 03:53, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
::::::::::Every single one of the consensus-derived sentences remained in this article, before you began edit-warring today to include duplicates of those sentences. The only exception is a sentence about Mrs. Romney's family, which is now located in the separate article about her.] (]) 03:57, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
:::::::::::The section and placement of the section was part of the compromise. You know that. You have tried to undue the consensus multiple times. Once again, the fact that all the information is in one place in the article and the placement of that section were both parts of the consensus. ] (]) 04:00, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Based on what I saw a long time ago, Turtlescrubber edits suggests a very liberal political viewpoint and Ferrylodge a very conservative viewpoint (but not a goose stepping facist or racist). Censensus will be very difficult but can be achieved if BOTH want it. Saying that one was blocked but they were not is NOT the way to begin to achieve consensus.] (]) 03:39, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
:I am a moderate and I have never run into you before. CONSENSUS HAS BEEN REACHED ON THE TALK PAGE, Ferrylodge is violating that consensus. It's in the archive. ] (]) 03:44, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
::Seek the middle way between the two extremes. The best compromise I can think of is to merge the two sections together: everybody wins. &mdash;] | ] 03:56, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
:::What two sections? And are you calling the hard won consensus made by weeks of discussion on the talk page one of the extremes? I don't see how following the consensus of a dozen editors, against one who eventually agreed, is an extreme. ] (]) 04:02, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

::::There was no hard-won consensus to have multiple paragraphs about the subject's Mormonism, and then repeat every last one of those paragraphs twice for added emphasis. As I said in my first comment above, I'm not inclined to edit-war about this; as far as I'm concerned Tutrlescrubber can now go and reinsert the material again, so that it appears in triplicate.] (]) 04:05, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

:::::The two sections, "Early life and education" and "Religious background". Talk page discussion by several users seems to question whether consensus exists, so blaming Ferrylodge doesn't seem right. You also seem to be very angry and upset about this, when what is needed is calm appraisal. &mdash;] | ] 04:09, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

::::::Sorry, you have to read the entirety of the third archive and part of the fourth to see the consensus and the reaction that other users had when ferrylodge tried to break the consensus. I don't know how to link to specific sections in an archive. Ferrylodge has been trying to break the consensus from literaly day one. He was stopped immediately by the outcry of the many editors who had worked so long to gain the consensus. I have never been as frustrated with any editor that I have been with ferrylodge. Just look at his arguments on this page. They shift everytime he is wrong and he never stops. Its almost psychotic or obsessive compulsive. I understand why he got banned in the past. ] (]) 04:17, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

:::::::My arguments on this page have not "shifted." No Misplaced Pages article should contain duplicate sentences, much less dozens of them. Inserting duplicate sentences strikes me as vandalism.] (]) 04:20, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

:::::::::'''Well then lets keep the religious background section and remove the stray sentences. Everybody is happy. Deal? Or are you going to shift your argument again or just ignore this bolded comment?''' ] (]) 04:23, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

::::::::::'''Hello? I think I solved your complaint. Why aren't you responding? ] (]) 04:57, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

:::::::::::My response is below, at 04:42, 11 January 2008.] (]) 04:58, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

::::::::::::Wow, you changed your line of argumentation and ignored my original statement. You will keep doing that very thing ad infinitum until you exhaust the patience of everyone on this page.] (]) 05:03, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
:::::::Turtlescrubber, this is why we should encourage ''page moves'' when archiving talk pages, as the diffs are preserved in each individual archive. If you can't find the links in the specific archive, then they are on the main talk page under the date, which means you have to go hunting. Let me address the problem another way. If you were willing to make a concession but also wanted Ferrylodge to do the same, how would you meet him half way? What part of this argument are you willing to give up, and in the same way, which aspect should Ferrylodge concede? &mdash;] | ] 04:22, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

:::::::::I understand what you are trying to do and I do appreciate it. My sticking point is the second section of the article should be the religious background section and most of the religious material should be kept therein. This was part of the consensus and it allows us to see when material is removed. I don't care about content. Good, bad, negative or positive.] (]) 04:27, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

(undent)The reason I came here is because duplicative material should not be jammed into an article. All of the other issues are tangential, and should be worked out by consensus at the talk page.

I cannot think of a worse reason to keep a bunch of sentences grouped together than because "it allows us to see when material is removed." If you don't have the time or energy to watch the article or participate in the talk page, that's no reason why everyone else must arrange your favorite parts of the article in a format that will make them easier for you to monitor. And, again, the main point is that ''it is vandalism to take dozens of sentences in an article, copy them, and then redundantly paste them into the article.''

When I invited Turtlescrubber to the talk page today, he declined. Turtlescrubber, if you would undo your duplicative edits, and come to the talk page, you'll see that '''''none''''' of the consensus-sentences about Romney's religion have been removed, except for one sentence about Romney's wife's family (which is now in the article about Romney's wife). The consensus-sentences have been put into several different sections of the article, to which those sentences correspond.] (]) 04:42, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I no longer assume good faith from you ferrylodge. I have talked with you about this very subject dozens of times on the talk page as seen in the archives. We have talked about this over a period of many weeks. We had a consensus. You don't like it and want it changed. You will eventually scatter the material throughout the article and slowly delete it as you have started to do. That is why having it in a section is the only way to keep an eye on it. That is because of you and your obsessive need to "clean" your candidates article. You constantly edit the article and slip in changes when no ones looking. I am a normal persona and cannot keep up with the obsessive amounts of edits you make. Lets remove the stray sentences, keep the second section and call it a day. If '''"all other issues are tangential"''' than this should be a workable solution. '''What do you say to that solution ferrylodge?''' ] (]) 05:00, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

:Fortunately, Turtlescrubber, you can go to the history page of an article, and select any two versions to compare. You don't have to compare consecutive versions.

:Additionally, as you know, you have made a grand total of one talk page comment this year. You said, "I restored the full section and will not let your pov and conflict of interest remove all references to religion from Mitt Romneys page." As you must be able to acknowledge, I did not remove a single reference to religion from Mitt Romney's page, except for one sentence about his wife's family, which is now in the seperate article about his wife (although the editors there shortened it because they thought it was a "digression" even in the article about her ).

:And getting back to the point: please stop duplicating your favorite material in the ] article. Just because you want everyone to be aware of his Mormonism does not permit you to repeat dozens of sentences over and over again. That's vandalism.] (]) 05:09, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Lets remove the stray sentences, keep the second section and call it a day. There would be no duplicate material. If '''"all other issues are tangential"''' than this should be a workable solution. '''What do you say to that solution ferrylodge? Would that solution to the duplicate material work for you? Please answer yes or no and than say why!''' ] (]) 05:14, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Are you guys actually looking for some action from an administrator here, or are you just bringing a content dispute to AN/I? Bringing an argument here probably isn't helping either one of you. There's ] for that. --] <sup>]</sup> 05:20, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

::Elkman, as I said in my first comment, I would very much appreciate some action from an administrator here. Isn't it vandalism for a user to insert duplicates of dozens of sentences in an article?] (]) 05:22, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

:::Well, I didn't bring this to the page. I just want to return to the consensus version and then I will be happy to leave the page alone. '''Jesus, do you want to remove the duplicate material. I'll do it. No problem.''' ] (]) 05:24, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

::::'''Done. I removed the duplicate material as per your concerns. I hope this situation is resolved.''' I am going to sleep. ] (]) 05:31, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

====The consensus agreement====
Hello everyone. I have taken a much-needed break from editing on ] but I was right in the midst of the consensus discussions that Turtlescrubber refers to, and I will be glad to report what the consensus was at that time. But I am not willing to hunt down the diffs and I'm doing this from memory because I've already wasted too much of my life arguing with a tendentious editor on this and other matters. I am not going to get embroiled in this here or anywhere else - I don't have the time or the interest to respond to the volumes that I expect will ensue, based on previous experience. So I will report and I will leave and you can decide what to do about it.

Turtlescrubber is completely correct that the agreement that allowed the full protection to finally be lifted was that there would be a section on "Religious Background" as the second section of the article - that is, directly under "Early life and education". This was a consensus agreement, that included editors who had taken different positions initially. It was a compromise based on the Eisenhower model, but it didn't last too long before tinkering with it began. There were requests that the consensus agreement be left alone so that the article could enjoy some stability, but apparently that went out the window. There was certainly no agreement that once the page was unlocked the religion section could be dismantled and distributed throughout the article. There was a proposal to move only the second paragraph (I think it was the 2nd) to the Presidential campaign section, but ''no agreement'' that I know of was reached on that - I was one of the editors who said I might be willing to consider that but I never did agree to it. And in any case, part and parcel of my even being willing to consider it was that the Religious background section would remain as the 2nd section of the article, as many of us believe that his religion is one of the first things that people look for discussions of when they come to his article.

For that reason, I would totally oppose the dismantling of the religion section and never would have agreed to it if I were actively editing there now. I believe that breaking up of the religious background section is designed to downplay references to his being a Mormon, for whatever reason, and while I might not think that every biography should have a prominent religion section, I think this one needs to. Further, I think that the way the material has been edited has been in a not particularly neutral way - it seems to be also designed to remove any hint of negativity or critical view - again, you can decide for what reason, as I don't care to speculate right now.

Of course no one thinks that the material should be repeated in the article (other than perhaps an echo in the intro) - Ferrylodge is right about that. I would hope Turtlescrubber really didn't have that in mind as his final edit, and his bolded section above clearly indicates to me that he does not want the material duplicated. I think he was re-instating the section that had been agreed to, and I believe he'd agree to remove the duplication from the other sections if the consensus agreement to retain the separate section is respected.

If a new consensus has been reached, I don't know anything about it, and I acknowledge that consensus can change. But not by strong-arming, one would hope. As I said, I have been on a break from this article, and I may or may not go back to it - I haven't decided. But if this AN/I item is an indication of what's going on there, I'll be less likely to. I would have hoped that Ferrylodge's experience in being banned and having a arbitration lift the ban because of discomfort with the banning process would have shown him a different path, but it sounds like not that much has changed, which is unfortunate. I hope this helps, but I mean it - I really do not want to go another ten rounds with you, Ferrylodge. So try to resist temptation to invoke what you think my politics are and any other tactic, and see if you can respect the consensus that I and Cool Hand Luke and others worked really hard to achieve after a long period of full protection. One other thing: I have had absolutely no contact with Turtlescrubber or anyone else about this - no one asked me to come here and comment, I just saw it on AN/I and decided to try to help out. And I am sincere in that - I am only commenting here in an attempt to help. <strong>] </strong>|<small>]</small> 05:32, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
::: And, it looks like there was an almost simultaneous edit here and that Turtlescrubber removed the duplication - I haven't looked at it - so will the consensus Religious Background section be maintained? That no doubt will determine whether this matter is resolved or not. <strong>] </strong>|<small>]</small> 05:41, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
::::Yeah, the consensus works for me. I asked the guy four times if he wanted me to remove the duplicate material, if you hadn't come along he would have just changed his argument to the next silly thing he thought of. Resolved now. Super, I don't want to go any more rounds with ferrylodge either. I do have a life. ;) ] (]) 05:46, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
:This matter has now been resolved, because Turtlescrubber has dozens of sentences in the article that were duplicative as a result of his edits a few hours ago. I do not agree with the way he has taken ownership of this article, but at least he has removed the vandalism by not repeating his favorite parts of the article twice. I would also kindly request him to investigate more carefully in the future, before falsely accusing me of removing material from the article, and before edit-warring yet again.] (]) 05:37, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

::Yawn. ] (]) 05:44, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


====Real consensus====
I don't believe you have a real consensus. You need to stop fighting. Tvoz and Turtlescrubber are known liberals and Ferrylodge is a known conservative. There is little attempt at consensus from what I can see. Can you please calm it down?

I take the yawn to be a disruptive comment.] (]) 05:48, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Yawn. ] (]) 05:55, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

::Excuse me? Now I'm a "known liberal"? Who are you anyway - I've never even seen your name before so how exactly do you know who I am, and why are you denigrating my attempt to help out here? In case you didn't notice, I wasn't fighting, I was trying to help out by providing testimony as to what transpired before, and in case you didn't notice I'm not trying to re-achieve consensus, as I did that already. In fact I agreed with Ferrylodge that the material shouldn't be duplicated, and before I finished posting my comment Turtlescrubber had already removed the duplication. So maybe you should mind your own business and not characterize people's politics when you know nothing about them. <strong>] </strong>|<small>]</small> 05:58, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

:::And while you're at it, don't remove other people's comments on AN/I - I reinstated a reply that Turtlescrubber made above that you took out without explanation or authority, as far as I can see. It's not your prerogative to remove what other people say in a forum like this. <strong>] </strong>|<small>]</small> 06:21, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

:::I saw your name in the newspaper before I saw it on Misplaced Pages. If I divulge it, then it would potentially invade your privacy. Your name made national news. ] (]) 06:15, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
::::Right, and you remembered it. I don't think so. Nowhere did it say anything about being a liberal, by the way, so try again. Or, on second thought, maybe don't. I'm done here. <strong>] </strong>|<small>]</small> 06:42, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
:::::I don't have the newspaper with me but another newspaper has a different article online. Just google "Tvoz". To find it higher in the search page, google "Tvoz wikipedia democrat". The article isn't the same but it talks about Misplaced Pages and Tvoz being a Democrat and Ferrylodge being a Republican. All I see in the above comment is hate. Read my comments and you will find that I have been completely neutral yet all I get are attacks. ] (]) 07:19, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
::::Time for you two to go back to your corners and cool off. Congolese fufu, DO NOT remove other editors' comments from AN/I, unless it's blatant vandalism, even then let an admin remove it. Those kinds of tactics are a short path to a block, for sure. Tvoz, comments like "maybe you should mind your own business..." aren't really conducive to the situation either, are they? ''Someone'' needs to be the party here to rise above, take a step back, and get perspective. You're BOTH better than this.. ] (]) 06:25, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
:::::(ec):::::Edit Centric, see your user talk page for explanation of Misplaced Pages software problem. ] (]) 06:52, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
:::::::Sure enough. But I don't appreciate the baiting, and don't think it was deserved. I ''was'' trying to help. Cheers. <strong>] </strong>|<small>]</small> 06:48, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
(Indent reset) Understood. However, you're ''both'' equally ferrying the spat down the Wiki-river, fufu by baiting with the whole "known liberals" thing, and tvoz by taking umbrage (while justified) in such a way as to be bordering on incivility. Tvoz, keep the ''helpful'' attitude, no matter what, and you'll be ahead of the game. Congolese fufu, drop the party-line talk, and concentrate on the article. Both of you try to find some middle ground, and work toward the betterment of the article, and the forwarding of knowledge to the end-reader. That's the aim here. ] (]) 07:34, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
:"Equally"? If you say so. Seems to me there's a difference between baiting someone without cause (I have had no dealings with this person, at least not under that username) and calling someone on doing the baiting, even if a bit pointedly - but so be it. And his helpful instructions here and on a couple of talk pages on how to find my name in case anyone missed it were gratuitous and irrelevant, and could be grounds for an AN/I incident report of my own as they would seem to be against policy. (Curious, too, that he claims to have read the newspaper article - there is only one - and remembered my name and my politics, yet the article came out in September before his account was even created.) CF is not an editor on Romney as far as I know, and I've been staying away from it recently, so there's no middle ground to be sought. I was not involved in this current dispute, my aim here was to help get that process back on track, as I know the two editors who were in the dispute and some factual background seemed to me like it might help break their logjam. No good deed goes unpunished, however. After over 9,600 edits you'd think I'd remember that. Cheers, again. <strong>] </strong>|<small>]</small> 10:40, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

====What admins can do if you bring a dispute here====
If you want action from an administrator, here are some things an administrator could do:
* Protect the page for a while until the differences are ironed out. Of course, protecting the page at one editor's preferred version would make the other editor unhappy.
* Call one editor's edits "vandalism" and roll back their edits. ] says that content disputes aren't vandalism, though.
* Block one user from editing, but not the other. This won't fix anything; it'll just anger one of the users and encourage the other one to gloat in victory.
* Block both users. This might quiet things down for a while, but it won't make anyone feel better.
* Delete the article outright. Nope, I'm not doing that.
* Attempt to determine who's right and who's wrong, based on Misplaced Pages policies. I could spend the next half-hour or so doing that, but that won't help achieve consensus.
* Stop reading AN/I and play ] for a little while longer. I'm tempted to do that, but it's getting a little late at night.
* Remind the editors involved that there are other options for dispute resolution, such as ] and ].
* Encourage the editors involved to actually discuss their differences at the article's talk page, and if they can't get resolution, then invite other editors to provide their opinion. There's a little bit about it at ], but only from the two users involved. Surely there are other viewpoints.
* Apologize for ].

Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm going to see if I can get a five-star review for ]. --] <sup>]</sup> 05:49, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

:That's actually pretty funny. I didn't read it at first thinking it was dry policy. ] (]) 06:03, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

:Thanks Elkman. '''''Surely''''', inserting dozens of duplicate sentences into an article is vandalism.] (]) 05:57, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

::Give it a rest, you two. You've presented your evidence, had your bicker, taken up a huge amount of space, and reached a resolution. Time to let it rest. ] (]) 06:34, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
:That's pretty good, you should make that into a template for when other users want an admin to "fix" their content dispute. <font face="Broadway">]'']</font>'' 06:40, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
::Agreed! I love it. &mdash;] | ] 07:58, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
:::But then I'd have to figure out ''how'' to make it a template... (hint, hint) ] (]) 09:17, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

===Oh Rly?===
And yet again Ferrylodge is in a contentious dispute in which he misrepresents others, claims consensus, accuses those with whom he disagrees of vandalism, and the reaction of the general populace is to treat this as though it were a one-on-one dispute - I assure, you, it is not. Ferrylodge has a gift for causing this kind of drama, and making it appear that it is a "both parties are guilty" dispute. Yet although FL has accomplished this with Severa to the point that she left the project, Andrew c to the point that he avoided FL, myself to the point that I also have had that interpretation given me - and somewhat rudely, very recently - and Tvoz, and on and on and on - ''none of these editors have this kind of "dispute" with '''anyone else'''.'' How many times must this happen before people clue to the fact that the common denominator is Ferrylodge? He causes contention, he is the source of the problems. Puppy has spoken. ]<sup>]</sup> 13:13, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
:What happened to the probation or mentoring? I thought Ferrylodge was asked to keep away from certain areas, and this suggests he's raising a fuss again. .. ], ] 14:07, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
::KC, I really would appreciate if you would try to be more understanding of the situation. Do you really think it's fine for an editor to insert dozens of duplicate sentences into an article? The editor in question finally agreed to remove the duplication, and yet you place the blame on me. Why?] (]) 14:27, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
:::I note your edit immediately prior to the one above was to another editor asking why you "feel the need to always try to pull up past drama between us (and other users with whom you have butted heads)" from your talk page. Gee, you've removed four instances of different editors asking you to avoid personal attacks and focus on content, and to avoid drama and BLP and POV editing since Dec 28. ]<sup>]</sup> 14:33, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
::::Was that what I asked about?] (]) 14:36, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
:::::No, you attempted to drag me into a content dispute in which I am uninvolved. This is nto the venue for that, nor am I interested in playing referee between yourself and other editors on the Mitt Romney article. Admin intervention is not required for the content dispute; that is inappropriate. ]<sup>]</sup> 14:41, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
::::::You said that I made a false accusation of vandalism. Is it not vandalism to insert dozens of duplicate sentences into an article? Thankfully, the duplicative material has now been removed, so the issue that brought me here to ANI has been resolved.] (]) 15:14, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
(after EC, reply to Dave souza):
::The ArbCom ] was "Ferrylodge is subject to an editing restriction indefinitely. Any uninvolved administrator may ban Ferrylodge from any article which relates to pregnancy or abortion, interpreted broadly, which they disrupt by inappropriate editing" - nothing was said specifically about his NPA violations, incivility, harassment, or his activities on political articles. So although certainly action may be taken by any administrator, they would not be part of ArbCom enforcement unless the remedy applied were banning from the Fetus article, which certainly would calm things there, but not help those on Barak Obama or other political articles. Indeed, although much evidence was provided (including an unaddressed 7RR) about his unacceptable activities on political articles, for reasons beyond my comprehension one of the findings of fact was that "has a long history of disruptive editing on topics related to pregnancy and abortion (, ), but has edited reasonably on unrelated topics ()." - apparently his edit warring and POV pushing there was considered "reasonable", or perhaps they didn't see the need to specify political articles as well as pregnancy and abortion articles. ]<sup>]</sup> 14:28, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
:::It does seem to me that the discussion here is probably less than productive. A Request for Comment would probably be the best way to go, with notes left on any relevant WikiProject talk pages and elsewhere about the discussion. I do think that this matter is serious enough, and probably visible enough, that it should have an organized discussion regarding the specific merits of each position from as many parties as possible. Would that be agreeable to both sides. ] (]) 14:40, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

::::John Carter, please clarify. Are you referring to the controversy at the ] article that seems to have been resolved because the duplicative sentences have been removed?] (]) 14:43, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
:::::No. The decision to have the religion section may likely have been reached on the basis of an inadequate consensus, if there were not sufficient parties involved. This is an election year, and I personally expect that there will be a lot of similarly contentious arguments in the future regarding this candidate and others. I even proposed earlier a separate politics/culture noticeboard on that basis. In my eyes, the RfC would best discuss (1) how relevant is the matter to the subject, (2) should the related content have a separate section, (3) alternately, might it best be spun off into a separate article, with a summary section in the biography, and (4) where would that section be placed in the article. There might be additional objects of discussion as well. But an RfC would be the best way to handle that, as such discussion should be open to a broader audience than just those who watch the admin noticeboards. ] (]) 14:50, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
::::::I think that's a valid suggestion, but it's not really the issue that brought me here to ANI. The issue thnat brought me here to ANI has now been resolved, because dozens of duplicative sentences have now been removed from the article. As for inclusion of the info in the religion section, the main controversy is not whether that info should be included in the article, but where it should be included.] (]) 15:12, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
: There appears to be a consensus on the article talk page and it seems to not favor Ferrylodge. Am I missing something? ] (]) 14:55, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

::JoshuaZ, I think it would be helpful if you'd clarify. "Consensus" about what? There was no consensus at the article talk page to include dozens of duplicate sentences in the article. That's why I started this section here at ANI.] (]) 15:09, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Again Ferrylodge? You know darn well you are not supposed to get in trouble by being difficult and editing against consensus and engaging in contentitious edits and making insults. I would suggest that we should go to Arbcomm enforcement and expand the terms of the Arbcomm decision. The articles on which he is restricted should include all political articles and their talk pages and all abortion and reproduction articles and their talk pages. If he so much as offers a hint of dispute, block or ban him. That would slow him down a bit.--] (]) 16:06, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

:Filll, this matter has been resolved, because the editor I was objecting against (Turtlescribber) has removed dozens of duplicative sentences from an article that he inserted duplicative sentences into. Please don't say that I have edited against consensus, or made contentious edits here. I am not the person who inserted dozens of duplicative sentences into an article. I think if you want to ban me, you ought to show that I have done something wrong, though I admit you may be successful in banning me regardless.] (]) 16:43, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

FL, with all due respect, I have seen your RfCs and Arbcomm discussion. All I see is layer upon layer of dishonesty, lies and sleeze. Sleezy lawyer tactics, but the truth is dozens of other editors here on Misplaced Pages seem to have severe problems with you to the point of leaving Misplaced Pages altogether because of your bullying and harassment. I just know what I see. I have not researched in detail this recent episode. I just know your track history. And you and I know very well that being involved in articles where you have a long ugly history of problems is a very very very bad idea. So I am afraid I do not find your blandishments and pleading particularly compelling. So you are always right, and the other 50 or 100 or 200 editors who have problems with you always wrong? Seems a bit hard to swallow to me. But you just go right on trying to make that argument and see how it works for you, ok?--] (]) 18:03, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

:You said it yourself, "''I have not researched in detail this recent episode.''" So then why all this fighting here? Dredging up the past serves no purpose. Can we all just move along? Discussion is thataway --> ]. Mahalo. --] 18:07, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
::We're not discussing the article, as I state above, this is not the proper venue for content disputes. Your direction to an article talk page is missing the issue; Ferrylodge is being disruptive, violating NPA, etc. ]<sup>]</sup> 19:15, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I do not know if FL is for Obama or not. I do not know the nature of this particular dispute that was about duplication. What I do know is that FL has had a long record, over a year's worth, of personal attacks and being extremely difficult for others to work with. I might agree with him on the actual details he is promoting. I do not agree with his agitation and bad behavior.--] (]) 19:22, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Is it my job to mark this section as "resolved" or is that something that I should leave to an admin? I am satisfied that the concern that brought me to ANI has been resolved. The user who inserted dozens of duplicative sentences into the ] article has removed dozens of sentences that were duplicative.] (]) 19:47, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
:Also, as per ], it is unlikely that there would be any possibility of anyone involved being subject to restriction based on this discussion. If others wished to request the ruling be changed, however, that evidently is an option. ] (]) 20:01, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
::John Carter, Thatcher's response was in response to whether Ferrylodge can be prevented from editing politics related articles based on the arbitration committee decision placing him on restriction for abortion and pregnancy related articles. The answer to that is clearly no. However, that does not mean that no one can be placed on restriction as a result of the ongoing discussion. --] <sup>]</sup> 20:11, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
:::True. My statement was based on the fact that there has to date not been particularly clear consensus on this page that sanctions on this instance are likely. However, for the purposes of clarity, it probably would be in everyone's best interests that any further discussion cover only that matter. I am proposing a new RfC on the Romney page itself, and inviting views from as many relevant parties that might be interested as I can. ] (]) 20:48, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

== Offensive quote ==

There has been much discussion about the Hezbollah userbox, and it has been deleted because it is offensive. I tried to bring up this issue there, but it was suggested I take it elsewhere.

However, there is another message that many would find offensive. It's on ], one of the quotes that reads:

<blockquote>"Show me just what Muhammad brought that was new and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached."</blockquote>

So inflammatory was this quote, that it incited the ]. Even His Holiness says he found the quote "unacceptable".

Why then is wikipedia, after cracking down upon those who support Hezbollah, allowing others to label Islam (and by extension all Muslims) as "evil and inhuman"? Should we not ban this as we banned the Hezbollah userbox?] (]) 04:56, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

:] does not violate ]. ] are stricter than for user pages. ] (]) 05:23, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Asked him to remove it: , which should have been your first stop. ]] 05:26, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
::"''Standards for userboxes are stricter than for user pages''". I've heard this from another user. What if someone merely copied and pasted the contents of a userbox into a quote? I don't see the difference it'd make.] (]) 06:25, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
:::<small>(The following is as one user remembers and may be skewed by time and memory degregation.)</small>
:::*Short answer: Offensive content is not allowed in userboxes to prevent Misplaced Pages from looking poorly.
:::*Long answer: Userboxes were first created to tag the language skills of Wikipedians so translators could easily be found. Userboxes were then expanded to be used to identify other useful information about editors, such as which editors are biology experts. In these days userboxes were stored in the template namespace. Then userboxes began to be created as jokes or to express users' opinions, such as "this user is an extraterrestrial" or "this user loves dogs". Some userboxes were offensive to some people, such as "this user eats infants" or "this user hates black people". Naturally, people protested this controversial use of userboxes. Since userboxes were stored in template namespace and reflected on Misplaced Pages as well as the individual users, controversial and potentially offensive userboxes were banned after much discussion. Even though divisive content had been banned, many people were still against userboxes. A long time later after much discussion, all userboxes deemed not useful for building an encyclopaedia were removed from the template namespace. Today, even though personal userboxes are restricted to existing in user space, they are still under the rule that prohibits free expression of offensive content, even though it doesn't make as much sense anymore, seeing that these userboxes would have to be stored in the user namespace. The only reason it could be said now that offensive content is allowed on user pages and not userboxes is that content in userboxes could be misconstrued as being representative of Misplaced Pages's opinion. Oh, by the way, the Hezbollah userbox you mentioned was stored in the main namespace, so that definitely had to be deleted. ] (]) 07:10, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

::::This isn't really an incident, so perhaps we should continue the discussion elsewhere, however the page has been ] for deletion. Given the user has stopped editing, if the page was renominated, I would 'vote' delete as his user page doesn't help promote a cooperative atmosphere. ] (]) 09:27, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

"Standards for userboxes are stricter than for user pages" is flat-out incorrect. A userbox, either in userspace or substed onto a user page, is part of a user page and subject to the exact same standards as other userpages. There are additional requirements on pages in the Template namespace, which is where the Hezbollah userbox was deleted. —] 17:04, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
:] prohibits anything divisive. Under this criteria ]'s statement concerning Muhammad would not be allowed in a userbox as it was definitely divisive. As far as I can find in ], the closest thing that comes to prohibiting ]'s statement concerning Muhammad in a user page is its prohibition of extensive use of polemical statements. One sentence is definitely not extensive. ] (]) 20:27, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
::(FYP) This is ] run amok. He can say that, but just not in a box? What if it was a big box containing other things, like his entire user page? Is it our policy that ]s have magic powers, or do we a policy on statements written inside ]s that I've just never run across? -- ]<sup>]</sup> 22:06, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
:::I'm guessing putting that statement in any size box would be okay as long as it's not using one of the ]. ] (]) 23:01, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
::::As per Kendrick7, I too find the policy "standards for userboxes are different from standards for userpages" to be very peculiar. If this policy is indeed true, then it should be changed.] (]) 19:08, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

== Apollo Victoria Theatre ==

], some advice please.

Text from this article was reported as a suspected copyright violation, last night. The article was (correctly) immediately deleted. I looked at the text and compared to the reported website. This was almost word-for-word the ''History'' section of the article. I restored the article, removed the offending text, deleted the article and restored the latest version to ensure that the copyviol was not available in the history.

Today, I have had a chance to investigate further and the bulk of the wiki text has been in place since at least 16 Dec 2005, subsequent amendments have been made by multiple editors to create a text which is identical to the current text on these people's website. Applying Occam's razor, it is more likely, the text was copied from us. The basic question is how to handle this? Reinstate the text I believe to have been copied from us, with its complete edit history, or rewrite the article so, it doesn't infringe the now cr material that I think originated here?

A number of editors have worked hard to improve the London theatre histories and these texts are now appearing in copyright material on the web. Thanks for any advice you can offer. ] (]) 11:32, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

:I would say reinstate and note on the external link that the copyright asserted there is actually copyfraud. &nbsp; — ] (]&#124;]) 11:40, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
::Thanks for the input, I'll work out something later tonight. ] (]) 18:19, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

== {{User|125.26.162.120}} ==

I blocked 125.24.* and 125.25.* previously, due to persistent vandalism. Range blocks (1 week) have expired last month, but strange edits to ] have occurred again. I am not confident that it is the same guy, but perhaps someone can keep an eye on them. --] (]) 12:15, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

== user:CreationSCS ==

{{user|CreationSCS}} and his suspected sockpuppets (IP edits) has only made vandalizing edits. His greatest gem is change in the words of Ustaša WW II song when he has changed words so that this song on wiki now call for the death of Croatian president ] (and late primeminister ]) . His other vandalism has been this . In this article he has deleted statement confirmed by 3 sources (first is on english language) which are speaking about Montenegro constitution. His last vandalism has been in article where he is again deleting statement with sources. I am tired of reverting his calling for president death and other shits so I ask that this user be blocked. One of his suspected sockpupets has been warned by me that he will be blocked if this vandalism do not stop . --] (]) 15:37, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
:Now after my revert is better possible to see this word playing in the song --] (]) 19:01, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
::First of all, I have NO "sockpuppets". I am a new user.
::Second of all, this Rječina is propagating lies about me not just here, but on vandalism and talk page as well. I AM CORRECTING THE SONG'S WORDS. This song of fascist Croat singer Thompson INDEED DOES call for death of ], and asks a dog to !$@% ]'s mother.
::Then this user claims I'm vandalizing the Serbs article, when he makes no sense. He linked to a journalist report and to a pro-Serbian complaining party in Montenegro WITHOUT EVEN READING THE CONSTITUTION. I am tired of this.
::I wish to point out that Rjecina is well aware of all this and intentionaly wants to block me because of a dispute I have with him on Croatian wikipedia, out his pure furstration. He intentionally says that I "called for death of Croatian president" because he hopes that you would discard me and believe these outragous claims. ] (]) 21:38, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
:::Can either one of you cite a reliable source as to the correct lyrics? ] (]) 21:41, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
::::I have shown 3 examples of his vandalism edits. Because I have not expected that there will be question about lurics I do not have source here (but I will look) but on other side for his 2 others vandalism edits we are having english language sources which user:CreationSCS has deleted from article. In article ] he is deleting statement confirmed by 3 sources that Serbs are minority in Montenegro ( this is english language ). Similar thing he is doing in article Lewis MacKenzie where he is deleting statement confirmed by english language that this UN general has recieved money of Serbian lobby. For the end I will only add that article Serbs of Croatia is protected because of his vandal edits (IP address). What is more needed that user be declared vandal and blocked ? --] (]) 22:27, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
:::::I now have many interesting data about song. The Centre for peace in Balkan is clearly stating that song is from 1942 (version which has been on wiki on 23 June 2007 . Late primeminister of Croatia Ivica Račan is born in 1945 !!. Version which ] is writing on wiki is version of Croatian band Thompson of 21 century. This is english language --] (]) 22:38, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

:I'm thinking the lyrics are copyrighted and shouldn't be in the article, anyway. <font face="Comic Sans">]<sub>'']''</sub></font> 03:06, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
::I agree with you. In my thinking article need to be deleted but this will never happen....--] (]) 03:29, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

== Problem user {{user|Oni Ookami Alfador}} ==

(1) He's randomly deleting huge chunks of the ] article (even though I objected; I stated at least some of those chunks should be saved, as they are useful). I also requested we get consensus from other editors before deleting one-quarter of the article. He refused.

(2) On the talk page he is using phrases like "for christ's sake" which I find highly, highly offensive. As offensive as if he had used the n-word against me or my family, and I think this user needs some kind of admonishment to tone done (and most importantly cooperate) with other editors. Thank you. ---- ] (]) 16:32, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
:I think that both of you need to stop edit warring or you will both be blocked for ]. You also need to stop calling his good-faith edits vandalism. ] 16:39, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
::And both of you have now been blocked for ]. ] 16:44, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
:::Your edits are problematic because they introduce ] into the article, not that there is enough of it already. But either way, instead of constantly reverting (which gets you into the ]) trap, how about taking it to the talk page to discuss the changes? <span style="font-family: Tahoma; font-size: 8pt;">] <span style="font-size: 7pt;">] ]</span></span> 17:03, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

== Copyright?? ==

If someone is posting copy and paste material from a website and claiming it is verifiable source material, is that vandalims or at least an infraction? If so, does the 3RR rule apply? I've removed the material three times which means I cannot remove it again, but my understanding is it shouldn't be there in the first place. It's on ] ] (]) 19:44, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

:Copyright violations can be considered vandalism after the poster has been duly warned that posting copyrighted material violates Misplaced Pages policy (]). ] (]) 19:53, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
::They were warned under an IP and then signed in and used an old account to revert. Can some else just revert so I don't violate 3RR? ] (]) 19:56, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
:::Done, based on your word. ] (]) 20:02, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
:::Oh, and I suggest you go through that page and remove all the redlinks for individual episodes. ] (]) 20:03, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
::::Will do. I tried once a long time ago but it got reverted. Thanks for the revert. ] (]) 20:11, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
::::Incidentally, removing copyright violations is an exception to 3RR. —] 20:18, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

:::::True, but I can understand her reasoning for not wanting to even go there. ] (]) 20:23, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
::::::Yes, I've already removed the info three times, I don't want to push the limits. Thank you for the assistance. I've removed the redlinks. ] (]) 21:18, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

== ] account compromised ==

Account believed compromised, as per ] and . Please consider a temporary block until the situation is resolved. <font color="#FF0000">]</font> <font size="1">(])</font> 20:28, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
:Blocked pending resolution. ] 20:32, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
::Indef blocked reduced to 24h for vandalism. ] 21:11, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
:::Umm, does anyone else ''not'' see ] as an indication of him having control of his account? ] 10:06, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

== Page move vandalism by ] ==

Compromised pages include ], ], ], ]. See . --] | ] 20:40, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
:Has already been indefinitely blocked. ] (]) 20:42, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
:I think everything's been cleaned up. ]<font color="FF8800">]</font> 20:43, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
::Something is still wrong with ] and ] was a copy and paste move so its history is now missing. --] | ] 20:46, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
:::Worcester is showing a history for me, and what's wrong with America? ]<font color="FF8800">]</font> 20:49, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
::::I just fixed ]. Somebody had deleted the wrong page. ] (]) 20:51, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
::::] has been fixed by ] so I think that's all of it. --] | ] 20:55, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

== ] (again) ==

] has received a one-week block, but has recommenced an edit war using ]. <b>]<sup><font color="#b00">pod</font></sup><font color="#00b">]</font></b> 20:52, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
:Would it make sense to semi-protect? —] 21:37, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
::At this point, I think probably yes. <b>]<sup><font color="#b00">pod</font></sup><font color="#00b">]</font></b> 22:15, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

No. When we have a troublemaker, we block the user. Leave the article alone. ] (]) 22:16, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

:Agree with Raul. For context to those not familiar, the IP editor is adding long amounts of extraneous information about the way the early christians adapted extant holidays and incorporated them into the christian faith, like Yule and Christmas, and so on. ] (]) 22:55, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

== ]: he's back ==

Sock-puppet edit warrior {{User|SummerThunder}} has returned from what was apparently only a several-month-long vacation with . Please be on the lookout for similar behavior at his other favorite articles, listed in the above-linked dossier. Thanks. ] ] 21:58, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Please keep watch ] and ] ST currently active there. Going offline. <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 01:08, 12 January 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

{{user|75.3.224.238}} now. <font face="Comic Sans">]<sub>'']''</sub></font> 03:42, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

== Inappropriate (GROSS!!) picture in Misplaced Pages archive showing up in Google Earth for London, Ontario ==

Hi all,
Not sure where else to go with this one. You know how Misplaced Pages articles with coordinate templates show up on Google Earth? Well, while using GE to take a look at London, Ontario, I noticed, in addition to the article on the city, another article that came up as . The popup window in GE showing this article also shows a photo of a penis with a couple of big gross chancres. Yikes! The archive contains a discussion of how to find coordinates in GE and add them to articles using templates, but the example code was nowikiied. I also didnt' see the photo on the actual archive page, so don't know why it's showing up in GE. Anybody help with this? Thanks, ] (]) 00:43, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
: The help desk archive you're talking about had an attempt to link to the image, but the editor didn't specify a colon before the image name. When viewing the help desk archive, the MediaWiki software doesn't display the image inline because it's on the image blacklist and could be used for vandalism. However, as far as I can tell, Google Earth uses its own rendering engine for Misplaced Pages content. (Or does it? I'm not 100% sure.) Apparently, that rendering engine is more than happy to render otherwise-blacklisted images inline. I edited the archive so it contains links to the image rather than an attempt to actually put the image inline. As far as erasing that image from your mind goes, though, I think you're on your own. --] <sup>]</sup> 02:55, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
::Cheers for that. I can't imagine that that archive page should be showing up at all on Google Earth though. If GE does have its own rendering engine, would it also ignore our nowiki tags around the coord templates, and pull in the archive page? I thought about removing the coord templates from the archive, but I didn't want to possibly go against policy (editing an archive seems to be an action at cross purposes to itself). Is that an option? At any rate, I cleaned out the memory and disk cache in my Google Earth app, restarted the app, and navigated back to London, ON. The image is still visible. Ugh. I do remember reading at GE that the Misplaced Pages articles are only updated periodically, not continually (that's why new articles with coords can take a while (weeks) to show up). Unfortunately, I just don't know enough about how either WP or GE works to resolve this quickly. ] (]) 04:15, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
:::I ] and modified the ], replacing the braces around the coordinate templates for London ON with parentheses. That should stop GE from rendering the the archive page at its next update (if that is indeed what was causing it). Even if it is, it's likely the changes in GE won't appear until the next time GE updates its WP coordinate database. If an administrator knows a better/quicker way to resolve this, or a better forum than this noticeboard for this issue, please advise. ] (]) 04:49, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

::::Looks as if Google Earth has got rid of the link. There are five articles associated in that area on Google Earth and currently none have offensive images. ] ] 07:30, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
:::::What a relief. I restarted GE, cleaned out the cache again, but was still seeing the image, but after restarting my computer, I'm also not seeing the drawn-in archive page and its stomach-churning photo. If no one else is seeing it, I suppose this particular issue is closed, but it makes me wonder whether there are other internal Misplaced Pages pages with coordinate templates in them that are being rendered in Google Earth? ] (]) 13:58, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

== I am gravely concerned over the handling of ] ==
{{User:Jerry/at|* Click ''show'' at the right to see the background information on this incident.}}
I became aware of an issue with this user when I was reviewing ] last night. I saw several of the user's uploaded images listed as nominated for speedy deletion under criteria G5 (Banned user. Pages created by banned users while they were banned, with no substantial edits by others.) I consulted ], and saw no such ban, so I removed the tag, and left a talk page message for the user who tagged it, ]. His reply a day later was "I apologise when I made a cock-up of a CSD tag, I pressed banned on the TW button when I though that it means that it had to be deleted because it was a created by a user that is now banned. I feel afterward that I pressed the wrong tag and didn't know what to do with it, plus I didn't feel I am in a position to remove the tag."

I checked Willirennen's contributions to see if he made any other errors that should be mopped up. I found that he had repeatedly tagged every creation and nearly every edit by ], including reporting the user to ]. "Violation of username policy because: Matches the name of a company or group; This user has COI issues that he wishes to totally ignore as he has removed a COI tag twice, plus an advert tag, without any form of discussion. This is why i am reporting this user. The other question is should Ebay stores like this one get a CSD." I noted that ] was in-fact subsequently indefinately blocked by ], although nobody did him the courtesy of leaving him any message or template (eg {{:uw-ublocked}}) to tell him so, or what he could do to get unblocked.

Looking at Eonon's contributions, including deleted contributions, I see some clear mistakes that did require correction. However theya re just the type of common erros described in ]. After several of his contributions were deleted, he got several templates dropped on his user talk page. He was clearly confused. He asked several times for help, but all he got was insulted, overly templated, wikistalked, and blocked. NOBODY took the time to reply to him, or gently, kindly explain how he could contribute positively and avoid the problems he was having.

Specifically he wrote:
Hope someone reads this.. i am really confused.
+ and anyone guide me a little?
+ i just want to make a page with eonon and sbo2 information
+ i didnt want to advertise or anything like that. I just want people
+ not to get confused with eonon and sbo2~
+ i just want to put some facts.. i didnt even put anything about eonon's product..
+ *crys*
+
+ i just wanted to make a simple page of the existence and sbo2~
+ i the deletation is ok but why block me.. i will write a better one..
+ i mean it took me the whole night figuring out how wikipedia works with
+ the scripts and everything..
+ please please i bag of anyone with power here give me a chance.. to repair
+ my page.. i need guidance and tips

i think i am starting to understand.. ok i should have read more about the information
+ but i am not really good at writing.. i will not edit or create any pages for now
+ but how can i be unblocked? i will look for someone else with better understanding to
+ write the page without sugar coating everthing.. because some thing like ] i guess is
+ good enough i just want people around the world to understand our company when they search on wikipedia
+ because if you type the name eonon in google there are alot of people in forums asking about eonon
+ ive seen people mistake Sbo2 and eonon.. when they are the same company~ i just want to provide information
+ but maybe its my love for the company i beautified it alittle. is there a way i can look for someone to write
+ about eonon in a right way?

Willirenner then tagged the images that I had untagged with another csd template, under criteria CSD#I1.(Redundant. Any image or other media file that is a redundant copy, in the same file format and same or lower quality/resolution, of something else on Misplaced Pages. This does not apply to images duplicated on Wikimedia Commons, because of licence issues; these should be tagged with {{:subst:ncd|Image:newname.ext}} or {{:subst:ncd}} instead.)

Each of these was deleted under the same criteria by ]. I researched and found that no such duplicate image ever existed. It was just another error on Willirennen's part followed up by an error on Eaast718, four times over the course of 20 hours.
*03:42, 11 January 2008 East718 deleted "Image:Paypalaward.png" ‎ (CSD I1: Redundant to another image)
*23:32, 11 January 2008 East718 deleted "Image:Sbo2logo.png" ‎ (CSD I1: Redundant to another image)
*23:32, 11 January 2008 East718 deleted "Image:Eononlogo.svg" ‎ (CSD I1: Redundant to another image)
*23:55, 11 January 2008 East718 deleted "Image:Kcar.jpg" ‎ (CSD I1: Redundant to another image)

Several points along the way, our system of checks and balances failed to recognize that this user was getting a total lube job! Everyone was just really content to pull the triggers on their semi-automated patrol programs and click adminstrator buttons without investigation.
|}
So I have to ask:
* What was so urgent about Eonon's flawed contributions that we had to reach for our biggest flamethrowers before talking to him?
* Why are users who are not familiar with speedy deletion criteria using a semi-automated patrol program like TW?
* Why are adminstrators not investigating before fulfilling requests to delete user contributions?
* Why would an administrator block a user for a username infraction without ensuring a message on the user's talkpage was left first, asking them to change it themselves?
* Am I just too sensitive? Maybe all this is really quite Okay?
* HOW CAN WE AVOID THIS IN THE FUTURE?
<i>]</i> <sup>]</sup> <sub>]</sub> 00:51, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

:I can't see any of the articles that the user was creating, but they were apparently making COI spam edits to an article with the same name as their User name, in such a manner as to indicate that the User name was being used to advertise. That's a violation of the Username guidelines, and the "usernameblock" text that they'll see when they try to edit will explain all that. Their spam article was deleted, the spam on their User page was deleted, and the copyright violating images were deleting. What's the question again? <font face="Comic Sans">]<sub>'']''</sub></font> 03:16, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
::Oh yeah, Jeske went to the trouble of explaining it all (c/w relevant links) on the talk page as an addendum to one of the template messages. As Corvus put it, what was the question again? --]''' 03:22, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
The questions are those little bits of text in between the bullets (big dots) and the "?"'s above. <i>]</i> <sup>]</sup> <sub>]</sub> 03:26, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
:As but but I will add my account. The reason why I reported him was after an COI tag was given to that user, he proceeded to remove it (isn't this considered to be a violation) and as a result, I had to give him a warning, which he ignored on number of occasion. Not to mention that I remember that the page reads like a advert for his site. I CSD'd the pictures because they were associated with the deleted article. As for my comment for the TW, I sometimes find it a little bit confusing to use as these buttons doesn't indicate what this and that button does, also with the five levels of vandalism warning when three is needed to report a vandal to be blocked. ] (]) 03:34, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

::Is there a reason why ? I have not done this when blocking company or corporate names, even when they've been used promotionally, but I don't spend a lot of time in the blocking arena. --] <sup>]</sup> 04:03, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

:::If it's normal usernameblocking, I allow account creation, but if it's hard blocking a username, then it's usual to block account creation and enable autoblock. ''''']]]''''' 04:08, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

::I'd have to agree that account creation should not be blocked, unless they return with a new account and spam again. <font face="Comic Sans">]<sub>'']''</sub></font> 04:09, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

::::OrangeMike, do you have any objections to Eonon's block being revised to allow him to register an account within username policy? --] <sup>]</sup> 12:59, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

::::Judging by what the user with TW says above, he is not yet ready to be using it. ''']''' (]) 04:17, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree. Willirennen, please voluntarily remove twinkle from your ]. —] 05:31, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

===What is required to close this incident?===
As the initiator of this incident report, I would be satisifed that it was resolved if all of the following were done:
* {{unchecked}} ] either remove twinkle from his monobook or agree not to use the features for a period of time that will be adequate for him to study the CSD categories and other related policies, and a mentor assigned to advise him on when he can use it again (I volunteer).
* {{checked}} The block of Eonon is revised to allow account creation.
* {{checked}} ]'s user talk page blanked and only the uw-ublocked template readded {{user5|Eonon}}
* {{unchecked}} ] acknowledge this incident report (no action or detailed response comment required)
* {{checked}} East718 has already replied on my talk page and I am satisfied with his reply
<i>]</i> <sup>]</sup> <sub>]</sub> 16:24, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

: I removed the templated messages from Eonon's talk page, but left the welcome message and some comments. With regards to East718's comment on your talk page, perhaps he would wish to peruse ]? :) I would also like to see the other things considered: TWINKLE, the block on Eonon and Orangemike's acknowledgement (and perhaps comments :-).
: Also, with regards to one of your original questions, Jerry, "''Am I just too sensitive? Maybe all this is really quite Okay?''", I do not think that this incident indicates that you are too sensitive, and I do not think that this incident is okay. I think ] is a very systemic problem, which needs to be curbed. Thanks for your report here. --] 20:21, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
::I modified the block on Eonon. Orangemike does not appear to be around.<i>]</i> <sup>]</sup> <sub>]</sub> 21:47, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
:::The only purpose for my requirirng orangemike to acknowledge this incident is to ensure that he was aware of our proposed sctions (and actions we already hasve taken, now) so that he had an opportunity to object and provide information we might not have had available. He could do this by signing this page, replying-to or deleting the notifications on his user page, or making any edit to wikipedia, since the mediawiki interface will tell him there are messages on his user talk page. <i>]</i> <sup>]</sup> <sub>]</sub> 11:46, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
:::Since the block has been modified to allow account creation (good call on that, I think, since Mike is not here to respond quickly), I've left the user a modified version of {{tl|uw-ublock}}, prefaced with a personal note to explain why it's there, on his or her ]. He or she may find it useful, since it contains specifics about changing account name. I also left a note explaining how to place {{tl|helpme}} on his or her page for quick attention. If you (or anyone reading this) should think that modified block template might in itself seem bitey (totally not my intention), please feel free to remove it. My hope is simply to clarify things. --] <sup>]</sup> 22:09, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
::::Perhaps someone might also email the user? to let him know about all this and that he's ok with a new username? --] (]) 04:04, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
:::::I already did that right after I modified the block. <i>]</i> <sup>]</sup> <sub>]</sub> 11:35, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

== Concerns regarding ] article ==

I was checking ] and noticed . I believe there are several privacy concerns that should be addressed as well as possibly protecting the page. I would appreciate more eyes on this. Regards.--''']]''' 03:27, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
:The user that wrote the comments seems to have some legitimate complaints. This looks like a clear ] violation. The article in question was deleted as a BLP violation it looks like. What more is to be done? Do we need to redact the users comments as themselves revealing private info? It seems a sad story, but what further action should we as admins need to take? --]|]|] 07:39, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
::Deleting the article appears to resolve most of the situation. &ndash; <span style="font-family: Garamond">] (])</span> 11:05, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
This appears to have been settled on the user's talk page so this thread can probably be marked resolved. Regards.--''']]''' 20:03, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

== Return of ] ==

{{user|68.92.33.104}} <font face="Comic Sans">]<sub>'']''</sub></font> 03:52, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
:See ] for the litany of IP addresses he has used since he was last reported to ]. -- ] (]) 03:59, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
:Now issuing death threats - . <font face="Comic Sans">]<sub>'']''</sub></font> 04:04, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

And another death threat - . Someone needs to contact the Houston police? <font face="Comic Sans">]<sub>'']''</sub></font> 04:24, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

::you cant be seriosu they're is no need to coontact the Michigan police it sis obviously just an emotinally-unstable user who has taken some of the discusions a bit too muchto heart. it owuld be more effieincet and more effective to deal with im here on wikipedia rather rthan gettinga SWAT team deployed to hsi house, which just might pis him off enough so that he'll come over to your house and tryto harm you and your family. if the threats ezcalated, then i would recomend police internveiton but right now he should be warned and if that faisl he should be blocked. ] (]) 04:36, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
:::Uh, what? You also need to read the history of Mmbabies before you comment. <font face="Comic Sans">]<sub>'']''</sub></font> 04:37, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

i think you are overactingi have no t read the history but i have recieved death threats on the internet before and there are really not that scary. ] (]) 04:38, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

::if you look at his "threats" you wil not ice that they are generic threats made by millions of trols and vandals on tiwkipedia every single fricking day, he deifnitely deserves to be IP-blocked permanent-lieka but caling the police would jus t be a waste of time sincetheyd have a hard time tracking him down and there i s very little that ecan do to stophim from hurting or killing other peopl basde on a few weird coments on anencyclopedia. ] (]) 04:43, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
:::I have great difficulty understanding you when you write like that. Can you use Firefox or something with a built-in spell-checker? As far as Mmbabies goes, this user has made many, many death threats on Misplaced Pages. It already ''has'' escalated, as the report shows. <font color="#0000FF">]</font> 04:48, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
::::He has done this for a '''year''', Smith Jones. I think it's pretty well justified for a police report. We've taken every action we can possibly take on this user, including range blocks for AT&T's Houston node, meaning for many users in the nation's fourth largest city, signing up for a username is compulsory for them to edit, and abuse reports to that provider that have gone unanswered. He has attacked my talkpage too and frankly we're all pretty sick of it, especially on ] and those dealing with Christian television (his favorite targets). Trust me, if this was just 'some kid', he would've been bored by now and gone away, but this user has left personal information, addresses and telephone numbers all over his sock edits. That's not 'generic' as you say, but dangerous. <font color="maroon" face="Myriad Web">''']''' · <small>''(])''</small></font> 23:02, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

:Will be sending an abuse report to their ISP in a moment. May not accomplish anything, but does get the problem on record. Will leave other responses to other people. &ndash; <span style="font-family: Garamond">] (])</span> 11:13, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

== Repeated edit problems from moving IP ==

Hi - I have come across a problem and not sure of the best way to address it. There is a section of information in the article ], called "Distribution of Material" (its at the bottom). Over the past month, there has been a user who repeatedly deletes this section (see history). It is not a registered user, but it seems that the IP address used by this person changes each time they edit (perhaps using internet cafes??). This has led to a problem in sorting out the situation. I and others have left messages on earlier talk pages, but then different IP addresses are used in subsequent edits. I have invited the person to explain or discuss the deletion in the 'edit summary' box when reverting, but this has never occurred. This is getting rather tiresome for me and a number of other users constantly reverting this deleting. Is there any action that can be taken?? I was thinking perhaps asking for semi-protection to at elast encourage the person to register and then engage in discussion on their talk page?? Any advice?

Some previous warnings at various Ip addressed:
http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:172.203.120.228
http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:172.188.169.180
http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:172.202.91.35
http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:172.200.159.132
http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:172.141.93.62

Thanks
] (]) 04:32, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

:I would suggest requesting "semi-protection" at ]. I put in a request . / ]<small> ] ]</small> 11:24, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

::Protection has been for 1 month. If this becomes a problem again, request another. Be sure to mention previous protection, and that the anon editor has been issued multiple warnings (] help). / ]<small> ] ]</small> 11:36, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

:Incidentally, all these IP addresses seem to be via ]. This implies a home user with a non-static IP address, which is common with home DSL (and almost always the case with dialup). I doubt much effort is being made to change IP addresses; the user may be unaware of their address changing. (Someone else probably knows much more about how AOL grants IP addresses than I do.) / ]<small> ] ]</small> 11:46, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

== User:Utcursch ==

] is abusing authority and showing discrimination towards Hindus. User:Utcursch is a ] ] who is influencing hate between Hindu and other religon communities.

due to 1984 terrorism in India. you can see page ] who was a famous Rebel Saint who kills hindus, doesnt need to be locked and has been locked for a really long time. User:Utcursch has shown discrimination to me as well and has caused tensions between religons.]

:... ] (]) 05:15, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
*This item was originally posted at the top of this page, and I have taken the liberty of moving it to its proper chronological location; and I have checked- it did look like this originally. --''']''' (]) 15:59, 12 January 2008 (UTC)


== Date warrior/ honorific deleter/ possible sockpuppet ==

I am concerned about the conduct of a new autoconfirmed user, {{vandal|Simplonicity}}. Although he represents himself as a new account as of 12-24-07, he has focused exclusively on making edits in an area of long-term controversy. This began with removal of honorifics and proceeded swiftly to date-warring, first by creating a new template ], created solely to replace ] with a BC/AD version of the same template, and putting it into articles against consensus and without discussion. This should be compared to the actions of {{vandal|Foula}} who left the project not long before Simplonicity arrived. During the last 24 hours Simplonicity has date-warred numerous articles frequently leaving the misleading edit summary "''datings conventions were mixed, consolidated on one''". His consolidations ''always'' consist of changing BCE/CE to BC/AD, never the other way round, frequently in articles where BCE/CE is far more numerous.
(There are more removals of honorifics and era style changes that occurred while I was in the process of filing this ANI.)

Simplonicity has also altered two important templates, ] and ] without the slightest discussion or any semblance of an attempt at consensus in such a way as to facilitate his date warring. On at least one article, ], he began by changing the article, which overwhelmingly favored BCE/CE, to BC/AD, then used this change as an excuse to change to his preferred version of the template.
Simplonicity has done all this in spite of being specifically familiarized with Misplaced Pages's policies on date warring on his talk page.

I also ask that this pattern of abuse be compared with the following blocked or disappeared users.
* {{Vandal|Carnun}}
* {{Vandal|Chooserr}}
* {{Vandal|Compower}}
* {{Vandal|Jpetersen46321}}
* {{Vandal|Nownownow}}
--] (]) 04:54, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Additional note: In at least one instance Simplonicity changed CE in the title of a book to AD. --] (]) 05:37, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

== Article abuse of ] ==

Since last November, the following IP addresses have inserted the line "soulless bastard" at the end of the biography of ]. Although the person is quoting a line from a suicide note that had referred to Polley, the insertion by the following IPs attaches this as a personal opinion in agreement with the note. It is a persistent issue with the article and it needs administration attention. Thank you.-- ] (]) 05:27, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

*163.231.6.85
*163.231.6.88
*163.231.6.86
*163.231.6.66
*163.231.6.67
*163.231.6.68
*163.231.6.65

: The abuse is continuing and I had to make another revert today.-- ] (]) 20:31, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
::Another revert again today.-- ] (]) 03:29, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

== IP abuse at Arbcom workshop ==

There's an anonymous IP user, 69.76.37.158, attacking other users at ] (in multiple sections of the page). This user's posts, both there and at ], make me suspect it is banned ]. Would someone run a checkuser to try to confirm or deny this identity and semi-protect the workshop page? Thanks. ] ] 06:04, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
:I've protected the page, after waiting a little while for the IP to withdraw the attack. I would also like to know if the IP is a regular user, in case the user is related to the arbcom case. ] (]) 07:29, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
::Thank you. One of the issues in the case is long term baiting by single purpose IPs and accounts, usually short lived. <font face="Verdana">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 07:40, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
:::Although the language is strikingly similar, I don't think this is banned ] at work here. Pwok was infamous for a dozen or so changes at once, as he refused to use the preview button and tweaked his posts a word or two at a time. Also, he used a Comcast IP address in Seattle, while this is a RoadRunner IP address in Wisconsin. A checkuser would be nice, but I don't think it will reveal much, since there are no other addresses with which to compare; I don't think it is any of the regular editors editing under an IP address. ''']''' <small>]</small> 14:43, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
::::Ah, thank you for your insight, Horologium. Whoever this IP is, s/he is continuing to post comments very insulting to any editor who has ever worked on the ] article at ], essentially accusing all of us of conspiring to lie about Matt and censor the truth about his "40 videos". ] ] 19:36, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
:::::While it's not likely to be Pwok, I wouldn't be surprised if it was one of the handful of contributors to his attack site. (Exercising editorial restraint; it's not the first description that ran through my mind.) Can we just temp-block to IP to make him go away while we are running the arbitration case? I had not planned to continue adding evidence, but I may reconsider if Sanchez (and good-faith editors who disagree with the IP) continue to be attacked by halfwit unregistered editors. ''']''' <small>]</small> 20:32, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

== ] ==

This user added themselves to ] (). Bizarre, to say the least. Any admin want to handle this? <font color="blue">]</font><font color="red">]</font> 06:44, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
:Blocked, they quite literally asked for it. <font face="Broadway">]'']</font>'' 06:47, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

== ] ==

Every edit this user has made has been blatant vandalism ]. They've been reverted, but I suggest a block, pending the outcome of whatever the sockpuppet case is. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 07:17, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
:Blocked indefinately as a vandalism only account. In the future, use ] for clear vandalism like this. He was adequately warned, and continued. --]|]|] 07:24, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

== ] ==

{{user|Philippe}} is removing listings from ] because the editors haven't edited yet. Are we really requiring that inappropriate user names be allowed to edit before they get blocked? <font face="Comic Sans">]<sub>'']''</sub></font> 07:44, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
:There was some fairly in depth discussion about this in the last couple of months - I'll try to find some diffs - but my recollection is that we were requiring contribs of some type to avoid folks who were just creating names to see them listed there. If I'm in error, I'm happy to stop - but if a name is created, with no contributions, and it's not incredibly inappropriate, what's the harm? - ] &#124; ] 07:47, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
::The harm is that by blocking before they start editing, we preempt the inappropriate user from starting to edit and getting their inappropriate username in edit histories. Plus, 1-you're frustrating a good faith listing by an editor who found the user name offensive, and 2-you're requiring people to wait with bated typing fingers to keep checking to see if the user with the inappropriate name starts editing before you can list them for an inappropriate name. <font face="Comic Sans">]<sub>'']''</sub></font> 07:52, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
:::If the name is ''blatantly'' inappropriate, I totally agree. If so, I block on sight. However, if it is marginally inappropriate, and there are no contributions, I'm inclined to wait for them to edit before blocking, creating a talk page for them to issue a block notice, etc. I'm happy to change my actions if I'm out of calibration, but I seem to recall some pretty aggressive discussion about this. - ] &#124; ] 07:55, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
::::Great. So, if I come across an inappropriate username, I can't list it until they've edited, so I have to squirrel the name away somewhere in my User space or in my memory so that I can check for their edits in the future. <font face="Comic Sans">]<sub>'']''</sub></font> 07:57, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
:::::It depends on the type of username. If it's something obviously foul, no reason to wait for edits. In the case of "promotional" usernames, such as the ones Philippe removed, they are often borderline enough to justify waiting for edits, to see if the account is indeed being used for promotion. There's also something about ] and ] in there somewhere. --] (]) 08:01, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
::::::For diff purposes, the discussion is question is here at the section called "No-edit reports". It was hotly disputed, so perhaps it's time for wider input from the community. I certainly understand your feelings. I tend to be of the idea that we shouldn't create talk pages (and perpetual histories) for accounts that never edit. - ] &#124; ] 08:03, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
:Seems to be a question of how blatantly bad the usernames are; I notice my threshold seems to be higher than some others, recently. In any questionable cases, we can always watch a potentially suspicious user for behavior that will make their good or bad faith more clear. &ndash; <span style="font-family: Garamond">] (])</span> 11:28, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

== Jack Merridew ==

*{{User|Jack Merridew}}

User has reverted my edits
and
after I made my edits. These were the users 2nd and 3rd edits today - rather unusual. Blanking of episode lists and character lists is common practice at the moment.

User has also voted on FLRC just after myself.

--<small> ]</small> <sup>]</sup> 10:30, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

: White Cat has redirected the lists after TTN merged the characters to the list. This is an obvious ]. As to the timing, I had not even realized it, I just fired up laptop and looked at what was going on. --] 10:38, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

:: Coincidences... I believe in coincidences. Coincidences happen every day. But I don't trust coincidences. So why is it that TTN is allowed to make such edits and why is it that I am not allowed? --<small> ]</small> <sup>]</sup> 10:41, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

::: Is that a reference to the movie ] --] 10:45, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

: Just take contested redirects to AfD; all these edit wars are getting to be more than a bit disruptive. We have AfD for a reason. &ndash; <span style="font-family: Garamond">] (])</span> 10:47, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

:: All Oh My Goddess! character articles (nominated for redirectification by Jack Merridew and redirectified by TTN) and episode articles (nominated for redirectification by TTN and redirectified by Jack Merridew) were bulk redirectified.

:: As visible TTN makes such edits. ] has more examples of mass rectifying. User has over 1000 edits this month - almost all mass redirectifying. If there is nothing wring with that, there is nothing wrong with my edits.
:: --<small> ]</small> <sup>]</sup> 10:52, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

::: Redirecting articles, in itself, not generally a problem; ''edit warring over that redirect'', potentially far more problematic. I'm not intending to single you out in particular, I've seen more than a few people doing this recently. Contested redirects should be discussed, not brute forced. &ndash; <span style="font-family: Garamond">] (])</span> 10:54, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

:::: I have not reverted. Not once. Jack Merridew reverted twice on this particular case. If you check TTNs past 5000 or 500 or even 50 edits you will see plenty of examples of brute forcing. --<small> ]</small> <sup>]</sup> 10:56, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

::::: If you think the articles should be deleted, AfD is freely available; other than that, what's the issue, here? &ndash; <span style="font-family: Garamond">] (])</span> 10:58, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

:::::: TTN is mass blanking articles had been doing so for months. The problem is me trying to commit similar edits which upset Jack Merridew. --<small> ]</small> <sup>]</sup> 11:00, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

::::::: I'm not upset, I just undid your disruptive edits (on two different lists). --] 11:03, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

:::::::: Will you revert similar edits by TTN? --<small> ]</small> <sup>]</sup> 11:04, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

::::::::: If he restores your redirects, at this point, I would probably talk about it; here, where ever. --] 11:08, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

:::::::::: What about ? --<small> ]</small> <sup>]</sup> 11:11, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

::::::::::: I have no idea what the feck that is. --] 11:17, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

:::::::::::: This is a diff where TTN recently blanked the content of an entire "list of characters" article. --<small> ]</small> <sup>]</sup> 14:13, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

::::::::::::: Sarcasm rarely wins folks to your point of view. --] 14:30, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

:: He redirected the merge ''targets'', removing everything out of pique. I don't think anyone was advocating that. --] 10:49, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

::: Saw you mentioned that (haven't taken too close a look, but assuming your description is accurate that sounds worth discussion) -- I figure the AfD onus should be on those who want article(s) removed, similar to the situation with contested prods. &ndash; <span style="font-family: Garamond">] (])</span> 10:51, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

:::: Why? TTN, Jack Merridew and other members of the club vote together manipulating AfDs. Happened before many times. --<small> ]</small> <sup>]</sup> 10:54, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

:::: I agree that his disruptive behavior is the issue here and should be the focus of this discussion. This is far from the first instance of such conduct by this user. --] 12:20, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

::::: So if I redirectify articles thats "disruption" if you or TTN does it thats good conduct? --<small> ]</small> <sup>]</sup> 14:17, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

:::::: It is the perceived intent that is the determinative factor. --] 14:30, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

See: ] for the prior fit. And note that it ], too. --] 10:57, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

: Yes, yet ] is now a redirect along with every other character. Why can't I make edits yet TTN can? --<small> ]</small> <sup>]</sup> 10:59, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

White Cat, it's pretty clear that those redirects you made was an attempt at scorching the Earth because you couldn't get your way. This isn't the first time you've ] either.

Also, if you have been paid any attention to ], you will find that there has been discussion about merging episode, and to a lesser extent character, articles that are unable to independently establish their notability. Neither TTN nor Jack Merridew have been a significant party to either of those discussions nor are they members to ].

As for the Beck article, I've reverted the redirect because the content of the article had not been merged into the target article, no equivalent content exists on the target article, and there has been no discussion to simply blank the redirected article either. --''']''' (]) 12:39, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

: Hah! I make edits like TTN and people yell at me! I do not believe TTN has even read those articles. No human being can read that fast. I did merge it in a TTN-like manner. I removed the crufty non-notable material off. Link article has all the "notable" material which may also be redirectified. --<small> ]</small> <sup>]</sup> 14:13, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

:: I think you are gaming the system. ] ] 14:19, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

:::well since the redirectors have been doing it for months without sanction it would appear to be the aproved method.] 01:08, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

::::This behaviour is childish and ]Y. If you believe the method that has been used, to be wrong (like White Cat has made clear), then you do not use the same method yourself. When have two wrong's ever made a right? ] ] 01:50, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
:::::Are you saying you view their method as wrong? If so why are you not takeing action against it?] (]) 02:11, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
::::::Personally, no, I don't view their method as wrong. They are fixing a problem that just wasn't recognised unitl now...or rather it was recognised but no action was taken. There are two sides to this and believe me, I can sympathise with both. Many argue, "people come to wikipedia for tv episode articles and that's why our encylopedia is popular and useful". I can appreciate that and it has occurred to me that if we destroy the usefulness of our encylopedia, then in turn, do we de-value it? But on the other hand, making these articles comply with our policies is a good thing and there's a very good argument that, by removing non-compliant material (non-comliant because it is a ] regurgitation), we increase the quality and respectability of wikipedia. Did you see the ] page that ] wrote? That is the sort of high quality content we should be aiming for.
::::::My point was that White Cat views their methods as wrong, so for him to use them, shows he is making a point. That does not benefit the encylopedia. ] ] 02:27, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
:: Here's an idea; if you take your two lists to Afd, I'll abide by the consensus reached there. I promise to not oppose deletion. <small>(not promising not to comment; this offer good for a limited time only. Batteries not included. Void on Texas.)</small> --] 14:26, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

== Useerpage ==

<div style="float: left; border:solid lightgrey 1px; margin: 1px;">
{| cellspacing="0" style="width: 238px; background: #ffc0cb;"
| style="width: 45px; height: 45px; background: #c71585; text-align: center; font-size: {{{5|{{{id-s|14}}}}}}pt; color: {{{id-fc|black}}};" | ''']'''
| style="font-size: {{{info-s|8}}}pt; padding: 4pt; line-height: 1.25em; color: {{{info-fc|black}}};" | This user supports the independence of ''']'''.
|}</div>
<div style="float: left; border:solid lightgreen 1px; margin: 1px;">
{| cellspacing="0" style="width: 238px; background: white;"
| style="width: 45px; height: 45px; background: lightgreen; text-align: center; font-size: {{{5|{{{id-s|14}}}}}}pt; color: {{{id-fc|black}}};" | ''']'''
| style="font-size: {{{info-s|8}}}pt; padding: 4pt; line-height: 1.25em; color: {{{info-fc|black}}};" | This user supports the independence of ''']'''.
|}</div>
:This two inflammatory userboxes are present in different userpages. I do not know how these two userbox can be deleted. Please help. A discussion is going on in ]. ] (]) 10:40, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
::You know the 2005 userbox war happened for a reason. Political userboxes and religions userboxes are not allowed. That was the consensus back then and I see no evidence of a change in consensus. People have started creating political userboxes in their userspace. I however heavly doubt ANI will offer a solution. --<small> ]</small> <sup>]</sup> 10:43, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

] has a userbox supporting independence of Palestine and the above-=mentioned userboxes are present in ]. ] (]) 11:26, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
:You would think that someone who complains daily about userboxes (yet wanted to create controversial ones himself) would have learned about deletion process by now rather than complain here everytime something bugs him. ] (]) 11:30, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
:You write: ''I do not know how these two userbox can be deleted. Please help.'' Yet you link to a MfD that you are aware of. Given that, what do you ''think'' the proper procedure would be? ] (]) 11:33, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
The problem here is that this two userboxes are not constructed in one particular page. The userpages on which the userboxes are present, are written in raw codes. There is no specific template of these two userboxes. So what I need to do now? ] (]) 13:13, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
:I cannot use MfD here because the userboxes are not constructed in a specific page. So in which process these will be deleted? ] (]) 13:19, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
::Nothing as long as it isn't worse than it is now. If larger parts of the user pages turn into campaign posters then use MfD. You are very unlikely to get more out of this than sympathy for the idea that user pages shouldn't be used for this. Lots of people have the suppoprt for Israel boxes yet nothing happens to them - it takes more than that when they aren't transcluded on there - mainly because the lack of transclusion makes it harder to quickly list everyone who believes this or that. ] (]) 13:33, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
:::There isn't much wrong here. Sure, they could be considered inflamatory, but they aren't as badd as some. Though I would watch that userpage to make sure it doesn't get worse.--]]] 14:06, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
::::I really think this kind of thing is the definition of gaming the system. --<small> ]</small> <sup>]</sup> 14:15, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh FFS give it a freakin' rest. If there are support of <insert faction here> userboxes then it should be okay to have userboxes supporting the other side. WP does not take a political side, if you continually delete one side without the other then you are in effect determining a WP bias. So quit with the userbox posse and go do some editing. --]''' 15:06, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
:OK. According to your argument, a userbox can be created with a text "This user support ]". ] (]) 15:14, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
You are telling that it should not biased, i.e. it should not be biased towards peace, or disruption. So the equation becomes:
*Peace = biased
*Disruption = biased
*Not supporting peace, not supporting disruption = Neutrality. ] (]) 15:21, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

This two userboxes are '''definitely inflammatory'''. Who occupied Tibet? Who occupied Chechnya? What is going on in Tibet and Chechnya are sucsessionist movement and userboxes supporting them can not be tolerated. ] (]) 15:34, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
:Can't be tolerated by you, the rest of the editorship seems remarkably unconcerned. Look, they aren't hate boxes they are expressions of belief. They doen't say they are right, they don't say what should happen, they don't say kill the ruskies or the chinks. They say that the user believes in whatever they are saying. That is not inflammatory. Now please get off your high-horse and do something useful with your time. --]''' 15:58, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

The practice is that a userbox can speak against, but only in favor. "This user supports GW Bush" is an acceptable userbox. "This user supports the impeachment of GW Bush" is not acceptable asa userbox. A userbox can support the american Army, or for that matter the Iraqi insurgents. We have no business deciding which one is an instrument of oppression. A user can not say: I support killing the American invaders" -- or for that matter "I support killing the Iraqi terrorists". ''']''' (]) 19:01, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

:It looks an awful lot like ] is trying to make a ] about the deletion of several of his userboxes here. Which is a bad idea. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 21:45, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

== Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed ==

Right March.com radio broadcaster Bill Greene, who edits here as ], has made a podcast from an anti-liberal anti-Darwinist movement "conservative viewpoint" available at http://web.mac.com/profg/iWeb/Site/Podcast/7D1AFD6C-C07F-11DC-B69C-000A959E8368.html discussing '']''. The podcast opens suggesting using google to search for evolution or intelligent design, and you'll find Misplaced Pages near the top results, "But let me tell you, there's an incredible liberal bias there" then describes WP as being mostly edited by students and academics who don't need to spend their time trying to make a living, filling their heads with "liberal mush". Near the end of the podcast he says "But I wanna tell how how you can take action on this... The first thing you can do, on the issue of intelligent design, is go to wikipedia.org and go to, say, the section on intelligent design, and read it, and see if you could improve it. Or maybe it's the page on evolution, or creationism. Go to one of these pages and see if you can improve it. Anyone is allowed to edit it. There's a little bit of a learning curve, but really, it's supposed to be their premises, be bold, go right in there and improve it, but within five minutes, what you have written will be completely reworded, or kicked out. If you go to the discussion page and try to talk about it, you will be slammed. And if you get a little bit out of hand, because it's easy to get upset about these kind of things, you'll be kicked out. You're history. But you know what? Get a whole bunch of your friends to all do it at once. Everyone get on the phone in a conference call, or maybe get your iChat going or something, and everyone go in at once, because they can't stop, say, a dozen people, or 24 people, or 50 people, or a hundred people if they all come in at once and say 'no, we're going to do this' and they're concerted about it. Take action! Get it done!" ... ], ] 11:27, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
:I'm not familiar with the case - is the identity with ] proven? In that case, a good long block/ban is in order, as he was apparently already under parole for previous disruption, and this is as clear a case of disruptive behaviour as you can get. ] ] 12:34, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
:: - it's self-admitted. ] <sup>]</sup> 12:55, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
:::Under these circumstances, and considering the existing parole imposed by ] after a previous ban proposal (see ]), I'd be willing to block for a longish period. How long shall we say? ] ] 13:41, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
::::Still no block, though. And to make this perfectly clear, the precise nature of this person's ideology is irrelevant. It's the attempt to canvass for a POV push that's important. <font face="Verdana">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 13:43, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
::::::I was just waiting for a bit of further input. There's no hurry. ] ] 13:53, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
::::: ] <sup>]</sup> 13:51, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
:I'm not going to take any action and don't really care one way or another what anyone does here except to say (1) by linking the podcast here, you've probably substantially increased his listenership, (2) a block would be punitive not preventative (not that I'm expressing an opinion on whether or not there is anything wrong with that, just that it is what it is), (3) if he is blocked, do a checkuser, and (4) if a block is made, make sure that it is for actions, not for bias - there are other Wikipedians that run <s>attack sites</s> sites that criticize Wikipedians or Misplaced Pages (google "nonbovine" for instance). --] (]) 13:55, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
::It's not about criticising Misplaced Pages. It's about solliciting meatpuppets. A block isn't any more punitive than any other block that is imposed based on past behaviour. You take past behaviour as a measure of the likelihood that future behaviour will be disruptive, and calculate block length accordingly. ] ] 14:00, 12 January 2008 (UTC)


I have been asked to post both relevant podcast links:
http://web.mac.com/profg/iWeb/Site/Podcast/7D1AFD6C-C07F-11DC-B69C-000A959E8368.html
http://web.mac.com/profg/iWeb/Site/Podcast/9A7C2A76-9F89-11DC-880E-000A959E8368.html --] (]) 15:29, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

===Community ban discussion===
* A block won't stop the damage. Misplaced Pages does not need editors who declare war against ] and canvass for ]. This is a cooperative project, not an exercise in unlimited free speech. He must be excluded until he agrees to work cooperatively. ] <sup>]</sup> 14:02, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
::* I don't edit the articles in question. I haven't even looked at the articles in question. I don't know the guy on the radio. However, the description in the first paragraph suggests that the article is POV and needs correction. So the assertion that the person is anti-NPOV is an attack. Whether it's an attack that can be justified is a different question. It's possible that the radio guy is looney. The fundamental question would be to put yourself in his shoes and ask "are there sections which are biased"? We should examine the fundamental question about whether this radio announcer has valid ideas that are being reverted. If so, then the talk of banning, blocking, and other steps are wrong. If the radio announcer has wacky ideas, that's a different story. Does the radio announcer's edits have reliable sources and are properly referenced? ] (]) 17:56, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
* A short sprotect of any article that appears to have been edited vexatiously following the podcast would resolve any problem with ]/vandalism. Re Profg, although they may have violated the terms of a parole the effect can be easily mitigated and blocking them from editing Misplaced Pages is not going to stop them from their off-Wiki activities (and may encourage them). A month block may suffice to persuade the editor we are serious about countering disruption of articles, but provided the carrot of a return to editing should they not canvas further for disruptive editing. ] (]) 14:12, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
:* You are correct that the block may encourage more warring. That is why I have proposed a social construction: a ban. If Profg sees that we are unanimously against his methods, he may stop. If however, he sees support from any faction, he may view this as just another liberal-conservative battle, which is hopefully not the case. ] <sup>]</sup> 14:26, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
::*No, its certainly not a lib/con consideration; the template on Profg's page mentions a block rather than ban as sanction for parole violation, so I am being consistent with that. If the block is indefinite pending cessation of canvassing for POV pushing, with a month minimum tariff, then I could support. I would comment that the template doesn't directly address canvassing, but if the net result is to violate the terms of the parole by meatpuppetry then I think sanction on violation of parole is justified - it just depends whether we are considering keeping the key or not. ] (]) 14:40, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
:::*We don't need to split hairs over what's a ban and what's a block. If a block gets imposed on the basis of admin consensus after a discussion like this, it will by definition be a ban. A temporal one; I too would consider indef overkill in this situation, and possibly counterproductive. ] ] 14:56, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
::::*We are not limited to the probation remedies. If he has done something else wrong, which appears to be the case, we are free to impose whatever remedies are necessary to protect the project and deter future disruption. That said, if he were to come here now or later and say, "Oops, I didn't realize this was wrong, I will issue a retraction," then the remedy could be lifted. ] <sup>]</sup> 15:55, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
:::::*Could I propose an initial block of one month, to be reviewed at the end of tariff for evidence of continued off-Wiki canvassing for POV pushing - which would then attract the indef tariff until such time as they agree to comply with the communities wishes - as a compromise? ] (]) 16:08, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
* I have to agree and I would support a ban. This isn't just a case of seeking external input; Profg is explicitly seeking to recruit a large number of supporters of his POV and to use them to impose that POV in violation of NPOV. I'd call that unacceptably disruptive conduct, regardless of the effect it actually has in practice. -- ] (]) 14:07, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

*Given that a block or ban might encourage him, can we think of another option? Can we reason him out of this approach? And if that fails, then move to other thing?--] (]) 15:13, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

:* How about we ban and block him now, and if he wants to come back, he has to stop actively trying to sabotage the project, and then we can talk. This is a project, not a public service. Editing is a privilege, not a right. You are certainly welcome to reason with him. I think a block by an individual administrator is problematic. We need a statement by the community that this behavior is highly objectionable, and that we will exclude him so long as it continues. ] <sup>]</sup> 15:52, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
* I don't think that banning people for telling others to edit and use Misplaced Pages would be a terribly productive use of anyone's time. Regards, ] (]) 16:50, 12 January 2008 (UTC)]]
* A block/ban will simply turn him into a martyr, further enhancing his status with his constituency. And it won't help us because he can return as a sockpuppet anyway. Regarding edits by his audience, it's not necessary to respond instantly. The "slow revert" is a wonderful thing. So what if the article is lousy for a few hours, or maybe a day or two, before we roll back -- lots of our articles are lousy for much longer periods than that. They want to provoke a newsworthy reaction and the best thing we can do is not react accordingly. ] (]) 17:07, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
* Perhaps some administrator can be appointed to have a discussion with him explaining why what he did was out of line with Misplaced Pages community standards. Pending the results of that discussion, the administrator would report back what he/she thinks is the most appropriate way to deal with the issue. If it seems like there was good understanding and remorse (and perhaps even a correction made on the next podcast), take no action. If there is no remorse or no willingness to engage in discussion, take some action. <font color="red">]</font><font color="blue">]</font> <sup><font color="darkred">]</font></sup> 17:24, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
::*I '''oppose''' the ban but could '''support''' it if there is a proper explanation. What is the offense that causes the ban? Wikipedians don't like wikilawyering and neither do I. However, we need Wikiprecision.
:::What is the behavior causing ban?
:::1. Is it "mention of Misplaced Pages to others will cause you to be banned"?
:::2. Is it "mention of Misplaced Pages in the radio will cause you to be banned"?
:::3. Is it "disruptive editing because of diffs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 is causing your ban."?
:::4. Is it "asserting that there is a bias in Misplaced Pages causing you to be banned."?
:::5. Something else?
:::This could be a clear cut and easy decision. However, it's not adequately explained here. Maybe it's because you know what is going on. Others don't. I haven't read the articles. So if you want a community ban and not just a ban from you and your fellow editor, then you should be more specific. ] (]) 18:05, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
::::* Off-wiki ] for ] to support a ] is an illegitimate way to deal with a content dispute. A ban of this user would allow us to swiftly block any sock or meat puppet accounts that answer his call to disruptively edit the target articles. ] <sup>]</sup> 18:09, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
:::::Disclaimer: I have never even looked at the articles in question so I am questioning the process more than the edits. In Misplaced Pages, calling someone a meat or sockpuppet is too convenient an excuse to block someone. Ideas, not number of editors, is of more importance. Does the edits have reliable sources? If so, they are not POV or can be made NPOV. "Others contend that .... < ref >" is the way to do it. The biggest question I have that needs to be answered for me to support a ban would be to show the diffs to demonstrate that they seem like POV and wouldn't likely have any reliable sources. A review of the opposing sides edits that have reliable sources would also be necessary. ] (]) 18:18, 12 January 2008 (UTC) <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 18:17, 12 January 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

* Support a ban. In the time I've been familiar with him, something like a year now, he's been an inveterate POV pusher. This latest demarche of his demonstrates a clear contempt of this community and the project's goals. Don't see a talking to making much of an impression on someone who holds such strong views and is willing to make such public calls to recruit meat puppets. ] (]) 17:50, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

*'''Support a ban.''' -- <i><b><font color="004000">]</font></b></i> / <b><font color="990099" size="1">]</font></b> 18:14, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' Profg hasn't actually edited much for some time. I'd suggest that we run a few checkusers over the next month in case of sockpuppetry vandalism, and watch his account, but if we ban him at this moment, realise the gesture will probably end up being symbolic rather than particularly useful. ] <sup>]</sup> 18:47, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
*This is senseless. People are not AFD'ed. A one-line "support a ban" or "oppose a ban" type discussion is unhelpful. There were admins willing to unblock him before (I was the one that implemented it.) Is there any admin who would be willing to unblock him this time? I'm guessing the answer is no (as it probably should be), but if any admin would be willing to unblock him, that is what it is. Community bans are when no admin is willing to unblock someone - you can't treat people like articles and vote them in or out of existence based on whoever shows up. And for the record, I would (obviously) not be willing to unblock him this time. Canvassing on-wiki or off-wiki is obviously not an acceptable behavior. The issue before was that nobody could actually provide examples of Profg behaving in any way that would warrant an indefinite ban and no uninvolved user even supported the ban. Now, that's changed and I seriously doubt any admin would unblock him if he is blocked. I agree with Adam that it would be somewhat symbolic since he has not edited (at least not that we know of) in some time. But there's nothing inherently wrong with a symbolic action when it is a symbol that certain behaviors will not be tolerated. --] (]) 20:22, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

===1 Month Block===
I have implemented a 1 month block and informed Profg that this can be shortened if the canvassing is stopped, or lengthened if we observe continuing problems. This seems to be the most appropriate remedy at this time. ] <sup>]</sup> 20:37, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

===On sprotects of the pages Profg suggests be targeted (per above discussion)===
Probably unnecessary at the moment. ] has been sprotected for months, if not years (It used to be one of the biggest vandalism targets. A few persistent vandals may mean that it still is...) However, for the unprotected articles he mentions, there's hardly been a flood of new, problematic users. The only edits I can find that have a half-decent chance of coming from this are two edits by new user {{user|Sonseeker007}} to Intelligent design. They were reverted, and that was it. There was also a little anon vandalism of ] ( - but this is pretty standard "Hi, X!" vandalism and probably unrelated. ] <sup>]</sup> 16:35, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
:Remember, his announcement is of what he plans to organize in the future.--] (]) 18:00, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

In the very first paragraph, a podcast quote says "If you go to the discussion page and try to talk about it, you will be slammed". Yet we are trying to ban him. A more productive discussion may be "Let's not slam newbies. Let's get all editors to use reliable sources for every statement, particularly controversial statements." I find it disturbing that we are trying to ban editors. I would find it more comfortable if we are banning editors for failure to use reliable sources and citations. We have to be careful because most articles, even non-controversial ones, are full of uncited statements. If we are banning him because of clearly POV statements and lack of citations (diffs needed) and failure to cooperate in fixing this problem, then that's a different story. If I were to give Easter eggs only to perfect kids, no kids would get Easter eggs. ] (]) 18:27, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
:Ah, but think of the reduction in cavities! On the other hand there is not always a benefit in numbers, sometimes WP can do without certain editors. --]''' 18:36, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
::True, we don't want certain editors in WP! I don't want anti-Easter Bunny editors but would allow them if the anti-Easter Bunny edits had citation and were written in an encyclopedic tone. ] (]) 18:49, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
::I'm sorry, I wasn't very clear: this is relating to the above discussion of Profg , not the users cited in the examples. Basically, if he was really that major of a force against Misplaced Pages, we'd probably have seen a bit more trouble by now on the articles he mentioned by name. I've changed the title of this section appropriately. ] <sup>]</sup> 18:40, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
::I dont see how blocking him would prevent his solicitation of meat puppets via his blog. ''']''' (]) 18:55, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
:::I too don't see how banning him would prevent meatpuppetry, all he would do is use the incident to say that it proves his point. However, from my experience in other ], new editors who come in and try to change an article to support their POV almost never become good editors. They either get blocked for disruption, POV pushing, edit warring, incivility/attacks, sockpuppetry, etc. or they give up after a few weeks of not being able to get their way. <font face="Broadway">]'']</font>'' 21:37, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
::::Really, ] was disruptive and unconstructive in the best of times, and was most recently unblocked on fairly strict terms of parole. Now he's soliciting a large group of editors of a particular POV to swarm and "overwhelm" a contentious article? Block the account indefinitely. He's already got his red meat on how he's been censored by the leftist hordes; an indefinite block won't materially change that. If he changes his approach convincingly, or if some admin wants to unblock him, then we can reopen a discussion. If the articles become problems, we'll semi-protect them as needed. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 21:40, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

== ] ==

There appears to be persistant vandalism with this article. Please do something about it. <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 13:14, 12 January 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:The article you mentioned is in red link. ] (]) 13:17, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Please identify the edits which are vandalism. ] (]) 13:22, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

== Self-made toy pictures ==

Some of the articles on old toys/cartoon/comic book characters lacked pictures, and I had a big collection old toys and TV shows, so I had started to take pictures and post them under their respective articles. I used screen captures, box art and the like. At first I had trouble using proper tags, but eventually that was sorted out. There was a complaint that these images were non-free, and it was suggested to me that pictures I took myself of the toys of characters were a free alternative. I started to take pictures of the toys for the characters and post them as GDFL-self. I recently recieved another notice that the pictures of the toys themselves are not GFDL-self as the toy is considered a work of art, and owned by the creator. There are still articles out there with no or few pictures. If the picture of the toys are also non-free (and no free alternative does exist!) then should I just go back to screen captures and comic art and such, IF I work out a proper non-free image fair use rational? There seems to be no free alternative for some of these articles, and surely at least one non-free image per character IS allowed if you have the proper rational attached to it. I know I can't flood an article with non-free pictures, but some articles lack pictures all together, is that an acceptable reason to add a properly tagged non-free image?

Also, what about characters who changed siginifantly? Would I be allowed to post a picture of each of theirt changes over the years? Thanks for letting me know. ] (]) 13:18, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

:If an alternative does not exist and these are needed to retain the quality of the article, you can still use them under our fair use rules. ] (]) 13:25, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

::For instance there is an article on three different fictional characters who share a name - ]. Can I safely add a non-free picture of each of the three characters (who look vastly different) to the article if I use a proper fair use rational? ] (]) 13:37, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

:::It might be more useful to photograph all three at the same time. ] <sup>]</sup> 13:48, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

:::The way the article is set up each character has his own section. I could merge pictures of their two modes into one picture, since they are Transformers they all have 2 modes. Like robot and jet. I could make those one picture. ] (]) 14:00, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

::::Though one needs to be aware that while no one (currently) is adding up non-free use on a page, a single shot of 3 separate toys would be considered as 3 uses of non-free fair use (as the photo is a derivative work). But the advice you have currently is otherwise correct, you can probably get more info at ] and ]. --] 13:54, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

:Since a toy is a three-dimensional work of art, wouldn't ] be free to release these two-dimensional photographs of these three-dimensional works into the public domain, under GFDL, and/or CC? ] states, "For pictures of statues (which is, effectively, a translation of a three dimensional work into a two-dimensional copy) the picture taker has creative input into which angle to take the photographs from. Therefore, a new copyright is created when the picture is taken." ] (]) 16:07, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

::Apparently not. See the discussion and linked discussions at ]. ➔ ''']''' is standing in the dark 16:30, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

:::In the first discussion you mentioned concerning ], ] said that commons is concerned with copyright, not trademarks. The photograph of a toy from that discussion is now hosted on commons. ] (]) 17:06, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

::::If you read through the discussion there, it specifically applies to the TARDIS (aka an old British policy box) because they cannot "copyright" that look - that look was in the public domain before the BBC created Doctor Who. It is a highly unique case. --] 17:55, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
This seems crazy to me. I know copyright law is byzantine <s>at times</s> all the time, but what if a picture were made, such that a toy were incidental in the shot taken. And then that photo (the one with the incidental toy in it) were released under a CC or GFDL. And ''then'' somebody else were to crop the freely licensed picture down the line (to include just the toy). . .does that mean that the cropped, derivative pic would violate copyright, but the original wouldn't? Or can one never release a photo if it contains discernible 3D --> 2D pixels in it somewhere? ] (]) 18:10, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay, do I just added one non-free box art image to the ] page. Is there ANY problem with the way I did it? Please let me know. I want to try to get a general nod that I added a proper picture the right way to an article before doing another. Thanks ] (]) 19:04, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I just added a picture to the Bonecrusher article (which covers 7 different characters named Bonecrusher). Since the 6th had no picture, I used one sent out by Hasbto to promote it's sale. Is this okay? http://en.wikipedia.org/Bonecrusher_%28Transformers%29#Transformers:_Universe_.28Deluxe.29 I think i tagged everything properly.] (]) 10:01, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

== Woggy ==
{{Resolved|1=I say thee (and Wuggy) nay! -'']'' <sup>(<font color="0000FF">] ]</font>)</sup> 19:21, 12 January 2008 (UTC)}}
{{user|Woggy}} (currently blocked indefinitely for ] and as a V-OA) has just posted a plea to be unblocked on ]. I'm not comfortable unblocking someone blocked for personal attacks; does this guy deserve a second chance? -'']'' <sup>(<font color="0000FF">] ]</font>)</sup> 17:56, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
::;COULD YOU please list which edits othat were causing him to be blocked?~~?~??~?~? 17:57, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
:::Could you please be more civil, Smith? And please examine his block log (the link is at the top of his contribs page). He's been blocked for three months, and not by me. -'']'' <sup>(<font color="0000FF">] ]</font>)</sup> 18:08, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
:::Should not that username be indefinitely blocked anyway, due to its ]? ] (]) 17:59, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
::::I should guess that the username patroller was not familiar with UK racist terms - although it is just as possible neither is the account holder. ] (]) 22:40, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
::i think that he should be permanetnly bblocked from editing becuase it i clear from his block log hat he has not ientention of proiidnd useful edits and seems to have createdhisacount solely for vandalcism. not only that i agree with whitstable that his usename is obviously a racialist slur. ] (]) 18:24, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
:::Not happening; the user has evaded the block as {{user|Wuggy}} (see below). Very bad move if you want an unblock. -'']'' <sup>(<font color="0000FF">] ]</font>)</sup> 19:21, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

==Ongoing personal attacks from ]==

I suspect this is a sock puppet account of ] and he -like L.L.King and all the socks before him- has gone on page long tirades against me and my assault on the integrity of Misplaced Pages. He left a wall of text over at ] about my abuse of protocols and followed that up at ] with a tear calling me a liar and a fool. He's left lengthy essays on both ] and ] (since deleted) again calling me abusive and downright evil. I don't think Alison has checked her talk page (she was the blocking admin for L.L.King), so I thought I would bring this request here. Thanks. ] (]) 18:16, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
: I'm only just getting started here for the day. Initial glance shows that it's a bit more complex than simple sock vandalism, and that there may be BLP issues involved, too. Feel free to weigh in on my talk page, anyone ... - ] <sup>]</sup> 18:49, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

== {{Userlinks|KnatLouie}} ==

Would someone mind telling this user not to maintain list of users s/he doesn't like? The user claims it's not insulting, but it's clearly meant to be. <font face="Verdana,Arial,Helvetica">]</font> 18:43, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

::i just warned him for you. ] (]) 18:51, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

::Lol, I told him to remove it and he renamed from "Worst admin ever" to what it is now, then told me he'd added me. I don't mind really with the way it is now, but it was bad before.--]]] 18:53, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

== {{user|Wuggy}} obvious sock of {{user|Woggy}} - in relation to above ==
:{{Resolved|1=Fuzzy Wuggy had a widdoo accident. -'']'' <sup>(<font color="0000FF">] ]</font>)</sup> 19:14, 12 January 2008 (UTC)}}
This is related to the above post about {{user|Woggy}} unblock plea. Just after that was posted, {{user|Wuggy}} was created. Their first edit? . The second edit was making more personal attacks on , which was a trademark of Woggy. I brought this here because I thought it was way too obvious to file an SSP report. ''''']<sup>(])</sup>''''' 19:09, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
:Blocked as a block-evading sock; although I will note that he was not using a personal attack on the Talk:LoSBSPE page. -'']'' <sup>(<font color="0000FF">] ]</font>)</sup> 19:14, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
::Hmm, really? I took "Ever heard of proper grammar?" as an attack (though it wasn't to me) and was attempting to remove it when I edit-conflicted with you (while you were removing Wuggy's comments entirely). Good job. ''''']<sup>(])</sup>''''' 19:23, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
:::While it is incivil, it's not a personal attack. -'']'' <sup>(<font color="0000FF">] ]</font>)</sup> 19:27, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
:Is this "Resolved" comment supposed to be cute? It's decidedly not. ] (]) 20:46, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

== ] ==

I noticed that he was given rollback, but just a few months ago I found this], which tells me he doesn't deserve the tool. Also all his rollbacks so far is reverting new users edits in the ] of all pages. Taking here for consensus. ] <sup>]</sup> 19:41, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
:I would endorse the removal of his rollback tools.--]]] 20:09, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
::Why? If he abuses it, remove it. No need for drama.--]<sup> g - ]</sup> 20:20, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
:: Well he is only reverting new users on the sandbox on a costant basis, which is ] ] <sup>]</sup> 20:24, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

This is exactly why rollback sucks, here we are wasting time - go tell him not to do that. Ask him nicely, don't bring this useless drama here.--]<sup> g - ]</sup> 20:27, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
:Actually, I had the user to stop doing that and , but obviously chose to keep doing it. - ] (]) 21:58, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
::If he's continued to abuse the tool, then simply remove it. No fuss no paperwork.--]<sup> g - ]</sup> 22:05, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

== Funky stuff on ] ==
{{resolved}}
Hey all. It appears that after was made, a whole bunch of active discussions on ] immmediately disappeared, including new threads. I'm assuming that this was not suppose to happen. I'm also assuming I'm not the only one who noticed, but FYI just in case. -BC aka ] (]) 20:22, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

: A follow-up: ] already took care of it. It was some kind of accidental deletion. -BC aka ] (]) 20:56, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

== Red alert, Misplaced Pages under a very serious threat ==
{{resolved}}
{{archive top}}
For the main dicussion please see http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&oldid=183926253#RED_ALERT<br/><small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 20:33, 12 January 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->


A message from vandal PWee Hurman as left on ]'s talk page:

''Hello Everybody, a little message to Goodshoped35110 and who else might read it. . .
''First off, I would like to say I love your comment(s) about the "automated rifle" when talking about taking me off wikipedia(Herman). And I would like to say that, well, your right, and that you will need that kind of fire power, especially when I finally assemble the project that I am currently working on. I currently have assembled, through an online blog to have "Herman" launch non-stop wiki attacks from multiple places in the United States. I also currently have a member who is undercover, trying to obtain the administrator position to unleash unheard of havoc. The damage that would be dealt would make even the megaliths of war look subordinate in comparison.

''The next thing worth mentioning is that you don't have all of our sock puppets listed, but rather are missing many, including the ones in Spanish, Germane, Russian, and like this one, pig Latin. You will never defeat Herman, in fact, the guerrilla war thats being arranged will be the Virgina Poly Tech Massacre all over again. This will be ready and executable approximately in mid February. I need the finishing touches. Get ready for this.

''Can You Handle it?

--<font face="Copperplate Gothic">] <sup><font color="#800000">]</font></sup></font> 15:21, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

''Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Goodshoped35110s"''

This has already been posted on ] and I have posted it here so the whole community can see it, Jimbo Wales has informed ] of this already, however I think the community should be warned and prepared for this. ] (]) 20:30, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
:The edit in question was . ] (]) 20:35, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
:Block, revert, move on. ] (]) 20:37, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

The fact is, they plan to do this in the future, and the threat seems very possible. ] (]) 20:39, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
:And there's nada we can do about it. Block, revert, move on. ] (]) 20:41, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
:By making a big deal of it we're giving them the attention they want. Have a look at ]; it's beautiful stuff, and it works. Cheers, ] ] 20:40, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

This is a big deal, Jimbo Wales has notified ] his legal advisor for god sake, see the dicussion on his page, this could cause untold damage... ] (]) 20:43, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
:So what would you suggest we do? Sharpen our keyboards? ] (]) 20:44, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

:The PeeWee guy is full of it. He claimed to have "hundreds of IP addresses" - he didn't. I've checkusered enough of his cases to know - he's just a bluffer - ] <sup>]</sup> 20:46, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

It certainly convinced Jwales. ] (]) 20:47, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Yawn.--]<sup> g - ]</sup> 20:50, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
:You '''must''' know that ''this'' is exactly what the editor wanted? Move along... ] (]) 20:51, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I haven't exactly had enough experience to understand who this editor is and what he wants... ] (]) 20:52, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
:(ec) This is ridiculous. I've marked it as resolved; it's probably some 8-year-old kid or something who has nothing better to do than to get people all worked up about it. He's most likely bluffing about having some big assault ready, and besides, he has no idea who most of us are, as he has no CheckUser. Revert, block, ignore. End of story. ]<sup>]</sup> 20:54, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
{{archive bottom}}

== Ongoing harrassment, vote rigging and sockpuppetery by ] ==

I'm being harassed by ] for making an unfavorable review at ]. The first step of his retaliation was to nominate one of the FA articles I've worked on at ]. That approach failed with the review being quickly closed with the issues raised being dismissed outright, but he then threatened to renominate the same article again at ] on February 1st, 2008 (). The editor clearly states their motive for renominating Indonesia is revenge here: (). Another editor also unfavorably reviewed the Macau article, and the response from ] was the same: a threat to vote against one of the articles written by the reviewer at ] (). There may also be a violation of ] by this editor - they have asked a number of other like-minded editors to vote at the Macau FA review : , , , , . Blackmailing other editors and gaming the system to achieve FA status for articles should be a serious cause for concern.

There is an ongoing pattern of disruptive behavior with this editor. ] was recently blocked for violating the 3RR on ] (). Another editor expressed frustration that the editor was also being disruptive on the Singaporean articles: . If you examine the edits made by ], ] and ] there is a superficial case that they may all be sockpuppets controlled by the same individual. There is an overlap in the articles they edit and the style of their edit comments - all editors have a habit of writing "+" a lot in their edit comments, specifically "+ comment" or "+ com" for adding comments at talk pages, "+ ref" or "+ reference" for adding references, etc. Indeed, ] has previously been blocked for block-evasion (), and ] and ] have played tag team in reverting at to force a 3RR violation block of another editor. A checkuser on these accounts would be helpful in understanding exactly what is going on.

Can someone help solve the ongoing disruption this editor is causing? (] (]) 23:13, 12 January 2008 (UTC))

:Thanks for your message you wrote me in my talk page. Excuse me, for what you claimed about sockpuppet(s) is groundless. Admin can check it. There is nothing wrong to notify my friends, collegues, or other ediors to vote and give me comment over the FAC page as long as I didn't force them to vote either support or oppose. The original spirit for blocking is to quench edit war and I don't think there is edit war over the page of PISA and it passed long time ago inlcuding Russia. For the article Singapore I already compromised with other editors like Huaiwei. For what you claimed about my first block evasion last year because I had used anyo. with Mobile IP, that is why the admin blocked me after I created my account. Caniago, there is nothing wrong for me to put the article Indonesia over the page of FAR. Actually that article is not in FA standard. Lead has no citation, I am not completely wrong. Thanks! ] (]) 23:48, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

::We are not in the business, if you do this for me I will do that for you! There are people I do not like, but I do not go to articles conserning them imparting my opinion. We must follow ] and supress the evil ] as much as posible to preserve ], respect ] and ]. ] (]) 04:02, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

::There is indeed something wrong to notify friends, collegues, or other ediors to vote, for that can amoung to ] if their sole purpose to be here is just that...engaging in revert-wars. And I do not consider him as having reached any "compromise" with me, after his failed attempt to abuse the ] policy . which was the last time he chose to be disruptive in Singapore-related articles.--] (]) 05:01, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

:::Yes, you are not completely wrong. There is no black and white area here. It depends on the sitution. I invited them to give me comment. They can give me pos or neg comment; or they can even vote oppose. It seems to me I reported your case of abuse 3RR policy to noticeboard first, am I right? and at the same time, you got a warning message as well, am I right? well, I am not going to argue with you this matter because I forgot it and I am quite lazy (unlike you) to find out from my edit history. It seems there is some difference and you change something after the edit warring. Well, but I just don't care!! ] (]) 05:22, 13 January 2008 (UTC)


] also harassed me after I made an unfavourable review on the Macau FAC and after I exposed his lying on another issue. ] declared - "''OK! go ahead! I just don't care! I already illustrated my point. I am not going to revert it. RIght now I will try to make sure your article Russia fail and die from FAC. That is the most important thing.''" and "''whenever you nominate Russia or Russian article, I will surely vote OPPOSE or take them to FAR. This is the heavy price you have to pay''". He encouraged other users to vote oppose to the Russia FAC that I nominated as revenge (''please vote "Oppose" to make sure his article Russia fail and leave the page of FAC immediately. His article is almost failed!!!! just give him a last bullet. I will come back and check it tomorrow!!'') and here (''I would like to suggest that you had better vote OPPOSE as this article also ignored many guidelines. T'') . He has made similar disruptive ]y edits on other pages, see ]. User blanks his talk page to hide his history of blocks, disruptive editing, accusations of racism, etc . Furthermore, see the comments written by other users about Coloane when he was reported for 3RR recently.--] (]) 03:50, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
:wow, last time you copied and pasted this message on 3RR noticeboard the day before yesterday. You copied and pasted over the FAC page and now you pasted it over here. It is much faster that you typed and pasted compare to the past but not much improvement has been made. ] (]) 05:26, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
::I once again question this user's intentions on Misplaced Pages. His actions are centered on disrupting highly valued contributors, for the sake of pushing his national interests. I cannot see how he may bring anything constructive to the project. (p.s., this is , no?) <span style="font-family: Myriad Pro; font-size: 11pt">] <sup>]</sup></span> 06:26, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I am currently on vacation, so I am limited in what I can write, but ] does have a limited fluency in English which restricts some of his editor interaction (and also wounds his ego when it is pointed out as a mitigation for some of his behaviour). If Wikipedians study the deleted portions of Coloane's talk page (visible in the History) it will become plain that Coloane's agenda is not always coterminous with that of our encyclopedia.

Nevertheless he does have useful contributions to make and I would suggest that outright blocks of whatever duration would be counterproductive and only give him a perverse incentive for puppetry. Better would be a voluntary undertaking from him to only edit Macau articles for 2 months while he learns a less vindictive style and that he seeks mentorship. ]] 06:22, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

== Long-term ] and ] abuse ==

I came across {{user|Cculber007}} after ] for incivility. I responded with two instances of AGF/NPA-vios, and was greeted today by a .

This has been brought up earlier but it is escalating amongst other users. {{user|Cculber007}} has been warned many times and has been blocked previously for ] and legal threats. Here is a list of DIFFs, also catalogued on my talk page:
* : Belief that any warnings appropriated by users is nonsensical and would appreciate warnings/notices from administrators only, going against ].
* Wholly inappropriate edit summary, per ].
* Creative reuse of a header.
* Ditto.
* (the second message)
* E-mail from Cculber007 ({{user|66.230.200.216}}) sent at Jan 12, 2008 6:20 PM: "That is not vandalism, that is my complaint. I think I contact Misplaced Pages about your bad faith. I am not accepting that you think I vandalised your pages but you vandalised my pages. I get news for you, You are not right person for Misplaced Pages. Remove vandalism words and changing to correct. if not, I will call you as vandalism on my pages."
* E-mail from Culber007 ({{user|66.230.200.216}}) sent at Jan 12, 2008 6:26 PM: ""You start to make a fire, you do not want to finish this fire but you want to bring more fires." It means you do not want to solve the problem, you want to start flame war against me instead of others. I think you has something against me as a deaf person. This is last time, changing your comments in your pages from vandalism to complaints. If they are spams and vandalism then Misplaced Pages is deaf discrimination. Do a right things and solve them will give you a chance of Mediation Committee."

He was given "one more chance" for ].

Prior reports at WQA (above) have generated the following AGF-vios: . I thought of just keeping this on the respective talk pages and working out a better solution, but after receiving the rather disturbing e-mails in successive fashion and after seeing the prior blocks, I thought this venue would be more appropriate. ] <small>(]) (])</small> 23:38, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

== Rangeblock assistance ==

Over about a month's time, there have been a number of disruptive POV edits made to Serb-related articles. All have been made from IP addresses, with the vast majority from either the 195.29.96.x - 195.29.105.x range and {{user|217.68.80.50}} (the latter account has been blocked). The edits were spread over about thirty pages, with protections up to a week in length having little effect. ], who initially noticed the edits and has been monitoring it since then, has documented most of the pertinent information at ], which I will not duplicate here.

As protection has been ineffective and this user shows no sign of stopping, I think it's time to look at a rangeblock. I'd like to solicit others' opinions before doing so, however. Also, would it be wise to request a checkuser to determine any collateral damage such a block would incur? ] (]) 23:47, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll just add that the IPvandal has made it clear that the 192.29.96-105 range and 217.68.80.50 is definitely the same user, and has explicitly made it clear that s/he has no intention of contributing constructively to these articles or any other part of Misplaced Pages. The user seems to think vandalism is humorous (most easily gleaned from page histories). No other contributions seem to have been made from this IP range as far as I can tell (I haven't checked all 2560 of them though). Anything I can do to help, since I've been doing the bulk of the work and have documented this case, just ask. --] (]) 00:34, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

==User:BernardL==
Clear violations of WP:NPA here: http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Allegations_of_state_terrorism_committed_by_the_United_States#Monthly_Review and here: http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Allegations_of_state_terrorism_committed_by_the_United_States#The_Atlantic_Monthly

] (]) 23:49, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

:These are not personal attacks. They're not even close to them. He's stating policy. You also have not sought to bring up the issue with the user in question, which you should do before bringing something to the noticeboard (although that's something of a moot point here, since nothing occurred). ] (]) 00:12, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

::It is worth noting that BernardL has modified his remarks substantially () presumably between the time that Jtrainor posted this report and when Tijuana Brass read the comments. Comments like "...your half-baked pseudo-legal finaggling", "Why do you bother us with these obvious irrelevancies?", and "Can your imbecility go much deeper than it already is?" were made after Jtrainor posted a reminder link () to WP:NPA on the talk page. ](]) 02:17, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

:::OK. Let's give BernardL the benefit of the doubt and guess that he made those changes after realizing that he made a mistake. If it happens again, take it up with him first, then escalate it to the etiquette noticeboard if it continues. ] (]) 02:50, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
::::I kinda know Bernard from some interactions on the article in question (where I generally agree with him in terms of the debates there) and think the "your imbecility" comment in particular is highly, highly unacceptable. It's good that the comment was apparently refactored by Bernard (I did not check the history but assume this was the case), however a stern admin warning seems warranted. Having said that, the article in question is (and has been for a long time) a heated one in terms of talk page interactions so the comments are not at all beyond the pale in terms of the tone over there (unfortunately). Bernard's comments at the article, as far as I've seen and remember, have generally been well thought out and civil so I would view the "imbecility" comment as cause for a strong slap on the wrist and little more at this point.--] <small>| ] | ]</small> 12:49, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

== Arbitration evidence tampering ==
{{IPvandal|86.20.179.62}} has altered my evidence statement at an arbitration case with a misleading edit summary. The IP changed my words to make it appear that I was accusing ] of being a sockpuppet of ], yet called the edit a grammar fix. I reverted immediately and consider that an especially pernicious attack. Please block, and if a checkuser is available that would be good too. Maybe FeloniousMonk would have some ideas about who did this. <font face="Verdana">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 00:14, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
:I just gave the IP a warning. <font style="background-color:#218921; color:blue;font-family: Monotype Corsiva">Table</font><font style="background-color:#121298; color:white;font-family: Monotype Corsiva">Manners</font><sup>]·]·]</sup> 00:33, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
:The only edits by this ip were those as notified above. I suggest if this, or another in the same range, return and make similar ''amendments'' then we can consider a block. Again, only if these incidents of vandalism are repeated should checkuser be requested. Further, wouldn't checkuser need to have a name for a suspected account - and valid reasons for believing they are socking - to be accepted? You may wish to weigh the consequences of making such a request. ] (]) 00:41, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
::TableManners, your "warning," "'' Please stop introducing jokes into articles''" is way off the mark; the person impersonated a trusted member of the community on an arbcom evidence page to attack another, not "introducing jokes into articles." That in itself is a blockable offense. ] (]) 05:06, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
::I've left a message at FeloniousMonk's user talk. The odds of this being a new user are really low. I just don't know who the sockmaster would be, but I think we should have a very low tolerance for this particular kind of dirty trick. Suppose someone else had edited that page before I checked my watchlist? This is arbitration evidence; I think a short leash should apply. <font face="Verdana">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 00:55, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Durova: have you notified the arb clerk on that case? I'd suggest posting this also on the case page it occurred on. <span style="font-family: verdana;"> — ] • ] • </span> 01:40, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

* I've blocked for one month. "First offense" etc clearly does not apply to an editor impersonating one editor in order to attack, harass, or accuse another on an ArbCom evidence page. Anyone who knows enough to do that knows precisely what they are doing. ]<sup>]</sup> 12:59, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

== Request input on topic ban ==

Hello. I'd like to strongly suggest a topic ban for ], restricting him to article space with talk edits only relating to those articles, and a specific restriction on discussing one Pee Wee Herman vandal. He spends the majority of his time in userspace or talk space, rarely actually writing articles, and generally making mountains out of molehills. This type of behavior stretches back to his beginnings on the project. However, despite him having months of experience, this behavior has not waned, rather, it has increased greatly. I do feel that if he were restricted to articlespace, they could channel this energy into improving the encyclopedia.

According to Interiot's counter, Gp75motorsports has made only 109 edits to the mainspace since he joined the project in July. Most of these edits are minor, such as and . Also according to Interiot, he has made 665 edits to usertalk space, which accounts for more than 53% of his edits, in contrast to his mainspace edits, accounting for less than 9% of his edits. Finally, about 10% of his edits are to his userspace. GP75motorsports also frequently threatens blocks in a very argumentative, ], and bossy manner, such as here: , also speaking in very . He has also , running very contrary to ]. He also propagates instruction creep, as shown by these myriad examples (some admin-only): ], ], and ]; more are visible . He has , , , , , , , ], . The ] may hold interest. If you look at his contribs from the October 15-22 period, you will see a lot of wikilawyering and instruction creep, there are many more diffs, and this behavior has not ceased. He's also been blocked () and received warnings on his behavior (see , and). GP75 also harassed retired user RickK, , , , , and finally , but . He has created other Wikiprojects mired in ]; 6 of them have been through MfD: ], ], ], ], ], and ]. GP is, along with ], obsessed with the "Pee Wee Herman" vandal, culminating in ] thread on Jimbo's talk page regarding a puerile threat from said vandal. Recently, they created a list of possible names he could take, resulting in ]. regarding this vandal two days ago, stating that the vandal's IP "should be indeffed". He also . He worked with Blow on ] as a place to identify Pee Wee sockpuppets, see ]. Also regarding Pee Wee actions, he . Finally, he doesn't understand the purpose of CheckUser despite multiple reminders, see ], ], ]. Finally, he editing userspace, but obviously has not. . I hope that the community will consider this request. Regards, ]<sup>]</sup> 00:19, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
I would also support a block. ]<sup>]</sup> 00:29, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
:I'm concerned about him too, and I've already been working back on mainspace. So, yeah, I don't really want or need to deal with PeeWee anymore, and I don't say why. ]]]<font color="red">]</font> 00:23, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
::And the alternate account I worked on was all by myself, and it's a doppleganger. If you want to, delete it. In fact, I've already tagged it. ]]]<font color="red">]</font> 00:24, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I support this topic restriction for GP, and think that it should serve as a very strong and clear warning to BoL (Blow of Light) that he is headed in the same direction at a slower pace. Some have advocated (see ]) a less restrictive treatment of editors who focus a great deal of attention on their userspace at the expense of other contributions, but at this point their userspace activity has begun to contribute to disruption of the wider community. <sup>]]</sup> 00:29, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
:I present ] ] ]]]<font color="red">]</font> 00:31, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
::Um, your warnings? You present your warnings? ] (]) 00:34, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
:::Not my warnings, my contribs. You notice I've been working on Mainspace lately. ]]]<font color="red">]</font> 00:36, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
::::Without turning this thread into a grammar debate, but take a look at ]. "Let him beware" is essentially what it means. ] (]) 00:39, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Fully support any action against this user in the form of topic ban or probation. ] (]) 00:34, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
:::its sgenerally a clear sine of a single-issue editor (or a vandal) that they spend more of this time warring on the user page rather than actually working on the encycloepdia. i eprsonally think that a restriction is in order, aidn if he tries to violate that by abusing the articles throughe edit warring or rude edit summaries then he should be banned permanently. ] (]) 00:37, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Fully support this topic ban. I'd also completely support a similar ban for ], mentioned to a lesser extent in Keilana's explanation above, but no less worrying in my eyes. Both of these two have long histories of rather less than exemplary behavior. ]''']''' 00:41, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
:WHAT? Dude, I'm willing to stop. I aint' working on that anymore. <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 00:43, 13 January 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
::Stop then. ] ] 00:45, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
:::I strongly support such a topic block on gp75 - suggest we hold him to (ie. protect stuff, just like he asked). If it's possible to salt userspace (using a prefixindex, perhaps, not sure....), then salting his userpsace may be a good idea, for a while at least. BoL has been contributing a bit lately, but is reminded that he's being watched. ] ] 00:45, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
:::if you really want to stop, User:Blow of Light, you shoudl just stop and not protest your punishment. ] (]) 00:45, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
::(after a bunch of ec's) says otherwise (admin-only unfortunately). ]
I don't see why we shouldn't ban him (GP) all together. It doesn't seem that he understands what Misplaced Pages is for, and has generally become a hindrance to the project in several situations. Are his article edits that helpful that we think he should be allowed to only edit them? Blow of Light, I don't know what to say, as I haven't really noticed anything good or bad about his presence. All I do know is that he seems to be fixated on this Peewee Herman nonsense a bit, too.—] (]) 00:50, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
:I wouldn't object to banning GP75, although some others may cherish his {{tl|trivia}} tagging more than we do. ] ] 00:55, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
::And is that really what we want him to solely do from now on? It seems like a task that can be done by anyone, not someone who continues to fill his user space with unnecessary content.—] (]) 00:57, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
:As per GlassCobra, I think some sort of final warning is needed for both Blow of Light and Gp75motorsports. <font face="Verdana,Arial,Helvetica">]</font> 00:53, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
::I'd second the suggestion of a warning, at least in the case of Blow of Light. Blocks are intended to be preventative, either in preventing current and active disruption, or in preventing long-term cumulative disruption. If the user has stopped the behavior (as he/she claims to have done by editing more in the mainspace), and if the user states his/her intent to refrain from the disruptive behavior, then I think that's all we would need. If, after such a warning, the disruption begins again, then a block is absolutely warranted. I haven't looked into the case of GP, and reserve comment pending his response to this thread. ] <sup> ] </sup>~<small> ] </small> 00:58, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
:::Er, hi, I just want to check. Is this going to be in ARBCOM or something? ]]]<font color="red">]</font> 01:30, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
::::Not at the moment. Hopefully that can be avoided with a voluntary community supported topic ban. ] (]) 01:34, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
: I support a topic restriction for Gp and I strongly urge him not to run to Jimbo or Arbcom every time he finds a threat or a vandal, not only does this tend to propagate additional unwanted drama as those unfamiliar with the situation begin to panic and make unwise knee jerk reactions, but also, as no active and experienced editors or administrators are aware of the situation, we're unable to deal with it. ] (]) 01:34, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
===Blow of Light===
I figured I'd create a sub-section to separate out discussion for {{userlinks|Blow of Light}} since he seems to be getting a decent amount of discussion here too. What are thoughts on actions regarding him? He claims above he's cleaning up, but it's obvious he's still not doing well. Case in point is on his talk page. He spent an entire conversation accusing an IP user of having a conflict of interest, telling the user to go read the policy....only to be wrong and admit he, himself, had no clue what the policy meant. What are thoughts we might have on Blow of Light? ] (]) 00:58, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
:I admit, I'm not perfect, but so is no one. I'm trying to improve, but I am having a very hard time. ]]]<font color="red">]</font> 01:03, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
::Dude, it's not hard to drop certain topics. <font face="Verdana,Arial,Helvetica">]</font> 01:07, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
:::That's why I do CSD work and improving San Francisco-related articles. ]]]<font color="red">]</font> 01:12, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
: I'd support a similar restriction to Gp above. ] (]) 01:35, 13 January 2008 (UTC)<small>Just to clarify, I am supporting a similar restriction to the one being proposed for Gp in the section above for Blow of Light. I don't know nor care about PWeeHurman, especially as until now, it was not even part of this conversation ] (]) 01:55, 13 January 2008 (UTC)</small>
:::Yeah isn't it weird how it works like that Nick? You don't bring up PWeeHurman, yet, Blow of Light brings it up. ] (]) 01:58, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
::As strange as it sounds, I actually support the topic ban on PWeeHurman. The reason why I'm freaking out about this is for a reason I can't explain unless you want me to. ]]]<font color="red">]</font> 01:37, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
:::HOLY CRAP. Does it not get through to you to leave the PWeeHurman shit alone? Seriously. I'm sorry if I'm being incivil here, but my god cannot it not get through to you hard enough? ] (]) 01:39, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
::::Yes, you're being uncivil, and yes, I want to stop, but guess what? It's getting through me all right. Just... {{unsigned|Blow of Light|02:40 UTC}}
]
Look, BoL, I don't want to say this again. All of us do not want to say this again. Stop, and I mean STOP, all mention of PeeWee from this moment forward. —''']''' 01:50, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
:That's why there's this. ] ]]]<font color="red">]</font> 01:58, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
::yes STOP IT. JUST STOP IT. !!! ] (]) 01:59, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
:::if you sant something else to do, please visit and improve the article ] ] (]) 02:00, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
] (]) 02:00, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
::And as for Gp, Just stop, Gp. You know what, I don't ever want to ever mention anything about socks. From now on, I'm just going to try mainspace, like improve San Francisco-related areas. In fact, the reason why I even came back was I wanted a clean start, and apparently, I don't think I'm getting it. ]]]<font color="red">]</font> 02:01, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
:::Why don't you worry about yourself first? Stop worrying about specks in other people's eyes with that plank in yours. —''']''' 02:04, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
::::I don't want pompous proclamations of intended reform. You gave too much of that already. Actual change is what we want, what we demand. —''']''' 02:07, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
:::You ''got'' a clean start. Taking and utilizing it appropriately is another story all together. ] (]) 02:04, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
::::::to fulyl take advantage of your clean start, please visit and improve ] or ] as soon as possible. ] (]) 02:07, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
:::OK, maybe it's because I got stressed out. Every time I get stressed out, I start getting really cranky and this is what usually happens and that's what got me blocked last time. I am sick and tired of this scrutiny over me, that's why I didn't want to come back, but I realized once I left, vandalism went up. Now I'm back, and it's still the same ol' same ol'. Can't you guys just leave me alone? And I don't mean a block. ]]]<font color="red">]</font> 02:10, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
::::Oh man! You mean alllllllll that vandalism we saw after you left was solely because you weren't here to stop the vandals?! Damn. Get this man a barnstar. Seriously, though...we wouldn't be scrutinizing you if you were making good, wise choices here would we? If you were editing appropriately and not obsessing over particular users and code shops, would we be calling your edits into question? Definitely not. So make the necessary changes and you won't have issues. Don't ask us to stop watching your edits. PROVE to use we can stop. ] (]) 02:15, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
::::And as for Battle of Mediolanum, I've already started. ]]]<font color="red">]</font> 02:10, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
::Metros grow up and stop bulying other usrs its a violation of ] and probably ]. if you have problems with BLowofLgihts' edits you should phrase them in apolite and respectful maner and offer encouragements for him to imrpove to meet your standards. doing otherwise makes it seem like your trying to bully him which is unfair and unhelpful. if you go to the article ] (which all of you should) you will see that BLow of Light has started to make construcitve non-PeeWee related edits and that's a trend that we hould be encouraging isntead of criticizing. ] (]) 02:22, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
:::You know what, I agree with him. I have created pages that are contributing to the project, both new and old accounts, like ], the ], and ]. ]]]<font color="red">]</font> 02:31, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Okay, let's stop kicking BoL while he's down. —''']''' 02:40, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
:Actually, I'm down, but not out. There's something going on, Wen Weihua got jumped, and now Jimbo Wales, and others, including me, have blanked their userpages and replaced it with something. ]]]<font color="red">]</font> 02:42, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
::Look, just edit articles, okay? We don't need up-to-the-minute reports of your reform agenda. —''']''' 02:45, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
:::The? OK, then I guess it's resolved, huh? ]]]<font color="red">]</font> 02:46, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
::::I would say that provided you don't start going on more sockpuppet hunting, and you edit articles fairly regularly, then we can accept this situation looks like it's resolved. ] (]) 03:01, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
:::::What about Gp75motorsports? ]]]<font color="red">]</font> 03:15, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
::::::As I said before, worry about yourself. —''']''' 03:15, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
::::::This is intolerable, please, do not concern yourself with the affairs of other users when discussion on your behaviour has narrowly avoided veering towards a formal ban. I really don't wish to see you concerning yourself with matters that do not concern you any time in the near future, as it is such behaviour that resulted in this discussion in the first place. Administrators are not unfair, we deal with each and every situation as best we can. I suspect we a similar satisfactory agreement with Gp too, but I'm afraid you're actually getting in the way here now. Move on from here and go edit whatever article you wish to. ] (]) 03:38, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
:I would support a topic ban for both users (BoL and Gp75) restricting them to articles, article talk, and user talk, except for each other's talk page. I would also support deletion and/or full protection of most of their userspace. Perhaps a regex could be added to the ] to prevent creation of any new pages in their userspace. This behavior has to end. <font face="Broadway">]'']</font>'' 06:05, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

== {{User|Vivaviagra}} ==
{{resolved}}
Looks like we have a vandalism only account. That will more than likely need a liberal coating of ]. Their user page and username should give some indication of how much of a boon to Misplaced Pages they will be. --]''' 01:25, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
:{{done}}. ] is much faster. ]
::Faster than 2 minutes? I'm impressed :P --]''' 01:40, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

== {{User|tqbf}} ==
User:tqbf is Wikistalking and harassing me.

I filed a 3RR

Contacted 3RR admn.
I warned user about harassment.

My talk page

My talk page2

My talk page3

My talk page 4

We are constantly bumping heads on ] talk page.
I try to keep to the issues and not address him but I just want to be left alone. Especially on my talk page.--]]]] 01:46, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

: I don't know what to say about this, other than that:
:* I stand by , and
:* I'm really sorry you guys have to take your time with this.
: I'm over 3RR on ], and trust that other editors will revert inappropriate changes until Monday. ] 01:55, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

:I reviewed ]'s 3RR report and found it deficient. I tried to how to do it properly, but he was not able to. The user then asked me if I felt that was trolling by others. I told him that I didn't think so, and that his own edit is ]. I tried my best to that reverting and forcing his views on others is counterproductive, and that he would get much better results from finding good sources and collaborating. He simply my message from his talk page. ] (]) 02:03, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

:Most of the relevant details have been provided above. My that Crum375 provides above makes my perspective clear (I acknowledge that this complaint would have been more effective on WP:WQA or an administrative board, but I wasn't sure whether my exasperation at attempting to edit this page was shared by others--and my exasperation was great at that particular instant). Often we have clashed because Duchamps_comb writes in a very idiosyncratic English and is resistant to attempts to remove text that (in my opinion and often others') is unsalvageable because of the construction or the sources or the use of quotes. The real problem, however: Duchamps_comb makes plenty of edits and reversions but does not/cannot engage in the necessary backstage talk in an appropriate manner. Even now on ] he is currently misrepresenting the views of editors on whether to keep a particular section in the article; whether intentionally or otherwise, I do not know. I don't really have much else to add other than to say that no other editor working on the article, whether pro-Paul or not, behaves in way. I've never really gotten involved in this part of Misplaced Pages before, so perhaps this isn't how things work, but it would be nice if an admin without any investment in this debate took an interest in DC and perhaps made an attempt to mentor him. (For instance, if he heard that canvassing is inappropriate from someone other than tqbf or HelloAnnyong, he might be more inclined to listen.)--] (]) 02:47, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

== {{user|Blue Laser}} and {{user|Hardcore Hak}} ==

Hello. I'd like to report ] by these two users. They seem to think we're a chat room. I have warned them to stop, but their behavior persists. Diffs:

'''Blue Laser:'''

'''Hardcore Hak:'''

] (]) (]) 02:06, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

:Thanks for the report, but it would be rather harsh to expect intervention/"punishment" from administrators. There are many good contributions coming from these two users; that they are too interested in using the talk page is not critical problem. A friendly reminder on the talk will suffice. - ] (]) 06:28, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
::I was actually planning to start a discussion with JetLover as to the best way to encourage these two to contribute more to the 'pedia, but it seems I was a little too late in moving on that. I started watching Hardcore Hak after his ], so I can attest to the fact that he and ] seem to be in violation of ]. They've both also been warned multiple times no no effect--for example, although a I left on Hardcore Hak's talk page a little over a month ago was (an act that usually indicates understanding of the warning), his behavior continued unabated.

::I agree with you that punitive measures don't seem to be in order--they do contribute to some extent, and excessive socializing is not exactly the worst thing in the world--but I'm wondering if there's a more effective way to encourage them to turn their energies to encyclopedia building. From what I know of the tools, there's no way to, say, block them from editing each other's talk page, but maybe something along these lines would be effective? --]-]] 08:04, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
:::We could warn both parties that their pages will be fully protected for a brief period if their behaviour continues to violate ]. ] (]) 10:43, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

== Redirect war at Gustav Horn, Count of Pori ==

] and ] are editing the pages ] and ], reverting each other, anon doing cut-and-paste move, and sometimes ending up with the two pages just redirecting to each other. There may (or may not) be consensus on the talk page to change the name from ] which I believe it was up until today, to ], but they're not doing it properly and perhaps Jonathan opposes the rename. --] (]) 03:04, 13 January 2008 (UTC)


== blocking IP?==
I noticed that almost all the edits made from the ip are vandalizations, and in some cases also racist comments. check the history of the IP to see. most of these edits were reverted, but still, I think something should be done. thanks ] (]) 03:22, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

== REFERRED FOR BLOCKING - IP 209.244.30.109 ==

As the reviewing admin can see from the following evidence, this IP has received the requisite warnings prior to any possible blocks:
# ]
# ]
# ]

Previous edits can be traced by links from the IP talk page. If an admin could look at this IP for possible block, I'd appreciate it. Thanks. ] (]) 03:37, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
:The IP hasn't edited since your last warning. Next time, please take these reports to ]. —''']''' 03:39, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
::Thanks Kurykh, sorry to trouble you with this one, I'll repost there. ] (]) 03:49, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
:::Um...my implicit message was that a block isn't needed at this juncture. Block at next offense. —''']''' 03:55, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
::::Um...I respectfully disagree. If you look again, you'll see that this same IP user comes back every few days, and removes the same content from the same articles. The latest two incidents were performed ''after'' the level-4 warning. After reverting these changes, I issued the 4-im. So in essence, the IP has received ''five'' warnings for the month so far. However, I do respect your position and opinion, whatever becomes of this one is kosher by me. ] (]) 04:00, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

==] described as negro?==
{{resolved|1=Blocked as a vandal—] (]) 07:05, 13 January 2008 (UTC)}}
] is insistent on using the term ] to describe Barack Obama in the opening 'graph of that article. When warned, user simply replaces it. Additionally, user repeatedly blanks his talk page after warnings (presumably so that editors would not see how many warnings he has had). When final warning is noted on the vandalism page, an admin calls it a content dispute, and dismisses it out of hand (though TheOnlyJason was warned on 3RR).

Will someone explain to me why his edits are not considered vandalism? --] (]) 03:47, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
:They are considered vandalism; he was just blocked for 48 hours. ] (]) 03:49, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
::Fair enough. Thanks. --] (]) 03:59, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

:::Two days ago he added an image to the ] article and also vandalized that article. For those that don't know Hal Turner is a well-known racist radio host here in Northern New Jersey. Also putting down British PM ] as "Jewish". --] (]) 04:09, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

::::Wait a sec...do you see the pattern? Edits to ], ], insisting on putting down Obama as a "negro"....It all points in ].--] (]) 04:16, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

::::: Add ] to that list. We've been dealing with hordes of vandals adding in references to "negroes", "AIDS" and "pool's closed" for quite a long time now. ] <small>(]) (])</small> 04:19, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

::::::I just did a search, it is a video at a video site. <font style="background-color:#218921; color:blue;font-family: Monotype Corsiva">Table</font><font style="background-color:#121298; color:white;font-family: Monotype Corsiva">Manners</font><sup>]·]·]</sup> 07:16, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

== Masive article deletion by {{userlinks|Delaware Valley Girl}} ==
{{resolved}}
Little help here, please? ] (]) 04:04, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
:Blocked by ]. PS you shouldn't really remove posts from this page; a bot will archive it later.--]]] 04:26, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

== Request for unprotection of ] ==

:''At ] it was suggested that this request be posted here:''

Administrator ] ("Guy") redirected and then immediately indefinitely protected ], while involved in a content dispute and an edit war which had repeatedly previously, and also has since, resulted in a different admin protecting the article to which Guy redirected. This violated two parts of the ]:
* "During edit wars, administrators should not protect pages when they are involved as a party to the dispute, except in the case of simple vandalism or libel issues against living people;" and
* "Except in cases of clear vandalism, or issues with legal impact such as copyright or defamation, pages protected in an edit war are protected in whatever version they happen to be currently in."
When asked to recognize this error and unprotect the page, Guy refused in a flippant reply. Because the protection violated two aspects of the policy, the article should be unprotected. ] (]) 04:45, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
**I would agree this situation needs eyes of more admins. JzG is clearly involved in editing the Cold Fusion article, and should have avoided protecting the articles in question. I have no idea whether or not such protection was justified, only that he probably should not have done it. Any other opinions? --]|]|] 06:39, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

:::THe problem isn't that JZG protected it as much as it's that every time it's unprotected, the FRINGE rises, and there are few admins willing to deal with it, and fewer among those who have any mastery of an area. Thus, we have this vicious cycle wherein an admin fights the cranks and fringe, they wiki-laywer everything that person does, demanding outside admins. Any admin coming in thus becomes 'tainted' against any further actions, calls out for admins who know the subject matter, and they're back to the first admin, who they counter with 'but he's involved already, we want a NEW outside admin'. pretty soon there are two pools of admins. those who won't touch the mess with someoen else's pole, and those who touched it, and are wiki-layer injunctioned from ever touching again. JZG decides to cut the crap, fight's the FRINGE, and time after time, gets brought here for it. Full support for JZG's actions, based on all he does to keep the FRINGE from purporting that 'the man' is keeping down the perfect source of free energy. ] (]) 06:59, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

::::Good point. I looked closer at the articles in question. Protection WAS probably needed, and you are probably right in your assesment of the situation. If the end result is that the article should have been protected, JzG probably acted correctly. --]|]|] 07:04, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

:::: Seems to be an excellent application of IAR by JzG here. <strong>]<small>•]</small></strong> 10:19, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

== Minor's userpage with personal details ==

] has a name, age (13), street address (w/o city), and email. My understanding is that we strongly encourage (enforce?) that minors do not divulge their address. ] (]) 05:05, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
:Especially with minors. {{done}} by East718. ] 05:21, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

==BigHaz==


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>
He violated the blocking policy (he blocked an IP address indefinitely, and the blocking policy clearly states that you ''cannot'' do that). He keeps telling a user that they do not understand the policies, but I think ''he'' is the one not understanding. Indefinite IP blocks are not allowed. Could you please check this out. ] (]) 06:16, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
<small>] . - ] (]) 06:28, 13 January 2008 (UTC)</small>
:Indefinate IP blocks are discouraged, but not expressly prevented. There can be cases where such moves are justified. COuld you provide us with the specific IP address so that we all can judge for ourselves the specifics of this situation? Without any evidence to go on, we cannot decide if BigHaz did anything wrong... --]|]|] 06:35, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
::{{user5|121.219.34.121}} Note also the comment by BigHaz in the block log. <font face="comic sans ms" color="#454545">]</font><sup>] &#124; ]</sup> 06:37, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
:::Thanks. I changed the block to 1 year. The IP had less than 50 edits, not enough justification in my mind for a "forever" block, but in deference to BigHaz, and he seems to know more about this case than I, he is probably justified in a long-term block. --]|]|] 06:43, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
*I should probably explain what's going on here. The user complaining about me has - under a series of different usernames and IP addresses (yes, I can provide all or most of these if anyone wants) - spent most of the past year wilfully misunderstanding policies and generally proving a disruptive influence. He initially contacted me asking if I could lift a block on a school-based IP which had been done for vandalism. I told him that I wouldn't (I didn't enact the ban and the vandalism was pretty blatant) and, for several months, he argued with me and claimed that I was unreasonable, despite the fact that he was perfectly capable of creating an account and using it.
*During our long interaction, I noticed that he was vandalising a number of articles and at least one AfD. I began by reverting this vandalism and warning him about it, which did not seem to result in a change in his behaviour. Rather, he created accounts specifically to vandalise and move pages, for which I eventually blocked him for a short time. On his return, he began the same behaviours once again, including creating accounts designed to insult me. I was prepared to block him for a longer time than before (I think I gave him a 6-month or 12-month ban, can't remember), but another admin in fact extended that to an indefinite one, something I don't dispute at all.
*The user has, since that time, continued to create accounts and use his (apparently dynamic) IP addresses either to harrass me, vandalise various places (most recently threatening to kill people at a DRV discussion) or both. The reference to my repeatedly telling him that he doesn't understand the policies is because he has shown that he does not believe that the indefinite block applies to ''him'' personally, but seems to think that if he creates an account every couple of weeks - and tells me about it, which is baffling - people will eventually give up. Again, all the relevant diffs and so forth can be provided here if need be, but I'm heading off shortly so I can't do it right now. ] - ] 07:07, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
::Fair enough, but if the IP address is dynamic, then there is a decent chance that sometime in the future, another person may attempt to use it to edit. Forever is a long time... If this same IP starts the same behavior in 1 year, then it will be a quick block. Indeed, playing whack-a-mole may be pointless. It sucks, it really does, but maybe a rangeblock may be better than the whack-a-mole method. If the user is editing from a truly random set of IPs, then I am not sure that ANY blocks will end up solving this problem at all... --]|]|] 07:17, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
:::I'm happy enough with that as a solution, as I said on my Talk page earlier today (my time). My theory was that blocking the existing IP until collateral damage came to pass was an equally valid solution, since it still sends the same unequivocal message to the long-term vandal, but a long enough finite block makes just as much sense to me. Bags I ''not'' waiting by the rabbit hole in a year if at all possible, though, since I'm sick to death of having to explain to this kid that the rules continue to apply to him and that vandalism is still vandalism, even when separated by a month or so of inactivity. ] - ] 11:14, 13 January 2008 (UTC)


:including racist edits summarized as reverting racist texts. Example ] (]) 03:06, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
==]==
::The IP is already blocked. To OP: Consider reporting obvious vandalism like this at ]. &ndash; ] (]) (]) 03:34, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
, thrice. ] (]) 06:30, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
{{abot}}
:User has not edited since being warned. Use AIV for problems like this in the future. I see nothing to do here... I gave him another warning, awaiting further action... --]|]|] 06:51, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
::Oops, yep I should've put this at ], sorry and thanks for watching. ] (]) 07:20, 13 January 2008 (UTC)


== User Stationmanagerskidrow removing information on ] page ==
== Episodes and WP:POINT ==


*]
*]
*]
*http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=List_of_South_Park_episodes&action=history


] 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)
{{user|Wilhelmina Will}} seems to be on a South Part episode redirection spree, in retaliation to TTN's own redirects of episode articles. Say what you will about TTN, but he at least places notices on the talk pages. -- ] 06:40, 13 January 2008 (UTC)


:User is now editing using ] ] (]) 03:34, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
:She seems to be transwiki'ing to the southparkwiki. A better palce for the articles, and then redirecting. Drop her a note asking for notices, but it's a net plus for the project, esp. as shes' got fairly liberal standards for notability, and is examining each one one at a time. Maybe I'm missing something, but i doubt it.] (]) 07:03, 13 January 2008 (UTC)


::This is a content dispute and the article is being actively edited by many different editors. However, no discussion about the disagreements has occurred on the article talk page which is where this discussion should be happening. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 04:37, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
::I left a comment on his/her talk page. S/he should have used a discussion to gain consensus. - ] (]) 07:06, 13 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)
:::Note - I left a 3RR warning earlier today, and then another revert was made. Another editor recently left another 3RR warning, but technically, it's already a 3RR violation. ] (]) 08:00, 13 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)
::] and ] message added . I'm just about to make myself thoroughly ] by seeing what I can do about the ] article. ] (]) 🦘 09:11, 24 December 2024 (UTC)


== Insults ==
== ] ==
After seeing a posting made by {{userlinks|Stone put to sky}} in which he claims myself and others are part of a "cabal", I responded () and then asked him to cease with these allegations if he couldn't prove them. In fact, two of the editors he mentions as being part of this "cabal" haven't edited for some time now. Previously, Stone put to sky commented on an AFD that those who wished to see the article now titled ] deleted were "fascists". ...when that issue was brought up with him again , he reserved the right to continue to label myself and others with this word. When asked by ] to not use that word to describe those he disagrees with his retort was no more civil.. It's pretty obvious Stone puts to sky feels I am part of a cabal (which I have asked him to prove but won't/can't), that myself and others are fascists and that I am "lying" and that I have "sockpuppeteers" and "kiddie-thugs" I assume to supposedly do my nefarious actions for me, of course. Would a neutral admin please remind Stone put to sky about our policies regarding ] and ]...I and others tried to do so, but it seems to have failed.--] 10:15, 13 January 2008 (UTC)


:This interaction took place on my talk page, and was occasioned by MONGO's appearance and declaration that i was not to make any mention of a publicly available admission published on this site by a former partner of his. Following that, he made a thinly-veiled threat that he would seek administrative intervention should i choose to do so. MONGO's rhetoric and choice of words were unambiguous violations of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA; coupled with past disciplinary actions taken against him as well as his active pursuit of me, '''independent of any pages on which he or i am currently editing''', then i must protest that the root problem here are his actions -- not mine.
:The exchange took place on '''''my''''' talk page, and would never have happened had it not been initiated by him. None of it has been nor ever will be used in any of the pages where i am editing. MONGO pursued the exchange even though i made it quite clear that i considered his activity to be tantamount to bullying threats. In an extremely surreal move, JungleCat suddenly appeared -- i have had virtually no interaction with this poster ever, so far as i can remember -- and began asserting that MONGO was correct. Why this person appeared i have no idea, but the distinct impression was that there was some sort of set-up or collaboration taking place. Regardless, i politely rejected their interpretation of the word "fascist" and -- again, politely -- referred them to any common dictionary or other reference for proof.
:MONGO was quite upset, apparently, that i had referred to admissions made by NuclearUmpf -- a former, long-term poster and editing partner of MONGO's -- that were made here on the Misplaced Pages website and are freely available to all. Regarding the specific accusations made against MONGO, i would like to point out that it was he who appeared on my talk page and engaged me in this course of conversation. I did not seek him out, nor did i press the issue publicly (i.e. -- on a public page frequented by many, nor in a formal administrative move, nor on a page's talk-page). I find it hard to understand why any objections should arise when mention is made of a public admission by a former, long-term user. NuclearUmpf's revelations outlined a modus operandi that has been openly commented upon and observed by many users from all across the website. I believe that this is usually referred to as "The Elephant in the Room", but in this instance these were published admissions and revelations, not mere accusations made by me, and it seems rather beyond the pale for someone to insist that they be stricken from the public record. My characterization of the members of such cabals as "kiddie thugs" may be mildly distasteful, but it is not inaccurate and was not directed at any particular person or group. A general observation made about a class of people universally rejected by all wikipedia policies and administrators certanly can not be considered a personal insult, can it?
:I would further like to point out that we would not be discussing any of this in the public section of the site were it not for MONGO's own pursuit of the matter, as well as the implicit threats and incivility of his entire comportment throughout this entire affair.
:Finally, most of the "incivility" that MONGO claims occurred was nothing more than a discussion of whether the word "fascist" is a pejorative epithet or a neutral descriptive. I maintain the latter; MONGO feels it is, however, an insult. Nowhere in that particular discussion did i use invective, and throughout the exchange i re-iterated repeatedly that A) I have friends who self-identify as fascists, B) fascism as a mainstream political movement is still quite alive and kicking, and C) the implication was clearly that, insofar as i have friends who call themselves fascists, i can hardly be accused of considering the word an ipso facto insult. ] (]) 10:33, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
:::In all fairness, many today proudly call themselves ], but to suggest being called a Nazi is therefore not insulting sounds a bit naive to me.<font color="green"> ]</font><sup><i><font color="blue"><small>]</small></font></i></sup> 11:08, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
::::And i agree. But "fascism" does not espouse openly racist beliefs, nor does it promote social darwinism, eugenics, or genocide. Fascism is one aspect of Nazism; but it was also espoused by high-ranking members of the U.S. and British government, powerful businessmen in both of those countries, and of course by the governments of Mussolini, Chiang Kai-shek and Franco. Franco and Chiang Kai-shek were close allies of the U.S. for many years, all the way up until their respective deaths. There are fascist groups openly at work in Italy, Germany, France and Britain even today. So while calling someone a "Nazi" is, i admit, an insult, saying that someone is a "fascist" is -- for me, at least -- just a descriptive term.
::::I'd also add that i have never taunted MONGO -- or anyone else, for that matter -- with this term; i do, however, strongly object to demands that i excise it from my vocabulary. ] (]) 12:00, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
:::::You will excise it from your vocabulary when you refer to me again. If you don't agree that most would see it as an epithet, then maybe you need some familiarization as can be seen at our own article......].--] 12:16, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
::Out of the blue, you brought up the issue of this illusionary cabal some days ago by posting here and I responded here and you didn't. I had had zero interaction with you for a long time until I saw this bogus . I have no idea what compelled you to suddenly make these false acusations. I then asked you on your talkpage to refrain from making these unsubstantiated allegations and have asked you repeatedly to not call me a fascist, yet you persist. You also persist in posting incorrect allusions regarding my involvement in some cabal. I have asked you to furnish proof and you won't or can't. I even suggested you request a checkuser on me and these other editors and you won't do that either.--] 10:43, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
:::MONGO, walk away per ]. ] (]) 11:12, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Would it be reasonable to either provide sufficient support for the '']'' allegation, or ] of, what I remember to be nothing more than, '']''?<font color="green"> ]</font><sup><i><font color="blue"><small>]</small></font></i></sup> 11:16, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
:Stone put to sky is referring I believe to made by ] (aka ] shortly before he was banned. It was never proven of course. I guess since Stone put to sky is now in edit conflicts with a ], he assumes that this newer editor has some connection with me or others who also disagreed with his contributions in the past. Nevertheless, I certainly don't appreciate being brought up out of the blue based on some unsubstantiated allegation made by an editor in imminent threat of being banned, nor do I appreciate the insult of being called a fascist.--] 11:28, 13 January 2008 (UTC)


I'd like to report an incident related to ]. A person under IP already accused me of being "obsessed". Now someone (possibly the same person) . Please also see . I guess we can always agree to disagree with other people, but this is going a bit too far. Thank you. ] (]) 09:30, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
::Thank you, I am aware of that statement by {{user|Zer0faults}} (yet another aka), however, his reliability around the time of his indef ban appears to be somewhat less than 100%.:) Certainly ''Stone'' should be smarter than to use this as evidence. Personally I am not convinced and urge people to ignore that statement by what I consider a ]. Especially since that statement is ]. Again I ask ''Stone'' to provide more compelling evidence or stop making wild accusations. Second, eventhough he sees things defferently I think using ''fascist'' to describe other editors is not a constructive way of communicating.<font color="green"> ]</font><sup><i><font color="blue"><small>]</small></font></i></sup> 11:47, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
:Hello, Psychloppos. What action are you seeking to happen here? <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 09:42, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
::I have no idea which actions are warranted here. Maybe an admin could leave a message to this IP and this registered user and remind them that they should ] ? It would also be nice to remind them about ] and ]. Saying that I am "fuelled by an unhealthy obsession" or questioning my sanity do not seem to respect those guidelines. ] (]) 09:52, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
==Nlkyair012 and LLM chatbots ==
*{{Noping|Nlkyair012}}
This editor has been constantly using AI chatbots to respond and write messages. They are a single purpose account for glorifying the ] caste using unreliable ] era sources, I and several other experienced editors have taken time and effort to respond to their endless queries and ] generated using ChatGPT. They have posted AI generated walls of text on multiple noticeboards such as ] and ] and including here , accusing me of vandalism.


Despite my repeated requests and even a final warning to them (including a request by {{ping|ActivelyDisinterested}}) they are still continuing to do it. Their messages are repeating the same argument again and again and are frankly just ] that bring up fictitious guidelines or misrepresent the existing ones. Several editors have told them that Raj era sources are not reliable yet they continue to ask for more evidence on why that is the case based on AI generated claims of supposed academic value or neutrality. This is getting very disruptive and taking up valuable contributor time to respond to their endless AI responses which take a few seconds to generate. I have alerted them about ] and ], I would appreciate it if someone could enforce a restriction on this user from at minimum caste area. - ] (]) 13:07, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
:::I think it odd that i be asked to provide evidence for something that speaks for itself. All i have done -- and i think it not unreasonable nor uncivil -- is point out that a long-term compadre of MONGO's has admitted to behavior that i myself have outlined elsewhere (pointedly without reference, i might add, to any sort of off-site coordination or leadership). In that admission my name was '''specifically''' mentioned as one of the objects of this behavior. Other posters and other contributors -- not to mention other websites -- have long insisted that this behavior is rampant across all of Misplaced Pages. I am not advocating any action specifically based upon these revelations or admissions; all i have done is point out that, '''in light of these admissions''', certain behavior by certain posters on the State Terrorism thread is reasonably suspect.
:::If evidence is being asked for, then i would suggest somebody just pop in over there and watch the merry-go-round i've been on these last few days with one particular poster there. I have asked -- repeatedly -- to be accorded the simple courtesy of discussing edits before they are posted on the page. Yet for some reason the poster in question cannot figure out that really, that's all i want. I have suffered a lot of ham-fisted wikilawyering and been the object of a lot of accusations, but even up to now the poster insists that there is only one answer to the page's problems: his introduction (part of which is patently untrue, and the other part of which has already been made an explicit foundation of the article), and massive deletions.
:::In the past this sort of behavior has served as the prelude to an AfD nomination, preceded and/or followed by the appearance of MONGO, Harrison, and a host of other, less well-known posters. In each case repeated attempts to delete large portions of reliably sourced, relevant material are made. NuclearUmpf/Zerofaults/etc was often at the forefront of this activity. Are you suggesting, Nomen, that when a poster who has been the cause of so much destructive activity admits that he was not working alone, explains how it was coordinated and for what reasons, and then points a finger at '''''me''''' -- are you actually suggesting that it is '''uncivil''' of me to make mention of that?
:::Need i add that this behavior -- this JungleCat/MONGO tag-team that suddenly appeared on my talk page -- is circumstantial corroboration? I don't understand what the problem is with pointing out something that all long-term posters here already understand to be true. ] (]) 12:17, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
::::Zer0Faults/NuclearUmpf/SevenOfDiamonds was never a compadre of mine. Your ongoing insinuations that content disputes you are having with Raggz have something to do with myself and or others you have previously been in disputes with are ridiculous. I haven't touched that page in over 6 months. As I have pointed out, that post about some cabal was made by an editor in bad standing in the community and was banned, repeatedly. It was unsubstantiated and your conspiracy theory on this matter is laughable. Surely, you're not so sheltered to assume that only a few people would oppose your content additions? You really think that just myself and other editors are the only ones on earth that would? How preposterous. Cease with your unsubstantiated allegations and wikilawyering about why it is "okay" to call myself and others fascist, please.--] 12:29, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
:::::Well, we shall agree to disagree about your relationship with Zerofaults. From my position it seemed quite clear that you, he and others were supporting each others' edits and defending each others' deletions, even in the face of vociferous disapproval from the vast majority of regular editors. IIRC, there was often considerable backslapping amongst you all. Would you like me to go find a bit of evidence to support these observations?
:::::For the moment, however, i am content to point out that MONGO is, most assuredly, not "assuming good faith". I do acknowledge that yes, it is quite possible that MONGO and Raggz have no relationship whatsoever; it's easy for me to say that. I have never sought to push this issue and nothing i have said so far has suggested that it's a problem for me. I have not, however, been running around, willy-nilly, tossing out accusations. The inference that MONGO has drawn is that i am pointing a finger at him. I am not. I am, however, drawing attention to the behavior of '''Raggz''' and suggesting that now may be a good time for conscientious Misplaced Pages administrators to pay attention to what's happening there. There is a reason for my concern: the admission by NuclearUmpf that i have often been the target of coordinated group activity. I have not demanded that anyone be banned, nor have i demanded any recognition of the truth or falsehood of this accusation. I have, however, pointed out that there is a great deal of corroborating evidence on the "State Terrorism by United States" page and that there is good justification for concern. My only desire is to improve the page, nothing else. Yet out of this simple observation MONGO has -- through clearly aggressive, uncivil behavior -- provoked a confrontation and convinced himself that it is in fact i who am attacking him.
:::::Finally, i'd like to point out that i haven't ever labled MONGO a fascist! Even so i do insist that, were i to do so, it would remain a neutral term, entirely less of an invective than his own usage of words like "liberal", "democrats", "defeatocrats", or whatever ("conspiracy nut", anyone?). MONGO has repeatedly demonstrated a penchant for hurling epithets and insults at others, and i doubt a day passes that doesn't see him utilizing this particular skill of his. With the exception of a few, extremely rare instances, i do not. When i have transgressed those boundaries, i have apologized. Thus, i find it ironic that i am suffering the ire of MONGO for the use of a term that was never directed at him personally, and -- moreover -- which i consider to be both neutral and trivial. ] (]) 13:20, 13 January 2008 (UTC)


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


== Potential vandal trying to start edit war on the page for Frisch's. ==
Look at her userpage and contributions: {{User|Sarsaparilla}}


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-->
Here's a recent one. Also, aside from her own edits, it's important to see the final product she signed off on. Also, here's another great page she recently created. No matter what country you live in, there clearly is no genuine political debate over ]s anymore than there is over ]. Tossing unnecessary politics in there as a justification to toss in a ] reference is not acceptable behavior. The term "theistic rationalism" seems to be a POV fork of ], that is, specifically it's one rogue Objectivist's original research about the religious views of the Founding Fathers of America. Her attempts at regularly attempting to get pages supportive of ] featured (something I helped her with myself) suggests she's using ] as ], something I refuse to help her with. I made this charge in the past under a poor assumption of bad faith, then apologized for it. She never commented on my claim, either way, whether, "I assure you, I'm a good editor!" or "You're a jerk for assuming bad faith!" Silence on such things is the sure sign of a troll.


== ] inaccurate edit summaries ==
From what I've seen now -- and I think a careful review of her contributions will confirm -- the bad faith allegation is justified. I don't request anything in particular -- just that the admins here give it a look.


As a specific example, see ]:


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)
*'''''And why "POV" instead of "biased"?'''''


== ] Semi-Protection ==
Anyone want to tell me the difference, there? Any members of the ] cabal that engage in personal attacks shall be ignored. If you are strongly pro-Libertarian or anti-Libertarian to the point that you think it will affect your better judgment, please do not respond. ] (]) 12:52, 13 January 2008 (UTC)


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


:Ask at ] ] ] 16:28, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
On my own talk page there is a discussion over a very minor section of very minor article which has got completly out of hand. I feel the civility code has been broken, with regards to perspnal comments directed towards my self. Please also see ] for further evidence of incivility.
--] (]) 13:26, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 16:43, 24 December 2024

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

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

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

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

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

    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)

    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)

    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)

    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)
    • 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)

    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: