< Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitextInline

Revision as of 16:41, 4 February 2008 editMangojuice (talk | contribs)19,969 edits →Break-in at User:Clevelander← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 22:43, 24 December 2024 edit undoThe Bushranger (talk | contribs)Administrators156,577 edits →Disruptive editing by User talk:185.146.112.192: closing
Line 1:		Line 1:
			{{Short description|Noticeboard for reporting incidents to administrators}}<noinclude><!-- Inside the noinclude, because this page is transcluded.-->{{/Header}}</noinclude>{{clear}}
	<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:MiszaBot/config		{{User:MiszaBot/config
			|archiveheader = {{Administrators' noticeboard navbox all}}
	|maxarchivesize = 250K
			|maxarchivesize =800K
	|counter = 362
	|algo = old(24h)		|counter = 1174
			|algo = old(72h)
	|key = 4636e7fd80174f8cb324fd91d06d906d
			|key = 740a8315fa94aa42eb96fbc48a163504d444ec0297a671adeb246c17b137931c
	|archive = Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive%(counter)d		|archive = Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive%(counter)d
			|headerlevel=2
	}}		}}
			{{stack end}}
	__NEWSECTIONLINK__
			<!--
	__TOC__
			NEW ENTRIES GO AT THE BOTTOM OF THE PAGE NOT HERE
	<!-- ---------------------------------------------------------- -->
	<!-- New entries go down at the *BOTTOM* of the page, not here. -->		NEW ENTRIES GO AT THE BOTTOM OF THE PAGE NOT HERE
			NEW ENTRIES GO AT THE BOTTOM OF THE PAGE NOT HERE-->
	<!-- ---------------------------------------------------------- -->
			== Disruptive editing and WP:TALKNO by ] ==
	<!-- Vandalism reports should go to ], not here. -->
	<!-- ---------------------------------------------------------- -->
			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 .
	== Bizarre behaviour of ] ==
			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 .
	Frankly, I'm not certain if this is appropriate for this forum. But anyway I'm puzzled and frankly rather irritated by the sub-troll behaviour of ]. He mostly confines himself to user page stuff which he defines as "silly" but makes an occasional foray into article editing. All very teenage. No big deal - many of us have kids.
			<!-- 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)
	Most of his edits are reverted but (and here's the troll thing) he comes back much later and either re-does the edits or makes stupid comments on talk pages. It's parasitic on the goodwill of other editors and the openness of WP. The example that's prompted this is a series of "silly" edits to one paragraph in a boring little article called ].
			::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)
	Here's my question: do you leave this sort of thing alone (i.e. Don't Feed The Trolls) and accept a minor level of corruption to WP, or do you tackle it head on, which is like smacking a child for doing childish things (i.e. you usually end up apologising for being a brute?
			:{{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)
	Answers on a postcard please.
			::], this is not good to see. Don't rewrite or reformat other editor's signatures. There is no reason to be doing this unless you are trying to provoke the other editor. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 07:51, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
			::: For what it's worth, AnonMoos stated earlier that the changing of the signature was a unintentional technical issue, due to his use of some "non-standard tool" in accessing the internet . This seems plausible, as similar apparently unintentional changes to non-Ascii character data have happened in edits of his before (e.g. ). But if he knew of this issue, it's rather disappointing he let it happen again some days later . Equally disappointing is the extremely aggressive rhetoric and acerbic tone with which he has been escalating this essentially harmless, good-faith content dispute from the beginning. ] ] 10:25, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::I just can't fathom what tool they're using to get around the HTTPS requirement to edit Misplaced Pages securely. — <b>]:<sup>]</sup></b> 17:42, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::Should be impossible as it's required to even access the site in the first place according to ]]<sup>] </sup> 16:41, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::<strike>Looking at his talk page it's been going back to at least 2011]<sup>] </sup> 16:17, 19 December 2024 (UTC)</strike>
			:Guys, I do not deliberately set out to modify signatures, and when it happens, I am not usually aware of doing so. As I've already explained before in several places, since the December 2019 encryption protocol upgrade (NOT 2011!), the only way I can edit (or view) Misplaced Pages at all from home is by an indirect method which is not fully Unicode-compliant. To change this, I would have to get a completely different type of Internet connection, which would permanently disconnect my older computer, which I still use almost every day.
			:Meanwhile, this thread has been set up so I can't add a comment to it from home without affecting Unicode characters, so I was unable to reply here for 36 hours or so. If I'm silent in the future, it will be for the same reason. ] (]) 01:14, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
			::Misplaced Pages uses Unicode characters (] encoding). Anyone who cannot edit without corrupting such characters should '''not edit'''. ] (]) 03:47, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::Whatever, -- I was using them perfectly fine until December 2019, and still use them perfectly fine on public WiFi, but in December 2019 a requirement was imposed that you can't access Misplaced Pages '''at all''' unless you can handle encryption algorithms and protocols that weren't introduced until the mid-2010s. I have a 2012 web browser on my home computer that handles UTF-8 just fine, but 2012 simply wasn't good enough for the Misplaced Pages developers -- you had to have software that was almost up to date as of 2019, or you would be abruptly totally cut off. If you can drag up the relevant archive of Village Pump Technical, I and others complained at the time, but our concerns were not listened to or considered in any way. The basic attitude of the developers was that if you weren't running almost up-to-date software, then screw you, and if your computer is not capable of running almost up-to-date software, then double screw you! The change was announced for January 2020, but was actually implemented in mid-December 2019, apparently because they were so eager and anxious to start excluding people. It wasn't one of Misplaced Pages's finer moments. Since that time, I have had to use an indirect method to access Misplaced Pages from my home computer, and I don't feel particularly guilty about it (other people's obnoxious behaviors in 2019 have done away with most of the guilt I might feel)... ] (]) 20:59, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::...] was created in ''1994'', and became an official specification in '''2000''', not "mid-2010s". I'm not sure what 2012 web browser you're using, but if it's not able to handle HTTPS not being able to access Misplaced Pages with it is the least of your browsing concerns, given that 85-95% of the World Wide Web defaults to it now. Also I hate to think of how many security holes your ancient computer has. I'm going to be honest: with a brower setup that old it isn't safe for you to be on the web ''at all'', and the security hole that lets you access Misplaced Pages without using a secure connection should be fixed, because that is ''not'' working as intended and is - as mentioned - a security hole. - ] <sub>]</sub> 00:18, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::You unfortunately don't know what you're talking about. New ENCRYPTION ALGORITHM AND PROTOCOL METHODS have been introduced ''within'' HTTPS from time to time. I was using HTTPS perfectly happily until December 2019, when the developers arbitrarily ENCRYPTION ALGORITHM AND PROTOCOL REQUIREMENTS. ] (]) 00:57, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::And even leaving that aside, as Johnuniq mentions - if you can't edit without corrupting Unicode characters, and by your own admission you ''don't know when it happens'', you shouldn't be editing. - ] <sub>]</sub> 00:20, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::This is probably a reference to when Misplaced Pages started requiring TLS 1.2 (because earlier versions were deprecated). Anyone who was/is still on Windows XP at that point couldn't connect any more. ] (]) 01:29, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
			::I'm not talking about when the update happening, I'm talking about how you have known about this issue, and have been getting complainants about it since <strike>2011</strike>and are still not taking any steps to do anything about it. What kind of internet connection would not support your PC? What on earth are you even using? Dial-Up? Because that still is supported by even Windows 10. ]<sup>] </sup> 02:59, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			<strike>:::Also, how did you see me saying "this has happened since 2011" as me saying that the update happened in 2011? Can you clarify. ]<sup>] </sup> 03:07, 23 December 2024 (UTC) </strike>
			::::The problem didn't start in 2011, and I have no idea what you're referring to when you mention 2011. The problem started in December 2019 when the developers arbitrarily imposed new ENCRYPTION ALGORITHM AND PROTOCOL REQUIREMENTS... ] (]) 00:57, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::: Apologies. I was extremely tired when I wrote both above. I have striken the date parts. Rest of my comments still stand. ]<sup>] </sup> 01:06, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			===None of this matters===
			I don't care what tool this guy uses or what his excuse is. If he can't edit without screwing up people's sigs, then he must not edit. {{U|AnonMoos}} shouls consider himself on notice now that if one of his edits messes stuff up one more time, he'll be blocked until he can give assurance that he's come into the 21st century. ]] 18:05, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			:That's nice -- and also totally inaccurate. I ''was'' in the 21st century, and using 2012 tools, up until December 2019, when the developers pitchforked me backwards by arbitrarily imposing HTTPS ENCRYPTION ALGORITHM AND PROTOCOL REQUIREMENTS which my home computer hardware is not able to run. Notice that I had no problem complying with character-set handling -- the problem is with arbitrary ENCRYPTION ALGORITHM AND PROTOCOL REQUIREMENTS. ] (]) 00:48, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::The century imagery is irrelevant. You have been warned. ]] 03:14, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			::That was ''six years ago'', which is IMO about 3-4 years too long to keep using it as an excuse. Technology changes over time, so whatever this non-standard thing you think you need to do to edit here, it may be time to make a choice. ] (]) 00:56, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::As I said, to fix the problem, I would have to get a completely different type of Internet connection which would permanently disconnect my old computer, which I still use almost every single day. I would basically have to change my workflow and overall habits/methods of working because of an arbitrary decision by Misplaced Pages developers about encryption protocol updates. Anyway, when editing through public WiFi, I'm 100% Unicode compliant, and by exercising a little prudence, I can also avoid most problems when working from home. If I was constantly mangling Unicode right and left, there would have been a chorus of complaints long before now. But occasionally I can't anticipate a problem... ] (]) 01:06, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::And just to say for the third time: you're out of chances. "Occassionally" is too often. Once more is too often. And if and when that happens, your attitude of entitlement displayed here will pretty much ensure an indefinite block. ]] 03:14, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::Think it's time to draft up a formal proposal at this point? ]<sup>] </sup> 18:29, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::I don't think that's necessary. The key isn't formally deciding the criterion for blocking (because that's obvious to everyone) but rather detecting the next incident. Best way to do that for everyone gathered here to watchlist ]. Sooner or later, futher trouble will show up there. ]] 21:31, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::If you have DSL or even DialUp. That still works with modern machines. ]<sup>] </sup> 01:08, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::Heck, ''I'' am on DSL (and have been since, if I recall right, 2008). I have no idea what sort of ancient Internet connection AnonMoos is claiming to be using, but it's clearly one that was already obsolete before this change he's still up in arms about six years later was made. - ] <sub>]</sub> 05:44, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::Not to mention it would STILL be supported these days. It's literally right there when you click wifi/network settings in Windows 10. ]<sup>] </sup> 18:20, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			*The response by AnonMoos to feedback about this problem is bizarre. I don't really care what the excuse or the history behind it. If you are unwilling to edit Misplaced Pages using tools that work in 2024 then you should stop editing. The behavior is completely unnecessary and it seems like you don't understand the disruption. ] (]) 14:45, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			* AnonMoos hasn't really explained in any detail what their technical limitations are. They don't have to, but we can't really give advice otherwise. If as others have suggested their computer can't negotiate TLS 1.2, I'm surprised that they're able to use any websites at all from that computer. Requiring TLS 1.2 is not controversial; Misplaced Pages wasn't doing anything unusual in dropping TLS 1.0/1.1 around that time. ] ] 15:02, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
	] (]) 21:58, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
	:"Penzance: A View of the Art Deco Lido (circa 1952)" (other side) This is an encyclopedia - children should use a colouring book if they wish to draw doodles. Remove the vandalism, and if they don't get bored or grow up then send them to their room without biccies; i.e. warn them. Hope that helps. ''Weather horrible. Wish we weren't here!'' ] (]) 22:12, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
	::"Greetings from Baltimore, Maryland" When in doubt ]. ''The weather is here, wish you were beautiful''. ] (]) 22:15, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
			== Disruptive editing by ] ==
	Many thanks. RBI it is. Winter weather gets me down sometimes. ] (]) 10:03, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
			{{atop|1=IP blocked 24 hours, and then ] and created an account to evade the block, which has now been indef'd. - ] <sub>]</sub> 22:43, 24 December 2024 (UTC)}}
			The ] is engaging in disrupte editing. Neither does this IP provide sources and is POV pushing. And this IP has been warned multiple times for this on his/her talk page.
			] (]) 20:52, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
	Hello there Andy. I did warn you that I was watching you. Some of My early behaviour was incorrect, changing languages to suit the traditional English, but if you wish to look through my edits you will notice that I am not some sub-troll. I do not just edit user pages, Barkochbar's page was altered because I thought he was South African after I found out he was not I stopped adding this erroneous information to the page. I do have fun and do not follow normal behaviour at times. However, when I edit articles I edit articles seriously. I edit them for wikipedia and the world. I do not edit them to troll. If i see an error I will fix it. Andy you seem to want to attack me for correcting your grammar to the Moriah college article after I had put a hold on to the Milw0rm page. The Milw0rm page you deleted and would not provide me with a full explanation DGG will hopefully soon (I have contacted him and provided my email). DGG told you off for not being polite. You are incorrect to post here. This page is to be used after you have posted on my user page the exact issue. I have posted on your user page and given you warning for personally attacking me. Thus, we must go through the dispute process and "This page is not part of our dispute resolution process". Hence would an admin please inform Andy about how to use this page and remove mine and his post. Andy I wish to proceed down the dispute resolution process. Remember Andy I am watching you. I openly invite users to review my contributions. It will get you silliness points. ] (]) <small>—Preceding ] was added at 04:04, 2 February 2008 (UTC)</small><!--Template:Undated--> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
	* I have warned the above editor with regard to the comments "I was/am watching you." I consider them and the tone of the above to constitute harassment. ] (]) 12:08, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
			:@]: It looks like you both are ] on ].<sup class="plainlinks"></sup> That's not particularly helpful, so you should try to have a discussion on the ] as to whether you should include the ] name for the article in the lead/infobox. &#8211;<span style="font-family:CG Times, times">]&thinsp;]<sup>]</sup></span> 20:33, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
	I do not consider my post to hassmesnt. I notify andy of what we should do and give my version of my history on wikipedia. It is not an offense to watch a user the logs are made public for good reason. Threatening or hassasing him would be. I have informed you of by believes here and suggest that you and everyone watches me. I urge you to reconsider your warning LessHeard in this case. I have not attempted to intimitate just inform. I also suggest that this is remove or moved elsewhere because it does not belong here.] (]) 08:52, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
			::MJL why and how did you pick out that one article over the many this IP has made recent changes to? The IP has been making disputed edits for months and has been reverted by a number of editors, not just Moroike. ] (]) 01:10, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::@]: I am not suggesting that the IP editor isn't being disruptive, but my point is that {{u|Moroike}} isn't making the situation better (using the example of that one article). You can see this by looking at <span class="plainlinks"></span> where {{gender:Moroike|he has|she has|they have}} mostly just reverted this editor without using a summary. &#8211;<span style="font-family:CG Times, times">]&thinsp;]<sup>]</sup></span> 18:02, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			::The IP's edits were removed a total of 13 times on the page regarding the capital city of ], ]. You can't let him continue engaging in further edit wars with other users besides Moroike, can you? ] (]) 17:24, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			Since this IP user won't stop and is stonewalling, either he/should be temporarily blocked, or all the pages he is POV pushing without sources, should be semi-protected, so that only registered users can edit them. ] (]) 21:37, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			:After he/she was blocked for 24 hours, this IP created an account as ] in order to evade the block and has resumed his/her POV pushing. ] (]) 16:51, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			{{abot}}
			== User engaged in edit warring to remove disputed content prior to consensus ==
	== ] against ] ==
			{{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 -->
	I invoked ] and common sense to ''No Action'' 3RR report against ]. As far as I can tell, Jossi was acting in good faith and in an admin capacity on a procedural page. I therefore declined to take the rather drastic step of blocking an admin in good standing. This is a fairly contentious issue right now. Does anyone else want to chime in? ] (]) 03:06, 2 February 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)
	:This brings up 2 questions:
			::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)
	:i) Does WP:3rr apply to pages other than wikipedia articles? In my opinion, no, thus Jossi should not be blocked (or punished). The reason for this is that, articles are important because they are the only content read by the public. In fact, everything on wikipedia exists for one main purpose, that is to improve articles. Thus it is important that articles be stable.
	:ii) Are admins and users in good standing exempt from WP:3rr? Certainly not. Infact, if anything, good users, as members who represent wikipedia interests, should be held to higher standards than edit warriors who violate the rule. (In this case, though, as already stated, 3rr doesn't apply). ] (]) 03:16, 2 February 2008 (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)
	::Not to Wikilawyer, but ] says "An editor must not perform more than three reverts, in whole or in part, on a single page within a 24-hour period." The use of "page" instead of "article" in that sentence seems significant to me, so I don't think I can agree with Bless sins' first point. I endorse his/her second point absolutely, mind you. ] (]) 03:35, 2 February 2008 (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)
	:::Certainly I've seen people blocked for violating 3RR on policy pages, talk pages, and even user pages. The only time I have seen an exception made was for people removing stuff from their own user page. ] (]) 03:47, 2 February 2008 (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)
	I'm reviewing the edits to the Homeopathy notice subpage - disruptive edit warring seems to justify a few short blocks, and not of Jossi. ] (]) 03:32, 2 February 2008 (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)
	::There are instances where reverts may not constitute a breach of this policy and it appears Jossi was acting in good faith and in an admin capacity on a procedural page. Not reason for a block, and agree with Ronnotel's decline.--] (]) 03:38, 2 February 2008 (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)
	:::I encourage you to look through Jossi's recent editing history and some of the rumblings going on at ]. I know it is hard to block what you may consider to be a trusted admin, but I'm afraid he's stepping beyond the bounds of policy and making some very provocative maneuvers. ] (]) 03:43, 2 February 2008 (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).
	::::to be honest, I'm much more concerned about your behavior. I find it unlikely that you filed that report with the expectation that it would be acted on. I think Jossi is trying to de-escalate the environment. I can't say the same for you. ] (]) 03:53, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
			::::::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.
	:::::I'll take that under advisement. In the meantime, I think you should carefully note that this 3RR report was not due to me edit warring with Jossi, so there really isn't a ] to be seen. Also, FYI, "I find it unlikely that you filed that report with the expectation that it would be acted on." is basically flouting ]. I know that you are upset with my hardline position at ], but you shouldn't let that cloud your judgment. For what it's worth, I really appreciated that you started this thread because it shows that this is not an easy situation. ] (]) 04:00, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
			::::::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)
	::::::The real problem is that a cadre of dedicated warriors on each side is pushing the situation to where uninvolved admins can't step in without being attacked somehow.
			:I am the editor being discussed here. I'll provide a summary of events since the initial statement by Sxbbetyy is misleading.
	::::::This whole article probation / etc situation was set up to defuse that, and yet has now become another focus of disruptive editing and infighting.
			: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.
	::::::From a practical standpoint - it doesn't matter who's fundamentally right. If both sides make it too toxic for uninvolved admins to step in, both sides need to get blocked and pages need to be full protected until things cool down.
			: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)
	::::::That is approximately the last step left, and we're approximately there. I haven't pulled any triggers yet, but I think it has to be on the table. ] (]) 04:22, 2 February 2008 (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)
	:::::::As a previously uninvoled admin, I generally agree with ]. I had some hope that Arbcomm would agree to look at the article to look at issues of user conduct, but it appears that they continue to view it as a content dispute. I'm not really sure what else can be done from this point, because I don't think most of the unconstructive behaviour is actually blockworthy. ] (]) 04:25, 2 February 2008 (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)
	::::::::Blocks aren't the only tool that admins can use here. You can impose revert paroles on individual users, or article/topic bans. That might be a way to address disruptive behavior that doesn't rise to the level of blocking. ] (]) 04:36, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
	:::::::::The trouble is that the most disruptive behaviour I see isn't to the article (in the form of excessive reverting, etc.) but on the talk page, where many editors seem interested only in denigrating (], natch) their opponents; the talk pages get flooded with this sort of thing, and attempts to achieve consensus get buried and have low participation. Revert paroles wouldn't do any good. ] (]) 04:55, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
	::::::::::But that's where the article/topic bans come in. If an editor consistently makes disruptive edits to the talk page, including incivility and obstruction, then they can be prohibited from editing the talk page. ] (]) 04:58, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
	(outdent) It's more subtle than that, I'm afraid. They behave civilly, they're polite, and they don't obstruct others' efforts. They just do nothing to advance the cause of consensus, and a whole lot to fill up the talk page with endless debate. ] (]) 06:31, 2 February 2008 (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)
	=== Blocks ===
			::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)
	In order to centralize disussion related to admin responses to the situation...
			*I have some pretty serious ] concerns about the topic starter here. They came to me for help (no idea how/why me, I have no connection to this dispute) and I repeatedly told them I didn't see any misconduct, and then they started attacking ''me'' when I refused to agree with them. And now this. This is a very simple content dispute, with a very simple ] outcome. I've told them this. It's a disappointing time sink on a rather trivial content dispute. ] ] 00:52, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
	I have just blocked ShmuckyTheCat for 3 hours for the edit: , which I judge to be disruptive and drama-increasing rather than reducing behavior. ] (]) 04:32, 2 February 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)
			*::The discussion is , if anyone wants to look. The "attack" I'm referring to you is your accusation that I responded to you in bad faith. I was not involved in the dispute, have no stance on it, and had no pre-conceived notions about either of you - what in the world would my motivations be for "bad faith responses"? It doesn't make any sense. You simply didn't get the response you wanted, and proceeded to badger me on it. Did I get vaguely irritated when I volunteered my time to review and comment on a dispute I had no stance or interest in, only to get all sorts of ] responses on it? Yeah, sure, but who wouldn't? ] ] 18:44, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
			*I'm here from my input at the 3rd opinion request. This is nothing more than a trivial content dispute, I see no reason for this to be at ANI. I somewhat agree with the claim of ], it becomes more susceptible to incorrect information, and from my analysis it seemed like the claim in the disputed content was completely wrong. Two different sources, from two different time periods. My $0.02: The claim of stonewalling is ridiculous, there was ample good-faith discussion based on existing policy and guidelines. This editor does not ], it appears that he claims that editors disagreeing are acting in bad faith. From him to administrator Sergecross73: {{tq|"I'm not wasting time engaging with you if you aren't going to speak with me in good faith."}} It seems that he roots his argument based on the editor who removed it rather than the content itself. Very unfortunate waste of time. —&nbsp;] ] 15:31, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
	:Heh, so following ] is now blockable. In this forum, it figures. ] (]) 04:39, 2 February 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)
			*:Reading any of what I wrote in this dispute shows clearly that is not the case. Also, the quoted sentence is completely taken out of context.
			*:Here is what was said in the mesaage before that they left out, "Not really the logical conclusion one draws from reading any of what I wrote here, where I asked multiple times for you to explain your reasoning in your replies (instead your response was to repeat yourself without offering further explanation), but if that is what you want to take away from this that's fine by me. I'm not wasting time engaging with you if you aren't going to speak with me in good faith."
			*:The message as a whole was replying to was a passive aggressive insult that didn't progress that conversation, hence the response as it was clearly not an example of engagement in good faith.] (]) 18:34, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
			:Also, it looks like the participants in the dispute on the Team Seas article are acting as if this report is an extension of that dispute discussion.
	::Maybe it was Shmucky's edit summary? This does seem like an odd choice. ] (]) 04:47, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
			:This is a report of edit warring to revert disputed content prior to a consensus being reached (there was no consensus prior to the reversion and there still is no consensus, as admitted by PSW themselves in that very dispute and In their latest revert message, no idea why now in this report they are trying to claim that there is suddenly consensus for removal).
			:This is not a report on the dispute itself, just to make that very clear since those involved are responding as if it is. ] (]) 18:41, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
			::You've still got this backward. You need to show a consensus to keep your content in the article, as everyone else has been telling you. ] is directly on point, and I'll quote it here: {{Tq|The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content.}} ] (]) 18:53, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::Thank you. I have tried to inform them of this many times and many ways. I do not know why they cannot wrap their head around the concept. Conceptually, it would be very problematic if we were required to retain every disputed content until consensus ruled it out. It wouldn't be workable. ] ] 19:02, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::Nobody is arguing WP:ONUS here...not in the dispute and not here in this report. The point is that the content is being removed prior to there being a consensus on if it should be removed.
			:::I was directly advised by admin Pbsouthwood that the removal of disputed content BEFORE any consensus has been reached is not allowed (save for specific situations, none of which apply to the disputed content) as this bypasses the consensus building process. ] is the talk page where I was advised this. This is echoed with the wording in WP:STONEWALLING and ]. Here is the direct quote from the latter, "To eliminate the risk of an edit war, do not revert away from the status quo ante bellum during a dispute discussion. Instead, add an appropriate tag indicating the text is disputed. For an article, many of the inline dispute tags are appropriate. For other pages, {{under discussion inline}} is good. Leave the status quo and the tag in place until the discussion concludes." ] (]) 19:58, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::{{tq|The point is that the content is being removed prior to there being a consensus on if it should be removed.}} <--- No. This is your problem. What you are saying here is incorrect. Policies say the opposite of this. You are not going to get support at ANI. In fact, the longer you keep going with this ] insistence that community practice is actually the opposite of what policies plainly say it is, the more likely it is you're going to find yourself blocked for disruption. Pbsouthwood didn't tell you this either (what he wrote doesn't match what you've been doing), and your initial question did not properly represent the situation at hand. But we can invite him here to see if he actually supports what you're doing here: {{ping|Pbsouthwood}}, what say you? ] (]) 20:06, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::This entire comment serves absolutely zero purpose whatsoever. You're parroting what others have already said with no supporting evidence. Along with throwing in an oddly included threat that is completely nonsensical and wholly unwarranted.
			:::::And while I could point out the myriad of ways your claim about what Pbsouthwood said was inaccurate, that would pretty much involve reposting his reply, which is a waste since anyone can already go to his talk page and read it themselves.
			:::::So at this point, if you need that admin to come here and tell you what they already said themselves, more power to you. Would save us all a ton of time to get an authoritative answer on this, especially with another admin holding the opposite view point, in spite of the specific policy wording. ] (]) 23:08, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::], there does not need to be an established consensus for the removal of content. ]. - ] <sub>]</sub> 01:28, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::I'm not the one insisting otherwise...this report only exists because an ]. And as I've posted in my previous replies, the wording in the policies clearly support that. Makes me question how many have actually bothered to really read these policies... ] (]) 02:22, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::::The other admin told you ''nothing'' about the removal of ], which is always appropriate. ]. - ] <sub>]</sub> 03:19, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::::# This report is not an extension of the dispute discussion for that article, if you want to involve yourself in that discussion, do so there, do not hijack this report.
			:::::::::# The disputed content is plainly not WP:SYNTH as I explain on the talk page in great length, with nobody thus far having provided valid examples as to how it is.
			:::::::::# If you are going to make the claim that any WP:SYNTH concerns warrant immediate reversion without consensus, please feel free to share the quote in the relevant policy that says this. I have not found any such wording and instead found that what is present matches up with what PBsouthwood informed me.
			:::::::::] (]) 17:17, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::] ] ] 02:05, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::At this point I say that my advice was given without a specific context, and without prejudice. I maintain that it is more collegial and polite to discuss a removal of unsourced but ''plausible'' content ''before'' removing it, as it can often avoid disputes of this kind, but it is not forbidden to arbitrarily delete content that an editor ''plausibly considers inappropriate provided the relevant reason is given''. It is always the responsibility of the person advocating inclusion to provide a reference when challenged, regardless of the process of challenge.
			:::::Some forms of synthesis are acceptable. If a conclusion is logically inevitable based on undisputed factual premises, or is a simple mathematical calculation, we routinely accept claims that may not be specifically stated in a source, but we may require the logic to be explained, as it may not be obvious to the reader.
			:::::At the risk of being ], I also refer readers to <s>]</s> <u>(looks like that essay has been expunged, try ])</u>. &middot; &middot; &middot; ] ]: 06:59, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::I think many of us used to the mess editors adding unsourced content can create would strongly oppose leaving in unsourced content just because it's plausible. The standard should instead be at a minimum that you believe the claim made is most likely correct and sourceable not simply that it's plausible. Although ultimately such discussions are a little silly anyway. If editors would just add sources rather than leaving it for someone else because they're claiming it's unlikely to be challenged or whatever, there would be a need for others to decide whether to query or remove unsourced content. ] (]) 09:56, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::I was suggesting tagging with citation needed while you wait a reasonable time for a response, but as we know some of us do not have the patience and just revert. It in not unheard of to know something, but not have a source handy at the time. What is obvious to one may be totally obscure to others. This is acceptable within policy and guidelines. You could start a RfC to have the guidelines changed, but I suspect it would not get through as being a bit bitey. Cheers, &middot; &middot; &middot; ] ]: 12:47, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::::Yes, what you say is true, that's absolutely an acceptable approach. But that's not really the problem at hand here. The bigger issue is that Sxbbetyy appears to be believe that the alternative approach - reverting per STATUSQUO or NOCONSENSUS - is somehow misconduct, and that's simply not true. They're not arguing about if your approach is valid, they're arguing that its ''compulsory'', and they're attempting to report a user for not following your possible approach, which is completely meritless. ] ] 17:31, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::::Please do not put words in my mouth. The only reason this report exists is because Peter Southwood advised that this was how I should proceed if the editor participating in this no-consensus reverting continued to do so and was unreceptive to further discussion. (Both are true by admission of PSW themselves). ] (]) 18:22, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::::::Yes, I've seen , but you presented the situation to them entirely in hypotheticals that lacks crucial context. You frame PSW as unwilling to engage in discussion but omit the fact that You accuse PSW of edit warring to keep their information in the article, but omit the fact that . I would think the near-unanimous rejection of this ANI report would indicate that this was not, in fact, a good thing to report. Best case scenario, this is archived with no action, but I'd be shocked if it didn't result in a ]. ] ] 18:44, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::::::I don't know why you are attempting to present the entire discussion on that talk page as some sort of proof that PSW was willing to engage in further discussion to halt the behavior this report is about. At no point whatsoever did PSW ever indicate anything like that; if they did this report wouldn't exist as the discussions on your talk page or Peter Southwood's page would have never needed to happen. Not to mention if you take the time to actually read the discussion, you see that most of it is on the specifics of the validity of the WP:SYNTH claim made by PSW, eventually culminating in PSW actually asserting that they will not stop change their position on this and then outright refusing to engage any further.
			:::::::::::And now you accuse me of edit warring by citing the entire recent edit history of the page...this isn't fooling anyone who actually bothers to read any of the revert messages and examine the timeline of when they occurred (talk about omitting "crucial context").
			:::::::::::Beyond just slandering my character, I don't really see what these kind of spurious claims accomplish. It wastes everyone's time, makes yourself look biased and hostile, and adds nothing to the conversation. Keep things civil please, I really shouldn't have to tell you of all people that basic expectation. ] (]) 02:38, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::::::::Wait...are you seriously trying to suggest that, even though you were the only one who reverted him every single time, he was edit warring and you weren't? ] ] 02:50, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::::::::If you are going to continue to twist words and make false claims immediately after being asked to keep things civil, maybe it would be best for all involved if you just moved on from this conversation. Sad that even has to be stated at this point, it should be a given. ] (]) 17:25, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::::::::::Yet another IDHT response where you try to baselessly chastize me rather than address anything anyone is saying to you. ] ] 18:14, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::::::::::What a choice to post this exact type reply to my last message... not to mention the sheer absurdity of it. To claim that I've never addressed anyone's points in my replies is so easily and visibly wrong (literally this entire topic is full of my detailed replies to people's concerns, including this very reply) that it's almost insulting to the rest of the people participating in this or to anyone who even chooses to read that message. It's as if you think nobody can see the rest of this discussion (or even the comments directly above it). ] (]) 11:52, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::Thank you for taking the time to respond and my apology for any inconvenience it may have caused. Ive tried to keep it as civil as possible, but there seems to be a very hostile air in this discussion by those with the dissenting opinion. As for how this situation is to be resolved, would it be appropriate to restore the currently disputed content with the appropriate tags (as it is sourced and was the statusquo on the page at the time of reversion)? Or is there something further that must be done here? I'm generally unfamiliar with how ANIs actually function. ] (]) 17:52, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
			:Have you considered starting an ]? The fact is that you made a ] addition to the article; someone else objected to it, which means you now ought to seek consensus ''for your addition''. As numerous people have told you, none of the relevant policies and guidelines (], ], ], etc) would allow you to make a recent addition the "default" the way you want, but more generally - the problem is that you're trying to dig through policy for something that will make your preferred version the default, allowing you to have it in the article without having to demonstrate consensus for it even in the face of challenges. Even if the policies and guidelines I listed ''were'' on your side this would still be a bad way to approach it. You have a conflict, your goal should be to resolve it by making consensus as clear as possible - figuring out what the crux of the dispute is and then, if you can't reach a compromise, holding an RFC to see where consensus lies. Also, I have to point out that just by a quick nose count of people who have weighed in on talk, I'm seeing a dispute that is now three-to-one against you. That ''is'' a consensus - not a massive one, maybe an RFC will pull in a bunch of people that say something else, but it doesn't make sense for you to keep demanding a consensus to remove something you added when there actually ''is'' such a consensus on talk. You've disagreed with their arguments but they're not obliged to ] you; ultimately if you think your arguments are so strong and theirs are so weak, the only real option for you at this point is to start an RFC and hope that you can demonstrate that there. --] (]) 04:10, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
			::As mentioned earlier in the discussion, this report is not an extension of the dispute on that article, nor is that what this report is about. Also, a RFC was already started for the topic about a week or so ago by PSW, but that occurred after he reverted the status quo, disputed content with discussion (repeatedly). As for the rest of your comment, Peter Southwood, an admin, has addressed what is the actual expectation. ] (]) 18:00, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::What? I never started an RfC. — ] (]; ]) 19:07, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::I just checked and on 12/9/24 at ] you said the following, "Thanks – just wanted to mention I requested comments from ] and ] about 2 weeks ago."
			::::Did that not actually happen? ] (]) 02:11, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::] is a specific process. Asking questions on a couple of Wikiprojects is not an RFC. ] (]) 02:22, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::That's fundamentally not what an RFC is. This is getting ridiculous... ] ] 03:03, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::It's almost like this is the very first time I've ever been involved in this kind of issue on Misplaced Pages before...seriously these kind of replies come off as rude and don't actually say anything meaningful or helpful. Ever since our conversation on your talk page you have made next to no real effort to engage in good faith and I find that highly disappointing to be coming from an admin. And my apology if I offended you at all at some point or if you have just "lost your patience" with me, but I don't see how that gives you the green flag to suddenly disregard ]. I certainly haven't, in spite of being on the receiving end of this. ] (]) 17:44, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::I haven't said anything uncivil, I just keep calling you out when you say something incorrect. ] ] 18:08, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::::], is a powerful force, I find it difficult to resist myself. ] (]) 18:10, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
			===Request for closure===
	:::Deleting a bunch of comments is not helpful. By itself it would probably be worth a warning or overlooking - but it was further escalation after comments by myself and other admins that further escalation is unacceptable, and that crackdowns for existing behavior might be justified. 3 hrs is enough to make the point without abusing anyone severely. ] (]) 04:51, 2 February 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 second that. If there has been any edit-warring by any party that should be dealt with in the normal way. {{u|PerfectSoundWhatever}} has certainly done nothing wrong, and the OP will get blocked if they don't start listening to people pretty quickly. ] (]) 14:24, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
			::Exactly. And even that's probably unlikely, as most of the "edit warring" was singular reverts with days or weeks in between. It's far from a 3RR situation at least. ] ] 15:26, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
			:{{non-admin comment}} I don't think this conversation is going anywhere fast, other than seemingly coming to the conclusion that @] has done nothing wrong, which seems to be the opposite of what this ANI post was about. There's no edit warring here, and even if there was, it wouldn't be dealt with at this venue. Shut it down! ] (]) 16:48, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
			:In what way whatsoever is this editor's decision to revert the disputed content during the discussion "standard following of procedures of WP:STATUSQUO"? The literal first words that appear at that link are in bold and say, "'''Avoid reverting during discussion'''", followed by a detailed explanation of the actual proper procedure. And to make it very clear what it says, here is the literal first paragraph verbatim: "To eliminate the risk of an edit war, do not revert away from the '']'' '''during a dispute discussion'''. Instead, add an appropriate tag indicating the text is disputed. For an article, many of the ] are appropriate. For other pages, <code><nowiki>{{</nowiki>]<nowiki>}}</nowiki></code> is good. Leave the status quo and the tag in place until the discussion concludes." ] (]) 02:31, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			::In what way is ''that'' your read of the consensus in the discussion above? ] ] 02:49, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::In what world do you logically come to that conclusion from a message that consist of almost entirely the word for word quote of the procedures described in WP:STATUSQUO, that directly counters the claim you just made? Are you saying it is "against consensus" simply because it presents a viewpoint you don't like and don't want to address? I don't see another reason why you would again twist my words, to the point of lunacy. And this is, once again, despite the fact that all of what has been said is literally within view.
			:::Also, regarding the consensus. Out of everyone that has actually joined the discussion and all the messages sent (~90% of which are either from myself or you Serge), there have been only three people who have actually said anything in support of your interpretation of this. The rest either did not discuss the topic, did not express an opinion, or were Peter Southwood who supported the interpretation of WP:STATUSQUO as stated on its page. Seems like you're just trying to rush a end to the conversation to get the conclusion you want. ] (]) 15:02, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::I'm saying there has been no consensus for anything you're arguing here. Not a single person has supported action against PSW. ] ] 15:15, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::The status quo ante bellum that shouldn't be reverted from is the version ''without the new content''. ] (]) 15:16, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			{{abot}}
			== Creating the need to make 400,000 unnecessary edits ==
	::::Sorry, I seemed to have missed that bit in ]. Would you be able to point out where jossi's comments helped improve the article? ] (]) 04:55, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
			Can we please dp something about editors who make unnecessary changes to widely-used modules, and then need to change 400,000 talk pages to get the same result we had before the change? Thanks to change from last week, which removed the parameter "living" from the bannershell, we now have more than 400,000 pages in ]. After the "cleanup" by ] (and perhaps others), we will have the exact same result as we had last week, no new functionality, no new categories, no improvement at all, but a lot of flooded watchlists.
	:::::If I were to rigorously block for violations of a strict interpretation of ] on the article talk page, about 35 editors will be sitting on their hands for the next week.
	:::::Alternatively, one can acknowledge that WP:TALK is a guideline not a prescription, and "violations" of it aren't removable barring other disruption... ] (]) 04:59, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
	::::::Actually, I'm not sure that having a bunch of the editors sit on their hands is a bad idea. You could accomplish that through article/topic bans through blocks, though. ] (]) 05:01, 2 February 2008 (UTC)		I tried to get him to stop at ], to no avail. This isn't the first time, as you can see from that discussion. ] (]) 14:57, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
			: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)
	:::::::Just shaking my head at what actually is acted upon decisively. No, it shouldn't surprise me, given the obsession with civilness over content. And edit warring civilly is tolerated....until it becomes uncivil, but by then it's too late for certain admins to act. Instead they pick and easy but largely tangential target. ] (]) 05:07, 2 February 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)
	::::::::Unfortunately, large scale edit wars and disruption '''''are''''' worse for the Encyclopedia than even having clearly factually wrong content in some articles. Edit wars and personal attacks are attacks not just on individuals, but on the community. The community will, if it's not damaged or scared off a topic, eventually fix incorrect articles and related problems. But there's not much which fixes the community if people rampage around trying to break it.
	::::::::Schmucky happened to be the first incivility to step in front of the bus, after we started the bus moving. That it was him and not one of a few dozen other people is not his fault, nor a conclusion about his position in the article dispute.
	::::::::If you will excuse me from this little discussion, however, I have some people to ban from the talk page for a couple of days, I think. ] (]) 05:11, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
			== ] ==
	:::::::::George, in all honesty, there are a LOT of editors who are just waiting to see admins actually begining to ''act'' and act sensibly. Blocking Schmucky wasn't sensible (IMO). But if he is the first sign of a movement by admins to enforce content by removing editing warning, then I think he would be accepting of his fate. But then again, some oldtimers have heard this sort of talk before. I personally look forward to in anticipation to see what happens. Will the project move forward, or will WR be proven correct? ] (]) 05:19, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
	:This is an absurd thing to block over. From George's perspective, removing comments made things worse. Schumucky felt differently. So instead of asking him not to do that.. no warning, you jump on a block? Wha? Schmucky's logic for removing the "OMG I'm leaving" comments are reasonable. We should not block over bad judgement calls (not that I even agree that it was a bad judgement call or not). -- ] 06:29, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
			] is making wholesale reverts of my edits in contravention to guidelines. ] (]) 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 ] 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.
	* ]&nbsp;(]&nbsp;'''·''' ]) is banned from ] for 24 hrs for which was disruptive and uncivil. ] (]) 05:21, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
	::endorse. I think it's time to start asking what has an editor has done to be civil rather than how they have been uncivil. ] (]) 06:06, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
	:::Please note that there's some edit warring over the inclusion of the Pseudoscience and Fringe science categories on ]. of edits strikes me as a bit odd, since QuackGuru is an advocate of the categories and Dance With The Devil has never edited the article before. ] (]) 06:13, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
	:::(ec to Ronnotel) This is the major problem with the Project at the moment. The most civil POV is rewarded by the admins rather than NPOV and improving the article. I think it's time to start asking what has an editor has done to ''improve the project'' rather than how they have been ''uncivil''. ] (]) 06:16, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
	:::: ] is an official policy at Misplaced Pages. Editors who are laboring under the misapprehension that they can 'improve the project' while being 'uncivil' are... laboring under a misapprehension. ] (]) 06:37, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
	:::::First let me say that I endorse the article ban of ], and further endorse ]'s comments on civility. That said, I understand where ] is coming from; editors can be as frustratingly obstructionist as they want on the article talk page, but as long as they're polite about it there are no consequences to them. ] (]) 06:40, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
	::::::There is a failure to enforce NPOV. This leads to POV pushing, which leads to CIVIL issues. The problem isn't the civility, it's the failure to enforce NPOV. It's time to reward those who ''contribute'' to the '''project''', rather than do what we have been doing - which is reward those who editwar, but do it ''civilly''. ] (]) 06:46, 2 February 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.
	::::::: I guess I just don't agree with your assertion: ''There is a failure to enforce NPOV. This leads to POV pushing, which leads to CIVIL issues.'' I'm pretty sure that the overwhelming majority of admins are putting forth their best good faith efforts at enforcing ]. And I'm sorry, there simply is no way to justify uncivil edits: not only is incivility a violation of one of ], it also just doesn't work - it's poor rhetoric which not only fails to persuade, but backfires. ] (]) 08:38, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
	::::::::That's right, it backfires, meaning that the uncivil NPOV pusher is overwhelmed by the civil POV pusher. Which is worse? From the answers here is it clear that it is the more civil. Also it is plain only one one of the pillars is monitored - civility, because the civil POV pushers are rewarded. If you want people to believe you, then it's time (as I keep advocating) for the admins to start enforcing the others. NPOV as a starter. Clamp down on that, and you will find that users (on the whole) won't be ''around'' to be uncivil. It's not difficult - although the evidence is clearly to the contrary. ] (]) 09:31, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
	:::::::::The community has decided that ] is its most important policy, ahead of ], ], and all the rest. (Don't even ''think'' about ].) It's frustrating to those who value content, but you can't fight city hall. You either play the game by whatever rules you're given or you get off the field. ] (]) 09:45, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
	:::::::::: ''The community has decided that ] is its most important policy, ahead of ], ], and all the rest.'' Another assertion with which I must respectfully disagree. In fact, that is precisely why I linked to ]. These fundamental principles form a whole. It makes no more sense to think one is more important than the other than it does to think that your heart is a more important organ than your brain. But as far as "getting off the field if you don't like the rules" - yes, I completely agree. ] (]) 10:07, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
	:::::::::::This can be tested empirically: make impeccably neutral edits supported by top-drawer reliable sources and use uncivil edit summaries, then make POV edits supported by the lousiest possible sources but do it civilly. See which gets you into trouble faster. ], but I think the outcome of the thought experiment is obvious and is supported by past experience. ] (]) 10:35, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
	::::::::::::: I don't know why you posted this below my comment, as it seems to be completely unrelated to anything I have said. ] (]) 13:06, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
	::::::::::::Not only can it be tested, the evidence supporting it is rather apparent. Saying it doesn't happen is just rewarded the civil pov-pushers, but that is the default position, and has Ray states, no point fighting it. Too bad it isn't actually the ''rules of the game'', just umpires being selective in how they do their job(s). ] (]) 10:45, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
	:::::::::(Outside view as an interested but uninvolved ordinary editor) Shot info, I think part of the problem is that enforcing civility is content-neutral, while enforcing NPOV requires making judgements about content. As soon as an admin tries to evaluate where NPOV lies in a contentious article, that admin is an involved participant in the content dispute. And since admins are explicitly prohibited from using their administrative tools to adjudicate a content dispute, there's no straightforward to "enforce" NPOV. I think the current system relies on the assumption that anyone focused on pushing a particular point of view will also trip up in more objectively measurable ways, such as incivility, excessive reverting, lack of sources, or abuse of multiple accounts. Most of the time, that's true. Sometimes it's not, and then what do you suggest? --] (]) 18:24, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
	::::::::::So what you are saying is that admins don't enforce NPOV, and just enforce CIVIL - because it is "easier"? This agrees with what I have been saying (and others have disagreed with I note). The solution is for admins to become more informed, not involved, of the issues. Too many admins opt for the "civil" solution and reward the civil pov-pushers, while with a bit of care and attention (and doing some of this stuff called "work") the correct solution can be applied to correctly ID the real editwarrior. Besides, as it is noted over in Homeo-land, almost every admin adjudicating over there has been "involved" at some point or another. Something which is proving to be a problem for admins. My personal solution is "AGF" for involved admins regardless of the level of involvement because if an admin editwars, well that what we have AN/I for. But as we see here at AN/I, an admin can 3RR (and even "civilly") and get off scot-free. God help us if the watchers don't watch their own watchmen. ] (]) 01:48, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
	:::::::::::Not just because it's easier, but because the admin tools and the rules for using them aren't very well suited to allow the admins to ''enforce'' NPOV. I agree with your assessment of the problem, but I don't think there's much the admins can do about it. As soon as you decide who's a "civil pov-pusher" and who's a "good editor," you're involved in the content dispute and ineligible to use administrative tools, so the admins are in a bind. Again, this is my observation as a non-admin. --] (]) 08:39, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
			I can't remember the specific category guideline for the edits I did but is the undoing editors need to look it up. Categorisation is something that a lot of editor do not understand. Go and put a notice on WikkiProoject Categorisation and you will fing that there is support for my edits.
	===Refocussing===
	Jossi's behaviour is troubling. He has been told that he is not considered uninvolved or a trusted mediator by a particular side, and yet he continues to maintain he is, and to take actions to the point of violating 3RR. Can someone explain why that is considered OK? ] (]) 08:06, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
			WP could be sooo much better. ] (]) 02:02, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
	:He's been told that by ''both'' sides (see e.g., the comment by Martinphi, who is a paranormal-oriented editor) but in this case both sides are wrong. Unfortunately I don't know how to fix that since I'm just a science geek and not a lawyer or diplomat. ] (]) 09:50, 2 February 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)
	::From my perpsective, it became a problem when he had to "edit war" to assert his uninvolved neutrality. What should have happened (given the half dozen admin eyes on the page, and the assumed dozen more watching it) is that a different admin should have made the revert so that Jossi wouldn't have had to do it himself. No one is ''perfectly'' objective or as we say here "neutral". But I imagine that more than anything, Jossi got riled by the lack of support that he should have received. My comments here notwithstanding, I hate how this turned out, mostly because, with the recent block of that cat guy (gal?), it reinforces the (mis?)understanding that being admin is more than just having a mop. ] (]) 10:51, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
			::GO and read the guidelines. It does not need discussion. ] (]) 02:15, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::Discussion is required when other editors ask you questions in good faith in order to resolve present disputes and prevent future ones. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>]</span> 02:18, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
			::Bear in mind this is WP and not social media. ] (]) 02:16, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
			::How do you get the impression that "I don't remember what policy says but I'm right so leave me alone". ] (]) 02:18, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::No. You brought this here. The ] is on ''you'' to explain how the guidelines justify your edits, not to say "go look it up". Also {{tqq|How do you get the impression that "I don't remember what policy says but I'm right so leave me alone"}} - because that's exactly what you said. - ] <sub>]</sub> 02:19, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::It's not unreasonable in many cases to link to a very specific passage of a guideline and expect an editor to understand its meaning as regards a pertinent dispute, but you can't just fail to clearly articulate your argument while also insisting it's vindicated somewhere within the full text of a guideline. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>]</span> 02:21, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
			:Content dispute. Bold edits were reverted; next step is discussion, probably at ]. If there is dispute over interpretation of the guideline you can consider leaving a pointer at ]. If there are any categories that shouldn't be used at all that can be discussed at ]. ] (]) 03:31, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
			::The content dispute could have been discussed on any of the talk pages. Yet it was brought here first. ] (]) 06:16, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::When a content dispute involves several pages it is often <small>though not always</small> best to centralize discussion. Misunderstanding ANIs purpose and bringing content disputes here is a common and understandable error; best just to point people at appropriate ] when that happens. ] (]) 06:53, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
			Not overly impressed by 43's comments above. But do wish to note that their ] of ] from at least one BLP appears to have been correct. The subsequent reversion of that removal is misfortune. ] <sup>]</sup> 08:06, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
	:::I have to admit I've looked through some of Jossi's edits in this area, and I have to say that in my opinion he and the rest of us would be best served if he looked elsewhere. I can recommend several other problematic areas that would benefit immensely from his energy.
	:::I'm not sure what Martinphi's objection is, but he seems to be more welcoming than the other 'side'.] (]) 13:32, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
	::::I have to agree with some of the above. Although I respect Jossi, he should know perfectly well that 3RR is a community consensus and he has ample methods to deal with the situation other than what occurred. '''No one is served''' by allowing admins to IAR content-issues where they are related. Rather it presents the image that admins are under no restrictions to do as they will. The project already suffers from too much of that image. It's almost a daily refrain. I also agree that the extent that Jossi has self-involved now becomes problematic.] (]) 20:23, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
	::::: The 'content' in question, though, was the warning template. Actually, instead of reverting the editor who kept changing it without discussion or consensus, Jossi should have just blocked him for violating the probation. ] (]) 17:40, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
	::::::If all of Misplaced Pages were handled as the homeopathy page is being handled we could easily get the community down to pre-2004 levels ''tout de suite''. ]<sup>]</sup> 20:14, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
			== User:ZanderAlbatraz1145 Civility and Content #2 ==
	:I don't see Jossi's behavior to be the issue that needs discussing and possibly remedial action there. ] (]) 20:48, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
			*{{userlinks|ZanderAlbatraz1145}}
	::Right. Why is insisting on non-involvement when he appears pretty involved not worth discussing? ] (]) 23:08, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
			This user has engaged in a lengthy display of disruption. Namely through incessant incivility I have noticed .
	:::Because ]. ]<sup>]</sup> 23:53, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
	:::When both sides in a dispute think the admin is on the ''other'' side, that's a pretty good sign that they're neutral. Is jossi regularly involved in editing homeopathy articles? ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 00:01, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
	:::::Can you substantiate that belief in this case? Which people think Jossi's anti-homeoepathy? Frankly, I don't think you can, so I suspect the statement's irrelevant. ] (]) 09:17, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
	::::Apparently he's only made a couple of edits to ] itself, but a larger number of edits to ] (apparently some sort of homeopathy advocate). He does however seem to have been fairly heavily involved in the talk pages of both articles but only since January 22. -- ] (]) 00:59, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
	:::::He appears to have edited Dana Ullman only from the 26th to the 28th of January. In other words, no, he's not regularly involved in editing homeopathy articles. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 02:20, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
	::::::::And yet, somehow, has managed to be a perceived problem in that much time. Do we really want this particular editor imposing hair-trigger sanctions in this area? ] (]) 09:17, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
	::::::Ah, I see, so some edits = uninvolved. Or <30? <10? > 1000000? I seem to have missed that bit where uninvolved becomes involved? Will enjoy reading the tortured wikilawyering to justify this bit of Adminoversight (tm). ] (]) 03:00, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
	:::When I added it up the other day it was 114 of his last 500 edits. I'm sure I counted incorrectly. ]<sup>]</sup> 05:55, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
	:::Oh, BTW, I don't think he's on one side or t'other, I just think his behaviour is questionable (at best). ]<sup>]</sup> 05:58, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
			Instances such as , , on , etc. Users such as {{Ping|Waxworker}} and {{Ping|Jon698}} can speak to their experiences, I'll outline mine.
	Under the "some edits = uninvolved" standard, I would be an uninvolved admin, as I've only edited the talk pages of ] and ] in the last few days; otherwise, I've never touched homeopathy articles. If I were to enforce the probation, though, I don't think I'd be perceived as an uninvolved party... ] (]) 06:19, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
	:As I've articulated above, I have no problems with admins being "involved" and this exercise is showing that making admins "uninvolved" is a futile exercise. However in saying that, the normal avenue to policing admins should they start to break the rules (ie/ other admins, nominally via here) is shown to be broken (ie/ by Jossi's very example). So the only way to police it, is to force admins to be uninvolved. And as we see, what constitutes "uninvolved" is largely in the eyes of the AN/I and seems to differ from admin to admin. Perhaps if admins actually monitored for editwarring rather than civility....well, we wouldn't be here and lots and lots and lots of typing would not be needed. But as we can see, that's just too difficult... ] (]) 06:38, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
	::In my time as an IT manager, I've found that I much prefer technicians who were deeply knowledgable but rude and uncivil over those who were nice as Mother Teresa but clueless. But that's just me. ]<sup>]</sup> 08:30, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
	:::The difference is that computers don't complain about who's servicing them... -- ] (]) 08:48, 4 February 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 .
	== ] ==
			This editor displays no interest in conducting themselves cordially or cooperatively on this website. ] 23:20, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
	Please would you semi protect. I suspect puppetmaster ] is back.] (]) 18:13, 2 February 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 ] ==
	:I can't see any recent vandalism worth protecting the page against. For future reference, such requests usually belong on ]. ] (]) 18:54, 2 February 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)
	Just a reference if missed, it looks like he made and removed . <span style="font-variant:small-caps"><font color="#800080">] § ]/]</font></span> 19:26, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
			:]? ] (]) 06:25, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
	:Kingofmann self-identifies in that edit. We need to relink the old ArbCom here showing that he was voluntarily leaving the project, for future reference. I do not cherish rerunning the whole thing from scratch.] (]) 05:43, 4 February 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)
			== ] ==
	:Here it is (cf ] dismissed). It was dismissed because, in part, he was leaving the project. If he's back, then it may need to be reopened.] (]) 05:46, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
			{{atop|result=Just officially closing this discussion as the account involved has been globally blocked. If an editor has Spore on your Watchlist and you see this occurring again, contact your local administrator. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 06:25, 24 December 2024 (UTC)}}
			This user made 500 edits to their user page which were all completely useless (] to inflate their edit count) and then once receiving extended-confirmed permissions vandalized ] by copypasting another article. Their user page shows them editing and counting to 500. ]] 04:52, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
			:It's a ], and I just reported to AIV. ] (]) 04:58, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
	== ] Civility issues, 2nd incident ==
			::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-->
	In addition to the ], now, apparently a public noticeboard has degenerated from content discussion into a railing against my persona itself, as can be seen .
			:::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)
	I'm not sure how content issues have merited that my entire persona become the focal point of a public discussion of "crankery." Sadly, I'm also not sure why these attacks are not engaging some form of intervention. ] seems to offer me some protection against this mess .... "''some types of comments are never acceptable: Using someone's affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views — regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream or not.''"
			*This account has been globally blocked as an LTA so it shouldn't be an issue. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 05:25, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:At what point is it appropriate to selectively delete their hundreds of edits of nonsense from the page history?
			*:Or is that just something that isn't done? &ndash; ] (]) (]) 05:28, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
			*::If you are talking ], there is rarely a good reason for it's use at present. If instead you mean ] see ] and ]. ] (]) 05:33, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:::I've gone ahead and revdel'd the lot of them, as cut-and-pasting from other articles without proper attribution is copyvio and thus RD1able. Selective deletion (making the edits go away from the history) is probably not going to happen, if it's even technically possible for an article with almost *9500* revisions (I know ]!). - ] <sub>]</sub> 08:55, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
			{{abot}}
			== Disruptive editor on ] ==
	Not quite as serious, but another recent problem that troubles me is that Zenwhat has taken to misquoting me, in an apparent attempt to cast me as a gullible idiot. he states how I've assessed myself to be overly biased and deluded. I've never made such an assertion.
			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)
	These attacks have persisted despite my admonishments to Zenwhat. Please look into the matter. Any consideration would be very greatly appreciated. ] (]) 19:28, 2 February 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.
	===Observation by ]===
			: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)
	Having had a, pretty minor, run-in with ] over the past couple of days (he was restoring comments to user talk pages that the user had deleted), I'm unsure that this is an AN/I case. Far more a ] issue. Having said that, there is an issue to resolve. The user is not infrequently abrupt, and seems to believe that ] means that he can unilaterally change policies and guidelines quoting ]. ] (]) 20:06, 2 February 2008 (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...}} ===
	: Thanks, Mayalld. There seems to be disagreement over which forum is appropriate. My previous issue was bounced back from the WQA, though not entirely due to "inappropriate forum." I'm not really sure where to turn on this. Dedicating based on his characterization of my persona, instead of focusing on the verifiability of content seems to thoroughly cross the line, but in any case, please advise which way I should turn. I kinda need for his disparaging behavior to stop. I'm thinking only an Admin can make that happen, at this point. ] (]) 20:14, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
			On October 22 2024, {{lu|Pillowdelight}} changed the genre list that has stood in place for years and has been a variation of the same variety of genres: Art pop, art rock, jazz, alternative rock, jazz rock, chamber pop and jazz pop. Across the biggest music sites, this is what the album is described as. The user changed it to Alt pop using a single irrelevant and unreliable source. The album is not described as such anywhere else. The user is going against the general consensus. Sources have now been added to the genre list and I don't feel as though that would mean I'm breaking any rules. The user is threatening to get another editor banned because they're uncooperative with how us other editors feel the genre list should look like. It's an album that has been categorized as rock by Pitchfork at the time of its release and was added to rock charts when released too.
	::I was the editor who handled the WQA complaint. It was bounced back because, as noted, there are several existing unresolved threads already open on two other forums, AN/I and FTN. When a complaint has already escalated to AN/I and to this level of discussion, there isn't much a friendly note from a WQA clerk without administrative abilities is going to do. It's already being addressed elsewhere, and since it appears to be an ongoing dispute, it's best addressed on a noticeboard where it will have the attention of admins or through mediation.
			Here's how the genre list has looked over a long period of time, without much controversy from editors not readers:
			https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=When_the_Pawn...&oldid=1178937091 from 2023
			https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=When_the_Pawn...&oldid=1049316366 from 2021
	::I'd also add that in the specific issue of restoring the deleted comments, I think that Zenwhat was acting in good faith. The discussion in question was about a policy/conduct issue. I believe he felt it needed to be addressed on the user's page and was frustrated that it kept being deleted. I'm reserving an opinion on everything else, because I've done my best to stay out of it. ] (]) 20:43, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
			Thank you. ] (]) 19:32, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
	===Other Comments===
			:Why do people have to argue about what genre music is rather than just listening to it, and hopefully enjoying it? ] (]) 19:58, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
			::The genre list was fine and accurate and uncontroversial until this user decided to remove the entire thing. It's important that the genre list is accurate. People find albums through genres. There's other reasons as well. ] (]) 20:38, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::This is neither here nor there, but I thought albums are generally sorted in alphabetical order by band name or the musician's last name.
			:::Please, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, or my information is incomplete. ] (]) 22:28, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::I was trying to explain the important of listing genres accurately. If you go to a record store then yes, albums are listed in alphabetical order. But they're still put in categories of genres. ] (]) 22:43, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::If we were going to list musical genres "accurately," we wouldn't bother at all. Except in very broad strokes ("rock," "punk," "Baroque," etc), so many of these horribly subjective "genres" are made up by bored media writers and bands that hate the notion of being The Same As Everyone Else. Get ten people to listen to ten different tracks of heavy metal, and you won't get as many as a third of them agreeing on any of them on the doom/grudge/dark/death/Goth/Viking/sludge/*-grind/*-core/etc etc etc spectrum. Beyond that, arguing whether any given artist is "that genre" is ''very'' highly subjective. (Hell, I've sung Baroque, classical, folk, rock, ethnic, shape note, so many genres I can't readily count.) ] 15:12, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			== Multiple users breaking 3RR on Gilman School article ==
	IN Zenwhat's defence, this particular complainant is rapidly approaching ] in my opinion. ] (]) 20:16, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
	: Ah ... now that you've said it. Show how it's true. ] (]) 20:20, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
	*While I am inclined to think that Zenwhat's characterisation of your comment is tenuous, at best, I would recommend that this not be dealt with on the administrators' noticeboard, where nuanced solutions (which is what I believe is required in this case) are generally not arrived at (in part due to the heavy volume of posts to this board). --] 20:32, 2 February 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
	: Thank you. I wasn't aware that any other appeal could actually enforce any solutions .. ? well, except Arbitration which seems premature. But, anyways, I just need him to attack content, more so than me, personally. Whichever venue can make that happen is cool with me. ] (]) 20:38, 2 February 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.
	:: No problem. Re enforcement: individual admins can "enforce" things, though if they are contested, a review should generally happen here. My hope, however, is that we can arrive at a solution without the need for enforcement, but I guess we'll see. :) --] 20:42, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
			] (])
	:::Since this does appear to be something ongoing between these two users, how about ]?] (]) 20:45, 2 February 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)
			== Vandal encounter ==
	::::Disagree. I'm no fan of Zenwhat for what I see as baiting other editors at ] as seen ] and ]. There was also an AfD Zenwhat opened just to make a point which seems a bit abusive and some threads on Jimmy Wales talk that also seemed to be veiled soapboxing. Having stated this I have seen perfectly civil and constructive dialog take place elsewhere. ]] 20:58, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
	:::::It seems that no interpretation is required to characterise Zenwhat actions at talk:ARS as baiting. He is overt about it when, in ], he asks other editors to comment on two articles and that AfD in order to - as he says a bit later on - demonstrate that the group's actions are disruptive. My impression is that Zenwhat is a learned person who's very deeply convinced of his own rightness and whose interactions with others here are characterized by that. Notice how he opens his dialogue with ARS in ] by titling it with a vicious insult and following up with more. --]<font color="black">]</font><font color="green">]</font> 22:38, 2 February 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.
	===Editor Rebuttal===
			diffs: </nowiki>] </nowiki>] </nowiki>] </nowiki>]
	This complaint ''is'' tendentious. His complaint is about ] on ], created for the benefit of other users making edits to ], who have also been having problems with this user. After being notified by ] of some pretty bad sources being used on ], I came across this user making some pretty absurd assertions and tendentious edits. I checked his contribs, found a number of blatantly absurd edits indicative of trolling through a ], which I then reported on ] . On the advice of some the users who responded, I posted an ] to investigate the possibility that this is the sockpuppeteer, ].
			I would have put this at AIV, but I have no clue how to edit source. ] (]) 23:43, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
	BigK HeX then used this posting as justification to start ''another'' thread on ] about "incivility" in a thread that admins themselves can ''already'' read a few pages up. His ] was then issued for him on his behalf, by ], who copied and pasted BigK's remarks to ] with the dubious summary "add Zenwhat - copy from WP:ANI - no opion on complaint."
			:{{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)
	===== WQA / User talk Issue =====
			::Ah, I see. Thank you! This has been noted for the future. Thank you, again! ] (]) 23:48, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
	{| <!-- Template:COI top --> class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;"
			:::You're welcome, Happy editing, Thanks, –]<sup>]</sup> 23:51, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
	|-
	! style="background-color: #ffd8a0;" | Extended Discussion involving Addhoc, DanielEng, Until 1==2, et al
	|-
	| style="text-align:center;" | ''The following is a discussion that has been placed in a collapse box for improved usability.'''</span>''
	|-
	| style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
			== User:Glenn103 ==
			{{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?
	Administrators don't take the extra step of copying and pasting ] violations they think are unfounded or are indifferent to. Danieleng asked him about this and Addhoc removed his comments from the talkpage and didn't copy his original comments to Danieleng's page, thus wiping the information from any future archives. Danieleng would then comment on Addhoc's talkpage, Addhoc would immediately remove it (they reverted a couple times over it), but they continued to discuss the matter on Danieleng's talkpage, where the rest of the conversation remained. I then attempted to restore Daniel's comments, because it seemed inappropriate to remove them, but was reverted. I then posted a thread on Addhoc's talkpage asking him to stop removing comments and Addhoc again reverted it. Within the policy of ], he is fully free to do this of course, but Daniel and I both agree that it was belligerent and immature -- reasonable for a non-SysOp, not for a SysOp, however, who is accountable to the community. I recommended Daniel issue an RFC, but he doesn't think it's that big of a deal. I'm willing to just let it go also, but it's relevant here, so I thought I'd mention it anyway. Until 1=2 has continued to debate the matter with me on my talkpage, now referring to me as a "vandal" for restoring Daniel's comments with ''one'' revert. Based on that, I'm not going to debate the matter any further here or with Until 1=2.
			:I mean you might have a point, but wow. &ndash; ] (]) (]) 04:57, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			Similar behavior to {{checkuser|PickleMan500}} and other socks puppeted by {{checkuser|Abrown1019}}, which also made tons of drafts on Cyrillic characters that cited few sources (and none with in-depth coverage). Most drafts have been ]'d, of course, so only those with admin perms can verify the deleted contribs. <small>Since these socks have been banned (]), I haven't notified them of this discussion.</small> ] (] '''·''' ]) 17:08, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			== North Korean involvement in Russian-Ukraine war discussion ==
	|-
	| style="text-align:center;" | ''The above is an extended discussion that has been collapsed for improved usability.'''</span>''
	|}
			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.
	===== Zenwhat/BigK =====
	OK, so anyway, after this, I post the sub-section about BigK Hex on ] to demonstrate his past pattern of behavior, to help other editors. It seemed to be helpful to ] who responded, "Thanks for this as I now see why editors were so concerned."
			'''Key Points:'''
	Then (a day after BigK's last posting on ]), BigK posts a ''second'' thread on ] about incivility over the ''same'' issue.
			# '''Prolonged Discussions and RfC Closure:'''
	Is there going to be a third after this one, BigK? You're wasting others' time here and only seem to be digging yourself a larger hole.
			#* 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:'''
	That's all. I have no further comments on the matter. <font size="4">]</font>&nbsp;<font face="impact">&nbsp;]</font>&nbsp;(]) 22:36, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
			I respectfully request that administrators address the following issues:
			# Enforce the consensus reached in the closed RfC, as no new evidence significantly alters the previous conclusions.
	:* "''BigK posts a ''second'' thread on ] about incivility over the ''same'' issue''"
			# Discourage editors from rehashing resolved discussions, particularly when arguments have been repeatedly addressed and dismissed.
	: Funny guy. Obviously, the admins can quite plainly see that the two ANIs are referring to two incidents of questionable civility. In fact, this 2nd posting was made because the behavior was decidedly more aggressive, IMO.
			# Consider imposing a topic ban or other appropriate measures on editors who persist in disrupting the article with repetitive or bad-faith arguments.
	:* "''Is there going to be a third after this one, BigK?''"
	: Errr ... only you know the answer to that.
	: All of this inflammed commentary, and not a single apology. ] makes an intersting point, above. It is quite obvious that Zenwhat sees no fault in what are obvious personal attacks and is unlikely to disengage. This is why the matter has been presented. ] (]) 23:20, 2 February 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.
	: Regarding Zenwhat's second paragraph, interested editors and admins may wish to see my (somewhat lengthy) remarks on Zenwhat's talk page: ] . --] 00:40, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
			Thank you for your attention to this matter.
			UPDATE: I just noticed that North Korea was removed as a belligerent and added to the 'supported by' section, completely violating the consensus.
			] (]) 08:48, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			:Since this report isn't really about an incident and your request is directed towards admins, I think this complaint would be better placed at ] rather than ANI. It will also need more specifics, which articles, which edits, which editors. You'll need to provide that. I also question whether or not these are content standards that the community can't handle on their own. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 09:50, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			::I was going to post it at ] but it said: "'''This noticeboard is for issues affecting administrators generally – announcements, notifications, information, and other matters of''' ''general administrator interest.''
			::If your post is about a '''specific problem you have''' (a '''dispute''', user, help request, or other narrow issue needing an administrator), you should post it at the ''']''' (ANI) instead. Thank you."
			::I posted it on ANI beecause my specific problem was this dispute ] (]) 12:07, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::The original post in this thread appears to resemble LLM output. GPTzero confirms this impression, rating text as "99% probability AI generated". Using AI to generate ANI submissions is highly inappropriate. ] (]) 18:01, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::Even when a message appears to be AI-generated, I think it is worth considering whether or not it is pointing out an actual problem. I think editors might be ignoring the results of an RFC, I just don't think asking for administrators to monitor a subject area, without identifying specific articles, is a feasible solution. It does seem like, possibly, a point that could come up in a complaint at AE regarding the Ukraine CTOP area. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 19:55, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::I had a peek and it's a messy RfC and, as is generally the case with a messy RfC had a very involved closure message which seems to reflect that the closer felt constrained by the framing of the RfC. I didn't see any immediate indication in the edit history that anyone had tried to implement the RfC result and been rebuffed (although I might have missed it). So there's some smoke here but, I think, not a ton of fire. ] (]) 20:21, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::Liz, I don't disagree but I'm not at all convinced that use of AI is a positive contribution to CTOP areas. ] (]) 20:27, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::It was written with AI assistance. Not all AI. ai detectors aren’t considered reliable, because you can put the U.S. constitution through one and it says 100% AI generated. Regardless, whether it’s AI or not has nothing to do with the topic. It’s just that there’a been so many discussions and when I checked the info box it said ‘supported by”, violating the consensus of the RFC ] (]) 12:45, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::I think the underlying issue here is that if you use AI to generate text which looks like obvious AI output then readers will wonder "does the end user even have sufficient English to understand what the AI has generated for them?" and "did the end user understand the material prior to deciding to employ AI?". Thus if a user is fluent in English, as you obviously are, it will always be better to communicate in your own voice.
			:::::::At the end of the day, a user making a valid point in their own voice is generally speaking going to be taken more seriously than a user employing LLM output.
			:::::::There are plenty of other reasons for users not to employ AI (see the recent thread here for extensive coverage) but the argument above seems like a good practical reason for fluent English speakers to always prefer using their own voice.
			:::::::You will see from the recent thread that many users here are vehemently against AI use. ] (]) 15:46, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::::I understood the material very well, its not like I just used 100% AI out of nowhere. I know the context. I have been involved in this discussion since September. ] (]) 16:43, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::::It's a respect thing. It's disrespectful of other editors to make them read chatbot output rather than ''your'' words. ] (]) 16:49, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::::::Rc2barrington's user page says {{tq|This user believes in the bright future AI and robotics will bring}}, so there's probably no point in arguing here. However, I simply observe that in any kind of discussion where you're trying to convince other people, don't use a method that aggravates a significant number of readers (probably a significant ''majority'' of readers). It really is that simple. ] (]) 19:11, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			== Concern About a New Contributor ==
	'''Some clarification''': The remarks about ] are a side-issue and yes, as Iamunknown just noted, based on my own misunderstanding of certain diffs. I think Addoc's actions were still inappropriate, but only mildly so, not worth arguing, even suggesting RFC, or taking note of, since all comments were restored in full on Daniel's talkpage. Sorry about that. Please ignore it. <font size="4">]</font>&nbsp;<font face="impact">&nbsp;]</font>&nbsp;(]) 00:56, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
			{{atop|Suspected editor was indeed a sock. Unnecessary drama created by all-too zealous reporting--let this be the end of it. ] (]) 21:19, 24 December 2024 (UTC)}}
			{{userlinks|Kriji Sehamati}}
			Dear Wikipedians,
	On a side-note, thank god I didn't finish that policy proposal "requiring admins to not remove comments from their talkpages!" ]
			I hope you’re doing well. I wanted to inform you about a new contributor @], despite lacking experience, has repeatedly attempted to vandalize multiple articles. These articles were properly aligned with Misplaced Pages’s guidelines and reviewed by experienced contributors, but he/she seemed unwilling to understand or respect their adherence to the policies.
	I frequently have difficulty reading these horrible things called "diffs." Please, forgive me for my blatantly horrible reading comprehension and tendency to speed-read to the point of humiliating inaccuracy. Sorry for wasting your time.
			I believe your experience could help address this situation effectively.
	Still: This apology extends to the matter of Addhoc. The diffs regarding BigK HeX stand and seem pretty solid. <font size="4">]</font>&nbsp;<font face="impact">&nbsp;]</font>&nbsp;(]) 01:03, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
	:Hi Zenwhat, thanks for your apology. ] (]) 11:22, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
			Looking forward to your advice on how to proceed.
	== Irish ISP user ==
			Thankyou! ]] 15:21, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
	*This is in regard to delete ] and ] from an anonymous account that from the WHOIS file are all ]-based. Siobhán's effort to being deleted occurred last March 30, but was reinstated on April 4. Aoife was deleted, but I had brought it back in an effort to work on ], ], and ]. From both article's histories, I have seen where these edits look like they have been vandalized from these IP addresses. Also, this same user (or users) is attempting to delete Siobhán's article again and tried to put Aoife's article on the February 1, 2008 AfD before succeeding. Please have a look at this because most of these articles are ]-based and there may be other signs of abuse as well. Thank you.
			:"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.
	The accounts in question are shown below:
			: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.
	*{{ipvandal|84.203.1.58}}
			:By the way is forum shopping. Stop that. ] (]) 16:06, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
	*{{ipvandal|213.190.141.211}}
			:(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)
	*{{ipvandal|194.125.97.208}}
			::I am concerned that ]’s actions, including unjustified deletion nominations and spamming, are disruptive and violate Misplaced Pages’s guidelines.
	*{{ipvandal|213.202.149.105}}
			::She seems to lack understanding of basic Misplaced Pages guidelines, particularly those related ] and ]. ]] 16:40, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
	*{{ipvandal|213.190.141.210}}
			:::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).
	*{{ipvandal|213.202.132.52}}
			:::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)
	*{{ipvandal|194.125.98.62}}
			::::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:
	*{{ipvandal|194.125.52.12}}
			:::: •
	*{{ipvandal|212.2.170.84}}
			:::: •
	*{{ipvandal|194.125.76.92}}
			:::: •
	*{{ipvandal|194.125.21.131}}
			:::: •
	*{{ipvandal|213.202.183.229}}
			::::and many more
	*{{ipvandal|213.202.174.145}}
			::::Thankyou! ]] 17:33, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
	*{{ipvandal|213.202.138.250}}
			:::::We wouldn't generally treat an AfD as vandalism. ] (]) 17:39, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::I understand your point about AfDs not generally being treated as vandalism. However, I noticed that the major contribution history of the user seems suspicious. ]] 17:42, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::Not from where anybody else is standing so far. I get that you're upset to have four articles of yours nominated for deletion, and if you have any evidence ''at all'' that you are being deliberately targeted by the other editor, then people will very much act on that. Please provide it. ] (]) 17:58, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::::I am here to contribute and edit articles in accordance with Misplaced Pages’s guidelines. However, today a new user targeted me and falsely blamed me for actions that are not accurate. I believe this is unfair and not in line with the collaborative nature of the platform. ]] 18:04, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::::Please provide evidence of this. ] (]) 18:06, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::::::Please check! ]] 18:07, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::::::The articles that have been nominated for deletion discussion have been reviewed by experienced contributors. These discussions involve articles about judges and lawyers, under ], a valid criterion according to Misplaced Pages’s guidelines. Therefore, the deletion decision was made after carefully reviewing these articles. ]] 18:11, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::::::Honestly it looks like this user, rightly or wrongly, believes you have a conflict of interest and are acting on the basis of that assumption. I would suggest, if you don't have a CoI, talking to them about this and maybe asking why they've come to this conclusion. ] (]) 18:10, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::::::They have just started targeting my contributions, and I tried to inform her about the situation. However, she is acting as if she knows everything about Misplaced Pages and is dismissing my concerns. ]] 18:15, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			{{od}}
			:{{ping|Kriji Sehamati}} hasn't edited since their AfD spree earlier today, let's wait and see what their response here is when they return to editing. ]&nbsp;] 18:16, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			*We need to stop focusing on the OP's calling this vandalism; it is not. I've changed the header to reflect that. That said, the new user's edits ''are'' problematic and merit scrutiny. As for the UPE stuff, I've removed that post from the OP's Talk page; it's nonsensical coming from a new user and does not merit a response.--] (]) 18:42, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			*It is, of course, not vandalism to nominate articles for AFD discussions as long as a legitimate deletion rationale is provided and the article hasn't just been discussed at a recent AFD. However, I don't think it's a good sign when a brand new editor claims to understand all of Misplaced Pages policies and whose first actions are to nominate articles at AFDs. They are almost never an actual new editor, especially when they know how to even set up an AFD or are familiar with using Twinkle on their first day of editing. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 19:34, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:It seems that she is not new to Misplaced Pages and might be operating multiple accounts. It appears she has an issue with one of my contributions, as she created her account just 15 days ago, yet she already has a good understanding of tools like Twinkle and AfD procedures. This level of familiarity suggests prior experience on the platform. I am now requesting her account to be blocked as I am completely disturbed by her repeated allegations and disruptive behavior. ]] 11:32, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			*::I am now genuinely confused—if all my contributions are not good, then why am I even here? Were the experienced editors who reviewed and approved these pages also mistaken? A newcomer, who joined just recently, is now disrupting and questioning the validity of all the work that has been carefully reviewed and maintained by experienced contributors. This situation is deeply discouraging. ]] 11:58, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:::Please resolve this situation—either block her for her disruptive behavior. How can i continue working under such constant targeting and stress ? ]] 12:00, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			*::::User:S-Aura, you seem to be making unsupported personal attacks against ]. You should provide specific evidence of wrongdoing, including diffs, or your arguments here will fall on deaf ears (and bring consequences for you). Meanwhile, as a filer on ANI, you have brought all your own edits to close scrutiny by the community. You may have to face that smart people disagree, and this is how we sort disagreements out on English Misplaced Pages. You are not required to edit, but we encourage you to do so. Nobody is going to block Kriji Sehamati at this point, because you've given us no reason to do so. ] (]) 12:01, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:::::Meanwhile, in the last few minutes S-Aura has disruptively about this exact issue on this same board, which by another editor. This is intentional disruption. ] (]) 12:07, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			*::::::As to the question "Why am I here?", poets and artists have been trying to answer this question for eons. Epistemology is outside the scope of this board, but there are articles about it. Show up to edit if you want to, but expect disagreement from time to time. (That's actually a sound answer to any epistemology question as well.) ] (]) 12:16, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:::::Dear @],
			*:::::It means I have been proven wrong, and that user’s contributions have been more focused on me, which is quite insufficient to catch someone’s lie that she is pretending to be new, when in fact she is old.
			*:::::Also, I am not against AfD; I am simply expressing my opinion. ]] 13:12, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			*::::::Could you please rephrase your point here? I don't understand. While it's okay to be suspicious that this editor is somehow socking or doing something else deceptive due to the familiarity, it seems unacceptable to deliberately accuse them of such repeatedly without firmer evidence. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>]</span> 13:19, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:::::::Dear @],
			*:::::::I am not engaged in paid activities on Misplaced Pages, and she claimed that I am connected with the subject, who is a judge, lawyer, etc. You all should understand that this is not a trivial matter; justice is a very respected position. Making such allegations can escalate court cases. I would like to remind you of the Misplaced Pages vs. ANI case. ]] 13:24, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			*::::::::One thing you need to understand immediately is you should never make another post that sounds vaguely like a legal threat, as you've just done above. ] That intonation is seriously not helping us decide who's right or wrong here. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>]</span> 13:27, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:::::::::Okay! ]] 13:35, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			*::::::::I will caution you that this is tiptoeing right up to the edge of ] and you'd be advised to avoid making legal threats. ] (]) 13:28, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:::::::::Dear @],
			*:::::::::I am merely showing that she can potentially do something inappropriate. I am following the guidelines and not making any legal threats. ]] 13:31, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			*::::::::::Accusing another editor of potentially making legal threats is not much better, when there is no concrete evidence that they would do so. Being interested in articles about judges does not suffice. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>]</span> 13:32, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			*::::::::The page of Justice ], who had conducted over the Misplaced Pages vs. ANI court hearing, was also created by me. ]] 13:28, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:::::::::<del>State plainly what the implication you are making here is, because what I'm hearing is "I'm familiar with people who have hit Misplaced Pages with a mallet in court before, and I can make sure it happens again".</del> <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>]</span> 13:30, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			*::::::::::This is becoming a rabbit hole. I urge you not to pursue the rabbit further. ] (]) 13:33, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:::::::::::Good call, I'll retract the above. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>]</span> 13:34, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			*::::::::::No, that is not what I am implying. ]] 13:33, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:::No one has said your contributions are not good. However, it should be noted that a draft being accepted at AfC or a new page having been ] does not guarantee greater scrutiny would not result in a valid AfD nomination. That said, echoing others here it's clear something problematic is up with this user's behavior. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>]</span> 12:02, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			*::You can't both criticize someone for {{tq|lack understanding of basic Misplaced Pages guidelines, particularly those related ] and ]}}, and then argue that she is too familiar with the platform to be a newcomer for knowing how to file an AfD. I wouldn't be surprised if most people here knew how to file an AfD before knowing all 14 notability guidelines by heart. ] (] · ]) 12:59, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:::There are detailed instructions on filing an AfD that can be found by googling "how can I get a Misplaced Pages page deleted" - if somebody had some personal reason for wanting to have pages removed it doesn't strain credibility to think that's why they created a WP account and that they just followed the very clear instructions on the appropriate pages.
			*:::In fact that might explain why some of the AfD filings were reasonable and some were, on their face, incorrectly filed. If you looked up the AfD ''process'' but not ''criteria'' that is the likely outcome. That's why I find the "new user files AfDs must be a sock" idea here somewhat uncompelling. ] (]) 13:04, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			*I believe we're entering boomerang territory at this point. Opinions? ] (]) 13:35, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:I think OP is upset that a cluster of their articles were put up at AfD. This in itself is understandable, but while there's reason to think there might be mischief by Kriji Sehamati, we don't have any real evidence of it. We either need the OP to make it clearer what misconduct, if any, has occurred, or they need to ]. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>]</span> 13:37, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			*::The OP has been intentionally disruptive (by creating a new ANI thread which was reverted), and this thread is going nowhere. IMHO, there's nothing ANI can do here. Everything I'm reading about should be resolved at the page talk and user talk level, in my opinion. The AfDs are underway. If dispute resolution is needed, fine. Nobody is harming S-Aura. S-Aura can't come crying to ANI (or four random user talk pages like mine) anytime someone merely disagrees with them. ] (]) 14:08, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:::I'd have said close with trout for all if not for creating the second thread at AN/I. Based on that I'd say the OP should be formally cautioned against such antics in the future. ] (]) 14:10, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			*::I should have added that I largely hold with Remsense in their position. ] (]) 14:15, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:::] is definitely a sock puppet on Misplaced Pages, but we don’t have any evidence because understanding Misplaced Pages’s AfD process so quickly can be a bit challenging. I have no problem with AfD regarding my contributions, and it’s a good thing that experienced contributors are giving their feedback. If you believe that the kriji is 100% correct and her activity is not suspicious, then this discussion should be closed. ]] 14:27, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			*::::You need to stop insisting this is definitely the case if you don't have any evidence for it, period. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>]</span> 14:28, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			*::::S-Aura, how did you make the determination {{tq|User:Kriji Sehamati‬ is definitely a sock puppet on Misplaced Pages}}? Please share your process. That's a personal attack, and requires proof to prevent you from being in violation of ]. I've looked at the AfDs and they seem reasonable to me. When you've provided strong sources the article is being kept. So far the jury is out on the others. Both of you seem to be writing articles about obscure living persons who wouldn't normally (by my cursory reading) have a Misplaced Pages article about them because reliable sourcing is not readily found. When I see that, I must suspect COI or undeclared unpaid editing here, but nobody's admitting to it. ] (]) 15:05, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			*::::S-Aura's continuing to issue personal attacks makes it more difficult for us to just close this (without some form of consequence for the editor making unproven personal attacks after they've been warned repeatedly). ] (]) 15:08, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:::::I have made a level-four user talk page warning for the personal attack. FYI. We've been very nice about this up 'til now, but we need to stop being so kind. Doing foolish things has real world consequences. ] (]) 15:17, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			* Both editors' apparent use of AI is certainly disruptive. If it continues, it should lead to blocks. <span style="padding:2px 5px;border-radius:5px;font-family:Arial black;white-space:nowrap;vertical-align:-1px">] <span style=color:red>F</span> ]</span> 15:10, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:No personal hate intended, but I just found this and thought it would be worth checking. ]] 16:49, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			*::It would be nice if you could explain the significance for those who do not speak Hausa. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>]</span> 16:51, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:::She had made contributions to pages in other languages a few months ago. I am attaching her contributions link. ]] 16:59, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			*::::How does this constitute evidence of sockpuppetry if we aren't to know what exactly happened? There's a reason we don't just automatically block anybody who is blocked on another language wiki, and I looked through the edits some and didn't find anything outrageous that made it past the language barrier. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>]</span> 17:01, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:::::I agree that it’s important to ensure we have solid evidence before making conclusions. I appreciate your perspective on not automatically blocking users based on blocks from other language wikis. ]] 17:17, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			*::::::Please don't reply to me or others using ChatGPT. It is flat-out rude. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>]</span> 17:18, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			* '''Support BOOMERANG''' - I've been uninvoled and have mainly just been watching the back-and-forths, but the personal attacks and ] mindset, such as "questioning the validity of all the work that has been carefully reviewed and maintained by experienced contributors", concerns me. Not sure for how long, but I don't think anything longer than a months is appropriate given the circumstances. ]<sub>]</sub><sup>]</sup> 15:47, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			*This whole thread, but especially the 16:49, 24 December 2024 (UTC) comment, feels like the OP is just throwing literally everything at the wall to see what sticks. But, worse, what is being thrown at the wall lacks any significant body of evidence to support. I note that a personal attack warning has been given for the continued unfounded accusations being presented, which I think is a good move. I don't support a block at this point, although if I was the OP I would withdraw this complaint and/or drop the stick and walk away from this topic as a matter of urgency to avoid continuing to make the situation worse. ] (]) 17:41, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			{{abot}}
			== Darkwarriorblake making aspersions ==
	] (]) 21:12, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
			{{atop|result=The OP says they don't care any more which I'm reading as a withdrawal and the other party says they won't be responding again so I'm closing this discussion. My only comment is that both editors in this dispute should have brought this to the article talk page to talk this disagreement out. I don't know if the differences would be resolved but this is what we advise editors to do when their edits are reverted. Now I just have to get that scene in the movie out of my mind. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 05:54, 24 December 2024 (UTC)}}
			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.
	:For context: this relates to the sub-stub ] and its on-going deletion discussion ], and the article ] and its closed (as keep-cleanup) deletion discussion ].
			The article states that ] demurred being cast in the role upon finding that out. for this claim is a ] on ], which contains the sentence
	:Personally, I'm not seeing an incident. I'm seeing an anon with a bee in his/her bonnet about these articles, who is arguing loudly for deletion from multiple semi-dynamic IPs. But established editors are not agreeing and seem at the moment unlikely to do so. Such are the ways of AfD, the louder and longer the anon calls for deletion, the more established editors will say keep. This isn't to detract from the annoyance the author of the article will be feeling: it's just not all that an unusual circumstance (albeit usually anons ask for a keep). ➔ ''']''' has changed his plea to guilty 22:51, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
			: ''Reportedly, Liddy was on board until he got to the part where Beeks .''
			Reportedly ''by whom'' is not mentioned, let alone is there a direct quotation from Liddy. Plus as can be seen the words "becomes a gorilla's mate" are linked to a very poor quality, hand-held video of the scene in question playing on a television. This alone should be enough to raise serious questions about the use of this "source" in a featured article.
			The content dispute began when I changed it like this () with the comment ''Don't mince words; the interaction between Beeks and the gorilla is rape played for laughs'':
	::Maybe so, but if you click on the contributions to these links, you do see some of these articles linking to Irish related articles, including a few links that are single-purpose accounts (194.125.52.12, 213.202.132.52, 213.202,149.105 (all but one edit), and 194.125.97.208 (all but one edit).). These are things to think about. ] (]) 22:59, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
			{{text diff|Liddy was interested in the offer until he learned that Beeks becomes the romantic partner of a gorilla.|Liddy was interested in the offer until he learned that Beeks is raped by a gorilla.}}
			This was reverted () by {{u|Darkwarriorblake}} with the comment ''not what the source says''.
	:::The same editor is continuing to readjust the ] article even after the call for the second delete was withdrawn. I have asked him to stop hios vendetta, but it seems like they do not want to listen. ] (]) 20:35, 3 February 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.()
	::::I put in request for semi-protection of article to stop an edit war before it gets out of hand on the ] article. ] (]) 15:24, 4 February 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;...}}
	== Anonymous IP has threatened an editor ==
			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''
	*{{ipvandal|83.7.209.185}} has just made threat. Sincerely, --<font face="Times New Roman">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 21:17, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
	: Oh. again. Looks like the little monkey has learned how to use random IPs this time. Marvellous.] (]) 21:35, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
	::Blocked by Jéské Couriano. ] (]) 21:37, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
	:::Reported all IPs to the Grawp CU case to see if they're possibly related to Group I (Senang Hati (impersonator) and his socks), and left a warning on one of the IP's pages that any more death threats will result in an abuse report to the ISP. -'']'' <sup>(<font color="0000FF">] ]</font>)</sup> 21:58, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
	* Thanks, all. That's the D&D vandal/Grawp alright. I've seen that same text either on my talk page before or on that of ]; would have to look in the histories. The IP's are throwaways and Jéské and Alison seem to be on top of this guy. I say that Alison blocked a large range the other day, but the problem child seems to have a deep toolbox. Cheers, ] 07:16, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
	:It's not Grawp, unless he decided to move to where Grawp was in the books, according to Alison. All five IPs are British; the range Alison blocked resolves to Bloomfield, Colorado. -'']'' <sup>(<font color="0000FF">] ]</font>)</sup> 10:14, 3 February 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.''
	== ] ==
			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.
	:<small>(Moved from ]) ]
	It appears that this user is being ], but may not have been informed of that probation and so not may not know that remedies could be appealed to the Administrators' noticeboard. Perhaps an independent admin can take a look? &mdash;] (''']''') 18:46, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
	:Without comment: ] (]) 18:50, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
	::That is interesting, why was Anthon01 removed from that list? &mdash;] (''']''') 19:18, 2 February 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''.
	::: East. ] (]) 19:29, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
			This was reverted - again - by Darkwarriorblake () with the comment '' How are you an admin? "rape played for laughs" is an agenda, this went through FA as is so ] and ] apply. You must go to the talk page, not I. I don't know if you're going through a bad time or something but this isn't how an admin should be acting or communicating with others, up to and including ]''
	::::Oh, I see. That makes sense. <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 19:32, 2 February 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
			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 .
	::::: This is the second action against me in 2 days. Why? ] (]) 19:36, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
			So anyhow regardless of whether the Indiewire source is deemed suitable or not, I'm just wondering what the feeling here is about someone making goofy assertions on the record that another editor has "an agenda" (what agenda could it be?) and may not be emotionally stable, which really doesn't feel like ] at all. &nbsp;— ] <span style="color:#900">•</span> ] 20:03, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
	: Yes, he was properly notified, but more to the point, .... What is 'stonewalling' in this context and are there diffs that demonstrate this supposed behavior? I know what stonewalling is, in a general sense, but I don't know how it substantively differs from 'continuing to disagree'. Disagree with whom? The consensus? Obviously there IS no consensus, any way but even if there were, disagreeing about it is not disruptive in and of itself. I thought you were allowed to express your disagreement with the consensus (if there is one), as long as you don't engage in disruptive editing. Is there a policy or guideline that describes the parameters of 'stonewalling'? I don't want to accidently violate a guideline or policy that I may not have heard of. ] (]) 19:41, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
			:Hrrm, this seems a bit excessive.
			:*I've added a second source for the claim. Really this should've been the first option rather than removing the content.
			:*The first summary was, as stated, "Don't mince words; the interaction between Beeks and the gorilla is rape played for laughs". "Rape played for laughs" is a loaded comment and not something said in the article or the source text, so it's a personal opinion, it's not neutral, it's agenda-driven.
			:*When this was reverted, the editor just removed the content entirely claiming IndieWire was unreliable. There is, as far as I'm aware, nothing wrong with Indiewire. I've since found a second source, the Telegraph, which is reliable per ].
			:*The editor ignored WP: BRD when raised, and as an admin they should adhere to policy.
			:*The editor states that they are an admin on their page. Assuming this is true, the aggressiveness of their edits, hyper focus on the single area, and use of words like "crap listicle" seemed out of line with what I, personally, would expect from an admin on Misplaced Pages, certainly someone who has been so for nearly two decades. Perhaps the edit summary wasn't the place to have that discussion but, as stated, they weren't adhering to WP: BRD to start a discussion, and in the interim the article needed putting back to the status quo.
			:*I find accusations of OWNERSHIP often tend to come when people don't get their way. Which is fine. I have plenty of reversions on the page for people adding unsourced content and there are plenty of changes as well. I find someone removing sourced content and me putting the sourced content back to not ''really'' be something you can fling ownership at.
			:*Within the context of the film, Beeks does become the romantic partner of the gorilla, it seemed more appropriate and encylcopedic text than just saying 'rape', and neither source I've added says that either.
			:*Anyways, my edit history shows I'm a massive contributor and helper and it's nearly Xmas, and I don't feel like engaging with this any further, good luck Hex. ] (]) 20:27, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			::Of course you don't, having ignored the actual matter of your conduct that I'm raising here. Your comments about the content of the article are irrelevant. &nbsp;— ] <span style="color:#900">•</span> ] 20:43, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			*Hex's position is not wholly supported, although in the entire issue, their toolset is irrelevant. There was no incivility on either part, and an all-out edit war seems to have been averted.{{pb}}Fundamentally the change Hex wanted to make was pure OR; rape may have been intimated—or, as Hex themself admits, implied—but its never overtly stated and is a wholly loaded term. This is the interpretation of an editor, not of secondary sources. If there is a pron=blem with Indywire as a source—currently used in —take it to WP:RSN. If it's disputed that it's a high quality source per WP:FA?, then take it to WT:FAC. Accusations of OWNership are as unhelpful—and as much an aspersion—as accusations of agenda-led editing. In fact, for OWNership, Hex should read the relevant policy: here, it is WP:FAOWN, which not only allows for careful stewardship of featured material, but requires significant changes to the consensus version to be discussed on talk; I don't suppose there's any suggestion that introducing rape—particularly "played for laughs"—wouldn't be a significant addition.{{pb}}Really though, this is an overblown content dispute which should have started with ''one revert'' each, and ended on the talk page. --]'']''] 21:10, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:"Never overtly stated... 'played for laughs' be a significant addition" - with John Landis, the director. {{talk quote|One of the executives was deeply appalled by a man being sexually molested by a gorilla. And I said you know, it's a joke and it goes by very quickly. But the first preview was very successful and it all went away. ''''}}
			*:Feel free to amend the article on that basis. I'm certainly not interested in spending any more time on it. &nbsp;— ] <span style="color:#900">•</span> ] 22:48, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			===Followup===
	::Probationary sanctions were imposed by an uninvolved admin (]), who also implied there were some checkuser findings being sorted out. Those sanctions can be appealed here, if that's Anthon01's intent, in which case I'd suggest ''briefly'' making a case and allowing input from other uninvolved admins. You could also ask the admin placing the sanction for specifics if that's your concern. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 19:45, 2 February 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. ]]
	:::: ''' Was that accurate?''' or was he blocked for some other reason? What was that reason? Someone's suspicions? Something that was implied? '''What is the specific reason he was blocked'''? ] (]) 20:04, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
			{{abot}}
			== User Stationmanagerskidrow removing information on ] page ==
	::: Meanwhile the edit warring rages on with nary a warning or block or ban in sight, except me. And guess what. I haven't touch the article at all. By an admin who has express his disdain for alternative <s>medicine</s>. ] (]) 19:47, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
	:::Presenting a case? How long will the case stay open? Will Guy come by and take another swipe at me trying reveal my indentity an accusing me of being a meat puppet and commanding to leave, as he repeatedly does? ] (]) 19:52, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
	::::So far, you're not making a very persuasive case. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 19:54, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
	::::Considering I just caught you using a half dozen accounts to edit war for the past six months across multiple pseudoscience-related articles and had the results via checkuser, the more germane question seems to be if you can evade a block. ]
			] 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)
	:::: Half dozen accounts? Please read the checkuser account carefully. You're making alot of unfair accusations here. You are wrong. Ask FT2 if I have a half dozen accounts. You should do you homework before accusing me. ] (]) 21:50, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
	Again wrong. Will I be given enough for me to comment and other admins to comment? ] (]) 20:10, 2 February 2008 (UTC)		:User is now editing using ] ] (]) 03:34, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
	:What is your comment on the Checkuser report ? Why is it wrong? <span style="font-variant:small-caps"><font color="#800080">] § ]/]</font></span> 20:12, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
	::Here is a relevant link . ] ] 20:14, 2 February 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)
	East. I know you have you work cut out for you. This problem is a big one but you've pointed your adminstrative arrow in the wrong direction. Note as I have left the problem has gotten worse. Just consider that I may be a moderating force instead of an extremist. I have reached consensus with a number of editors including Jim Butler, Art Carlson and Scientizzle and Arthur Rubin. So far I am unimpressed by your efforts in this case. Your block of JacobLad is unimpressive. Used once for 1.5 hours and never never used again. Please delete as you can see I have no need for it. ] (]) 21:17, 2 February 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)
	I will defend this on my talk page. And let me say it here before Guy comes through for his drive-by accusation. I have absolutely `nothing to do with Ilena. ] (]) 21:21, 2 February 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 ==
	: While there was strong suspicion in the beginning that Anthon01 might be , the partner of ], I no longer believe this to be the case and think that no one should raise this accusation against him. -- <i><b><font color="004000">]</font></b></i> / <b><font color="990099" size="1">]</font></b> 06:24, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
	I will comment here once I have completed my defense there. ] (]) 21:22, 2 February 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)
	I have sent my explanation to FT2 and am awaiting his reply. ] (]) 01:32, 3 February 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)
	===Explanation===
	(copy from my talk page)
	You learn mostly by floating around WP. I notice from reading talk pages that some editors have more than one account. So early on in my experience here, I decided to try it as experiment. I used JacobLad on one day and one day only. I wasn't sure what the point was and didn't know there was a problem with doing until after. I still don't know what the rules really are because I see others talk about openly on there talk pages. Anyway I decided it didn't interest me and haven't used it again since that day.
			:Hello @Ratnahastin,
	Bottom line is, with one exception on 1 day, I use one account and one account only, that is Anthon01. FT2 can confim that.
			:To start with I should admit that I am sorry for all the inconvenience that I may have caused as a result of my actions. It was never my intention to take people’s time or skew the conversation in a certain way. I appreciate the core idea to contribute the thoughts to the Wiki and share it borne in mind the overall rules and policies of this program.
			:I understand your fears about the AI utilities you have mentioned on your site. Even when I was using AI for the grammar check or, for instance, to elaborate on some point in the text, I saw to my mismanagement that over the process we probably confused the readers and repeated the same information and thoughts, which I would never wish to happen again. From now on I will ensure that in the future the input which I provide to wikipedia fits the Misplaced Pages standard and is more personal. I will also not write walls of text and will not make assertations that do not have substantiated evidence in sources.
			:As for subjects that concern the Raj and the sources from this period and the discussions we have had it seems that I have gone too far in demanding clarification for the same thing. That being the case, with the understanding that the consensus will be acknowledged, I shall not be inclined to reopen this discussion unless new substantiated evidence is produced. I don’t want to prolong the conversation or bring any more stress.
			:I will strive to learn from my experience to be more productive in my interactions going forward. If there are other limitations or additional rules to which I have to stick to, I will receive them with pleasure.
			:In the same respect, let me specially apologize for the inconvenience and thank all of you for bearing with us. That was why I wanted to remind all of us that we can and should keep collectively improving Misplaced Pages as a resource. <span style="font-family:Georgia,serif; color:#FF4500; font-size:120%; font-weight:bold;">]</span> 13:31, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			::This comment also has a typical LLM feel and contains meaningless statements such as "I understand your fears about the AI utilities you have mentioned on your site" and differs substantially from , although GPTzero said this is human input. - ] (]) 13:38, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::It seems human in that it contains some composition and grammar errors that I don’t think an LLM would produce. <span style="position: relative; top: -0.5em;">꧁</span>]<span style="position: relative; top: -0.5em;">꧂</span> 13:56, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::Thanks for the reply sir, I can't explain how frustrated I'm feeling from this morning which this user made me experience <span style="font-family:Georgia,serif; color:#FF4500; font-size:120%; font-weight:bold;">]</span> 14:02, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::The time when I messaged Vikram banafar I was casual not formal and second of all your saying doesn't prove anything "and differs substantially from your usual (non-AI) writing style" that's a straight up false accusation and utter nonsensical point and 3rd point being that GPTzero stated that this is a human input then that's an human input end of the question. <span style="font-family:Georgia,serif; color:#FF4500; font-size:120%; font-weight:bold;">]</span> 14:01, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::No it's really not the end of the story if GPTZero says "likely human". In fact I'd actively discourage people depending on tools like GPTZero in favour of their human senses ] than yet another computer program. And, frankly, what you're hearing from people here is we'd rather your casual, human, flaws-and-all style of writing over ChatGPT output "formal" report templates. They are doing the opposite of what you're looking for and have become disruptive. ] (]) 14:05, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::Man you still wanna do this? @] also says this doesn't seems AI generated to him and he used his actual "Human senses" to lean that way <span style="font-family:Georgia,serif; color:#FF4500; font-size:120%; font-weight:bold;">]</span> 14:10, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::Admitting that you have used AI for writing your comments and then saying that you have not used AI is not going to help your case. - ] (]) 14:36, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::You know what I think this is getting to the ] point. Having to tell somebody to have the basic respect of other editors to not subject them to text-walls of chatGPT garbage over and over again is a disruptive distraction from what we should all be doing. ] (]) 14:38, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::::This ain't getting anywhere <span style="font-family:Georgia,serif; color:#FF4500; font-size:120%; font-weight:bold;">]</span> 14:59, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::I really don't understand the problem. Cuz I literally also said many where that yes I used AI but for expanding and grammar correction <span style="font-family:Georgia,serif; color:#FF4500; font-size:120%; font-weight:bold;">]</span> 14:54, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::If this combative approach is your "casual" style, perhaps your use of AI and its over the top politeness was an attempt to mask it. In any case, I think you are ] but for caste glorification given your obsession with a certain sub-caste. - ] (]) 14:33, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::im not obsessed with a certain subcaste but am sure is obsessed with British Raj sources. <span style="font-family:Georgia,serif; color:#FF4500; font-size:120%; font-weight:bold;">]</span> 14:56, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::I don't think that's better. ] (]) 15:44, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			::If we just temporarily put aside the AI-generated comments, can Nlkyair012 accept the view of experienced editors on Raj era sources and not push any viewpoint on a particulary caste? Because, to be honest, editors who have done this in the past usually end up indefinitely blocked. There is a low tolderance here for "caste warriors". <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 19:27, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			== Potential vandal trying to start edit war on the page for Frisch's. ==
	I have a computer at home, a computer at the office, a computer at the library. My computer at the office is static. My home computer is mostly static (cable service). There is a time limit on how long you can stay inactive before you are automatically logged out by WP servers. More in a momment. ] (]) 21:25, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
			{{atop|1=Page protected, and now this admin is flashing back to his youth going to Frisch's Big Boy in ]. - ] <sub>]</sub> 22:37, 24 December 2024 (UTC)}}
			This user keeps using IP addresses in order to revert creditable information about who makes their tartar sauce. Please look into this user. IP Addresses used were 67.80.16.30, 66.117.211.82, and 216.24.107.180. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 15:17, 24 December 2024 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
			:Courtesy link ]. ] (]) 17:02, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
	'''FT2:''' I think I can prove to you that I didn't willfully evade a ban, but I will have to do it at least partially by email because it involves discussing IP addresses. Are you willing to do that? ] (]) 22:09, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
			:<del>This sounds a '''lot''' like the same edit warrer I dealt with on ], down to the false accusations of vandalism, removal of sourced information, and apparent use of proxies (all the IPs geolocate to different places). I wouldn't be surprised if this is the same person.</del> I've asked RFPP to intervene. ] &#124; ] 21:05, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			::NVM, checked MaxMind for geolocation and they all are in the same general area. ] &#124; ] 21:08, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			{{abot}}
			== ] inaccurate edit summaries ==
	So I use different computers for convenience. FT2 can confirm that when I login using all those different IPs, I alway use the same account. I think in the last 2 months I have posted a message using an IP only twice, both times erroneously as I didn't notice that I had been logged out by the WP server. I'm sure all of you can relate to that. I was blocked only once, back at the beginning of December I think. FT2 can confirm that the IPs he has found were not used during that time. ] (]) 21:55, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
	I am awaiting a response from FT2. ] (]) 22:31, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
			All but 2 of user's edit summaries are "Fixed Typo" when they are in fact partially updating statistical information on the page. Have left multiple messages/warnings on TP, with no response. ] (]) 16:03, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
	I have no idea whether the libraries computer are static or not. I have only posted from there rarely. Why do I post from there? I have access to full-text journals. SO I can read the whole article before commenting. Could you imagine how much better WP could be if we all had acces to full text instead of depending on an Abstract? Anyway, thats the reasons for all the different IPs. Now East718 has accused me of having half a dozen different accounts. Wrong. Please read checkuser over. FT2 can confirm that. More to come ... ] (]) 22:55, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
			== Lil Dicky Semi-Protection ==
	(End of copy from my talk page) ] (]) 15:38, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
			{{atop|1=] is thataway →. - ] <sub>]</sub> 22:34, 24 December 2024 (UTC)}}
			] was semi-protected back in 2019. Now that five years have passed, could the semi-protection be lifted? ] (]) 16:25, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			:Ask at ] ] ] 16:28, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
	: Commenting purely on the sock concerns (and not on any other article editing matters): Quick summary - The information available supports AGF on the sock concerns, with lessons hopefully learned about the perils of not logging in, that no harm was done with the Jacoblad account, and no malice seems to have been intended. The editing both logged in and logged out, and under multiple IPs (home, work etc) was problematic and might have led to further sock concerns, but hopefully Anthon will avoid that in future. I have taken steps in private to address that. (]). ]&nbsp;<sup><span style="font-style:italic">(]&nbsp;|&nbsp;])</span></sup> 12:36, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
			{{abot}}
			== Request for Review of Neutrality and Repeated Actions ==
	: While Anthon01 may appeal to some few collaborative situations with some editors (a couple of whom share his POV on many alternative medicine matters), he is pretty much constantly in conflict with editors who are scientific skeptics and supporters of mainstream POV. Those conflicts cannot be ignored or undone by a few favorable situations when editors of his own persuasion support him. -- <i><b><font color="004000">]</font></b></i> / <b><font color="990099" size="1">]</font></b> 06:24, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
			{{Atop|This complaint has no merit and does not require administrative intervention.--] (]) 18:08, 24 December 2024 (UTC)}}
			Dear admin,
	:Greetings Fyslee: I will be commenting a little later today. ] (]) 14:57, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
			I hope this message finds you well. I am writing to express my concern regarding Psycholoppos, who has repeatedly applied the neutrality dispute tag to content related to Randa Kassis. Despite previous clarifications, these actions suggest a potential bias, which could undermine the objectivity and integrity of the platform.
			I kindly request that you review this matter and take appropriate steps to ensure that all users adhere to neutrality standards. If possible, I would also appreciate guidance on how to address such situations constructively in the future.
	I still want to know what 'stonewalling' is, precisely, and see the diffs in which ] engaged in this behavior. ] (]) 16:32, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
			Thank you for your attention to this issue. Please feel free to reach out if further clarification is needed.
	: Otherwise how can I defend myself properly. ] (]) 17:17, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
			Hazar ] (]) 17:45, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			:@], whether the NPOV tag is needed or not should first be discussed on the article's talk page. Also, see the large notice at the top of this page: you are required to notify the editor you are reporting. ]&nbsp;] 17:53, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
	=== Background info regarding improper use of a sock by Anthon01 ===
			::The editor is also called Psychloppos, not Psycholoppos. I have notified them for the OP. &ndash; ] (]) (]) 17:59, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			:I wouldn't give a chatbot-written thread the time of day. HS, ]. —] ] <sup><small>] ]</small></sup> 18:05, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			{{Abot}}
			== Disruptive behavior from IP ==
	In contrast to Anthon01's statement above, I find the actions of Anthon01 while using his sock puppet, JacobLad, quite "impressive" and a significant violation of policy here. Talk about a ''']!''' I noticed the edits by ] at the time because they occurred at a very opportune time for Anthon01. Why? Because at that exact time period (minutes) we were engaged in a very heated discussion (with Anthon01 being backed up by ], both of whom are very strong advocates of ], a competing profession) about edits that made quite false implications about my own profession of ].
			For the past month, {{ip|24.206.65.142}} has been attempting to add misleading information to ], specifically trying to use the unofficial "777-200LRF" designation beyond first mention in the relevant section and passing it off as official (, , , , , , , , , , ). Their behavior died down for a few weeks, but restarted several days ago (, ), including that {{u|Fnlayson}} is "okay with it". They have been asked numerous times on ] to either stop or provide evidence of official use of the designation, but they have failed to do so and have continued their disruption. - ] <sub>]</sub><span style="color:#6B8E23">\</span><sup>]</sup> 19:51, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			I forgot to mention that this user has used at least two other IPs; {{ip|24.206.75.140}} and {{ip|24.206.65.150}}. 24.206.65.142 is the most recent to cause disruption. - ] <sub>]</sub><span style="color:#6B8E23">\</span><sup>]</sup> 20:10, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
	is the last edit in the section where the discussion can be found, so the whole section can be read on that page. I tried to improve the false phrase by a rewording and the introduction of very good sources. They continually reverted it. You will notice that the List still fails to contain a single mention of chiropractic in any manner, even though numerous attempts have been made, even with good sources, to include its pseudoscientific aspects (], ], ]). This situation is caused mainly by the efforts of Levine2112, who claims to be a "chiropractic advocate" and has admitted he is here "to protect chiropractic's reputation." The edit history of the List shows this charge to be true. This type of deletionism of well sourced inclusions needs to be stopped. It is disruptive protectionism and violates NPOV policy. When Anthon01 arrived, they became a tag team to protect chiropractic.
			:"777-200LRF" is not misleading, some cargo airlines do use that designation. Today I reverted to a previous version that ] was okay with . I feel that ] is going overboard with charges of misinformation and disruptive editing. ] (]) 19:59, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
	By editing the article in the manner which he did, Anthon01 was effectively taking revenge by attempting to smear my profession. He was trying to do it at the ], and then he used a sock puppet to do it at the PT article itself. He also edited it using his Anthon01 username, in cooperation with Levine2112.
			::It is misleading to remove any mentions of it being unofficial. Boeing has never made a "777-200LRF", no aftermarket conversion has ever been offered under that name, nor has the FAA or any other regulatory agency ever certified such an aircraft. To pass such a designation off as official is by definition misleading and misinformation. Likewise, to continuously do so after you have been told to stop by multiple people and falsely claiming that others support your arguments is by definition disruptive. - ] <sub>]</sub><span style="color:#6B8E23">\</span><sup>]</sup> 20:06, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			::Of note is the fact that this is not the first time the IP has claimed to have Fnlayson's support. ] not to assume support without a specific statement, yet it seems they've also ignored that. - ] <sub>]</sub><span style="color:#6B8E23">\</span><sup>]</sup> 20:23, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
	'''It is important to note that I respect NPOV, even when it goes against me and even when it means the addition of nonsense, as long as it is encyclopedic and properly sourced.''' That is why I didn't revert his additions or edit war with him and Levine2112, since the additions were properly sourced and to some degree true. Whether they are a notable POV is another matter, since the same can be said of '''some''' aspects in '''most''' mainstream medical professions, and '''most''' aspects of '''all''' alternative medicine. It is an especially ironic situation, considering it is an example of the ] logical fallacy being used by two believers in alternative medicine and pseudoscience. They delete obviously good sources that criticize their favorite profession, and then attack a mainstream profession in revenge.
			:::Its not misinformation as here are the sources which use "777-200LRF", including GE Capital Aviation (the engine supplier for most Boeing 777) and Leeham News (to avoid confusion with the upcoming 777-8F). ] (]) 21:06, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::I have asked you for sources from either Boeing or the FAA, yet you still either refuse to do so or (more likely) cannot because they don't exist. Only Boeing and the FAA can designate factory-built Boeing aircraft. Airlines and misinformed news websites have no authority to do so, and any alternative names they use are purely unofficial and should not have anything more than a single brief mention in the appropriate article section. Your ] to get that after numerous people have told you is disruptive. - ] <sub>]</sub><span style="color:#6B8E23">\</span><sup>]</sup> 22:14, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
	All of mainstream medicine has issues of this type because we are working with inherited techniques that seem to work, but are sometimes uncertain. Fortunately they are dumped if proven to be ineffective. That last part isn't mentioned by them in their edits there.... Within alternative medicine, and to a large degree chiropractic, this is not the case. ] is itself a notable example of a ] being practiced by a rather large number of chiropractors. It is also an article which Anthon01 tried to dominate when he arrived here.
			:Relevant range is {{rangevandal|24.206.64.0/20}}, in case somebody needs it. ] &#124; ] 21:02, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			*Semiprotected ] for two days. - ] <sub>]</sub> 22:33, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
	What should be done about this misuse of a sock puppet to edit disruptively (even when using good sources) is up to admins to decide. It was definitely not a collaborative situation. Just because it happened some time ago, doesn't mean it should go unpunished. -- <i><b><font color="004000">]</font></b></i> / <b><font color="990099" size="1">]</font></b> 06:24, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
	:Greetings Fyslee: I will be commenting a little later today. ] (]) 14:57, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
	This definitely puts the use of the sock, together with copious volumes of other disruptive activites on the part of Anthon01, in a new light. Thanks Fyslee.--] (]) 15:05, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
	: Disruptive? Prove it! ] (]) 15:08, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
	::Two comments: (1) are you not under some administrative restriction now? (2) your posts here speak for themselves. I rest my case.--] (]) 15:10, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
	::: Well consider me ignorant. I am under no admin restriction. Please clarify. Please consider WP is very new to me, and certainly this process of adminstrative review is. ] (]) 15:17, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
	::: Filll: Re: ''copious volumes of other disruptive activites.'' Prove it. This is hyperbole on your part. ] (]) 15:49, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
	::::The current situation is a bit too dangerous for me to engage in this sort of provocative and confrontational activity. I leave it to the admins who have already dealt with you and I suspect might deal with you further in the future if an attitude and behavior shift is not imminent. I hope so.--] (]) 16:07, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
	::::: Would you consider striking out some of your inflammatory comments? ] (]) 16:23, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
	::::::I respectfully decline to do so, until such time as I am informed by some authority that was a mistake or has been rescinded, and Fyslee informs me that he was mistaken. Thanks.--] (]) 16:30, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
	Fyslee: This is mostly a rant. Theres is absolutely no need to respond to most of what you have written here as it belongs on a talk page. If you would like we can take it to your or my page, or a talk page if you find that more appropriate. If there is a specific violation policy that you think I should be penalized for then state it and I will respond. ] (]) 15:06, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
	Fyslee: Please provide diffs. ] (]) 15:25, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
	===Is it worth having this user around?===
	Can anyone point to one positive contribution this user has made? If not, should we consider, perhaps, a community ban? ] (]) 19:31, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
	:: Does this editor actually do any ''editing''? While communication is an important part of the wikipedia process, it has to be balanced with contributions to our primary purpose - that of creating an ecyclopedia. I am not seeing much evidence of this balance. I think before a community ban, the editor should be encouraged to spend some time doing some editing... --] (]) 19:39, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
	:::Anthon01 has done sufficient editing for the encouragement to be unnecessary. SA's point stands. ]<sup>]</sup> 20:30, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
	::::Seems a fair point, sadly. The sheer tendentiousness by which he has handled his "defence" here does not suggest future promise, either. ] 11:37, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
	==Question about admin action==
	{{archive top}}
	''Merged here from ].''
	I was banned for 1 week from editing the homeopathy article and talk pages by East718 for stonewalling. Besides that, user East718 did not specify why he imposed it on me. Is it possible for me to get greater clarity as to why I was banned? Perhaps some concrete examples so I can consider if there is any reason for me to appeal and what I should appeal. Thank you. ] (]) 20:40, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
	: My impression is that you are ] pushing a point of view, using whatever measures you can to try to get your way and frustrate the editors who oppose you. Look at your own contribution history. Virtually every edit you make related to ] fits into that pattern. I think East718 can provide specific diffs to support their actions. ] <sup>]</sup> 20:43, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
	::Thanks for your comment. I await East718's input or any other admins' input. ] (]) 20:56, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
	:I think a diff might be helpful to explain what Anthon01 is doing wrong. &mdash;] (''']''') 21:06, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
	::Notify East718 that a discussion is occurring. That would be the first thing to do. ] <sup>]</sup> 21:07, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
	:::I think he deserves at least a diff and evidence presented to know why he was blocked for a week. ] (]) 21:12, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
	:::Do I understand correctly tht Anthony01 was blocked for continuing to disagree on the talk page aka stonewalling? To me, this blocking for this "offense" sounds exaggerated. ] (]) 21:18, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
	:::: Anthon01 was temporarily topic banned from ], per ]. If they would like an explanation of that action, they should ask East718. No block has occurred to my knowledge. I do not understand why Anthon01 address his question here, rather than at ]. ] <sup>]</sup> 21:22, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
	::::: I am new to wikipedia and don't understand the process. I thought that since this is the admin board, I could get an answer here? ] (]) 21:26, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
	::::::::this is the noticeboard to notify admins (and indirectly the entire WP community) about admin related iussues. if you have a personal discussion with a user going on, address it to their talk page like User:Jehochman recommended instead of airing your dirty laundry out for everyone else to see.
	:::::::::I will take responsibility for suggesting that Anthon01 ask on ] (not ]) because that is where appeals of admin actions are supposed to occur pursuant to the homeopathy article-probation, as I understood it. I should perhaps have suggested that Anthon01 go to East718's talk page first. &mdash;] (''']''') 21:35, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
	::::::::::i have always beleived that it is better to try and explain your side of the story to the admin first instead of humiliating both yourself and the admin on an easily accesed discussion board like this. such a drastic step should be a second move in case appeal negotaitions stall since alot of these issuses can be resolved informally through a chat between the adminsitrator and the blocked user. ] (]) 21:38, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
	I still would like to know what 'stonewalling' is, and where it is referenced in Misplaced Pages policy. I've heard of ], and actually, it seems to be pretty common in th homeopathy/pseudoscience disputes, on both sides. Is that what Anthon01 is accused of? Is this related to the article parole? In other words, did this take place after the article was put on parole? If so, where are the diffs that show his actions? Personally I think there are perhaps as many as 6-8 editors on both sides of this ] who have engaged in tendentious editing, over a long period. To single out one editor, without actually saying specifically what he did to deserve being singled out, seems arbitrary. ] (]) 21:35, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
	:You can look up stonewalling in any good dictionary. Just because it isn't referenced in Misplaced Pages policy doesn't mean that it cannot be a rationale for blocking. ] (]) 21:42, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
	Here is a diff: . It happens to be the last diff this user made to the ] page. Now, taken out-of-context like this, some people may say, "hey, this isn't so bad". But after seeing only this kind of argumentation (that is, stonewalling) and continually arguing for removal of some rather obvious categories while insisting that "there is no consensus" looks not only like obstructionism, it looks like Wikilawyering, disruptive editing, and tendentious editing. ] (]) 21:42, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
	: Of course you don't need to explain the dictionary definition of stonewalling. I've observed plenty of stonewalling on WP from both sides in the many ] that you are involved in. What I want to know is how it is different from 'continuing to disagree' and if 'continuing to disagree' is against Misplaced Pages policy. What actions did ] take that ] believes violated policy in some way, and what is that policy? How is the stonewalling that ] has engaged in different from the stonewalling that you have engaged in? Has ] communicated this information to you? ] (]) 21:57, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
	:to the best of my knowledge, stonewalling i defined as deliberately refusing to understand other editors' positions in order to make a ]. it is pretty much exactly the almost the same the as the ] violation, but some users prefer the term stonewalling because the user creates a stonewall of text to obstruct any progress for personal or imperatious reasons. . Anthon08 was probably accused of this because he refused to cooperate with another editor. i was not present tot this altercation so i don not know why User:Anthon was singled out for this, but i am certain that there was a good reason or the block will be overturned. ] (]) 21:45, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
	::This situation is disturbing. Anthon01 '''did the right thing''' taking the specific concern over whether or not a particular position paper can be used as a ] to include the ''PseudoScience'' cat on the homeopathy page. Taking this to RS is I repeat, the '''correct procedure'''. The long discussion there was '''no consensus''' over the particular issue as anyone willing to review it can plainly see. The mass counter-attack over '''content issues''' is absolutely unwarranted. This is clearly a disputed content issue. Admin action should '''not be taken''' to resolve this issue. That is contrary to our '''don't smother conflict'''. If any admin action is taken it must be imposed equally on all warring parties. I'm not an involved editor in homeopathy, but I am a strong advocate of the freedom to reach consensus. Anthon01, does not appear to have done anything against policy in this case. If he has that must be made crystal-clear with diffs. This situation is highly antagonistic and simple approaches will only serve to inflame it more.] (]) 00:46, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
	:::You'll have to ask East718 to be sure, but I interpret "stonewalling" as "tendentious editing"--in particular, Anthon01 has been willfully obstructing the formation of consensus, rather than working towards it. It's not over one particular action, but rather a pattern of being uncooperative. ] (]) 03:44, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
	:::: Another accusation but no diffs. You have said that ''Anthon01 has been willfully obstructing the formation of consensus.'' Have you any diffs to support statement? I'm trying to understand what it is I have done wrong or different then anyone else on homeopathy? Has anyone really taken the time to look thoroughly at my recent edits on homeopathy? ] (]) 03:49, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
	*Is "tendentious editing" equal ]??? ] (]) 03:54, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
	:Consensus doesn't exist, because consensus doesn't exist. I'm not going to ignore the attempts to process the critics into silence. Tendentious editing is not interpretable as "we can't reach consensus so let's report the other side for being obstructive". That is not the goal of our project. We reach consensus. Once we have consensus, then we act upon that consensus. There are articles for which we cannot reach consensus, and in those cases we do not act. That is why we have ]. Editors seeking dispute resolution should not then be processed into silence. We are not a project run by forcing silence on critics, we are in-fact, one of the most open projects being run. If you cannot find common ground, then I would suggest reviewing again the full DR process and taking the appropriate step along it. ] (]) 04:00, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
	::Perhaps you're unfamiliar with the history of ] and related articles, which have been a source of intense conflict lately. DR has been pursued, and a request for arbitration (still visible at ]) was rejected, and article probation has been imposed as a trial solution. Anthon01 has been banned from the Homeopathy article (and its talk page) for a week as a result of that probation. That's the path that DR is following here. ] (]) 04:05, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
	:::And we're discussing the '''basis''' of that ban. I feel that ban is not appropriate because '''no evidence''' has been presented here that warrants it. Any person wishing to, can present the evidence that warrants it. If no one can present the evidence, then there is no evidence and the ban was not appropriate. That's what we're discussing. I'm open to being shown what is the evidence. ] (]) 04:08, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
	This thread is too critical of the admins. Someone should clamp an archive template around it to stop it and edit-war with anybody trying to remove it. Is anybody willing to do this? <font size="4">]</font>&nbsp;<font face="impact">&nbsp;]</font>&nbsp;(]) 04:32, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
	: Many of my views on Psuedoscience are summarized here. ] (]) 04:37, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
	If no diffs are provided to support this ban of Anthon01, will it be lifted and how? &mdash;] (''']''') 05:43, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
	:That would be premature. If anybody has notified East718, please post a diff. Otherwise, the conversation has not even begun yet. Complaining to a noticeboard without notifying the relevant parties is rude and disruptive. ] <sup>]</sup> 14:02, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
	::On the subject of preparing diffs, see also . ] (]) 14:22, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
	I have collapsed the above discussion, because it was disruptive. If you wish to complain about an administrative action, please notify the administrator so they can respond. Whoever continues that disruption may be subject to a remedy specified in ]. ] <sup>]</sup> 14:28, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
	:I've undone your collapsing. East718 that a complaint had been tendered on AN, and he can follow your merge here to AN/I. Note that I'm quite uninvolved in this homoeopathy business. ] (]) 14:33, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
	::The diff you have posted is a request for information, not an appeal. A request for information should be directed to East718's talk page. If the explanation is not satisfactory, then Anthon01 can post an appeal to the noticeboard. Bringing the discussion here is premature at this time. Less than 24 hours have passed since the notice to East718. ] <sup>]</sup> 14:47, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
	{{archive bottom}}
	== Can somebody review this and, if possible, delete it? ==
	] and myself have been engaged in an editorial dispute over the inclusion of some meaningless statistics at ]. I filed an RfC, which has gone mostly unnoticed. User insisted on a response from me to his suggestions at his ], which I then did.
	We weren't able to come to an agreement, but, for reasons I don't understand, user has created ] of my editorial practices within his userspace. I asked him to remove it on his talk page and he responded saying that, since it was his userspace, I couldn't tell him what to do. I think it's somewhat unfair to me for him to advertise what a terrible editor I am, as it's uncivil and (I suppose) constitutes a personal attack. I would ask somebody to review the material on that page, determine if it violates it policy and, if so, delete it. Thank you. ] (]) 23:01, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
	:*It would seem he's since the request I made on his talk page. ] (]) 23:09, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
	::Yeah, it strikes me that this needs to go &ndash; constitutes a personal attack, seeing as it's all about the negative points of one editor. Would be nice if he requested speedy deletion of it, but that doesn't seem like it's going to happen. <span style="color:#00398d;font-family:Verdana, Arial, sans-serif;font-size:90%;">&mdash; ] <small>(])</small></span> 23:11, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
	:::Actually after reading really thoroughly through ], it doesn't seem to be a personal attack. It's just plain not nice <span style="color:#00398d;font-family:Verdana, Arial, sans-serif;font-size:90%;">&mdash; ] <small>(])</small></span> 23:14, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
	I think the more appropriate venue for this is a RFC and not a page on his userspace. ] (]) 23:16, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
	:It almost looks like that's what the userpage is being used for, prepping an RFC. ] <small>]</small> 00:11, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
	::*But he also says "It may take weeks, months, or years to put this page together," so I don't know how long he wants to wait before filing that RfC, but in the meantime I don't think it's appropriate to for him use it as a platform to accumulate accusations and negative remarks about my editing style. If he's going to file an RfC, he should file it so I'm not waiting on hold with this thing. ] (]) 00:15, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
	:::*Looks to me like it's prep for an Arbcom, which I'd highly recommend. As it says on the page itself, ''Unless someone is poring over my contributions (as they might be in my RfA), there is no reason that anyone would have to even see this page.'' Also, BQZ's remarks are more about Cloud's poor behaviour than "editing style". - ] (]) 01:01, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
	::::*The previous comment was brought to you by the same user that brought us ]] (]) 01:10, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
	:::::*What's with the "" after "pore", above? It's being used -- or are you suggesting that ] thinks someone will be dumping liquid all over his contributions? --] | ] 16:48, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
	::::::*I haven't used this term in some time, but I did use it in this page. This seems to be a tit-for-tat response to a perceived wrong. is used to show a quote is taken directly as stated and spelling errors (or malice for that matter) were kept as originally written. <span style="background-color: maroon; color: white">]</span>&nbsp;<sup>]</sup> 19:57, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
	*This looks like content dispute not ArbCom or RFC... ] (]) 01:18, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
	Respectfully, I wish someone had told me about this sooner. I would have been happy to explain. I suppose this is preparation for an RfC, WP:ANI, or something else. Personally, I hope it won't be necessary, but this is merely preparation for such an administrative request.
	That said, this page is linked absolutely NO WHERE that CC didn't first bring it up. Moreover, I have '''''never''''' linked it myself, though I have certainly responded accordingly. I had no intention of ''ever'' linking it to anything ('''hence the term "draft"'''). It is not complete and I may phrase about a bazillion things differently or delete whole sections altogether. How CC believes this is "advertising" is beyond me.
	As for "he removed the request I made on his talk page." I certainly did.
	#It was taken away to ''prevent'' any "advertising". this is a draft, not a final version of what I want to say. (see above and the disclaimer on the page)
	#]
	In order to make this process more transparent, I invite anyone to read my edit history. {{user5|BQZip01}}
	<span style="background-color: maroon; color: white">]</span>&nbsp;<sup>]</sup> 19:57, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
	:Just to get this right, are your surprised that people looked at your contribution history when you nominated yourself for adminship 20 days after your last attempt failed? --] (]) 20:14, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
	::No. <span style="background-color: maroon; color: white">]</span>&nbsp;<sup>]</sup> 20:22, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
	:*So if you have no intention of filing an RfC, or going to ANI or ''anything'', what's the point? What is this a draft of? The fact that it isn't linked anywhere isn't really relevant, since you're still compiling what amounts to an attack page. You've said a couple of times that nobody should have found, so I have to wonder if you were trying to bait me into an argument by doing it that way.
	:*If you're not going to do anything with it, I'm going to ask you again to delete the page. ] (]) 20:43, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
	::I never said I wasn't going to file something, only that it isn't imminent (you can change your behavior, I could change my opinion, etc.). The fact that it isn't linked is certainly relevant as you stated I was "advertising" it; in fact, I am not the one even bringing it up: '''you''' are. I am not compiling an attack page, but my analysis of your actions and how I find them contradictory to the goals, policies, and guidelines of Misplaced Pages.
	::I never said no one was supposed to find the page (those are your words, not mine...again) only that I have taken good measures to '''not''' advertise it until completed. I see no problem compiling my thoughts and preparing such an admin request for assistance. If you feel as if you have been baited into responding...that's your feeling and I can't do anything to change it. I'll let your comments and characterizations stand on their own. <span style="background-color: maroon; color: white">]</span>&nbsp;<sup>]</sup> 21:07, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
	:::*So you're going to track my edits for the foreseeable future and use that page to judge whether or not they're acceptable to you? Sorry, but that's not OK with me. ] (]) 21:22, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
	:::*You've left ] up for the past 6 months, long, ''long'' after the ] failed. I do not want a protacted dispute about the contents on that page. Do something with it or delete it. ] (]) 21:48, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
	::::#I never said I was going to track your changes for the forseeable future. If you will notice, all of these on this page are in the past (prior to my RfA). PLEASE stop putting words in my mouth. I ''never'' said this at all.
	::::#Misplaced Pages already tracks your edits and anyone can see them at any time. Anyone can look at them if they wish.
	::::#I cannot "judge" whether or not they are acceptable, only express my opinion. Judgement is the job of an ArbCom or admin.
	::::#I'm giving space to allow for something other than an RfC or RfA. You don't seem to even want that assurance and want to take it there ASAP. Would any of your response change if I said, "I plan on filing an RfC on 27 February at 4:30 PM CST. This is my draft for that RfC"? If so, why? I don't know when I will file it. Why should that change your mind?
	::::#Sorry that it isn't ok with you, but your "okay" isn't policy and I don't need your permission/acquiescence. I'm quite frankly tired of trying to reason with you as your edits are misleading/misrepresenting.
	::::#As for "do something or delete it", please read ]<!--This essay describes it better than I can-->. I have no intention of rushing into something. I plan to take my time and think this through.
	::::#Again, '''please stop''' misrepresenting me. That draft was created not 6 months ago, but just over four. I also ceased edits on it a '''LONG''' time ago (about 4 months ago) and am not actively doing anything with that page. I see no problem in deleting it.
	::::#For the last time...it is a DRAFT!!! ''not'' my final thoughts. <span style="background-color: maroon; color: white">]</span>&nbsp;<sup>]</sup> 22:05, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
	::::#As for the "], I hardly think 10 editors agreeing with my side of the issue and 1 that agrees with his side could be considered "failed". <span style="background-color: maroon; color: white">]</span>&nbsp;<sup>]</sup> 22:09, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
	*After reading BQZip's comments it's become obvious that he won't take any action to delete it himself and currently has no plans to use it for an RfC or anything else, so it serves now only as an attack page. I would ask that it be promptly deleted. Thank you. ] (]) 22:21, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
	:*I said, I'm not ruling it out, but I don't have to rush and submit anything immediately. I'm really hoping it will come to not be necessary, but let's just say here and now that I plan to use it for one of the methods of dispute resolution, but my plans could change and I don't know the exact date I will submit it. Does that make any difference to you? Why should it?
	:*Again, you are not some deity or entity that can just proclaim something to be "obvious". You intentionally ignore what I type and want to have some sort of immediate battle. Sorry to disappoint, but I'm not going that way. I have no intention of having a rushed confrontation and can take any reasonable time I want to put this together. <span style="background-color: maroon; color: white">]</span>&nbsp;<sup>]</sup> 22:46, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
	::*I don't believe that you intend to file anything, since this is a (trivial) content dispute that already has an open RfC at ]. Claiming that you may or may not file something in the future is a stall tactic to allow you to keep this material on that page indefinitely. I'm asking you to start the process now or remove it from that page. The bottom line is that it shouldn't be in your userspace anyway, even if it's a draft. Put it in a text file on your desktop if you truly intend to come back to it, otherwise file your RfC or delete the page. ] (]) 01:42, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
	:::*Um...no. I hate to be blunt on this, but you just don't seem to get it: you aren't my boss and cannot order me to do something. I have broken none of the policies or guidelines of Misplaced Pages. I don't need to post something right now or delete it just because you want me to. I'm standing firm on this right now out of principle. This page would have disrupted nothing if you didn't bring it up. <span style="background-color: maroon; color: white">]</span>&nbsp;<sup>]</sup> 05:03, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
	*Hey BQZip? Not to nose in or anything, but couldn't you just stick that same content into a Word file or a Yahoo/Gmail or whatever, take it off your userspace, work on it in its new and non-Wiki incarnation, and let the holler cease? Just a thought (I was reading thru the page, saw this, and thought "hey, you know what would stop this?") ] 22:37, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
	*:I would agree wholeheartedly except the formats used are completely different. I can't work with the links and syntax within Misplaced Pages there. Good idea though and thanks for the feedback. <span style="background-color: maroon; color: white">]</span>&nbsp;<sup>]</sup> 22:46, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
	:::Sure you could. It wouldn't take that long to convert the links and such, and you could speed up most of it by doing a "replace all" search, replacing <nowiki>"]" with "http://www.en.wikipedia.org/xxxxx".</nowiki> I think it might be worth it, considering the discontent the page is causing as is. -] (]) 23:30, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
	::::Do it in Word or whatever. Any final wikilinks- not sure what you mean as you can put a ] round something even if you write in a word processor, it just won't do anything until it's pasted onto wikipedia- but you can tinker with them when you finally file whatever-it-is, and just use the preview button until it's right. It will work against you having this here anyway, as well as seeming like an attack it gives your 'opponent' chance to formulate his responses far in advance.:) ] 23:34, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
	:::::He may work on a rebuttal, but that is his right. I have no problem with him editing and working on his own rebuttal if he wishes. ]. I prefer transparency to obfuscation. <span style="background-color: maroon; color: white">]</span>&nbsp;<sup>]</sup> 05:44, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
	::::::*I don't think I'll be doing that. It would needlessly escalate a conflict that has already been blown way out of proportion. ] (]) 06:04, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
	I think a reminder of two points from the ] is in place:
	*''Work towards agreement.''
	*''Forgive and forget.''
	May I suggest continuing discussions about optimal approaches to a systematic long-term breach of this guideline elsewhere? --] (]) 23:47, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
	*There is nothing wrong with the sub-page BQZip01 has created. It is commonplace to use an out-of-the-way sub-page to gather ones thoughts. ]\<sup>]</sup> 05:01, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
	:*'''THANK YOU!!!''' <span style="background-color: maroon; color: white">]</span>&nbsp;<sup>]</sup> 05:05, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
	:*Thanks, but I'll wait for the opinion of an uninvolved third party. ] (]) 05:23, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
	::I *am* an uninvolved party, I believe. Why would you think I am an "involved party". I have not, to my recollection, had any part in creating the sub-page in question. ]\<sup>]</sup> 05:32, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
	:::*Well, I don't want to make this problem any worse than it is, but I've noticed that any time BQZip01 has an issue with something he's to ask you for administrative advice or intervention first. I'm sure he'll dispute this as another misrepresentative falsehood, but in the interest of resolving this amicably for everyone, would you mind if I waited for a second opinion. ] (]) 05:45, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
	::::I certainly have no objection to you seeking additional opinions. The more the merrier. I hope you and BQ can work this out between you. For the record (in case readers don't want to follow the diff CC posted), BQ did not ask my opinion on this matter at all. I learned of this posting quite by accident. ]\<sup>]</sup> 05:57, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
	:::::*Let me rephrase this to sound less confrontational: I appreciate your response. I disagree, but hopefully we can sort this thing out with more input from others. ] (]) 06:02, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
	I respectfully disagree with Johntex and say there ''is'' something wrong with the subpage. It's ] and unnecessary. If you need to preserve the wiki syntax, I recommend hiding it at another wiki. (May I suggest taking up useless E.D.'s disk space?) —] (]) 05:53, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
	: Agreed. Actually almost grounds for a speedy under G10 IMO. ] 11:41, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
	'''Comment''' Never even knew the page in question even existed until the complaining editor brought it to the noticeboard. My advice to the complaining editor is to ignore it. If the page is true, having it removed will not hide that truth. If the page is false, then the editor has nothing to fear and can fall back on the relative merits of his edits and contributions and say "See, this how I edit!". The page in question may be a singular and isolated affectation... or it might be indicative of how others may also feel. The editor is being given an opportunity to see how another perceives certain editing characteristics, and can now approach a "problem" amd make it an opportunity for growth and accord. This is exactly what Wiki consensus ia all about. If any editor's edits are good, they will survive consensus. If they are bad, consensus will have them removed. ] does exist. (PS If I should not make a comment here, where should I have made it? I have already vowed to not put anything on the complaining editor's talk page.) ] (]) 06:59, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
	:I agree with you to an extent, but I think that would be more applicable if we were talking about an RFC. A user-space page is a different animal, at least in part because it doesn't allow the sort of consensus-building discussion that I think you're contemplating, and that you would see at an RFC. --]] 08:18, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
	'''Comment''' On one hand I think it's permissible to create a user-space evidence page in preparation for dispute resolution - a "draft," if you will. On the other hand, "enemies pages" are not permitted. I'm not sure which this is - but I don't think it matters. Whether this page is permitted or not, Misplaced Pages is ] a battlefield. If this list is racheting up the animosity, then my suggestion would be for BQ to take responsibility for removing it in the spirit of compromise. There may or may not be a "rule" that covers this situation -- but Misplaced Pages is based on consensus, compromise, and working together to build an encyclopedia. This page does not appear to be directed toward those goals, and seems to me a bad idea that's only serving to create ill will. --]] 08:18, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
	:Thinking that people are watching your contributions is annoying but expected - that's why contribs are public. To see it '''in print''' is a whole other thing entirely. This page needs to come down soon. Find whatever justification you want - ], ], ], ], ]. —] (]) 12:49, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
	*I am still not convinced there is anything wrong with this sub-page that BQZip01 has created. As I say above, it is quite normal and accepted to use a user sub-page as a sort of draft working area. BQZip01 has not created any inbound links to the page, so a reader would not find this page by accident. One would have to be looking for it, or following BQZip01's edits.
	:Never-the-less, the comments here indicate that some people do view it with concern. Therefore, I would like to propose a compromise to BQZip01 and Cumulous Cloud: What if BQZip01 keeps the page but removes editorial comments about how he views the edits?
	:This would allow BQZip01 to keep the list here on Misplaced Pages, where formatting is better maintained than off in a Word document somewhere. (I completely disagree with the idea of moving this to some other wiki, such as ED. Cumulous Cloud does not want the information published, so I don't see how deliberately publishing it to another wiki would be a good idea for anyone.)
	:At the same time, it would remove any editorial comments that could be viewed in any way as a personal attack.
	:I think this would be a fair compromise. ]\<sup>]</sup> 14:19, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
	::I haven't heard a good reason to justify its existence. Having it exist in a private shared area - like gmail or wherever - serves the same purpose and doesn't ruffle anyone's feathers. That others have maintained similar pages does not make it any more palatable to me. They should be deleted too. —] (]) 15:00, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
	::What good would that do? You would still have a page listing edits that one user doesn't like about the other, but now it removes any information that would normally be seen in an RfC. So now I would have a permanent page maintained by BQZip01 for all my edits that he disagrees with and that would never be seen in an RfC or anywhere else. Inevitably, we would all have to come back here and review that decision somewhere down the road anyway, so I don't see why we don't just deal with it now. ] (]) 16:35, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
	:::Yes. Sorry Johntex, but that's a ]. Civility is paramount here and not subject to compromise, and keeping pages like this laying around are counterproductive to that end. —] (]) 16:40, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
	== PresterJohn continues misrepresenting source in BLP ==
	In article ] /Religious and militant activities/Afghanistan a source lists allegations against David Hicks.
	] continues to edit to present the allegations as facts/admissions. This problem has been discussed on the talk pages of ] with PresterJohn and on ]/"David Hicks allegations" section.
	'''Misrepresenting edits'''
	The same edits have also been performed by IP
	PresterJohn had been blocked for 1 month starting 09:49, 9 December 2007 (UTC) by Save_Us_229 according to page ]. The first of the misrepresentation of sources began 12 January 2008.
	] (]) 02:17, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
	:: ] <sup> -(])</sup> 08:49, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
	:Discussion continues on this topic. However, given that there are multiple sources for Hicks' training with al-Qaeda, SmithBlue's fundamental dependence on the use by a newspaper of the word "alleged" seems a wee bit precious, and I wonder if this ANI report is aimed at resolving an edit dispute by nobbling those with opposing views. --] (]) 02:39, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
	See my reply to this content dispute at the ] talkpage. ] <sup> -(])</sup> 02:58, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
	:see also: ] <span style="font-variant: small-caps;">] ]</span> 03:32, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
	:No dispute that "Hicks trained with AlQ" from me and I was pleased to see PresterJohn's recent removal of many POV headers and phrases from the article. This issue is more fundamental to editing an encyclopedia. Accuracy of representation of sources is essential to WP. Without it? ... what do we have? ] (]) 03:36, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
	== Blocking user comments ==
	Is there a way or means I can use to stop or prevent or block ] from harassing me by posting pointless comments to my user talk page which I have asked him (or her) not to do? Thanks. ] (]) 02:31, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
	:Isn't this like a month old? It looks like he stopped. Maybe you should too? --] (]) 02:55, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
	::Julie Dancer is only editing about once a month these days, so from her point of view it's something that's just happened now. --] (]) 03:41, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
	:::Yes, thank you Coppertwig. That is the case. What I would like to know is if there is any way, such as with email accounts, that I can block or divert undesired comment from specific users? For instance, I can set up rules in my email client to screen out emails which contain profanity or are from unwanted admirers. Is it possible to do this here with comments posted to user talk pages? ] (]) 15:58, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
	::::Physically and practically, no. However, I shall request the editor not to contact you directly again under threat of sanction - I will also put your pages on my watchlist. ] (]) 22:55, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
	:::::Thank you, LessHeard vanU, very much. ] (]) 04:26, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
	::::Was this even investigated properly? I posted a light-hearted comment on the ref desks which Julie Dancer deleted and jumped straight to my talk page calling me a disruptive troll. User was less than ten days old and personal attacking. User was also supported by ] (only one edit! surprise!). User was then deleting my response on her talk page without due cause. I feel that she might be a sockpuppet or a new user not familiar with jumping straight into calling people trolls. I suggest my comments on her userpage be reverted. Or I can do what she does which is just delete all the comments and then come and cry here? '''<font color="SteelBlue">]</font> | <font color="DimGray">]</font>''' 10:58, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
	:::::Yup. You returned a warning to the same user talkpage, misquoting WP policy to justify it. WP says that warnings, etc. can be removed since it is an indication that they have been read. You were asked to stop. You didn't. You are now acting in bad faith in suggesting they are a sockpuppet. If you were familiar with WP policy you would AGF or WP:DENY; whichever you feel is appropriate. I strongly suggest that you let this matter drop and get back to editing the encyclopedia. ] (]) 14:01, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
	::::Ah I think I understand now. Even though Julie Dancer is a troll / sockpuppet I gave her recognition by replying and then broke policy with three reverts to my own comment which she deleted? That's fair enough, I'll leave the comment however on my talk as I was unfamiliar with this. Jumping straight to a 'Final Warning' however seems a little drastic... '''<font color="SteelBlue">]</font> | <font color="DimGray">]</font>''' 15:22, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
	== HELP ==
	The user styrofoam1994 keeps on deleting my supporting evidence from the sockpuppetry case that he filed against me even though he did it before and it was dismissed. Please help me as soo as you can. Thanks--]] 02:54, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
	:For convenience, here's a link to the page I think is meant: ] --] (]) 03:25, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
	:No big deal. Just fill out a ]. One or both of you ought to get blocked. Maybe they won't block you because you were just restoring evidence that had been deleted -- maybe that could count as reverting vandalism? There were definintely more than 3 reverts, anyway. --] (]) 03:31, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
	:I posted a warning at ], focussing mainly on 3RR, though really I suppose deleting evidence is worse. --] (]) 03:37, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
	::{{user|Styrofoam1994}} seems to have stopped reverting. I think this thread can be considered resolved. --] (]) 12:56, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
	:::The rest of the story is ] ] (]) 14:10, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
	== Can someone review this decision please? ==
	] just has been blocked ''indefinitely'':
	. Of course his incivility is obvious, but I think such harsh decision would require a community discussion or ArbCom ruling. I know him as a good, reasonable and highly productive editor (~28,000 edits) who was always willing to discuss any disagreements with me.] (]) 04:07, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
	:I '''endorse''' this block. The incivility is unacceptable. Note that the block is ''indefinite'' rather than ''infinite''. If he wants to return and edit without making personal attacks, he can be unblocked. ] 04:19, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
	This User has been blocked 12 times. Indefinite doesn't mean infinite, if they'll agree to quit making the incivil edits, they might be unblocked. <font face="Arial">]<sub>'']''</sub></font> 04:20, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
	:I blocked because they obviously didn't get the message from increasing blocks, I highly doubt that they'd reform. ]<nowiki>|</nowiki><sup>]</sup> 04:23, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
	Actually, for practical blocking purposes, indefinite and infinite mean the same thing in the block entry. As for HH, being highly productive does not give one the right to be uncivil. <span style="font-family: verdana;"> — ] • ] • </span> 04:42, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
	::I certainly agree with that. Being highly productive does not give one the right to be uncivil. To tell the truth, ''another'' user just came to my talk page and blamed me of bad faith and "manipulations" . I tried to explain him about ] and delete his uncivil comments, but he reverted me three time ''at my talk page'' to blame me of "lie" without any proof... With regard to Hanzo, I can only hope that he will rethink his behavior and ask for unblock.] (]) 05:07, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
	:I must also endorse this block, this editor has a long history of incivility, edit warring and ]. User has ignored a long list of warnings, recommendations and blocks. ] <small>]</small> 06:20, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
	::Due to the on his talk page, I have protected it. ] <small>]</small> 06:31, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
	===Ban proposed===
	HH's behavior has gone way beyond tolerable. I propose a formal ban. <span style="font-family: verdana;"> — ] • ] • </span> 11:29, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
	:I agree, the community has shown an incredible level of tolerance towards his lack of civility and, which is an almost bigger problem, tendentious editing.--] (]) 15:44, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
	:Having read just a few of HH's comments, I think a ban is in order. 28,000 edits is no excuse to throw civility out the window. <span style="font-family: verdana;"> — ] • ] • </span> 19:00, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
	::I have to endorse as well. Misplaced Pages is not therapy, period. ]''']''' 19:36, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
	::I also endorse this ban. Long-term, ongoing problems with this editor. ] <small>]</small> 20:25, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
	I encountered this editor a while ago and found their poor demeanor egregious. ] <sup>]</sup> 20:29, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
	:It seems he is gone forever. Let's save our time. If he asks to lift his block (which I strongly doubt), then such discussion would be meaningful.] (]) 20:42, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
	::This uncivil message cited by Dreadstar was addressed to ''me'' and in reply to ''my'' message. May I ask you please not to impose a community ban on him, since that is partly my fault? I should not ask him and should not post this review request here at the first place. Besides, that would be an excessive and unnecessary punishment for someone who already has serious problems.] (]) 21:21, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
	:::I bet his "departure" is only temporary. He's had plenty of chances to learn to behave and only gets worse. Wiki is neither therapy nor a counseling center. It all boils down to that the rest of us shouldn't have to put up with this stuff. <span style="font-family: verdana;"> — ] • ] • </span> 22:29, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
	I think we've been very patient with him for a long time. If he can't learn to be ], then there's no place for him on Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 22:10, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
	:At the end of the day, Misplaced Pages is a project to create an encyclopedia through collaboration by its editors. If an editor's actions are disrupting that objective, the wider interests of the project have to take precedence. That applies to repeated incivility just as much as it does to more obvious forms of disruption such as vandalism. -- ] (]) 22:52, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
	::There is nothing to dispute here. Hanzo was able to work productively and collaboratively with me and other users who gave him these barnstars . He worked a lot and edited in a good faith. Unfortunately, he lost his temper ''many times''. I saw the problem growing and tried to mediate his conflicts on several occasions but missed this one. I wish I could help...] (]) 00:56, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
	== ] and ] ==
	{{discussion top| Enough. This has already been decided; appeal decision elsewhere, please. ] 23:21, 3 February 2008 (UTC)}}
	{{resolved|Further questions/concerns should be directed to ArbCom via arbcom-l, per NYB's below comments regarding sensitive information. Talkpage history is located at ]. <sup>]]</sup> 15:34, 3 February 2008 (UTC)}}
	Can we get a consensus together to delete these pages? It's the history of ]'s userspace, he doesn't want them there, he said he was excercising his right to vanish, but it's clear he just wants to remove the userpage history. He's had a death threat because of the history in November and he is more than entitled to get rid of the history per ]. {{admin|Swatjester}} has decided to restore the pages, I've attempted to discuss it with him, but he won't redelete, hence why I'm bringing it here for further review. ] 04:08, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
	::We were still discussing this. ]] ] 04:10, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
	:::No we weren't, you refused to redelete it, even given it's quite clearly a U1 deletion, I also see no attempt to discuss this with the deleting admin. ] 04:11, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
	:::: So while I was attempting to figure all of this out, you filed an AN/I complaint prematurely, without finishing discussing it with me first? As for the deleting admin, did you look at Squeakbox's talk page? The deleting admin is quite confused by Squeakbox's actions, saying "I deleted two pages you tagged for deletion. I am confused that you seem to have recreated your user page. You can ask for your user page (not talk) to be deleted at any time, without moving it. But "right to vanish" only applies if you actually vanish, and recreating your user page seems to contradict that. — Carl (CBM · talk) 18:05, 2 February 2008 (UTC)" ]] ] 04:17, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
	:Per ] he cannot have it speedy deleted under U1 if he has significant conduct issues, which he does. That's the "admin reason to keep" clause in the U1 speedy. WP:USER is very clear about that: He MUST submit it to MfD if he wants it deleted. For the record, SqueakBox's conduct issues were that he had a bad night editing, blanked all his pages and called Misplaced Pages a hate site, and said he didn't want any more part of it. Fine, he has a right to do that. He invoked right to vanish. Fine, he has a right to do that. But as soon as the page was deleted, he came right back, saying that all along he didn't intend to vanish, that he only wanted to have the edit history deleted. So, he intentionally lied to have his user page deleted. That's no bueno, and that's significant conduct issue that I'm contesting the speedy deletion, as ] explicitly allows me to do, and explicitly says I should undo the deletion, and that Squeakbox must put the deletion up on MfD.]] ] 04:14, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
	::Significant conduct issues generally means the user is banned, Squeak is nothing of the sort, and his conduct issues are nothing compared to many users here. U1 overrides ] just about every time - you have not yet stated a reason for your undeletion, and the reason why this is significant enough to override U1. Many users delete their userspace, and given there's been a death threat, I'm a little astounded you won't meet the request. ] 04:21, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
	:::21 block log entries, and an ArbCom parole with 5 violations is not significant user conduct issues? ]] ] 04:23, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
	:There are people making death threats against me. Swatjester is helping them by providing information about me and my family. This has got to stop now. Thanks, ] <small>—Preceding ] was added at 04:17, 3 February 2008 (UTC)</small><!--Template:Undated--> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
	I'm not sure what the above comment is about, nor did I look to see who wrote it. But as for evidence of significant user conduct problems: SqueakBox's block log fills up my entire 15 inch screen. He is only a few months off of a 1 year personal attacks/civility parole which he was blocked 5 times for violating. For that reason alone, he cannot have his page deleted via U1. ]] ] 04:22, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
	BTW I've offered to individually delete the death threats. No response from him yet. And I don't take that accusation kindly. ]] ] 04:22, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
	Why isn't he blocked yet for disruption? ]] ] 04:24, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
	:It's his userspace for god sake, let him delete it, like we would anybody else. WP:USER does not let you undelete a page with no discussion whatsoever, especially when you're going against the deletion criteria.Open your eyes, the death threats came because of his userpage, they didn't happen on wiki. ] 04:26, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
	*Maybe you guys should just tone it down. This kind of tone is not helpful in this situation. I don't see a serious problem in deleting his ''userpage'', since his talk page will be preserved which contains all pertinent material relating to his blocks. --] (]) 04:29, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
	::The problem was that it was an invalid speedy deletion in the first place, and that he's lied now twice to get the page deleted to cover his history. I'm about 15 seconds away from indefinite blocking him for disruptiveness to the project. Haemo there is no problem in him MFD'ing his user page, but he is expressly NOT allowed to speedy it per ] precisely for reasons like this that he is trying to do. ]] ] 04:31, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
	:::I think the issue is that his user page contains(ed) information which could be used to personally identify him. Understandably, since he has received death threats due to his on-wiki actions, he would like this removed. This shouldn't be a contentious request &mdash; perhaps he made a mistake in saying he wanted to "vanish". Fair enough &mdash; I don't think it matters, or has any bearing on what we should do here. --] (]) 04:34, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
	:::Why isn't this U1? Any conduct issues are documented on his talk page, not his userpage. ] is a guidline, ] is policy, we really should be following that. I strongly suggest you don't block him indef. ] 04:38, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
	::::Except he can't have his talk page deleted, and this is about his user page, not his talk page. ]] ] 04:36, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
	:::::Whoops; fixed. That doesn't change the content of what I said. I couldn't care less if this was a U1 or J8 or whatever; the issue is more basic than that, and it shouldn't ] what guidelines we cite. --] (]) 04:37, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
	:If SqueakBox is actually leaving, then why not go ahead and let the pages be deleted? If he comes back, either with this name or with another name, then it can be undeleted. <font face="Arial">]<sub>'']''</sub></font> 04:37, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
	::He's not leaving, he just wants his userpage deleting which meets U1. ] 04:39, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
	:::Then what's the problem? --] (]) 04:41, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
	::::The problem is it doesn't meet U1. He's not leaving, he's deleting his user page history to cover up his misdeeds over the past years. This is specifically one of the exceptions to U1: Significant user conduct issues. 14 blocks, an arbcom parole for a year, recent personal attacks, etc. that's the exception.]] ] 04:45, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
	:::::Question, how does deleting his USERpage (not the talk page) hide his misdeeds? ] (]) 04:48, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
	:::::Yeah; I don't see the issue here. The talk page comments are well-documented. --] (]) 04:50, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
	:::::Your reason would be valid if only the user page was the locus of those misdeeds. The mere existence of sanctions does not preclude an invocation of CSD U1 on pages unrelated to said sanctions. —''']''' 04:51, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
	:::::: The problem is that he has a history of harrassing others. He called Misplaced Pages a "hate website" (in user page edit summary, hence deleting the page hides at least one personal attack/incivility/disruption/whatever-you-want-to-call-it). As has been noted, his block log takes up more than one page. He has engaged in personal attacks, harrassment, bad faith, and so much more, and much of that can be evidenced (could have been) or documented there. And the moment that Swat took a breath to evaluate the situation, Squeak demended he be de-admin-ed. It's a longstanding history of attacking and threatening anyone who '''dares to disagree blindly''' with Squeak. ] (]) 04:52, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
	:::::::We're discussing his user page, you're discussing his behavior. We're not even talking about the same thing. The user page is independent of his behavior. —''']''' 04:54, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
	::::::::No, it is not. His behavior is clearly demonstrated ON his user page. That's why he wants it gone. The two cannot be seperated. He made an attack on the whole of Misplaced Pages on his user page (edit summary). How is that not related to his (chronically disruptive) behavior? ] (]) 04:58, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
	:::::::::One edit summary, which is unrelated to any sanctions, is not a reason to deny his reasonable claim. --] (]) 05:04, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
	:::::::::The fact that the user received death threats due to his user page is sufficient reason for deletion irregardless of whether the user has "significant user conduct issues." Since when did we start valuing transparency over human life? —''']''' 05:08, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
	:::::::::''Allegedly'' recieved threats. There is no evidence to support that, that claim surfaced only after this brouhaha started, and he has explicitly refused to share that info with an admin. ] (]) 05:20, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
	Squeak claimed (apparently inaccurately) that he was ]. He may have misunderstood the right to vanish or he may have other motives for not accurately stating the reason to delete. Either way, he induced an admin to delete his userpage under a pretense that doesn't match reality. If he wants to vanish, then by all means, he should. But if he wants to stay, he shouldn't be able to wipe away part of his edit history considering his historic and ongoing conduct issues. I've tried three times to ask Squeak about this issue, all to no avail. In short, ]ing is fine, but it's not a pretense to get an unsuspecting admin to delete. Transparency is key to this project. It's the user's conduct in giving the deleting admin an inaccurate reason that raises a concern with me. If the deletion is for good cause, then why not say so to start with? It's the inaccuracy that is the locus of both the deletion and conduct issues. --]'']'' 04:56, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
	:If he isn't trying to leave, why is he claiming right to vanish? <font face="Arial">]<sub>'']''</sub></font> 04:57, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
	Does anything happen to the block log if the user page is deleted while the user talk page is kept? ] (]) 04:59, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
	::Agreed with R. Baley. The block log speaks for itself. I see no reason why the user page SHOULD be kept if the person wants it deleted and suggest SwatJester step back, and have a ] and reign his temper in. ] (]) 05:04, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
	The general rule is that userpages (as opposed to talkpages) may be deleted on the user's request. I know of no circumstance that would warrant an exception to this rule for an editor currently in good standing. Talkpages are a more complex matter, and sometimes we decline deletion where the user is not leaving the project permanently and there are significant contributions by other editors on that page. However, these rules should be enforced, however, with a view toward minimizing unnecessary disruption and avoiding creating a dispute about nothing in particular. In this case, we have an editor whose controversial history is reasonably well known, and reflected in his block log, so there can be no legitimate concern that the user is trying evade administrator scrutiny by these deletions (which in fact are causing more attention to be focused on him than ever). In light of the claim that the user is receiving death threats based on information that has been revealed on his userpage or talkpage, and out of a desire to avoid unnecessary disputation or disruption over a matter not of importance, I see no reason not to grant the deletion of all the relevant pages, without reference to any technicalities or norms that would otherwise apply. ] (]) 05:05, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
	:This is what I've been saying; agree completely. --] (]) 05:08, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
	::You said it yourself brad: Editor in good standing. He is not an editor in good standing. ]] ] 05:10, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
	:::I don't see any current ArbCom cases. I don't see any current ArbCom Sanctions against him. So, I don't see your point. As things stand, he's an editor with a checkered past (to be kind), but right now, he's an editor in good standing. Once again, Swat, please take a step back. ] (]) 05:12, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
	There is no reason to engage in edit-warring or wheel-warring to keep userpage content (or user talkpage content, for that matter) intact against the wishes of the relevant user, even in ordinary circumstances. Beyond that, in view of the allegation that death threats have been directed against the user, an emergency situation is presented. Common sense suggests that discussion concerning alleged death threats and similar problems should not take place on-wiki. These pages are not to be restored. Any further concerns about the matter should be presented privately to the Arbitration Committee. ] (]) 05:19, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
	:(ec's) Agree with the deletion of the user page (assuming the block record is preserved) however, the talk page should be deleted and then restored with any offending/problematic edits redacted. Or in the alternative, problematic edits to the talk page can be oversighted. But in general, the bulk of the talk page history should be kept, and the details of what to remove should be conducted privately. It ''should'' be OK to delete the talk page immediately, and work out what to restore in a timely fashion. ] (]) 05:20, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
	::To my comment above, I will add that I can see little reason to fight to keep userspace content which a contributor, rightly or wrongly, believes presents a danger to himself and his family. ] (]) 05:26, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
	::Allegations that he's already misled us about once, coming hot on the heels of having just lied about invoking right to vanish. Right. Emergency situation. Got it. Glad to know that we lend tendentious editors with extensive block histories and known credibility issues every protection, including allowing ArbCom to sweep this under the rug, while we chastise an admin for following EXACTLY WHAT THE TEXT OF ] SAYS. If that's where our priorities lie, I don't want to be a part of this. ]] ] 05:28, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
	:::I don't think the fact that this user has a contentious history and a long block log is going to be forgotten if we delete some userpage content by request. If the request turns out to be ill-founded, that can be dealt with in due course. I do not, in the least, understand the level of importance that is being placed on this entire matter. ] (]) 05:30, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
	:::Indeed we do. If he's a liar the full weight of process can of course be brought to bear. In the meantime please direct further hatemail to Arbcom. Cheers, ] ] 05:32, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
	:And a representative of the arbitration committee will post an on-wiki notification of the result of said discussions, including the veracity of any reasons for deletion? If that is a given, then fine. ] (]) 05:34, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
	:::Swat, I can completely understand your point. From his history, he seems to have been a real pain, and I can certainly sympathize with your point. However, I don't see any point in not allowing him to delete his user page. I think his talk page should stand, or be deleted with the block history replaced. If he's going to change identities, it won't help us to leave his old info up on the old user page, so I'd err on the side of caution. If he's claiming death threats, let him vanish. I'm sure he'll pop up again and we'll deal with that when it happens. ] (]) 05:39, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
	::::A side-effect here is that by requiring a long debate about whether to allow this deletion or not, the amount of administrator and community time devoted to dealing with an allegedly disruptive user is ''substantially increased''. I don't see how that could be considered helpful from any perspective. ] (]) 05:44, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
	:::What is arbcom's role in this matter? To make clear my concern, I only worry that by having the page speedied under a pretense, edits which should be part of his history will disappear from scrutiny. Has an admin taken a look at the history of the deleted page to see if there are actual issues here, or just possible ones? If there are no problem edits in the deleted history, I have no problem with its staying deleted. --]'']'' 05:41, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
	::::There is no formal ArbCom case or anything of that nature. The reason I have referred this to the Arbitration Committee is that if someone has to post along the lines of "the personal information is in this revision and this one and this one, and the death threats are here and here," that type of information cannot and should not be posted on-wiki. The confidential Arbitration Committee mailing list is the customary repository for sensitive information of that nature. Therefore, while my first preference would be to allow the deletion to stand, and not expend any more time on this (see my comment above), in the event people insist on pursuing it further it should be done confidentally as indicated. ] (]) 05:44, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
	::::There's no reason not to delete a user page upon reaquest - doing so does not erase the block log. The talk page should at least be blanked, and any possibly harmful edits oversighted. SwatJester appears to be assuming bad faith which isn't helpful. ]] ] 05:43, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
	:::::Will, it's a ''prima facie'' challenge to good faith to claim ] if vanishing isn't his intention. The admin making the deletion was surprised when Squeak recreated the page. SwatJester isn't making any unwarranted assumption that I can see. --]'']'' 05:53, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
	:::::SSB is right. Perhaps it was simply an accidental mis-wording (as had been noted elsewhere), but that Squeak refuses to answer a simple question about why he deleted the page and there is coniderable background and potential for information to be lost, the motives are paramount to this discussion. That said, I generally support userreq deletions of both userpages and user talkpages, but this is a possible exception. ] (]) 05:57, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
	:::::The user page contains a lot of personally-identifying information. If a user wishes that to be deleted it is a priority. People often post such material, without at the time realising the possible consequences. As Will Beback observes, deletion of contributions does not affect the block log at all. ] (]) 05:55, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
	::::::I'm solely concerned that there may be edits or edit summaries deleted which bear on this user's ongoing conduct issues. If someone could take a look at that, I'd be happy. No one should face off-Wiki risks from on-wiki editing. --]'']'' 06:00, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
	*For the record, I just went to SB's talkpage. He moved it to a user subpage, which was then deleted. This effectively removes his entire talkpage history. Perhaps this is one of the problems SJ had with the deletion? I'm genuinely not certain, but it seems to be a problem to me. ] (]) 05:59, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
	::::::SqueakBox is a user in good standing, and if there's anything identifying in his user page history, the usual practice is to delete it. <font color="Purple">]</font> <small><sup><font color="Blue">]</font><font color="Green">]</font></sup></small> 06:01, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
	:::::::: Reposting of information (on hate websites no less) is a procedure and supported wholly by SqueakBox. In a way, what goes around comes around. How's it feel now, Squeak? The point is, I can see the need to delete personal info (it shouldn't have been posted in the first place, and Squeak, as a 45-y/o man - something he points out at every opportunity while harrassing and impuning others - should know better), but the editing history - including the accusation that Misplaced Pages is a "hate site" - are of great import in describing Squeak's chronic, consistent disruptive behaviors.
	:::::::: ''Note: SqueakBox is '''hardly''' an editor in good standing...!'' ] (]) 06:04, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
	:::::::::You are treading very close to a block for harassment. ]
	:::::::::: You who? Me for pointing out the reasons? How am I harrassing for linking to an admin's edit? How am I harrassing for backing up an admin who is following WikiPolicy? How am I harrassing for contributing to the discussion? Or were you referring to someone else, cause it was ambiguous what or who you're talking about. Or if you were referring to SqueakBox, then I understand (and agree). ] (]) 06:35, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
	:::::::::::It's clear you have a with Squeakbox, so it's hard to take your recommendations at face value &mdash; even though you may feel you are unbiased in your assessment, comments like "How does it feel" and "What goes around, comes around" indicate that you have an axe to grind, and should probably recuse yourself. --] (]) 06:49, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
	:::::::::::: I can see that. FWIW, he has a history with me more than the other way around... But you're probably right. I would refer to my additional comments below to point out that I support the admin in this '''and support total deletion''' if the pages are to be deleted. Generally, I don't see any reason not to delete user talk pages with the user talk pages when requested. I generally remain unbiased, even in areas where I'm invested, but I do see your point that I might have a particular POV in this from having been on the receiving end of Squeak's hostilities and attacks. Maybe that's why my thoughts are needed, but I'll recuse myself (mostly) I guess. I do think it's ironic, though, that he's claiming similar issues to ones he has supported in the past. You have to admit there's irony in that. ] (]) 06:56, 3 February 2008 (UTC) ''''':-)'''''
	===RTV, oversight, and talk history===
	I thought we didn't delete user talk pages, even under Right To Vanish, and only deleted/oversighted identifying information in them. My understanding was that eliminating user talk history, as , made it so that non-admins had no ability to review an editor's public records and history for things like Dispute Resolution. All his old talk page archives are now lost in which are:
	* ]
	* ]
	* ]
	Is this user ''leaving'' and doing a RTV? If not, why not just Oversight the material in talk? I don't see the need to hide his entire talk history from the public. What is the need for that? It gives a user a false new start to people that don't know to look closer. If this ''is'' an actual RTV, where this user will need to disclose his new account if any to the Arbitration Committee given his , do we delete talk pages in those cases? <span style="font-variant:small-caps"><font color="#800080">] § ]/]</font></span> 06:33, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
	: I don't think there's a problem necessarily with deleting user talk pages. This is a special case, which is why it's here. I'd say all or nothing... if it is decided that the deletions are legit, then there's no reason not to delete user talk pages too. The issue is whether or not there is sufficient reason (meaning "evidence") to keep the user page. If so, keep all. If not, there's nothing wrong with deleting the talk pages too. ] (]) 06:38, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
	::Well the user page: who cares? People can delete them or ask for their deletion because of a death threat, an upset stomach, or for the hell of it. I'm just talking about the talk history, since it looks like an absolute mess and I've seen mention before that we don't delete those. If Squeak is gone, full RTV, and that page with his history of interactions is going to go, perhaps editing access for the account should go too. If he decides to come back later, the talk page then gets recreated with history. But the user page itself, who cares? How is this usually done? <span style="font-variant:small-caps"><font color="#800080">] § ]/]</font></span> 06:41, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
	::: Point of Information: SqueakBox is not gone. He said he was vanishing and half a day later started all this and article editing. It has a ] look to it, or perhaps a change of mind, or perhaps an emotionally-distressed decision rescinded with a later clear head (who of us has never had something like that?). I don't have a problem with deleting the pages, user and user talk, per se, but there is some controversy as to whether it removes (and intentionally so?) evidence of some of his past bad acts on Misplaced Pages and to other Wikipedians. That's the only issue here. ] (]) 06:44, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
	:There is no deleted history at any of those three pages. The history of SqueakBox's talk page is still available for non-admins, you just have to know where to look. ]
	::"You just have to know where to look"?!? I'm sorry, but how exactly is that done? I've been around for a while, think I'm fairly conversant with how to find things with limited access, and ''I'' can't figure it out. Why are editors being made to jump through hoops to find the talk page history? Why is finding it being made so difficult? ] (]) 07:15, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
	::The same way a number of other users have been stalked in the past by Misplaced Pages attackers. The broad overview of how it was done is on a few attack sites, but that doesn't mean we need to spread it around. ] (]) 09:00, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
	:::How do we locate those ] above, which contain the edit history of his user talk page? They look like any other redlinks, and their effect is to obscure the talk page history. Delete any personal identification that others have posted, but bring back the history to ] in the interest of transparency. --]'']'' 14:54, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
	I don't see what the big problem is here - his talkpage was deleted in error, restore it and remove any revisions necessary. His userpage is a userpage, has no relation to any conduct issues, bears on the potential for death threats and should obviously be removed/stay removed. I understand some people don't like him, but the comments here are beyond the pale. <sup>]]</sup> 14:09, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
	:I've supported SqueakBox more than once on other issues. I have one concern; I believe it to be legitimate: Are there any edits in the edit history of ] that should be kept for reasons of user conduct or content? I don't see where they've been looked at WRT the issue I've raised. For now, the history was deleted under a pretense and no one has established what was there before deletion and what might need to be kept for purposes of maintaining an accurate user history. Edits to deleted pages not only disappear from those pages, but from the user's contribution history, as well. Avruch, if you look at the history and say "there's nothing there for you to be concerned about," I'm prepared to endorse the deletion. If no admin wants to check, then undelete the page and I'll look for myself. --]'']'' 14:48, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
	::Per NYB's above comment, the pages are not to be restored. Questions should be directed to the Arbitration Committee, via arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org. <sup>]]</sup> 15:33, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
	There is no deleted history in ]. My impression is that SqueakBox moved his user page and accidentally move the talk page at the same time. Then he moved the talk page back, and I deleted the redirect. I apologize for the bad deletion summaries; there was a bug in the deletion reason script at the time.
	At the moment, the talk page history is at ]. My impression is that SqueakBox was simply confused about how to archive the talk history, since most of the deletions are for redirects. See my discussion with SqueakBox on the archived talk page. &mdash;&nbsp;Carl <small>(]&nbsp;·&nbsp;])</small> 15:07, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
	{{tl|discussion bottom}}
	I can't for my life imagine that this issue is actually resolved. Inconvenient? Yes. Resolved? No. As I see it, the three issues here are:
	#Squeak had his userpage deleted under a false pretense, and there's been nothing presented to verify that his second pretense is more valid than his first. To my recollection, there was no personally identifying information requiring deletion on his userpage, and ''no one'' has shown differently or even asserted same.
	#Squeak has had a checkered history involving making impassioned comments, both on pages and in edit summaries. Despite my request, no one can assure me that the history deleted didn't contain problematic edits such as those.
	#Squeak's user talk page history is now obscured in a subpage, which is explained as his being ''confused about how to archive''. He's been archiving his talkpage for years without any confusion. The history should be back at ] in the interest of transparency.
	Now, if someone wants to revert my doing this, then so be it. To my mind, calling this a resolved issue beggars belief, but I'll accept the community's consensus otherwise. We at least have to know that there '''is''' personally identifying information at stake before invoking ArbCom. No one has checked, or if they have, no one has stated that such information was there. There has been no indication that ArbCom has taken up this issue. The talkpage issue is still open, as well. Please, do something other than ] the issue. --]'']'' 16:33, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
	=== Ultimate Issue ===
	: I have been thinking about this over the night. Really, I came to his one conclusion: This is only an issue because he asserted a '''Right to Vanish''' while he had absolutely no intention of actually vanishing. But, if he had simply said {{tl|db-userreq}} with "rationale=no longer wish to have a user page, please delete", this would not be an issue as much as it is. Yes, there would still be the questions of motives, and there'd be the issue of his poor behavior in some edits and edit summaries, but there wouldn't be the issue of trying to "trick" admins into deleting the page.
	: That said, I really don't have a problem with the deletion. I don't think anyone else should either. So SqueakBox wants to delete his user page. If he wants to delete his user talk page, that's fine too. Whether this is to protect against alleged death threats or because he's trying to hide his bahaviors is actually pretty irrelevant. Let him delete his own pages. Just as I feel a user should have virtually unlimited discretion in creating and maintaining userspace pages (something SqueakBox has, of late, gone after in attacks like the great crusades), one should have virtually unlimited discretion in deleting their own userspace content.
	: '''TO BE ABSOLUTELY CLEAR''', SWATjester did exactly what he should have done, followed policy to the letter, and was illegitimately attacked and harrassed for it. Here we (finally) have an admin who goes to great lengths to do the right thing and he is vilified for it. That's the real tragedy here. That is the real bastardization of justice. That an admin can be impuned for doing his job and doing it extremely well is a problem that we all ''should'' be much more concerned about. '''EVERYONE''' here ] and leave him a note saying that he was right, he is valued/appreciated, and requesting that he stay at Misplaced Pages. Those who attacked him through this discussion should also note an apology for vilifying him.
	:* Let the pages stay deleted.
	:* Thank SWATjester for his service and careful oversight.
	:* Live and Let Live.
	: There's still plenty of fodder for an anti-SqueakBox campaign if anyone ever wishes to mount one... he has made it so very easy through his name-calling, attacks, and harrassment. These couple pages are hardly missed in that. ], eh? ] (]) 16:57, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
	::'']'' & '']''. Squeak has pressed for deletion before with the effect of removing troubling elements of his own history. This has the hallmarks of being more of the same. It's that simple. --]'']'' 17:29, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
	:::While I don't want SWATJester to leave (we need all the good editors we can get!), no he was not right on his interpretation of ], and should not take that he was right from this discussion. That point has been made clear by several arbitrators, and the consensus of this discussion. As for an apology, that depends on if he will apologize for being strident, dismissive and repetitive in his comments. And let me also say that I'm not amused about this thread continuing after it was made clear that further discussion of this issue should be made to ArbCom, privately. ] (]) 17:37, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
	::::Even granting that something ''should'' go to ArbCom, that's no requirement that it ''must''. Do you assert that this is a '''resolved''' issue, as the closing editor did? I honestly can't see that anything's been resolved, or that anything is ''required'' to go to ArbCom. If either is true, that's fine, but simple assertions are no way to establish consensus. --]'']'' 17:54, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
	::::: ] (]) 17:57, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
	:::::: "an emergency situation is presented" (from your link)? That's ridiculous. If these threats have been longstanding as Squeak has alleged, what makes it suddenly an emergency situation? Because he has finally decided to delete content? No, that is an extreme reaction. ArbCom is, as many are becoming concerned, for sweeping things Misplaced Pages doesn't want public under the rug. That's what some are trying to do with this discussion. Now, it is a simple matter of reading policy that SWAT was right. If "we" don't like that, perhaps we should rewrite the policy. The pages might as well stay deleted, per my lengthy comments (in support of Squeak) above. SSB is correct about past and future behavior, but even without the user pages and user talk pages (and other article pages he has managed to delete), there's still plenty of SPOV and SqueakAttacks to be documented if ever there is a need. I agree that this should be dropped. But dropped here, not in the ArbCom under-the-rug committee. ] (]) 18:15, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
	<small>And there is NO WAY an involved party should be closing this issue... come on, that's a highly dubious closure, and this clearly is not resolved.</small>
	::I was just restoring the LAST Archiving that was promptly ignored. ArbCom has spoken, ignore it at your own risk. ] (]) 18:19, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
	::: That sounds like a threat. Maybe it isn't. Sounds like it though.
	::: As you have pointed out, Fozzie, one ArbCom member said it '''should''' go there. But there has been nothing to say that it must or that it has. Has it? And if so, where can a ], second-class Wikipedian watch for results of such an ArbCom? ] (]) 18:20, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
	::::It's not a threat. It's attempting to give you warning, VP. And cut it out with the, "Help, help, I'm being oppressed, come see the violence inherent in the ]" (to mangle Monty Python). It ill behooves you. With the privacy issues claimed by SqueakBox, ArbCom is the one to handle it. A public kicking is NOT in WP's best interests. If you have questions, email NewYorkBrad privately, or the full ArbCom mailing list. ] (]) 18:27, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
	::::: Huh? Where's my claim of oppression or violence in admins? I don't even understand what you're talking about, unless it's just unfounded accusations (personal attacks?) intended to cloud the issue. As it stands now, there are no privacy issues as the privacy-issue pages are deleted. Maybe if you read my earlier comments endorsing the deletion you'd understand. I don't get why you're so into vilifying me now. I'm agreeing with you (in the original question). ] (]) 18:49, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
	'''HEY'''. Sorry to shout. Any chance we could all stop discussing this and come back to it tomorrow when we've all had a good night's sleep and we might not over-run the page? Just a thought. It's unlikely we will resolve this right now, and it might save us all a bit of, you know, feeling a bit wrought or fractured. ] <small>] </small> 18:23, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
	: ] (]) 18:25, 3 February 2008 (UTC) ''''':-)'''''
	::Hiding, that's the best idea I've heard today. I intend to bow out of this discussion until tomorrow. Perhaps then I won't have to remind people that ''should'' and ''must'' are two different words with distinct meanings. --]'']'' 18:29, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
	:::I've put in a request to have things clarified for those who are arguing with this on NewYorkBrad's talk page. Hopefully THAT will settle things once and for all. Instead of ], perhaps this should have been tried a while back, rather than undoing two archivals? (and yes, I am guilty with that too until now) ] (]) 19:00, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
	::::I went to Brad's talkpage after reading your comment, and, to clarify your clarification, what you're asking is that he change materially what he wrote. He already indicated what he thought should happen. If he changes his stated position to support yours, it would be after the fact. His words were plain, and his abilities as a wordsmith are well-regarded. --]'']'' 21:07, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
	{{discussion bottom}}
	== Copying and pasting own deleted contributions ==
	I've been reviewing my deleted contributions, and there are some edits there (mostly those to user talk pages of users who have asked for their talk pages to be deleted) that I would like to retrieve (at some point) and record on a subpage of my userpages. Is this an acceptable use of admin tools? I'd say yes, because I still have the copyright on my contributions, even after freely licensing them under the GFDL, but I'd appreciate confirmation of this. ] (]) 05:36, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
	:I'm not sure that's the best use of your time, but I don't see anything against policy, assuming obviously that there's nothing problematic in the edits themselves. Regards, ] (]) 05:40, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
	:I'd agree with Newyorkbrad. Under the GFDL, you still own your comments, so go for it. <b><i><font color="#FF00FF">~Kylu (]|]) </font></i></b> 06:25, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
	:Is this about Squeakbox? Obviously, there's no copyright reason you can't ... but please make sure you aren't treading on ] territory. --] (]) 06:36, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
	::Not Squeakbox. It's actually Bishonen's talk page. I vaguely remember a long mini-essay I may have posted there (though it may have been somewhere else), and that is one of the things I'd want to organise and move to the right place at some point. And Brad, my time is my own to spend, like everyone else here. I could have just viewed the edits, and copy-pasted them off-wiki, but as some of the comments involve on-wiki stuff, I'd prefer to keep them all in one place. ] (]) 13:09, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
	I am a non-admin editor and I would like access to this same facility. Where can I review my deleted contributions and obtain copies of same? I would not wish to preserve them on-wiki, however I assume I have the same rights under the GFDL as described above.
	I'm thoroughly confused with the user-talk deletion policy (NOT the user-page deletion policy). I was fairly sure I'd read articles to the effect that user-talk pages were not subject to right-to-vanish or courtesy-deletion provisions when they contained substantial edits by other users. Over the last few months, I've seen several talk-page erasures carried out by fiat, now I can't find the policies, some of the pages I ''thought'' I'd read have been recently edited, so I'm just not sure exactly what the policy is anymore.
	In any case, I'm comforted that all GFDL contributors will be extended the same rights. At least I hope they will be... ] (]) 11:34, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
	:Custom is changing towards greater ease of deleting user talk pages as well as user pages. Maybe this should be debated more fully. See also . You might want to check out ]. ] (]) 11:45, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
	::Custom is changing? Is that the same as the community consensus is changing? Or is custom ''being changed''? Maybe this ''should'' be discussed more widely, it's disconcerting to read ArbCom cases and watch the links go from blue to red to blue before the voting starts, at the highest forum in the land.
	::Pace Carch, who only started the thread, but I assert my exactly equivalent GFDL rights. How do I go to a provide-deleted-article admin and say "it's in a history thread somewhere, I ''think'' it's there"? How do I know what to ask for, when I can't see my deleted contributions? I'm not chasing any particular edit here so it's not ANI-worthy, but the question has been asked... ] (]) 12:37, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
	:::You ask them to review your deleted contributions and, in my opinion, provide you with a list of deleted pages. You can generate this sort of list yourself if you have the "watch all pages I edit" option turned on. Then review the list of pages you have watchlisted and note the ones that have turned red. You can then decide which ones are worth taking further. ] (]) 13:09, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
	::::For the record, Franamax, you have 15 deleted edits. 14 of those are to subpages of your userpage. One is to ]. This is a fairly simple request to fulfill, but more complex requests may need more discussion. I'd be uncomfortable posting this sort of information on-wiki in a complex case without more consensus behind it. ] (]) 13:14, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
	:::Thanks Carcharoth, I've now turned that option on, it will save me clicking "watch" on every page I edit, the way I have up 'til now. As I said, I'm not pursuing any particular edit, or anything other than a principle. But there you go, which of those subpages was the one where I wrote "please kill me"? (In the db-userreq, part of a defined software test, with a funny-ha-ha explanation, honest :) Are we equivalent? I can't see my licensed contribution, although someone could restore it without my knowledge or consent at any time - but you can see all of yours, any time you want, and make copies of them. ''And'' you can make copies of ''my'' GFDL edits which I myself have no (browsable) access to?
	:::The salient point here is that I am not able to view the text of my own deleted edits, thus I have no way of pinpointing which edit I might wish to ask someone else to provide me details of. The broader point is the promptness of responses to purported RTV requests; declarations of "I'm leaving"; self-page-blanking; and the resulting loss of community overview of the leading events.
	:::No, I have no particular complaint, I'm asking the general question: what is the defined policy on talk-page deletion? and does that defined policy address the concerns of non-admins who don't have free access to examine and browse the contents of individual edits? (PS move to talk at your option to spare the ANI page) ] (]) 13:53, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
	::::I'm sympathetic to non-admins being unable to see their deleted edits. I've said in the past (even before I was given the tools) that this function should be tweaked so all users can see their own deleted edits (but not the deleted edits of others). Those who post unsuitable material may recycle what has been deleted, but that will only get them blocked faster, and there is no way to distinguish between re-posting of off-wiki stuff and repoting of on-wiki stuff. Anyway, you are right, the stuff specific to our edits should be taken to talk. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page. ] (]) 17:03, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
	Oh, one thing I forgot. Some of the edit counting tools (the ones that scrape the contributions logs) give a total number of edits that is the non-deleted edits. API queries (eg. ) give the total number. Theoretically the difference is the number of deleted edits. Unless you do lots of tagging of pages that get deleted, the number of deleted edits should be quite low. ] (]) 17:08, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
	::I think it is time to get community consensus against deleting talk pages, especially those of admins. For admins, everything we do should be visible unless there is very good reason otherwise. Except of course for removing vandalism, though i see that many of us dont even bother removing vandalism, just archiving it,. I would also support this for other users. And I agree with Carcharoth about seeing one's own deleted contributions. For one thing, it would cut down on unnecessary requests at Deletion Review for emailed copies. ''']''' (]) 17:53, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
	:::One very slight problem - what about when your talk page has a huge number of edits and doing anything with it risks slowing down the server? I had to move my edit history recently to an archive for that very reason. ] 11:51, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
	== ] ==
	] recently of the article ] with the somewhat odd summary "For the sake of posterity in keeping the RULES of WIKIPEDIA, let this article be edited, but not be deleted." Judging by ], he has been admonished in the past, and even blocked for a month, for disruptive edits to this article. I haven't really been tracking this, and I don't have time to look into it, so I'm not the one following up on this possibly complicated matter, but I suspect that another long block is in order. - ] | ] 06:26, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
	I see no response here. Is someone taking this on? - ] | ] 17:49, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
	:I find it near impossible to get through to Bill edmond (having dealt with both this account and past ones). He's a good faith user, but he just doesn't seem to want to cooperate with other editors of Nigeria-related articles. Your assessment ] is correct, too; that article is impossible to keep in good condition. ] ] 22:44, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
	== Suicide note update ==
	{{discussion top|1=As per the ], no further comments.—] (]) 10:06, 3 February 2008 (UTC)}}
	Don't Worry, It is extremely unlikely that this was a genuine suicide note:
	"i am going to kill myself. i have to i am nothing anymore and i wish i was never fucking born. I have a shitload of pills and it will be ok soon. Tell Shonna I Love Her And that I'm Sorry."
	The following observations lead me to conclude that this is a hoax:
	*"I have a shitload of pills", suicide notes almost never contain references to the intended life-ending method.
	*Suicide notes are almost always written to a specific person.
	*This message does not contain a rationalization, a reason why this person feels it is ok to end their life.
	*The note is too short. (The reason why someone writes a suicide note is to basically talk themselves into it. Sometimes a suicide note can can reach 5-10 pages long)
	*Contrary to popular belief, suicide notes are usually written with a calm, purposeful hand. The disparity between the style of writing at the beginning and at the end is frankly not believable.
	::Compare this: "i have to i am nothing anymore" with this: "Tell Shonna I Love Her", the sudden capitalization of "I" does not fit. Also, the writing style is more likely get worse as the person writes, than to get better.
	* The final nail in the coffin, pardon the expression, is this: "I'm", first of all, this is too casual in context with the rest of the sentence. And second of all, contractions are a sign that the person is lying. It is one of the only signs of lying in written prose.
	'''However, This does not discount the possibility that this person may be someone on the brink. These observations would likely be seen in someone who is not yet ready to take their life, which means that we may be able to do some good here'''
	Hope this helps. --]] 06:58, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
	:What is this referencing?—] (]) 07:07, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
	:Sorry, ] --]] 07:14, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
	''<code>Post archive (no more, please):</code><br>
	The above "observations" by BETA is NOT helpful, and should be struck out, not just closed. Not even a professional would say such a thing as BETA has done here. ←]♥] 10:17, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
	People are free to advocate a policy that would force us to feature these notices prominently, coordinate efforts, etc., or, push for the opposite. But, in the meantime, disrupting day-to-day administrative operations, as BETA did upon creating this 'non-update' analysis of the note, which goes explicitly against my asking for no further comments and archiving the first thread, needs to be actively avoided. Thanks. ] 23:00, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
	{{discussion bottom}}
	== Block of administrator RyanGerbil10 ==
	{{resolved|Tools restored, lessons here is don't check "Remember me" if your sharing an environment. More importantly don't google image search "lemonparty"--] (]) 14:05, 4 February 2008 (UTC)}}
	:{{admin|RyanGerbil10}}
	I have blocked this administrator indefinitely after a conversation in ].
	He vandalized the main page. <code>:|</code> ]
	:He's also been emergency desysopped after a discussion in ]. <font face="Broadway">]'']</font>'' 07:11, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
	::I suppose anything is possible, but I wouldn't think most people who go to the trouble of a committed identity would have an easily crackable password. His user page says he's a college student ... maybe a drunk roommate at the computer? --] (]) 07:18, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
	:::I'd believe it. My general experience is that how important an account is has no bearing on how good the password is, and that about 75% of users have easy-to-crack passwords. --] (]) 08:18, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
	:I have taken a look at this with CheckUser on suspicion that the account has been compromised. Unfortunately, however, there was no unusual change in IP between recent edits and Ryan's normal edit. This would rule out the possibility that someone discovered his password (which is what happened in the last bout of admin account compromisings), and the simplest explanation is that he did it himself. However, there always remain those possibilities that CheckUser can't account for, like that he someone was using his computer, or that he left his account logged in on a public terminal (less likely because his last edit was hours previous). <small>The devs are working on those ] still.</small> As I said though, without an insightful explanation from Ryan this result is pretty clear that is is likely there is no compromised account. ]·] 07:21, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
	The "roommate" theory does not seem particularly unlikely. - ] | ] 07:23, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
	:Well, the "compromised account" lexicon does cover a wide range of possibilities. Personally, I would wait for an explanation from RyanGerbil10 himself before further speculating or acting. —''']''' 07:25, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
	::Considering that it's the hour when college students drink, my vote is on drunk roommate. --] (]) 07:27, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
	:::I agree. He may be having a party and somebody started playing on the computer. Or a young relative may have done the same. For the meantime shutting down the account is the right solution. He can straighten it out tomorrow if there's a good explanation. ]] ] 07:32, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
	:::Umm, isn't every hour an hour when college students drink? ] 08:01, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
	::::Seems like a clear case of ]. ] ] 08:37, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
	=== Comment from Ryan ===
	The account is not compromised. Someone broke into my room, likely one of the kids on my dormitory floor. It is well-known that I am a Wikimedia sysop, I am surprised the vandlaism was not worse. I am in control of this account as I always have been, and the people who have used my account abusively have been reported to the campus police. This has been a terrible nightmare for me, I am deeply sorry that something like this has happened. ]<small>]</small> 12:18, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
	:I was about to unblock per Ryan's request and explanation, but decided to allow the community to respond first (nice of me, being so magnanimous). Per AGF and Ryan's past record I see no reason to disbelieve him and support unblocking asap. Resysopping can be something left to Ryan once he is unblocked (I presume there is a record of his reporting the break-in he can provide.) ] (]) 12:30, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
	::I actually unblocked him a while ago - how could he post here otherwise? :P ]
	::::::::::::::<small>duh!] (]) 16:28, 3 February 2008 (UTC)</small>
	:::All in all, I would say I prefer my usual hangover. ]<small>]</small> 12:54, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
	::::I'd say this is a fine example in support of the "Log out" button. I see no reason why he shoulden't be re-sysopped in light of the situation. --] (]) 15:00, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
	:::::Is it possible to disable the "Remember me" button for admins? ''';)''' ] (]) 16:20, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
	:I must say I'm somewhat amused by the fact that people assumed it was a drunk roommate. Are college students really that predictable to you all? -- ''']''' 15:36, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
	::Yup. <sup>]]</sup> 15:42, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
	:::::Ryan's always done good by me. I'd give him back his full privileges before the incident, and say "shame on ''them'' for disrupting your account" and if something like this is to ever happen again then I'd say "shame on ''Ryan'' for letting it happen again". If that was to happen again then the de-sysop'in should remain. For now give him back the tools&mdash;he's a good admin. &mdash;<span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span> ] 15:44, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
	*Support re opping. ] <sup>'']''</sup> 16:18, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
	*Hey Ryan, Windows Key + L when you walk away from the computer, even ones behind locked doors. ] (])
	I'm usually very secure and confident, both in the people I live with and the building I live in. Obviosuly, that trust has been violated. Needless to say, I will of course be changing the way I log onto Misplaced Pages in the future. At first, I thought that perhaps, in ''my'' compromised state, I had done the vandalism, but when I dsicovered that things were missing from my room and that my desktop background had been changed to lemonparty, something more severe had happened. Speaking from the next morning, I just want to take this time to apologize formally to the community, and I hope that this episode, which has been a nightmare for me, can be safely put to bed behind us. ]<small>]</small> 17:37, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
	::Thanks so much, I just googled "lemonparty". Are you serious that that on your desktop was the ''last'' thing you noticed? :) ] (]) 22:52, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
	*I agree it would be fine for the stewards to give back the tools right now. ''']''' (]) 17:46, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
	::Don't let this incident get you down. And I hope the campus police catch the people who did this. <font face="Trebuchet MS">]<small> (]) (]) (])</small></font> 23:03, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
	===Suggestion that might deter admin account hacking===
	When admin accounts are hacked, it's usually to use the account's sysop tools to vandalize.
	What if we had a second password needed in order to access the sysop tools on that account? For example, an admin logs in. They see a vandal that needs blocking. So, they hit the block button. In order to use sysop controls, the admin would have to enter a second password that is different from the account login password. Then, while they're active, and for an hour after their last edit, they can use their sysop tools normally. After an hour, if they came back and did an admin action, they'd have to enter the password again. Basically, think Linux: you have your ordinary user account. In order to do certain things, though, you need your root password. <font face="Trebuchet MS">]<small> (]) (]) (])</small></font> 23:03, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
	:Admin account hijackings are so rare and the damage done is so minimal, this seems like it will be more trouble than its worth. <font face="Broadway">]'']</font>'' 23:34, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
	:More along the lines of an old BBS. On some software packages, sysops would have two passwords, one for logging in and one for logging in as a sysop. ] (]) 15:09, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
	:I have the feeling most admins would probably save the password in their browser somehow anyway, since typing in a password repeatedly can get pretty repetitive. (Heck, I personally tweaked my sudoers file on my Linux laptop to stop it from prompting me for authentication :P) '''<font color="#ff9900">]</font><font color="#ff6699">]</font>''' 15:55, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
	== Mass date format changes ==
	Looking at diffs such as and , it is clear that ] has mass changed date formats in the article from International Dating format to American Dating format, against the guidelines of the ]. I've asked him to change them back, but I can't force him to do this, and it's a lot of work to go through and change each date individually. --] (]) 08:02, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
	: They are interchangeable. ], ] is the same as ], ] per ]. While you are technically correct, given that both are not native to America, it's really no big deal, and it would really be a waste of time to go through and revert all of the edits when the date format works the same. ] <small>(]) (])</small> 08:06, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
	::Most of our users are readers, without accounts or date preferences. Perhaps you should log out and see it as an average user would. Obviously the two formats are not then interchangeable. --] (]) 08:16, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
	:::Did you want a cookie? ] (]) 09:11, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
	::: Logged out and the dates were exactly the same. Obviously the two formats are interchangeable. You are merely making a mountain out of a molehill. ] <small>(]) (])</small> 01:15, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
	He shouldn't do it. It may well be annoying for editors who chose the other style. There is no reason to make the changes. ] (]) 09:52, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
	:Indeed, it's annoying. Phil Collins is, at least, British (and is as influential as John, George, Ringo, Paul, The Who, Floyd, etc), so the date format should remain British. ''']''' <sup>(])</sup> 10:38, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
	::The latter part of your argument is severely compromised by comparing a drummer who got lucky when the lead singer/songwriter left, to the subsequently named bands. In reverse order those bands invented or were the leaders of British psychedelia, hard/art rock, and... British post war musical everything. Phil Collins possibly invented British ]... ooh, looky - red link. He is a better actor than the rest of the above combined, though. ] (]) 11:53, 3 February 2008 (UTC) ps. I agree with you about the date thing.
	Well, thanks, guys. In the old days, there'd be an ArbCom case when editors changed BC into BCE or something similar, but all I get is murmurs and the usual misunderstanding about date prefs. Anyone gonna give the editor a boot in the balls? Looks like he's a problem, from the number of warnings on his talk page. --] (]) 00:32, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
	== ] ==
	{{resolved|72 hr block}}
	I became aware of this user because of ]. What I have seen is worse than what was reported there:
	. Perhaps someone can have a look at this until their adopter ] is online again? --] (]) 10:53, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
	Blocked 72h. <span style="font-family: verdana;"> — ] • ] • </span> 19:05, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
	== ] ==
	Please block ], because he has vandalize pages such as ]. <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 11:53, 3 February 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
	:Also and Block ] please, because he has vandalize ] as well, Thanks. ] 11:57, 03 Feburary 2008 (UTC)
	:: You need to take these to ]. ] (]) 12:00, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
	::: Thanks. ] 14:30, 03 Feburary 2008 (UTC)
	== ] ==
	This is a complicated case about the article for the band ]. User Justpassinby has only ever edited this and related articles. His/her posts generally have a negative attitude towards the band and its members, but, earlier on, edits made tended to be more reasonable and followed policy. More recently, Justpassinby's edits have been unreasonable; various editors considered these edits to be vandalism and left warnings. These were ignored and this led to Justpassinby being blocked. Since then, there were a sequence of vandalising edits by 78.105.130.169 (the first ever edits from this IP address): these largely repeated Justpassinby's edits and I presume are Justpassinby avoiding his/her block. Yesterday, was the first and only edit by user Joncourtney. Jon Courtney is a member of Pure Reason Revolution. However, the edit made by the user Joncourtney was insulting towards Jon Courtney and the band and was in a similar style to edits by Justpassinby and 78.105.130.169, so I am concerned that the Joncourtney account is a sock-puppet and raises further issues of impersonation. There have been two further edits by 78.105.130.169 since too. I would like to suggest semi-protection for the page and further administration action against Justpassinby and the Joncourtney account. ] (]) 13:32, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
	:I think a condensed version of the above should be submitted to ]. ] (]) 16:32, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
	::Well, I can vouch for his accounting of the events, I just took a look. The vandalism reads like it's being done by either a former member of the band, or that former member's supporter. SSP might be able to give it a good block, but maybe it should be semi'd until they get to it. ] (]) 16:36, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
	:::I've reported the case to ] as ]. ] (]) 23:53, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
	== Whitemartian ==
	Keeps creating socks (Whitemartian3.0, Whitemartian2.0), etc., for pure vandalism. I think there's history between him and ] - can an IP block stop him? ] <sup>(], ])</sup> 15:07, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
	:To try and get an IP block for him, unless you can give a provable IP address for this vandal, you need to request at ]. ] ] 15:12, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
	I have removed the random pornographic image added to this section by ] and given that user a warning. --] ] 20:30, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
	== Barry Wellman ==
	The page ] has a potential conflict of interest that is being covered up. The primary editor that has put most of the promotional language on the page is ]. After what appears to have been an incident where he continually defends edits that try to make the page more objective, it seems to have a new defender in ] that is quickly reverting the addition of a WP:COI2 template tag and he waits until a few minutes after 24 hours to revert edits to avoid a 3rr. It seems that the two editors are in cahoots to defend a rather self-interested self-promotional page that reads more like a resume than an encyclopedia entry. Please take a look at both editors and the page in question to help determine what is going on. Are there 2 accounts for the same person perhaps? Or are they just helping each other out
	to maintain self-interested and self-promotional language? ] (]) 15:20, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
	:I'm seeing a lot of discussion via edit summary. Has anyone tried ''talking'' in the wikispaces dedicated for such interaction? ] (]) 16:44, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
	== Personal attack. ==
	an editor came at me with a level of vitriol far above what was called for. This is not the first time Mactographer has stirred up trouble related to the ] article. Since this comment reflects his extreme POV as well as a cheap shot, I'm asking for a block for him to cool off and remember taht we're all here to improve the articles, not to attack each other, or at least a warning from an admin. ] (]) 16:31, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
	:Maybe I'm misreading the diff, but I don't see a "level of vitriol far above what was called for". Also, ] specifically mentions cool off blocks as something that shouldn't be done. - ] ] 16:45, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
	::I've seen worse. Perhaps a level one warning. ''']''' (]) 17:38, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
	:::Not even a level-one warning. If there's anything that stands out in the diff, it's ThuranX's remarks about Huckabee. -- ''']''' 21:14, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
	::::I don't think so. Huckabee's actually spoken about his ability to mis-speak, and I made a joke about that. The return was an insult both about Clinton, which was thoroughly out of place, and at me for being ignorant. The article in question was later edited to reflect that if 'acting' governors are not counted (although they are sworn in) it's 44, if they are counted as sworn in governors, it's 54. Whether or not Huckabee knew this is beyond our ability to source. That I made a joke to an editor I'd previously edited with, without this level of acrimony, and got that insult in return is absurd. OF course, it might just be that since he's on the of the Huck'sArmy editors I've brought up for CoI multiple times, he's decided to get proactive and blatant about his attitudes. ] (]) 22:16, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
	That diff doesn't seem all that bad to me, barely warnable. <span style="font-family: verdana;"> — ] • ] • </span> 22:35, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
	:Thanks for the vindication of the obvious. If ThuranX hadn't ''']''' the incident in question with his rude and uncalled for attacks on Governor Huckabee, I wouldn't have had the slightest reason to reply in kind. And, in fact, he was in the classic sense of the word since he was unaware of the correct numbering system ... of which the Governor himself was fully aware. It seems to me if someone doesn't want to get into a verbal sparing match, he shouldn't throw the first punch and then come running to the admins complaining about it. --] (]) 05:19, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
	:Ok, so I admit it. mactographer has no sense of humor at all. He's too vociferously defending Huckabee on the article and everywhere else to see a JOKE. Next time, I won't make jokes with a member of Huck'sArmy.com, I'll just report the COI and off-wiki canvassing again. It was a clear joke, one that came with an explanation. He's now picking a bigger fight about this, and it's clear he's not about to stop. This is ridiculous. HucksArmy was upset months ago when I presented their COI to bot AN/I and the boards here, and now he thinks he's got a chance to get me in trouble. His continuing personal attacks and misrepresentations are getting tiresome. I'm requesting he be block to prevent further attacks. ] (]) 05:24, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
	== ] ==
	This users history is providing Chinese translations of names in Hong Kong related articles and nothing much else. Basically doing good work (but maybe a little too much and cluttered for my taste). However, he has just gone to work on a chemistry article, here's his/her first diff on it. This is just weird, surely we don't want Chinese translations of every chemical name in Misplaced Pages? But as I don't know any specific policy he is violating, I have not reverted him. Also, I would not want to scare away someone with a valuable skill to us. Can somebody please advise? ] 16:48, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
	::True, our practice per MOS is to a non-english language term only when relevant to the actual subject, not for terms like "anticholinesterase inhibitor" ''']''' (]) 17:36, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
	:::<s>Rollback</s> and a polite note on the users talk page would be appropriate? Oh no, have to do it the hard way, rollback for clear vandalism only. ] 17:58, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
	== Gwernol ==
	{{resolved}} Noting to see here. ] <sup>'']''</sup> 17:28, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
	{{discussiontop}}
	] blocked me for adding a block quote to an article ( See: ] and ] ) , then suggested an edit I'm suggesting would be considered vandalism( See: ] and] and] ) .
	] 17:17, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
	:What is the point of this forum-shopping? The matter is currently the subject of an arbitration request, ], in the course of which all three arbitrators that have commented so far have endorsed the block. I see no need for administrator action here, except possibly another block of Chuck Marean if this wasting of community time continues. ] (]) 17:24, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
	{{discussionbottom}}
	== ] gaming ] ==
	] gamed the WP:AE board rather badly yesterday. Here's
	the sequence of events that took place.
	After a fairly lengthy discussion on the Pallywood Talk: page, on Feb
	1 User:ChrisO decides to make a bunch of unilateral changes to the
	article.
	His changes are reverted
	and the reverter explains why on the Talk: page:
	Rather than discussing the issue further, ChrisO decides he needs an
	advantage. So, on Feb 2 he posts a comment to the Talk: page:
	then at 00:18 he rounds up an ally on IRC, kylu, who offers to take
	action on ] as soon as ChrisO puts up some evidence.
	At 00:52 Chris then reverts Pallywood to his version:
	and at 00:56 Chris files his arbcom enforcement request:
	And at 00:57 he then goes back to IRC, and asks someone to enforce his
	request, pointing Kylu directly to it.
	At 01:06 Kylu applies 1RR.
	This is perhaps the most blatant abuse of the WP:AE board I have seen;
	he lines up a "neutral" admin, reverts the article, puts up his AE
	request, then his "neutral" admin puts a 1RR per week restriction on
	the page *after* Chris has just reverted it. It's obvious the 1RR
	restriction should be removed, but what other sanctions are
	appropriate for ChrisO? ] (]) 17:44, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
	::As the editor ChrisO went against, let me just state for the record that a) I'm not particularly proud of some of the comments I made to ChrisO, though (and I don't offer this as an excuse), they're scarcely worse than his to me; b) I actually do believe kylu when he claims (albeit rudely) neutrality; c) I stand by my comment to kylu that this is an area where, by now, angels fear to tread; d) as an act of good faith, I'll voluntarily comply with the 1RR ruling, whether or not is it upheld. --] (]) 19:18, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
	:Yeah, abusive as heck. Chris, you don't get to do this; it's exactly the same sort of abuse as an admin getting into an edit war and then setting up his opponent for a 3RR block with the aid of a confederate. It's the same using admin tools to gain an edge in an edit war. It won't be tolerated twice, I suspect; for now, I'd suggest removing the 1RR and moving forward. --]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 18:37, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
	:Is there evidence of the IRC conniving? ] <sup>'']''</sup> 19:15, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
	::There is evidence on IRC of conniving, but I'm not sure whether or not I should post IRC logs here. ] (]) 19:48, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
	:::No, probably not a good idea. I presume that they can be made available to arbiters as necessary? I'm happy to take your word for the fact that they exist. I'd be interested in Chris' views but, if true, I'd say that some kind of sanction is appropriate. ] <sup>'']''</sup> 19:54, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
	:I find this whole thing befuddling. I see a dispute that has to do with some fairly specific isues of content, including the phrasing of some passages and the section headings. I do not see any notable violation of personal behavior policies that would justify ArbCom - is this some kind of diversionary tactic, or just an attempt to bully? - and I do not see any major policy violation that would call for administrative enforcement. I want to just say "Fellas, keep talking it out on the talk page, try to bring others into the discussion" but that would be half my response to an RfC. It's ChrisO's taking this to AE. I just don't get it. Why? The 1RR restriction is wholely unjustified. I'd like to hear ChrisO's justification and Kylu's justification but frankly I can't imagine what they would say. FeloniousMonk asks what sanctions are appropriate. I am willing to be generous with ChrisO and suggest that he got overzealous and just needs a cooling down period, say a 1 week ban from editing this article. But gaming AE - this is really serious, it undermines the whole process, and does call for some more serious sanction. ] | ] 19:18, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
	:Thanks Felonious for bringing this up. I saw the AE report yesterday and was confused as to why this article was put on probation as there didn't seem to be a huge problem here. Consider the restriction removed. -- ''']''' 19:40, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
	I think your notion of ''"neutral" admin'' assumes bad faith on Kylu's part, and I would ask you to reword that slightly, as after inspecting the logs, I think Kylu is in fact fully neutral. On the rest of the dispute I can't tell much, but I don't think the minor discussion on IRC is much to worry about. It's not like the cabal is planning some evil takeover here. <sub>→]]</sub> 20:32, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
	*Kylu didn't show bad faith; the only problem is that Kylu didn't notice that ChrisO was gaming the system. I wouldn't think it necessary for ArbCom to issue a clarification that this sort of manipulation of arbitration enforcement (not to mention this sort of manipulation of other administrators) is improper; isn't it just common sense? --]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 21:18, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
	:A clarification: While ChrisO did in fact bring attention (in general, not to me specifically) on IRC to the AR request, I applied it and made sure he understood it applied to ''all'' participants, including him. The problem I see is that instead of discussing the situation, someone used revert to simply wipe someone else's edits and avoid discussion instead of using it to remove vandalism, which is not what ] suggests it be used for.
	:This sort of putting one's fingers in their ears and ignoring the other side in a content dispute is ''exactly'' why the whole Israel-Palestine case got sent to ArbCom in the first place, and the reason I asked those involved to not involve me further. I was trying to maintain my distance from what I see as a distasteful and mutually-disrespectful content dispute, however Leifern refused to allow me to do so. The enforcement needed to be done lest the article devolve into another pointless series of revert warring, but it certainly doesn't mean I need to be involved in the arguing after it.
	:Was the enforcement timed to benefit one party over another? Of course. They usually are, when one of the parties involved is doing the reporting. Does the enforcement do more harm than good by minimizing the revert-warring and promoting discussion? I think it does, and that's why I set it for that article. Thanks to ] for informing me of this thread, btw. <b><i><font color="#FF00FF">~Kylu (]|]) </font></i></b> 21:39, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
	::Regardless, you got took. ChrisO first looked for an admin willing to act (no problem there), then went and reverted the article to his favored version, ''then'' posted the request on AE, which you acted upon. That's the only problem -- his reversion before requesting the AE was not appropriate. If he had not reverted first, we wouldn't be having this discussion at all. --]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 21:57, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
	::::There are ''two'' cases: 1. At the time ChrisO was reverting, he had already in mind the later enforcing of 1RR. 2. He reverted and then noticing that his revert might be followed with a series of edit wars as was normal in such articles, filed the AE request.
	::::This two cases should be also considered against the following context: It also appears that ChrisO was certain of the soundness of his edit and aside from the content dispute had found the reaction of the other editor inappropriate.
	::::I can not personally think of a test that can distinguish the case 1 from case 2. Either one can be the case but only one of them implies gaming of the system. Regarding the claim of Kylu playing the role of an ''ally'', I don't know but it appears to me that it considers an event in the light of subsequent developments and is kind of akin to conspiracy theories. Just my humble view and I am the first to admit my mistake.
	::::Now, my suggestion is that: 1. ChrisO's version to be reverted. 2. The community decides the validity of ChrisO's statement that ''"User:Leifern, who created the article in the first place, has indiscriminately reverted my good faith edits with an aggressive edit summary (diff) and accusations of bad faith on the talk page (diff), but no explanation of what he considers unacceptable about my edits"'' and takes an action if this statement is correct. Cheers, --] (]) 23:13, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
	:::::Well, it's more a matter of case 3, if I can put it that way. I originally had in mind posting an AE request directed specifically at Leifern after I saw that he had reverted without discussion. I reconsidered after it occurred to me that Leifern's action was just a symptom of a wider problem - editors ''on both sides'' blindly reverting. I saw a danger of this happening on the article, as it had already experienced edit wars. I therefore decided to act in the spirit of the ArbCom's decision in ], which avoided targeting any individual editors and set general principles for the entire topic area. I reverted the blind revert ''solely because it was a blind revert and not permitted by ]''; if he had justified his revert with discussion it would not have been an abusive revert and I would have had no reason to act. After I did so, I posted pointing out the problems that blind reverts have caused on articles in this topic area and requesting that editors on all sides be restrained from abusing or overusing reversion (note that 1RR still permits reverts - it just limits their frequency). And I would add that there's no cause to revert my edits, as that too would violate ]. -- ] (]) 23:30, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
	::::::Thanks for clarifying. My main point was that Jpgordon and FeloniousMonk's reading was not the ''only possible'' interpretation of the bare facts; the only interpretation that makes you guilty. The reason that I asked for your edit to be reverted was that Jpgordon and FeloniousMonk's reading ''is'' a possible interpretation anyways but at the same time I suggested that your statement be investigated by the community and a serious action is taken against the other editor if your statement is correct. That decision can also involve restoring your edit later if the community decides that you were making good faith edits and the other editor blindly reverted you. Just a suggestion, you guys know better than me. Cheers, --] (]) 23:43, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
	:::::::Actually I wouldn't support taking action against Leifern. As I've already said, he was simply acting in the same way that people have been acting on these articles for far too long. He wasn't a party to ], I don't think he made any statements in it, he wasn't informed of it and I'm not at all sure that he was aware that the articles were "under new management", so to speak. I wouldn't be at all comfortable taking or requesting action against him in those circumstances. The important point is that he now knows about the arbitration and (hopefully) understands what the ArbCom now requires of all editors in this topic area. -- ] (]) 23:50, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
	::::::::You guys know better than me about this; I haven't edited those articles and don't know what's going on. I just saw an admin-against-admin case and that attracted me here :D because such cases are usually exciting and interesting :P. This is my last comment here. Have a nice time everybody... --] (]) 23:59, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
	:::(ec) I'm not sure what he did was wrong from the point of view of encouraging people not to blind-revert. He'd just attempted a rewrite which was reverted without discussion. He asked for restrictions on all participants. What difference would have putting the AE request up and ''then'' reverting made, precisely? ] (]) 22:48, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
	This is really not accurate. I wish FeloniousMonk had bothered to ask me about it before posting accusations here (and it would be nice not to be burned at the stake ''in absentia'', if you'll excuse the mixed metaphors). There certainly is no "gaming" going on. The article has a long including two AfDs. After another editor recently to the article (an action with which I had absolutely no involvement), I had another look at the article to see whether it could be improved - I hadn't touched it since November last year, since when there had at least 100 edits by other editors. I had recently found some media articles which actually discussed the topic of the article. I decided that the article needed to be a bit more concise and would benefit from having some newly published citations - the changes I made are discussed in detail .
	{{user|Leifern}} reverted the changes without discussion . Now, there is absolutely no doubt whatsoever that this was an abuse of reversion. ] makes it clear that reversion should not be used in such circumstances: ''"If what one is attempting is a positive contribution to Misplaced Pages, a revert of those contributions is inappropriate unless, and only unless, you as an editor possess firm, substantive, and objective proof to the contrary. Mere disagreement is not such proof."'' Kylu took the same view (which is after all just basic editing policy) in with Leifern on his talk page. (Leifern's visible hostility and accusations of bad faith should be noted. Unfortunately it seems that any admin who intervenes on one of these articles can expect to be attacked.)
	I therefore my ] edits; as Leifern had abused reversion, it would not have been appropriate to let the results of an abusive edit stand. I posted to ]. In it, I pointed out the history of disputes on the article, the clear misuse of reversion in this case and the role that aggressive reversion has played in inflaming disputes. I requested 1RR on the ''article'' - not on any specific ''editor'' - for the sole purpose of restraining all sides from using reverts to edit war. I did ''not'' request any enforcement action against Leifern, so jpgordon's implication that I somehow "set him up" is off-target, though I did ask if someone neutral could explain to him the rules of ]. My intention in doing this was not to "game" anything - don't forget I'm just as constrained by 1RR as anyone else editing the article - but simply to prevent a nascent content dispute from escalating into a revert war as it has done so many times in the past. At that point, as far as I was concerned, both Leifern and I had had the "1 revert". I had no intention of reverting again but given that editors on both sides have abused reversion before, I had good reason to believe that someone would do a further revert and spark an edit war. I took the view - and I stand by it - that it was better to restrain both sides from escalating.
	Kylu is completely innocent of any "collusion". As far as I know I've never had any contact with her before so I can't consider her an "ally" (see ). I simply asked on IRC if someone could review an AE request for me (log available on request - admins only). Kylu volunteered to review it and she was certainly under no obligation to act on my AE posting, let alone implement the requested 1RR. I actually asked the channel twice (at 00:17 and 00:57) and Kylu was simply the first to respond on both occasions.
	To put the issue in a nutshell - which is better, stopping a potential revert war before it starts, or waiting until the house in on fire before acting? I requested 1RR solely as a preventative measure to encourage all sides to discuss rather than revert. I made this point explicitly in my : "editors ... need to be encouraged to collaborate rather than confront. Discouraging aggressive reverting is an essential starting point." It seems to be both an overreaction and rather an assumption of bad faith to construe a request for an even-handed discouragement of revert warring, on an article where that's been a problem before, to be somehow "gaming the system". -- ] (]) 22:23, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
	*I guess I'm missing something. You first went to IRC to find an admin to help -- that's OK. You knew to make sure the help you were requesting on IRC was backed by an on-wiki request; that's also OK. But before you made the request, you reverted the article to your own favored version, to make sure that the article was in the condition you wanted before restrictions were placed on it. In what way is that distinguishable from an involved admin making sure their favored edits are in an article before protecting it from a good-faith edit war? --]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 22:55, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
	:As Relata refero asks above, would it have made any difference if I'd reverted the article ''after'' I had posted the AE request? As far as I was concerned, that was my 1RR. Bear in mind that under the 1RR regime I would have been entitled to restore my edits anyway. Or are you arguing that Leifern's reversion without discussion was a legitimate action and should have been left in place? My sole concern was that another editor - maybe Leifern, maybe someone else - would revert my reversion, and another would revert that, and so on to the point of an edit war. The fairest way of preventing that was to restrain ''both'' sides equally - including myself. -- ] (]) 23:07, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
	::::Yes, it would have made a difference, because that revert would have counted as your 1RR. You should have just waited, and then this whole kerfuffle wouldn't have arisen. Small details change the tone of sensitive situations, and anything covered by the arbitration in question is necessarily sensitive. Just be careful, that's all. --]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 01:03, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
	:::::Fair point. For the record, though, as I said above I did count that revert as my 1RR. -- ] (]) 01:07, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
	::I think it would be best if "involved" admins (such as ChrisO) would just stay away from the enforcement of the arbitration decision. Completely. I think that's what the ArbCom really had in mind, and I hope they will take this opportunity to eliminate any doubt about that. I think the committee was trying to reduce the scope of the dispute, but if involved admins are constantly pushing up against the "line" of what they are permitted to do (and in this case, I believe, crossing the line), that will only expand the scope of the dispute. ] (]) 23:27, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
	:::''Any'' "involved" editor can and should submit arbitration enforcement requests if they feel it's justified - note that I acted as an editor, not an admin (obviously I can't enforce the arbitration decision). Prohibiting "involved" editors from making AE requests would make the arbitration decision unworkable. Obviously the "involved" editors are the people most likely to be aware of disputes, and therefore are best placed to explain what the problem is and why enforcement is needed in a particular case. -- ] (]) 23:30, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
	Figures, I take a week break from AE and the whole place collapses! But enough about how great I am! One universal I'd like to narrow this down on, as a lesson to be drawn for the future, is that for enforcement which is likely to result in such probationary measures, it is important that the enforcement nomination itself remains disconnected from the nominator's preferred version being last due to their own efforts. Which is to say: the nominator should not have the article reverted to their own preferred version immediately before or after filing the nomination. Because that does tend to defeat the point of having enforcement as, ultimately, a ''balancing'' mechanism. ] 00:09, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
	:I wonder if this is a reasonable solution. There's no real dispute that Leifern's actions were specifically prohibited by ]. If a violation of editing policy like a blind revert is permitted to stand, isn't that in effect allowing the violator to get away with it? A revert that ''isn't'' a violation of ] should of course be allowed to stand, but I don't think we should be encouraging or permitting editors to enjoy the fruits of a violation of basic editing rules. Oh, and don't feel too guilty about things going to pot in your absence - it's just that some people are too fond of drama. See where ] redirects to. :-) -- ] (]) 00:16, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
	::My approach goes so far as to even leaving counter-reversions to the closing administrator's discretion. The greatest difficulty, I think, is finding uninvolved admins that are clued-in and oriented enough to close these reports. This, since some disputes cannot be resolved by, robotically, following a set of rules. As soon as a facet of enforcement is oversystematized (like with last reverts), one side may play that to their advantage and then the enforcement platform loses its cohesion and the confidence of the community. That's why I want closing admins sometimes doing the unexpected, to keep the disputing parties on their toes, to motivate them to play fair. ] 00:30, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
	:::I think you've put your finger on the key problem - the need to find uninvolved admins. There's a related problem, which is that some editors are likely to attack even uninvolved admins if they dare to intervene in disputes on these articles. If you want examples, ask ], ] and ] (who was an admin at the time). I said during the arbitration that I believed that a number of editors were doing this deliberately to discourage and intimidate admins into giving them a free pass. I still believe that's the case. It's certainly been true that outside Misplaced Pages, partisans in this conflict have been quite vicious in attacking individuals whose involvement they dislike - ], for instance, has reportedly been the target of death threats for his news reports. I fear that the same ] mentality is a factor here as well. -- ] (]) 00:45, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
	::::Chris, you went to IRC to find an admin, then when you had one lined up, you reverted the page, quickly asked for enforcement, and got that enforcement. ''That'' is the issue at hand; attempts to deflect this to a larger "key problem", involving intimidation of admins, death threats against journalists, and who knows what else, about which you are merely a disinterested observer trying to solve a vexing problem, become less and less convincing each time you play that hand. It is little different from the times you have protected articles over which you were edit-warring, except this time you did it once-removed. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 02:15, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
	:::::Predictable nonsense. You're wrong about the sequence of events; I didn't ask anyone to review my request until ''after'' I had posted it (obviously, there was no request to review until that point). Don't rely on FeloniousMonk's timeline - it's inaccurate and out of context, like most of the rest of his tendentious accusations. And I might point out that you're in no position to lecture given -- ] (]) 08:04, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
	(reset indent) ChrisO, I did in fact discuss my revert after I did, but more importantly, your unilateral rework of the edit was in direct response to my concerns about the scope of the article. In other words, you thought the article should be about B, I thought it should be about A, and rather than discuss you just went ahead and made it about B. When I reverted and asked that we discuss before making further changes, you went running to a forum only you as admin have access to. And your request included an admonishment to me. --] (]) 13:06, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
	Thatcher reinstated the probation because he ] I'm -- ''sigh'' -- "involved in the I-P dispute", so can we get some comments on whether the 1RR/week restriction should stay in place? -- ''']''' 13:19, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
	:I said on my talk page "''I was under the impression that you have been involved in the I-P dispute, although perhaps on other articles...If I am mistaken in either of these assumptions then I apologize. If you are uninvolved in the I-P dispute and you believe that a 1RR limit is not required, then you can lift the limitation.''" Why is this still an issue? ] 16:04, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
	== Forgery & misapplication of ] by ] ==
	] i violated ] by describing ] as an "intermittant rant". I'll find a wording that should ameliorate that before i go offline in the next half hour or less. But in the meantime, he has cited ] in justifying than i remember ever seeing, even when ] was a frequently cited essay instead of a Rdr. (He excised half of one contrib including its sig, and the whole of an apology that was a separate contrib, leaving the appearance that the whole was a single contrib. I trust no one will suggest i am overly prissy in holding that every modification of another editor's signed contribution must
	: be signed by the modifier,
	: maintain clarity about where removals have been done, and what that remains is original and what modified
	to avoid condemnation as forgery.) I am about to rv all his removals on that talk page of my writing, with edits of my own wording to address his sensitivites, but in light of his responses, in summaries and on my tk (lk'd above) to ] anticipate the possibility of another reversion by him. In that event i will block him for 8 hours and revert, before leaving to attend to an overdue commitment lasting something like 6 hours, and hope for the attention of another admin, to counsel restraint by him (in place of his self-righteous advocacy of restraint by me) and remove the block. <br>--]•] 19:24, 3 February 2008 (UTC)<br>
	:I am usually weary of comments being removed. But your comments are too personal and inflammatory, needlessly so. Up to and including the title you chose for this notice, with the first word being "forgery." Can I press on you to tone down the rhetoric and, generally, limit your interactions with him to impersonal, dispassionate, matter-of-fact communication? Thanks. ] 23:38, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
	:: Thank you for needed feedback, with which i could use some less abstract assistance if you are willing. (I fear your efforts will be wasted on me if they stop here.)
	::'''I need more help from you or someone.'''
	:: In particular, it is all very well for me to intend to apply what may be learned from this, but in the meantime there is the present situation to be dealt with.
	:: And, excuse me, but i cited forgery first bcz that is the most objective and least defensible offense; if it seems inflammatory, it is IMO simply bcz forgery of talk contributions
	::# is a threat to WP in the same way and degree that forgery in society is a threat to the reliability of contracts and other important documents, and
	::# is so obviously intolerable that there is no Rdr named ] to direct us to the neologism that might have developed for it, if there had ever been a defense made of forgery in certain circumstances (as there was a essay page ], even tho it was so problematic that the page is now vigorously deprecated), and the term that sounds like a criminal act does quite well, thank you, except for those who want exceptions made for them to forge contribs.
	::(Of course, that editor's conception of RPA does not even live up to the now suppressed examples in the old essay, which presumably were too encouraging of misuse to survive the, uh, refactoring.)
	:: I would like to be the first to say that the editor who is the victim of forgery is not an ideal enforcer of the no-brainer prohibition of forgery. The proper response to that fact is not to try to get me tie to my own hands, but to intervene, now, to solve the forgery problem first, ameliorating the personality and passion issues, instead of exhorting me to to the Herculean task of rising above them. This ''is'' personal bcz am the immediate victim, but it is ''worthy'' of a passionate attitude for far better reasons than its being personal, and it is ''not'' matter-of-fact.
	:: Since i first wrote here (but before receiving ElC's counsel), i moderated my terminology (without labeling as a PA what IMO was not), and solicited feedback on whether my use of "utterly unfounded insinuation" was something he would like ameliorated. GvH simply said on my talk page
	::: Right, now you seem to be deliberately drawing attention to the personal attack that you made in the first place so I am just going to revert you again. Regards
	:: and reverted, with summary "rv harrassment". I have seen no hint that he is prepared to seek what he wants without forgery, and every reason to think that he simply wants a veto power on mentions of him. The effort to remove my comments, without attempting negotiation of a rewording, began some 25 hrs ago, under the cryptic summmary "rv to me, i made that comment and it is directly related to the thread". (I took that to be a proprietary statement that he was free to delete, in the refactor i began, a hdg he originally created, and which i had until then assumed we both wanted to preserve -- Hey, no biggie.) No one else has shown the least concern about the forgery aspect, and the time will soon arise when i do my best to take the counsel of ] (who hasn't edited in about the last 4 hours) as ''i'' enforce the crucial (if de facto) prohibition of forgery of signed contribs. <br>--]•] 04:42, 4 February 2008 (UTC)<br>
	== I deleted the ] ==
	{{Resolved|1=Two users are ] for the day. - <span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: 11pt">] <sup><small>(])</small></sup></span> 14:13, 4 February 2008 (UTC)}}
	It was sort of an accident. See, the Main Page used to be blocked from deleting because of the 5000 revision thing. I was bored a bit, and looking at the Main Page's deletion log from the delete interface. I asked in IRC whether it's possible to delete the Main Page again. A certain user who might like to show up here, possibly, told me that he tested it and confirm doesn't properly work. I was a tad too gullible and tested it for myself. Luckily, the damage was reversed and I think everything should be back to normal. Sorry, folks. '''<font face="Arial">]<sub><small>]</small></sub></font>''' 20:31, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
	:Yup, that was my fault. I thought it was obvious I was joking, but clearly it wasn't. I accept the responsibility for this one, and I'd like to appologise to everyone for that - I was way way way out of line here. ] 20:33, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
	::It seems a couple desysoppings and bans are in order. ;) --] 20:35, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
	:::Well my pride is seriously damaged, that's for sure. ] 20:37, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
	"Jumping off an 70-floor building won't kill you, I tried it and was fine"... ]] 20:34, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
	:I've never heard anyone who jumped off of a 70-foot building complain about it. --] (]) 20:59, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
	::It should be noted that jumping off tall structures has never killed anyone - it is hitting the hard stuff at the bottom of said structures that usually causes the problem... ] (]) 23:05, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
	:::: —] <small>(])</small> 23:37, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
	:::Also, you can undelete a page, you can't unjump off a building. --] <small>]</small> 23:35, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
	Did you guys know that if you put a picture of goatse on one of the interface pages, it doesn't show up? srsly --- ] 20:37, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
	:I don't see any need for anything to become of this. I support forgetting about it- everyone makes mistakes, and everyone forgets that jokes don't translate well over the Internet. It is pretty funny though. ] (]) 20:38, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
	::C'mon, that's about how I feel now... I deserve a big chunk of the blame for actually pressing that damned button. '''<font face="Arial">]<sub><small>]</small></sub></font>''' 20:38, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
	Awesome. --] ] 20:39, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
	* ], ] ] ] :) <b>]</b> 20:39, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
	*As I mentioned on ], perhaps we should institute some sort of protection against these things? We could have another prompt to enter one's password before an edit to the main page went through, and an "are you sure?" box before one deletes the main page. That could help prevent some of these things from happening. --] 20:49, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
	::It wouldn't have helped. Ryan told me, jokingly, that it simply won't work. So I foolishly tested it myself. Those wouldn't have stopped me... '''<font face="Arial">]<sub><small>]</small></sub></font>''' 20:52, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
	:::True, but if a box pops up that doesn't normally pop up saying "Are you absolutely positive you want to delete the Main Page?" you might have been alerted to the fact that one can, in fact, delete the main page. Also, the password prompt would have prevented the editing of "Misplaced Pages" to "Dickipedia" that happened this morning. --] 20:55, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
	::::However, as I said on ], it wouldn't have helped with our penis-image-related vandalism the other day, as that was through an edit to a template. The templates are edited a lot- needing to put in your password would not help. Anyway, most people would have their password saved anyway (is there a way to get around that?) and having to enter your password would slow down reversion, too. Sounds pathetic, but I think we need reverts almost instantly in the case of main page vandalism. ] (]) 20:59, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
	:::::How long does it take to enter in a password, though? It seems like it would only be a very minor inconvenience, even if it were applied to templates on the Main Page, and it would only add a second or two to reverts, which wouldn't really make a big difference, especially considering it would probably prevent vandalism that would last longer than the extra couple of seconds any vandalism that did get through stayed up. --] 21:08, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
	::::::The Main spage os the cornerstone of Wikipedian society. adding extra protections to prevent it form being vandalized is the most worthwhile ambition imaginable. I seen o reason why we cannot formally ask the developemnt team on wikipedia to consider adding this to the program. ] (]) 21:22, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
	::::::::I see no reason why we shouldn't expect administrators to behave better than this. This is a behavioural issue, not a software one. ] (]) 22:00, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
	:::::::::This was an accident that could have been prevented if he realized he was mistaken, and this morning's incident was a result of someone gaining access to a computer logged into an admin account, and it would have been prevented if a password were required. --] 22:09, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
	*See ] for my "long standing rationale" on this ... ) <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">] : ] </span></small> 21:50, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
	*I noticed this. Assumed it was a mistake of some kind. Still, did it really take for the protection to be put back on the Main Page? Or was the page really still protected all that time? ] (]) 21:55, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
	:*If you have the correct timestamp format enabled in your preferences, you will see that the two log entries are only apart. —] <small>(])</small> 22:04, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
	:*The protection was removed by the delete, not the edit this morning. --] 22:10, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
	*This needs to go into ]. The definitive Misplaced Pages beans. ] <small>] </small> 22:11, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
	::Best laugh of the day on here is this thread. ] (]) 22:23, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
	:Thank you Maxin, that's hilarious. Do you now get to put a "This user has deleted the mainpage" userbox on your userpage? ] (]) 22:42, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
	{{Userbox | border-c = #999 | border-s = 1 | id-c = red | id-s = 14 | id-fc = black | info-c = #EEE | info-s = 8 | info-fc = black | id = ] | info = This user has deleted the ]. | float = left }}
	*I can't work out if by writing ] I have violated ]. With apologies to Ryan and Maxim. ] <small>] </small> 22:53, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
	::I have no idea how this happened. I can personally attest to the fact that the Main Page '''was impossible to delete''' for about the past month -- since 'bigdelete' was implemented. It seems the Main Page no longer has 5,000 revisions. How? I have no idea. A word to all admins: if the form appears, it means you can delete the page. The warning message takes the place of the form if it isn't possible to delete the page (try ] for an example). --] (]) 22:58, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
	:::NNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (sorry, couldn't resist). 23:01, 3 February 2008 (UTC) <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) </small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
	:::By all means, encourage admins to attempt to delete the United States :) ] <sup>]</sup>⁄<sub>]</sub> <small>&bull;&nbsp;23:03, 3 February 2008 (UTC)</small>
	::::You lot are a bad influence. Especially with the goatse idea lol.:) ] 23:05, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
	:::::We need a ] to list these things, then we can all go and giggle and/or throw rotten tomatoes at people who delete the main page and crash the servers by deleting the sandbox. :-) ] (]) 23:16, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
	::::::Great idea! BTW, I tried to delete the United States, and the warning notice appeared. :-( ] (]) 23:18, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
	:::::::Carcharoth, if you'd succeeded in deleting the United States, I have a feeling there are some smaller nations who would be forever in your debt. (Now if you'd just delete a few of our politicians, as well....)] 00:02, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
	Even stranger things have happend to the main page in its long and turbulent life... How about this: ? I personally quite like the name "Little Barrier Island" for the main page... -- ] (]) 23:25, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
	I've added some MediaWiki: namespace magic that should hopefully make deleting the Main Page a bit harder, at least... -_- '''<font color="#ff9900">]</font><font color="#ff6699">]</font>''' 23:58, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
	Bad idea, Maxim - you're supposed to take it to AfD first. Anyone for ]? -- ] (]) 23:59, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
	Oh, man, that is FAWESOME! And I thought ] did the most-amazing deletion ever when he broke the whole 'pedia...what was it he tried to delete again? Isn't that why the >5000-edits thing was supposedly put in place in the first place? Anyway, kudos on your amazingness--you are now the official patron saint of us folks who trip over rocks, spill things on our shirt, and otherwise make unintentionally-hilarious mistakes. :) ] 00:00, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
	::OK guys, I went and created ]. Do with it what you will. Turn them into patron saints, too, if you like. ;-) ] (]) 00:03, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
	*Ban all admins from Misplaced Pages for one year and let us regular folks go back to business as usual..:) ] (]) 07:29, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
	According to , the Main Page is only 8 edits shy of 4,000, and could've been deleted for not reaching the "bigdelete" limit (5,000). . We laughed, some cried, let's move on. - <span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: 11pt">] <sup><small>(])</small></sup></span> 14:13, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
	*That's nothing. If you add Lemonparty to ], it doesn't work! ] (]) 15:14, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
	== French village stubs ==
	{{resolved}} Consensus was that this is not a problem. ] (]) 22:44, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
	{{discussiontop}}
	] is creating unrefernced stubs on French villages at the rate of approximately 5 per minute. I am discussing if these articles are useful, or if they should be deleted on the user's talk page, but more input would be appreciated. ] (]) 20:36, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
	:Infoboxes will be added once the articles are set up. Info can be transalted from the official websites on each of the at a later date. These can soon by developed into articles like ] and eventually into full length articles. Other wikipedias have had these articles for at least four years and we are lagging behind. Use your head. This is wiki. Articles won't remain "useless stubs" forever. They are here to build up into full articles. This is the most efficient way to get them up and running of which I see precious few other people bothering. The links to other wikipedias are there which show that they are valid. ]</span> <sup>]</sup> 20:41, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
	Examples include ], ], ] etc... ] (]) 20:43, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
	:Well, we do have a precedent of sorts with the US and Canadian place articles... —''']''' 20:46, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
	:They most defintely should '''''not''''' be deleted. Creation of articles about all real places which we do not yet have articles for, should be encouraged, not discouraged. <font face="Arial">]<sub>'']''</sub></font> 20:47, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
	I'd be perfectly happy if they included something like a link to a French government website, or even an atlas, but creating completely unreferenced one-line stubs? ] (]) 20:51, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
	Note to Tim. Look if anybody on this website knows how to build an encyclopedia it is me. I haven't put 109,000 edits into this and not learned a thing or two about what wikipedia is. Info boxes can be added within seconds from french wikipedia as above. This is the quickest way to get articles which were on the other wikipedias five years onto here. We are laggin behind. If more people helped me develop them rather than sitting around moaning how bleak they are it would take off in no time. Please think about the future of wikipedia rather than dwelling on how it is this second. I really dislike being disrupted like this]</span> <sup>]</sup> 20:52, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
	:Thank you Blofeld for adding the infoboxes to the stubs I linked to, they look pretty good now. If you could do this with the other stubs and add something like an external link, that would solve the problem entirely. ] (]) 20:54, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
	::Blofeld isn't the only editor creating French commune stubs, although his are a bit on the short side. It looks like an effort is being made to create an article for every French commune. It would be better if a little more info could be provided - e.g. the infobox as used on the French Misplaced Pages (see ]). ] (]) 20:55, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
	As I;ve told you I almost always add a reference or a locator map and infobox or something -why do you think the other day I went through all the ] etc etc and added infoboxes and locator maps because I know how important this is. WHo do you think the guy is adding infoboxes to articles like ] etc and thousands of others?. But because of the sheer amount missing I need to methodically get them on to here first and this is the best way to start it. It would take months otherwise. I am all for articles being referenced and quality, I actually spend a lot of time taggin articles as unreferenced myself. I appreciate your concerns but there isn't anything stopping you from helping. INfoboxes can and will be added within seconds afterwards. PLease please believe me that I wouldn't create an article for the sake of it however it may seem ]</span> <sup>]</sup> 20:57, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
	::''Quick side note from an uninvolved non-admin''-As someone who works with a lot of ] articles as part of the ], I find Sir Blofeld stub articles to be quite useful-particularly once the infobox and location coordinates are added. For users not familiar with French locations, knowing what department a city is in and its relative location within major wine regions can be quite useful. In the past, I have also expanded some of the stubs when they involve a notable wine village. Having a good starting point, infobox and all, makes those efforts much easier. ]]/] 20:59, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
	As a new page patroller, I have see a lot of Sir Blofeld's articles. I think it is a shame they are unreferenced, but he says that he is going to add references and infoboxes, and I trust him. These articles are valid, and useful
	additions to the encyclopedia. ] (]) 21:03, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
	:Although unreferenced they are linked to the French wiki version. I see no reason why these will not develop more if given time. i can think of wrose and less relevant micro stubs. ] ] 21:10, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
	Well what reference can I add ? I feel the french and dutch wikipedia links are enough to show they are valid. When the infoboxes are added the external links/references will be copied straight from french wikipedia. This can be done in seconds. There are other editors gradually doing this but I would really appreciate it if a few more people got together and helped out. The best way things like this can develop is through people working together not against each other. I don;t generally create articles without external links either but this case is special because of the sheer content missing which should have been done years ago. ]</span> <sup>]</sup> 21:08, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
	Next stage will be to developed them like ] within seconds and later translated from french on various sites ]</span> <sup>]</sup> 21:16, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
	*The basis of inclusion - I do newpage patrol as well - is whether the articles are verifiable (these are) and noteworthy (places of habitation default are); so no problem - they stay. ] (]) 22:36, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
	:This is exactly what we need, more real world content. WP:NOT#PAPER is a perfect way to get a full gazetteer style set of pages in here. I think this is one of the best applications of our time and pages, far more useful and informative than fighting to keep 22 pages for the third season episodes of ]. ] (]) 22:40, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
	{{discussionbottom}}
	== ] ==
	{{resolved|well, resolved for ANI purposes, anyway. ]] 22:40, 3 February 2008 (UTC)}}
	{{user5|Alien from brixton}}
	Earlier today the above user redirected their userpage to an article they had created ]. I reverted the edit and explained to them that userpages should not be redirected to an article. (I had an article they had edited on in my watchlist) However they have now redirected their user talk page again to the articles talk page, making it impossible to leave a message on their userpage. Also on the article ] the same user removed a whole section discussing a proposed Irish Sea Tunnel, initially without an edit summary and eventually stating on my talk page that they did so because it was "crap". I have tried restoring the content following discussion on the articles talk page when I said that I would be restoring the content as it is sourced, valid and relevant, and adding a "main article" link. However they left a message stating "you will not" and have yet again removed the entire sourced section. I just seem to be annoying the user. I have tried sorting this out on their talk page (when they had one) and on the articles talk page, explaining that they would be best editing the section but unfortunately this has falled on deaf ears. I will not be reverting again and getting further involved into an edit war and I have left the article as it was. However, could someone deal with this please? I would leave a message informing them of my bringing this up on here but as I said above they now have no user talkpage. Thank you.]·<small>]</small> 21:06, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
	:I am not an administrator, but I have gone ahead and reverted the redirected talk page back to a normal talk page. In the future, if you want to edit a redirect page, when you are on the page you have been redirected too, under the article title a link to the redirect should be present. By clicking on it and then on history, you can revert it. At any rate, I am going to go ahead and leave a note on the importance of talk page. Besides that, I will leave it to an administrator. <small><span style="border:1px solid #FF3333;padding:1px;">] ]</span></small> 21:16, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
	::I've left a welcome message and a polite note about the redirect, which I hope helps. The editing dispute doesn't really need adminstrative action. ]] 21:19, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
	:::Fair enough, but how do I now restore the tunnel section to the article? I added the "main article" link in the section to ] but that was also removed and now the article merely states, "There have been various tentative proposals for an ]". The content is relevant to the article, however if I re-add the content again, even if a smaller section, I will be breaking the 3RR and no doubt winding up Alien From Buxton even further. Removing content from an article because they had "made a new article because the old crap in the Irish Sea article is crap and not really revelent" (the explanation given on my talk page) is surely not a valid reason to remove a whole sourced section. The article needs more than a one line throwaway comment.]·<small>]</small> 21:28, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
	::::Try ]. As I said, this doesn't need administrative action. ]] 22:40, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
	== legal threat from IP/sock - blocked ==
	Just a quick heads up, {{ipvandal|142.162.14.78}} dropped a legal threat on ]. Since I can't really indef block an IP, especially considering it's probably not static, I made a 1 week hard block on the IP. If a checkuser gets a chance it might be good to make sure I'm not causing any collateral damage. Cheers =) --]<small><sup>\&nbsp;]&nbsp;/</sup></small> 00:12, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
	*Most likely a sock of {{user|Juno24631}} (who threatened to kill herself via vandalism to ]) and quite likely herself a sock of {{user|Kagome 85}} who is making the same changes the IP and Juno did. ] (]) 00:13, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
	::Lol, didn't know about the whole suicide thing. Somehow it seems that they're finding their way to me this week. :P Anyway the evidence was clear when when it's not an AOL range to lift an unblock on the sock account then proceeded to make all of the same edits his sock made. --]<small><sup>\&nbsp;]&nbsp;/</sup></small> 00:18, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
	::And is now making the same changes as {{user|Kagome 65}}. ] (]) 00:18, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
	::And again as {{user|Saturn 18}}. ] (]) 00:24, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
	:::Socks blocked. <font color="Green">]</font> <sup><font color="Blue">]</font></sup> 00:28, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
	== Need a page move by a newbie editor undone ==
	{{resolved|Page moved back to correct name by ] —]] 01:22, 4 February 2008 (UTC)}}
	{{User|Rockk3r}} page moved the "Portal Rush (band)" to "Portal Rush" and the result is a broken portal made up of a bunch of red links. I explained blunder to the editor but it looks like he's offline and can't correct his mistake. Can someone pop by and undo his goof. ] (]) 00:23, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
	:{{done}}, though I managed to screw it up the first time as well. <b>]</b> 00:38, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
	::Thanks Black Kite. The editor is still online but did not get back to "undo his do's". ] (]) 00:44, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
	== Systematic removal of WikiProject Totalitarianism project tags ==
	{{resolved|Blocked 24 hours per ] discussion --''']''' (]) 02:39, 4 February 2008 (UTC)}}
	: ''Brought over from WP:AIV.'' &mdash; ] (]) 01:48, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
	"{{Vandal|Maglev Power}}: I don't know if this is really vandalism, but I don't know where else to report it. ] has taken it upon himself to strip every single article in WikiProject Totalitarianism of its talk page tag, because he doesn't like the idea of the WikiProject. He is currently in the process of doing it. There is absolutely no consensus to do this, and he seems to shrug off complaints on his talk page. At one point he said "Encyclopedias are based on facts, not 'consensus.'" I think some administrator should step in. --] (]) 01:38, 4 February 2008 (UTC)"
	: Discussion also on ] &mdash; ] (]) 02:02, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
	== Odd vandalism pattern by 76.109.246.250 ==
	This isn't ongoing but appears to have been overlooked at the time; just thought I'd mention it in case others see the pattern in other similar addresses. ] made a series of edits to ] and ] on November 26. In both cases, the first edit in the series is truncated when viewed in ], and looks innoccuous 'above the fold'. Below the fold, urls have had pieces removed. This first edit is followed in quick succession by minor, possibly good faith edits (some of these are possible number vandalism). Previous edits from the same address show a pattern of number vandalism and url breakage, but this looks like a deliberate attempt to hide what's being done. --] (]) 02:09, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
	:I have evidence to an effect of things being hidden as well. Edits disappearing! If you need it please let me know and I will dig it up. ] (]) 04:25, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
	::The IP cited above has only edited 7 times since November, and none are what I would call "bad faith" edits. What is the issue here? This is in all likelyhood a different person than edited back in November... --].].] 05:24, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
	::: I agree. Except for a general reminder to scroll down a bit to check for hidden vandalism at the bottom of an edit, there's nothing to do here. ] 06:19, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
	== Process attack by ] ==
	Admin ] has now instead of making an attempt to ], escalated the situation by reporting my own site to the Spam police. Grossly mischaracterizing the situation. It seems to me that he is attempting, yet another process-end-run to try to discredit anyone pointing out his own anti-project behaviour. ] (]) 06:14, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
	:Attack? ] is an important objective at Misplaced Pages, Unfortunately the ] on ] states ''You should avoid linking to a website that you own, maintain or represent, even if the guidelines otherwise imply that it should be linked,'' which is in line with the ] guidelines. This is not the first time this has been an issue with you, see]. You're here to improve Misplaced Pages, not just to push adjendas or funnel readers off Misplaced Pages onto '''your''' site, right?..]--] (]) 06:26, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
	:What's "this dispute" which you refer to, Wjhonso? (it's linking to ], not to any specific dispute) ] 09:27, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
	::And you know we've already run this EL process and your position failed. The previous AN/I failed as anyone can see. There was no follow-up, and no further action. And all reviewers can plainly see that this situation has '''developed solely''' because you are seeking to discredit me for pointing out your own ] in the entire King of Mann / unrealroyal.com circus. ] (]) 06:31, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
	:::Wjhonson, rules are rules. It's your site. WP:COI tells you what to do with it. Besides, it fails WP:RS and WP:EL, so it's inclusion is dubious regardless of the COI. ] (]) 06:44, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
	::::I am not in disagreement with that interpretation Shot info. I have '''a few rare times''' added a direct link to an article I've writen to an in-wiki article page. As ] correctly pointed out on the Spam Project, editors are not only allowed, but encouraged to provide in-TALK links to information, including their own, that might be useful for developing article detail. '''For the most part''' that is indeed what I did. In the few cases, where there is a link from article space to my site, I would have no problem at all, with removing them. Hu12 has never approached me to resolve this which would be the normal and correct first step. His report is merely, part and parcel of the entire long-running King of Mann fiasco. Now that Mann has evidently returned to Misplaced Pages, I'm sure we'll see much more of this sordid situation.] (]) 06:58, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
	:::::You were aware of this back in March 2007 @ ], so there is no excuse and I yes I've notified you <sup></sup>. While one or two talk page request may have have been appropriate (discounting the WP:RS and WP:EL issue), spamming 18+ additions to talk pages is called ] (]), and unacceptable.--] (]) 07:46, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
	::::::<s>I tend to agree with Wjhonson here.</s> This does not seem to be extensive or intensive enough to warrant blacklisting. ] 09:21, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
	::::::Can I have a link to the "spamming 18+ additions to talk pages," please? ] 09:38, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
	:::::::<u>See also</u> - →]
	:::::::* --------------------------------------<br>--] (]) 10:33, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
	::::::::*This is all from a while ago, so what prompted the latest? ] 10:39, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
	::::::::*What's the problem with his comment at the ? ] 10:43, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
	:::::::::It being a continuation of past behavior, but that was an honest statement. Nothing here in my opinion warrants blacklisting (not sure who brought that up, nor did I suggest). These reports take time (started a month ago), and the long term nature (since 2004) of the additions required just that, more time. In any event, if one or two talk page request were made probably wouldent have spent the time as it would have been appropriate (minus WP:RS and WP:EL).--] (]) 11:08, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
	(OD) No redirect Hu12. Anyone who reads the AN/I you linked above can see quite clearly that no action or response was taken. You have failed Hu12 to notify me on my talk page, or request any sort of reaction or response there. That is the first step in ] not the last one. And I reject your repeated use of the word "spamming" in this derogatory fashion. Anyone can clearly see, the links were placed over a '''long period of time''', and were directly related to updating certain particular article details. Admin ] has already addressed this for you, since you seem confused about proper use of external link information on article talk pages. You have misinterpreted our policy a number of times, which is disconcerting since you should be in a position to understand it more clearly. Your behaviour here and elsewhere is really quite remarkable. And I don't think I need to clarify that any further. El C, the 18+ Talk links to which he refers, were diffed by him on the Wikiproject Spam link, Hu12 provided above. Anyone can read them, and convince themselves that those diffs, have no relation to '''spam''', the links being directly related to information useful for expanding the articles. And placed on the talk pages as we as editors are encouraged to do. Hu12 is just fishing around for something to use against me. Whatever might stick.] (]) 09:52, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
	== Blocking of User:X3210 ==
	{{Resolved|1=Although the user did lash out, he has since contacted me via email and has, in my opinion, genuinely apologized for his actions. I've since unblocked the user and left a note on his talk page. --]<small><sup>\&nbsp;]&nbsp;/</sup></small> 08:23, 4 February 2008 (UTC)}}
	Could someone please review the blocking of ], it followed an incident where an administrator incorrectly reverted his user page (that the user had blanked as is his right) and told the user it was not allowed. I became involved because of this post ] in which the administrator cited this as an example (which is also unfair and should be removed).
	When I checked the page it seemed to me that the administrators involved acted hastily, without complete understanding of policy and with a serious misunderstanding of the users contributions (the use was characterized as a "vandal" and all I can see is that he was undoing vandalism on ], incorrectly tagged an IP, apologized for it and then blanked his page after the other involved parties had replied. I don't see where an attempt was made to verify policy until after the incident had escalated. Thank you. ] (]) 06:30, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
	:It seems X3210 was (wrongly) told not to blank his talk page, proceeded to make a ] by blanking someone else's and , and that got him blocked by a previously uninvolved administrator. I see no error in that administrator's actions. ] (]) 07:08, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
	::For the record, while it looks like the people who reverted the blanking of this users talk page were not entirely correct (any user may blank their talk page at any time; blanking of ones own talk page confirms that one has read any messages thereof; archiving is not required, and we don't make users wear ]s.) the users response thereof was ENTIRELY inappropriate, as they seemed to go on a blanking rampage of other users talk pages. So, to sum up, this user SHOULD have been allowed to blank their own talk page; the people who told them this was not allowed were incorrect. However, the users response was entirely inappropriate, and merited a block. In the future, users should contact admins here or at WP:AN and not attempt to rectify a misunderstanding by revenge. I endorse the block, but the editors who told them the wrong info should be set straight also. --].].] 07:10, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
	:::Gah - I just wrote a long post with diffs to try and clarify the sequence of events, and here I get beat to the punch >.< I agree that the editors need to be set straight--it's worth noting that a user even used rollback to restore the contents a couple of times, although they later posted on the talk page that blanking is acceptable. --]-]] 07:23, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
	:First, he blanked his talk page, not user page as stated above. I have no problem with people blanking their user page at any time. It is, however, correct that I was mistaken about user talk page policy. I still disagree with that policy, and the ] that backs it up. In the future, I will only restore very recent warnings that were clearly removed in bad faith; I understand that still technically contravenes policy, but I have seen many editors do it. Second, I of course didn't block X3210, or accuse him of vandalism. He was blocked (31 hours) by ] because he blanked my user talk page, ]'s user page, and told me to "buzz off". I did not request that block.
	:I don't understand what is unfair about me "citing" my blanking (I didn't cite the block, or say the block was justified) at ]. I was quite frank that I had done something that was in violation of the essay. I also explained why I disagree with the essay. ] - ] 07:28, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
	::Other than making a user wear a big giant red "A" on their chest, what is the purpose of preventing registered users from blanking their own talk page? --].].] 07:37, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
	:::]. ] (]) 07:41, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
	:::There is none, anybody can blank their own talk pages. It's usually a sign of frustration when vandals or other editors who've been warned again and again keep blanking warnings, and the legit editors keep stuffing the warnings back up to show they've been tagged as vandals. It happens. Heck, it happens to me, too. ] (]) 07:45, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
	::Actually I had no problem with the dude blanking his user talk page at all, since it's our policy to allow users to do that. Of course, when he started retaliating at others for restoring the pages instead of taking the issue here or elsewhere, it seemed like a clear issue of ] and ]. However, if the user is willing to be civil and use the proper channels for resolving disputes, I'll be more than happy to unblock him/her. --]<small><sup>\&nbsp;]&nbsp;/</sup></small> 07:47, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
	::::Well I like to keep it all transparent. To me it is a Red Badge of Courage! But that is just me. ] (]) 07:49, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
	:::::Thanks for the replies, I should make it clear that I don't think what the did user was at all appropriate, but had it been handled better and a bit slower, the user might not have gotten to that point, in fact the user did reply on the talk page of the admin initially and not in an uncivil way and his page was reverted again.] (]) 07:56, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
	:::There's a reason we have multiple levels of warnings. If someone pastes gibberish into an article one time, I'll give them a polite warning. If I see they've done it before, I'll give them a more severe warning or block them. But I don't want to look in the talk history, just because the user prefers to blank their page completely every time someone puts a message. ] - ] 13:38, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
	* We shouldn't really be surprised that users react poorly when they perceive they are being harassed, and lash out at those they see as the harassers. Someone restored X3210's talk page hours after it had been blanked, and without leaving any explanation. ] 07:51, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
	*:Communication is the key! Templating regular users does not work. They are not vandals. If people would learn to communicate better we would have less Flame Wars going on! ] (]) 07:55, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
	:True, restoring someone else's talk page shouldn't be done. However, to me that's a very small problem. When a blocked editor has caused trouble all over the place, legit editors get frustrated and sometimes make bad decisions. To misappropriate Chris Rock, "I ain't saying I would have done it...but I understand." ] (]) 07:57, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
	**However, neither should we condone the lashing out. This user wasn't exactly a newbie, and any reasonable person never resorts to blatant vigilante-style revenge when faced with perceived harassment. I am nto surprised when people act like ], but it doesn't mean I think it should go unchecked. Reasonable people look for authorities to turn to when they perceive harrassment by others. This user's first response was to return fire. Hardly a proper move... --].].] 07:58, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
	*** Actually, the first response was at 3:46:04, which looks pretty civil. Then at 3:46:59, Superm401 X2310's talk page, and at 3:47:56, X3210 Superm401's talk page. Not the best response, but hardly seems to have merited a once-and-final NPA warning. ] 09:37, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
	* ]"In the future, I will only restore very recent warnings that were clearly removed in bad faith; I understand that still technically contravenes policy, but I have seen many editors do it." I'd like to suggest may be you not be concerned with what users do on their pages talk or otherwise, good faith, bad faith or indifferent faith. If they've blanked it they've read it, that's the essence of the policy. The warnings don't disappear.] (]) 08:02, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
	: It may not have been known by the editor that users have every right to blank their pages, even involving bad faith, warnings, block notices. That's something a lot of editors have a problem with, from what I've seen. ] (]) 08:03, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
	: I never said they disappear. I said they become needlessly inaccessible. It seems like this policy exists for the whims of editors, without any consideration for the efficient functioning of the wiki.] - ] 13:38, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
	== Continued OWNership and reverts against consensus ==
	Moved from ]
	On the article ], {{Userlinks|Frikkers}} has continually defied consensus, violated the 3RR, and been uncivil. Blocked three times for violation of 3RR, admin ] worked hard to personally facilitate a discussion, which Frikkers refused to participate in. In December Frikkers was blocked for one month as a result of attempting to change Boerboel back to his preferred version against the consensus of the discussion. As soon as his block was up on January 31st, Frikkers again reverted. As the last user (not me) to revert his latest actions put it in their edit summary, "rv WP:OWN of article against consensus, removing interwiki links and removal of sections by user repeatedly against consensus". Considering that Frikkers continues to not only makes reversions against consensus, but almost totally ignores attempts to engage him in discussion, I don't know what the best solution is. Please advise. ]] 04:07, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
	:I think it belongs at AN/I? Might get more attention there. ] (]) 04:38, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
	::It looks like the user set up the account just to edit this article. ]. If not ownership there must be ]. ] (]) 06:29, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
	== Banned user Grawp ==
	{{resolved|Additional IP's blocked. ]] 08:55, 4 February 2008 (UTC)}}
	Grawp is reverting a large number of redirects to non-notable D&D articles using the IP {{Ipvandal|71.107.164.232}}. I request that someone block him and semi-protect everything the IP has touched. FWIW, these redirects were all made by ] who I see as one of the D&D "fans"; one who is ''editing quite reasonably''. --] 07:41, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
	: I don't know about the sockpuppet accusations, but the massive reversions seem to be a problem. --].].] 07:46, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
	::Alison dinged them. So resolved. --].].] 07:49, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
	::: Thanks, all. Alison seems on top of this; he'll rant on the ip talk page until someone protects it a while. Watch for a return on some other IP or D&D-themed sock account. Cheers, ] 07:53, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
	: {{confirmed}} as Grawp yet again. Also {{User|Keysapart}}, now blocked - ] <sup>]</sup> 08:01, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
	::And 71.107.164.232 has had their talk page protected to prevent further trolling. --].].] 08:02, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
	He's back with IP tag-team tactics such as which fake-out ClueBot . Cheers, ] 08:36, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
	:Blocked the 3 IP's in question as probably grawp socks. ]] 08:55, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
	:: Thanks. --] 10:23, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
	nb: also came back as ] but that's all over and blocked; should be checkusered. --] 10:24, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
	::: Done and checkusered. Blocked another account and its underlying IP - ] <sup>]</sup> 11:09, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
	== Is this an unapproved bot or am I being paranoid? ==
	I admit it's possible I'm just being paranoid, but see this: {{User|Markussep}}
	For roughly three and a half years straight (since August 2004), this user has, about 8 to 12 hours a day, 7 days a week, generated full directory entries (generally geographical data on eastern Europe, but also obscure European athletes) at incredible speeds.
	Their edits also sometimes seem to follow certain algorithms. See my comments on their talkpage. Although, of course, that could just be a person themselves counting the alphabet.
	Could a person really have the mental and physical capacity to ''do'' this?
	Even if they're doing it manually, I told them to stop because it's anti-collaborative. Is this an unreasonable request?
	So far, they've made roughly '''1,500 comments''' on talkpages, while making roughly '''42,000 contributions''' to the mainspace. That's not "collaboration." At this speed, it's not physically possible for the average editor to review these contributions for notability and so on, because by the time they have, the user has already created a couple hundred more. <font size="4">]</font>&nbsp;<font face="impact">&nbsp;]</font>&nbsp;(]) 08:37, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
	:This is allowed. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 08:43, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
	Should it be? <font size="4">]</font>&nbsp;<font face="impact">&nbsp;]</font>&nbsp;(]) 09:38, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
	:Of course. We have bots all of the time transwiki articles to here from other places or create articles from databases. That is how we get the articles on all of the US cities and towns; a bot did them all. During the 2 Million article rush, many of the new articles were made by a transwiki bot from the Portuguese Misplaced Pages. We have a bot now that makes articles on all cities and communes within France. In fact, we welcome those. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 09:44, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
	::If it's just an approved bot, can we have the articles it creates automatically marked as "New page patrolled?" ] (]) 09:52, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
	:Bots like this are fine and long welcomed here in the community; they help create stubs that can later be expanded upon by human editors. A ton of our articles on populated places in the USA and elsewhere started out as stubs generated from census data and blossomed into well-written, comprehensive articles. '''<font color="#ff9900">]</font><font color="#ff6699">]</font>''' 10:03, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
	*Zenwhat you need to investigate people not bots. Bots are not Evil. We are not Robo Rama movie..:) <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 10:31, 4 February 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
	It's not an approved bot and he denies that it's a bot. If you guys agree it's a bot, then yes, he needs to get it approved, per ], since what he's doing drastically alters the mainspace and is therefore not just automated editing
	Bots should not be auto-generating possibly contentious content, because as noted above, how are users supposed to collaborate? <font size="4">]</font>&nbsp;<font face="impact">&nbsp;]</font>&nbsp;(]) 10:52, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
	:Well is it a good bot or a bad bot? ] (]) 10:56, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
	::If the bot does something disruptive or harmful to the project, I'd be the first one to block it; but where is this "contentious content"; and for that matter, how is it harming collaboration to be creating stubs for people to build off of? '''<font color="#ff9900">]</font><font color="#ff6699">]</font>''' 11:40, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
	Hello Zenwhat, you forgot to mention ]. Are you claiming that Markussep lied to you? How about notifying him about this thread? If you spent a bit more time editing the content of Misplaced Pages rather than trying to control its contributors you, too, might learn to edit so fast. --] (]) 11:25, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
	In my opinion asking this kind of question here shows you still haven't learned to assume good faith. The editing patterns of this user are obviously not those of a bot. His core times are about 4 hours per day, typically something like 7pm-11pm Middle European Time, i.e. after work. Sometimes more during the weekend. Sometimes only an hour. If you suspected Markussep of lying to you the right thing was to check these things on your own by looking at his editing patterns with an open mind. Just selectively picking some details in order to make a case is a highly disruptive behaviour. Stop it. --] (]) 11:55, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
	From all I can see, Markussep is human and collaborates with others on the creation of stubs for many towns and geographical features. He has an excellent track record of collaborating with others through WikiProjects, for example through many subpages of ]. He deserves praise, not paranoia. ] (]) 12:04, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
	This is as far from good faith as I can see...I mean, if he's organized, efficient and committed, he must be a bot? Have you even looked at his edits? --]] 15:04, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
	:] seems to be hellbent on self-destruction. Over recent days, he has;
	:#Restored comments to a user talk page that the user concerned had legitimately deleted per ].
	:#Responded in an un-] manner to my assumption of good faith that the point above was due to not being aware of ] (he knows the policy, and disagrees with it)
	:#Repeatedly copied whole conversations to the other parties talk page, due to his apparent personal belief that BOTH pages should contain a record of the exchange.
	:#Messed admins about by getting his user page deleted and restored to make a ]
	:#Now, this rather blatant failure to ] here.
	:He seems to be determined that Misplaced Pages will change every policy and way of working to how he wishes it to be. ] (]) 15:16, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
	either way, since this started in 2004, there really was no approval process for bots. any bot operating prior to creating ] is automaticly grandfathered in. ] 15:45, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
	:I already explained this was appropriate editing to Zenwhat here: ]. I have agree with Mayalld's observations, and I hold back in providing some observations of my own. I think Zenwhat could benefit from more attention from experienced users. ] 16:09, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
	::Agreed. Zenwhat has started a number of threads over the last couple of months that could be described as vexatious. ]] 16:17, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
	== Odd vandalism on ] ==
	Hi folks,
	Just a bit of odd vandalism - a user appears to be making some form of bomb threat (be it a prank or not) to a school, ]. The user is Soul_988, and I've added a regular vandal tag to their talk page - just wanted to let an admin know in case there's any special procedure or perhaps this is genuine in any way (I don't want to make a call like that myself). Thanks. ] (]) 10:30, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
	:Diff is , contact details are . Worth somebody who's familiar (if there is anyone) letting them know <span style="color:#00398d;font-family:Verdana, Arial, sans-serif;font-size:95%;">&mdash; ] <small>(])</small></span> 11:01, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
	*Looks like a vandal. But you never know! The user made the same remarks to another school as well ] Who knows what are procedures for this type of behavior? ] (]) 11:10, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
	:Someone like that can just be blocked indef now, right? Several years ago there was thought to be a risk of an attack and the school was actually closed for a time. Hardly a laughing matter (although it sounds like bored kid). --] (]) 11:15, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
	== Main Page discussion (notice) ==
	Just in case anyone has missed it: ]. See also . The main outcome seems to have been , which means that all main pages on all wikis are undeletable and unmoveable. Please, no discussion or comments here (go over to WP:AN to add comments). This is just a notice. ] (]) 11:16, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
	== Notice of AN post ==
	Please see ] for three issues (A, B, C) that I think it would be good to discuss in regards to a recent block of a bot and a set of admin actions:
	* (A) Consequences of BetacommandBot's week-long block and how to handle the work it does.
	* (B) Whether an arbitration case should be opened to handle the desysopping points (East718).
	* (C) Whether there has been abuse of a bot flag (Betacommand)
	Posting here and notifying of discussions there, to avoid splitting the threads. ] (]) 13:30, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
	== ] ==
	Could someone review ? ] has recently returned from a 31 hour block and made exactly the same kind of edit (s)he got banned for (removal of AfD notice) plus added a sharedip tag for the IP address they are using. The ] from this IP suggests a single user, plus a reverse DNS lookup gives 59.163.208.2.static.vsnl.net.in - implying that it is a static IP address. Is this a likely to be a disingenous attempt to prevent or limit future blocks? Thanks! ] (]) 14:01, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
	== ] ==
	I got an email from SqueakBox on Saturday asking that I delete his user page. I thought nothing of the action, and did so. It seemed simple enough. Today I logged in and saw from Swatjester. I followed it to the AN/I thread above, and the deletion log for SB's page. As we all know, this wasn't the first set of threats against SB - CUMBEY posted them on her web page, off wiki, iirc, and there have been lots of others. Anyway, there's no requirement for ''proof'' of a threat in order to delete your user page.
	Quite frankly, Swat's refusal to assume good faith is bad enough. It would appear that he is willing to put the safety of an editor at risk because that editor used the wrong template/terminology. Now, to top it off, he is engaging in personal attacks in edit summaries - and . Calling someone a liar isn't the same as accusing them of misrepresenting the facts - it goes to intent. Given his actions which put another editor at risk and his personal attacks, I think a block is in order. I think his present attitude makes him a danger to the project. ] (]) 15:29, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
	:Continuing personal attacks despite a warning . I'm blocking him for 12 hours. If someone feels that the block is unjust, feel free to undo/adjust it without consulting me - I'm not that attached to my own actions. ] (]) 15:33, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
	::Blocking another admin over a dispute you're personally involved is generally a really bad idea... '''<font color="#ff9900">]</font><font color="#ff6699">]</font>''' 15:37, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
	::: How was Guettarda personally involved in the dispute? -- ] (]) 16:06, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
	::Agreed with Krimpet. I'd strongly advocate Guettarda removing the block himself, before someone else gets in there. ~ ] 15:40, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
	::(ec)Wow, he actually did it. Guettarda, when you're the aggrieved party, you should have taken it to AN first. On the other hand, he does say that if anyone disagrees, they should undo it, so ''minimal drama please''. ] (]) 15:43, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
	::: How was Guettarda the aggrieved party? -- ] (]) 16:06, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
	:::Erm, the block has been undone by {{user|LaraLove}}. ~ ] 15:42, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
	::: Those edit summaries are bang out of order and the block should stand. In regards to the wider issues, Misplaced Pages is ''just not that important'', something that we on the inside sometimes forget in our work for the project. ''Whatever'' the conduct of an editor on wikipedia, if they feel that their actions here have compromised their real world safety, then we act to minimise that damage - the on-wiki stuff is irrelevent in that context. Are some editors going to attempt to use made-up threats to gain advantage here? yes but it doesn't matter one iota when weighted against the possible ramifications of us blaming hardball with the 'wrong' (those who haven't made made up a threat) editors. --] (]) 15:43, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
	I blocked for the personal attacks ''after'' he was warned. Anyone who thinks that's ok can unblock. ] (]) 15:44, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
	Didn't see myself as in a dispute with him - I warned him about his behaviour. That isn't a dispute. ] (]) 15:46, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
	:Pot, Kettle, Black. You came to my talk page after this issue was good and resolved, just to tell me how I make you sick, and you're utterly disgusted with my actions. Personal attack much? There's no proof that there ever was a death threat. There were no such threats at all on wiki, and I explicitly stated if there were I would delete them immediately. Now you're calling for a fucking block because I did exactly what ] told me to do? Maybe you should review the policies Guettarda. Blocks are preventative, not punitive. This issue has been resolved for over 24 hours now. What do you think you're preventing? Or is it maybe that YOU are refusing to assume good faith in MY actions? Jesus fucking christ, the hypocrisy here knows no bounds. -e- So I was blocked eh? Yeah that's appropriate. I'm done with this discussion. If anyone wants my viewpoint, they can talk to me on IRC or IM. I give full permission to reproduce my statements from there. ]] ] 15:45, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
	::It's not a personal attack to tell you that putting procedure above the safety of another editor is unacceptable behaviour. ] (]) 15:47, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
	::Not to mention that you engaged in PAs ''after'' a warning. ] (]) 15:48, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
	:I lost in the superbowl pool last night. Can I get in on the desysop pool? In all seriousness, bad idea, very bad. Both of you need to calm it down a few notches - this is the stupidest thing in the world to argue about. We're talking about a user page being hidden from public view (nothing is really deleted). This has no impact on the encyclopedia and everything is accessible if there is anything needed from it. I despise with a passion that we allow user space to be indexed by Google and I'm all for anyone wanting to get rid of it for privacy, but it isn't that big of a deal that you should block an admin over. --] (]) 15:49, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
	:: ''If'' Squeakbox's claim about the death threat is true, then it's a ''huge'' deal, and the need to hide the page from public view is urgent. If the claim is not true, then indeed it's not a big deal. Therefore, regardless of who ultimately turns out to be right on the underlying facts, only one of the two is taking it too seriously. -- ] (]) 16:06, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
	:Why ''is'' it that we allow Google to index anything other than the mainspace? If it's not in an article (such as disputed statements or idle speculation on talk pages, or discussing the inner workings of WP itself), then it shouldn't be something than has Misplaced Pages's name attached to it in a google search. Just my 2¢. ''']''' <small>]</small> 15:54, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
	:::Google indexing is useful in the Misplaced Pages namespace for sure. Policy discussions and the link. ] (]) 15:58, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
	::Is it ''ever'' acceptable to engage in personal attacks in response to a warning about engaging in personal attacks? ] (]) 15:53, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
	Swat, calm down. You are going way over the top here on a relatively minor point of order. Yes, Guettarda should not have blocked you but you are not making things easy for yourself. ] <sup> ]</sup> 15:50, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
	*I must admit I am rather unclear on why "''In about 12 hours, I'm going to decide whether I'm going to continue to work on this project. Maybe I'll lie a bunch of times, make vague allegations of death threats and come back!''" is a blockable personal attack but "''Your attitude to your fellow editors turns my stomach. I can't believe that anyone would act in the manner that you have. It's utterly disgusting.''" is acceptable. ] 15:58, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
	::*Agree with Thatcher and I'm going to join the crowds calling for a reduction in drama. I strongly suggest that all parties who are even so much as REMOTELY involved in this go have a long walk, or spend some money, or do whatever you do to relax. The drama factor on this issue is almost - but not quite - to the level of your average high school. Seriously, guys, everyone walk away, or this madness will get even uglier than it already is. Stop the drama spiral. - ] &#124; ] 16:01, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
	{EC) Both of you made some unnecessary comments. Are they personal attacks? That's debatable. Regardless, whatever they are, you're both guilty of it. So either you can both be blocked or you can both go on your merry way. I've unblocked SWAT. My recommendation is that, since the core issue was resolved yesterday, it all be let go, and you both go your own way. ''']''']''']''' 16:02, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
	::I fail to see how the block against Swat was preventative, or in the best interest of Misplaced Pages. If the block has not been reversed already I would do it now. ] 16:13, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
	*Just stumbled across this, and I must say it's an awful block. And the attitude of the blocker ("Anyone who thinks that's ok can unblock") doesn't put you in any better light. It assumes bad faith of Lara, and places the blocker in the god-like position of "if anyone undoes this block they're saying that personal attacks (as the blocker perceived them) are okay." This needs to stop now. You can't block someone just because they piss you off. Especially after an insult was leveled at SwatJester. -- ] ]] 16:23, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
	**Swat re-posted personal information about an editor ''after'' the editor said he was subject to a death threat. We don't tolerate that kind of behaviour. Swat called him a liar - calling someone a ''liar'' is a personal attack - it imputes motive. And my comment regarding the block was that it was that I don't have the sort of attachment to my ego that some people have - I don't ''require'' that people seek my permission before undoing my blocks. I always say that. ] (]) 16:32, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
	***Swat is 100% out of line for that kind of action and needs to apologize in public to Squeakbox. <span style="font-variant:small-caps"><font color="#800080">] § ]/]</font></span> 16:36, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
	===]===
	Enough already, who cares ''why'' Squeakbox wants ] deleted? Just delete it and done, it's his page. As long as the history of ] is easy for any non-admin to find and review for Dispute Resolution, why is this turning into a massive issue? <span style="font-variant:small-caps"><font color="#800080">] § ]/]</font></span> 16:29, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
	This was just closed prematurely and I reopened it. If this guy wants to dump his user page, more power to him, for whatever reason. Anyone restoring a user page that was deleted at a user's request is out of line. If I ask for my page to go for threats, personal reasons, or because I like daisies today, it's gone, its my decision alone. There is still however a big problem here--the history on ] is completely botched from all the moves and deletions. Can we please get this fixed? This entire mess will then be done, unless someone disruptively restores his userpage ''again''. <span style="font-variant:small-caps"><font color="#800080">] § ]/]</font></span> 16:36, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
	== Break-in at ] ==
	I'd noticed a strange edit from {{user|Clevelander}}, an account that had been unused since 2006 and which has its talk and user pages redirected to {{user|Aivazovsky}}. So I put a note on ], and he put a note on my talk page at ]: ''"That was my old username. Apparently, someone hacked into that account and is now using it. I did not make any of those contributions listed except for the Rasul Guliyev‎ contrib and the personal attack noticeboard thing which should have been moved to my new username but apparently weren't. Again, I did not do any of those new contributions from 2008. Please stop whoever is doing that. Thanks in advance! -- Aivazovsky (talk) 11:37, 4 February 2008 (UTC)"'' Please take appropriate action. Thanks. --] (]) 16:17, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
	:The account's state it was created on January 12 of this year. If there was a name change, that would have freed the old username up for someone else to register it, right? If so, it doesn't look like a hijacking case, although those old contributions probably shouldn't be attached to the new user. -- ] | ] 16:27, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
	::I'll block Clevelander indef, then. Compromised account, simple situation. ]]<sup>]</sup> 16:35, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
	:::Scratch that. Weird. Okay here's what happened. Clevelander changed his/her username to Aivazovsky very recently. A new user then chose Clevelander as their username. When the rename happened, some of Aivazovsky's contributions were deleted; ] was deleted for about 2 weeks in January, and then restored. Apparently the restore granted the edits to a user who didn't make them. I am inclined to say that Aivazovsky needs to remove the redirect from ] but it's important that the link be mentioned. I'm going to post at ] to see if anyone can fix the situation, but probably not. ]]<sup>]</sup> 16:41, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

---

Latest revision as of 22:43, 24 December 2024

Noticeboard for reporting incidents to administrators

v t e 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	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles and content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Misplaced Pages noticeboards

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents Shortcuts

• WP:ANI
• WP:AN/I

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

• Before posting:
  • Read these tips for dealing with incivility
  • If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page
  • Try dispute resolution
  • Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly.
• Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem
• Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight.

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

---

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

Start a new discussion Centralized discussion

• A request for adminship is open for discussion.
• Voluntary RfAs after resignation
• Allowing page movers to enable two-factor authentication
• Rewriting the guideline Misplaced Pages:Please do not bite the newcomers
• Should comments made using LLMs or chatbots be discounted or even removed?

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
Talk Sockpuppet investigations Backlog

Disruptive editing and WP:TALKNO by User:AnonMoos

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

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

The other user in this case is User:AnonMoos? This looks like a content dispute over whether the article is on the English version of a German-Arabic dictionary or the dictionary itself. Secretlondon (talk) 15:47, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes the is indeed about User:AnonMoos. I see the content dispute as stemming from the fundamental conduct issue, which has manifested itself most egregiously with insisting on violating WP:TALKNO repeatedly even after I explained that I had sought a third opinion and that they should refrain from changing the heading again in order to preserve the integrity of the link, after which they went ahead and changed it again anyway. إيان (talk) 16:00, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

The heading dispute is between a date heading, and a descriptive heading? that's not really reformulating your entry. Secretlondon (talk) 17:44, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

It's a conduct issue. إيان (talk) 19:58, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

But what conduct issue? TALKNO doesn't forbid changing headings. In fact the wider guideline makes it clear it's perfectly acceptable "Because threads are shared by multiple editors (regardless of how many have posted so far), no one, including the original poster, "owns" a talk page discussion or its heading. It is generally acceptable to change headings when a better heading is appropriate, e.g., one more accurately describing the content of the discussion or the issue discussed, less one-sided, more appropriate for accessibility reasons, etc. Whenever a change is likely to be controversial, avoid disputes by discussing a heading change with the editor who started the thread, if possible. It can also sometimes be appropriate to merge entire sections under one heading (often preserving the later one as a subheading) if their discussions are redundant." To be blunt, if you don't want editors changing the headings of sections you start, don't use such terrible headings. I definitely recommend you stay away from ANI since changing headings is quite common here. Nil Einne (talk) 06:25, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Actually I missed the signature issue. That's far more concerning unfortunately lost IMO partly because you concentrated on silly stuff. Nil Einne (talk) 06:29, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

‎إيان: I suggest you stop messing around with the section heading since it's a distraction which could easily lead to you being blocked. But if AnonMoos changes your signature again, report it and only that without silliness about section headings, mentioning that they've been warned about it before if needed. Nil Einne (talk) 06:50, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

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

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

User:AnonMoos, this is not good to see. Don't rewrite or reformat other editor's signatures. There is no reason to be doing this unless you are trying to provoke the other editor. Liz 07:51, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

For what it's worth, AnonMoos stated earlier that the changing of the signature was a unintentional technical issue, due to his use of some "non-standard tool" in accessing the internet . This seems plausible, as similar apparently unintentional changes to non-Ascii character data have happened in edits of his before (e.g. ). But if he knew of this issue, it's rather disappointing he let it happen again some days later . Equally disappointing is the extremely aggressive rhetoric and acerbic tone with which he has been escalating this essentially harmless, good-faith content dispute from the beginning. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:25, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

I just can't fathom what tool they're using to get around the HTTPS requirement to edit Misplaced Pages securely. — The Hand That Feeds You: 17:42, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Should be impossible as it's required to even access the site in the first place according to WP:SECLakesideMiners 16:41, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Looking at his talk page it's been going back to at least 2011LakesideMiners 16:17, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Guys, I do not deliberately set out to modify signatures, and when it happens, I am not usually aware of doing so. As I've already explained before in several places, since the December 2019 encryption protocol upgrade (NOT 2011!), the only way I can edit (or view) Misplaced Pages at all from home is by an indirect method which is not fully Unicode-compliant. To change this, I would have to get a completely different type of Internet connection, which would permanently disconnect my older computer, which I still use almost every day.

Meanwhile, this thread has been set up so I can't add a comment to it from home without affecting Unicode characters, so I was unable to reply here for 36 hours or so. If I'm silent in the future, it will be for the same reason. AnonMoos (talk) 01:14, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages uses Unicode characters (UTF-8 encoding). Anyone who cannot edit without corrupting such characters should not edit. Johnuniq (talk) 03:47, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Whatever, -- I was using them perfectly fine until December 2019, and still use them perfectly fine on public WiFi, but in December 2019 a requirement was imposed that you can't access Misplaced Pages at all unless you can handle encryption algorithms and protocols that weren't introduced until the mid-2010s. I have a 2012 web browser on my home computer that handles UTF-8 just fine, but 2012 simply wasn't good enough for the Misplaced Pages developers -- you had to have software that was almost up to date as of 2019, or you would be abruptly totally cut off. If you can drag up the relevant archive of Village Pump Technical, I and others complained at the time, but our concerns were not listened to or considered in any way. The basic attitude of the developers was that if you weren't running almost up-to-date software, then screw you, and if your computer is not capable of running almost up-to-date software, then double screw you! The change was announced for January 2020, but was actually implemented in mid-December 2019, apparently because they were so eager and anxious to start excluding people. It wasn't one of Misplaced Pages's finer moments. Since that time, I have had to use an indirect method to access Misplaced Pages from my home computer, and I don't feel particularly guilty about it (other people's obnoxious behaviors in 2019 have done away with most of the guilt I might feel)... AnonMoos (talk) 20:59, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

...HTTPS was created in 1994, and became an official specification in 2000, not "mid-2010s". I'm not sure what 2012 web browser you're using, but if it's not able to handle HTTPS not being able to access Misplaced Pages with it is the least of your browsing concerns, given that 85-95% of the World Wide Web defaults to it now. Also I hate to think of how many security holes your ancient computer has. I'm going to be honest: with a brower setup that old it isn't safe for you to be on the web at all, and the security hole that lets you access Misplaced Pages without using a secure connection should be fixed, because that is not working as intended and is - as mentioned - a security hole. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:18, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

You unfortunately don't know what you're talking about. New ENCRYPTION ALGORITHM AND PROTOCOL METHODS have been introduced within HTTPS from time to time. I was using HTTPS perfectly happily until December 2019, when the developers arbitrarily ENCRYPTION ALGORITHM AND PROTOCOL REQUIREMENTS. AnonMoos (talk) 00:57, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

And even leaving that aside, as Johnuniq mentions - if you can't edit without corrupting Unicode characters, and by your own admission you don't know when it happens, you shouldn't be editing. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:20, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

This is probably a reference to when Misplaced Pages started requiring TLS 1.2 (because earlier versions were deprecated). Anyone who was/is still on Windows XP at that point couldn't connect any more. MrOllie (talk) 01:29, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm not talking about when the update happening, I'm talking about how you have known about this issue, and have been getting complainants about it since 2011and are still not taking any steps to do anything about it. What kind of internet connection would not support your PC? What on earth are you even using? Dial-Up? Because that still is supported by even Windows 10. LakesideMiners 02:59, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

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

The problem didn't start in 2011, and I have no idea what you're referring to when you mention 2011. The problem started in December 2019 when the developers arbitrarily imposed new ENCRYPTION ALGORITHM AND PROTOCOL REQUIREMENTS... AnonMoos (talk) 00:57, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Apologies. I was extremely tired when I wrote both above. I have striken the date parts. Rest of my comments still stand. LakesideMiners 01:06, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

None of this matters

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

That's nice -- and also totally inaccurate. I was in the 21st century, and using 2012 tools, up until December 2019, when the developers pitchforked me backwards by arbitrarily imposing HTTPS ENCRYPTION ALGORITHM AND PROTOCOL REQUIREMENTS which my home computer hardware is not able to run. Notice that I had no problem complying with character-set handling -- the problem is with arbitrary ENCRYPTION ALGORITHM AND PROTOCOL REQUIREMENTS. AnonMoos (talk) 00:48, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

The century imagery is irrelevant. You have been warned. EEng 03:14, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

That was six years ago, which is IMO about 3-4 years too long to keep using it as an excuse. Technology changes over time, so whatever this non-standard thing you think you need to do to edit here, it may be time to make a choice. Zaathras (talk) 00:56, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

As I said, to fix the problem, I would have to get a completely different type of Internet connection which would permanently disconnect my old computer, which I still use almost every single day. I would basically have to change my workflow and overall habits/methods of working because of an arbitrary decision by Misplaced Pages developers about encryption protocol updates. Anyway, when editing through public WiFi, I'm 100% Unicode compliant, and by exercising a little prudence, I can also avoid most problems when working from home. If I was constantly mangling Unicode right and left, there would have been a chorus of complaints long before now. But occasionally I can't anticipate a problem... AnonMoos (talk) 01:06, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

And just to say for the third time: you're out of chances. "Occassionally" is too often. Once more is too often. And if and when that happens, your attitude of entitlement displayed here will pretty much ensure an indefinite block. EEng 03:14, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Think it's time to draft up a formal proposal at this point? LakesideMiners 18:29, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

I don't think that's necessary. The key isn't formally deciding the criterion for blocking (because that's obvious to everyone) but rather detecting the next incident. Best way to do that for everyone gathered here to watchlist User talk:AnonMoos. Sooner or later, futher trouble will show up there. EEng 21:31, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

If you have DSL or even DialUp. That still works with modern machines. LakesideMiners 01:08, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Heck, I am on DSL (and have been since, if I recall right, 2008). I have no idea what sort of ancient Internet connection AnonMoos is claiming to be using, but it's clearly one that was already obsolete before this change he's still up in arms about six years later was made. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:44, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Not to mention it would STILL be supported these days. It's literally right there when you click wifi/network settings in Windows 10. LakesideMiners 18:20, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

• The response by AnonMoos to feedback about this problem is bizarre. I don't really care what the excuse or the history behind it. If you are unwilling to edit Misplaced Pages using tools that work in 2024 then you should stop editing. The behavior is completely unnecessary and it seems like you don't understand the disruption. Nemov (talk) 14:45, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

• AnonMoos hasn't really explained in any detail what their technical limitations are. They don't have to, but we can't really give advice otherwise. If as others have suggested their computer can't negotiate TLS 1.2, I'm surprised that they're able to use any websites at all from that computer. Requiring TLS 1.2 is not controversial; Misplaced Pages wasn't doing anything unusual in dropping TLS 1.0/1.1 around that time. Mackensen (talk) 15:02, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by User talk:185.146.112.192

IP blocked 24 hours, and then kept digging and created an account to evade the block, which has now been indef'd. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:43, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

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

---

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

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

@Moroike: It looks like you both are edit warring on Kichik Bazar Mosque. That's not particularly helpful, so you should try to have a discussion on the article talk page as to whether you should include the Talysh language name for the article in the lead/infobox. –MJL ‐Talk‐ 20:33, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

MJL why and how did you pick out that one article over the many this IP has made recent changes to? The IP has been making disputed edits for months and has been reverted by a number of editors, not just Moroike. CMD (talk) 01:10, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

@CMD: I am not suggesting that the IP editor isn't being disruptive, but my point is that Moroike isn't making the situation better (using the example of that one article). You can see this by looking at their last 50 contributions where they have mostly just reverted this editor without using a summary. –MJL ‐Talk‐ 18:02, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

The IP's edits were removed a total of 13 times on the page regarding the capital city of Azerbaijan, Baku. You can't let him continue engaging in further edit wars with other users besides Moroike, can you? Nuritae331 (talk) 17:24, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

It would help if you named the editor and signed your name to figure out what you are talking about; a noticeboard only works if you give us notice about the subject and what is happening. Nate • (chatter) 23:39, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

The editor appears to be PerfectSoundWhatever, based on the link under the word "this" as well as this notification. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 23:51, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

My apology, this is my very first time making such a post. The other pages o have spoken on seemed to have signed themselves automatically. Will remember this going forward. And yes, that was the user, posted this using my phone so I didn't want to mis-spell their name, just linked instead. Sxbbetyy (talk) 17:01, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) IMO the best practice is that in the event of a content dispute, the article should be reverted to the status quo of how the article's content appeared before the dispute started, until such a time that consensus is established to re-add it (see: WP:STATUSQUO). It seems like the beginning of the content that is in dispute was added on 18 August 2024, the dispute began a few weeks later on 23 September 2024 and has been ongoing ever since.In this case, since the article existed in a relatively steady state for several months (or even years?) previous to the disputed material being added, I think it'd be wise to leave the disputed content out of the article until the discussion comes to a close. RachelTensions (talk) 00:07, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

I have been seeing this opinion from a few editors and even one admin on how to interpret this article. However, the first few sentences in that section do outright state to avoid reverting the disputed content prior to a consensus. And prior to opening this report, I asked several admins on the topic and got a response that reverting the disputed content immediately is incorrect per WP:STATUSQUO as it bypasses the consensus building process. I was advised that the content should instead be tagged as disputed rather than be outright removed. The offending user was made aware of the relevant policies but has nonetheless engaging in edit warring to keep it reverted, hence this report. Sxbbetyy (talk) 17:13, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

The status quo of an article constitutes implicit consensus (WP:IMPLICITCONSENSUS). The person trying to include disputed content in an article despite it not being status quo is the one that could be construed as attempting to bypass the consensus building process, not the person trying to maintain status quo until discussion takes place. RachelTensions (talk) 17:20, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Correct, and at no point was the definition of what constitutes the status quo ever in contention. In fact, if you review the edit history of the article you can see that the disputed content was the status quo via implicit consensus at the time PSW chose to first outright revert the content, and then continued to revert it as others tried to restore it (both before and after the consensus discussion began). Sxbbetyy (talk) 23:38, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

the disputed content was the status quo via implicit consensus at the time PSW chose to first outright revert the content
Not really, I personally wouldn't define "been there a few weeks" as status quo.I think maybe the other replies to this thread provide pretty good reasoning to take a step back and say "hey maybe I'm the one in the wrong here" instead of talking in circles RachelTensions (talk) 00:30, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Personally I think the number of contributions since the edit where it has gone unchanged is a more useful metric, especially on low traffic pages such as this one. Regardless, per the policy you cite, there seems to be no official Misplaced Pages stance on what exact criteria are needed for a contribution to be considered the current status quo, beyond it having been unchallenged in subsequent contributions (which is the case here).

As for the rest of your comment, there seems to be a high amount of band wagoning and "Proof by assertion" going on in the rest of this. Or people trying to use this report as an extension of the dispute discussion on the article's talk page. Hopefully more actual admins to chime in on the topic as I don't actually want to waste my time talking in circles.

On that note thanks for actually taking the time and baseline minimal effort to engage in a discussion where you actually support your point and don't just devolve into repeating the same talking points over and over. It's a nice change of pace. Sxbbetyy (talk) 02:48, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

I am the editor being discussed here. I'll provide a summary of events since the initial statement by Sxbbetyy is misleading.

Myself and the editor had a content dispute at Team Seas (1) and following circular discussion, I stopped engaging since I felt I had laid out my points. Per WP:STATUSQUO, I maintained the state of the article to before the dispute. I requested for a third opinion, which was answered by @BerryForPerpetuity:, who agreed the statement should be removed, albeit for a different reason than mine. I took this 2-1 as rough consensus. I also posted the dispute on two WikiProjects, and have received no response so far. Sxbbetyy reached out to three admins about the matter, @Sergecross73, Oshwah, and Pbsouthwood:. The Sergecross73 discussion can be summarized as Sergecross believing that I haven't engaged in misconduct, and that I have presented a "plausible, good-faith interpretation of SYNTH". Sxbbetyy then accused Sergecross73 of not acting in good faith. Oshwah did not respond to the post on their talk page, but @BusterD: did, essentially agreeing that the sourcing does not back up the claim in the content dispute. Sxbbetyy received help on Pbsouthwood's talk page about responding to a content dispute. And now we're here.

Throughout these interactions, Sxbbetyy has demonstrated a failure to assume good faith, refuses to accept that they may be wrong, and WP:BLUDGEONs talk pages, refusing to let the other editor have the last word. Frankly, this is a massive waste of editor time: it should have been a brief talk page discussion then an RfC. Apologies for all the pings. — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 00:23, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

This summarization in itself leaves out critical context, (such as berry's concern being alleviated and them no longer expressing a desire to remove the content), the specifics of why that conversation with Serge ended the way it did despite my repeated attempts to engage with them in good faith, and the entire discussion with pbsouthwood (who quite definitively explained that the behavior PSW was engaged in was not correct). So I urge all involved to go read those topics to get the correct context through your own eyes and then discuss any concerns from what you see here. That being the case, it seems pretty clear cut imo. Sxbbetyy (talk) 17:20, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Just to be clear, in no way did I express that I didn't want the content to be removed. I did not receive a notification for your reply, and I wouldn't have engaged either way. — BerryForPerpetuity (talk) 17:24, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I would leave that material out of the article. Whilst it may not exactly be synthesis per se, it is certainly editorialising ("the removal of that amount of marine debris is of negligible consequence...") unless there is an actual source that says this by making a link between between the two statistics (the amount of waste removed by Team Seas and the rate at which waste is entering the ecosystem). And even then, I would say that such an edit would need to say something like "However, ARandomNewspaper pointed out that ...". Black Kite (talk) 00:34, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

That is actually no longer the content that is being disputed. If you look at the latest version that got reverted on the article you can see the current version. I had made edits to it precisely because of valid WP:NPOV concerns brought to my attention by PSW. However, their dispute with the content remains with the claim that is is synthesis rather than any other concern. Which they have been thus far unable to obtain a consensus on. Sxbbetyy (talk) 17:27, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

• I have some pretty serious WP:IDHT concerns about the topic starter here. They came to me for help (no idea how/why me, I have no connection to this dispute) and I repeatedly told them I didn't see any misconduct, and then they started attacking me when I refused to agree with them. And now this. This is a very simple content dispute, with a very simple no consensus means no change outcome. I've told them this. It's a disappointing time sink on a rather trivial content dispute. Sergecross73 msg me 00:52, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

  At no point was he "attacked". I defended myself after he became hostile with me (as anyone can read in our convo, I stated multiple times that I would leave and did not want to be a burden if they didn't want to engage with this, but he made no such objections and continued). Eventually he just became outright hostile and refused to explain their points any further, devolving the conversation into them repeating themselves over and over, its all there to read on his talk page. As for why I contacted him, I wanted to ensure I chose impartially so I just randomly looked at the currently active admins at the time and he was the first one I found. Sxbbetyy (talk) 18:23, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

  The discussion is right here, if anyone wants to look. The "attack" I'm referring to you is your accusation that I responded to you in bad faith. I was not involved in the dispute, have no stance on it, and had no pre-conceived notions about either of you - what in the world would my motivations be for "bad faith responses"? It doesn't make any sense. You simply didn't get the response you wanted, and proceeded to badger me on it. Did I get vaguely irritated when I volunteered my time to review and comment on a dispute I had no stance or interest in, only to get all sorts of sour grapes responses on it? Yeah, sure, but who wouldn't? Sergecross73 msg me 18:44, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

• I'm here from my input at the 3rd opinion request. This is nothing more than a trivial content dispute, I see no reason for this to be at ANI. I somewhat agree with the claim of synthesis, it becomes more susceptible to incorrect information, and from my analysis it seemed like the claim in the disputed content was completely wrong. Two different sources, from two different time periods. My $0.02: The claim of stonewalling is ridiculous, there was ample good-faith discussion based on existing policy and guidelines. This editor does not assume good faith, it appears that he claims that editors disagreeing are acting in bad faith. From him to administrator Sergecross73: "I'm not wasting time engaging with you if you aren't going to speak with me in good faith." It seems that he roots his argument based on the editor who removed it rather than the content itself. Very unfortunate waste of time. — BerryForPerpetuity (talk) 15:31, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

  Exactly. It's not "stonewalling" that's happening here. PerfectSoundWhatever has discussed at-length at the talk page. They're simply not willing to talk circles indefinitely. And we don't require that of editors. I've urged Sxbbetyy to, rather that spin their wheels arguing with the same person endlessly in a stalemate, to try to get other participants to take part. But they've refused, and instead decided to move their arguing to ANI instead. As I noted to them in one of my last comments to them, if they spent half as much effort in consensus-building as they did complaining and arguing, they could have built a consensus by now... Sergecross73 msg me 17:30, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

  Reading any of what I wrote in this dispute shows clearly that is not the case. Also, the quoted sentence is completely taken out of context.

  Here is what was said in the mesaage before that they left out, "Not really the logical conclusion one draws from reading any of what I wrote here, where I asked multiple times for you to explain your reasoning in your replies (instead your response was to repeat yourself without offering further explanation), but if that is what you want to take away from this that's fine by me. I'm not wasting time engaging with you if you aren't going to speak with me in good faith."

  The message as a whole was replying to was a passive aggressive insult that didn't progress that conversation, hence the response as it was clearly not an example of engagement in good faith.Sxbbetyy (talk) 18:34, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Also, it looks like the participants in the dispute on the Team Seas article are acting as if this report is an extension of that dispute discussion.

This is a report of edit warring to revert disputed content prior to a consensus being reached (there was no consensus prior to the reversion and there still is no consensus, as admitted by PSW themselves in that very dispute and In their latest revert message, no idea why now in this report they are trying to claim that there is suddenly consensus for removal).

This is not a report on the dispute itself, just to make that very clear since those involved are responding as if it is. Sxbbetyy (talk) 18:41, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

You've still got this backward. You need to show a consensus to keep your content in the article, as everyone else has been telling you. WP:ONUS is directly on point, and I'll quote it here: The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content. MrOllie (talk) 18:53, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. I have tried to inform them of this many times and many ways. I do not know why they cannot wrap their head around the concept. Conceptually, it would be very problematic if we were required to retain every disputed content until consensus ruled it out. It wouldn't be workable. Sergecross73 msg me 19:02, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Nobody is arguing WP:ONUS here...not in the dispute and not here in this report. The point is that the content is being removed prior to there being a consensus on if it should be removed.

I was directly advised by admin Pbsouthwood that the removal of disputed content BEFORE any consensus has been reached is not allowed (save for specific situations, none of which apply to the disputed content) as this bypasses the consensus building process. Here is the talk page where I was advised this. This is echoed with the wording in WP:STONEWALLING and WP:STATUSQUO. Here is the direct quote from the latter, "To eliminate the risk of an edit war, do not revert away from the status quo ante bellum during a dispute discussion. Instead, add an appropriate tag indicating the text is disputed. For an article, many of the inline dispute tags are appropriate. For other pages, is good. Leave the status quo and the tag in place until the discussion concludes." Sxbbetyy (talk) 19:58, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

The point is that the content is being removed prior to there being a consensus on if it should be removed. <--- No. This is your problem. What you are saying here is incorrect. Policies say the opposite of this. You are not going to get support at ANI. In fact, the longer you keep going with this WP:IDHT insistence that community practice is actually the opposite of what policies plainly say it is, the more likely it is you're going to find yourself blocked for disruption. Pbsouthwood didn't tell you this either (what he wrote doesn't match what you've been doing), and your initial question did not properly represent the situation at hand. But we can invite him here to see if he actually supports what you're doing here: @Pbsouthwood:, what say you? MrOllie (talk) 20:06, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

This entire comment serves absolutely zero purpose whatsoever. You're parroting what others have already said with no supporting evidence. Along with throwing in an oddly included threat that is completely nonsensical and wholly unwarranted.

And while I could point out the myriad of ways your claim about what Pbsouthwood said was inaccurate, that would pretty much involve reposting his reply, which is a waste since anyone can already go to his talk page and read it themselves.

So at this point, if you need that admin to come here and tell you what they already said themselves, more power to you. Would save us all a ton of time to get an authoritative answer on this, especially with another admin holding the opposite view point, in spite of the specific policy wording. Sxbbetyy (talk) 23:08, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

No matter how much you insist otherwise, there does not need to be an established consensus for the removal of content. Drop the stick. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:28, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm not the one insisting otherwise...this report only exists because an admin told me otherwise. And as I've posted in my previous replies, the wording in the policies clearly support that. Makes me question how many have actually bothered to really read these policies... Sxbbetyy (talk) 02:22, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

The other admin told you nothing about the removal of WP:SYNTH, which is always appropriate. Back away from the dead horse. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:19, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

1. This report is not an extension of the dispute discussion for that article, if you want to involve yourself in that discussion, do so there, do not hijack this report.
2. The disputed content is plainly not WP:SYNTH as I explain on the talk page in great length, with nobody thus far having provided valid examples as to how it is.
3. If you are going to make the claim that any WP:SYNTH concerns warrant immediate reversion without consensus, please feel free to share the quote in the relevant policy that says this. I have not found any such wording and instead found that what is present matches up with what PBsouthwood informed me.

Sxbbetyy (talk) 17:17, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Come on, how many people need to tell you you're wrong? Sergecross73 msg me 02:05, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

At this point I say that my advice was given without a specific context, and without prejudice. I maintain that it is more collegial and polite to discuss a removal of unsourced but plausible content before removing it, as it can often avoid disputes of this kind, but it is not forbidden to arbitrarily delete content that an editor plausibly considers inappropriate provided the relevant reason is given. It is always the responsibility of the person advocating inclusion to provide a reference when challenged, regardless of the process of challenge.

Some forms of synthesis are acceptable. If a conclusion is logically inevitable based on undisputed factual premises, or is a simple mathematical calculation, we routinely accept claims that may not be specifically stated in a source, but we may require the logic to be explained, as it may not be obvious to the reader.

At the risk of being hoist with my own petard, I also refer readers to WP:Don't be a dick (looks like that essay has been expunged, try Meta:Don't be a jerk). · · · Peter Southwood : 06:59, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

I think many of us used to the mess editors adding unsourced content can create would strongly oppose leaving in unsourced content just because it's plausible. The standard should instead be at a minimum that you believe the claim made is most likely correct and sourceable not simply that it's plausible. Although ultimately such discussions are a little silly anyway. If editors would just add sources rather than leaving it for someone else because they're claiming it's unlikely to be challenged or whatever, there would be a need for others to decide whether to query or remove unsourced content. Nil Einne (talk) 09:56, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

I was suggesting tagging with citation needed while you wait a reasonable time for a response, but as we know some of us do not have the patience and just revert. It in not unheard of to know something, but not have a source handy at the time. What is obvious to one may be totally obscure to others. This is acceptable within policy and guidelines. You could start a RfC to have the guidelines changed, but I suspect it would not get through as being a bit bitey. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood : 12:47, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes, what you say is true, that's absolutely an acceptable approach. But that's not really the problem at hand here. The bigger issue is that Sxbbetyy appears to be believe that the alternative approach - reverting per STATUSQUO or NOCONSENSUS - is somehow misconduct, and that's simply not true. They're not arguing about if your approach is valid, they're arguing that its compulsory, and they're attempting to report a user for not following your possible approach, which is completely meritless. Sergecross73 msg me 17:31, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Please do not put words in my mouth. The only reason this report exists is because Peter Southwood advised that this was how I should proceed if the editor participating in this no-consensus reverting continued to do so and was unreceptive to further discussion. (Both are true by admission of PSW themselves). Sxbbetyy (talk) 18:22, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I've seen that discussion, but you presented the situation to them entirely in hypotheticals that lacks crucial context. You frame PSW as unwilling to engage in discussion but omit the fact that PSW did engage in extensive discussion already. You accuse PSW of edit warring to keep their information in the article, but omit the fact that you're equally guilty of edit warring, as you're responsible for every single counter-revert in the situation. I would think the near-unanimous rejection of this ANI report would indicate that this was not, in fact, a good thing to report. Best case scenario, this is archived with no action, but I'd be shocked if it didn't result in a WP:BOOMERANG. Sergecross73 msg me 18:44, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

I don't know why you are attempting to present the entire discussion on that talk page as some sort of proof that PSW was willing to engage in further discussion to halt the behavior this report is about. At no point whatsoever did PSW ever indicate anything like that; if they did this report wouldn't exist as the discussions on your talk page or Peter Southwood's page would have never needed to happen. Not to mention if you take the time to actually read the discussion, you see that most of it is on the specifics of the validity of the WP:SYNTH claim made by PSW, eventually culminating in PSW actually asserting that they will not stop change their position on this and then outright refusing to engage any further.

And now you accuse me of edit warring by citing the entire recent edit history of the page...this isn't fooling anyone who actually bothers to read any of the revert messages and examine the timeline of when they occurred (talk about omitting "crucial context").

Beyond just slandering my character, I don't really see what these kind of spurious claims accomplish. It wastes everyone's time, makes yourself look biased and hostile, and adds nothing to the conversation. Keep things civil please, I really shouldn't have to tell you of all people that basic expectation. Sxbbetyy (talk) 02:38, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Wait...are you seriously trying to suggest that, even though you were the only one who reverted him every single time, he was edit warring and you weren't? Sergecross73 msg me 02:50, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

If you are going to continue to twist words and make false claims immediately after being asked to keep things civil, maybe it would be best for all involved if you just moved on from this conversation. Sad that even has to be stated at this point, it should be a given. Sxbbetyy (talk) 17:25, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Yet another IDHT response where you try to baselessly chastize me rather than address anything anyone is saying to you. Sergecross73 msg me 18:14, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

What a choice to post this exact type reply to my last message... not to mention the sheer absurdity of it. To claim that I've never addressed anyone's points in my replies is so easily and visibly wrong (literally this entire topic is full of my detailed replies to people's concerns, including this very reply) that it's almost insulting to the rest of the people participating in this or to anyone who even chooses to read that message. It's as if you think nobody can see the rest of this discussion (or even the comments directly above it). Sxbbetyy (talk) 11:52, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to respond and my apology for any inconvenience it may have caused. Ive tried to keep it as civil as possible, but there seems to be a very hostile air in this discussion by those with the dissenting opinion. As for how this situation is to be resolved, would it be appropriate to restore the currently disputed content with the appropriate tags (as it is sourced and was the statusquo on the page at the time of reversion)? Or is there something further that must be done here? I'm generally unfamiliar with how ANIs actually function. Sxbbetyy (talk) 17:52, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Have you considered starting an WP:RFC? The fact is that you made a WP:BOLD addition to the article; someone else objected to it, which means you now ought to seek consensus for your addition. As numerous people have told you, none of the relevant policies and guidelines (WP:ONUS, WP:BRD, WP:QUO, etc) would allow you to make a recent addition the "default" the way you want, but more generally - the problem is that you're trying to dig through policy for something that will make your preferred version the default, allowing you to have it in the article without having to demonstrate consensus for it even in the face of challenges. Even if the policies and guidelines I listed were on your side this would still be a bad way to approach it. You have a conflict, your goal should be to resolve it by making consensus as clear as possible - figuring out what the crux of the dispute is and then, if you can't reach a compromise, holding an RFC to see where consensus lies. Also, I have to point out that just by a quick nose count of people who have weighed in on talk, I'm seeing a dispute that is now three-to-one against you. That is a consensus - not a massive one, maybe an RFC will pull in a bunch of people that say something else, but it doesn't make sense for you to keep demanding a consensus to remove something you added when there actually is such a consensus on talk. You've disagreed with their arguments but they're not obliged to WP:SATISFY you; ultimately if you think your arguments are so strong and theirs are so weak, the only real option for you at this point is to start an RFC and hope that you can demonstrate that there. --Aquillion (talk) 04:10, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

As mentioned earlier in the discussion, this report is not an extension of the dispute on that article, nor is that what this report is about. Also, a RFC was already started for the topic about a week or so ago by PSW, but that occurred after he reverted the status quo, disputed content with discussion (repeatedly). As for the rest of your comment, Peter Southwood, an admin, has addressed what is the actual expectation. Sxbbetyy (talk) 18:00, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

What? I never started an RfC. — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 19:07, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

I just checked and on 12/9/24 at Serge's talk page you said the following, "Thanks – just wanted to mention I requested comments from WP Internet Culture and WP YouTube about 2 weeks ago."

Did that not actually happen? Sxbbetyy (talk) 02:11, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

WP:RFC is a specific process. Asking questions on a couple of Wikiprojects is not an RFC. MrOllie (talk) 02:22, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

That's fundamentally not what an RFC is. This is getting ridiculous... Sergecross73 msg me 03:03, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

It's almost like this is the very first time I've ever been involved in this kind of issue on Misplaced Pages before...seriously these kind of replies come off as rude and don't actually say anything meaningful or helpful. Ever since our conversation on your talk page you have made next to no real effort to engage in good faith and I find that highly disappointing to be coming from an admin. And my apology if I offended you at all at some point or if you have just "lost your patience" with me, but I don't see how that gives you the green flag to suddenly disregard WP:Civility. I certainly haven't, in spite of being on the receiving end of this. Sxbbetyy (talk) 17:44, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

I haven't said anything uncivil, I just keep calling you out when you say something incorrect. Sergecross73 msg me 18:08, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Cunningham's Law, is a powerful force, I find it difficult to resist myself. MrOllie (talk) 18:10, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Request for closure

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

I second that. If there has been any edit-warring by any party that should be dealt with in the normal way. PerfectSoundWhatever has certainly done nothing wrong, and the OP will get blocked if they don't start listening to people pretty quickly. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:24, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Exactly. And even that's probably unlikely, as most of the "edit warring" was singular reverts with days or weeks in between. It's far from a 3RR situation at least. Sergecross73 msg me 15:26, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I don't think this conversation is going anywhere fast, other than seemingly coming to the conclusion that @PerfectSoundWhatever has done nothing wrong, which seems to be the opposite of what this ANI post was about. There's no edit warring here, and even if there was, it wouldn't be dealt with at this venue. Shut it down! RachelTensions (talk) 16:48, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

In what way whatsoever is this editor's decision to revert the disputed content during the discussion "standard following of procedures of WP:STATUSQUO"? The literal first words that appear at that link are in bold and say, "Avoid reverting during discussion", followed by a detailed explanation of the actual proper procedure. And to make it very clear what it says, here is the literal first paragraph verbatim: "To eliminate the risk of an edit war, do not revert away from the status quo ante bellum during a dispute discussion. Instead, add an appropriate tag indicating the text is disputed. For an article, many of the inline dispute tags are appropriate. For other pages, {{under discussion inline}} is good. Leave the status quo and the tag in place until the discussion concludes." Sxbbetyy (talk) 02:31, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

In what way is that your read of the consensus in the discussion above? Sergecross73 msg me 02:49, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

In what world do you logically come to that conclusion from a message that consist of almost entirely the word for word quote of the procedures described in WP:STATUSQUO, that directly counters the claim you just made? Are you saying it is "against consensus" simply because it presents a viewpoint you don't like and don't want to address? I don't see another reason why you would again twist my words, to the point of lunacy. And this is, once again, despite the fact that all of what has been said is literally within view.

Also, regarding the consensus. Out of everyone that has actually joined the discussion and all the messages sent (~90% of which are either from myself or you Serge), there have been only three people who have actually said anything in support of your interpretation of this. The rest either did not discuss the topic, did not express an opinion, or were Peter Southwood who supported the interpretation of WP:STATUSQUO as stated on its page. Seems like you're just trying to rush a end to the conversation to get the conclusion you want. Sxbbetyy (talk) 15:02, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm saying there has been no consensus for anything you're arguing here. Not a single person has supported action against PSW. Sergecross73 msg me 15:15, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

The status quo ante bellum that shouldn't be reverted from is the version without the new content. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:16, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

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

Creating the need to make 400,000 unnecessary edits

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

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

If you want to discuss {{WikiProject banner shell}}, you should do so at Template talk:WikiProject banner shell.

As for the size of the category, I have no plans to empty it, and was only going to update a few hundred more categories and templates.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  15:02, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

You made nearly 2000 of such edits in the last few hours, and when asked to stop pointed me to a category with 400,000 entries. I have no way to know how many more you planned now or in future runs. Starting a discussion at the module would hardly stop you. Fram (talk) 15:10, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

"when asked to stop pointed me to a category with 400,000 entries": incorrect. Since you wrongly thought I was making cosmetic edits, i.e. "no change in output or categories", the category was to inform you that they are not cosmetic.

Regarding a BRFA for the bulk of the category, that's looking more likely since the category appears to be neglected.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  15:29, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Unnecessary removing a synonym and then making thousands of edits to remove the hidden cat created by that unnecessary change is not really any better than making cosmetic edits, the end result is that nothing has changed for the affected pages at all. Fram (talk) 15:33, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Not unnecessary. The Lua code is very complex and removing the need the support various settings makes the code both easier to read and maintain. As always, editors that don't want to see these edits can hide these by hiding the tag "talk banner shell conversion". Gonnym (talk) 12:32, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

It doesn´t look as if the specific code to have these synonyms was very complicated though, the argument that in some cases two synonyms were used on one page with conflicting values was more convincing. And the edits I complained about did not have that tag, so no, even if people knew about hiding that tag, it wouldn't have helped here at all. Fram (talk) 16:04, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

This was discussed in detail on Template talk:WikiProject banner shell. Ideally these edits would be done by an approved bot so they do not appear on people's watchlists. The main benefit is to merge the |blp= and |living= parameters. When both are in use, we find they often get conflicting values because one gets updated and the other does not. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:25, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Isn't it more logical to first have a bot cleanup the unwanted parameter, then remove it from the template, and only then start populating the cat with the somehow remaining or since added instances? In any case, this is a typical bot task and shouldn't be done with massive AWB runs. Fram (talk) 17:39, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes, probably. But we have this mechanism already set up and I assumed Cewbot would deal with these as part of its normal activities. Happy to look at other options - maybe discuss on template talk? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:23, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

I don't know what this is about, but if the OP is correct, it is totally absurd to edit 400,000 talk pages for a tweak. Discussing at a template talk page monitored by those focused on the template would simply hide the issue. Johnuniq (talk) 03:53, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Edits like these should always be bots, so they can be filtered from watchlists. There are numerous other editors who have recently engaged in the mass additional of categories to articles which I had to ask them to stop as my watchlist was flooded. GiantSnowman 13:02, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

• Is it just me or are talk pages like Template talk:WikiProject banner shell just perpetual WP:LOCALCONSENSUS issues where a very small number of editors (frequently 5 or less) make major changes that affect thousands of articles, all without involving the broader community through, at minimum, places like Misplaced Pages:Village pump (technical)? Silverseren 04:03, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
• @Fram, Tom.Reding, Kanashimi, and Primefac: I got AWB working again. If cewbot would take time for making the changes, and if this needs attention soon, then should I file a request for that particular bot task? —usernamekiran (talk) 06:20, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

  The robot is in operation... Kanashimi (talk) 09:09, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

  yay! —usernamekiran (talk) 16:04, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Meanwhile, the category has grown to over 800,000 pages. Perhaps next time an RfC to determine whether creating such a large cleanup task is warranted, would be better? Fram (talk) 16:34, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

User:Augmented Seventh

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

You're removing demographic categories and templates by blanking them out; irreligion still deals with religion no matter your argument. That's definitely not compliant with WP:CAT and clearly vandalism. There's no action to take here except that you need to stop removing these categories and templates. Nate • (chatter) 19:42, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

And you are now required to cite how your edits meet WP:CAT; spamming it in edit summaries is not discussion. Nate • (chatter) 19:47, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

While doing routine vandal patrol, I came across what seemed to be a hasty and massive removal of content, being done in a very directed and personal manner.

After looking at the persistent removal, and communicating, I restored the well-drawn categories.

Hopefully, this is easily resolved.

Augmented Seventh (talk) 20:40, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

43*, do not continue to revert these category removals without discussing them first. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:48, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

THere is nothing to discuss. The guidelines are clear. What needs to be done is editors need to be familiar with the cat guidelines. We don't discuss whether the sky is blue do we? 43.249.196.179 (talk) 02:05, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

THey are not well drawn, it was not hasty, it was not massive, and it was not "personal". It was directed because they all had the same issue. 43.249.196.179 (talk) 02:07, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Editors should not blindly revert. They should be required to understand the guideleines. 43.249.196.179 (talk) 02:08, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

I'm sorry, but "I don't remember what policy says but I'm right so leave me alone" is an indication you should be trying to do better instead of telling us we should do the same. If you're not willing to actually explain why guidelines vindicate your changes, then being right sometimes isn't enough if you want to make things better. Communication is the process, not something ancillary to it. Remsense ‥ 论 02:10, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

GO and read the guidelines. It does not need discussion. 43.249.196.179 (talk) 02:15, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Discussion is required when other editors ask you questions in good faith in order to resolve present disputes and prevent future ones. Remsense ‥ 论 02:18, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Bear in mind this is WP and not social media. 43.249.196.179 (talk) 02:16, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

How do you get the impression that "I don't remember what policy says but I'm right so leave me alone". 43.249.196.179 (talk) 02:18, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

No. You brought this here. The WP:ONUS is on you to explain how the guidelines justify your edits, not to say "go look it up". Also How do you get the impression that "I don't remember what policy says but I'm right so leave me alone" - because that's exactly what you said. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:19, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

It's not unreasonable in many cases to link to a very specific passage of a guideline and expect an editor to understand its meaning as regards a pertinent dispute, but you can't just fail to clearly articulate your argument while also insisting it's vindicated somewhere within the full text of a guideline. Remsense ‥ 论 02:21, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Content dispute. Bold edits were reverted; next step is discussion, probably at WT:CAT. If there is dispute over interpretation of the guideline you can consider leaving a pointer at WP:VPP. If there are any categories that shouldn't be used at all that can be discussed at WP:CFD. 184.152.68.190 (talk) 03:31, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

The content dispute could have been discussed on any of the talk pages. Yet it was brought here first. Conyo14 (talk) 06:16, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

When a content dispute involves several pages it is often though not always best to centralize discussion. Misunderstanding ANIs purpose and bringing content disputes here is a common and understandable error; best just to point people at appropriate WP:DR when that happens. 184.152.68.190 (talk) 06:53, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

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

User:ZanderAlbatraz1145 Civility and Content #2

• ZanderAlbatraz1145 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

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

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

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

I've given them a warning for canvassing: - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:08, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

And more personal attacks here - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:36, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

And they appear to be continuing editing while ignoring here. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:39, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

SPA User:Tikitorch2 back at it on Martin Kulldorff

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

User:Michael.C.Wright? 173.22.12.194 (talk) 06:25, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

 Looks like a duck to me. I'm sending this to SPI. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 11:16, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

SPI says unrelated, so might just be generic disruption. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:47, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

What are you implying with regard to my username? My edit history has been limited to trying to correct two red flags that stood out so much that I followed the citations when I was searching these scientists who were in the news for censorship. It has been enlightening learning how wikipedia selectively chooses secondary sources but discourages the use of primary sources to help discriminate which secondary sources are credible.

For my two attempted contributions to Misplaced Pages, the two red flags were pretty dramatic to prompt me to check out the citations--Sunetra Gupta's article implied more than 1 in 1000 people in England died from Covid in spring 2020 in an effort to discredit her, which was trivially easy to google as untrue. I corrected that without really changing the overall narrative. The article for Martin Kulldorff...I would probably not have spent time looking at the sources or realized how unscientific Kulldorff's critics were had there not been such superfluous "Wikivoice" editorializing and synthesizing suggesting Kulldorff lied in an essay to the public. Tikitorch2 (talk) 06:30, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Primary sources are not to be used for anything but simple facts about a subject. They absolutely are not to be used to help discriminate which secondary sources are credible because that is original research. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:57, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Not sure why you felt the need to repeat what I said. Maybe I am the sock puppeteer! Tikitorch2 (talk) 03:33, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

What I am implying is that such a username in the context of an account pushing COVID-denialist rhetoric that flies in the face of the sources and Misplaced Pages policy is not an accident. Anyway, this editor continues to be a drain of editor time and attention. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 14:58, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Ah an absurd, convoluted, and contrived personal attack. Assuming anyone but you knew tiki torches were present at a political event where someone was killed, why would I choose my username based on that? Tikitorches provide light, warmth, and keep the mosquitos away. I guess its not surprising an editor named writ keeper attacks the editor rather than effectively debating the subject of the edit. Tikitorch2 (talk) 03:28, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Even if it was a personal attack, making one back isn't going to fly here. Knock it off. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:04, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

User:Tikitorch2, your edits are being examined at ANI. This is not a pleasant experience, I'll admit. So, it's best for you not to dig yourself into a hole. I know the instinct is to defend yourself but it doesn't help your situation to come out swinging. It's probably to your benefit to address any concerns that have been raised and say no more than that. Liz 04:30, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

User talk:International Space Station0

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

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

---

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

It's a WP:DUCK, and I just reported to AIV. 184.152.68.190 (talk) 04:58, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Would it be possible to put up some kind of filter to alert for this? Something that…say…catches when more than 25 edits are made in a single space (user space for example) or something that would trip if the edits added less than 5 characters consistently? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1011:B32F:11B9:7980:86CC:720C:8B57 (talk) 05:15, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

There is a filter for this. Look at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Special:AbuseLog&wpSearchUser=International+Space+Station0&offset=20241222044736, "New account unusual activity" covers exactly this. win8x (talk) 05:22, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

• This account has been globally blocked as an LTA so it shouldn't be an issue. Liz 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? – 2804:F1...A7:86CC (::/32) (talk) 05:28, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

  If you are talking WP:SELDEL, there is rarely a good reason for it's use at present. If instead you mean WP:REVDEL see WP:CRD and WP:REVDELREQUEST. 184.152.68.190 (talk) 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 I'm not going to try!). - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:55, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

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

Disruptive editor on When the Pawn...

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

User:Pillowdelight changed the genre list of When the Pawn... which originally had been a variation of certain genres: Art pop, jazz rock, art rock, alternative rock, jazz pop, chamber pop, all of which are somewhat accurate and agreed upon by various editors of this page over many years. It was changed to just Alt pop, a genre that is used to describe the newer sounds of pop in the early 2010s with Lorde, Sky Ferreira and Lana del rey. It is not a genre that fits the album hence it has never before user:Pillowdelight been described as such beyond what her poor source says, a Fiona Apple revisit (that is not even about When the pawn.. specifically) from a new, small and virtually unheard of web magazine. Sources such as Rateyourmusic, allmusic and Pitchfork are far more accurate and robust and that's why this album has never been described as alt pop. That genre did not exist at the time of the release of the album. The source needs to be accurate, it is not. It's not an album review, it is a fluff article about Fiona Apple by a small web magazine. It's not even about When the pawn... specifically, it makes no sense. I think the other editors agree, it is inaccurate.

Allmusic and pitchfork are far better sources. I have added both as sources. I didn't change the genre list, I simply changed it back to the genre list that had stood there the longest before user:Pillowdelight changed it a few months ago for the first time, having never touched this page before yet complaining about other editors. Longislandtea (talk) 18:52, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

@Longislandtea: I removed the genres because they're unsourced, which I stated in many edit summaries you keep reverting, as well as on your talk page. It doesn't matter that just because you believe a source another user added calling the album alternative pop is incorrect and unreliable because it's "new, small and virtually unheard of" is a ridiculously excuse. Read Template:Infobox album it states — genres must be stated and referenced in the body of the article; personal opinions or original research must not be included. The sources you have added specifically from Pitchfork don't state the genres you've listed. Pillowdelight (talk) 20:12, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Sources need to be legitimate and relevant. Your source is not relevant and it is disputed. Pitchfork is added because they describe the album as an alternative album several times in the review and the genre category is ROCK. What is alternative and rock? Alternative rock. That is how the album was marketed. You can't cherrypick a single article to make a case for a genre that the album absolutely is not in. I will remove the Pitchfork source, that's fine. There's numerous ones including from Allmusic that clearly state that it is an alternative rock album. The album was even added to Misplaced Pages's page for alt rock albums ages ago. This is very uncontroversial. Just having alternative rock is also lacking; jazz fusion, art pop (the album is already added on the wikipedia page for art pop albums) and art rock are accurate too and have been there for ages but alas! Let's get rid of it all to only serve your opinion. Numerous albums have unsourced genres might I add, but the vast of amount of editors agree to it because they know these accurately describe the album, these are the scenes that the album and artist comes from and sourcing for genres can often times be lacking. In that case, rather than trying to look for BAD sources, it's better to agree with the consensus. In our case, we do have sources. Rateyourmusic has been used as a source for adding art pop, alternative rock, jazz pop, fusion, art rock and chamber pop as genres before. Longislandtea (talk) 20:54, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Here's the page for what is considered acceptable sources Misplaced Pages:Acceptable sources (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs).

Relevance. Sources must be relevant--there must be some reason for the reader to care about what the author has to say. For example, the opinion of a random individual on the presidency of George W. Bush, as published in a letter to the editor of a major newspaper, is not relevant; and thus should not be included--even though it is published, traceable to its author, and given in a reputable publication. Relevance can be imputed several ways--through explicit personal knowledge, through subject-matter authority, through general notability of the author, through demonstrable correlation with the opinion(s) of a large group of people, etc.

A large group of people, the editors of When the Pawn...'s page throughout the years, thousands of people on music reviewing sites and numerous music journalists from legitimate publications do not agree with what this one article you cherrypicked states.

Note that this policy is the minimum standard for inclusion as a reference in Misplaced Pages. Sources may meet this standard and still not be authoritative, reliable, accurate, free from bias, or undisputed. Sources which meet this minimum standard but which fail to meet stricter standards may be used, but should be used with caution. In particular, such sources should be explicitly attributed to their author(s) or publisher(s) in an article's prose (rather than being presented as fact with the author only given in the notes), and disputes considering the source's veracity should be described.

Meaning you can't just add any genre because some random source says it when it goes against larger and more reliable sources as well as it is controversial.

Thank you and please stop vandalizing pages on topics of music you do not understand. Longislandtea (talk) 21:04, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

WP:NOTVAND. Note that accusing editors of vandalism when they are not, in fact, vandalising can be considered a personal attack, so I'd suggest you strike that comment. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:14, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Okay, I strike. Longislandtea (talk) 21:17, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

You didn't actually strike any comments. To do so, do this <s>Comment</s> which will make it look like this Comment. Liz 22:17, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

please stop vandalizing pages on topics of music you do not understand. Longislandtea (talk) 22:26, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

@Longislandtea: How is the source considered not relevant and where was this dispute? AllMusic does not call the album alternative rock at all within its article. Rate Your Music is also not a source it's user generated which is against Misplaced Pages. I really wish an admin would comment on this because this is getting absolutely nowhere. Pillowdelight (talk) 21:05, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Here's another source describing it as an alternative rock and jazz fusion album

https://www.the-solute.com/the-solute-record-club-fiona-apple-when-the-pawn/

Alt pop is not accurate. If you're so adamant about alt pop, please argue why. It is completely inaccurate and you have one singular source over music journalists and music sites. Allmusic does categorize it as alternative rock, Pitchfork has categorized it as rock since 1999 of its release. There was NO Alt-pop at the time. It still isn't. These are different genres. Art pop is not Alt pop. You edited the page one time in October 2024 only to get rid of the genre list that editors agreed upon to add Alt pop which makes no sense whatsoever. Longislandtea (talk) 21:17, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

I have now added a new source to the genre list. If you have any problems with the new source, tell me. But it's much more accurate this way. It's still sad to see the whole genre list that was originally there, so much more descriptive and fitting, hacked away but oh well. Longislandtea (talk) 21:31, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Pitchfork's categorizations mean basically nothing. They have ten categories, one of which is "Pop/R&B", and another of which is "Global". By the way, you should just stop caring about this, because sources misclassify genres of music chronically and everywhere you look. Take your passion to RateYourMusic. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 18:16, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

All of this discussion should be taking place on the article's talk page (which neither editor has used). Schazjmd (talk) 21:36, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

@Schazjmd: I'm awaiting for an admin to respond. This conversation is getting nowhere hence the reason why I brought it here in the first place. I've tried to explain to the user on their talk page along with this entire thread and it's getting nowhere. @The Bushranger: you left a comment but could you please share your opinion on the dispute? Or possibly ping an admin who's familiar with music if this isn't your area of familiarity? Pillowdelight (talk) 21:49, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

There was no reason to bring this conversation here. I talked to you directly but go no real reply or any arguments despite adding sources and explaining why it's not an Alt pop album. I've explained to you well enough. Please stop trying to get admins to ban me simply because I (and other editors) recognize that the genre list that you got rid of was far more fitting. There's a new genre list now with sources but it is not Alt-pop. The album was already added to the wikipedia album pages for Alternative rock and art pop. I'm familiar with these genres and Fiona Apple specifically to know that it's accurate hence why the genre list has been that way for years. If you're adamant about sources, there is a source. Accusing me of not sourcing should be considered a false accusation at this point. Not all sources are equal either and I've tried explaining that to you. Longislandtea (talk) 21:55, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Pillowdelight, you were given good advice which is to have this discussion on the article talk page which neither editor has posted at yet. This is a content dispute. If no action has been taken yet by an administrator, it's likely because they don't agree with your statement that action needs to be taken. Liz 22:22, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Okay, will do. Thank you Liz. Pillowdelight (talk) 22:24, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Why do people have to argue about what genre music is rather than just listening to it, and hopefully enjoying it? Phil Bridger (talk) 19:58, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

The genre list was fine and accurate and uncontroversial until this user decided to remove the entire thing. It's important that the genre list is accurate. People find albums through genres. There's other reasons as well. Longislandtea (talk) 20:38, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

This is neither here nor there, but I thought albums are generally sorted in alphabetical order by band name or the musician's last name.

Please, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, or my information is incomplete. Shovel Shenanigans (talk) 22:28, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

I was trying to explain the important of listing genres accurately. If you go to a record store then yes, albums are listed in alphabetical order. But they're still put in categories of genres. Longislandtea (talk) 22:43, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

If we were going to list musical genres "accurately," we wouldn't bother at all. Except in very broad strokes ("rock," "punk," "Baroque," etc), so many of these horribly subjective "genres" are made up by bored media writers and bands that hate the notion of being The Same As Everyone Else. Get ten people to listen to ten different tracks of heavy metal, and you won't get as many as a third of them agreeing on any of them on the doom/grudge/dark/death/Goth/Viking/sludge/*-grind/*-core/etc etc etc spectrum. Beyond that, arguing whether any given artist is "that genre" is very highly subjective. (Hell, I've sung Baroque, classical, folk, rock, ethnic, shape note, so many genres I can't readily count.) Ravenswing 15:12, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Multiple users breaking 3RR on Gilman School article

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

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

Awshort (talk)

• E/C applied. Star Mississippi 19:51, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Counterfeit Purses, please be aware that the Luigi Mangione article was kept in a recent Articles for Deletion debate, so the consensus of the community is that he is notable. Edit warring to keep his name off the alumni list is a really bad idea. Cullen328 (talk) 20:14, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

@Cullen328 No problem, I've already given up. I would argue that WP:NOTNEWS applies here, but there's no sense in pushing against the tide. If you're content to have the lede section of Gilman School include "prominent graduates including "alleged murderer Luigi Mangione", I guess that's fine. It seems to be an unusual thing to include and an obvious case of undue weight given to something that is in the news at the moment. Perhaps someone should start a Wikiproject to add famous murderers to the ledes of other schools? Counterfeit Purses (talk) 22:00, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Counterfeit Purses, in my view, WP:NOTNEWS is among our most misunderstood policy documents. It begins In principle, all Misplaced Pages articles should contain up-to-date information. Editors are also encouraged to develop stand-alone articles on significant current events. I believe that Mangione is notable, the evolving article is acceptable, and his name belongs in the alumni list. Many, many "bad people" are listed as alumni in countless school articles, and it is not at all unusual. The only unusual thing here is that the lead of this particular school article lists alumni, and so I have removed them from the lead. Cullen328 (talk) 01:07, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm glad that misunderstanding WP:NOTNEWS is so common because I am going to continue to misunderstand it. I see that Liz removed Luigi Mangione from the lede before you removed the rest of the list. Acknowledging again that I have given up hope that Mangione will be removed from this article, let me ask you what you think the purpose of these alumni lists is? Including Mangione is an editorial decision. We don't include all notable alumni in these lists, so why should we include Mangione, and why now? It's too soon to know if he will have lasting relevance. Counterfeit Purses (talk) 04:22, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

We don't include all notable alumni in these lists Why not? If someone is Wikinotable and went to a Wikinotable school, then they belong in the "Notable alumni" section of that school's page, Q.E.D. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:28, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

@The Bushranger I'm not saying "we shouldn't", I'm saying "we don't". We don't include every notable alumnus in these lists, nor should we because it would lead to long, unhelpful lists stuck in the middle of articles about the schools. Counterfeit Purses (talk) 04:49, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

If an alumni list bloats an article, it can be split out. See Category:Lists of people by school affiliation. 11:29, 23 December 2024 (UTC) (Oops, signing) Narky Blert (talk) 16:01, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Of course that's always an option, but what I am saying is that it isn't desirable to have every alumnus listed in an article for a school. Ideally, it would be a selection of alumni who have made significant achievements in their field. Otherwise, it's just trivia. Am I wrong? Counterfeit Purses (talk) 17:21, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes. You're making a value judgment that some alumni (with articles, else they most definitely should not be included) are more notable than others. That is WP:OR. Narky Blert (talk) 20:05, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes, that's called editorial judgment. Just like deciding not to include every known fact about something in an article. At some point, it is just trivia. Misplaced Pages is not a database. That info would probably be welcome over on Wikidata, which is a database. Alternatively, someone could just add Category:Gilman School alumni (in this case). Counterfeit Purses (talk) 20:52, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

And a new user, who doesn't understand categories and has no idea Wikidata exists, is relying on the list on the page. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:35, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Vandal encounter

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

diffs:

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

 Not done - Not an admin - I hate to be that person but unfortunately you've not sufficiently warned them, They've only received one warning and their edits aren't gross vandalism so this would only be declined by an admin anyway, If they continue I'll report them to AIV, Thanks, –Davey2010 23:47, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Thank you! This has been noted for the future. Thank you, again! Shovel Shenanigans (talk) 23:48, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

You're welcome, Happy editing, Thanks, –Davey2010 23:51, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

User:Glenn103

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

Most of these pages don't even make any sense (eg.: Draft:Yery with tilde). The user also ignores any notice about his articles being moved to draftspace by simply recreating duplicates of them (eg.: Draft:Tse with caron & Tse with caron). Immediate action may be needed. Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 07:38, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Given a uw-create4im with directions to come here, let's see what happens. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:00, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

They've continued editing, this time adding infoboxes to the articles, so I don't think the warning worked... ''']''' (talk • contribs) 08:10, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

I have blocked them from article space and page moves, and will leave note on talk page to come here. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 15:33, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

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

Excuse me for detracting from the report, but this was your 4th edit, your last edit was in January 2016... how have you found yourself here of all places?

I mean you might have a point, but wow. – 2804:F1...57:88CF (::/32) (talk) 04:57, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

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

North Korean involvement in Russian-Ukraine war discussion

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

Key Points:

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

Request for Administrative Action:

I respectfully request that administrators address the following issues:

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

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

Since this report isn't really about an incident and your request is directed towards admins, I think this complaint would be better placed at WP:AN rather than ANI. It will also need more specifics, which articles, which edits, which editors. You'll need to provide that. I also question whether or not these are content standards that the community can't handle on their own. Liz 09:50, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

I was going to post it at WP:AN but it said: "This noticeboard is for issues affecting administrators generally – announcements, notifications, information, and other matters of general administrator interest.

If your post is about a specific problem you have (a dispute, user, help request, or other narrow issue needing an administrator), you should post it at the Administrators' noticeboard for incidents (ANI) instead. Thank you."

I posted it on ANI beecause my specific problem was this dispute Rc2barrington (talk) 12:07, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

The original post in this thread appears to resemble LLM output. GPTzero confirms this impression, rating text as "99% probability AI generated". Using AI to generate ANI submissions is highly inappropriate. Axad12 (talk) 18:01, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Even when a message appears to be AI-generated, I think it is worth considering whether or not it is pointing out an actual problem. I think editors might be ignoring the results of an RFC, I just don't think asking for administrators to monitor a subject area, without identifying specific articles, is a feasible solution. It does seem like, possibly, a point that could come up in a complaint at AE regarding the Ukraine CTOP area. Liz 19:55, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

I had a peek and it's a messy RfC and, as is generally the case with a messy RfC had a very involved closure message which seems to reflect that the closer felt constrained by the framing of the RfC. I didn't see any immediate indication in the edit history that anyone had tried to implement the RfC result and been rebuffed (although I might have missed it). So there's some smoke here but, I think, not a ton of fire. Simonm223 (talk) 20:21, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Liz, I don't disagree but I'm not at all convinced that use of AI is a positive contribution to CTOP areas. Axad12 (talk) 20:27, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

It was written with AI assistance. Not all AI. ai detectors aren’t considered reliable, because you can put the U.S. constitution through one and it says 100% AI generated. Regardless, whether it’s AI or not has nothing to do with the topic. It’s just that there’a been so many discussions and when I checked the info box it said ‘supported by”, violating the consensus of the RFC Rc2barrington (talk) 12:45, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

I think the underlying issue here is that if you use AI to generate text which looks like obvious AI output then readers will wonder "does the end user even have sufficient English to understand what the AI has generated for them?" and "did the end user understand the material prior to deciding to employ AI?". Thus if a user is fluent in English, as you obviously are, it will always be better to communicate in your own voice.

At the end of the day, a user making a valid point in their own voice is generally speaking going to be taken more seriously than a user employing LLM output.

There are plenty of other reasons for users not to employ AI (see the recent thread here for extensive coverage) but the argument above seems like a good practical reason for fluent English speakers to always prefer using their own voice.

You will see from the recent thread that many users here are vehemently against AI use. Axad12 (talk) 15:46, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

I understood the material very well, its not like I just used 100% AI out of nowhere. I know the context. I have been involved in this discussion since September. Rc2barrington (talk) 16:43, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

It's a respect thing. It's disrespectful of other editors to make them read chatbot output rather than your words. Simonm223 (talk) 16:49, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Rc2barrington's user page says This user believes in the bright future AI and robotics will bring, so there's probably no point in arguing here. However, I simply observe that in any kind of discussion where you're trying to convince other people, don't use a method that aggravates a significant number of readers (probably a significant majority of readers). It really is that simple. Axad12 (talk) 19:11, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Concern About a New Contributor

Suspected editor was indeed a sock. Unnecessary drama created by all-too zealous reporting--let this be the end of it. Drmies (talk) 21:19, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

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

---

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

Dear Wikipedians,

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

I believe your experience could help address this situation effectively.

Looking forward to your advice on how to proceed.

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

"Vandalize" is a very loaded word here with a specific meaning. As far as I can tell, what they've done is nominate 4 articles for deletion, and your response has been to accuse them of vandalism, ignoring dispute resolution procedures and making personal attacks – none of which I can see at a glance through their contributions.

Perhaps if you supplied evidence of this behaviour, someone would be able to help? If your issue is that they've nominated 4 articles of which you are a major contributor and are doing so by going through your contributions in order to find articles to nominate for deletion with specious reasons, then this board would be the place to come. If not, then making your arguments for keeping the articles on the AfDs in question would be your best bet.

By the way is forum shopping. Stop that. 81.2.123.64 (talk) 16:06, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

(ec) This is an odd one. As S-Aura failed to provide diffs, I looked at Kriji Sehamati's contribution history. New account (9 Dec) began editing today, created two drafts and made a bunch of edits to those. Then began adding COI tags to articles S-Aura wrote, nominated those articles for deletion, and then left a possible UPE template on S-Aura's talk page. Really seems to be something weird going on here between those two. (In addition to opening this ANI thread, S-Aura asked for help with basically the same message on the talk pages of Ipigott, Ryan shell, CFA, and BusterD, and S-Aura opened same complaint at AN.) Schazjmd (talk) 16:06, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

I am concerned that User:Kriji_Sehamati’s actions, including unjustified deletion nominations and spamming, are disruptive and violate Misplaced Pages’s guidelines.

She seems to lack understanding of basic Misplaced Pages guidelines, particularly those related WP:GNG and WP:NPOL. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 16:40, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

You were asked to provide diffs. You did, almost, here but then reverted yourself. Those diffs (well, the ones before those diffs) are just the other user nominating articles for deletion (which is allowed) or tagging them for what they believe to be conflict of interest edits (which is also allowed).

Please provide some actual evidence that the other user is engaging in chronic, intractable behaviour, rather than just not editing how you would like them to. 81.2.123.64 (talk) 17:21, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Here are some diffs highlighting her problematic edits. However, I believe that many of her contributions may be in violation of Misplaced Pages’s guidelines. It appears she has specifically targeted me and added the COI tag multiple times to the same page. I would appreciate it if you could review her actions more thoroughly:

•

•

•

•

and many more

Thankyou! 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 17:33, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

We wouldn't generally treat an AfD as vandalism. Simonm223 (talk) 17:39, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

I understand your point about AfDs not generally being treated as vandalism. However, I noticed that the major contribution history of the user seems suspicious. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 17:42, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Not from where anybody else is standing so far. I get that you're upset to have four articles of yours nominated for deletion, and if you have any evidence at all that you are being deliberately targeted by the other editor, then people will very much act on that. Please provide it. 81.2.123.64 (talk) 17:58, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

I am here to contribute and edit articles in accordance with Misplaced Pages’s guidelines. However, today a new user targeted me and falsely blamed me for actions that are not accurate. I believe this is unfair and not in line with the collaborative nature of the platform. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 18:04, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Please provide evidence of this. 81.2.123.64 (talk) 18:06, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Please check! 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 18:07, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

The articles that have been nominated for deletion discussion have been reviewed by experienced contributors. These discussions involve articles about judges and lawyers, under WP:NPOL, a valid criterion according to Misplaced Pages’s guidelines. Therefore, the deletion decision was made after carefully reviewing these articles. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 18:11, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Honestly it looks like this user, rightly or wrongly, believes you have a conflict of interest and are acting on the basis of that assumption. I would suggest, if you don't have a CoI, talking to them about this and maybe asking why they've come to this conclusion. Simonm223 (talk) 18:10, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

They have just started targeting my contributions, and I tried to inform her about the situation. However, she is acting as if she knows everything about Misplaced Pages and is dismissing my concerns. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 18:15, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

@Kriji Sehamati: hasn't edited since their AfD spree earlier today, let's wait and see what their response here is when they return to editing. Schazjmd (talk) 18:16, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

• We need to stop focusing on the OP's calling this vandalism; it is not. I've changed the header to reflect that. That said, the new user's edits are problematic and merit scrutiny. As for the UPE stuff, I've removed that post from the OP's Talk page; it's nonsensical coming from a new user and does not merit a response.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:42, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
• It is, of course, not vandalism to nominate articles for AFD discussions as long as a legitimate deletion rationale is provided and the article hasn't just been discussed at a recent AFD. However, I don't think it's a good sign when a brand new editor claims to understand all of Misplaced Pages policies and whose first actions are to nominate articles at AFDs. They are almost never an actual new editor, especially when they know how to even set up an AFD or are familiar with using Twinkle on their first day of editing. Liz 19:34, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

  It seems that she is not new to Misplaced Pages and might be operating multiple accounts. It appears she has an issue with one of my contributions, as she created her account just 15 days ago, yet she already has a good understanding of tools like Twinkle and AfD procedures. This level of familiarity suggests prior experience on the platform. I am now requesting her account to be blocked as I am completely disturbed by her repeated allegations and disruptive behavior. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 11:32, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

  I am now genuinely confused—if all my contributions are not good, then why am I even here? Were the experienced editors who reviewed and approved these pages also mistaken? A newcomer, who joined just recently, is now disrupting and questioning the validity of all the work that has been carefully reviewed and maintained by experienced contributors. This situation is deeply discouraging. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 11:58, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

  Please resolve this situation—either block her for her disruptive behavior. How can i continue working under such constant targeting and stress ? 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 12:00, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

  User:S-Aura, you seem to be making unsupported personal attacks against User:Kriji Sehamati. You should provide specific evidence of wrongdoing, including diffs, or your arguments here will fall on deaf ears (and bring consequences for you). Meanwhile, as a filer on ANI, you have brought all your own edits to close scrutiny by the community. You may have to face that smart people disagree, and this is how we sort disagreements out on English Misplaced Pages. You are not required to edit, but we encourage you to do so. Nobody is going to block Kriji Sehamati at this point, because you've given us no reason to do so. BusterD (talk) 12:01, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

  Meanwhile, in the last few minutes S-Aura has disruptively created a second thread about this exact issue on this same board, which was reverted by another editor. This is intentional disruption. BusterD (talk) 12:07, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

  As to the question "Why am I here?", poets and artists have been trying to answer this question for eons. Epistemology is outside the scope of this board, but there are articles about it. Show up to edit if you want to, but expect disagreement from time to time. (That's actually a sound answer to any epistemology question as well.) BusterD (talk) 12:16, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

  Dear @BusterD,

  It means I have been proven wrong, and that user’s contributions have been more focused on me, which is quite insufficient to catch someone’s lie that she is pretending to be new, when in fact she is old.

  Also, I am not against AfD; I am simply expressing my opinion. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 13:12, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

  Could you please rephrase your point here? I don't understand. While it's okay to be suspicious that this editor is somehow socking or doing something else deceptive due to the familiarity, it seems unacceptable to deliberately accuse them of such repeatedly without firmer evidence. Remsense ‥ 论 13:19, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

  Dear @Remsense,

  I am not engaged in paid activities on Misplaced Pages, and she claimed that I am connected with the subject, who is a judge, lawyer, etc. You all should understand that this is not a trivial matter; justice is a very respected position. Making such allegations can escalate court cases. I would like to remind you of the Misplaced Pages vs. ANI case. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 13:24, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

  One thing you need to understand immediately is you should never make another post that sounds vaguely like a legal threat, as you've just done above. Seriously. That intonation is seriously not helping us decide who's right or wrong here. Remsense ‥ 论 13:27, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

  Okay! 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 13:35, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

  I will caution you that this is tiptoeing right up to the edge of WP:NLT and you'd be advised to avoid making legal threats. Simonm223 (talk) 13:28, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

  Dear @Simonm223,

  I am merely showing that she can potentially do something inappropriate. I am following the guidelines and not making any legal threats. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 13:31, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

  Accusing another editor of potentially making legal threats is not much better, when there is no concrete evidence that they would do so. Being interested in articles about judges does not suffice. Remsense ‥ 论 13:32, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

  The page of Justice Subramonium Prasad, who had conducted over the Misplaced Pages vs. ANI court hearing, was also created by me. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 13:28, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

  State plainly what the implication you are making here is, because what I'm hearing is "I'm familiar with people who have hit Misplaced Pages with a mallet in court before, and I can make sure it happens again". Remsense ‥ 论 13:30, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

  This is becoming a rabbit hole. I urge you not to pursue the rabbit further. BusterD (talk) 13:33, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

  Good call, I'll retract the above. Remsense ‥ 论 13:34, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

  No, that is not what I am implying. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 13:33, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

  No one has said your contributions are not good. However, it should be noted that a draft being accepted at AfC or a new page having been patrolled does not guarantee greater scrutiny would not result in a valid AfD nomination. That said, echoing others here it's clear something problematic is up with this user's behavior. Remsense ‥ 论 12:02, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

  You can't both criticize someone for lack understanding of basic Misplaced Pages guidelines, particularly those related WP:GNG and WP:NPOL, and then argue that she is too familiar with the platform to be a newcomer for knowing how to file an AfD. I wouldn't be surprised if most people here knew how to file an AfD before knowing all 14 notability guidelines by heart. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 12:59, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

  There are detailed instructions on filing an AfD that can be found by googling "how can I get a Misplaced Pages page deleted" - if somebody had some personal reason for wanting to have pages removed it doesn't strain credibility to think that's why they created a WP account and that they just followed the very clear instructions on the appropriate pages.

  In fact that might explain why some of the AfD filings were reasonable and some were, on their face, incorrectly filed. If you looked up the AfD process but not criteria that is the likely outcome. That's why I find the "new user files AfDs must be a sock" idea here somewhat uncompelling. Simonm223 (talk) 13:04, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

• I believe we're entering boomerang territory at this point. Opinions? BusterD (talk) 13:35, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

  I think OP is upset that a cluster of their articles were put up at AfD. This in itself is understandable, but while there's reason to think there might be mischief by Kriji Sehamati, we don't have any real evidence of it. We either need the OP to make it clearer what misconduct, if any, has occurred, or they need to drop the stick. Remsense ‥ 论 13:37, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

  The OP has been intentionally disruptive (by creating a new ANI thread which was reverted), and this thread is going nowhere. IMHO, there's nothing ANI can do here. Everything I'm reading about should be resolved at the page talk and user talk level, in my opinion. The AfDs are underway. If dispute resolution is needed, fine. Nobody is harming S-Aura. S-Aura can't come crying to ANI (or four random user talk pages like mine) anytime someone merely disagrees with them. BusterD (talk) 14:08, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

  I'd have said close with trout for all if not for creating the second thread at AN/I. Based on that I'd say the OP should be formally cautioned against such antics in the future. Simonm223 (talk) 14:10, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

  I should have added that I largely hold with Remsense in their position. BusterD (talk) 14:15, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

  User:Kriji Sehamati‬ is definitely a sock puppet on Misplaced Pages, but we don’t have any evidence because understanding Misplaced Pages’s AfD process so quickly can be a bit challenging. I have no problem with AfD regarding my contributions, and it’s a good thing that experienced contributors are giving their feedback. If you believe that the kriji is 100% correct and her activity is not suspicious, then this discussion should be closed. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 14:27, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

  You need to stop insisting this is definitely the case if you don't have any evidence for it, period. Remsense ‥ 论 14:28, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

  S-Aura, how did you make the determination User:Kriji Sehamati‬ is definitely a sock puppet on Misplaced Pages? Please share your process. That's a personal attack, and requires proof to prevent you from being in violation of WP:NOPERSONALATTACKS. I've looked at the AfDs and they seem reasonable to me. When you've provided strong sources the article is being kept. So far the jury is out on the others. Both of you seem to be writing articles about obscure living persons who wouldn't normally (by my cursory reading) have a Misplaced Pages article about them because reliable sourcing is not readily found. When I see that, I must suspect COI or undeclared unpaid editing here, but nobody's admitting to it. BusterD (talk) 15:05, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

  S-Aura's continuing to issue personal attacks makes it more difficult for us to just close this (without some form of consequence for the editor making unproven personal attacks after they've been warned repeatedly). BusterD (talk) 15:08, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

  I have made a level-four user talk page warning for the personal attack. FYI. We've been very nice about this up 'til now, but we need to stop being so kind. Doing foolish things has real world consequences. BusterD (talk) 15:17, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

• Both editors' apparent use of AI is certainly disruptive. If it continues, it should lead to blocks. C F A 15:10, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

  No personal hate intended, but I just found this and thought it would be worth checking. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 16:49, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

  It would be nice if you could explain the significance for those who do not speak Hausa. Remsense ‥ 论 16:51, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

  She had made contributions to pages in other languages a few months ago. I am attaching her contributions link. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 16:59, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

  How does this constitute evidence of sockpuppetry if we aren't to know what exactly happened? There's a reason we don't just automatically block anybody who is blocked on another language wiki, and I looked through the edits some and didn't find anything outrageous that made it past the language barrier. Remsense ‥ 论 17:01, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

  I agree that it’s important to ensure we have solid evidence before making conclusions. I appreciate your perspective on not automatically blocking users based on blocks from other language wikis. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 17:17, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

  Please don't reply to me or others using ChatGPT. It is flat-out rude. Remsense ‥ 论 17:18, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

• Support BOOMERANG - I've been uninvoled and have mainly just been watching the back-and-forths, but the personal attacks and VESTED mindset, such as "questioning the validity of all the work that has been carefully reviewed and maintained by experienced contributors", concerns me. Not sure for how long, but I don't think anything longer than a months is appropriate given the circumstances. E_F 15:47, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
• This whole thread, but especially the 16:49, 24 December 2024 (UTC) comment, feels like the OP is just throwing literally everything at the wall to see what sticks. But, worse, what is being thrown at the wall lacks any significant body of evidence to support. I note that a personal attack warning has been given for the continued unfounded accusations being presented, which I think is a good move. I don't support a block at this point, although if I was the OP I would withdraw this complaint and/or drop the stick and walk away from this topic as a matter of urgency to avoid continuing to make the situation worse. Daniel (talk) 17:41, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

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

Darkwarriorblake making aspersions

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

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

---

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

−

Liddy was interested in the offer until he learned that Beeks becomes the romantic partner of a gorilla.

+

Liddy was interested in the offer until he learned that Beeks is raped by a gorilla.

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

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

−

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

+

...was offered the role of corrupt official Clarence Beeks with Paul Gleason eventually taking the role;...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hrrm, this seems a bit excessive.

• I've added a second source for the claim. Really this should've been the first option rather than removing the content.
• The first summary was, as stated, "Don't mince words; the interaction between Beeks and the gorilla is rape played for laughs". "Rape played for laughs" is a loaded comment and not something said in the article or the source text, so it's a personal opinion, it's not neutral, it's agenda-driven.
• When this was reverted, the editor just removed the content entirely claiming IndieWire was unreliable. There is, as far as I'm aware, nothing wrong with Indiewire. I've since found a second source, the Telegraph, which is reliable per Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Perennial sources.
• The editor ignored WP: BRD when raised, and as an admin they should adhere to policy.
• The editor states that they are an admin on their page. Assuming this is true, the aggressiveness of their edits, hyper focus on the single area, and use of words like "crap listicle" seemed out of line with what I, personally, would expect from an admin on Misplaced Pages, certainly someone who has been so for nearly two decades. Perhaps the edit summary wasn't the place to have that discussion but, as stated, they weren't adhering to WP: BRD to start a discussion, and in the interim the article needed putting back to the status quo.
• I find accusations of OWNERSHIP often tend to come when people don't get their way. Which is fine. I have plenty of reversions on the page for people adding unsourced content and there are plenty of changes as well. I find someone removing sourced content and me putting the sourced content back to not really be something you can fling ownership at.
• Within the context of the film, Beeks does become the romantic partner of the gorilla, it seemed more appropriate and encylcopedic text than just saying 'rape', and neither source I've added says that either.
• Anyways, my edit history shows I'm a massive contributor and helper and it's nearly Xmas, and I don't feel like engaging with this any further, good luck Hex. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 20:27, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Of course you don't, having ignored the actual matter of your conduct that I'm raising here. Your comments about the content of the article are irrelevant.  — Hex • talk 20:43, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

• Hex's position is not wholly supported, although in the entire issue, their toolset is irrelevant. There was no incivility on either part, and an all-out edit war seems to have been averted.Fundamentally the change Hex wanted to make was pure OR; rape may have been intimated—or, as Hex themself admits, implied—but its never overtly stated and is a wholly loaded term. This is the interpretation of an editor, not of secondary sources. If there is a pron=blem with Indywire as a source—currently used in 1000s of articles—take it to WP:RSN. If it's disputed that it's a high quality source per WP:FA?, then take it to WT:FAC. Accusations of OWNership are as unhelpful—and as much an aspersion—as accusations of agenda-led editing. In fact, for OWNership, Hex should read the relevant policy: here, it is WP:FAOWN, which not only allows for careful stewardship of featured material, but requires significant changes to the consensus version to be discussed on talk; I don't suppose there's any suggestion that introducing rape—particularly "played for laughs"—wouldn't be a significant addition.Really though, this is an overblown content dispute which should have started with one revert each, and ended on the talk page. --SerialNumber54129 21:10, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

  "Never overtly stated... 'played for laughs' be a significant addition" - here's an interview with John Landis, the director.

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

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

Followup

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

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

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

User Stationmanagerskidrow removing information on Radio Skid Row page

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

User is now editing using User:159.196.168.116 Pyramids09 (talk) 03:34, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The page was longer, but sourced (all but?) soley to the station's site and it's been trimmed down to what it is now. Given the repeated edit-warring by IPs I've semi-protected the page for two days for now. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:59, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

WP:USERNAME and WP:COI message added here. I'm just about to make myself thoroughly WP:INVOLVED by seeing what I can do about the Radio Skid Row article. Shirt58 (talk) 🦘 09:11, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Insults

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

Hello, Psychloppos. What action are you seeking to happen here? Liz 09:42, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

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

Nlkyair012 and LLM chatbots

• Nlkyair012

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

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

Hello @Ratnahastin,

To start with I should admit that I am sorry for all the inconvenience that I may have caused as a result of my actions. It was never my intention to take people’s time or skew the conversation in a certain way. I appreciate the core idea to contribute the thoughts to the Wiki and share it borne in mind the overall rules and policies of this program.

I understand your fears about the AI utilities you have mentioned on your site. Even when I was using AI for the grammar check or, for instance, to elaborate on some point in the text, I saw to my mismanagement that over the process we probably confused the readers and repeated the same information and thoughts, which I would never wish to happen again. From now on I will ensure that in the future the input which I provide to wikipedia fits the Misplaced Pages standard and is more personal. I will also not write walls of text and will not make assertations that do not have substantiated evidence in sources.

As for subjects that concern the Raj and the sources from this period and the discussions we have had it seems that I have gone too far in demanding clarification for the same thing. That being the case, with the understanding that the consensus will be acknowledged, I shall not be inclined to reopen this discussion unless new substantiated evidence is produced. I don’t want to prolong the conversation or bring any more stress.

I will strive to learn from my experience to be more productive in my interactions going forward. If there are other limitations or additional rules to which I have to stick to, I will receive them with pleasure.

In the same respect, let me specially apologize for the inconvenience and thank all of you for bearing with us. That was why I wanted to remind all of us that we can and should keep collectively improving Misplaced Pages as a resource. Nlkyair012 13:31, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

This comment also has a typical LLM feel and contains meaningless statements such as "I understand your fears about the AI utilities you have mentioned on your site" and differs substantially from your usual (non-AI) writing style, although GPTzero said this is human input. - Ratnahastin (talk) 13:38, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

It seems human in that it contains some composition and grammar errors that I don’t think an LLM would produce. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 13:56, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply sir, I can't explain how frustrated I'm feeling from this morning which this user made me experience Nlkyair012 14:02, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

The time when I messaged Vikram banafar I was casual not formal and second of all your saying doesn't prove anything "and differs substantially from your usual (non-AI) writing style" that's a straight up false accusation and utter nonsensical point and 3rd point being that GPTzero stated that this is a human input then that's an human input end of the question. Nlkyair012 14:01, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

No it's really not the end of the story if GPTZero says "likely human". In fact I'd actively discourage people depending on tools like GPTZero in favour of their human senses which are better at detecting LLM outputs than yet another computer program. And, frankly, what you're hearing from people here is we'd rather your casual, human, flaws-and-all style of writing over ChatGPT output "formal" report templates. They are doing the opposite of what you're looking for and have become disruptive. Simonm223 (talk) 14:05, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Man you still wanna do this? @Zanahary also says this doesn't seems AI generated to him and he used his actual "Human senses" to lean that way Nlkyair012 14:10, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Admitting that you have used AI for writing your comments and then saying that you have not used AI is not going to help your case. - Ratnahastin (talk) 14:36, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

You know what I think this is getting to the WP:NOTHERE point. Having to tell somebody to have the basic respect of other editors to not subject them to text-walls of chatGPT garbage over and over again is a disruptive distraction from what we should all be doing. Simonm223 (talk) 14:38, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

This ain't getting anywhere Nlkyair012 14:59, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

I really don't understand the problem. Cuz I literally also said many where that yes I used AI but for expanding and grammar correction Nlkyair012 14:54, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

If this combative approach is your "casual" style, perhaps your use of AI and its over the top politeness was an attempt to mask it. In any case, I think you are not here for building an encyclopaedia but for caste glorification given your obsession with a certain sub-caste. - Ratnahastin (talk) 14:33, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

im not obsessed with a certain subcaste but am sure is obsessed with British Raj sources. Nlkyair012 14:56, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

I don't think that's better. Shovel Shenanigans (talk) 15:44, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

If we just temporarily put aside the AI-generated comments, can Nlkyair012 accept the view of experienced editors on Raj era sources and not push any viewpoint on a particulary caste? Because, to be honest, editors who have done this in the past usually end up indefinitely blocked. There is a low tolderance here for "caste warriors". Liz 19:27, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

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

Page protected, and now this admin is flashing back to his youth going to Frisch's Big Boy in Tampa. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:37, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

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

---

This user keeps using IP addresses in order to revert creditable information about who makes their tartar sauce. Please look into this user. IP Addresses used were 67.80.16.30, 66.117.211.82, and 216.24.107.180. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JrStudios The Wikipedian (talk • contribs) 15:17, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Courtesy link Frisch's. Knitsey (talk) 17:02, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

This sounds a lot like the same edit warrer I dealt with on Redbox, down to the false accusations of vandalism, removal of sourced information, and apparent use of proxies (all the IPs geolocate to different places). I wouldn't be surprised if this is the same person. I've asked RFPP to intervene. wizzito | say hello! 21:05, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

NVM, checked MaxMind for geolocation and they all are in the same general area. wizzito | say hello! 21:08, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

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

User:Nadeem asghar khan inaccurate edit summaries

All but 2 of user's edit summaries are "Fixed Typo" when they are in fact partially updating statistical information on the page. Have left multiple messages/warnings on TP, with no response. Spike 'em (talk) 16:03, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Lil Dicky Semi-Protection

WP:RFPP is thataway →. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:34, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

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

---

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

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

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

Request for Review of Neutrality and Repeated Actions

This complaint has no merit and does not require administrative intervention.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:08, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

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

---

Dear admin, I hope this message finds you well. I am writing to express my concern regarding Psycholoppos, who has repeatedly applied the neutrality dispute tag to content related to Randa Kassis. Despite previous clarifications, these actions suggest a potential bias, which could undermine the objectivity and integrity of the platform.

I kindly request that you review this matter and take appropriate steps to ensure that all users adhere to neutrality standards. If possible, I would also appreciate guidance on how to address such situations constructively in the future.

Thank you for your attention to this issue. Please feel free to reach out if further clarification is needed. Hazar HS (talk) 17:45, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

@Hazar Sam, whether the NPOV tag is needed or not should first be discussed on the article's talk page. Also, see the large notice at the top of this page: you are required to notify the editor you are reporting. Schazjmd (talk) 17:53, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

The editor is also called Psychloppos, not Psycholoppos. I have notified them for the OP. – 2804:F1...26:F77C (::/32) (talk) 17:59, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

I wouldn't give a chatbot-written thread the time of day. HS, we have less tolerance for AI-written arguments than the American court system. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v 18:05, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

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

Disruptive behavior from IP

For the past month, 24.206.65.142 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has been attempting to add misleading information to Boeing 777, specifically trying to use the unofficial "777-200LRF" designation beyond first mention in the relevant section and passing it off as official (, , , , , , , , , , ). Their behavior died down for a few weeks, but restarted several days ago (, ), including baseless claims that Fnlayson is "okay with it". They have been asked numerous times on their talk page to either stop or provide evidence of official use of the designation, but they have failed to do so and have continued their disruption. - ZLEA _T\ 19:51, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

I forgot to mention that this user has used at least two other IPs; 24.206.75.140 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 24.206.65.150 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). 24.206.65.142 is the most recent to cause disruption. - ZLEA _T\ 20:10, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

"777-200LRF" is not misleading, some cargo airlines do use that designation. Today I reverted to a previous version that User:Fnlayson was okay with . I feel that User:ZLEA is going overboard with charges of misinformation and disruptive editing. 24.206.65.142 (talk) 19:59, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

It is misleading to remove any mentions of it being unofficial. Boeing has never made a "777-200LRF", no aftermarket conversion has ever been offered under that name, nor has the FAA or any other regulatory agency ever certified such an aircraft. To pass such a designation off as official is by definition misleading and misinformation. Likewise, to continuously do so after you have been told to stop by multiple people and falsely claiming that others support your arguments is by definition disruptive. - ZLEA _T\ 20:06, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Of note is the fact that this is not the first time the IP has claimed to have Fnlayson's support. They have been told before by Fnlayson not to assume support without a specific statement, yet it seems they've also ignored that. - ZLEA _T\ 20:23, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Its not misinformation as here are the sources which use "777-200LRF", including GE Capital Aviation (the engine supplier for most Boeing 777) and Leeham News (to avoid confusion with the upcoming 777-8F). 24.206.65.142 (talk) 21:06, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

I have asked you for sources from either Boeing or the FAA, yet you still either refuse to do so or (more likely) cannot because they don't exist. Only Boeing and the FAA can designate factory-built Boeing aircraft. Airlines and misinformed news websites have no authority to do so, and any alternative names they use are purely unofficial and should not have anything more than a single brief mention in the appropriate article section. Your failure or refusal to get that after numerous people have told you is disruptive. - ZLEA _T\ 22:14, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Relevant range is 24.206.64.0/20 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)), in case somebody needs it. wizzito | say hello! 21:02, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

• Semiprotected Boeing 777 for two days. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:33, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Category:

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards