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

Revision as of 18:17, 12 February 2008 editChelsea Tory (talk | contribs)404 editsm →User:Relata refero← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 02:07, 25 December 2024 edit undoRusted AutoParts (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers137,265 edits →User:ZanderAlbatraz1145 Civility and Content #2
Line 1:		Line 1:
			{{Short description|Noticeboard for reporting incidents to administrators}}<noinclude><!-- Inside the noinclude, because this page is transcluded.-->{{/Header}}</noinclude>{{clear}}
	<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 = 366
	|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 .
	== Is it just me... ==
			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 .
	::'''Moving long thread over 50k to ]. Cheers, ] (]) 16:01, 11 February 2008 (UTC)'''
	:'''Future datestamp: 16:01, 11 February 2009 (UTC)''' <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) </small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->		<!-- 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)
	== Wiki Raja ==
			::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)
	Well, in short what I am going to write here will look like one of the sections above ]. But it is much more than that.
	<span class="plainlinks userlinks">] (] · ] · ] · · ] · )</span> was recently blocked for 2 weeks for ''] on ]; disruptive edit warring over project templates again''. This block was imposed on him, after a previous block on 72 hours for disruptive edit warring. After this block, the user was by the block admin like this: {{cquote|I have blocked you for 72 hours because I find your behavior to be disruptive. I know there is a disagreement over the template on the article talk pages, but given that you are in a ] scenario, it would be best if you discuss, instead of blanket reverting. If you continue reverting, what good is that going to do? Do you honestly think that the other editors will suddenly give up and stop reverting you? The matter, like any dispute, cannot be resolved by continuous revert warring. Discussion is the only way you can move forward over this matter. The duration of your block is 72 hours because you had a 3RR block just four days ago, and yet it seems you continued the edit warring just as soon as you got off the block. I hope you come back from the block eager and willing to get involved in a serious discussion with the editors you are in disagreement with.}}
	This advise apparently did not have any effect on the user, and hence again, the user's repeated revert wars, without discussions or without gaining consensus, led to him to the above mentioned 2 weeks block.
	The block is now expired, and the user immediately started posting the disputed template literally hundreds of article talk page (Eg: , , ). At the least, after multiple blocks related to that template, the user was expected to start a discussion with wider audience, and should have arrived at a consensus before using those templates. But unfortunately, that has not happened.
			:{{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)
	Even he doesn't even hesitate to involve in revert wars, after being blocked multiple times for revert warring; some of the latest revert wars being: , , .
			::], 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)
	The main concerns here are: Lack of willingness to discuss; revert-warring; repeated offense even after a clear and strong advise from an Admin, and yet after multiple blocks;
			== Disruptive editing by ] ==
	Well,now, thats the "3RR violator continuing after block" part of the story, and next comes more.
			{{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)}}
	Severe ] on me, calling me racist. Please look into the section: ] and that gives complete picture instead of me writing about it. And now, you admins decide if there is any racist attitude displayed from me. On the other hand, you decide how the discussion is totally dragged out of context when I asked the question how the person (of that article) is related to the so-called civilization. I am strongly offended with this personal attack.
			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)
	Next: I am totally confused and wondered, with what this user's intent on Misplaced Pages are. Please see this which is made ''after'' his latest block expiry. He has gone ahead and termed ] as ''Cooliewood''. I have never heard that term before, and I am a member of ] and a contributor to ]. This is most concerning issue because, one of the meanings of '']'' is ''A contemporary ] for people of ], including ], ], etc.'' Whats more, even couldn't determine what this user is saying.
	For starters, ] is an Indian state, and apparently this is a severe insult on Wikipedians from that state, and ofcourse on the state's film industry. This kind of gross incivility is highly unacceptable in a community project such as building an encyclopedia.
			:@]: 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 have reported all these to an involved Admin ] and he I start an ANI discussion on this, and here it goes. Thank you, - ] <sup> ''']'''</sup> 17:45, 8 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 ==
	:A couple of things:
			{{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)}}
	:*The "Cooliewood" diff is absolutely unacceptable. The Tamil film industry is sometimes called ], but I cannot believe that this was a genuine mistake.
	:*Templating talkpages is always problematic. I remember the to-do about India-Pakistan templates on ] sites some years ago. That being said, there is nothing per se wrong with templating with a Tamil or Dravidian wikiproject template. The exchange that KNM posts reflects badly on both users.
	:*He's been blocked for edit-warring for two weeks. I suggest that he be given a little while longer for the "Cooliewood" diff unless he posts a good explanation for it.
	:*I don't see any reason for an indef. ] (]) 18:11, 8 February 2008 (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 -->
	:: Well, that template has been the centre of much controversy in the first place. The Cooliewood slur has a lot to do with Wikiraj's failed attempts in the past to sell the whole of South India and everything existing in South India as Dravidian (music, literature, architecture, people, cuisine, clothing, etc etc) as "Dravidian civilization". A page he had creeated to that effect was removed because there was no concensus that such a civilization existed or exists. Unles the heart of the issue is resolved, this problem will continue. The racial slur is only a small issue in the big problem of "race". Extending his block will not help. And may I ask, what does a dravidian template have to do with a person?.] (]) 18:31, 8 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)
	::Reply to Relata refero: In the original post, I have not written about why there is a dispute over these templating, because it is plain content dispute, and WP:ANI is not meant for that. That is why, I was just writing only user related items. But if the discussion on template dispute is required, well and good. The simplest summary is, Wiki Raja is posting {{tl|WPTAMCIV}} template on hundreds of talk pages, while there is no such thing called ''Tamil Civilization''! The current link of ] just redirects to ], while ] is a red link as of now. And the user was (and has continued now also) posting {{tl|WPDRAVCIV}} template too referring to an earlier version of ] article which is now deleted.
			::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)
	::Please note: The ] was created by an admin (]) after the earlier version was deleted per an AFD discussion, because there was no such particular civilization "Dravidian civilization" existed. The validity of these templates apart, the user was asked and advised (as shown above) for initiating discussion and gain consensus before simply adding the templates. I believe, now its a good time to sort out both these issues, one is content dispute on those templates, and the user misconduct and incivility. Thank you - ] <sup> ''']'''</sup> 18:48, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
	:::I quite understand that the template issue is beyond this board. The template, however, is linked not to any article but to a wikiproject; if you feel that is problematic, I suggest taking it to ]. ] (]) 19:12, 8 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)
	:Relata, I'm sorry but I didn't quite understand what you are referring to as "unacceptable" in Cooliewood diff, whether it's providing the diff itself or Wikiraja's edits. There is no doubt that Wikiraja made that edit meant as an insult to ] due to his long lasting disputes with members of ]. It sure is an racial insult term and it hurts to see someone using the term so freely in an encyclopedia. I'm sure he used the term deliberately because there is not even one instance so far that the Kannada cinema industry is referred to as Cooliewood. He has clearly shown his intentions of editing Misplaced Pages after being given so many chances. No discussions, no consensus, severe personal attacks including accusations of racism on KNM, gross incivility, repeated violations of 3RR and frequent revert wars. Let us also not forget, the account ] is a sockpuppet account of ]. ] account was indef blocked because of sockpuppetry, but the user requested admin Aksi_great that, he intends to continue with Wiki Raja account instead of Indrancroos account. Blocklog . ] (]) 18:49, 8 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)
	::I meant that using the term was unacceptable, which is why I suggested extending his block. ] (]) 19:09, 8 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)
	<nowiki>*sigh*</nowiki> How many more violations from wikiraja do we have to endure before he is packed off for good? I've been on wp for around two years now and I've not seen anything quite like this. Here's a guy who's been blocked ''multiple'' times already for ''repeat offences'' which cover the entire gamut between simple edit warring to sockpuppetry to uploading obscenity and yet his victims have to continue to grin and bear it. I'd really like to know why?
			::::Correct, and at no point was the definition of what constitutes the status quo ever in contention. In fact, if you review the edit history of the article you can see that the disputed content was the status quo via implicit consensus at the time PSW chose to first outright revert the content, and then continued to revert it as others tried to restore it (both before and after the consensus discussion began). ] (]) 23:38, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::{{tq|1=the disputed content was the status quo via implicit consensus at the time PSW chose to first outright revert the content}}<br>Not really, I personally wouldn't define "been there a few weeks" as status quo.{{pb}}I think maybe the other replies to this thread provide pretty good reasoning to take a step back and say "hey maybe I'm the one in the wrong here" instead of talking in circles ] (]) 00:30, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::Personally I think the number of contributions since the edit where it has gone unchanged is a more useful metric, especially on low traffic pages such as this one. Regardless, per the policy you cite, there seems to be no official Misplaced Pages stance on what exact criteria are needed for a contribution to be considered the current status quo, beyond it having been unchallenged in subsequent contributions (which is the case here).
			::::::As for the rest of your comment, there seems to be a high amount of band wagoning and "]" going on in the rest of this. Or people trying to use this report as an extension of the dispute discussion on the article's talk page. Hopefully more actual admins to chime in on the topic as I don't actually want to waste my time talking in circles.
			::::::On that note thanks for actually taking the time and baseline minimal effort to engage in a discussion where you actually support your point and don't just devolve into repeating the same talking points over and over. It's a nice change of pace. ] (]) 02:48, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
			:I am the editor being discussed here. I'll provide a summary of events since the initial statement by Sxbbetyy is misleading.
			:Myself and the editor had a content dispute at ] (]) and following circular discussion, I stopped engaging since I felt I had laid out my points. Per ], I maintained the state of the article to before the dispute. I requested for a ], which was answered by {{ping|BerryForPerpetuity}}, who agreed the statement should be removed, albeit for a different reason than mine. I took this 2-1 as rough consensus. I also posted the dispute on two WikiProjects, and have received no response so far. Sxbbetyy reached out to three admins about the matter, {{ping|Sergecross73|Oshwah|Pbsouthwood}}. The ] can be summarized as Sergecross believing that I haven't engaged in misconduct, and that I have presented a "plausible, good-faith interpretation of ]". Sxbbetyy then accused Sergecross73 of not acting in good faith. Oshwah did not respond to the post on ], but {{ping|BusterD}} did, essentially agreeing that the sourcing does not back up the claim in the content dispute. Sxbbetyy received help on ] about responding to a content dispute. And now we're here.
			:Throughout these interactions, Sxbbetyy has demonstrated a failure to assume good faith, refuses to accept ], and ]s talk pages, refusing to let the other editor have the last word. Frankly, this is a massive waste of editor time: it should have been a brief talk page discussion then an RfC. Apologies for all the pings. — ] (]; ]) 00:23, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
			::This summarization in itself leaves out critical context, (such as berry's concern being alleviated and them no longer expressing a desire to remove the content), the specifics of why that conversation with Serge ended the way it did despite my repeated attempts to engage with them in good faith, and the entire discussion with pbsouthwood (who quite definitively explained that the behavior PSW was engaged in was not correct). So I urge all involved to go read those topics to get the correct context through your own eyes and then discuss any concerns from what you see here. That being the case, it seems pretty clear cut imo. ] (]) 17:20, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::Just to be clear, in no way did I express that I didn't want the content to be removed. I did not receive a notification for your reply, and I wouldn't have engaged either way. —&nbsp;] ] 17:24, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
			: Yes, I would leave that material out of the article. Whilst it may not exactly be synthesis ''per se'', it is certainly editorialising ("the removal of that amount of marine debris is of negligible consequence...") ''unless'' there is an actual source that says this by making a link between between the two statistics (the amount of waste removed by Team Seas and the rate at which waste is entering the ecosystem). And even then, I would say that such an edit would need to say something like "However, ARandomNewspaper pointed out that ...". ] 00:34, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
	Personally, I am usually against permabanning editors for anything.. but there has to be ''something'' that can redeem an editor -- ''some'' useful contributions, ''some'' evidence of being a collaborative editor.. ''something''... ''anything''! In wikiraja's case, I see ''nothing'' - absolutely no contributions worth mentioning or to even use as a fig leaf for his indiscretions.
			::That is actually no longer the content that is being disputed. If you look at the that got reverted on the article you can see the current version. I had made edits to it precisely because of valid WP:NPOV concerns brought to my attention by PSW. However, their dispute with the content remains with the claim that is is synthesis rather than any other concern. Which they have been thus far unable to obtain a consensus on. ] (]) 17:27, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
			*I have some pretty serious ] concerns about the topic starter here. They came to me for help (no idea how/why me, I have no connection to this dispute) and I repeatedly told them I didn't see any misconduct, and then they started attacking ''me'' when I refused to agree with them. And now this. This is a very simple content dispute, with a very simple ] outcome. I've told them this. It's a disappointing time sink on a rather trivial content dispute. ] ] 00:52, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
	As for his templates and taking it to MfD, well.. we've been down that torturous path before. No sooner does a template or article get deleted (or rewritten from scratch) than he ! It was 'Dravidian civilisations' yesterday and 'Tamil civilisations' today. Wonder what it will be tommorrow. Expecting other editors to keep hauling him and his templates to TfDs and MfDs and AfDs each time is ] to those editors who have better things to do on wikipedia. And the ''cooliewood'' thing ... *sigh* how much more juvenile can it get!
			*: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)
	In short, this editor has not a semblance of constructive edits to boast of and has done disproportionately more harm to the community and the project than good and the community is better off without him. He's been banned for 3 month stretches at least once before (perhaps twice) and if for some esoteric bureaucratic reason we cant permaban him, I recommend that he be locked away for atleast 6 months or a year this time. ] 22:13, 8 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.
	'''Comment:''' As per suggestion for me to explain, I shall. Since the beginning of WikiProject Dravidian civilizations we have tried to present a diverse array of Dravidian cultures such as the Tamils, Malayalees, Telugus, Kannadigas, Brahuis and so forth. Even before the formation of this WikiProject I have noticed on the Classical dance of India page that classical dances from three Dravidian states were presented accept for Karnataka. Finding this rather odd, I have went out of my way to create a page for Yakshagana which was praised by Gnanapiti and just to find out that there already existed such a page. As a matter of fact I have tried my best to promote all Dravidian groups here on Misplaced Pages by even creating special user templates such as , and include the different Dravidian scripts on the WikiProject page (ie. Kannada, Malayalam, Telugu, Tamil). Why on earth would anyone think that I have something against Kannadigas? For everyone's information, I have been able to find Mollywood for Malayalee films, Tollywood for Telugu films, and Kollywood for Tamil films. However, with the same situation as with the Classical dance, I was unable to find a similar name for Kannada films. So, the name Cooliewood was found from and thus, I have used that term to categorize Kannada film along with the other "Dravidian woods" for film. If I have offended anyone on this matter, I humbly apologize for the misinterpretation and misunderstaning this may have caused for some folks. As a habit I like things in order and complete and thus felt that Kannadiga topics such as film and dance should not be left out of Indian, Dravidian, or whatever topic. As a token of sincerity from my part I will remove the link from that page and will rename it to Kannada film. If anyone still has a grudge against me, then that is on you. I've already said my piece. ] (]) 06:13, 9 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===
	:I would agree with Sarvagnya here. When Wiki Raja states that he has been promoting "Dravidian culture" that is the onus of the problem. What is "Dravidian" and "Indo-Aryan" is obviously disputed. Dravidianism is generally a racist philosophy, terming ]ns and ]s as "invaders" and "Dravidians" as "victims of light skinned oppression" (in quotes for educational value). A very important string of edits got Wiki Raja's sockpuppet {{user|Indrancroos}} blocked a while ago . This edit is indicative (Images of Feces, Fat people, and God knows what else being plastered on a martial arts page) of Wiki Raja's attitude towards the pages he edits.<b>]]</b> 20:03, 9 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 ==
	::FYI: I was new to Misplaced Pages almost 2 years ago. However, after being blocked I created a new name to start new on a clean slate to edit and created legitimate articles as a contribution to Misplaced Pages. Proof can be seen in two WikiProjects, several articles, and expansions of numerous articles. Our project focuses on promoting articles comprised of all Dravidians (Tamils, Malayalees, Kannadigas, Telugus and other groups not properly represented). Other groups include but are not limited to Tuluvas, and Brahuis, for example. As a matter of fact, I have also voted to keep the article on Brahmin Tamils since Brahmins are a part of the Tamil civilization, while Tamil civilization is part of the greater Dravidian civilzations. If you disagree with some of the articles, you are clearly entitled to your opinions. Also, it is not nice to compare fat people with feces. What do you have against fat people? ] (]) 02:40, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
	:::No one compared fat people with feces. Bakasupraman just commented that you added picture of feces and fat people on an article about Indian martial arts. Don't try to provoke people by making unfounded statements. <span style="background:#E0FFFF;color:#007FFF;font-family:Georgia;">] (])</span> 04:18, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
	::::Sorry, but I'm not trying to provoke people. It clearly shows that Bakaman stated "This edit is indicative (Images of Feces, Fat people, and God knows what else being plastered on a martial arts page)". It's posted right in this section. ] (]) 05:13, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
	:::::Attempting to stir up others with was completely uncool. I have reverted it.--]] 05:46, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
	::::::Well, I thought it was uncool to compare fat people with feces. That's why I posted it. If you took it wrongly, I apologize. Regards. ] (]) 06:05, 10 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.
	:::::::Although such a comparison was NOT made, for argument's sake, if it was, what you wrote on the talk page of that article had a clear aim of trying to instigate something very unnecessary. As you've been a member of Misplaced Pages for the past 2 years, you should have known that this is not the way you should have gone about dealing with it.
			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)
	As the main member of the WikiProject India Assessment Team, and as an editor/reviewer, I also request that Wiki Raja be blocked for an extended period of time of at least 6 - 12 months, if not greater. Editors who persistently make disruptive edits and comments in Misplaced Pages and in effect, disregard Misplaced Pages's policies and procedures, clearly should not be allowed to edit in Misplaced Pages. In this case, his limited constructive contributions (if any at all), combined with the extremely inappropriate way in which this editor has behaved (during this process in which an incident about him was being reported), has heightened the need for this extended/permanent block/ban. ] (]) 14:46, 10 February 2008 (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)
	:'''Persistently''' making disruptive edits? Are you talking about our WikiProjects Dravidian civilizations and Tamil civilization? Show me where I have been '''persistently''' been making disruptive edits in the past month. What does WikiProject India Assessment Team have to do with this? The bottom line is that there are folks out there who are hell bent on bending historical truths in order to satisfy their revisionist lust. With that said, it is not surprising why we come under attack to the utmost for merely breathing on Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 21:24, 10 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)
	::You may note that I was speaking generally regarding persistent disruptive edits. Precisely, who is 'we'? Many of your contributions appear to affect articles that fall under the WikiProject India banner, and of course, you are welcome to at least try to show me (and others) otherwise, that your constructive contributions outweigh the non-constructive (or perhaps disruptive) ones. In any case, I'm fascinated by your nonsensical reasons as to why users (such as myself) feel you should be blocked. You are not being reported here as an attack, but purely so you can take time out to re-familiarize yourself with Misplaced Pages's policies and procedures, and to hopefully learn to behave and deal with things more appropriately. ] (]) 01:41, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
			== ] ==
	(unindent)Whoa! ''''??? I wonder, does Wiki Raja ever seen ] policy page and if yes, being an editor of Misplaced Pages for nearly 2 years, does he have any respect to it? Among billions of books, newspapers, journals, websites, this is the webpage he chooses to select the name of a state's film industry, the page which doesn't even appear in google search for "Cooliewood", and a page anyone, anytime can create without any credentials, any verification. Does he think ], ] policies are just for fun? Does he even know, that page could have got created after he gave the name "Cooliewood" to the ]? By apologizing here in ANI and reverting that particular edit, does he assume we can get away from it? One cannot expect other editors to watch each and every edit of his, and when a problem is found, "just revert it and apoligize" is NOT a solution. There are thousands of edits, and it is editor's responsibility to work/edit correctly and constructively all the time, and not just after the misconduct is made public in ANI. Provocation / ] are not at all the good way to handle the disputes. He has done this time and again, and the latest provocation (mentioned above in this very thread) is just one more part of his disruptive contributions to the project.
	As Ncmvocalist as mentioned above, Wiki Raja's disregard to Misplaced Pages's policies and procedures are highly unacceptable, that too after repeated warnings and multiple blocks.
	As I mentioned above, for a user whose block is just expired, the least expected is to initiate a discussion instead of involving in the same offense of revert war that fetched him block.
	Repeated offenses of revert warring, disruptive editing, severe personal attacks including allegations on racism , totally unnecessary and harmful provocations and forum shopping...the list goes on and on. This has been happening since a long time now, and it has adverse effects on the Misplaced Pages and other editors' productivity and thus needs be addressed as early as possible. We just cannot let go forever. After a block, some maturity is expected from the editor's part. But even after multiple blocks, we are back to square. Time for indef block. - ] <sup> ''']'''</sup> 21:51, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
	:Allegations of racism. That's a good one KNM. Would anyone consider this racist: Would anyone consider these attacks and threats against me by your group:. Enough with this nonsensical piety. This is just a drop in the bucket with their numerous personal attacks against my ethnicity and self. Also to mention the number of blanking, and blind reverts on their part. However, I have made a mistake by responding to these types of editors which make matters worse. I will admit that and am very sorry for even giving them the time of day to hear a response from me. I appologize to anyone else if this matter has caused anyone an inconvenience. Responding to trolls, socks, and other trouble makers does not make things better. I have learned from that mistake and shall go about this in a more appropriate way. Thank you. ] (]) 22:24, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
	::Do not try to mislead people by providing giving an irrelevant diff for my complaint on your racism allegations. As indicated in my original post in this thread, I was referring to ] you have made on me. - ] <sup> ''']'''</sup> 22:53, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
			] is making wholesale reverts of my edits in contravention to guidelines. ] (]) 19:17, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
	::I too propose an indef block of ]. I feel this user has only one purpose on wikipedia, and that is to template every South Indian article with his "dravidian civilization" template. In addition, he has prepared other templates now such as the "Tamil civilization" etc, though I am not sure what actually is "Tamil civilization". Those who come to wikipedia with a "mind" will contribute constructively, those who come with a "mindset" will only be an obstruction to others. After one year of interaction with this user, I feel he is not interested in achieving concensus on any of his pet issues, all of which revolve around the "Dravidian race". The very fact he does not bother to get concensus is because he knows he will not get it. His current excuse of using a web page to justify using "cooliewood" is only an alibi. Here is why. Let us take the example of the ] art form, an ancient form of religious/folk theatre from the Kannada speaking regions. Initially he tried to establish that it was a dravidian art from. When he could not get concensus, he tried to demean it by adding a transgender template, because in this theatre, men can wear feminine costumes while performing theatre. Here are some links to this. and . Also read his justification on the discussion page of that very article under the heading "LGBT template & Homophobia on Yakshagana" where he finds a convinient alibi for his actions.] (]) 22:32, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
			:You're removing demographic categories and templates by blanking them out; irreligion still deals with religion no matter your argument. That's definitely not compliant with ] and clearly vandalism. There's no action to take here except that you need to stop removing these categories and templates. <span style="font-family: Roboto;">''']''' <span style="color:#00008B">•</span> <small>''(])''</small></span> 19:42, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
			::And you are now '''required''' to cite how your edits meet ]; spamming it in edit summaries is not discussion. <span style="font-family: Roboto;">''']''' <span style="color:#00008B">•</span> <small>''(])''</small></span> 19:47, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::While doing routine vandal patrol, I came across what seemed to be a hasty and massive removal of content, being done in a very directed and personal manner.
			::::After looking at the persistent removal, and communicating, I restored the well-drawn categories.
			::::Hopefully, this is easily resolved.
			:::] (]) 20:40, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::43*, do not continue to revert these category removals without discussing them first. - ] <sub>]</sub> 22:48, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::THere is nothing to discuss. The guidelines are clear. What needs to be done is editors need to be familiar with the cat guidelines. We don't discuss whether the sky is blue do we? ] (]) 02:05, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::THey are not well drawn, it was not hasty, it was not massive, and it was not "personal". It was directed because they all had the same issue. ] (]) 02:07, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::Editors should not blindly revert. They should be '''required''' to understand the guideleines. ] (]) 02:08, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
			I gave up editing because there were too many problems that the wiki communtity is not sorting out. One of them is treating anon editors as second class wikicitizens.
	:::So, now gays, lesbians, bi-sexuals, and transgenders are demeaning? This conversation is beginning to make me sick with all this intolerance of peoples race, ethnicity, faith, bodily structure, and now sexual orientation. Some people think that they own this site turning Misplaced Pages into an un-democratic dictatoral web page to nurture racists, bullies, and homophobes. I am through with this conversation and feeding trolls. Also, one more thing, due to folks who may not be aware of what discrimination is, please read this . Thank you. ] (]) 22:47, 10 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.
	::::And yet again!! Whom are you calling ''trolls'' now?? I request all the admins to please look into this ongoing breaches of multiple of wiki-policies, this time it is ]. This editor's ] is going beyond control. - ] <sup> ''']'''</sup> 22:53, 10 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.
	:::WikiRaja, please dont misrepresent what I wrote earlier. Yakshagana is a performing art and topics such as this should have been treated with more deliberation and care. Thats all. Any irrelevant template would naturally misguide a reader and hence is be "demeaning". This is what I meant. If you really wanted to improve the quality of that article, you should have first involved yourself in a constructive discussion, before adding that template. You however added that template after your failed in your attempts in templating that art form as "dravidian".
	And please dont try to digress from the topic at hand and divert attention from the main issues.] (]) 23:24, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
			WP could be sooo much better. ] (]) 02:02, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
	:::: It is funny how this was started and now is going in a whole different direction. It is clear that wiki raja has apologized for his actions and is now engaged in discussion rather than just revert. There is no point in bringing up old matters specially after he has been blocked for his mistakes. Users are making small things into huge matter and are letting this situation out of hand. Clearly , everyone who is involved in this conflict (as described by Wikiraja as Tamil "discrimination" ) have made their shares of mistakes. That includes everyone ! This is something that needs to be solved through mediation and not sheer blocks. What makes anyone think that blocking wikiraja will end this problem ? There are other Tamil editors who feel that there is some sort of Tamil "discrimination" going on. If wikiraja is blocked, then things will go into the wrong direction. A block after an apology is against the norms of wikipedia's blocking policy which is supposed to be "Preventative and not punitative". Furthermore, some violations accused on wikiraja is not even violations of any wikipedia rules. He is currently discussing ]. I am not even seeing a tangible evidence that justifies a block for adding wikiprojects on articles. Wikiprojects are there to make articles better and wast majority of readers do not even see what wikiproject each article begins. It is not the same thing as adding an article into a category. Bakasuperman violated the ] but was not blocked because he decided to contact an admin. This is a positive step by both Bakasuperman and the admin who is discussing the matter with Bakasuperman. This is a good idea. However, why does this scenario not apply to wikiraja ? Why is he not given the opportunity of contacting an admin and is being stoned on AN/I ? This is wikipedia and everyone is free to edit and are encouraged to do so. Last, those who are here accusing wikiraja of not discussing are themselves doing the exact same thing by asking other to block wikiraja and not taking matter with him. Enough said ! ] (]) 00:16, 11 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)
	::There is a clear difference, considering the extremely inappropriate way in which Wiki Raja responded/behaved as can be seen in just a day ago (despite being here at Misplaced Pages for the last 2 years). An apology does not defeat the need for a block. It would mean anyone could get away with anything, as long as they apologized prior to being considered for a block. The block would serve to give him time out to refamiliarise himself with Misplaced Pages's policies and procedures, and give him time to learn to deal and behave with such situations more appropriately. ] (]) 01:41, 11 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)
	::::Excuse me? Did I say I apologized for notifying editors of this comment about fat people? I only apologized if this may have caused misunderstandings. If someone or a group demeans a particular gender, race, sex, ethnicity, etc. for that matter, I will notify folks of similar interests on this issue. ] (]) 01:56, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
			== User:ZanderAlbatraz1145 Civility and Content #2 ==
	:::::You've clearly demonstrated that you are in desparate need of the time out if this is the way you operate here at Misplaced Pages. Your behaviour is absolutely inappropriate. ] (]) 02:31, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
			*{{userlinks|ZanderAlbatraz1145}}
			This user has engaged in a lengthy display of disruption. Namely through incessant incivility I have noticed .
			Instances such as , , on , etc. Users such as {{Ping|Waxworker}} and {{Ping|Jon698}} can speak to their experiences, I'll outline mine.
	::: Why is that behavior inappropriate ? He notified concerned people of the comment that struck him as "discrimination". You are not making you case here Ncmvocalist. Just because you pull out words and say this is inappropriate it does not make it so. Where in wikipedia is it inappropriate to notify concerned people that they have been attacked ? If you were attacked in an article, then of course you would want to be accepted. Just as if someone is racist against a certain race someone would notify the leaders of that community of what has happened. ] (]) 04:21, 11 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 .
	Again just because you say something it does not make it true. I may feel that you are in desperate need for a time out. Does that suffice for a block on you ? You may feel I am in desperate need for block. Does that mean it's justified ? ] (]) 04:21, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
			This editor displays no interest in conducting themselves cordially or cooperatively on this website. ] 23:20, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
	Firstly, he was not supposedly attacked in an article as this is an administrator's noticeboard. Secondly, just because an incident (or more) were being reported about him and/or his positive contributions (or lack thereof), doesn't mean that you can assume bad faith. He clearly failed to assume good faith if his first course of action was to go tell the 'community' of the "massive injustice", instead of trying to find a way that he was not misinterpreting what was said (and in this case, a reasonable person is likely not to have misinterpreted it). Thirdly, if you are discriminated against, or suffer any other sort of problems by an editor in Misplaced Pages, you do not have the right to disruptively instigate something unnecessary with other editors. You'd follow Misplaced Pages policy/procedure by either asking the editor to refrain from subjecting you to such a 'crime', and/or asking an administrator to take the appropriate course of action. It is highly inappropriate to deal with the situation in the way in which he did, which is why his remarks were removed. Even after 2 years of staying at Misplaced Pages, and more or less in your case, not following this simple policy/procedure is very worrying in itself. It really is a matter of common-sense for editors who are here for such a long duration - well, perhaps only the reasonable ones who have any common sense. ] (]) 15:17, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
			:I've given them a warning for canvassing: - ] <sub>]</sub> 04:08, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
	::: What do you mean by "Even after 2 years of staying at Misplaced Pages, and more or less in your case, not following this simple policy/procedure is very worrying in itself" ? If that was aimed at me, then I will ask you to Preach after you practice. Thanks ] (]) 16:23, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
			: - ] <sub>]</sub> 05:36, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			::And they appear to be continuing editing while ignoring here. - ] <sub>]</sub> 05:39, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::This feels par for the course for Zander frankly. As noted with the bit about Zander reverting after an explicit edit summary saying not to and there being two days worth of me saying that edit would be made and they made no objections until the move was made. They disengaged from discussion but only re-engaged when the situation changed to their disliking. ] 02:07, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
			== SPA ] back at it on ] ==
	::The issues are misleading here. The consensus for the original version of the Dravidian civilization is . But without ] redirected to a new version inappropriately. If ] should be indefblocked, then others too should be investigated for gaming the system. We should take this to Arbitration as there are evidence that ] ] and ] are ethnically united than upholding the Wikiproject in large.] (]) 16:17, 11 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)
	== NPA ==
			:]? ] (]) 06:25, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
	Re: , would someone other than me tell ] to lay off the personal attacks? Had it been me, I'd be blocked for sure. Additionally, the attack should be removed. I will give someone else plenty of time to do that before I do it myself. Thanks. '''-''' <font size="+1" color="red">&#10032;</font><strong style="letter-spacing:1px;font-family:Verdana">]</strong><font size="+1" color="red">&#10032;</font> <sup><small>]</small></sup> 22:59, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
			::{{duck}}. I'm sending this ]. - ] <sub>]</sub> 11:16, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
	* Allstar, you were incredibly rude. You were blocked by Jimbo only recently for "unrepentant incivility", and you have personalised that deletion debate to a remarkable and wholly unjustified extent; I note you've also been blocked for ] violations and edit warring. These are a bad combination. We are dealing here with an upset article subject who feels that he has been deliberately snubbed and insulted by Misplaced Pages. Do try to show a modicum of tact. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 23:10, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
			:::, so might just be generic disruption. - ] <sub>]</sub> 22:47, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
	:::Thanks for making sure to point out that I've been blocked by Jimbo. There is no BLP issues regarding the Bannan article. He even hosts the very same sources on his own web site. But that's not the issue here.. the issue here is your attack against me. Can you stick to the issue please? '''-''' <font size="+1" color="red">&#10032;</font><strong style="letter-spacing:1px;font-family:Verdana">]</strong><font size="+1" color="red">&#10032;</font> <sup><small>]</small></sup> 23:31, 8 February 2008 (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.
	::Actually, I think you went over the line, Guy. Please tone it down a bit.
			: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)
	::That said - Allstar, this is a BLP issue, and you are not showing it due ] sensitivity at the moment. It's also an OTRS issue, and on current review it appears like there's a serious problem with your behavior on both accounts. I'm going to also log this to your talk page, but this is a final warning regarding abusive behavior and this article topic. No more. ] (]) 23:19, 8 February 2008 (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)
	:::I have not done one thing disruptive or in violation of policy regarding this AfD. Mind pointing out specifics? Thanks. And you threaten to block me but just tell him to "tone it down a bit" ?? '''-''' <font size="+1" color="red">&#10032;</font><strong style="letter-spacing:1px;font-family:Verdana">]</strong><font size="+1" color="red">&#10032;</font> <sup><small>]</small></sup> 23:28, 8 February 2008 (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)
	::::Also please note that I have removed the personal attack. '''-''' <font size="+1" color="red">&#10032;</font><strong style="letter-spacing:1px;font-family:Verdana">]</strong><font size="+1" color="red">&#10032;</font> <sup><small>]</small></sup> 23:41, 8 February 2008 (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)
	:::::You accused him of trying to sneak it by people. Counterattacking is not a wise or ethical response to claims of canvassing. Whether what you did met the technical definition of canvassing or not, your comment was rude and uncivil and failed to assume good faith about Guy's motivation and tactics. Knock it off. ] (]) 23:52, 8 February 2008 (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)
	::::::I didn't *accuse* him of anything. I *asked* him if that was his intentions. There is a difference. '''-''' <font size="+1" color="red">&#10032;</font><strong style="letter-spacing:1px;font-family:Verdana">]</strong><font size="+1" color="red">&#10032;</font> <sup><small>]</small></sup> 23:55, 8 February 2008 (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)
	:::::::I'm sorry, but that's sophistry, and coming right after you at least borderline canvassed I can't AGF anymore about your intentions on this particular AFD.
			:::::], 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)
	::::::::...especially since Guy also "just asked a question". --] (]) 16:12, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
	:::::::You aren't normally abusive or problematic, but this is a particularly sensitive question, and you have been particularly insensitive for a bit here, and the combination is not OK. Please take a short break and re-engage on the topic in a manner which won't increase drama and incivility. ] (]) 00:01, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
			== ] ==
	(outdent) I think Gwh's comment is probably best for all. While ASE is not always sunshine and light, I don't think his comment is excusable, but the reaction has been a bit overboard as well. So let's all step back? The AFD itself is approaching ], the picture issue needs to be checked out, and I personally would like to hear from the subject of the article why they're all-fire against the words "openly gay" being in the article when they have blared their sexuality in half a dozen interviews. In other words, can we work on the encyclopedia rather than each others' nerves? =D -- <span style="background: #EECCFF;">] <small>(] / ])</small></span> 01:00, 9 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)}}
	::Guy's language,regardless of what preceded it, was totally inexcusable -- it could be seen as a physical threat. Any other editor would have already been blocked for it. I am quite prepared to block for the length of time appropriate to physical threats if there is any support for it.''']''' (]) 16:08, 10 February 2008 (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)
	:::I did see it as a veiled threat but between him and George ganging up on me, I decided to move on from it. When I pointed out the PA, I got threatened with block by George but Guy got a "Please tone it down a bit" by George. No need to keep this going with any blocks of Guy but I would say that for someone to be in such a high esteemed position as Guy (he made sure to point that out ]), he should consider how he talks to people. '''-''' <font size="+1" color="red">&#10032;</font><strong style="letter-spacing:1px;font-family:Verdana">]</strong><font size="+1" color="red">&#10032;</font> <sup><small>]</small></sup> 19:01, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
	:::I concurr with ] that by ] constitutes an implicit threat of violence. However, the placement of an extended block against a current administrator's account would result in a serious conflict. Concerns relating to misconduct this severe by an administrator should be addressed directly to the ], which, in view of the seriousness of the situation, may be willing to consider the matter without prior formal dispute resolution. ] 19:06, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
	JzG's comment is yet one more in a long line of unprofessional and unnecessarily personal comments directed at editors he disagrees with. ] (]) 03:26, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
			:It's a ], and I just reported to AIV. ] (]) 04:58, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
	It might be inappropriate, but it's a ''very big'' stretch to actually consider this a physical threat. Common sense is a wonderful thing. -- ] 04:57, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
	: The comment may have been uncivil, but in the context, I certainly don't see it as a threat either. <b>] ]</b> 19:02, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
			::Would it be possible to put up some kind of filter to alert for this? Something that…say…catches when more than 25 edits are made in a single space (user space for example) or something that would trip if the edits added less than 5 characters consistently? <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 05:15, 22 December 2024 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
	::There's no way this was a physical threat. It also wasn't appropriate for the level of provocation, but I've seen a lot worse. I think Guy reacted with too short a fuse, perhaps seeing a level of bad faith that just wasn't there. --<font face="Futura">] ] </font> 23:02, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
			:::There is a filter for this. Look at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Special:AbuseLog&wpSearchUser=International+Space+Station0&offset=20241222044736, "New account unusual activity" covers exactly this. ] (]) 05:22, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
			*This account has been globally blocked as an LTA so it shouldn't be an issue. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 05:25, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:At what point is it appropriate to selectively delete their hundreds of edits of nonsense from the page history?
			*:Or is that just something that isn't done? &ndash; ] (]) (]) 05:28, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
			*::If you are talking ], there is rarely a good reason for it's use at present. If instead you mean ] see ] and ]. ] (]) 05:33, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:::I've gone ahead and revdel'd the lot of them, as cut-and-pasting from other articles without proper attribution is copyvio and thus RD1able. Selective deletion (making the edits go away from the history) is probably not going to happen, if it's even technically possible for an article with almost *9500* revisions (I know ]!). - ] <sub>]</sub> 08:55, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
			{{abot}}
			== Disruptive editor on ] ==
	== Handling sock puppetry (block review) ==
			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)
	*{{User13|Griot}}
	*{{User13|Sedlam}}
			: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.
	Hi. I've only tangentially become involved with one or two sock puppetry cases in the past and would appreciate assistance from someone more experienced in dealing with them. Revisiting ] above, an editor to whom I'd given feedback on a BLP concern asked my advice ] how to proceed in the case of suspected sock puppetry. He (pardon if I'm using the wrong pronoun) followed up at ] and confirmed that ] evidently is a sock puppet being used to thwart policy by ]. I know that per policy ] is blocked as a matter of course as an inappropriately used alternative account. (Please correct me if I've left the wrong templates.) I'm not sure what's to be done about ]. A warning? A label? He is a long-standing editor who has as far as I know has never had a problem of this sort in the past, although it seems he was blocked on the 31st of January, 2008 for edit warring, I presume on ] based on . My only experiences with Griot prior to this were in relation to the article ], and though we haven't always agreed he seemed like a constructive contributor. Perhaps some political topics are too emotionally engaging? --] <sup>]</sup> 23:22, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
			:Allmusic and pitchfork are far better sources. I have added both as sources. I didn't change the genre list, I simply changed it back to the genre list that had stood there the longest before user:Pillowdelight changed it a few months ago for the first time, having never touched this page before yet complaining about other editors. ] (]) 18:52, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
			::{{ping|Longislandtea}} I removed the genres because they're unsourced, which I stated in many edit summaries you keep reverting, as well as on your talk page. It doesn't matter that just because you believe a source another user added calling the album alternative pop is incorrect and unreliable because it's "new, small and virtually unheard of" is a ridiculously excuse. Read ] it states — {{xt|genres must be stated and referenced in the body of the article; personal opinions or original research must not be included.}} The sources you have added specifically from Pitchfork don't state the genres you've listed. ] (]) 20:12, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::Sources need to be '''legitimate''' and''' relevant'''. Your source is not relevant and it is disputed. Pitchfork is added because they describe the album as an alternative album several times in the review and the genre category is ROCK. What is alternative and rock? Alternative rock. That is how the album was marketed. You can't cherrypick a single article to make a case for a genre that the album absolutely is not in. I will remove the Pitchfork source, that's fine. There's numerous ones including from Allmusic that clearly state that it is an alternative rock album. The album was even added to Misplaced Pages's page for alt rock albums ages ago. This is very uncontroversial. Just having alternative rock is also lacking; jazz fusion, art pop (the album is already added on the wikipedia page for art pop albums) and art rock are accurate too and have been there for ages but alas! Let's get rid of it all to only serve your opinion. Numerous albums have unsourced genres might I add, but the vast of amount of editors agree to it because they know these accurately describe the album, these are the scenes that the album and artist comes from and sourcing for genres can often times be lacking. In that case, rather than trying to look for BAD sources, it's better to agree with the consensus. In our case, we do have sources. Rateyourmusic has been used as a source for adding art pop, alternative rock, jazz pop, fusion, art rock and chamber pop as genres before. ] (]) 20:54, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::Here's the page for what is considered acceptable sources {{lw|Acceptable sources}}.
			::::''Relevance. Sources must be relevant--there must be some reason for the reader to care about what the author has to say. For example, the opinion of a random individual on the presidency of George W. Bush, as published in a letter to the editor of a major newspaper, is not relevant; and thus should not be included--even though it is published, traceable to its author, and given in a reputable publication. Relevance can be imputed several ways--through explicit personal knowledge, through subject-matter authority, through general notability of the author, through demonstrable correlation with the opinion(s) of a large group of people, etc.''
			::::A large group of people, the editors of When the Pawn...'s page throughout the years, thousands of people on music reviewing sites and numerous music journalists from legitimate publications do not agree with what this one article you cherrypicked states.
			::::''Note that this policy is the minimum standard for inclusion as a reference in Misplaced Pages. Sources may meet this standard and still not be authoritative, reliable, accurate, free from bias, or undisputed. Sources which meet this minimum standard but which fail to meet stricter standards may be used, but should be used with caution. In particular, such sources should be explicitly attributed to their author(s) or publisher(s) in an article's prose (rather than being presented as fact with the author only given in the notes), and disputes considering the source's veracity should be described.''
			::::Meaning you can't just add any genre because some random source says it when it goes against larger and more reliable sources as well as it is controversial.
			::::Thank you and please stop vandalizing pages on topics of music you do not understand. ] (]) 21:04, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::]. Note that accusing editors of vandalism when they are not, in fact, vandalising can be considered a ], so I'd suggest you strike that comment. - ] <sub>]</sub> 21:14, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::Okay, I strike. ] (]) 21:17, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::You didn't actually strike any comments. To do so, do this <nowiki><s>Comment</s></nowiki> which will make it look like this <s>Comment</s>. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 22:17, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::::<s> please stop vandalizing pages on topics of music you do not understand.</s> ] (]) 22:26, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::{{ping|Longislandtea}} How is the source considered not relevant and where was this dispute? AllMusic ''does not'' call the album alternative rock at all within its article. Rate Your Music is also not a source it's user generated which is against Misplaced Pages. I really wish an admin would comment on this because this is getting absolutely nowhere. ] (]) 21:05, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::Here's another source describing it as an alternative rock and jazz fusion album
			:::::https://www.the-solute.com/the-solute-record-club-fiona-apple-when-the-pawn/
			:::::Alt pop is not accurate. If you're so adamant about alt pop, please argue why. It is completely inaccurate and you have one singular source over music journalists and music sites. Allmusic does categorize it as alternative rock, Pitchfork has categorized it as rock since 1999 of its release. There was NO Alt-pop at the time. It still isn't. These are different genres. Art pop is not Alt pop. You edited the page one time in October 2024 only to get rid of the genre list that editors agreed upon to add Alt pop which makes no sense whatsoever. ] (]) 21:17, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::I have now added a new source to the genre list. If you have any problems with the new source, tell me. But it's much more accurate this way. It's still sad to see the whole genre list that was originally there, so much more descriptive and fitting, hacked away but oh well. ] (]) 21:31, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::Pitchfork's categorizations mean basically nothing. They have ten categories, one of which is "Pop/R&B", and another of which is "Global". By the way, you should just stop caring about this, because sources misclassify genres of music chronically and everywhere you look. Take your passion to RateYourMusic. <span style="position: relative; top: -0.5em;">꧁</span>]<span style="position: relative; top: -0.5em;">꧂</span> 18:16, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			:All of this discussion should be taking place on the article's talk page (which neither editor has used). ]&nbsp;] 21:36, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
			::{{ping|Schazjmd}} I'm awaiting for an admin to respond. This conversation is getting nowhere hence the reason why I brought it here in the first place. I've tried to explain to the user on their talk page along with this entire thread and it's getting nowhere. {{ping|The Bushranger}} you left a comment but could you please share your opinion on the dispute? Or possibly ping an admin who's familiar with music if this isn't your area of familiarity? ] (]) 21:49, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::There was no reason to bring this conversation here. I talked to you directly but go no real reply or any arguments despite adding sources and explaining why it's not an Alt pop album. I've explained to you well enough. Please stop trying to get admins to ban me simply because I (and other editors) recognize that the genre list that you got rid of was far more fitting. There's a new genre list now with sources but it is not Alt-pop. The album was already added to the wikipedia album pages for Alternative rock and art pop. I'm familiar with these genres and Fiona Apple specifically to know that it's accurate hence why the genre list has been that way for years. If you're adamant about sources, there is a source. Accusing me of not sourcing should be considered a false accusation at this point. Not all sources are equal either and I've tried explaining that to you. ] (]) 21:55, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::], you were given good advice which is to have this discussion on the article talk page which neither editor has posted at yet. This is a content dispute. If no action has been taken yet by an administrator, it's likely because they don't agree with your statement that action needs to be taken. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 22:22, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::Okay, will do. Thank you Liz. ] (]) 22:24, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
			=== Irrelevant sources and unnecessary changes to genre list on {{pagelinks|When the Pawn...}} ===
	If he was using a bad-hand sockpuppet to edit abusively, then both the primary and bad hand account should probably be blocked (based on a review of the edits in question). This is something the checkusers or checkuser clerks typically take care of, have they weighed in? ]] 00:04, 9 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.
	:Other than confirming the check-user and the policy thwarting use of the account, no. I'm not sure they're going to. I notice that the matter was completed at 20:50 on February 8, and at the top of ], it says "In most cases, any block or other action based on the outcome will not be taken by the checkuser-people or the clerks. Instead, you will have to do this yourself." I'm not sure which cases constitute most. This is as close to check user as I've personally ever come. :) --] <sup>]</sup> 00:14, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
			Here's how the genre list has looked over a long period of time, without much controversy from editors not readers:
			https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=When_the_Pawn...&oldid=1178937091 from 2023
			https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=When_the_Pawn...&oldid=1049316366 from 2021
	::And so they did. :) Thanks for weighing in, ]. If I ever wind up in this situation again, I'll just wait a day to see if this falls into one of those "action to be taken" or "action not to be taken" situations. :) --] <sup>]</sup> 00:36, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
			Thank you. ] (]) 19:32, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
	=== Griot indef blocked? ===
			: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)
	Though we punish people who abusively sockpuppet, Griot is a longtime user in generally good standing prior to this incident.
			::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 ==
	However, the current block levied is indef against his main account.
	This appears to be excessive and uncalled for. I agree that his sockpuppetry was abusive, but not indef-blocked abusive. A week, maybe?
	Comments sought. ] (]) 01:06, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
	:Agree 100% with this assessment. I have no data relevant to this specific situ, but I do have years of positive experience with User:Griot. If indeed Griot is guilty, then he has some serious explaining to do and perhaps penance of some kind. But indef block seems way extreme unless the sockpuppetry is repeated and sustained. ] (]) 02:28, 9 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
	::I have no input on the proper length of a block for this situation, obviously, or I wouldn't have brought this here to begin with. :) I did not block the primary account myself ''because'' of his history, but as I said above, I have no experience with sock puppetry to speak of. I would like to note that the editor who initially requested the checkuser believes that Griot may have abused other accounts as well, as he indicated ] (a belief mirrored by the now blocked IP editor ]). I don't know on what evidence or if these allegations are correct, but other suspicions seem to have been confirmed by checkuser. Is this the sort of thing that should be investigated prior to making final calls or only if Griot returns and concerns persist? --] <sup>]</sup> 02:40, 9 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.
	:::I'm the editor who requested the checkuser on ]. I have no opinion on any action to take. I would like to add the following, though. ] didn't simply switch back and forth and revert and be done with it. He made a self conscious planned out effort to deceive, and presented not just reverts, but purposively deceptive talk page commentary. For instance, on the talk page, to portray some sort of "compromise" having been reached, "Please click the links and observe how other editors rejected your edit:" and then lists himself ''and'' his confirmed sock puppet (and one other editor of unknown relationship to this). Then, he logs out as Griot, logs in as ], ":You can add me to this list of compromisers." On the , Both Griot and another likely sock ], both gave input. As ] mentioned, I have reason to believe the sock puppetry by Griot goes back a ways on Nader-related articles, but wasn;t caught (although the issue seems to have been raised, but the complainant seems to have gotten blocked). Griot seems to have been vigourously edit warring on Nader article for a year or so. Elsewhere, he has confessed to have a against Nader. ] (]) 03:55, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
			] (])
	The indef block is abnormal in this situation and unwarranted, in my opinion. Has the blocking admin commented? ] (]) 05:31, 9 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 ==
	:Evidently, ], where she has indicated a willingness to go along with consensus and suggested this discussion. Personally, I'm wondering if a topical ban would be appropriate in the event that the block is made definite. It seems the sock account was used primarily to thwart consensus building and disguise edit warring on ] and ]. Perhaps this is evidence that the user is too emotionally invested in these articles to contribute to them as he does elsewhere? --] <sup>]</sup> 12:47, 9 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.
	::Maybe. Looking at the history of those articles, it looks like there's a lot of editing by drive-by IPs, SPAs, possible socks, etc. We know that one of the editors on the "other side" from Griot is a persistent sockpuppeteer. So my question is, has Griot been editing abusively for a long period (in which case I'd support a topic ban), or did he only turn to sockpuppetry recently after getting frustrated by the editing environment? (Either way, the use of socks is not good, and if he does it again, the block should be much longer...) ] (]) 15:51, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
			diffs: </nowiki>] </nowiki>] </nowiki>] </nowiki>]
	:::I don't know. I suppose it might be worth asking ] the proceed with investigating his other suspicions to find out. --] <sup>]</sup> 15:57, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
			I would have put this at AIV, but I have no clue how to edit source. ] (]) 23:43, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
	Adjust the block to be slightly less than that used against the person who opposed the user via the same tactics. <span style="font:bold 11px Arial;display:inline;border:#151B8D 1px solid;background-color:#ADDFFF;padding:0 4px 0 4px;">]</span> <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 21:57, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
			:{{not done}} - Not an admin - I hate to be that person but unfortunately you've not sufficiently warned them, They've only received one warning and their edits aren't gross vandalism so this would only be declined by an admin anyway, If they continue I'll report them to AIV, Thanks, –]<sup>]</sup> 23:47, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
	:Do you mean slightly less than the IP editor recently blocked for 6 months as a sock of ], who was indef blocked , or are there yet more Nader-fighting socks that I don't know about? :) --] <sup>]</sup> 00:27, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
			::Ah, I see. Thank you! This has been noted for the future. Thank you, again! ] (]) 23:48, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::You're welcome, Happy editing, Thanks, –]<sup>]</sup> 23:51, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
	=== Reduced block ===		== 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)
	The handling of this matter was over the top IMO. As an uninvolved editor/admin, and after reading the above, I have reset the duration to one week (it says 6 days, but note a day had elapsed since the block was enacted). Consensus here should determine whether further reduction or an unblock is warranted. I am particularly surprised at the treatment of the user's user and talk pages, which I have reverted to their pre-9 Feb state, and the ignoring of the blatant incivility of Boodlesthecat by those handling the case. I will be placing a warning on his talk page shortly - ( done). ] 06:03, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
			:Most of these pages don't even make any sense (eg.: ]). The user also ignores any notice about his articles being moved to draftspace by simply recreating duplicates of them (eg.: ] & ]). Immediate action may be needed. ] (] <b>·</b> ]) 07:38, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
	:My response to the inference of incivility . ] (]) 22:09, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
			::Given a uw-create4im with directions to come here, let's see what happens. - ] <sub>]</sub> 08:00, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
	::I agree with ]. As a relatively frequent reviewer of sockpuppetry cases at ], the standard practice has been to block named abusive socks indefinitely, but to block the master account for a finite period if it appears to have at least some constructive potential. I typically block for 72 hours (see ], for example), though others use anything from 24 hours to a week. In any case, the master account (Griot) should definitely be blocked, but for a finite period (72 hours to 1 week). Further confirmed sockpuppetry should result in a lengthy or indefinite block, but an indefinite block for a first offense by a somewhat-constructive account is excessive. ''']'''&nbsp;<sup>]</sup> 22:35, 10 February 2008 (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?
	=== Longstanding sock puppetry by Griot ===
			:I mean you might have a point, but wow. &ndash; ] (]) (]) 04:57, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
	I filed another Checkuser showing the very extended sock puppetry of Griot ] (]) 22:06, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
			Similar behavior to {{checkuser|PickleMan500}} and other socks puppeted by {{checkuser|Abrown1019}}, which also made tons of drafts on Cyrillic characters that cited few sources (and none with in-depth coverage). Most drafts have been ]'d, of course, so only those with admin perms can verify the deleted contribs. <small>Since these socks have been banned (]), I haven't notified them of this discussion.</small> ] (] '''·''' ]) 17:08, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			== North Korean involvement in Russian-Ukraine war discussion ==
	=== ] deliberately misrepresenting me on his talk page ===
	Which I don't think is allowed is not allowed on Misplaced Pages talk pages, so reverted it back to the original conversation.
	This can be seen here along with my comments on it:
	http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Griot&action=history
	This must be considered ] behavior.
	I reverted it back to the original and he did it again.
	He has done it again, saying (''this is my talk page'') - http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Griot&diff=prev&oldid=190710037<br\>
	However Misplaced Pages talk pages are not the place for purposefully misrepresenting fellow editors in a bad light.<br\>
	] states that Article talk pages are provided for discussion of the content of articles and the views of reliable published sources. '''They should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views.'''<br\>
	And I am certain they are also not meant to be used in the way Griot is using his. Can someone please have him either remove all conversations between me and him from his talk page or leave the whole conversation exactly as it originally was? Thanks. ] (]) 21:47, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
			The inclusion of North Korea as a belligerent in the infobox for the "Russian invasion of Ukraine" article has been a point of extensive and protracted discussion since September. A formal Request for Comment (RfC) on this matter ran for several weeks and was closed with a clear consensus to include North Korea as a combatant based on reliable sources and expert analysis. However, despite the closure, the discussion has continued unabated across multiple threads, with certain editors repeatedly rehashing resolved points and questioning the validity of reliable sources, leading to significant disruption.
	:Did I or did I not warn you to stop edit harrassing and warring with him on his talk page?
	:Anyone who wishes can see the old versions and edit history. Stop bothering him. ] (]) 07:00, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
	::Case of "nothing to see here, move along". Seems the guy archived or removed some comments from his talk page. ] 09:42, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
	:::Amongst the comments removed are on his talk page that attempt to portray his history on the articles he has edit warred on for years in an undeservedly favorable light. Which of course is his right. ] (]) 17:02, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
			'''Key Points:'''
	== Leaving Misplaced Pages (Adam C) ==
			# '''Prolonged Discussions and RfC Closure:'''
	I am leaving Misplaced Pages over the Arbcom case, to this end I have deleted the Reqwuest for comment on me, as there was a lot of accusations and such in there, and I'm not going to havce that show up under a search for my name for the life of Misplaced Pages. I will be going through and deleting my name from various other places as well. <small>—Preceding ] comment added by Adam C 00:53, 9 February 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
			#* The RfC on North Korea's inclusion was conducted thoroughly, with a wide range of arguments presented by both sides.
			#* The closing administrator, S Marshall, determined there was a clear consensus to include North Korea as a belligerent based on reliable sources and the strength of arguments.
			#* The close explicitly allowed for reevaluation if new battlefield events or sources emerged, but no substantial new evidence has invalidated the prior consensus.
			# '''Ongoing Disruption:'''
			#* Despite the RfC's resolution, the same arguments are being repeated across multiple threads, often by the same editors.
			#* This behavior includes undermining reliable sources, misrepresenting their content, and insisting on a higher standard of verification (e.g., requiring firsthand evidence of North Korean combat, which is unreasonable given the context).
			# '''Reliable Sources Confirming North Korean Involvement:'''
			#* Multiple reputable outlets, including the BBC, Reuters, and Pentagon statements, confirm North Korean military involvement and casualties in the conflict.
			#* Experts from institutions like Chatham House and RUSI have explicitly stated North Korea's role in combat, aligning with the community's decision.
			# '''Impact on the Community:'''
			#* The continued disruption consumes editor time and resources, detracting from the article's improvement.
			#* These actions disregard Misplaced Pages's consensus-building principles and guidelines for resolving disputes. This dispute has been ongoing for months, with multiple threads being opened and closed on the same topic.
			'''Request for Administrative Action:'''
	:* I don't think deleting RfC's is covered in RtV... That will probably be restored, and the AC case won't be deleted, so you should request courtesy blanking via e-mail or get a name change as part of your RtV. ]] 01:05, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
	::* If the user is leaving Misplaced Pages&mdash;and in any event, will not be using administrator tools for awhile per the arbitration decision&mdash;I can't imagine what possible reason there would be to push for undeletion of the RfC, especially since this user edits under his real name. I am, as I invariably am in these discussions, more concerned and saddened by our losing a dedicated user than by the question of which project pages may be deleted or not. ] (]) 01:08, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
	:::Sure, so should anyone be. I don't recall seeing or hearing about other RfC's deleted for the same reason, I assumed courtesy blanking was the standard here to preserve access to formal processes. (We don't even generally delete talk pages). I still think a protective name change would be a good idea, as he can't remove every edit he's made with his real name and all the places it still appears in his signature. ]] 01:10, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
	*This is not supposed to be an all out stab at ArbCom, but the RfC showed fairly strongly that Adam should keep his tools. I'm not sure why they haven't listened to this. There was no prior RfC to give him feedback about his actions, just straight into an arbitration case and proposed desysopping. It's not as if he was even the worst admin we ever had. I've discussed this on the arbitration talk page to no avail - it's a little upsetting that's all. ] 01:13, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
	**More than a little. For now it's probably best to let Adam leave with as much dignity as possible. If I say anything more about the situation at this point, I'll probably regret it later. ''']'''&nbsp;<sup>]</sup> 01:15, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
	**I agree, for what its worth. What is the point of suspending in favor of an RfC, if only to unsuspend and ignore the result? The whole point was because lesser forms of dispute resolution had not occurred. If the result of a lesser form of dispute resolution was to be dismissed, then directing people towards it was a waste of time. ]] 01:16, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
	***Yes. I have a number of fairly strong opinions about this particular case and its handling from start to finish, but this is probably not the best time or forum to express them. ''']'''&nbsp;<sup>]</sup> 01:29, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
			I respectfully request that administrators address the following issues:
	I think this was handled very badly. So much for the test case. Are you all satisfied? What purpose did it serve? Who else is next?--] (]) 02:02, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
			# Enforce the consensus reached in the closed RfC, as no new evidence significantly alters the previous conclusions.
	:::*No. "For now it's probably best to let Adam leave with as much dignity as possible". Pig's arse. Since when was it better for decent editors to leave? You can stick WP:CIVIL up your a++e, because if that's what you think, you are fools. Sorry for my bluntness.
			# Discourage editors from rehashing resolved discussions, particularly when arguments have been repeatedly addressed and dismissed.
	:::If decent editors like Adam are on the point of leaving, and a whole group of scientists are discussing a boycott, then there is something very seriously wrong. I'm a relative newbie to Misplaced Pages (1st edit last August) but I got quite keen quickly, and had 3 DYKs in January. Not much compared to many editors, but I was quite pleased. But now I'm pissed off with the whole thing because somebody who doesn't know much about some articles that I helped to expand has fly tipped POV tags all over them and there's nothing I can do to remove them. No contributions by the editor other than the drive by tagging. I've tried discussion, moderation of the articles, but a flat refusal to talk has been the result, leading to me becoming less civil in my remarks than WP demands, and if I don't back down then I'll get a ban, I suppose. Just because of drive by tagging of articles that I think are OK, well sourced. etc. That's Misplaced Pages.
			# Consider imposing a topic ban or other appropriate measures on editors who persist in disrupting the article with repetitive or bad-faith arguments.
	:::The most important, probably fundamental thing here is that it seems to me that Wiki is at the tipping point. Is it going to be an authoritative encyclopedia, or a playground? This is the question that is now arising daily on ANI and across Wiki generally. If you want the former, then analyse what it is that is pissing the serious editors off, and change it. ] (]) 02:20, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
	::It is very sad that Adam was driven to resign. He was an admirable Misplaced Pages editor, and his leaving is a serious loss to the project, especially science articles. -- ] (]) 03:51, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
	*This is a definite loss for the encyclopedia, and I am quite dismayed at the result of this case, which seems to have put a strong contributor and user in the impossible situation of being selected by ArbCom to be made an example of. Awful, awful precedent. ] (]) 03:56, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
	I am so disgusted that the situation with Adam has been allowed to degenerate to the point where he feels no choice but to leave. The ArbCom members who have forced this situation should feel ashamed, and should recognise that they have severely damaged their reputations and credibility. I will have more to say about this once I am able to write something appropriate. ] (]) 07:27, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
	:I haven't been able to write anything appropriate about this for a while now. (Deleted rant). To Adam, I hope you change your mind. To Arbcom, message received loud and clear, though I don't imagine it is what you intended it to be. ] (]) 08:26, 9 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.
	At the risk of sounding dumb, which ArbCom is this from, I looked at the most recent couple cases, and didn't see AdamC listed at all. ] (]) 16:00, 9 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 ==
	:See ]. I guess it hasn't closed yet. ] (]) 16:59, 9 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,
	Let me get this straight. People who keep the pedia clear of fluff, like Adam, and people who write excellent articles, like Giano, are subject to various sanctions for incivility; but people who think they are working to minimize drama - Guy, to choose but one of several examples, and David as well - are not? What does this say about our priorities and effectiveness? What baloney. ] (]) 16:20, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
			I hope you’re doing well. I wanted to inform you about a new contributor @], despite lacking experience, has repeatedly attempted to vandalize multiple articles. These articles were properly aligned with Misplaced Pages’s guidelines and reviewed by experienced contributors, but he/she seemed unwilling to understand or respect their adherence to the policies.
	Sorry to see you leave, Adam. I hope you will reconsider. I reiterate comments made by others who have asserted your value to the project and to science articles in particular. ] 17:18, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
			I believe your experience could help address this situation effectively.
	:I too am sorry to see Adam go, his contributions to the features article on ] in particular were superb. ] (]) 17:46, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
			Looking forward to your advice on how to proceed.
	::I am also sad to see Adam go, although I don't see why he is doing so now in such a histrionic way. I don't see that the Arb Com case was acutally closed with any particular remedy against Adam. I was a participant in the RFC and I think it was pretty clear from the RFC that Adam did use his admin tools inappropriately in disputes he was engaged in. I think that it is very clear by the admin guidelines that Admins should NOT do this. I don't think it is clear from any of the discussions that Adam every really admitted that he did anything amiss. I don't think that the high quality of many of his contributions gets him out of having to follow the rules, or, when he was wrong, admit that he was wrong. At this point, I don't think that he should be taking matters into his own hands by willy nilly deleting any discussion that contains his name as he exits. He should have another admin or a bureaucrat help him figure out what he can do to remove his real name from the encyclopedia. You are not an island, Adam, you are part of a community. Stop being a lone wolf. ] <sup>]</sup> 18:10, 9 February 2008 (UTC) NOTE the following mass deletion of my user page: . ] <sup>]</sup> 18:15, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
	:::My recollection is that Adam did apologize and promised to be more careful. He did agree to give up his tools for 6 months willingly and be under probation for another 6 months. My understanding is that Adam objected to the wording of ] and had asked repeatedly that it be modified. Others agreed at the RfC and at the Arbcomm talk pages, including some Arbcomm members. I hope Adam reconsiders, but I would not blame him for coming back under another name, or never coming back. I also think there is a limit to how much hounding a person can take, given that this is an unpaid hobby.--] (]) 20:30, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
	::::From the discussion of that point, it looks like the arb com bent over backwards to accomodate him, but were unable to go to the extent of changing a true statement to an untrue statement to save face for him. Honestly, Fill, at some point everyone has to be held accountable for their actions. ] <sup>]</sup> 00:24, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
	:::::Well we can beg to differ on what the Arbcomm did and did not do, and I suggest that I am not alone in interpreting things different than you do. However, in terms of holding everyone accountable for their own actions, I wonder why you were not held accountable for yours?--] (]) 00:29, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
	:::::::What the bloody hell are you talking about?????? Please supply a diff if you are going to make bizarre vague accussations. ] <sup>]</sup> 00:37, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
	:Is he allowed to remove his name from archives, per ]? Such as , , , and ? <font face="Trebuchet MS">]<small> (]) (]) (])</small></font> 19:59, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
	::As far as I'm concerned this is the (not unexpected) result of an ArbCom "experiment", I don't really care if it's technically allowed or not. Perhaps we should not try to keep finding new ways to poke him with a stick. That is all for now. Civility Rules! (if not for thee, then for me), </no sarcasm> ] (]) 20:14, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
			Thankyou! ]] 15:21, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
	Wait a second. Am I right in thinking he actually deleted Abridged's user talk??? Isn't that just more abuse of admin tools? And look at the all-caps edit summary, too. and
	If I'm right in what I'm seeing -and I can hardly believe that I am- you guys are actually defending this user? This is the last straw for me. I defended this user as being basically a good guy who needed to admit his mistakes and reform. I would have been happy if he'd done so. But this really sucks. He can't even leave WP without deleting someone else's talk page? And other huge disruptions? This is exactly the kind of abusive behavior he's being desysoped for, and he obviously hasn't learned a thing. No, one can only say the ArbCom took the measure of the man, and made the correct decision. ——''']'''</span> ] Ψ ]<span style="color:#ffffff;">——</span> 01:02, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
			:"Vandalize" is a very loaded word here with a specific meaning. As far as I can tell, what they've done is nominate 4 articles for deletion, and your has been to accuse them of vandalism, ignoring dispute resolution procedures and making personal attacks – none of which I can see at a glance through their contributions.
	:He shouldn't have done that, and it's been fixed. On the other hand, actions performed in anger, on the way out the door after what can justifiably be described as a debacle, cannot be used to retroactively justify previous findings. ''']'''&nbsp;<sup>]</sup> 04:48, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
			:Perhaps if you supplied ] of this behaviour, someone would be able to help? If your issue is that they've nominated 4 articles of which you are a major contributor ''and'' are doing so by going through your contributions in order to find articles to nominate for deletion with specious reasons, then this board would be the place to come. If not, then making your arguments for keeping the articles on the AfDs in question would be your best bet.
			:By the way is forum shopping. Stop that. ] (]) 16:06, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			:(ec) This is an odd one. As S-Aura failed to provide diffs, I looked at Kriji Sehamati's contribution history. New account (9 Dec) began editing today, created two drafts and made a bunch of edits to those. Then began adding COI tags to articles S-Aura wrote, nominated those articles for deletion, and then left a template on S-Aura's talk page. Really seems to be something weird going on here between those two. (In addition to opening this ANI thread, S-Aura asked for help with basically the same message on the talk pages of Ipigott, Ryan shell, CFA, and BusterD, and S-Aura opened same complaint at AN.) ]&nbsp;] 16:06, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			::I am concerned that ]’s actions, including unjustified deletion nominations and spamming, are disruptive and violate Misplaced Pages’s guidelines.
			::She seems to lack understanding of basic Misplaced Pages guidelines, particularly those related ] and ]. ]] 16:40, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::You were asked to provide diffs. You did, almost, but then reverted yourself. Those diffs (well, the ones before those diffs) are just the other user nominating articles for deletion (which is allowed) or tagging them for what they believe to be conflict of interest edits (which is also allowed).
			:::Please provide some actual evidence that the other user is engaging in chronic, intractable behaviour, rather than just not editing how you would like them to. ] (]) 17:21, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::Here are some diffs highlighting her problematic edits. However, I believe that many of her contributions may be in violation of Misplaced Pages’s guidelines. It appears she has specifically targeted me and added the COI tag multiple times to the same page. I would appreciate it if you could review her actions more thoroughly:
			:::: •
			:::: •
			:::: •
			:::: •
			::::and many more
			::::Thankyou! ]] 17:33, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::We wouldn't generally treat an AfD as vandalism. ] (]) 17:39, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::I understand your point about AfDs not generally being treated as vandalism. However, I noticed that the major contribution history of the user seems suspicious. ]] 17:42, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::Not from where anybody else is standing so far. I get that you're upset to have four articles of yours nominated for deletion, and if you have any evidence ''at all'' that you are being deliberately targeted by the other editor, then people will very much act on that. Please provide it. ] (]) 17:58, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::::I am here to contribute and edit articles in accordance with Misplaced Pages’s guidelines. However, today a new user targeted me and falsely blamed me for actions that are not accurate. I believe this is unfair and not in line with the collaborative nature of the platform. ]] 18:04, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::::Please provide evidence of this. ] (]) 18:06, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::::::Please check! ]] 18:07, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::::::The articles that have been nominated for deletion discussion have been reviewed by experienced contributors. These discussions involve articles about judges and lawyers, under ], a valid criterion according to Misplaced Pages’s guidelines. Therefore, the deletion decision was made after carefully reviewing these articles. ]] 18:11, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::::::Honestly it looks like this user, rightly or wrongly, believes you have a conflict of interest and are acting on the basis of that assumption. I would suggest, if you don't have a CoI, talking to them about this and maybe asking why they've come to this conclusion. ] (]) 18:10, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::::::They have just started targeting my contributions, and I tried to inform her about the situation. However, she is acting as if she knows everything about Misplaced Pages and is dismissing my concerns. ]] 18:15, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			{{od}}
			:{{ping|Kriji Sehamati}} hasn't edited since their AfD spree earlier today, let's wait and see what their response here is when they return to editing. ]&nbsp;] 18:16, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			*We need to stop focusing on the OP's calling this vandalism; it is not. I've changed the header to reflect that. That said, the new user's edits ''are'' problematic and merit scrutiny. As for the UPE stuff, I've removed that post from the OP's Talk page; it's nonsensical coming from a new user and does not merit a response.--] (]) 18:42, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			*It is, of course, not vandalism to nominate articles for AFD discussions as long as a legitimate deletion rationale is provided and the article hasn't just been discussed at a recent AFD. However, I don't think it's a good sign when a brand new editor claims to understand all of Misplaced Pages policies and whose first actions are to nominate articles at AFDs. They are almost never an actual new editor, especially when they know how to even set up an AFD or are familiar with using Twinkle on their first day of editing. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 19:34, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:It seems that she is not new to Misplaced Pages and might be operating multiple accounts. It appears she has an issue with one of my contributions, as she created her account just 15 days ago, yet she already has a good understanding of tools like Twinkle and AfD procedures. This level of familiarity suggests prior experience on the platform. I am now requesting her account to be blocked as I am completely disturbed by her repeated allegations and disruptive behavior. ]] 11:32, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			*::I am now genuinely confused—if all my contributions are not good, then why am I even here? Were the experienced editors who reviewed and approved these pages also mistaken? A newcomer, who joined just recently, is now disrupting and questioning the validity of all the work that has been carefully reviewed and maintained by experienced contributors. This situation is deeply discouraging. ]] 11:58, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:::Please resolve this situation—either block her for her disruptive behavior. How can i continue working under such constant targeting and stress ? ]] 12:00, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			*::::User:S-Aura, you seem to be making unsupported personal attacks against ]. You should provide specific evidence of wrongdoing, including diffs, or your arguments here will fall on deaf ears (and bring consequences for you). Meanwhile, as a filer on ANI, you have brought all your own edits to close scrutiny by the community. You may have to face that smart people disagree, and this is how we sort disagreements out on English Misplaced Pages. You are not required to edit, but we encourage you to do so. Nobody is going to block Kriji Sehamati at this point, because you've given us no reason to do so. ] (]) 12:01, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:::::Meanwhile, in the last few minutes S-Aura has disruptively about this exact issue on this same board, which by another editor. This is intentional disruption. ] (]) 12:07, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			*::::::As to the question "Why am I here?", poets and artists have been trying to answer this question for eons. Epistemology is outside the scope of this board, but there are articles about it. Show up to edit if you want to, but expect disagreement from time to time. (That's actually a sound answer to any epistemology question as well.) ] (]) 12:16, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:::::Dear @],
			*:::::It means I have been proven wrong, and that user’s contributions have been more focused on me, which is quite insufficient to catch someone’s lie that she is pretending to be new, when in fact she is old.
			*:::::Also, I am not against AfD; I am simply expressing my opinion. ]] 13:12, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			*::::::Could you please rephrase your point here? I don't understand. While it's okay to be suspicious that this editor is somehow socking or doing something else deceptive due to the familiarity, it seems unacceptable to deliberately accuse them of such repeatedly without firmer evidence. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>]</span> 13:19, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:::::::Dear @],
			*:::::::I am not engaged in paid activities on Misplaced Pages, and she claimed that I am connected with the subject, who is a judge, lawyer, etc. You all should understand that this is not a trivial matter; justice is a very respected position. Making such allegations can escalate court cases. I would like to remind you of the Misplaced Pages vs. ANI case. ]] 13:24, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			*::::::::One thing you need to understand immediately is you should never make another post that sounds vaguely like a legal threat, as you've just done above. ] That intonation is seriously not helping us decide who's right or wrong here. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>]</span> 13:27, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:::::::::Okay! ]] 13:35, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			*::::::::I will caution you that this is tiptoeing right up to the edge of ] and you'd be advised to avoid making legal threats. ] (]) 13:28, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:::::::::Dear @],
			*:::::::::I am merely showing that she can potentially do something inappropriate. I am following the guidelines and not making any legal threats. ]] 13:31, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			*::::::::::Accusing another editor of potentially making legal threats is not much better, when there is no concrete evidence that they would do so. Being interested in articles about judges does not suffice. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>]</span> 13:32, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			*::::::::The page of Justice ], who had conducted over the Misplaced Pages vs. ANI court hearing, was also created by me. ]] 13:28, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:::::::::<del>State plainly what the implication you are making here is, because what I'm hearing is "I'm familiar with people who have hit Misplaced Pages with a mallet in court before, and I can make sure it happens again".</del> <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>]</span> 13:30, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			*::::::::::This is becoming a rabbit hole. I urge you not to pursue the rabbit further. ] (]) 13:33, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:::::::::::Good call, I'll retract the above. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>]</span> 13:34, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			*::::::::::No, that is not what I am implying. ]] 13:33, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:::No one has said your contributions are not good. However, it should be noted that a draft being accepted at AfC or a new page having been ] does not guarantee greater scrutiny would not result in a valid AfD nomination. That said, echoing others here it's clear something problematic is up with this user's behavior. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>]</span> 12:02, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			*::You can't both criticize someone for {{tq|lack understanding of basic Misplaced Pages guidelines, particularly those related ] and ]}}, and then argue that she is too familiar with the platform to be a newcomer for knowing how to file an AfD. I wouldn't be surprised if most people here knew how to file an AfD before knowing all 14 notability guidelines by heart. ] (] · ]) 12:59, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:::There are detailed instructions on filing an AfD that can be found by googling "how can I get a Misplaced Pages page deleted" - if somebody had some personal reason for wanting to have pages removed it doesn't strain credibility to think that's why they created a WP account and that they just followed the very clear instructions on the appropriate pages.
			*:::In fact that might explain why some of the AfD filings were reasonable and some were, on their face, incorrectly filed. If you looked up the AfD ''process'' but not ''criteria'' that is the likely outcome. That's why I find the "new user files AfDs must be a sock" idea here somewhat uncompelling. ] (]) 13:04, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			*I believe we're entering boomerang territory at this point. Opinions? ] (]) 13:35, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:I think OP is upset that a cluster of their articles were put up at AfD. This in itself is understandable, but while there's reason to think there might be mischief by Kriji Sehamati, we don't have any real evidence of it. We either need the OP to make it clearer what misconduct, if any, has occurred, or they need to ]. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>]</span> 13:37, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			*::The OP has been intentionally disruptive (by creating a new ANI thread which was reverted), and this thread is going nowhere. IMHO, there's nothing ANI can do here. Everything I'm reading about should be resolved at the page talk and user talk level, in my opinion. The AfDs are underway. If dispute resolution is needed, fine. Nobody is harming S-Aura. S-Aura can't come crying to ANI (or four random user talk pages like mine) anytime someone merely disagrees with them. ] (]) 14:08, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:::I'd have said close with trout for all if not for creating the second thread at AN/I. Based on that I'd say the OP should be formally cautioned against such antics in the future. ] (]) 14:10, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			*::I should have added that I largely hold with Remsense in their position. ] (]) 14:15, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:::] is definitely a sock puppet on Misplaced Pages, but we don’t have any evidence because understanding Misplaced Pages’s AfD process so quickly can be a bit challenging. I have no problem with AfD regarding my contributions, and it’s a good thing that experienced contributors are giving their feedback. If you believe that the kriji is 100% correct and her activity is not suspicious, then this discussion should be closed. ]] 14:27, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			*::::You need to stop insisting this is definitely the case if you don't have any evidence for it, period. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>]</span> 14:28, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			*::::S-Aura, how did you make the determination {{tq|User:Kriji Sehamati‬ is definitely a sock puppet on Misplaced Pages}}? Please share your process. That's a personal attack, and requires proof to prevent you from being in violation of ]. I've looked at the AfDs and they seem reasonable to me. When you've provided strong sources the article is being kept. So far the jury is out on the others. Both of you seem to be writing articles about obscure living persons who wouldn't normally (by my cursory reading) have a Misplaced Pages article about them because reliable sourcing is not readily found. When I see that, I must suspect COI or undeclared unpaid editing here, but nobody's admitting to it. ] (]) 15:05, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			*::::S-Aura's continuing to issue personal attacks makes it more difficult for us to just close this (without some form of consequence for the editor making unproven personal attacks after they've been warned repeatedly). ] (]) 15:08, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:::::I have made a level-four user talk page warning for the personal attack. FYI. We've been very nice about this up 'til now, but we need to stop being so kind. Doing foolish things has real world consequences. ] (]) 15:17, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			* Both editors' apparent use of AI is certainly disruptive. If it continues, it should lead to blocks. <span style="padding:2px 5px;border-radius:5px;font-family:Arial black;white-space:nowrap;vertical-align:-1px">] <span style=color:red>F</span> ]</span> 15:10, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			*: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 ==
	::Misplaced Pages is one debacle after another, from one point of view or another. It was the way Adam handled previous debacles (or potential therefore) which got him desysoped, and the way he's dealing with this one shows he still handles them the same way. Unfortunately. And, that is just more of the same defense as used at the RfC: things are bad so it is OK to act bad . ——''']'''</span> ] Ψ ]<span style="color:#ffffff;">——</span> 05:08, 10 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.
	::Let me put it another way: If Adam came back now and said "I acted badly. I won't do it again. What others did and the circumstances within Misplaced Pages are not an excuse for what I did. And in addition to abuse of my sysop tools and other problems brought up in the RfC, my editing style was non-consensual and sometimes abusive. I'm going to make every effort to adhere to the highest standards of civility, neutrality and admin ethics." I would even now write to ArbCom and say he should be given another chance. Yes, at this point I think he would abuse that chance, but the above is basically something which ''every Wikipedian'' is supposed to adhere to (minus the admin ethics). That Adam won't do that shows what is wrong. In addition, that his friends won't do that shows what is super-wrong. ——''']'''</span> ] Ψ ]<span style="color:#ffffff;">——</span> 05:19, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
	:::I think your comments are correct, and that the problem was not and is not limited to a single vanishing user. Homeopathy is still under probation, for instance. &mdash;] (''']''') 05:32, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
			The article states that ] demurred being cast in the role upon finding that out. for this claim is a ] on ], which contains the sentence
	::You'll notice I didn't ask for anything which constituted a humiliation, at least not in my opinion. ——''']'''</span> ] Ψ ]<span style="color:#ffffff;">——</span> 05:32, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
			: ''Reportedly, Liddy was on board until he got to the part where Beeks .''
	:::Look - Adam made some bad decisions with the tools. Instead of the usual process of community feedback, followed by a chance to improve, he was rushed to ArbCom by an angry Arbitrator as a "test case" and his desysopping was proposed within 12 hours of the case opening. He was then poked with a stick incessantly for about 2 months, after which he snapped and has apparently left in a huff, inappropriately deleting some pages on the way. And now I'm hearing, "Gee, look at how angry he got - he really deserved to be poked with that stick after all!" ''']'''&nbsp;<sup>]</sup> 22:30, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
			Reportedly ''by whom'' is not mentioned, let alone is there a direct quotation from Liddy. Plus as can be seen the words "becomes a gorilla's mate" are linked to a very poor quality, hand-held video of the scene in question playing on a television. This alone should be enough to raise serious questions about the use of this "source" in a featured article.
	::::I've been poked with a stick far more than Adam. Defend me. They backed off and gave him an RfC, where he consistently refused to get the points being made by other editors. ArbCom represents WP. If he feels wronged and like WP has mis-treated him, then he should indeed just go. But if at the RfC he'd just acknowledged what the ArbCom was obviously saying, and had said to everyone -and himself- "stop defending me on the basis of what others did," he'd be a Wikipedian in good standing now. ——''']'''</span> ] Ψ ]<span style="color:#ffffff;">——</span> 09:29, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
	:::::Martin, you have in the past been one of the most reliable employers of the "they did something worse!" defense. I'm glad to see you're turning over a new leaf, and I mean that seriously, not sarcastically. But since you raise your own case as an example: you had the benefit of ] as a first step in dispute resolution. You were treated with kid gloves in your ]. After your ], you were placed on fairly mild probation. That is a much more typical and appropriate algorithm for resolving problems. If you'd been rushed to ArbCom right away without the benefit of an RfC or any preceding community feedback, and extremely harsh remedies were proposed against you within 12 hours of the case opening, then I'd like think perhaps I ''would'' have defended you. ''']'''&nbsp;<sup>]</sup> 18:24, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
			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'':
	What Adam has been doing is removing himself and, as far as he can, all trace of himself from Misplaced Pages. Which in my opinion is sensible, this is a dangerous place to be identifiable. Thanks go to Whig and Abridged for helping to accommodate that right to vanish, I'd hope that others can assist in completing the removal of contentious mentions. The object that some people have had of removing his admin tools has been achieved. The "example" this has set can be discussed in principle, without dragging his name into it. .. ], ] 10:25, 10 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.}}
	:::No problem. I wish ac well. At this point, I am leaving Misplaced Pages too. I think that communities work if people in general follow and respect the rules. This AC case, and all the static around it, has shown that the wikipedia community has serious problems around this. So many people were so willing to defend an admin who was clearly not following the admin guidelines, civility is not taken seriously at all, and the edit wars are really unpleasant. What is the problem with having various povs mentioned in an article? Isn't that what NPOV is about? Why rampage through the encyclopedia deleting everything you don't agree with using excuses that guidelines don't even support? Awhile back, a number of admins and others voted to ban me from wikipedia becuase I brought an RFC asking AC to retract a personal attack. What did I really do that was so wrong that so many editors and admins were willing to PERMANENTLY BAN ME FROM THE COMMUNITY FOR THE ACTION??? These same users were defending AC, when he DID BREAK ESTABLISHED RULES. These users included: ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], and ]. Why is this stuff allowed to go on????? ] <sup>]</sup> 18:58, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
			This was reverted () by {{u|Darkwarriorblake}} with the comment ''not what the source says''.
	*Do you people realize how insane this looks? I swear, Misplaced Pages has reached the point where ''everyone'' defends bad behavior by saying "but look, other people didn't get sanctioned for bad behavior!" Someone has to be the first to be sanctioned for bad behavior, or you're stuck in an eternal circle of blame. -] <small>]</small> 04:00, 11 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.()
	== Signature ==
			{{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;...}}
	*{{userlinks|Jeffmichaud}}
	Jeffmichaud for a long time has used the signature "Jeff", but changed it on Jan 14 to "Baha'i Under the Covenant". The policy on ] says to avoid names that are offensive or promotional. ] suggests for users to politely request others to change their signature. If there is consensus that the policy of avoiding 'offensive, confusing, or promotional' user names equally applies to signature, then I also suggest updating WP:sig.
			My accompanying comment was ''(a) That was the source's voice, not Liddy's. It's called a euphemism. Demonstrable by how it links to a clip of the scene in which a man is raped by a gorilla. (b) Source says "reportedly" for this claim, without evidence. Poor quality source. Removing claim''
	I politely requested on Jan 24 for him to change the signature, and after no response I warned him again on Feb 8,. The first request was immediately archived, and the second request was immediately deleted outright from his talk page.
			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.''
	For more details on why this is both offensive and promotional, glance over ]. The ] religion has teachings on the succession of authority, and anyone creating divisions are considered dangerous and shunned, labeled "Covenant-breaker". The implication is that there is a Covenant in the religion to provide unity, and anyone who breaks away is not under the Covenant. Jeffmichaud belongs to one such group with a handful of followers who call themselves the "Baha'is Under the Provisions of the Covenant". Changing his signature in the middle of a debate over Baha'i content was his way of promoting his ideological claim in the face of other editors. ] ☼ - ] 01:50, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
	:Oh good grief! What kind of belief or faith is it that cannot withstand critical comment even from within itself? And when it comes down to mere words, whatever their implications, I'd suggest that any belief system should be self-confident and self-consistent in itself to be able to ignore mere words. That words are found offensive doesn't help in the slightest. Throughout history, words have been labelled as offensive, mostly because they represent a difference from orthodoxy; but in the context of an analytical, independently-minded and intellectually balanced source of information, rather than of opinion, taking offence at mere words is jejune, intellectually barren, and time-wasting. --''']''' (]) 04:40, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
	::Addendum: Please feel free to cite any authority whatsoever, religious, legal or otherwise, that supports a right not to be offended. --''']''' (]) 04:44, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
			This is where the reason for me to raise this at this board begins, because that's solidly an example of ]. It came on top of a revert which reintroduced a claim cited to a rumor in a blog post into a featured article, but that's really not my concern, because if the champions of the featured article process have decided that it's somehow acceptable for our "best" content then I'm just going to move on to something else rather than argue.
	:::That is completely not the point. We have a Misplaced Pages policy that says not to use offensive user names, and a guideline that says it equally applies to signatures. Your response is attacking the policy and saying that nobody should be offended by anything. That's nonsense and a total disregard for the official policy that "all users should follow". ] ☼ - ] 07:07, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
	::::I apologise, but I personally am offended by any user name containing the letter "c". Therefore, they should all be banned. --''']''' (]) 11:45, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
	:::::Once again, completely not the point, and an illogical disregard for WP policy. ] ☼ - ] 15:35, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
	:::::Stop shaking the ], please. Or is that ]? ] (]) 19:12, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
	:Forgive my stupidity, but exactly how is the signature offensive or promotional? —''']''' 07:10, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
	::I can't see it either; sounds like the debate we had over ] a few months ago. --''']'''
	:::Hmmm.. neither can I. Has the subject since changed it? ]] 14:08, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
	(]) 12:45, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
	This is a big part of why I don't edit Baha'i articles anymore. :\ ] (]) 14:06, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
	::Maybe I should make something clear: I don't think it's offensive that he has certain beliefs and edits wikipedia, but he changed his signature to something that implies divine right. It would be like a user name of "I'm in God's favor and you're not". There is no need to use controversial user names/signatures and I politely requested for him to change it, and I politely requested for an administrator to enforce policy and ask him to change it to something less controversial. And no he hasn't changed it yet. ] ☼ - ] 15:35, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
	:::I'll take a deeper look, and ask him to change it based on that reason. I don't see anything unreasonable in asking the subject to change to something that would at least reflect his username. ]] 15:38, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
	::::Personally, if someone changed their sig to "I'm in God's favor and you're not", my reaction would be less "offended" and more "hilarity". Even assuming the worst possible faith--that the person is TRYING to honk off the other believers--changing a sig to something self-aggrandizing says less about the truth of his/her beliefs as it says about their response to disagreement. Just my opinion, though, and no offense intended to anyone. ] 06:57, 11 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''.
	Hey, is someone here talking about me behind my back? Kidding. Rudget, I will respectfully decline your request to change anything if, as seems clear from the discussion that transpired, I'm not in violation of any policies nor am I being "required". I don't believe I've violated any policy, but rather am being "asked" to change it to appease Cunado's will on the matter? After closer look at the actual policies on the matter it is obvious that Cunado is taking generous liberties at interpreting them in his own unique way for reasons not exactly obvious to me or anyone else. I appreciate your sentiments to avoid controversy, Rudget, but if it is offensive to Cunado I can only be envious that his life is so blessed to have nothing of greater concern to worry about. ] (]) 07:40, 10 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 ]''
	:] is a policy that "all users should follow", and "a user who acts against the spirit of them may be reprimanded, even if technically no rule has been violated." The policy states that inappropriate user names are ones that are misleading, promotional, offensive, or disruptive, and "these criteria apply to both usernames and signatures." I already explained why the signature is controversial. I was once blocked for not following ], which is a guideline and not even a policy, see ]. Someone please enforce policy. ] ☼ - ] 17:50, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
			At this point it's gone firmly into the realm of knee-jerk reversions, because if Darkwarriorblake took the time to read the article which they've (is this ]? Kind of feels that way), they would get down to the ] section. Which says "some critics have praised the film while highlighting elements that they believe aged poorly, including racial language, the use of blackface, and the implied rape of Beeks by a gorilla", cited to articles in four major publications. Or, you know, even .
	::I am inclined to view this as not offensive. It is one thing to say "My group is great" and another to say "Your group isn't", so we have lots of users with pro- type names, whether it be sports, nationality, activity, whatever, which seem compliant with the policy; while anti- type names aren't. Quite a difference between ] and ] in my mind. ] (]) 00:57, 12 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)
	:::Well, would you find a signature such as "Jesus, the true lord and savior" to be offensive? It's proselytism, regardless of the religion involved. We have some Yankees and Red Sox fans who have a fervent devotion to their teams, but it's not the same thing. If the signature would be blocked as a user name, it shouldn't be acceptable as a signature either. ''']''' <small>]</small> 01:04, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
			:Hrrm, this seems a bit excessive.
	::::Horologium, your example is in fact proselytism, but I'm not proselytizing per se. I'm identifying myself here, and not promoting/proselytising anything. BTW, it hasn't been blocked as a user name. Would it be? I've considered creating it as one. Would it be a problem? ] 08:48, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
			:*I've added a second source for the claim. Really this should've been the first option rather than removing the content.
	::::::I brought it up on ], but it was not considered because the actually user name is not the issue. The spirit of the policy is that user names and signatures should be used for identification and should avoid anything controversial. Religion and politics are the most controversial subjects, so it should be a no-brainer to say that it's inappropriate to boldly promote a religious view in a user name or sig. Even a name like "Jesus is for me" might seem harmless, but there is no reason to stir the pot on something that should be free of controversial subjects. ] ☼ - ] 16:03, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
			:*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.
	:::::Generally, the signature is intended to be a means of discerning who has placed certain comments. By changing it to something that obscures your username (no where in "Baha'i Under the Covenant" does it tell me who that is), is not within policy. The only problem I see is that there is no reference to "Jeff" or "Jeffmichaud" in your signature. Surely, it would be better to use something that includes the phrase you want, but also includes your actual username in some form.—] (]) 08:54, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
			:*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 ].
	::::::While I agree, ] is a guideline, and it says "While not an absolute requirement, it is common practice for a signature to resemble to some degree the username it represents." So we're back to offering Jeffmichaud unenforceable advice. The issue is about enforcing the policy about a controversial signature. ] ☼ - ] 16:03, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
			:*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)
	== Zenwhat ==		===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, 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. ]]
	Since no admin seems to have the sense to have unblocked ] yet, I'll make this a new section. This user was blocked for removing a section he started on the village pump , with the edit summary "''Too angry when I wrote this. I don't want a flame-war. I changed my mind. This thread is getting deleted.''"
			{{abot}}
			== User Stationmanagerskidrow removing information on ] page ==
	He was trying to make the situation right, and got blocked for it. Some users can be a pain in the butt, but guess what, no one has to edit Misplaced Pages, no one has to go to discussion pages. If people like Zen drive you mad, edit somewhere else, but you don't get to block them because you don't like them. -- ] 06:06, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
	*This user's pattern of edits to project-space have been very eccentric, to say the least, and unhelpful. If he is unblocked, he should be restricted to editing only articles and their corresponding talk pages. ] 06:12, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
			] 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)
	:*I don't think we should block people for personality qwerks. Unless they're actually being disruptive, don't block them, or restrict them. Criticism of the Foundation, however misplaced it might be, is not banned from the Village Pump. -- ] 06:18, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
			:User is now editing using ] ] (]) 03:34, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
	::*Perhaps the interesting quirk to look at is the pattern of making edits and either deleting them or claiming "oh well, I do silly things". Making mistakes is one thing, continually making mistakes with the justification that one makes mistakes is another. No I don't have a set of diffs. ] (]) 06:57, 9 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)
	:::*We users are often reminded that blocks are to protect WP and to prevent disruption, and are not used punitively. The blocking admin's rationale was that removing the comments of other editors was unacceptable. Zenwhat recognises he should have archived rather than removed. The comments have been restored, and the discuaaion in question is archived. There is thus little "protective" benefit to be had in continuing this block. Since I know that punitive blocks aren't permitted, the situation here must be that no one has noticed the discussions above or that not removing the block is an oversight - after all, none of Misplaced Pages's admins would ever act to punish an editor. ] (]) 07:22, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
	::::*Unfortunately, Zenwhat seems to have a history of acting, then recognising and apologising for inappropriate actions. To the extent that this statement is true, then the protective benefit of a continuing block is to prevent the disruption caused by these recurrent mistakes. The time-out also gives pause for reflection and hopefully self-remediation. ] (]) 09:29, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
	*I have spent a lot of time on two serious efforts to convince Zenwhat to become more responsible in his actions. He accused me of violating ] and ] by criticising him. I invite those who feel that blocking Zenwhat was unjustified or not necessary to prevent further disruption to read my two long conversations with him (see my talk page). If this does not change your mind, then presumably I approached it in the wrong way and would like to get some feedback on my talk page. Thanks. --] (]) 10:51, 9 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)
	::Indeed, if this was just a "personality quirk", that would be one thing. But this user seems to live to stir up the shit with twisted arguments that I have doubts over the sincerity of. ] 16:05, 9 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)
	:::I missed this second thread, but per above, I unblocked about an hour ago. ] 17:25, 9 February 2008 (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 ==
	::::Though Zenwhat is "retired" now, there is previous User:Nathan admitted, and see above similar edit pattern (briefly) a user banned? called something similar to ]. Are there issues of the socking nature that deserve more attention?
	::::Interacting with Zenwhat on WP talkpages recently has been a rather frustrating experience.
	::::I have no problems with Zenwhat being unblocked at this time, however, if the user comes back from retirement, some remedies (ie agree to abide by talkpage guidelines, and respect both WPspace and mainspace as decent venues for building knowledge, not a battleground).
	::::Other editors have commented on Zenwhat's energy, prolificy, and remarkable tendency to hurl accusasions, of CABAL, assume bad-faith, invoke IAR, SPADE, -ICK, etc. The incivility is the main issue, and the user will not acknowledge the need to drop such nastiness in the future. But, then, they've retired. ] - ] 19:04, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
	::Unblocking him was not the most smartest thing to do, since he has a history of becoming 'Hostile' towards other editors that disagree's with him, I'm not going to ] him or call him a ] though his attitude is nothing less than what an actual troll does, he earlier created to policies on ] called ] and ] with the latter being the one which defines his attitude perfectly..Previously he edited as an ], where his attitude has been similar and he also had personal Grudges against editors like ''']''' and also making against him as well as ] and ] maybe to enforce a POV... I don't think this person will ever contribute positively to wikipedia and thats why I disagree with the unbanning...--<span style="color:blue;font-weight:bold;font-size:medium;font-family: Monotype Corsiva;">]]</span> 02:35, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
	::: Why are the meta essays he wrote particularly bad? I for one find the "Don't be a crybaby" essay, while unfortunately named, a particularly illuminating essay and the approach with which I (try) to approach Misplaced Pages. --] 03:10, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
	::::You may have misread Cometstyle's comment. I think it is safe to say that Zenwhat behaves like the crybaby in the essay: he is rude and overly inflammatory. I am not sure if he imagines he is acting like the Zen master of the story, or if he wants to teach us to behave like the Zen master, by openly playing the martial arts student. In both cases this is at the same time a good and useful essay and another example of Zenwhat externalising his faults. There is also a chance that he wrote this essay as a reminder to himself, but then it clearly didn't work. As to "precisionism": I have never heard the term before. Apparently he wanted to popularise it because he thinks it describes his attitude.
	::::The problem I see with the unblock is that it allows him to continue in his delusion of having community support for his disruptions. I hope that the next time he has to be blocked for outrageous activities it will be for less than a week, so that the educational effect won't be spoiled by another unblock. --] (]) 09:49, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
	:::::I don't think you understand, his behavior, while not the best, didn't warrant a block in the first place. -- ] 09:58, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
	::::::Sigh. This is what makes Misplaced Pages great. A user comes here simply to complain about the place and make a scene, gets blocked for it, and scores of admins who apparently don't have time to worry about important things like vandalism reversions and taking care of other ANI posts, sit around and argue about the precise definition of troll. This is almost as bad as arguing about Coolcat's userpage. The fact that I'm edit conflicting in posting here only proves my point. Not that we're feeding, or that I've seen this happen 500 times before or anything. Get on, guys, do something useful; you ought to be ashamed of yourselves. If the user wishes to contribute, let him say sorry now (as the community has so agreed), or he can find another username anyway, which he obviously doesn't. And then END OF STORY, move on. ] (]) 10:04, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
	:::::::To be fair, we are 7 users who have nothing better to do. The 3 admins in this thread have contributed only 1 post each and didn't argue much about the semantics. I will certainly stop doing it now. --] (]) 10:25, 10 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)
	:::::::Last time I checked this was a volunteer project, and users can choose to spend their time in one area or another if they wish. Yes, we could ignore this, but we chose to look at a situation which bothered us, discussed the issue, and I'm sure we hope that the discussion effects more than the immediate issue. -- ] 10:28, 10 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)
	::::::::ZW is unblocked. ZW is "retired". ZW chooses not to comment at the AN/I. ZW chooses not to acknowledge any need to respond to the concerns of editors who, collectively, have been attacked and insulted by ZW. All done? ] - ] 12:13, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
			:Hello @Ratnahastin,
	Zenwhat is a extremely intelligent person who unfortunately is badly let down by his equally extremely impetuous nature. If he were to think before he acted more often, he would be a great contributor. He does spot his own mistakes and correct them, which is a sign that he is learning, which is a positive thing. I'm fairly certain that he isn't intentionally trolling. I've been scratching my head about what to do about the impetuousness, though. --] (]) 13:51, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
			:To start with I should admit that I am sorry for all the inconvenience that I may have caused as a result of my actions. It was never my intention to take people’s time or skew the conversation in a certain way. I appreciate the core idea to contribute the thoughts to the Wiki and share it borne in mind the overall rules and policies of this program.
	: That's a good summary for most purposes, actually. ] 16:34, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
			:I understand your fears about the AI utilities you have mentioned on your site. Even when I was using AI for the grammar check or, for instance, to elaborate on some point in the text, I saw to my mismanagement that over the process we probably confused the readers and repeated the same information and thoughts, which I would never wish to happen again. From now on I will ensure that in the future the input which I provide to wikipedia fits the Misplaced Pages standard and is more personal. I will also not write walls of text and will not make assertations that do not have substantiated evidence in sources.
	:: I've only interacted with Zenwhat once ], but I certainly didn't get the impression he was eccentric or impetuous as people say. And he was working on an improved ] page (although now reverted by him for some reason). Frankly the comments about him here on AN/I are fairly insulting, although given that other editors seem to have encountered him a lot more than me, I'll not jump to call them impetuous either. I just think any indef block was/is way overboard -- Zenwhat just needs to spend several hours reading and absorbing all of Misplaced Pages policies is all. In short, I do not believe admin action is required. • ] <sup>(])</sup> 01:29, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
			: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. ==
	== IP editor being disruptive -please help ==
			{{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)
	Editor {{iplinks|201.245.216.200}} is continuing an ongoing wiki-campaign to disruptively add (randomly inaccurate) information to infoboxes of multiple celebrities without discussion. I noticed this latest time here (edit on Michael J. Fox page ). Some of the other IP's doing the same thing (most likely the same user) here:
			:<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)
	:{{iplinks|201.245.218.185}}
			::NVM, checked MaxMind for geolocation and they all are in the same general area. ] &#124; ] 21:08, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
	:{{iplinks|201.245.216.227}}
			{{abot}}
	:{{iplinks|201.245.218.124}}
			== ] inaccurate edit summaries ==
	It's all s/he does, I'm tired of dealing with it, more eyes please. And please check all of the latest contributions. Thanks, ] (]) 20:45, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
	:Thanks Yamla, ] (]) 21:03, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
	:You might want to file a suspected sock complaint. You may be able to take action against the user via that route as well. <span style="font:bold 11px Arial;display:inline;border:#151B8D 1px solid;background-color:#ADDFFF;padding:0 4px 0 4px;">]</span> <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 21:48, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
	::Hi Jovin Lambton, and thanks for the suggestion. However, I think it's pretty clear that it's the same user here, so the main questions are: 1) Is the level of disruption worth a range block, (2) how many/what type of users will be affected by a range block?, (3) How long to implement it? I don't know any of those things, so in the mean time I'll just save the post, and if/when it comes up again, re-post with the new info as needed. Is it dull? sure. But it's about all I can do on my end. ] (]) 22:29, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
	:::OK, but I would support any effort to block this editor if the use of multiple IPs has had the effect of generating false consensus. <span style="font:bold 11px Arial;display:inline;border:#151B8D 1px solid;background-color:#ADDFFF;padding:0 4px 0 4px;">]</span> <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 22:41, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
	=== Update: disruption resumes ===
	This editor has started back up again (though someone reverted before I noticed it myself on the MJF page). The IP address is:</br>
	{{iplinks|200.119.56.153}}</br>
	Thanks for any help. ] (]) 21:07, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
	And a run of 9 more today. . .
	{{iplinks|201.245.217.127}}
	. . .all edits by this IP made thus far have been reverted. If there's anything else to do, or a different way of doing it, am open to suggestions. ] (]) 23:25, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
	:I'd like to add {{iplinks|201.245.217.103}} and {{iplinks|201.245.218.220}} to the list. Obviously the same user. He comes here nearly every day and makes the same edits over and over again, most of which get reverted. Pretty annoying. --] (]) 23:58, 11 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)
			== Lil Dicky Semi-Protection ==
	== Admin ] blocked again for 3RR ==
			{{atop|1=] is thataway →. - ] <sub>]</sub> 22:34, 24 December 2024 (UTC)}}
			] was semi-protected back in 2019. Now that five years have passed, could the semi-protection be lifted? ] (]) 16:25, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			:Ask at ] ] ] 16:28, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
	I've blocked {{admin|Arthur Rubin}} for ] on ] per 3RR report. Since this editor is an administrator and has been previously blocked before for edit warring on the same article, I'd like for the community to see if there is a possible need for an article probation or other restrictions for this editor. Thanks, ] 23:36, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
			{{abot}}
	:My opinion is that we should leave it at this block for now. Being blocked twice for edit warring on the same an article within a month is a bad sign, true, but I don't think it indicates a need for anything beyond a slightly longer block. If it continues, we may end up back here, but I think we can see if he'll stop after this. ] ] 23:41, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
	*It is of course bad practive for any editor to edit war, especially an administrator who should be setting an example to the community. Although the edit warring took place on the the same article as the previous block, we shouldn't hold the fact that he's an administrator prejudice our actions here - how would we react if this was an editor without +sysop? We'd give them their block and that would be all - we wouldn't suggest community restrictions against them on an article. I agree that a block was reuquired, would you consider reducing it down to 48 hours rather than 3 days? It's more in line with similar blocks in the past (yeah, I know it's a pedantic issue). <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 23:45, 9 February 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
	:I notice ] was blocked for edit warring on the same article just a few weeks ago and made at least 3 reverts, as did ] but who has not been previously blocked. I know we hold admins to a higher conduct standard, but neither of these other users were even warned for edit warring. <font face="Broadway">]'']</font>'' 00:07, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
	::With all due respect, I only made three edits to this article, and tried to get this editor to discuss them repeatedly. I warned him he had already violated ], and he blew me off and continued. I stopped at three, and even though I disagree with something on the page now, I have elected to bring it up and clarify it on the talk page, rather than violate ]. I had no desire to enter into an edit war, I tried to discuss things to gain consensus and this user was not interested in anything that took his edits off of the page. ] (]) 00:14, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
	:::I've gone ahead and blocked ] for edit warring as well. He didn't technically violate 3RR, but multiple previous edit warring blocks including one for edit warring on the same article means that he should definitely know better.
	:::To Snowfire51: ] does not only become a policy violation after the 3rd revert, it is disruptive from the first. Consider this a warning. <font face="Broadway">]'']</font>'' 00:19, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
	::::Warning received. I stand by my contributions as evidence that I understand policy, and will uphold it in the future. No hard feelings. ] (]) 00:32, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
			== Request for Review of Neutrality and Repeated Actions ==
	Do not we hold admins to a much higher standard? Two 3RR blocks in such a short period of time while being an admin is shocking and really very disturbing. What does the community suggest as an appropriate course of action? ] (]) 19:15, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
			{{Atop|This complaint has no merit and does not require administrative intervention.--] (]) 18:08, 24 December 2024 (UTC)}}
	:It would be unprecedented (and logically flawed) to desysop an admin for edit-warring on a non-protected page, if indeed that's what you're implying. — ] 19:25, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
	::I'd advise that the user takes an optional Wikibreak; I think some cooling down is needed if this has happened twice recently. Hopefully this doesn't happen again. ] ] 19:29, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
			Dear admin,
	Arthur needs to take a break or risk losing his bit next time.<span style="font-family: verdana;"> — ] • ] • </span> 23:03, 10 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.
	===Arthur Rubin used admin tools while blocked?===
	Was block issued by Rubin while he was still blocked? Can a blocked admin still admin? <span style="font-variant:small-caps"><font color="#800080">] § ]/]</font></span> 23:06, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
			Thank you for your attention to this issue. Please feel free to reach out if further clarification is needed.
	:Blocks affect the "edit this page" function, but a blocked admin can still block, unblock, protect, and delete. ''']'''&nbsp;<sup>]</sup> 04:20, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
			Hazar ] (]) 17:45, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
	::Whoa, _WHAT_? I thought that was fixed. I specifically remember a bug that was resolved by preventing all admin actions with the sole exception of a self-unblock (for dealing with accidental blocks, I imagine, since you're not supposed to unblock yourself normally) while blocked. —] 17:37, 11 February 2008 (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)
	:::Hmph, maybe. I haven't tried it, but it seemed to me that a recently vanished admin wsa able to delete a few pages after blocking himself. Could be wrong, though. ''']'''&nbsp;<sup>]</sup> 18:18, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
			::The editor is also called Psychloppos, not Psycholoppos. I have notified them for the OP. &ndash; ] (]) (]) 17:59, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			:I wouldn't give a chatbot-written thread the time of day. HS, ]. —] ] <sup><small>] ]</small></sup> 18:05, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			{{Abot}}
			== Disruptive behavior from IP ==
	== An editor abusing Rollback privileges ==
			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)
	{{resolved}}
	{{User|Undead warrior}} has created a number of footer templates for music artists which are OK except the user did not use the correct/standard/consensus colour format and instead has chosen the "more metal" black colour scheme. No big problem. An attempt was made to correct the colour format but the user has decided to vio ] on the templates and is using his newly acquired rollback permissions to revert constructive edits which are clearly not vandalism. Some of these edits are . The user left a talk page post in which he states "If you change the colour I will just keep changing them back" Which shows that the user intends to continue to violate ] and may also ignore ] to do so. And... for these reverts... is using the 'Rollback' function which is intended for vandal hunting and not edit warring. Can someone take the time to explain ], ] and the proper use of 'rollback' to this user. Perhaps a little ] explanation would help as well. ] (]) 01:06, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
	:I agree that this appears to be an abuse of the rollback privileges. This is not clear vandalism that is being committed and he even admits this himself when he says that the changing of the colors is a matter of . I think his rights should be removed. I'll leave this here for a bit longer before I do just to get input from other admins first. ] (]) 01:21, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
			:"777-200LRF" is not misleading, some cargo airlines do use that designation. Today I reverted to a previous version that ] was okay with . I feel that ] is going overboard with charges of misinformation and disruptive editing. ] (]) 19:59, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
	::Yeah it clearly looks like abuse of rollback. Removing it seems reasonable. ] ] 01:27, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
			::It is misleading to remove any mentions of it being unofficial. Boeing has never made a "777-200LRF", no aftermarket conversion has ever been offered under that name, nor has the FAA or any other regulatory agency ever certified such an aircraft. To pass such a designation off as official is by definition misleading and misinformation. Likewise, to continuously do so after you have been told to stop by multiple people and falsely claiming that others support your arguments is by definition disruptive. - ] <sub>]</sub><span style="color:#6B8E23">\</span><sup>]</sup> 20:06, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			::Of note is the fact that this is not the first time the IP has claimed to have Fnlayson's support. ] not to assume support without a specific statement, yet it seems they've also ignored that. - ] <sub>]</sub><span style="color:#6B8E23">\</span><sup>]</sup> 20:23, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
	::: based on the evidence given, the editor is using the rollback tool for edit warring behavior. ] <small>(])</small> 01:31, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
			:::Its not misinformation as here are the sources which use "777-200LRF", including GE Capital Aviation (the engine supplier for most Boeing 777) and Leeham News (to avoid confusion with the upcoming 777-8F). ] (]) 21:06, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
	:::Additionally the editor was given the rules that ''Rollback can only be used to revert ''vandalism only'', and not good faith edits.'' prior to engaging the inappropriate behavior. ] <small>(])</small> 01:35, 10 February 2008 (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)
	::::Ryan Postlethwaite got to it just as I was about to edit it. ] (]) 01:37, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
			:Relevant range is {{rangevandal|24.206.64.0/20}}, in case somebody needs it. ] &#124; ] 21:02, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
	:::::Endorse fully. ] (]) 01:37, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
			*Semiprotected ] for two days. - ] <sub>]</sub> 22:33, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
	:::::Yup, clearly a misuse, hence why I removed it. ] 01:38, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
	::::Agreed, it appears editor is using rollback to edit war. Removal is very reasonable.--] 01:39, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
	::::Agreed, also, and endorse Ryan's removal. ] 01:41, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
	::::: It would have been nice to have recieved a little bit of warning before being revoked. The warning came and then the privelages were removed. (i might have spelled that wrong) Either way, I did not know that the rollback tool should not have been used as I had used it. I thought it was being used justly. I had warned the user that his edits were un-constructive. I had reverted them previously and told him where to find the standard template. He just kept on re-doing his old edits without justification. ] (]) 01:52, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
	::::::Er, so you didn't read the left upon being given rollback, nor did you read the extremely clear instructions at the top of the ] page when you ? I'm sorry, I hardly consider that Ryan's fault. ] (]) 01:54, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
	::::::The user's edits were unconstructive because they were at odds with you? ]''']''' 01:56, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
	::::::: I didn't see the notice because after I had edited, I had to wrestle my match. I read the instructons, and I thought that I had given fair warning before I reverted using rollback. I say that his edits were unconstructive becasue they were accomplishing nothing. He just changed the color around. Plus, I have been trying to convert certain templates over to the new template, which, when I was going through this, I would get an edit conflict thus loosing my changes. I have now successfully(spelling?) created the new version of the template for ]. ] (]) 02:22, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
	::::::: And after re-doing another template due to another edit conflict, I have successfully(spelling?) created ] ] (]) 02:48, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
	:(resetting indent) And "unconstructive" is so clearly the same thing as "vandalism"... also, why were the edit unconstructive? Is standardizing color unconstructive? ]<span style="color:red"><small><sup>], not ]</sup></small></span> 03:52, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
	::I'm having that very conversation with the editor right now at ]. My main question is why is it "constructive" to make the templates a non-standard color (black) but "unconstructive" to make it the standard colors. ] (]) 04:05, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
	::: '''Response to Nousernamesleft''' I am trying to state that I warned him that if he was not going to standardize the entire template, like I was in the process doing, then not to do anything to it at all. I kept getting the same edit conflict after a long process of work on a template and, naturally, I became very frustrated. I believe this has been blown completely out of proportion. I made one mistake, or 5 I guess if you want to go with Metros. I made the rollbacks in a very, very short period of time. The warning was given after that(also after I had signed off), and that warning gave me no time whatsoever to redeem myself. Note, before my so called "misuse of rollback", I had used it like it I was supposed to do. ] (]) 04:48, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
	::::That's where you're wrong. The "warning" was issued to you upon applying for and receiving your rollback privileges. The warning on how to use it and not use it is on the application page as well as in the notice sent to you on your talk page when the rights were enabled. ] (]) 12:37, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
	::::: The warning was not sent until after the damage was done. At 1:23 you sent the notice, which was after the damage was done, and then at 1:36 the rollback privelages were removed, which, I might point out, I had not made any rollbacks between that time. I had not made a bad rollback between the warning left on my talkpage and the time it was taken away. You can look at my cotributions yourself if you don't believe me. Also, I KNOW that the "how to use it and how to not use it" is on the main page. I had stated that, IMO, I was reverting vandalism. Now, that, by the sound of it, is not your opinion, but it was mine at the time. I was doing what I thought was the right thing. ] (]) 16:55, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
	::::::These edits were not vandalism, and that's not just Metros' opinion - read the definition provided in ]. ] (]) 14:51, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
	== ] blocking users based on favoritism ==
	I have filed a 3RR report on {{User|Bakasuprman}} only to find out that ] says he is trying to work this out with Bakaman and not have him blocked . However, when I went over the 3RR, he blocked me instantly . This is straight out favoritism and an abuse of power on this admin's part. It is not fair that one editor can have such privileges to avoid being blocked for 3RR violations. ] (]) 02:22, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
	:You have not presented any evidence that this is due to "favoritism". The circumstances may have been different. Alternatively, he may have simply taken two different courses of action at two different times; there's no algorithm for how to deal with 3RR reports. -- ''']''' 03:03, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
	::With all due respect if one has broke the 3RR rule, doesn't that entitled the editor to be blocked? Correct me if I am wrong, but on the 3RR page it states, "The three-revert rule (often referred to as 3RR) is a policy that applies to all Wikipedians, and is intended to prevent edit warring: An editor must not perform more than three reverts, in whole or in part, on a single page within a 24-hour period. A revert means undoing the actions of another editor, whether involving the same or different material each time. Any editor who breaches the rule may be blocked from editing for up to 24 hours in the first instance, and longer for repeated or aggravated violations. The rule applies per editor." This was found on the 3RR page . So, please let me know if 3RR only applies to particular editors (race, caste, creed, sex, nationality). Thank you. ] (]) 03:18, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
	:::And doesn't the same exact page you just cited say the following: "Just because someone has violated the three revert rule does not mean they will be blocked. It is up to the administrator's discretion whether to take action."? So, in this case, Nishkid64 made some judgment here. ] (]) 03:21, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
	::::Wiki Raja, I blocked you in September for disruptive edit warring over the addition of WikiProject templates on talk pages. In January 2008, you violated 3RR over the same WikiProject template on an article talk page. I had told you to seek a consensus before adding those templates back. You failed to engage in such discussion and you violated 3RR, so I blocked you. Also, I did not handle the 3RR report you filed. Bakasupraman contacted me off-wiki hours before, and asked for my thoughts. I reviewed the situation, told him he had violated 3RR, and issued warnings to both Baka and Relata refero. I chose not to block the users because they were engaged in discussion on the article talk page. I was going to protect the page, but I decided to leave it alone for the time being. <span style="background:#E0FFFF;color:#007FFF;font-family:Georgia;">] (])</span> 03:22, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
	:::::So, would it be ok for me to edit war just as long as I have dialog on the page? ] (]) 03:35, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
	::::::3RR violations are handled separately. You engaged in repeated disruptive edit warring, so I blocked you. Bakasupraman has a history of that behavior, but I didn't think it was appropriate to block him (and Relata) when they were both engaging in serious discussion on the talk page. If you had been engaging in serious discussion and violated 3RR, an admin might consider just protecting the page, instead of blocking. However, like I said, it's an admin's call. Different situations need different action. <span style="background:#E0FFFF;color:#007FFF;font-family:Georgia;">] (])</span> 03:46, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
	:::::::I don't think I quite get you on this matter. You state that I did not engage in dialog, when I did engage in dialog in the section titled ''Removing WikiProject Templates''. But, wait a minute, for some odd reason, my discussion is not shown in the history section . Now, can you tell me what's going on? ] (]) 04:42, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
	::::::::Umm...yes, you didn't engage in any serious discussion that would achieve a consensus in your favor. That's why I blocked you twice. You told them not to remove the templates, but I don't see where they commented. The history wasn't deleted at any point, so it's possible that the discussion took place elsewhere. Also, there seems a consensus to not include the template. If the other editors remove the template, do not undo their edits. Get them into discussion, and try to convince them. If that doesn't work, then you could try consulting a larger audience (don't go as far as ], though). <span style="background:#E0FFFF;color:#007FFF;font-family:Georgia;">] (])</span> 04:53, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
	:::::::::That's because they didn't bother to reply and continued reverting. When one was coming close to a 3RR, they get another account to continue the revert. ] (]) 05:07, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
	I doubt that Nishikid is practicing "favoritism". But sometimes I feel that decisions on WP:3rr are handed down (by many admins, not just a particular one) quite inconsistently.] (]) 05:02, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
	:You doubt? Then that means we're not really sure of that. BTW, can there be an explanation as to why my two previous posts which can be clearly seen under ''Removing WikiProject templates'' is not showing in the history section ? ] (]) 05:10, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
	::I don't know what you're talking about; all of your posts are in the history. -- ''']''' 05:30, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
	Please take a look at the dates in bold face below really close and show me that it appears in the history.
	'''03:10, 24 January 2008 (UTC):'''
	* Appears on talk page .
	* Does not appear in history .
	'''06:18, 24 January 2008 (UTC):'''
	* Appears on talk page .
	* Does not appear in history .
	] (]) 05:46, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
	:I replied on Wiki Raja's talk page. -- ''']''' 06:26, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
	::Thanks for the reply. ] (]) 06:33, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
	In case anyone is puzzled by the reference to me. please do have a look at ]. I do think Nishkid has mismanaged a few situations, particularly in his desire to shield someone who really should have been banned by ArbCom three times by now, but I think he's already been madea aware of the problems. I do trust his off-wiki discussions with Bakasuprman will be followed by more careful investigation in future; its not as if Bakasuprman has much of a reputation for accuracy. ] (]) 07:05, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
	:I'm not shielding anyone. As I told you already, you made an uncivil comment, and I warned you. Dealing with problematic users doesn't give you a right to violate ]. Don't make unsubstantiated baseless comments about my actions. Also, I investigated the matter, as I already told you on your talk page. Drop the irrelevant side commentary on Bakasupraman. He has issues with edit warring and incivility, but don't tarnish his contributions, many of which have been beneficial to this encyclopedia. <span style="background:#E0FFFF;color:#007FFF;font-family:Georgia;">] (])</span> 08:03, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
	::I didnt violate WP:CIVIL, as I have explained at length on your talkpage. There was simply no other way of making that point.
	::What is an unsubstantiated baseless comment? I have based everything I have said on what you have told me specifically on my talkpage - in a conversation linked above, so ''anyone'' can check. Dont make unsubstantiated baseless comments accusing me of making unsubstantiated baseless comments:)
	::And "side commentary" on a seriously disruptive, POV-pushing, habitually uncivil user who violated 3RR yesterday and ''didn't even care'' is hardly irrelevant at AN/I. His mysterious positive contributions, which consist as far as I can see of 50 minimally researched stubs in one subject area where he is not an expert, are not really Giano standard, you know. ] (]) 08:43, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
	:::Don't forget about ]'s previous edit summaries on Muslims, Christians, and Jews in the following statements:.
	:::This individual has something against folks who do not belong to the same faith as this user which was also the case with the recent 3RR this person committed. Further, the admin who let him of the hook makes me feel that he also favors editors of the same interests. Admin or not, I'll have to state that there sure is a lot of favoritism going on in here. ] (]) 08:59, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
	'''Comment''' - Now, which is lower? Wikiraja trying to divert attention from himself or Relata refero taking a snipe at Bakasuprman from behind Wikiraja? Bakasuprman has been through arbcoms and come out ''clean''. He has been upheld as an editor in good standing by arbcoms more than once. If RR doesnt like it.. just too bad but just dont bring it here and waste people's time. ] 21:48, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
	:Bakasuprman has benefited due to ''dirty'' admins playing the favoritism game. Birds of the feather flock together. ] (]) 21:59, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
	::I agree with Sarvagnya here. WR's use of "Jews" in that statement proves that he is attempting to throw mud at the wall (in hopes of some sticking) considering I have collaborated with numerous Jewish users, and no user in good standing has ever indicated anti-Semitism on my part. On the subject of Muslims, Misplaced Pages's articles on Muslim history would be lacking without articles on ]. ], ], etc. Looking at Christians, please do compare .<b>]]</b> 03:27, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
	Looks like this group is slowly trying to evade the topic on ]'s biasedness towards certain users. You can throw all the piety and adminship talk at me, but the truth shows there is favoritism for editors of the same feather. If favoritism was not the case, I would not have been blocked in a heartbeat and would have been given the chance to speak with an admin just like the chance you gave Bakasuprman. Who is he anyway to receive preferential treatment over other editors? ] (]) 04:19, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
	===Call for block of Relata refero===
	Relata refero is an obvious sock puppet account which started . Since then this user has targeted a certain number of users who edit controversial pages. The sole purpose of this sockpuppet has been to cause disruption and enter into disputes. Therefore, a block of this account is called for under the ] policy, perhaps that might encourage this user to login through their original account. — ] ] 08:35, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
	:Who is he a sock of and who is being targeted? <span style="font-variant:small-caps"><font color="#800080">] § ]/]</font></span> 08:38, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
	::Perhaps we can apply this ] policy on the ]/] accounts. After all, both usernames have been confirmed to belong to the same person . What's fair is fair. ] (]) 09:17, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
	:Huh? Sir Nick, this is a pretty wild accusation and would need a lot more substantiating. For all I can see, Relata refero is an excellent editor with a wide spectrum of interests. Yes, his early contributions of last October indicate he was probably not a newbie at the time, but that doesn't mean he is an abusive sock. He could be a reincarnation of a user in good standing who left. He could even be a legitimate alternate account, although I doubt that. ] ] 09:48, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
	:Sir Nicholas is talking rubbish, as usual. There's no reason to block Relata refero: he's been doing a good job in a number of problematic areas. Unless you can prove to me, via checkuser or otherwise, he's an abusive sockpuppet, I will strongly oppose any suggested sanctions. I'm aware that some think he's ], but, with all due respect, Hornplease was not banned, had a virtually clean block log, and has stopped editing anyway! This would be a legitimate reincarnation - and I've seen no compelling evidence to suggest Relata is Hornplease anyway. ] <sup> ]</sup> 10:07, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
	::As a matter of fact, Sir Nick is standing right next to the guy who blocked and then unblocked the confirmed ]/]. There's a lot of hanky panky going on around here on Misplaced Pages. It's time for a serious cleanup before this gets out of hand. ] (]) 10:15, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
	I am not usually quick to shout "admin abuse" or "cabal", but Sir Nick is really pushing it here. Relata refero is an excellent ''encyclopedia'' editor, and I'd trade ten Sir Nicks for one of those any day. ] <small>]</small> 11:18, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
	:The accusations against Relata refero are baseless and absurd accusations. And I will echo ]'s comments above. ] (]) 13:16, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
	Nick, please strike this attack on Relata Refera unless you can provide hard evidence that the general community can review. <span style="font-variant:small-caps"><font color="#800080">] § ]/]</font></span> 18:19, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
	:: Unlikely. Wouldn't litigiousness befit a lawyer in training? ] (]) 19:28, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
	:Note that Gnanapiti and Sarvagnya were initially confirmed as sockpuppets because of geographic similarities. A later CU showed that they were indeed two separate users. <span style="background:#E0FFFF;color:#007FFF;font-family:Georgia;">] (])</span> 19:21, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
	::Come on. This dirty cover up is getting so old. ] (]) 21:17, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
	:::Wiki Raja is begging to be blocked himself, by raking this issue up again, for no reasons, and without having any recent findings. Per the previous discussion with another admin, he is not supposed to bring this up again, but he has violated that. See the discussion, ]. As I have mentioned in "Wiki Raja" section above, these kind of disruption is happening time and again, and there is absolutely no use to Misplaced Pages with all these, and is just consuming time of everyone. I call for an immediate block on ]. Thanks - ] <sup> ''']'''</sup> 22:45, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
	::::This mobster and bully mentality on Misplaced Pages has got to stop! ] (]) 22:52, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
	Not commenting on Nishkid64 or Wiki Raja, Relato refero is a very serious and dedicated wikipedian. He regularly shares his thoughts on ] and other policy making venues. While he has been involved in disputes (I can name you admins that have been involved in ugly disputes), his overall contribution to wikipedia is positive. No evidence above has been provided that would suggest otherwise.] (]) 21:34, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
	*'''do not endorse''' - I do not endorse any sanction against relata refera. the user is a good editor, who works hard for the encyclopedia. there are many others who should be shown the door prior to relata refera. --] (]) 22:29, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
	:: YHBT. HTH. ] (]) 00:33, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
	:I doubt Nick would be making such allegations without evidence to back it up. I'm sure Nick will be able to properly substantiate the aforementioned claims. Similar editing patterns on ], ] and ] for a start piqued my suspicions, and the basically identical wording and attitude on talk pages confirmed my suspicions. I would assume Nick has something that is more convincing, which he will probably disclose in the near future, considering that he has not taken action yet.<b>]]</b> 03:27, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
	::And all one has to do is just click on your username and see your resume. ] (]) 04:10, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
	Looks like this group is slowly trying to evade the topic on ]'s biasedness towards certain users. You can throw all the piety and adminship talk at me, but the truth shows there is favoritism for editors of the same feather. If favoritism was not the case, I would not have been blocked in a heartbeat and would have been given the chance to speak with an admin just like the chance you gave Bakasuprman. Who is he anyway to receive preferential treatment over other editors? ] (]) 04:19, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
	:Pursuant to ], I hereby hit Wiki Raja on the head with a stick. Clobbering received necessitates 48h resting period. ] ] 09:53, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
	::Oops, someone beat me to it anyway. ] ] 09:55, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
	:::Wiki Raja wasn't a party to Hkelkar 2, but he needed to be hit with a stick anyway. Frankly, I think the Hkelkar stick needs to be used more often, on more people. ] (]) 19:36, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
	::::See how we have resolved conflicts much more equitably in ]. Many editors who used to violate wikipedia rules now play by the rules, others keep out of trouble. What really mattered was a bunch of admins who really wanted to resolve these issues in a neutral manner who were more than ready to use their admin powers liberally. Another one is ]. India caste and religion related articles require such a dispute resolution process where truly uninvolved neutral admins are willing to participate as enforcers of civility, neutrality etc. Al what you guys have done here is to put off the problem by two months without resolving the route cause of the conflict itself. ] (]) 23:13, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
	== Indef block review of ] by ] ==
	* {{usercheck|TlatoSMD}}
	* ]
	I personally agree with this indefinite block, but I think because TlatoSMD has made some contributions worth keeping and has been an editor on the English and German Misplaced Pages for some time the ban should get wider review. ]] 02:44, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
	*It's hard to disagree with the blocking admin's rationale left on ]. The disruption and incivility needed to be permanently stamped out. ] (]) 03:01, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
	*I fully support this block, and would have advocated an indefinite block on Tlato long ago. ]<nowiki>|</nowiki><sup>]</sup> 03:08, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
	*I agree with this block. Just as 3RR isn't licence to revert an article 3 times, everyday, no matter what, DRV isn't a forum to rehash every XfD that closed against one's interests. Also, the continued incivility from this user ] and his attempts at ]ING the system are a major issue. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 03:22, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
	*Strongly endorse the block per the sound rationale left by the blocking admin. TlatoSMD is a disruptive SPA who has tried so hard to game the system for weeks now, and has repeatedly disrupted deletion processes in an attempt to push a POV. The incivility is just icing on the cake. --]] 03:26, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
	*Endorse per my comment on the user's talkpage . Disruptive and combative user. <font face="Verdana">]]</font> 03:32, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
	*'''Oppose the indef block.''' An indef block is excessive - I would recommend a temporary block. <small>(The following rationale for this has been copied from ]'s ])</small>
	:While it's true that ] can use a bit more tact in his commentary from time to time, indef blocking seems wildly inappropriate in this situation. His confrontational and "snappy" responses and exclamations are a result of what this individual perceives to be unrelenting attacks and POV-pushing by both regular editors and admins. Although he may have stepped out of line several times with his tone and heavy-handed words, I can't say I completely disagree with his interpretation of what has been happening on Misplaced Pages, especially in regards to ] articles and their editors, for the past year or so. A great deal of misrepresentation is occurring, biases are clouding both editing and discussion, and a multitude of editors are refusing to engage in direct debate, preferring to completely disregard positions they personally disagree with. The fact that a number of admins have been either apathetic to TlatoSMD's situation or, in fact, engaged in the very same nonconstructive practices just mentioned has frustrated TlatoSMD quite a bit. Placed within such a hostile environment, and ignored by many regular editors and admins alike, TlatoSMD began to pick his words with less tact than is expected. Although some may be correct in asserting that some sort of block is in order, maybe even longer than several days or a week, indefinite blocking this individual would not benefit the project as a whole. Misplaced Pages will be hurt if it loses yet another intelligent, well-read, and usually civil editor, who's not afraid to speak his mind and to point out policy violations and POV-pushing when they occur, even at the risk of opposing many influential Wikipedians. A temporary block may be in order, so that TlatoSMD rethinks his approach to commentary and regains appreciation for civility, but an indef block will do nothing to improve the quality of Misplaced Pages or its articles. The controversial PAW articles will definitely suffer, and an indef block will only fuel the growing suspicion that there's censorship taking place on Misplaced Pages, and that having a controversial take on subjects is a bannable offense. ~ ] (]) 03:39, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
	:Now, to respond quickly to the ] provided by ] for the indef block. First of all, I fail to see any conclusive evidence that ] is a single purpose account. Although a great deal of this user's recent edits have focused on PAW articles, his contribution history, via both his current and ] accounts, clearly shows that he has edited a variety of articles. Besides, being an SPA is generally poor grounding (in and of itself) for indef blocking. Next, his "snappiness" and (what can be deemed by some) uncivil behavior can be addressed with a temporary block - no indef block is necessary. Besides, this is only the third block this editor ever got, and all the blocks were recently received in regards to the ongoing discussions surrounding the deletion of the "Adult-child sex" article and of the various drafts that attempted come up with a quality representation of this controversial subject. Then, even though this is a very "icky" topic for many, TlatoSMD followed proper Misplaced Pages procedures in contesting the deletions just mentioned. Thus, his actions to this regard should not be grounds for an indef block. As for the supposed "canvassing," this behavior can be addressed by warnings or a temporary block - once again, no indef block is called for. Lastly, this editor is quite capable of editing articles constructively and civility, as his editing history clearly demonstrates. To assert that TlatoSMD is "not here to be constructive" is to blatantly ignore all his contributions prior to his controversial conduct in the recent debates. There's much that this editor can contribute to Misplaced Pages. And, yes, enforcement of policy and emphasis on NPOV are just two of the positives that TlatoSMD generally brings to the table. ~ ] (]) 03:39, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
	::You're misquoting me, I did not say he was a sock, I said his admitted doppelganger account, see this . Also, I protest your claim this is censorship, the issue is incivility and disruption. As for his good edits, that is not a defense, per Jimbo's link below.<span style="font-family: verdana;"> — ] • ] • </span> 03:52, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
	:::I apologize for misreading a part of your comment. I have now adjusted my response to account for the assertion that ] is an SPA. As for the "doppelganger" comment, I'm not sure what this has to do with the issue at hand. As far as I know, many editors mistakenly create several spellings of their username and only end up using one of the account. Since this is his primary account, and the combined contribution history of his current and previous account show editing in a variety of articles, I fail to see what makes TlatoSMD an SPA. Besides, as stated above, being an SPA, even if this was true of this particular editor, is generally poor grounding (in and of itself) for an indef block. ~ ] (]) 04:16, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
	:::There is also no assertion that your particular indef blocking of ] is censorship. What I said was that this "indef block will only fuel the growing suspicion that there's censorship taking place on Misplaced Pages, and that having a controversial take on subjects is a bannable offense." I'm not saying that this is true, but it's foolish to deny that such observations are being made about the project, especially after a number of controversial indef blocks in the past year or so. ~ ] (]) 04:16, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
	====TlatoSMD Review Break====
	*Has he been blocked or banned? Regardless, indef is def excessive. Firstly, he is not a Single Purpose Account as was said in the blocking rationale on his talk page. At least, not according to his contribs history. Blocking is not supposed to be used as punishment or to make a point, regardless of what . I'd say a timed block, as in 24 hours if he hasn't been blocked before to 48 hours if he's only been blocked once before to a couple of days or week depending on recent past block count, would be more appropriate in dealing with his incivility. '''-''' <font size="+1" color="red">&#10032;</font><strong style="letter-spacing:1px;font-family:Verdana">]</strong><font size="+1" color="red">&#10032;</font> <sup><small>]</small></sup> 03:45, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
	::He's blocked, not banned. Even if one accepts the argument that he's not an SPA, there's still plenty to support an indef on this highly disruptive user. Short blocks have not worked. There is way more than his incivility. His statements (see quotes I made on his user talk page) show no sign of acknowledging the collaborative nature of wikipedia. <span style="font-family: verdana;"> — ] • ] • </span> 03:55, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
	* Firstly, Avruch has my deep respect for bringing this here, even though he agrees with the block, because bringing it here for wider review was ''the right thing to do''. Good call and thank you.
	** Keilana will of course support the block because TlatoSMD ''rightly'' challenged her deletion of a page without rationale.
	** When we are talking about a ''permanent ban'' on a user, we have to really look at it. Why? I have seen vandalism-only accounts and vandalism-only IP's blocked for 24 hours, only to go through the entire process again. I have seen the most aggregious name-calling and personal attacks go without rebuke at all. But TlatoSMD is ''uncivil'' and warrants a permaban? That is, quite simply, ridiculous.
	** So, why is this user being banned? ''Because he is right.'' Not entirely, and not always, but he is absolutely right in that he demands that Misplaced Pages policies be followed, and he has made no attempt to hide his feelings about clear policy violations. Pages that do not warrant deletion are being deleted. Personal attacks on him and others go without even warnings. And when he responds in kind, he is banned. What sort of precedent does this set?
	** There is the canvassing issue. Firstly, let's even assume it was canvassing (which it was not); is canvassing once worthy of a permanent ban from Misplaced Pages? Of course not.
	** TlatoSMD is by no means a Single-Purpose Account, and even if he had an uber-narrow focus, so what? Sockpuppet? No. Focused editor? Sure, why not? Who cares, though. His contributions have been very good and he has spent more time and effort on articles than some who only have worked to tear articles down. Are we going to start banning everyone who edits in a narrow range?
	** The bottom line is that this ban is egregiously over-the-top. I can agree that TlatoSMD has been aggressive. TlatoSMD has even rufled many feathers (gasp!). But to be permanently banned for this? Come on now... don't we all, as a ''community'', have better things to do that force this issue? How about blocking intentional, blatant vandals for more than 24 hours at a time? TlatoSMD deserves time to cool off and ''continue'' editing constructively.
	** Let's drop this block to 24-36 hours, shake our collective finger at him, and move on...
	** ''] (]) 04:12, 10 February 2008 (UTC) ''':-)'''''
	::For what it's worth, I'm not supporting the block because he " rightly challenged deletion of a page without rationale". First of all, I did provide a rationale, which he disagreed with. Fine. He had every right to DRV the article. However, after the ''n''<sup>th</sup> incarnation, it became clear that he was an SPA. He has acted uncivilly, and the net gain to the project of unblocking him would be much less than the net loss from all the drama and incivility that follows him around. ]<nowiki>|</nowiki><sup>]</sup> 04:18, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
	:::It became clear he was an SPA? Have you not taken the time to look at his contribs? He is definitely not an SPA. '''-''' <font size="+1" color="red">&#10032;</font><strong style="letter-spacing:1px;font-family:Verdana">]</strong><font size="+1" color="red">&#10032;</font> <sup><small>]</small></sup> 04:39, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
	::::Yes, it did. I have read his contributions, FWIW. He has barely any article-space edits, effectively everything he does is related to this one article. ]<nowiki>|</nowiki><sup>]</sup> 04:44, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
	::VigilancePrime--There's way more to this than Keilana and other edits. That three admins deleted that page shows there's considerable support to do so and that TlatoSMD is not correct in his actions. And again, he is not banned, there is a difference in a ban and an indef block. Your claim that he's being banned because he's right is ludicrous. <span style="font-family: verdana;"> — ] • ] • </span> 04:21, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
	:::Well, even though he is not technically "banned," ] is now incapable of editing articles, so how is this different from a ban? ~ ] (]) 04:34, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
	::::See ] and ]. ]<nowiki>|</nowiki><sup>]</sup> 04:35, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
	::::* The confusion there is probably my fault for naming the section "ban" - technically he is blocked, but if no one unblocks him it has the effect of a community ban. ]] 04:40, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
	::It's like the verifiability vs. truth argument. He may be right, but ''right'' is subjective, and his opinion of ''right'' has been shown to be against consensus. I have also refactored your comments' formatting and removed the annoying red box. ]<nowiki>|</nowiki><sup>]</sup> 04:26, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
	* Disruptive SPA sums it quite nicely. In my opinion, indef is a good call. &ndash; ] (]) 04:38, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
	** Agreed with this analysis (after having seen the user at a few of the debates). ] 04:41, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
	Unsurprisingly I support this block, he has been incredibly uncivil and disruptive and short blocks perpetuated the situation. WP is better off without users like this. ]] 04:43, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
	* Keilana, replied to your note on my talk page. Thank you for asking and no, I don't think you're self-important.
	* Second, the difference between Indef block and Ban is purely semantic. Spare me.
	* Third, Keilana closed the original debate w/o stated rationale, and that caused a firestorm (on all sides, ultimately). That led to Tlato being less-than-kind toward her, and thus I would expect a certain dislike for him. I would be too, so that's not meant as a slight against her.
	* Fourth, counting admins is useless. Yes, three admins deleted the pages. Just as many kept the original page, protected the original page, or agreed that the pages should stay. In fact, more. Spare us the "so-many admins (as if that makes opinions more valuable?) did this or that". Poor argument.
	* When it comes down to it, "we" would rather protect those who intentionally destroy Misplaced Pages (blocking vandals for 24 hours at a time, no matter their history?) and wash ou hands of someone who is so committed to Misplaced Pages as to fight for it. I do not disagree that T's comments have been unnecessarily aggressive. But a lifetime ban? Come on now... let's use our common sense. If "we" want to set this precedent, can I bring you twice as much evidence about another user, who '''has in fact taken part in name-calling and personal attacks''' and you'll permaban/permablock them as well? Give the word and I'll give the links, quotes, and diffs. But make me that promise first.
	* Let's set some sort of consistency. Everyone in this debacle has had some sort of culpability in it, including me. I haven't been the most pleasant at times (longer ago). Neither has anyone else, admins most often included. Let's not overreact here. I would recommend a few cement trucks worth of Good Faith just be poured over this entire situation.
	* ] (]) 04:46, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
	{{question}} What is the status of now? Its called "Der paedophile impuls" and is written in German, and it is apparently a copy of an article that was deleted on de.wiki. ]] 04:59, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
	::<s>That would need to be brought up on de.wiki; it may have different standards and processes than en.wiki.</s> --]] 05:02, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
	:::The userpage is here, though. Its a copy of a deleted de.wiki article, but he's ported it here for translation. ]] 05:04, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
	::::I was about to strike my comment after misreading it. The page should be deleted. --]] 05:05, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
	:::::{{done}} ] <sup>'']''</sup> 05:17, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
	* I also support this block, and would support a ban as well. This is a highly disruptive user who continually insults and attacks other users, even continuing to be so blatantly uncivil that ''during'' a block today due to his outrageous behavior. TlatoSMD has attacked several administrators, accusing them of blatant lying , having and being neglectful by turning . TlatoSMD has acted in a disruptive manner in every ] ] and ] he's been involved in, while continuing to insult administrators and other editors after being time and time again:. These are just some of the most recent incidents, the user has a long history of attacking and insulting other editors and ]. ] <small>]</small> 05:10, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
	*'''Endorse block.''' I simply can't see how this user can ever work collaboratively with editors they disagree with. ] <sup>'']''</sup> 05:17, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
	::While ] may use excessively colorful words at times and has lately been upfront about his sentiments concerning others, his civility problems can be addressed with a temporary block, even a long one. An indef block is really inappropriate, especially considering that most criticism of his editing is directed at his commentary surrounding this one particular issue. This has been an upstanding, constructive, and generally civil editor in most other contexts. As for his critique of other editors and admins, and their editing practices - as long as this is done in a tasteful manner, and proper reasoning is provided, there's nothing wrong with such criticism. If it's established that TlatoSMD has been uncivil as of late, he should be blocked, but not indefinitely. I'm not sure how his constructive editing of other articles, and even of PAW articles before this messy situation, can be diminished by recent events and be completely disregarded. ~ ] (]) 05:17, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
	:::Civility blocks have had no effect on this user - he was blocked on 4th Feb for 48 hours and was still being uncivil and offensive yesterday when I blocked him for calling another user a liar. I certainly didn't see any evidence from their talk page that they understood they had crossed a line. Quite the opposite in fact. Too much agression & refusal to moderate unacceptable behaviour is not collaborative. ] <sup>'']''</sup> 05:26, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
	::::Then, by all means, extend the block. But there's no need for idef blocking, especially considering the consistent constructive contributions on the editor's part in the past, before this messy situation. ~ ] (]) 05:33, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
	:::::Looking at his contributions, he has ~20 unrelated contributions since he joined. That's not at all consistent. ]<nowiki>|</nowiki><sup>]</sup> 05:36, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
	* '''''
	:: Edits to ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], and ], five of his edits, even though made awhile back, are still the most recent to their pages.
	:: ] (]) 05:39, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
	:::Most of the articles in your list are related to the "adult/child sex" topic. One edit to a disambiguation page is irrelevant, as are the few other topical edits TlatoSMD has made. TlatoSMD is a ] not because he has edited a single article, but because the vast majority of his edits have been to a group of related articles in a manner which is not aligned with Misplaced Pages's ] or ] standards. The SPA concern pales beside the disruptive nature of this user's editing habits. ] <small>]</small> 06:12, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
	Just a word: this account may or may not be disruptive, but this particular act - that of submitting the user copy page to DRV was not "disruptive, abuse of process, and a WP:POINT violation". The MfD was a complex situation, with several different reasons brought up by different people in a long discussion. (I voted delete, incidentally, and still think that deletion of the material is best.) Riana's closing rationale was really, really, uninformative; and her justification in the subsequent DRV was simply appalling. You do have to have a bit of chutzpah to say that after that a DRV was out-of-process. ] (]) 07:46, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
	*I agrre that this editor has been an SPA, and even worse, has been an aggressive POV-pusher. I don't see any article that he's improved, and he's fomented a lot of disruption. I think a ban is appropriate and necessary. ]] ] 07:56, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
	:*I don't disagree about the block, but I gotta ask (since it's been the subject of a few discussions of interest to me), what does being an SPA have to do with it? -- ] 11:06, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
	::*He is here mainly to push a pro-pedophile POV based on his edits (and he is doing so in an uncivil manner, which is the basis of the other problems he has), and that is something that can't be tolerated. --]] 19:42, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
	:::*Yes, but my point is that he would still be blocked even if he was pro-pedo and edited articles about apples. Being an SPA is unrelated. -- ] 03:18, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
	::::*Well, I would hope that your assumption would be proven wrong, cause I don't see how an indef block would be justified in the scenario you just described, unless of course the editor finds a way to be disruptive when editing an article about apples. ~ ] (]) 11:10, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
	:::::*I guess you could give him a topical ban so that he could still edit about apples, but wouldn't that offer be allowed to this user? Even if they haven't started editing other articles yet, we could say "you are free to edit other articles, but not the ones you have done so far". This is important because often we've reblocked indef. users who've come back under a different name to edit different articles, something that has always bothered me.
	:::::*But because the disruption was pro-pedo POV pushing, he would just be blocked over-all, regardless of other activities, because of a statement made by Fred Bauder. -- ] 00:53, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
	* '''Endorse block''', he's exhausted my (admittedly limited) patience and then some. People should be careful to pick the right fights; this was the wrong one on a number of levels. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 10:57, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
	* '''Endorse block''', per all the others that agree above. Whether he is or isn't an SPA is moot; the other evidence alone supports an indef. ] (]) 12:17, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
	*'''Endorse''' - sorry, the DRV was pure disruption. ''']''' <sup>(])</sup> 13:28, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
	*'''Endorse block'''—a rather textbook block: the net negative effect of this user's contributions are far outweighing the positive effect. I fully endorse to ]. ] (]) 13:35, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
	*'''Endorse block'''- This user has got enough "final warnings" and enough blocks and chances to reform edits. Users actions seems like he/she refuses to do so and thus deserves the blocks and some more. Sorry ] (]) 00:34, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
	*I '''endorse''' this block, too. Unbelievably disruptive abuse of process over a single article... enough is enough. :/ '''<font color="#ff9900">]</font><font color="#ff6699">]</font>''' 00:41, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
	*I '''endorse''' this block, after reviewing the situation, blocked editor seems to have reached a point of no concern for his/her actions.] (]) 23:23, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
	*I'm not an admin, but I don't oppose this block. I say this so that there is no confusion about this, considering my discussion above about the SPA concerns. -- ] 00:56, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
	*I also endorse the block, but I do hope that eventually it can be lifted. Tlato is a thorough researcher that has been feeling persecuted lately. However, his everyone-else-is-biased-and-wrong attitude and the endless challenges to all attempts by the community to move on from the nasty situation have made it clear he wants to keep fighting. Well, ]. I don't think it's right to say that this is a SPA, but certainly his single purpose lately has been campaigning on one sole issue. ]]<sup>]</sup> 14:08, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
	===VigilancePrime===
	I'm becoming concerned about this editor. The lawyering to the point of trolling is just the tip of the iceberg - a cursory glance at his talk page with sentiments such as "Call the WAH-mbulance!" "Undeniable Admin Abuse", "More (Typical) Admin Abuses of Peasant Editors", etc shows me that he will rarely, if at all extend the courtesy of ]. Several warnings by admins have been ignored. What do we propose to do? ''']''' <sup>(])</sup> 00:16, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
	== User:Mike0001 ==
	On February 5th, ] edited the ] article by adding some remarks, , and . I reverted the changes and left him a level 1 NPOV warning. The next day, he put back the image again, which was again removed as it did not comply with ] (doesn't illustrate the text) and the article is far too short to support anymore images. Two days later (i.e. today), Mike reverted that removal, as well as edits in between calling it "vandalism". I undid again, and apparently he has decided that he is going to edit war over the issue. We have been back and forth for almost an hour, with him not only trying to readd the picture, as well as breaking the article in attempts to denote a whole paragraph as needing citations. In readding the picture, he also reuploaded it (first as ] then as ]), seemingly in an attempt to disguise that it is a picture of his pet collie. I've attempted discussing the issue with him on his talk page, after leaving another warning, but he continues to just put it back and put it back. I finally left him a 3RR warning (which he'd long since violated), and he responded by leaving me two. He also seems to be engaging in edit disputes on other articles including ] (), ](), and ] () among others (a quick look at his contribs show quite a few, but these are some of the most recent). Anyone undoing his NPOV, unsourced, and often blatantly wrong edits is apparently a vandal.
	At this point, my temper is too high to keep dealing with him, and in undoing his mess, I've also gone past the 3RR mark, so I'm asking for admin intervention. While I was working on this report, the was been protected, to a previous bad version, by another admin. As soon as the protection is gone, I'm sure Mike will continue his campaign, and meanwhile he will continue to cause problems on other articles. ] (]) 17:22, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
	<b><small>merged from other thread. </b><b>]</b> 18:21, 8 February 2008 (UTC)</small>
	: User Collectonium seems to think that he is the only person allowed to edit the ]. This is not WP policy! Also ''Lamtara Golden Spritzer'' is registered, has a pedigree, and is called Shadow by his family!
	:All the edits I make here and elsewhere are well justified. I am a retired academic! NOT a vandal. ] (]) 17:43, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
	::To clarify, the dispute seems to be about the inclusion of ] in that article, and is referring to ] - I fixed the spelling and added a link in the header. —] 17:50, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
	:::Is this supposed to be an actual report, or a response to my report two up from this? Of the latter, can it be moved up to keep the conversation in one place. ] (]) 18:01, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
	Sorry to seem spammy, but I'm restoring again as Mike decided to vandalize one of my user pages last night since the rough collie article is still locked. I don't suppose someone will look at it now? ] (]) 19:19, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
	:From a look through the dispute, it's not really a huge issue, and really should be directed more towards ] than for admin consideration. I've suggested to Mike that he not edit other peoples' userpages like that in the future, and suggested he look at ] or an ]. I'll keep an eye on things, in case there's further issues. ] <small>]</small> 22:52, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
	::I might agree, except now he appears to be Wikistalking and being harrassing. He has left comments like and when I leave someone an warning note. He also apparently likes Edito*Magica's "sneaky vandalism" term.
	::He left me warnings for removing his unnecessary and inappropriate remarks from my talk page , , , and . I removed the first three, and someone I do not know (I believe a vandal patroller) undid the last one and left him a warning. So he posted a message to their talk page making more incorrect statements about me and requesting I be banned. He has also now vandalized ]. For someone who claims to be a retired academic, he certainly isn't acting like it and seems to be on a full scale rant/assault. ] (]) 16:13, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
	:::I'm on this. I've asked Mike to desist, and have both parties directed to the article talk page for some informal mediation. (and now I'm off to do some real work for a while.) ] <small>]</small> 17:09, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
	== Continued edit warring on ] page ==
	In a continued effort to avoid edit warring, I've submitted this follow up to yesterdays report on a similar incident.
	] continues to move {{dubious}} tag on contested term "dominion" and "semi-autonomous" on ] page; dominion has been used as an indication of "semi-autonomy"; the two words are linked. His rationale is that I haven't shown that there is a debate.
	The debate is in fact a longstanding one in which we both have participated. See polls below for summary of editor opinions on talk page. The intent of the tag is to draw attention to that debate, and warn users that a good number (in fact a majority) of editors disagree strongly with reference to the word Dominion.
	I think it is reasonable for a small tag to remain on the questionable wording until the dispute is resolved. A larger neutrality tag is not necessary as it would be overkill for what otherwise stands as an FA-Class aticle. --] (]) 20:07, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
	References:
	;
	;
	;
	--] (]) 20:07, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
	:In sum, this editor has not demonstrated the need for these tags, and has been adding them to ] and ]. There is no doubt that there has been debate in Misplaced Pages regarding ] becoming a ] upon ] in 1867, but the debate is an artificial one, with ] and various editors seeking to deprecate this notion from the lead of the 'Canada' article or throughout the 'Dominion' article. Beginning in Sep., said editor exacerbated the situation by advocating for one position and then reneging, then engaging in tendentious editing and continuously contesting well-sourced information or insinuating that it is incorrect or imbalanced (representing a 'monarchist' position). Some of the polls cited above (instigated by said editor) are confused, and have generally yielded results not in said editor's favour. Said editor's behaviour also precipitated an edit was at 'Canada', and that article was locked. Relevant debates were allayed when said editor departed from the discussion -- the article was relatively stable regarding this point until this editor's return months later, after which a number of additional reports were filed (including an abortive request for arbitration), engagements and insinuations against G2bambino (whom he has referred to as my 'associate') and the 'Canada' and 'Dominion' article have been locked ''again''.
	:Given this editor's continuous disruption, Soulscanner should be sanctioned, the 'Canada' and 'Dominion' articles should remain locked until disputes have been resolved, and or the former article's feature article status should be reviewed. In the very least, neutral administrators should monitor 'Canada' and 'Dominion' for potential disruption by the reporting editor (or anyone else). Thanks. ] (]) 00:25, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
	:: ] acknowledges there is a debate. That is why there needs to be a neutrality tag to identify the disputed term. He believes tha any challenge to his views are "artificial" because he has contempt for anyone who disagrees with him. He has been warned against removing tags already and , so he is aware of the policy. He knows he should not remove them. --] (]) 05:09, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
	::: This is logical fallacy: of course there has been discussion, which has been conflated and contorted by this editor and allies, hence it being an artificial one not reflected in the body of literature about the notion.
	::: And I don't mind editors who disagree with me: it is those who continue to insinuate bias and irrational arguments despite clear citations indicating the opposite, and in accordance with Misplaced Pages policies and procedures, who are irksome. Sycophants, hypocrites, and those who are disingenuous in behaviour ever more so. I mean, do you dispute that the ]? At its base, this is ''all'' that is required. If you stand back, answer that honestly and accept that, you will answer your own question -- to date, you have not, which is one reason why further discussion with you and selected compatriots seems futile. ] (]) 14:52, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
	::::I agree fully that ''both'' articles should remain locked, until it's agreed to keep dispute on those respective discussion pages (agree not to 'edit war'). ] (]) 15:50, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
	== Problem with repeated incivility from IP user ==
	{{resolved|{{ #switch: {{lc:b}}
	|semi| s = ] ''']'''{{#if:|&#32;{{#switch:{{{2}}}|indef|indefinite|infinite='''indefinitely'''|for a period of '''{{{2}}}'''. After {{{2}}} the page will be automatically unprotected}}.}}
	|full| p = ] ''']'''{{#if:|&#32;{{#switch:{{{2}}}|indef|indefinite|infinite='''indefinitely'''|for a period of '''{{{2}}}'''. After {{{2}}} the page will be automatically unprotected}}.}}
	|move| m = ] ''']'''{{#if:|&#32;{{#switch:{{{2}}}|indef|indefinite|infinite='''indefinitely'''|for a period of '''{{{2}}}'''. After {{{2}}} the page will be automatically unprotected}}.}}
	|salt| t = ] ''']'''
	|done| do = ] '''Done'''
	|unpr| u = ] '''Unprotected'''
	|deny| d = ] '''Declined'''
	|nact| nea = ] '''Declined''' – There is not enough recent disruptive activity to ] protection at this time.
	|npre| np = ] '''Declined''' – Pages are not protected pre-emptively.
	|mpfa| fa = ] '''Declined''' – Featured articles on the Main Page ] except in response to extreme vandalism.
	|bloc| b = ] '''User ]'''
	|noun| nu = ] '''Not unprotected'''
	|ispr| ap = ] '''Already protected'''
	|isun| au = ] '''Already unprotected'''
	|isdo| ad = ] '''Already done'''
	|note| n = ] '''Note:''' {{#if:|''{{{2}}}''}}
	}}{{#switch:{{lc:b}}|semi|s|full|p|move|m={{#if:| &#32;''{{{3}}}'' | }}|n|note=|#default={{#if:|, ''{{{2}}}''}}}} ]] 12:24, 11 February 2008 (UTC)}}
	There have been some problems with an ] where the user's first edit mentions . The next tries to insinuate against another editor by implying they wrote something and questioning their motives. The next is an obvious personal attack. The next tries to call into question the editor and the motives of the editor instead of tackling the substance of the argument. Then again the user tries to direct an against another editor. I then placed a on the user's talk page. The user then insists on replacing (and many more) that have been reverted due to containing incivility and personal attacks.
	I have initially reverted the user's changes that violate AGF or contain personal attacks, however now because of the user's editing pattern I have my strong suspicions that this IP user is evading a ban for using sock puppets. Basically IP the user started editing on the same topic, binary prefixes, as the other two banned users and is using the same IP address range to edit from (IP address starting 217.87 which is the same German ISP). These can be seen in the last section "IPs to keep track of from" on this sock puppet history ].
	While this suspected sock puppet activity is related to this issue my main priority is for the IP user to stop making edits that attack other editors and to be civil. ''']]''' 21:43, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
	:The IEC binary prefix issue on ] can bring about lively debates. In this case I have to agree with Fnagaton that the IP user is just being obnoxious. -- ] (]) 22:32, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
	:After seeing the latest edits from the IP user I have to agree with this that this IP user is a sock puppet evading a block from ]. I've tried creating a sock puppet report but have been told I cannot edit the page due to a previous report being there for ], so I'm a bit stuck. :) ''']]''' 11:52, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
	::I'll help out now. Just looking over the report. ]] 12:01, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
	:::Thank you. Although the IP user is using an ISP that hands out dynamic IPs so it can be difficult to track. Good luck! ''']]''' 12:05, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
	::::After reviewing the contributions of the IP is has been blocked for 2 weeks, although as it is a daily interchangable IP, it might be best to keep a track of the pages it it likely to edit. I've also reviewed the contributions of ], could it be possible s/he is a sock of someone? ]] 12:24, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
	::::: Thank you for taking the time to wade through what is quite a complex issue. I don't have access to the IP logs for CapnZapp so just going on the contributions thus far I don't see a sock puppet problem? I'll keep an eye out for other IP users from the same ISP (or newly created accounts) editing the same pages and topics that the IP user has been connected with. ''']]''' 12:42, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
	== Page moves by Dove1950 ==
	{{resolved|on final warning}}
	{{user|Dove1950}} has spent today reverting half-a-dozen moves. All were submitted to ], and all of the discussions were closed '''move'''. In some cases he has gone so far as to cut and paste the article and the talk page to the title he prefers; in most of these cases, he is the only editor to prefer it. The guidelines he insisted on has also been changed.
	Would someone explain to him the difference between ] and the ]? ] <small>]</small> 22:10, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
	:The moves reverted were these:
	*] to ]. Closed by The Evil Spartan after 8-2 !vote.
	*] to ]. Closed by AjaxSmack, 5-1.
	*] to ]. Closed by AjaxSmack, 3-1. Cut and paste.
	*] to ]. Closed by AjaxSmack, 3-1 and a comment preferring direct change of guidelines.
	* I am moving these back. Quite apart from the debates at RM, WP:ENGLISH is clear that the most common English name is to be preferred. <b>]</b> 22:32, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
	:* Done. Since this is the second time this editor has done this, and he's been warned by an admin before, I have issued a final warning. Would be useful if a few other admins could watchlist these pages too. <b>]</b> 22:45, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
	::Dove1950 has a rather long history of doing this sort of thing, for example, look at his moves at ]: . This kind of behaviour needs to stop. I wonder if a conduct RfC might be in order sometime soon. ] ] 05:43, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
	Part of the problem is a Wikiproject (Numistics) with a tiny number of participants that wrote a naming convention into their project page. This defies our basic process of hwo proposals turn into guidelines for basic stuff like naming conventions and it's in conflict with our base naming conventions. Now that they've written it, they think they can bulldoze it across the articles they think their project is responsible for. Dove1950 thinks he's doing the right thing because nobody has cut off this errant Wikiproject. ] (])
	:Well, actually, that's kind of been fixed now. The project's guidelines were recently changed to be more in line with our common names and English name guidelines, although Dove1950 opposed this change. ] ] 05:57, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
	::This can be marked as resolved. Dove1950 has been warned, and the most recent articles he tried to move have been move-protected (preferable to a block in this instance). ] ] 10:27, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
	== Brian Reddyb (yet again) ==
	{{resolved}}
	*{{User5|86.42.206.133}}
	*{{User5|Illbreddy}}
	] again evading his ] and engaging in disruptive editing. (For a full list of accounts and IP addresses used by this sock puppeteer, refer to his ].) IP ] "Brian Reddyb" back as a founding producer of ] despite this having been ] months ago. Same IP would later "Reddyb" as a ] manufacturer instead of the "Reddy" brand name. ] (note similarity of name to other socks) created the ] page as a redirect to the ] article; the page would be speedy deleted soon afterwards. Requesting indefinite block for ], and a medium-term block for ]. ] (]) 23:03, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
	:Done. ''']'''&nbsp;<sup>]</sup> 04:09, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
	::Thanks. ] (]) 11:57, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
	== Edito*Magica ==
	Just my day for ANIs I guess. ] was brought to my attention by another editor, ] who knows I am well versed in creating episode lists and requested my assistance on ]. Edito*MagicaJ kept changing for format of the list to one that removes the lead, and does not follow proper episode list format, going against the consensus for proper episode list formatting. (see versus ). I reverted his edits, and tried to explain to him why his edits are incorrect. He refuses to listen, however, and appears to feel that he knows better than the main Misplaced Pages MOS, the TV project, and existing consensus and standards for episode lists (http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Collectonian&diff=next&oldid=190484465 talk page discussions). UpDown also tried talking to him. I warned him that if continued his attempts to mess up the list, his edits would be considered vandalism, but he continues to revert, now calling the undoing of his edits to be acts of "sneaky vandalism." (
	He is also removing content from various articles under the claim that information shouldn't be repeated in an article (examples: , ), despite it being appropriate information and my explaining to him that information can and should appear both in the lead and within the article proper.
	At this point, its down to just undoing everything he is doing in these areas, and I'm hoping perhaps he will be more willing to listen to an admin since he is completely discounting the comments of other editors. I'm not entirely sure his edits are fully vandalism, but they are becoming very disruptive. ] (]) 23:22, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
	:As an update, he is now leaving false warnings on the pages of those undoing his actions , and is selectively canvassing relatively new, inexperienced editors to try to get them to agree with him in an attempt to "form a new consensus" . He is also continuing to edit war over his changes, blanking out content of infoboxes or outright reverting the undos of his bad formatting and calling it vandalism . He is showing that he has absolutely no desire to actual improve or work with the community, and is ignoring more notes from experienced editors telling him that his format idea is wrong. ] (]) 01:16, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
	] (]) 06:43, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
	Firstly, the reason why I persist in making the alterations on the ] episode page is to improve it for other users. I have the good of the community in mind and for that reason I want to help improve Misplaced Pages. Secondly, it is true I contacted two other users for a second opinion, both are not inexperienced and both agree with my minor adjustments to the layout. Collectonian does not like the fact that other users agree with me, and to report me for making changes he does not agree with is folly.
	It is he who is reverting constructive alterations that I have made, which still follow the Misplaced Pages policy on the “lead”, which isn’t even compulsory to follow anyway. I will stand up to the likes of Collectonian; if he can get people banned for undoing his edits and get them banned for making improvements, then how unjust the Wiki system actually is. I would report him, but i don't thing it is a constructive method in solving deputes. ] (]) 11:11, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
	:Have either of you considered ] and trying to follow ]? ] (]) 11:21, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
	::Good faith or not, the policies have been show to EditoMagica, who ignores them. That is vandalism whether he thinks he's improving the pages or not. --] (]) 14:11, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
	::I AGFed at first, and tried to explain in detail why his edits were wrong, but EditoMagica has made it clear that he doesn't care. He removes content from articles because he thinks it shouldn't be "repeated" in the infobox (despite being told the infobox is a summary, not a standalone) and he is refactoring episode lists articles to remove the ] in favor of another section of lists of statistics, despite again being told that it violates the MOS, the lead, and the consensus for episode list formatting. He is now taking these edits to other episode lists and of course he is continuing on the KUA list. He also completely blanked the talk page of Keeping Up Appearances despite his edit history showing he knows very well how to properly edit a talk page. Its hard to AGF when he has already said very plainly that he doesn't care about Misplaced Pages policies or guidelines and instead is calling the clean up of his mess "sneaky vandalism" and making other accusations against the editors keeping him from ruining the articles (such as the one he left on your talk page which is obviously not a good faith remark). He's been told numerous times this isn't just the opinion of UpDown and myself (who normally, by the way, tend to disagree), but of the entire Television project, Anime project, and BBC project, all of which deal with television episode lists, and of the FL process, which EditoMagica would realize if he would actually look at the MOS and featured episode lists as was suggested. This was brought here because he will NOT listen to other editors, hence the need for admin intervention as his edits are very disruptive. His claims of support are from one or two other editors who are also as inexperienced as he is, and he continues to claim this support of two trumps to consensus of the hundreds of members of those projects and of Misplaced Pages guidelines as a whole. He is also blatantly ignoring two other editors telling him he is wrong. Despite his accusations, I'm not asking for him to be banned, but corrected and only blocked if he continues to be disruptive. ] (]) 15:30, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
	:This really is getting out of hand now; EditoMagica is being hugely disruptive and seems to think that his way of writing an episode list is the best way, and the fact one or two editors apparently back him up he thinks means he has "popular support". These things are backed up policy, guidelines and by looking at relevant FA. All these go against EditoMagica but he ignores this. In addition, he fails to understand that what is in the infobox is always repeated in the article proper (like the LEAD). If he won't listen to advise and guidelines he will need to be blocked for the sake of Misplaced Pages.--] (]) 14:11, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
	And he continues leaving fake warnings on people's use pages and again trying to mess up the KUA episode article. I really wish an admin would look at this. Edito*Magica is trying to harass other users to get his way, insulting other editors, and being disruptive. He is not going to listen to warnings from "regular" editors as he thinks he knows better than all of us, and his actions will only discourage people from working on those articles to give them the final polish they need to be potential FL candidates. ] (]) 15:21, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
	== Deletion of cultural impact sections ==
	I've had a problem with editor ], and I'd like some clarification. On the page for ], I had readded a section detailing a reference to the song on ]. After some discussion on the edit page , it stood. ] then deleted it, saying it was not notable.
	After I pointed out to him several other articles of note that contained cultural references sections, he went through and deleted every one of those sections without any discussion. He has since gone on to redelete every editors attempt to readd the section,
	without explanation on the talk page.
	I don't want to enter into an edit war with this editor, much less one that stretches across multiple pages, so I've tried to engage him in a discussion on his page ] and also the ] page. He is deadset against the validity of sections detailing cultural impact or references, and doesn't seem to want to discuss it before deleting them.
	By my understanding and experience of watching and editing wikipedia pages, the general consensus is that these cultural reference sections are approved. Personally, I enjoy them if they're edited well. In my opinion, references in other works help to show the notability of the quoted work.
	Anyway, my opinion doesn't matter much in this, I'm only here to ask about consensus on these sections. Am I out of line for asking for discussion before deletion on something that's common on wikipedia pages dealing with songs/movies/tv shows?
	Any advice would be greatly appreciated, as I certainly don't want to edit war. I'd like to make sure I understand the current consensus. Thanks. ] (]) 00:06, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
	::OK, there has been alot of discussion over the years regarding cultural significance/crosscultural references etc. with folks lining up on both sides. The surest way to avoid rather messy edit wars from time to time is getting ''3rd party'' references. eg. some book, encyclopedia or journal citing the relevance. I have not seen the diffs yet. If you have any references and ''referenced'' material is being deleted then that is more difficult for him to defend. cheers, ]&nbsp;(]&nbsp;'''·''' ]) 00:22, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
	:(edit conflict) Generally these sections are quite frowned upon - usually almost all of these pop-culture references are not relevant to discussion of that topic, though they ''might'' be relevant in the article of the connecting subject. See ] and ]. I'd have to agree with the removals in the articles you cited above, and would prune or remove them if I came across them; they are all rather unwieldy and off-topic, and leave the articles less focused. '''<font color="#ff9900">]</font><font color="#ff6699">]</font>''' 00:28, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
	::Is there a Family Guy wiki? I am baffled by the astonishing number of citations I see to this series here on Misplaced Pages; it (along with ] and ] seems to be referenced everywhere, and I suspect that those three series are the heart of every trivia section on this project. I'd love to see some sort of pop-culture wiki where all of the trivia content could be transwikied and be done with it. ''']''' <small>]</small> 00:39, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
	::::Snowfire, this is the tip of a larger iceberg, many of the themes can be seen ]. I think some can definitely be referenced and written better. Some on quick scanning are clearly notable while others are less so. Thus the need for some references or commentary/3rd party sourcing. cheers, ]&nbsp;(]&nbsp;'''·''' ]) 00:45, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
	::::Horologium, I have proposed the same thing in the past. I think it's the only viable long-term solution to the inclusionist/deletionist wars regarding popular culture articles. ] 02:48, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
	:::::The problem is that fans of shows whose stock in trade is making pop-culture references love their shows so much that they want to add every joke to every applicable article. It's almost an extension of the 'plot summary' problem seen on many TV Episdoe articles. ] (]) 03:38, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
	::::::I concur with ThuranX, and I'd like to add that the connections themselves would be unverifiable from a historical perspective. Many connections make sense now to quite a few editors but do not necessarily support the historical perspective of an article of the topic. Every kind of media will be culturally attuned to the contemporary environment, which is constantly changing. The uncited connections of popular culture references won't make sense to readers 50 years from now since they cannot dwell in and thus comprehend the environment that entitles current viewers and readers to "get" the references. Ultimately, the most important references will be addressed by secondary sources, not necessarily in the same decade as the media. —<font face="Palatino Linotype">]</font> (] • ]) - 05:41, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
	:::::::Not to be argumentative, but if I say "Vitameatavegamin", or "a rilly big sheeeeewwww," a substantial group knows what I'm referring to, even fifty years later. I can't speak for "South Park", but I'm reasonably certain that "Family Guy" will be a similarly-remembered show, and I'll be shocked if "The Simpsons" isn't. (Okay, actually in 50 years there's a more-than-reasonable chance I won't be around to BE shocked, but I trust you take my point.) ] 16:23, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
	::::::::Most people here have no idea about "A rilly big sheeeeewwww", and even the name ] doesn't ring a bell for many of them. (I'm almost 40, and I don't remember the sheeeeewwww myself.) Vitameatavegamin is probably a lot more widely known, because of the widespread reruns of ]. While I think ] and ] will be remembered 50 years from now (both pushed the envelope in ways that ] never did), I doubt that FG will have the same impact, and its densely packed current pop-culture references will date it badly. Just my own thoughts; YMMV. ''']''' <small>]</small> 16:37, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
	::Is that the sort of judgments we should be making, or should we be recording popular culture as it becomes notable, whatever we think of the actual merits? ''']''' (]) 18:15, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
	:The sad fact is that there is no current consensus about "cultural impact" sections. Such sections have both flaws and virtues, and there are editors both new and experienced who may loathe them or champion them.
	:Although content removal does not go by the same rules as XfD, it is probably best to go by the standing convention in XfDs that "no consensus" defaults to "keep". Otherwise people could edit-war their way to deleting any part of the encyclopedia they dislike. I am with you in that I do not want to edit war over such material; the solution here is that ] should be urged to form a consensus for the deletion of such material if others contest his removal of it. If he opts to edit war to enforce his views over it, ] are well established.--] (]) 22:59, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
	== User:RDOlivaw, User:Unprovoked and User:DrEightyEight‎ ==
	{{archivetop}}
	Blocks for sockpuppetry have been placed on {{User|RDOlivaw}}, {{User|Unprovoked}} and {{User|DrEightyEight‎}} by ] on the basis of a checkuser run by ] and ]. See ] for details including concern that a University proxy in Grenoble and the network of Nottingham University may have been indefblocked. No details seem to have been made public about the alleged disruption arousing suspicion. .. ], ] 00:11, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
	:As a very old commercial for ] noted, "show me the beef". We seem to be going round in circles in our quest for evidence. ]<sup>]</sup> 00:35, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
	:Autoblocking the uni proxy is a very rookie mistake, and at the very least that needs to be cleaned up. ''"For the admin who reviews this, please first talk to User:Thatcher or User:Deskana. Checkuser evidence shows that this user and user User:DrEightyEight are connected to the account User:Unprovoked and on February 1, 2008 they edited from the same IP address, alternating, in a matter of minutes which puts them on the same computer. Lara❤Love 18:16, 10 February 2008 (UTC)"'' seems like a some very weak evidence to block first and ask questions later. Blocking is a last resort. -- ] 03:07, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
	::Hi Ned, nice to see you ''again''. Rookie? I went on the results and recommendations of a bureaucrat/checkuser and another checkuser. Also, , according to said 'crat. So have a seat. Checkusers and 'crats have the trust of the community, so considering two of them have stated that the evidence links them, everyone needs to move along. It's not a , a Albion moonlight refers to it. It's not shady or weak. It's actually (Thatcher or Deskana correct me if I misinterpreted) pretty strong evidence. So as much as I like a nice puddle of spewed bad faith on my talk page and an ANI on my action without anyone notifying me of it, I've got work to do. ''']''']''']''' 04:18, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
	:::The number of times checkusers and checkuser results have resulted in blocking of non-socks is great enough that one would be a fool to simply "move along". ], anyone? I really need to start keeping a list. And Lara, please stop taking this so personally. Look around at the comments aimed at other admins, they're pretty cold at times too, but you don't see them freaking out every time someone objects to a decision they made. -- ] 04:44, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
	::::Let me spell it out, we have more than one user using a uni proxy, and again haven't even stopped to consider that they might ''know'' each other. -- ] 04:45, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
	:::::Don't play that "don't take it personal" card. This is not like the last situation you popped your head into regarding me. I'm not taking this personal. I'm pointing out that you're challenging the block of socks confirmed by two checkusers based on failure to do your research. RDO already stated he doesn't know Dr88. Yet, they edited from the same computer and the ''same IP'' alternating within minutes of each other.
	:::::> * 23:08, 1 February 2008 (DrEightyEight)
	:::::> * 23:06, 1 February 2008 (RDOlivaw)
	:::::> * 23:01, 1 February 2008 (DrEightyEight)
	:::::Is that how dynamic IPs work? ''']''']''']''' 05:12, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
	::::::I have over 30 active comments on WP:ANI right now, most involving blocking discussions related to sock puppet accusations, and you believe I'm going after you? WTF? You being the blocking admin makes little difference. I'm challenging a block that where normal users don't have access to the evidence, and are asking for a little more explanation than "trust the holy checkuser results". They might be socks, and I'm certainly not asserting they're not, but I am well within my right to question something like this. -- ] 05:25, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
	*Ned, frankly I know more than you, and without discussing the details I can only say that RDOlivaw's unblock request bears only a passing resemblance to the truth. I would strongly suggest that these accounts not be unblocked, unless it is to give this user a second chance, and that any admins moved to unblock should first contact Arbcom, who can review my findings in confidence. ] 05:16, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
	:*I don't question that you know more about this than me, and I have a lot of respect for you. But given past incidences I hope you can understand why we might question stuff like this. -- ] 05:25, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
	*As has been shown at ] there's a concern that the edits concerned were made from a Static IP address (Freebox) where the modem has the static IP, and multiple computers can use the modem and will show the same IP. That could perhaps explain the sequence LaraLove shows above. DrEightyEight had been indefblocked with autoblock enabled, so I've unblocked and reblocked with the autoblock removed, in case that was also blocking a university network. ] has never been blocked, and I don't know if there are any other accounts blocked in this connection which could have the same issue. Presumably the DrEightyEight whois relates to Grenoble university, however an IP which RDOlivaw apparently used more recently when logged out showed as a Nottingham University network on whois. I've requested clarification of the alleged disruption but have yet to be shown any diffs or any indication other than the claim that "they have supported one another in various discussions regarding article content and such". Concerns have been raised in the past about indefblocking newbies, and care is needed. . . . ], ] 09:57, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
	Let me clear up a couple of things. First, LaraLove did not know that RDOlivaw was editing from a proxy at Univ Nottingham, because I didn't tell her--IPs are rarely disclosed, except when absolutely necessary or when the editor has given it away himself. I didn't check for other editors because at the time I ran the check, RDOlivaw had only 3 edits on this IP and they were not germane to the issue of sockpuppetry. If I had checked, I would have seen a lot of good users and I would have told her to disable the autoblock. But I didn't. Second, RDOlivaw has himself stated that he edits through a "University proxy." and from wi-fi. There is nothing in the whois or rdns information for his Grenoble IP address to indicate that it is a proxy and he is the only editor on that IP. But for the one edit that gives him away, he has no logged-in edits from any other location such as wi-fi hot spots. Finally, it is clear to me that these two accounts were carefully created to give the appearance of being different individuals. RDOlivaw edits exclusively from University during work hours Monday-Friday, and DrEightyEight edits exclusively from a residential IP (probably DSL) on nights and weekends. ''Except for one mistake'', the best I would ordinarily be able to say is ''possible based on similar geolocation.'' I am normally hesitant to describe precisely what that mistake was, to avoid making this person a smarter sockpuppeteer next time, but Deskana has already given away the basics on user talk:RDOlivaw. DrEightyEight edits exclusively from a single residential IP address, probably DSL. There are no edits from other users suggesting this might be a wi-fi hotspot or LAN. This series of edits
	::> * 23:08, 1 February 2008 (DrEightyEight)
	::> * 23:06, 1 February 2008 (RDOlivaw)
	::> * 23:01, 1 February 2008 (DrEightyEight)
	were all made from DrEightyEight's residential IP address. These two editors have stated they do not know each other, the only possible explanation is that DrEightyEight is running an unsecured wi-fi hotspot that no one has every used except himself, ''but for'' one day when RDOlivaw was driving home from work and was struck by a sudden need to protest his being added to the list of editors under probation and by coincidence was driving past DrEightyEight's apartment and found his hotspot for a single edit. ] 13:03, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
	:The commonality of the subject of these edits should also be noted.
	:RDOlivaw (23:06): ""
	:DrEightyEight (23:08): "" <-- Speaking of Homeopathy probation. ''']''']''']''' 15:22, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
	:''Yet, they edited from the same computer and the same IP alternating within minutes of each other.'' - the _lack_ of this rapid-fire alternation on the same IP address was used as evidence _against_ Jeffrey O Gustafson; and your claim that it was "the same computer" is absolutely unsupported as an independent claim vs merely being the same IP address. —] 16:26, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
	::It's not unsupported at all. The checkuser tool gives information on the computers used to make edits. The fact that they edited from the same private residential IP to ask the same question within minutes of each other, on the same kind of machine... that's not suspicious to you? When that is their *only* overlap? You need to think like a sockpuppeteer to understand them. --] <small>]</small> 16:32, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
	:::The checkuser tool does not and cannot make evaluations about how much equipment is operating at an IP address (and i'm not aware that it returns browser, user agent etc data, even though it would be technically possible for it or another tool to do so - which would be necessary to even say "the same kind of machine") - that was all that I was saying. I didn't mean to be questioning the validity of the sockpuppetry claim in general, it's just that saying "from the same computer '''and''' the same IP" makes the claim sound stronger without adding more substance. —] 17:42, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
	::::Same user agent, whatever. RDOlivaw has just one overlapping edit, his "fingerprint," on a static residential DSL IP used exclusively by DrEightyEight. Otherwise RDOlivaw edits exclusively from a college during working hours and DrEightyEight edits exclusively from his residence during non-working hours and weekends. I guess they are roommates, and RDOlivaw has never, in the last month, had an urge to make more than a single edit outside of working hours. ] 18:21, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
	:::::User agent? Does wikimedia use some kind of fancy extended checkuser that's not pictured in ]? —] 21:47, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
	* Dave souza, thank you for making me aware of this thread. Simultaneous to Thatcher looking at these users, Deskana forwarded the issue to the ArbCom mailing list. Several current and former arbitrators with CU looked at the evidence and felt that that there was abusive use of multiple accounts through either socking or meat puppets. I do not think that we have made a mistake here but as always are glad to answer questions. There are restrictions on what is ordinarily disclosed to adhere to the Privacy policy and keep sockmasters from learning how to beat the system. This may make our decision seems weaker than it actually is. ]] 18:11, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
	:::Small point (as in "I might've been wr, wr, wrong):
	::::The English of RDO and Dr88 is a bit different, but hardly enough to distinguish between the two. Also, there is one troubling similarity: both RDO and Dr88 end their posts without punctuation, adding instead two dashes (--) followed immediately by the sig. Finally, neither one seems to like edit summaries, at least on that talk page.
	:::The above isn't conclusive evidence, of course, but it does seem an odd quirk to share. ]<sup>]</sup> 22:10, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
	*Thanks to everyone and in particular Thatcher, for clarifying the detail of the checkuser supporting the blocks of RDOlivaw and User:DrEightyEight. That's rather more detail than I was expecting, but certainly it's informative. You don't mention‎ User:Unprovoked – if that user has been cleared, presumably the sockpuppetry template should be removed from the user page. Anyway, it's certainly been educational for me, and there seem to have been procedural issues that might be improved in the light of the outcome. The notice placed on ] stating "evidence presented here: Refer to User:Thatcher," wasn't terribly helpful as there was nothing on your talk page about the case, and an enquiry made to the blocking admin had met with an accusation of bad faith. An enquiry was then made to you, but by the time I read your response RDOlivaw had already raised the question of blocked university networks. The user had disclosed an IP which showed on whois as Nottingham University, but obviously I was cautious about disabling the autoblocks – which was a major reason for my late night posting here, and I'm glad that the autoblocks were disabled by reasonably early on Monday morning to minimise any disruption. So, in conclusion, it might be best for blocking admins to be ready to answer questions about reasons for blocking, preferably indicating the alleged disruption as well as the simple fact that a checkuser had been carried out. Where block notices refer to another admin's page, it would be helpful if that admin's talk page had a mention of the blocking. And obviously care has to be taken to avoid autoblocking networks. It's sad that what seemed to be a promising editor has to be blocked, but there is indeed a considerable weight of evidence of sockpuppetry. Thanks for your help, .. ], ] 22:38, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
	:I apologize for the confusion. I thought it would be obvious that directing one to ] and ], being that they are CUs, meant to direct questions to them rather than check their userpages for evidence in a sockpuppet case. Regardless, reports filed at RFCU don't give details, and I didn't even have all the details. I wasn't sure how much was supposed to be revealed, so I didn't find it appropriate to give out any of the CU results. As far as my comment linked above, considering OrangeMarlin's post to my talk page was "...there's nothing I dislike more than a sockpuppet, except for an admin that makes improper blocks" and the section below referred to the situation as a "conspiracy", I'm not sure how I was supposed to take that in good faith. But perhaps it's just me. Either way, I'll file a report in the future. ''']''']''']''' 22:52, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
	::Thanks, I wasn't thinking of anything more than "they were colluding on page x, and checkuser has confirmed they are sockpuppets, ask Thatcher for any further details". I appreciate that there was some snarking going on with OM and Whig, but Jim had made a reasonable enquiry and a simple answer would have cleared things up quickly. We all make mistakes, as I did when forgetting to tell you and the others about this AN/I. Sorry about that, .. ], ] 23:07, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
	I think the situation is resolved now. Evidence is strong, users remain blocked. Apologies given and accepted all around, everyone have a beer (I'll have some Dr Pepper) and it's done. Good times. ''']''']''']''' 01:34, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
	{{archivebottom}}
	== NYScholar block overturned ==
	NYScholar edits at four times the rate of most of us, but has a Wikibreak notice permanently on his user page, and a talk page header that basically says "Please don't put any messages on my talk page; I'm too busy to respond". If anyone posts on his talk page, even for matters that really do require a considered response, such as asking him to prove or withdraw a false accusation of personal attacks, he accuses the poster of harassing or upsetting him by ignoring his request not to message him, and then he archives the discussion, i.e. deletes it from his talk page, copying it into an archive which others are not permitted to edit. If anyone pulls the thread back onto this talk page to continue the discussion, the cycle repeats - accusations of harassment, followed by an immediate archive.
	] put his modus operandi like this:
	:"you make false accusations and then archive quickly before your victim has an opportunity to respond, forcing them to leave it unchallenged in your archive so it looks to anyone not aware of the truth that it's true, or your victim restores the thread and responds, only to be hammered with more false accusations and lies.... "
	Yesterday I warned NYScholar that his management of his talk page was disruptive, and asked him to stop archiving active threads. A number of other administrators chimed in with support. NYScholar subsequently archived that very thread three times. I therefore applied a 24 hour block, expressing the hope that this would convince him to find a method of managing his talk page that is in line with community expectations.
	In my absence, ] overturned the blocked, characterising my block as "you blocked this user for archiving or deleting content on his talk page", claiming that NYScholar's behaviour is in line with ], and asserting that my block was ''punitive'' because it did not ''prevent'' NYScholar from editing his talk page.
	I cannot understand how Sandstein cannot see that this behaviour is disruptive. I cannot see how s/he can imagine that ] endorses this kind of behaviour. And I don't see how s/he manages to function effectively with such a narrow, technical interpretation of ''preventative'' - in my view the whole point of ''punitive'' v ''preventative'' is that blocks should be applied not when a user has done wrong, but when they are likely to continue doing so. There is no requirement that the block must directly technically prevent the action being censured, else we would never again bother to block for block evasion, sockpuppetteering, or anything at all that happens on a user's own talk page, no matter how awful.
	All in all, I find Sandstein's rationale for unblocking to be so bizarre that I don't think we can work it out between us. That is not to criticise Sandstein, who is operating in good faith according to his/her own understanding of policy. But we seem to be so far removed in our respective approaches that there can be no meeting of the minds. I would like to hear some outside opinion on the correctness of my block and Sandstein's unblock.
	] 00:15, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
	:I think NYScholar should stay blocked, preferably indefinitely. He is consistently rude and tendentious, and has in at least one case forced a false and unnecessary license tag onto an image because of his own inaccurate interpretation of the statements of third parties. Misplaced Pages would be better off without him. ] 00:57, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
	:: Hesperian, on what basis did you block? You used "disruption" as the reason. Please provide diffs for that disruption. ] <small>]</small> 01:02, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
	::::Jossi, in this as in most cases, disruption is a pattern of editing that is difficult to capture in a few diffs; I probably can't do much better than Crotalus below, although I could provide a hell of a lot more such diffs. What Crotalus' diffs are missing is context: If someone accused you of making a personal attack, and you asked them to prove or withdraw that accusation, how would you feel if they simply deleted it unreplied, then accused you of harassing them by ignoring their request that people not post on their talk page? That's what happened to Moondyne. If you were trying to hold a serious discussion with someone, and they kept replying with false accusations, then immediately archiving, so that the discussion ended with their false accusations ensconsed in an archive that is not supposed to be edited, how would you feel? And if you decided to bring that discussion back to the talk page to respond to said false accusations, only to be accused of disruption and harassment for doing so, how would you feel? That's what happened to Sarah. And if that user deleted that discussion within a couple of minutes of it being brought back, over and over again, how would you feel? That's what has happened to everyone who has tried to engage this user over the last two day. The warning I gave was "I'm now giving you a formal warning that your management of this talk page is disruptive, because it is likely to cause anger and frustration amongst your collaborators." And that is exactly what has happened; that page shows reams and reams of discussion from angry, frustrated people, who want a redress that NYScholar is denying them through what amounts to a low down dirty trick. If this is not disruptive, I'll eat my hat. ] 01:46, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
	:::::: Blocks are not punitive, but preventative. A user's talk page can be edited by a blocked user, so blocking NYScholar will be punitive as it does not prevent him from doing what he was doing before. Encourage the user to follow ], or, if the behavior iwarrants it, start a user ], so that the community can give him feedback. ] <small>]</small> 01:51, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
	:::::::I've already gone through this punitive-preventative issue above; didn't you read it? You don't seem to be addressing what I said about it. ] 01:54, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
	:::See , , and for some examples I found in the past day or so. He simply refuses to discuss issues with other contributors and instead accuses them of disruption, using this as an excuse to "archive" (delete) comments from his talk page. Ability to work in a collaborative environment is necessary for Misplaced Pages editors, and this one gets a F- on that score based on his repeated actions. ] 01:15, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
	:::See also which contains an extensive record of misbehavior including repeat 3RR blocks, legal threats, and trolling. ] 01:16, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
	:He should have been blocked long ago for disruption on ] and related pages. I've fixed the license information on that image, and I would appreciate if an administrator could go and undelete the old, high-resolution version, since it meets Misplaced Pages standards. ] 01:07, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
	:Sorry ], I read the diffs, and I do not think that you can block an editor on that basis. I support the unblock. Invite the user to pursue ] instead. ] <small>]</small> 01:24, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
	::I am not an administrator and didn't block him. But I think he should remain blocked because his presence is a net detriment to Misplaced Pages. ] 01:25, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
	I would have to agree with ]'s summary of things, with an emphasis on '''false''' accusations. Any attempt to correct the record is promptly deleted. One example - NYScholar strikes through a comment I made, and when I point out that such actions are expressly verboten per ], s/he deletes both the original comments and my reply, leaving instead a post claiming that s/he had to delete it because I reverted his/her strikeout. Patently false. S/he also claims to know my motivations, as when s/he claims that I am only doing so to "upset" him/her. Quite frankly, I find this user very difficult to work with; s/he insists that other editors should read his/her ] to understand his/her editing summaries, user had made claims that using citation templates introduces "vast problems," and continually refers to the opinions and edits of others as "ridiculous." Add to this the tendency to make huge numbers of small edits (which several editors have likened to not useing the "show preview" button), and it becomes almost impossible to work collaboratively with NYScholar. ] (]) 01:32, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
	:As with any privilege, when abused, it needs to be curtailed. If NYScholar is going to abuse the privilege of archiving talkpage comments, then he needs to be placed on some kind of probation in that regards. --] (]) 01:42, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
	::I agree - a probation of some form should be the minimum expectation here. While policy allows archiving of talk pages, doing so mid-discussion as a move to end scrutiny of one's actions is downright disruptive. Furthermore, on principle, I would have declined the unblock on the basis that the unblock request itself contained a personal attack. ] 01:49, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
	:::I agree with OIC and Hesperian about the talk page disruption and I was particularly disappointed to see the block unilaterally overturned on a page which contains numerous attacks against multiple users, false accusations, and incredibly disruptive userspace practices, without so much as a warning or obtaining an undertaking to cease the attacks. UP is a guideline that has limits and says so. If people's userspace practices are disruptive and it gets in the way of the project (as is most certainly the case here) then they need to stop or be stopped. ] 03:37, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
	NYS is possibly the most frustrating editor I've come across here. His/her talk page (history, don't bother just reading the current content or the selectively updated archives) and block log is littered with warnings from exasperated admins and non-admins. And thats not counting the still unresolved false accusations of personal attack against Sarah and myself. In this context I was amazed that a nominal 24 hour block was hastily overturned by Sandstein without any of the other admins currently communicating with NYS (Hesperian, Sarah and myself) having time to respond. Why the rush? A better course of action would have left the block in place rather than giving the benefit of the doubt to a known disruptive user at least until until an involved admin could comment. &mdash;] 01:59, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
	*So, without any comment on the block itself, it appears that Sandstein overturned a block without any attempt to contact the blocking admin? --] (]) 02:38, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
	::Actually, an attempt was made ]. —]] 02:46, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
	::I didn't mean to imply that Sandstein didn't contact the blocking admin. &mdash;] 02:51, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
	:::Contacted in the most perfunctory manner - the sensible action to take would have been to communicate with the blocking admin. As it turned out, he would only have had to wait a further 3 or 4 hours, and none of this drama would have been necessary. ] 03:32, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
	Another bad block, and another admin that needs to review our blocking policy. While admins are supposed to use their good judgement in situations, they are not to ''replace'' policy with that judgement. -- ] 02:54, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
	:And IAR doesn't cover "well, we don't like this user, so we'll look the other way". -- ] 02:56, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
	::Would you care to explain why you think it's a bad block? ] (]) 02:59, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
	:::You mean the part where a user was blocked for rapidly archiving their talk page? -- ] 03:11, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
	::::It is easy to make something look wrong if you simplify it until it is. ] 03:16, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
	::And your IAR comment too please? Who was that addressed to? Who's trying to invoke IAR here? ] 03:02, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
	:::(to Hersperian) No one, it was a bit of a preemptive comment. -- ] 03:08, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
	::::Well, it seems we agree on one thing - IAR is the most over-invoked policy on Misplaced Pages... unless it be second after POINT. ] 03:11, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
	But Ned, you're wrong if you think this will be cleared up by me reviewing the blocking policy. I believe that the block was proper, both in policy and common sense terms. I opened this thread to get some feedback, and your feedback is welcome. But it isn't constructive unless you take the time to explain ''why'' you think this was a bad block. ] 03:14, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
	I have just undone the "archiving" of this thread by ]. Way out of line shutting down an active discussion that you're involved in and want to have stopped. ] 03:30, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
	:I was trying to figure out WHY this had been archived. A bad archiving, and a bad unblock. Archiving all talk page activity and continuing with bad practices isn't the purpose of the 'if they delete it, they saw it' rule of thumb for Talk pages. IF you're approached about stuff repeatedly, and always make a show of ignoring it, then you need to stop editing here till you CAN work with others. ] (]) 03:36, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
	::Precisely. This is exactly my belief, too, ThuranX. ] 08:06, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
	'''Comment by the unblocking admin:''' I acknowledge that I should have been more diligent in contacting Hesperian, and I apologise that I did not wait longer for a reply by him or her before
	unblocking. As to the merits of the block I've presented my point of view on my talk page, at ]. To summarise, I fail to understand how someone can be blocked merely for the act of deleting or archiving content on their talk page, a practice that – although it may be impolite – is explicitly allowed by ]. This is not to say NYScholar could or should not have been blocked for any other misconduct she or he may have been guilty of, just that a block merely for deleting things on one's own talk page is inappropriate. ] (]) 05:49, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
	:NYScholar makes a baseless personal attack against Moondyne. Moondyne posts a message asking him to prove it or withdraw it. NYScholar blanks the request unreplied two minutes later. You may have your own opinion on whether or not this is appropriate, and you may have your own opinion on whether or not the modus operandi of doing this to virtually every post, irrespective of the state of the discussion, constitutes disruption. But to assert that ] affords NYScholar ''carte blanche'' to do what he is doing is an insult to the good people who wrote that page. ] 06:05, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
	::But WP:UP ''does'' allow this. A great number of times people have pointed out that a user's talk page is for messages ''to'' that user, not from that user. There's nothing stopping anyone from talking to him. If they want to leave the discussion open the can make a copy of it on their own talk page. -- ] 06:16, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
	Part of where this came from appears to be located in the following, and after reading it, I am now even more convinced that a bad call was made here. This should explain ''why'' such behaviour is disruptive. I believe Sandstein should have read this and taken it into account before making such a controversial decision. Quoted in full below from NYScholar's talk page. ] 05:50, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
	:''I must say that I've been very concerned about NYScholar's use of this page for a couple of months now and have kept his/her page on my watchlist as a result. I had to contact NYScholar because the foundation was contacted by the brother of a man NYScholar claimed had died but in reality was still alive. The brother hadn't had recent contact and was distressed to learn of his brother's "death" via a google search of his name. He wished to talk to NYScholar to find out the details of his brother's "death". Only NYScholar declined email contact saying s/he prefers all contact to be on site (fair enough, I suppose). This forced the brother to register for an account specifically to to talk to NYScholar but a couple of hours after responding, NYScholar archived his/her talk page. It seemed rather rude to me that NYScholar would claim a man had died, causing his family great distress only to immediately archive the thead. Do you think someone who has never used Misplaced Pages before and who came here to address such a matter would have seen NYScholar's reply in the couple of hours it was posted? Would he have known where to find the archived reply or would he have thought his message had simply been deleted without response and then given up in disgust? Makes you wonder what kind of message people unfamiliar with Misplaced Pages must get. I had to apologise to the poor man several times. ] 13:52, 9 February 2008 (UTC)'' (reposted in AN/I by ] 05:50, 11 February 2008 (UTC))
	:But NYScholar responded to this person. He apologized and explained himself. NY didn't anticipate that the guy might not see his message, and that is all. That is certainly not a blockable offense. -- ] 06:00, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
	::He even left the guy a note on his talk page, ]. Clearly NYScholar wasn't trying to be disruptive. -- ] 06:05, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
	:::(e.c.) This post was on at the time of his unblock request, but it was not cited in his block reason, and for that reason I did not acquaint myself with it specifically. If this account is true, NYscholar may have it made rather difficult to communicate with the brother, but it seems from this account that he ''did'' respond to him. If this episode was the basis for the block at issue, not just NYscholar's practice of deleting talk page threads in general, the blocking admin should have said so and should have cited this (and possibly other) specific incivilities. That's not to say the block would have been justified then either, but at least it might have been possible to evaluate it more thoroughly. ] (]) 06:18, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
	::::The Achtert issue is a red herring and really has nothing to do with the block that I'm aware of. I only raised it when I did to explain the point that I personally became concerned with the way NYScholar was conducting the page with hyperediting and controversial claims and false allegations about people followed by rapid archiving, effectively preventing them from responding. I am very concerned and upset by his personal attacks, and utterly false claims and accusations. This is just exacerbated by the fact that he rapidly archives so that the 'victim' can not respond. They can't edit the archive where the claims are and if they attempt to repost on his talk page, he accuses them of harassment and of causing him upset etc etc. His talk page practices are massively disruptive. Also, I might add that I never claimed that NYScholar didn't respond to Mr Achtert...so if y'all are getting that idea you're barking up the wrong tree. What I have claimed is his talk page practices exacerbated that very unfortunate situation and it did. ] 08:06, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
	:::::Bad judgement is not a reason to block. Intentional disruption is. I can't speak for other situations, but it's very clear that NY meant no disruption when he responded to the brother's message (he even left a message on that user's talk page). Not only that, but for that specific issue it seems that NY was not attempting to make some kind of "zomg, false accusation" to hurt anyone, but made an honest and simple mistake, one which he corrected and apologized for, before this incident even happened. The brother found the comment on a talk page archive. NY could be the biggest asshole in the world for all I know, but I'm getting tired of you guys trying to make him look like a monster because of the Achtert incident. Even assholes have a heart, and I have no reason to believe that NY was doing anything in that situation with the intent on being misleading, sneaky, or any other form of disruption. -- ] 21:59, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
	::::::Oh, Ned. ''Red herring''. As I said. The Achtert incident happened months ago and it had nothing to do with the block...I don't know how many times it needs to be said that he was blocked for disruption. You don't seem to be understanding this and have been sucked into a red herring tangent. And "you guys" is a bit rich given that I was the ''only one'' who had mentioned the incident and was, in fact, the only one who even ''knew'' about it since I was the one who handled the OTRS complaint and I never discussed it with anyone else or raised it on-site until I noticed the dispute at the weekend on NYScholar's talk page about his problematic editing practices. If you have a complaint about the Achtert issue then it's all me. I'm the one you should be taking issue with and accusing "you guys" of making NYScholar "look like a monster because of the Achtert incident" is extremely unfair on the others involved in this. You're tarring them with my brush, they've never had anything to do with it, never even knew about it, and never opined about it at all (except, perhaps in OIC's cut and paste of my comment above). So if you have an issue with it, take it up with me but trying to dismiss the entirety of this dispute which ''had nothing to do with Achtert'' because of it is very silly. You also don't seem to understand that this block evolved from a dispute in which NYScholar accused Moondyne of making personal attacks, refused to retract the accusation, refused to provide proof of personal attacks and, in fact, stood by the accusation and quickly archived the discussion, declaring it "unnecessary discussion". That's what was the starting point of this dispute. You're stuck in a red herring, Ned. Furthermore, I take issue with this: "Bad judgement is not a reason to block." If I thought otherwise, I would have blocked NYScholar months ago when the Achtert incident happened. You seem to think that you're arguing against me on that but you're not. Please try to understand that the Achtert incident had nothing to do with the block. He was blocked for disruption after several warnings from multiple administrators. ] 02:00, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
	It's funny how things change. A little while ago the prevailing attitude was that users might be given a little latitude in how they manage their user and talk pages, but ultimately those pages belong to the project and were subject to the various rules, expectations and even vagaries of the community. Perhaps this mode of thinking was a product of the userbox wars. I must have nodded off for a moment, because the sudden change of attitude has come as a surprise. All of a sudden a man's talk page is his castle, and he can do whatever he damn well likes on it, no matter how outrageous, no matter how it pisses people off, no matter how disruptive. I suppose this change is a backlash against the ridiculous warring over the removal of warning messages. This had become a real problem, and I'm glad it has been resolved. But methinks the pendulum has now swung way too far. ] 10:48, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
	:I don't know how that's the "prevailing attitude"; only two people here have expressed that attitude. -] <small>]</small> 01:16, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
	::Hesperian - that's certainly not an attitude I would support. You can't attack someone on your talk page. You can't violate copyright. You can't put someone's home address and telephone number. But archive it "early", when we have no guidelines about how long message should stay there? I can't see that as a disruption. I'm sorry it wasn't convenient. Frankly, I think NYScholar was pretty irritating with it. But I just don't see it as a blockable offense. - ] &#124; ] 01:26, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
	::::Perhaps I haven't been clear about this: I'm not talking about "archiving early". I'm talking about deleting a active thread ''in the same minute'' as the previous contribution to that thread. Or within two minutes. Or four. ''And'' accusing people of harassment when they restore the thread in order to continue the discussion. That is a far cry from "early archiving", and the fact that people here are choosing to characterise it this way, is, I think, inconsistent with how we would have responded two months ago.
	::::Furthermore, it is indicated above, clearly and repeatedly, that you ''can't'' block someone for making an attack on their talk page, nor for putting a copyvio on their talk page. The logic is that blocks don't prevent people editing their talk pages, so such a block would not be ''preventative'', so it must be ''punitive'', and therefore forbidden. ] 01:53, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
	:::I agree with Hesperian's general point. I've noticed some users (usually the more disruptive ones) create special "rules" for their talk pages and then get mad when users don't follow them. Talk pages, both user talk pages or article talk pages, are for communication and discussion. Inappropriate material should be deleted from either but appropriate material should not be removed whether by deletion or by overly-rapid archiving. If folks can't or won't deal with other users they should find a non-collaborative project. ]] ] 01:32, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
	:::I agree with Hesperian's block, although I have no confidence that it will have any effect. NYScholar has been a difficult editor for some time in almost every regard. He has treated article and project page archives in the same way, making personal attacks then archiving so that no one can respond, and if they unarchive and post a reply, he will post several very long (unreadable) responses, then archive again. He's difficult in the same way when editing articles. I'm afraid I agree with Crotalus that an indefblock might have been the best thing some time ago. <font color="Purple">]</font> <small><sup><font color="Blue">]</font><font color="Green">]</font></sup></small> 02:14, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
	I've made a guideline change proposal at ]. &mdash;] 04:14, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
	== To all admins closing AfDs created on 10 Feb and 11 Feb ==
	If you are closing an AfD which was created on 10 February or 11 February, you will see a "(delete)" link. Please do not click on it! Due to my egregrous screw-up it will delete the AfD page or whatever page you viewed the AfD from. I have just fixed the mistake (passed wrong parameter to the delete link). AfDs created on 12 February onwards will not have this problem. ]&nbsp;]&brvbar;] 01:23, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
	:Would this be all AfDs for 11 Feb, or just the ones in the first hour or so before the error was caught (per your timestamp above)? Thanks for the heads up. ] <sup> ] </sup>~<small> ] </small> 13:43, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
	::Strictly speaking, those AfDs created after the timestamp of my previous comment will be okay (I fixed the template a few minutes before that.) But I'm mentioning dates only, to be on the safe side. ]&nbsp;]&brvbar;] 17:50, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
	<div style="font-size:0.1pt">Fake timestamp for bot: ]&nbsp;]&brvbar;] 17:50, 16 February 2008 (UTC)</div>
	== User:Craigtalbert blocked due to vandalism on ] ==
	I have just blocked ] for one month due to perceived repeated vandalism to ]'s article. Over the past few months, a number of anonymous IPs have repeatedly tried to add/change Ezarik's signature phrase to "Deposit me in your ]", while masking them with deceptive edit summaries, (the following diffs are a sample of the disruptive edits:
	). Craig was the first registered user to vandalize the article in this fashion, which gives me strong reason to believe that he is the anon-editor who has been disrupting the article for a while.
	Based on this user's edit history, he is somewhat of an established user who has been involved in a number of editing disputes, which is the reason I'm bringing this up to AIV. Most of the anon edits come from the Colorado area (a state Craig claims to be from), which makes me feel that the editor is one and the same. If possible, I would like to have another editor take a look at this situation, possibly a checkuser. --]<sup>&lt;]&middot;]&gt;</sup> 01:53, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
	:Just a note, that all the IPs in question (or nearly all) were from one university. Note sure if this would be valid for RFCU, just throwing it out for discussion. For BLP reasons this article probably needs it's Semi-protection reset. <span style="font-variant:small-caps"><font color="#800080">] § ]/]</font></span> 03:10, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
	: This would be better listed at ]. ] <small>]</small> 03:23, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
	::I think it's a fairly clear cut case. The IPs all resolve to ], and ]'s userpage states that he is a student at that university. It also says he is a resident of Denver, Colorado (~20 miles from Boulder). No need for SSP reports for such a case. '''Endorse block''' - ] ] 03:28, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
	'''Comment''' Unrelated to ], I perceive issues with ] that have led to edit disputes and ]. <br />
	I had not been aware of Craigtalbert until about 25 hours ago, but for no reason that I could discern, our interactions in our brief acquaintance were threatening to erupt into a full-scale ]. Fourteen of ] after vandalizing ] were directly related to me, including reverting changes I had made to articles that he has had an interest in, responding to my questions and comments on talk pages, and . Since the majority of his edits seemed to be thoughtful and responsible, I was taken aback by the vehemence of his disagreements with my edits. (It was clear that he vehemently disagreed with me, but his reasoning was not communicated nearly as effectively as his vehemence.) I was surprised to see that he had been blocked, and that the block had nothing to do with me. <br />
	In retrospect, I guess that I must have triggered something several days ago, when I saw the ], reviewed the article and its topic, and commented that I thought it should be kept. As it happens, this is an article that he had earlier proposed for speedy deletion. Subsequently, by editing ] and a couple of related articles, I seem to have wandered deep into territory that he considered his own. <br />
	I hope that the block helps him cool off and return here with a more cooperative attitude.
	--] (]) 04:01, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
	:The consensus appears to support the block, but the original reason for the block was because of the vandalism. Other issues have come up as well. Should they be taken into consideration. Also, the reason I have blocked for a month is because Craig tried to justify his vandalism because of Ezarik's "attention whoring"{{sic}}, which in my view showed a complete disregard to ]. Is the length of the block proper? --]<sup>&lt;]&middot;]&gt;</sup> 07:12, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
	::I agree with the 1 month block length given the user's recent history. If he wouldn't have been a productive editor before, indef may have been more appropriate, but he seems to have contributed well in the past. ] <sub>(] ] ])</sub> 17:34, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
	:::He's invoking ], and his user page was deleted while I was viewing it. I don't think he'll be back, but it might be a good idea to keep an eye on ] for a while. ''']''' <small>]</small> 19:45, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
	::::He made a post in the Wikipedians community on LiveJournal, in which he explained he was afraid of losing his job over the incident (apparently he was editing from work). That post is now deleted. I think he is spooked and won't be editing in the near future. --]<sup>]</sup> 22:28, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
	::::I just recieved an email from him asking to have his username changed. I've forwarded his email to the unblock mailing list. Being that he is/was an established editor, I would say yes. But being that this is a serious offense, I won't do it myself. --]<sup>&lt;]&middot;]&gt;</sup> 00:05, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
	:::::I have found out that he has changed his username to {{user|Scarpy}}, however he is still blocked. and I have rejected the CSD on his ], pending further decision here. Your thoughts? --]<sup>&lt;]&middot;]&gt;</sup> 00:17, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
	:::::::Seems to be a one-off and the guy is spooked, as said above, since he used his real name to vandalize. Lets just leave the Ezarik article semi-protected, and the next time someone "spank banks" it we'll know who may be responsible, and it's an easy RV and possible block them. Let him RTV. <span style="font-variant:small-caps"><font color="#800080">] § ]/]</font></span> 07:53, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
	== ] and ] ==
	{{resolved|blocked him--].].] 05:37, 11 February 2008 (UTC)}}
	Someone really should have a talk with this IP. For 3 days now he's been removing others comments on this article talk page. He's been warned, warned, warned, reverted, reverted, reverted but continues. '''-''' <font size="+1" color="red">&#10032;</font><strong style="letter-spacing:1px;font-family:Verdana">]</strong><font size="+1" color="red">&#10032;</font> <sup><small>]</small></sup> 05:31, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
	:Blocked for disruption for 31 hours. If he does it again, let us know again, and he will be blocked again, for longer next time. --].].] 05:37, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
	::Agree with the block, he/she entirely re wrote another IP's coment.--] (]) 05:41, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
	:::Well, looking at the text of the comment he replaced {''Some mention should be made of the fact that Mr. Atwater currently maintains a residence in the lowest circle of hell, right next to the Devil himself.'') I could see that as unhelpful to editing the article, POV and needlessly inflamatory. If you hadn't reverted him, I'd be tempted to remove it myself. ] (]) 06:59, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
	== Edit by ] ==
	{{discussion top}}
	There has been some heated discussion on some issues, but I'm stopping here. This is going too far. Prefacing the comment with "an example for dramatic effect" means nothing, those words have no place here. Can someone step in to cool things down a whole lot? ] (]) 06:05, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
	:Note: I am part of the discussion on the page in question - though opinions differ as to whether I am "involved" in the issue. There is actually something of a meta-meta argument over that very issue.
	:I really don't see what BQ was trying to prove with that example, but I don't see that it violates any rules either.
	:Actually, it was made in reply to a post by Franamax which said, "...Once you started that page on-wiki, didn't AGF pretty much go out the window?..." I think that may have been a violation of ] on the part of Franamax. Franamax questioned whether I was acting in good faith just slightly up the page.
	:Franamax has offered to mediate this dispute, but I am not certain he is coming at this from a neutral perspective.
	:In any event, there is disagreement occurring at that page, but I see no reason for a WP:ANI post or any administrative action.
	:Additional feedback on the RFC itself is certainly welcome. ]\<sup>]</sup> 06:36, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
	::(e/c with closure) Johntex, thank you for letting me know about this (I assume Fran not mentioning this was an oversight; no malice thought of). This particular edit was designed to illustrate a point (no disruption was intended, so ] does not apply): to show that actions before/during an RfC are certainly applicable to show a pattern of disruption. If I file an User RfC about Joe Schmo's behavior and he turns around and says "Yep, you are the dirtiest whore I've ever seen. I outta blow your brains out.", well that can be included in the RfC. Furthermore anyone who addresses it and attempts to calm down the situation can be used as corroboration that attempts to diffuse the situation have been attempted. That was all I was trying to say. My disclaimer was intended to ''explicitly'' show I was ''not'' attributing these actions to the subject of the RfC, but merely stating them as a hypothetical. I believe anyone who reads it can clearly see my intent. <span style="background-color: maroon; color: white">]</span>&nbsp;<sup>]</sup> 07:11, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
	:::Extra out-of-closure-process take-a-deep-breath sorry-for-the-drama note: all covered as fast I can type (=slowly), some words will cause me offense, rhetorically or not. Took multiple deep breaths. Closed. ] (]) 07:25, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
	::INdeed. I am closing this discussion as it is basically drama spillover. No one is going to get blocked, and no page is to be protected or deleted. There is no incident here for an admin to deal with, and this thread is little more else than a drama magnet.--].].] 07:03, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
	{{discussion bottom}}
	== Viridae ==
	# 03:39, February 11, 2008 Viridae (Talk | contribs | block) unblocked Athoughtforyou (Talk | contribs) ‎ (incorrect block)
	# 03:39, February 11, 2008 Viridae (Talk | contribs | block) unblocked OrionClemens (Talk | contribs) ‎ (incorrect block)
	# 03:39, February 11, 2008 Viridae (Talk | contribs | block) unblocked Slintfan (Talk | contribs) ‎ (incorrect block)
	# 03:39, February 11, 2008 Viridae (Talk | contribs | block) unblocked Academic38 (Talk | contribs) ‎ (incorrect block)
	# 03:39, February 11, 2008 Viridae (Talk | contribs | block) unblocked Drstones (Talk | contribs) ‎ (incorrect block)
	No, these were single purpose accounts with no contributions other than to stir up a problem we have with {{la|Oxford Round Table}}.
	More to the point, Viridae has an agenda against me and has a habit of undoing my admin actions, including undeleting a ] by request fo the banned user with discussion solely on Misplaced Pages Review. I think Viridae should ''not'' be undoing my actions, given a stated (again on Misplaced Pages Review) agenda against me.
	I also think we need single purpose accounts like we need holes in our collective heads, but I'm happy to see what Carcharoth's discussions bring forward on that. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 09:25, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
	:Comment: How can you judge whether an account is a SPA if it has been created for only 2 days, makes 2 edits and is then blocked. A wee bit of good faith is always helpful. I make no comment on the dispute between you two. ] (]) 09:29, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
	:: Not relevant. Admins should not undo the actions of other admins with whom they have a long-standing dispute. And a single purpose account can indeed be diagnosed if it is registered in order to take part in a deletion debate on an article which is itself merely a vehicle for an off-wiki dispute. But I'd not have objected if it had been someone else, the problem here is Viridae's repeated actions against me, which are starting to look just a little personal. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 09:33, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
	:Comment: I'm not an admin, but aren't you guys not supposed to revert each others' administrative actions without discussing it first? I think I heard that somewhere. <small style="font:bold 10px Arial;display:inline;border:#009 1px dashed;padding:1px 6px 2px 7px;white-space:nowrap">] ]/] ''09:33, 11 Feb 2008 (UTC)''</small>
	Guy care to look half a dozen sections up where a request that those accounts which were not CU confirmed sockpuppets be be unblocked was made, which I happened to catch and perform. Also nice of you to notify me of this - I caught it on my watchlist. As woody said, you can't determine a single purpose account on half a dozen edits - every account to start editing WP would come under that banner at first. ]] 09:37, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
	:Then you should've linked to that discussion in your summary, contacted Guy on his talk page, or otherwise made clear your reasons for the revert. "incorrect block" is flip and a wheel-war invitation. In my opinion. <small style="font:bold 10px Arial;display:inline;border:#009 1px dashed;padding:1px 6px 2px 7px;white-space:nowrap">] ]/] ''09:40, 11 Feb 2008 (UTC)''</small>
	::Apart from the fact that it WAS an incorrect block, I was in a hurry - as evinced by the fact that I asked Ned to do the non-admin apologies. I work in science and frequently have short breaks in the day while something is incubating in which I log onto wikipedia. Sometimes I block someone reported on AIV, sometimes I check the requests for rollback and grant that if necessary - this time I saw the request for unblock, and having followed the previous discussion decided that these accounts were clearly good faith (anyone denying that?) and should not be block for a second longer. We do not need more of the academic establishment driven away while wikipedia argues with itself. As tro contacting guy on his talk page - he has taken to deleting anything I put there anyway so that is entirely pointless. The edit summary therefore came about because I was somewhat at a loss as to what to actually put there. ]] 09:48, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
	::: If you don't have the time to carry out an admin action properly, then you should leave it to someone who does. I'm sure there were others who saw the same discussion you did, and there are no emergencies on Misplaced Pages. <small style="font:bold 10px Arial;display:inline;border:#009 1px dashed;padding:1px 6px 2px 7px;white-space:nowrap">] ]/] ''09:51, 11 Feb 2008 (UTC)''</small>
	::::It was carried out properly, the only part of that that was actually an admin action was the unblock. The apology for the unblock could have been dealt with by anyone - and that was done quite sucessfully by Ned. While there may have been no huge hurry in the grand scale of things, had the wait cost us some very qualified editors wikipedia would have been so much worse off. ]] 09:58, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
	::::: Discussion of an admin action needs happen in conjunction with that action by the admin taking the action. They aren't two separate acts. If you revert another admin, you need to communicate your reasoning to them, preferrably before you even take the action. Again there are no emergencies, and that includes the potential to lose valuable editors. If you couldn't communicate, you shouldn't have acted. <small style="font:bold 10px Arial;display:inline;border:#009 1px dashed;padding:1px 6px 2px 7px;white-space:nowrap">] ]/] ''10:09, 11 Feb 2008 (UTC)''</small>
	::::::Actually Guy knows exactly why those were overturned as he was involved in the original discussion, there was no need for further communication that would almost certainly be ignored given recent history. And yes, it is always urgent to unblock a potentially valuable contributor. Especially one with academic qualifications - a species of editor wikipedia is sorely lacking. ]] 10:14, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
	::::::: If you have "history", ie. an ongoing dispute with Guy then that's all the more reason not to take it upon yourself to revert his actions. Perhaps you should steer clear of policing that particular admin for a while, and let others be the judge of his actions. <small style="font:bold 10px Arial;display:inline;border:#009 1px dashed;padding:1px 6px 2px 7px;white-space:nowrap">] ]/] ''10:17, 11 Feb 2008 (UTC)''</small>
	::::::::Other WERE the judge, did you not see the lengthy discussion further up the page? ]] 10:44, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
	::::::::: The leave it to the others to do the action. You should not be reversing my admin actions, you have an existing agenda against me. If others agree, let others do it. I suppose I should be grateful that at least this time the discussion took place on Misplaced Pages rather than Misplaced Pages Review, but somehow I'm not. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 11:28, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
	::::::::::I don't have an agenda Guy, you just think I do. Yes I dislike you, yes I believe you frequently make rash/incorrect decisions (like for instance deleting something as a G5 when it has significant contributions from other people) and yes I find you possibly the most uncivil person on the project at times but that does not make it a longstanding dispute. I have no grudge to bear however, this is my personal opinion - I find it INCREDIBLY hard to believe you have never performed an admin action on someone you dislike or overturned someones admin action when you dislike it. Smarten up and fly right (assume good faith and stop attacking other people) and I will no longer have a problem with you. That is NOT a longstanding dispute. ]] 11:36, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
	:I think given the obvious illwill here between Guy and Viridae, that keeping out of each other's way where possible is advisable; that means don't get involved in each other's actions, at all, period - not to reverse them, not to comment on them, nothing. If there's any actual concerns then present them (sans commentary) to ] or ]. ] ] 11:40, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
	::This whole thing is silly. Nothing in the blocking policy justified these blocks. Undoing them was the right thing to do and making it about Viridae obscures the issue. The issue is whether or not we can expect non-Wikipedians to read tree leaves to determine our policies or whether we should attempt to engage them before hitting the block button. If someone is a flagrant vandal and is replacing pages with nonsense, ok, I really am annoyed with the "you can't block them without 4 warnings" crowd, but these were good faith users who were simply unfamiliar with our policies. Blocking them is bad. When some of them requested unblock, declining those requests without attempting to engage the user compounded the error. I don't really give a flip about assessing blame, but I think we need to make clear this isn't how we do business and there's a difference between a flagrant troll and someone who just isn't familiar with our policies. --] (]) 11:47, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
	::::There's 1,488 other admins on Misplaced Pages. If Guy has made a bad block, one of them other than Viridae can unblock, as anything Viridae does (irrespective of intention and making no judgement as to who is or is not "correct" here) now upsets Guy. ] ] 12:25, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
	:::::Guy has been given chances to communicate about his admin actions before, and is almost always either argumentative or dissmissive. ANYONE overturning one of his actions gets this response, so frankly I don't care whether it upsets him or not, if he makes an obviously bad call and I am in the position to deal with it, I will do so. If guy wants the lines of communcation to be opened again before I do so as I am quite happy to do, he can be civil and actually respond to queries. ]] 12:34, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
	::::::Just post your concerns here in future rather than acting on them - please? ] ] 12:39, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
	:::::::Neil, this is a red herring. A month or two ago, I nominated a template for deletion that happened to have been created by Guy. I had no earthly idea (didn't look, didn't care) who created it, but Guy accused me of nominating it as retaliation because I had disagreed with a block of his in an ANI discussion. It was utter nonsense, but the point is, it was refocusing the issue from one of whether or not the template was appropriate and trying to make it into merely a personal issue. Most of us really don't care one way or another about Misplaced Pages factions or personalities or anything like that. We don't sit here and debate political expediency and whether the blocking admin is someone we like or don't like. This is an encyclopedia, not a grade school club or a MMORPG. If Guy is right, we'll call him right - if he's wrong, we'll call him wrong. That's all there is to it. --] (]) 13:25, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
	::::::::Unblocking ''should'' be discussed with the blocking admin. I am as guilty as anyone of broaching this on occasion. Anyway, Guy has decided he doesn't like Viridae for whatever reason, and whenever Viridae does try and contact him, Guy tells him to " ". So I have suggested that instead of just countermanding Guy's admin actions, Viridae posts them here for review. I am neither defending nor agreeing with Guy's actions - that is a seperate issue. I'm simply asking Viridae to refrain from directly reversing Guy's admin actions, as the drama it creates tends to obfuscate the issue. ] ] 13:35, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
	:::::::::''"...whenever Viridae does try and contact him, Guy tells him to " ".'' -Actually, he tells him to "fuck off", but I don't want to argue semantics. :-D ] 17:09, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
	:::Endorse Neil's suggestions. I'm not familiar with the relationship between Guy and Viridae though, have other means already been taken to prevent this sort of stuff occurring? ]] 11:53, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
	You guys seem to be forgetting to do something here, so I'll start it off:
	*'''Standing Ovation'''. Thank You ] for having the courage to stand up for the rights of the many. A lot of admins seem to feel that blocking people is an adequate solution for almost anything, when the truth is that it is only meant as a last resort. And, frankly I don't see any real cause to even get that far. --]] 12:52, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
	*OK, now sit down. There's a difference between "standing up for the rights of many", and specifically targeting the actions of an admin based upon discussion at an attack site. As already stated, there are well over a thousand admins here; any one of them would have been a better candidate to analyze Guy's actions than Viridae. This sort of cowboy play doesn't work well either for developing consensus or developing community. Reverting admin actions without discussion is the sort of thing that inevitably leads to desysopping; are we sure that's the direction we want to take this? --]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 17:20, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
	:JP there was endless discussion on this page about these blocks, which is why I was so quick to overturn them when the request was made because I fel there was some agreement that they were incorrect. I didn't bother to contact Guy directly because 1. he had already been involved in the discussion of his blocks and 2. part one meant there was no point given that he would just ignore any notification/attempt at communication anyway. ]] 20:39, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
	*I think many of the original blocks were a violation of ] and ]. Newbies can't be expected to know our policies about canvassing. They should be gently reminded about how Misplaced Pages works. Only blatant vandals should be blocked on sight. The unblocks were justified; I don't care who posted what on which third-party website. That has nothing to do with us. JzG really needs to work more cooperatively with others; he seems to have been given a pass from following ]. That needs to stop. ] 19:05, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
	**Good, then that could have been discussed. Reversing admin actions without discussion is not acceptable behavior. That needs to stop. --]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 20:15, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
	::*Per Viridae's original response, these unblocks had already been discussed and per the results of a checkuser a request was made a few ]. Does every request for admin action need to be carefully scrutinised to ensure the sysop preparing to action a request will not upset the sensibilities of another involved admin? It will seriously dilute the effectiveness of this board if this is the case. ] (]) 21:31, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
	***If reversal of admin actions must always be discussed, then admins must always be willing to discuss their actions, even if they don't like someone. You can't have it both ways. -] <small>]</small> 00:05, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
	No doubt that Viridae and Guy have an ongoing dispute, so Neil is correct that it would be best if Viridae had posted notice here and gain consensus to revert Guy's blocks. Jpgordon is 100% correct...admins shouldn't be reversing other admins just because they can, and in this case, the reversals appear to be done to incite Guy. This is far from the first examples of questionable admin actions made by Viridae.--] 00:13, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
	:"be best if Viridae had posted notice here and gain consensus to revert Guy's blocks", Rough consensus was already established in the above threads. --]] 14:03, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
	:MONGO you believe everyone who has ever disagreed with you is in an ongoing dispute. You now appear to be trying to try that on with Guy. ]] 04:03, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
	:They do not have an "ongoing dispute". Guy has just decided that he does not like Viridae. Now, there's no obligation to like every admin. But that doesn't mean Guy can say "I don't like you, so you're never allowed to talk to me again, HAHAHA". -] <small>]</small> 00:24, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
	::This whole thing was discussed in depth in a thread that has now been moved to ]. There was no unblock without discussion or any such thing. There was no agreement that the non-socks should be blocked. We engage users - we don't block first and ask questions later. This is doubly important since some or all of these users are academics and certainly have a lot that they could contribute to Misplaced Pages if we reach out to them rather than chasing them away. The arbitration committee hounded valued admin Adam C out of the project for a questionable block of a marginally disruptive user where Adam had asked for and thought he had ANI approval before making the block. Contrast that with blocking users for commenting on an AFD opened by the blocking admin. I have a real problem in the consistency here of going after Viridae for undoing obviously inappropriate blocks. --] (]) 01:12, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
	:::I agree with B's excellent comment immeditately above. This is stupid. ] was discussed ] and then a big ol' discussion was moved to ]. The ] resulting from ] came back with a list of clear socks as well as accounts that were unrelated from any others, including those listed here and in the ]. '''Guy, if you can provide a valid rationale for these accounts to be re-blocked, please do share.''' If not, what's the problem?
	:::The shoot-first action of blocking a slew of accounts from ] had some significant collateral damage...We don't block accounts for being single-purpose if they're not clearly disruptive; it would have been much better to have done the checkuser first. I reject the idea that any sysop should necessarily recuse themselves from undoing another's action just because there's some sort of personality conflict. Guy, you admitted that your actions weren't perfect (please do "keep the definition of single purpose rather more focused" in the future), so why does it matter which of us 1500 admins took care of your loose ends? It seems pretty clear from the prior discussion on this matter that there was little support for these accounts to ''stay'' blocked (Guy even softed his stance) and at least a few questioned their validity. &mdash; ]'']'' 01:39, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
	'''Thank you Viridae''' for unblocking users who were in exactly the position I was when I first edited, all that time ago. ''Ideally'' someone else would have done it before you, but thank you for making sure it was done. ] 02:23, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
	== {{user|FreeThoughts}} ==
	{{resolved|FreeThoughts blocked for 24 hours ] 10:29, 11 February 2008 (UTC)}}
	This new user is changing mentions of ] in several celebrity bios to indicate that it is a cult. I don't care if it is or isn't, but don't want to see WP used as another tool in the recent campaign. ] (]) 09:43, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
	:Just block. This person is obviously a POV pusher. Cult or not, this isn't what we mean by collaborative editing. ] (]) 09:48, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
	::I've warned FreeThoughts for 3RR on ]. ] (]) 10:06, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
	::: Blocked 1 day. <small style="font:bold 10px Arial;display:inline;border:#009 1px dashed;padding:1px 6px 2px 7px;white-space:nowrap">] ]/] ''10:12, 11 Feb 2008 (UTC)''</small>
	::::And I put him on notice with respect to the ] on scientology-related articles from ]. ]]<sup>]</sup> 15:52, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
	== Offensive title sockpuppet and/or confusion ==
	{{resolved|Offensive talk page heading refactored, confusion about sockpuppetry solved on talkpage. ] ] 19:47, 11 February 2008 (UTC)}}
	::.Numbered user seems to be sockpuppet of Dodona user(and if he isnt he mirrored his actions and while reading the talk it seems they are the same and they he forgot to change usernames).He copy pasted the same material and material belonging in the talk page in the article page and discusses as being both users but at the same time denying it.Also refuses to understand given position on article and the fact that he added a pseudohistorian(s) quote already removed along with his long comment on the talk page.Admin and other users rejected these positions in the past as well but to no avail.] (]) 13:11, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
	::Said(dodona and/or numbered user) we are or making "greek propaganda in wikipedia",called on ethnicity and other elements said:they are most originally Albanian but they loath everything Albanian , you know what I mean it is just “schizophrenic". ] (]) 13:23, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
	== Oddly-named accounts maintaining legitimate articles in user space ==
	Extreme confusion here: I just an entry from ] about a few accounts which are maintaining (what appear to be) legitimate hockey game log articles ''in user space''. The accounts/IP involved so far are (and yes, these are real account names):
	*{{user|Bozeman Icedogs Roster}}
	*{{user|2007-08 Bozeman Icedogs season}}
	*{{user|1974-75 Quebec Nordiques season}}
	*{{ipuser|69.144.85.125‎}}
	Does this behavior sound familiar to anyone? I've asked all four for clarification but have heard nothing. They are active - 69.144.85.125‎ edited one of the user pages a few minutes ago - and a couple of them have made legitimate edits elsewhere (although a couple haven't). I couldn't find where the articles had been deleted from article space so it's not a ] end-around. Template space pages have been modified and created to link to the user pages . I'm tempted to ask for a checkuser but I'm not sure I care since nothing particularly malicious is going on. I'm thoroughly confused. —] (]) 16:03, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
	:If the articles are legitimate and are not CSD-eligible, why not move them to the article space (if no article space copy exists)? ]&nbsp;]&brvbar;] 17:54, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
	::That's part of my confusion. Why don't they move them to article space? And why did they need to name their ''accounts'' after the user page/articles? —] (]) 21:18, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
	:::If ] were made into an article, previous consensus would like hold up and it would be deleted. See examples:
	*]
	*]
	*]
	:::Although the other content could be useful in mainspace. ] (]) 03:03, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
	::::General consensus thus far hasn't supported minor/junior league team season articles. Rather than put them in main article space, perhaps point them to the ice hockey wikia, where such articles would be most welcome? Otherwise, I've seen a couple around making edits, and they seem to be fine editors thus far. ]] 03:24, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
	*A similar discussion to this is ongoing at ]. ] (]) 03:52, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
	== Admin protecting a page after revert ==
	Recently there has been a dispute on ]. While things get heated, users and admins should abide by policies. Admittedly the inclusion of a beggar image is contentious, to say the least.
	User:Olivier, who is an admin, has an opinion that the image should be removed. To that end he has argued on the talk page against it (). On February 11, he , and then immediately .
	My question is: is it appropriate for an admin to protect a page on which he/she is one of the disputing parties?
	According to ] "Administrators protecting pages for this reason should do so regardless of the state the page may be in, and not revert to another version, or otherwise modify the page, except as permitted below...Administrators should not protect or unprotect a page for this reason if they are in any way involved in the dispute."
	] (]) 16:38, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
	*You just answered your own question. --]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 17:13, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
	::Your diffs are correct, though it might be better to assume good faith that Olivier was trying to resolve the content dispute. That said, the article should not have been changed because of the dispute and then protected by the same person. That seems a little iffy to me <span style="font-family:Verdana, Arial, sans-serif;">&mdash;]•]</span> 17:13, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
	:::Perhaps ask him if he recalls this policy? ] (]) 17:20, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
	::::Comment: I have notified ] of this thread. - ] &#124; ] 17:22, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
	:::::Re: Bstone, no one should be protecting pages if don't recall the protection policy. It says as much every time you click the "Protect" button. The best approach is probably just to ask Olivier why s/he reverted to the preferred version, and ask him/her to self-revert back to the "wrong" version. ''']'''&nbsp;<sup>]</sup> 18:00, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
	== Callmebc ==
	{{userlinks|Callmebc}} has been recently unblocked from a block that stemmed from his edit warring after recently being unblocked from an indefinite block that stemmed from myriad others blocks resulting from the same problem. Got that? In more simpler terms: he hasn't got the message. is a relevant discussion on these same noticeboards not month ago about his disruptive behavior, which led to a two week block. He was blocked indefinitely prior to that for being wholly uncivil and an unrelenting edit warrior. His block blog affirms that. It was most generous of ] to unblock his indefinite block indeed, and quite generous of the succeeding blocking admin to block for only two weeks instead of going back to indefinitely. The terms on which he has been allowed to edit here have been laid out rather robustly by various admins and he has made various promises or commitments to these terms and standards, which leads me to my reason of posting all of this. On {{Article|global warming}}, ] has been edit warring again, though just to the brim of making it within ]. However, given the past discussions on this user, I think it is safe to say that there should be zero tolerance for him to ]. A now it seems he has been (disruptively?) ] other users (see contribs). I'll let the powers that be decide what ought to be done. ~ ] (]) 17:11, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
	:It should be noted that this complaint is being filed by a persistent anti-science POV pusher, who himself has been blocked repeatedly for incivility. In this case, the edit warring Uber refers to was him reverting to preserve the wording changes he made during CallmeBC's absence. I've asked Raymond Arritt and William M. Connelly to weigh in on this one, and we should defer to what they say. ] (]) 17:19, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
	::I'd advise all interested admins to ignore the above comments, because they are useless and not germane to the discussion. I would delete them under the just pretense of ], but invariably I'm sure that would lead to my block from this unneutral administrator. Let me remind the interested administrators that this is about the aforementioned user's behavior--that is to say I'm not here as part to resolve a content dispute. I'm confident that can be resolved reasonably by educated editors on the GW talk page, because it is rather clear it is Callmebc's edits that lack truth to them, and I was merely undoing his mistakes to at least keep the article accurate as possible. Me, the so-called "anti-science POV pusher" has pushed nothing but factually accurate science since being here, so not only are the above comments wholly uncivil and contrary to ], but completely without regard to the truth. A careful examination of my edits and blocks show this to be true, with blocks only coming from the above administrator because of some mislead biases and vendettas he has against me. So again, I reiterate, ignore the above as the ''content'' of the dispute is easily resolvable, but the ''behavior'' of the user is what brought me here. ~ ] (]) 17:32, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
	:::Wow, that's a pretty aggresive response. I assure that I, for one, will not be ignoring the comments of a trusted user who also happens to be an administrator, a bureaucrat, a check-user, etc. In this case, the content of the dispute and the behaviour of the users involved are intrinsically intertwined. - ] &#124; ] 17:35, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
	::::Unfortunately, ] tend to lead to folly discussions. Raul654 has but demagogued the issue. I'd be glad to discuss the content, because I can assure you that Callmebc has been inserting inaccurate information (and I have but removed it). If by "intertwined" you mean that typically his edit warring is over the insertion of inaccurate content (as is the case for Killian and GW articles), then, sure, I could agree. But I think it would be best to discuss the content, in this case, at ]. ~ ] (]) 17:42, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
	::::UBeR has indeed demonstrated in the past what some might consider to be some hostility towards me and perhaps what might be seen as a little fudging of the truth, and this thing here appears on the surface to be only more of it. His actions in this situation are mostly outlined via these two links and . The basic background is that I had one time posted, after a Talk page discussion, a graph on ] with I thought was a pretty good description. During a later block on me, UbeR changed the wording to what I felt was something not nearly as clear. I recently created a new Talk page section on GW to discuss changing the wording back to its original, and evidently UBeR saw this mostly as an opportunity to get me blocked again by provoking me into a revert war by being untimely and unresponsive to the Talk page discussion and automatically reverting me after I had allowed for more than ample time for discussion. I have since requested comments by other GW regulars: . I think UbeR's actions and mine in this particular situation, once you take a look, speak for themselves. -BC aka ] (]) 17:59, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
	Further evidence is presented here that Misplaced Pages needs to take aggressive steps to protect scientific integrity in it's articles, and to protect especially editors who work to advance real science, free or political, social, of religious nonsense. Perhaps another look at scientific point of view is needed, to keep the lunatic junk science under a harness. <span style="font-variant:small-caps"><font color="#800080">] § ]/]</font></span> 18:08, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
	:No block needed; some form of dispute resolution or mediation should be done. If mediation and/or dispute resolution is conclusive in its findings, and ignored by one party or the other, then ArbCom may be a next step. However, other than some perhaps short-term 3RR blocks, I see no evidence of bad faith or foul play against either side that requires the drastic measures called for here. --].].] 18:44, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
	::I would agree if it were not for the user's exceptional history. ~ ] (]) 18:51, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
	::: My "exceptional history" seems to consist primarily of trying to improve articles by adding updated, well ref'd, clearly written content, removing dubious, POV'd, poorly sourced (if at all) stuff, and bumping heads with editors apparently not so much keen on such activities. I don't think dispute resolution is needed at the moment -- given UBeR's somewhat less than congenial behavior, and not wanting to risk 3RR, I had already solicited comments by other Global Warming regulars on their Talk pages. I'll let however that turns out to be the guide. Also ] does have a point -- the hot topic science articles like ] regularly draw editors of a not-too-scientific inclination constantly trying to "massage the message" by either trying to add blatant nonsense, slipping in borderline fringe stuff, giving very minor alternative theories way, way too much space, attempting to marginalize mainstream scientific consensus; misusing scientific terminology to make concepts less clear, and trying to ] Talk page discussions about removing the bad stuff and adding in the good. It's a testament to Misplaced Pages that articles like Global Warming somehow manage to not deteriorate to being not much more than a conservative radio transcript. But I think there really ought to be at least a periodic "science audit" of sorts on article like ] -- despite even that article's high visibility, you are still really dependent on just a handful of watchful, responsible editors to keep things from deteriorating. -BC aka ] (]) 21:15, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
	::::Your exceptional history, to contrary, seems to consist of no less than 15 blocks, one of which was supposed to last indefinitely, relating overwhelmingly to edit warring and incivil behavior, the last of which just ended a few weeks ago. Your record of ever being accurate on ] has been shoddy, given recent inability to understand ] and earlier mistakes of confusing ] with ]es. You may chide me for removing your mistakes, but it seems the levelheaded editors at least agree with me. But this is neither the time nor the place to discuss that particular matter. ~ ] (]) 21:23, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
	:::::UBeR, you're not one to be pointing out anybody else's block history. <font face="Arial">]<sub>'']''</sub></font> 00:09, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
	::::::Sure I am. I only have one or two legitimate blocks, which is more than quite a few people who've been around as long can say--though I don't tout that, especially not as a good thing either. But who I am matters not as much the problem user in question. Like I said earlier, when we engage in silly fallacies our discussion is reduced to folly, and that seems to be going in that direction indeed. ~ ] (]) 03:23, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
	Definitely no block. If anyone is being uncivil, its Uber, whose comments on t:GW appear deliberately provocative. The assertion that C's edits are untrue or mistakes is silly - this is just a matter of wording. Both versions are "correct", which makes this a silly edit war ] (]) 21:35, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
	:No block needed. CmBC gets in plenty of trouble on his own, we know. Working to get him into more disingenuously, while working to push an anti-sci agenda doesn't make for a good case for blocking him. I'm with Lawrence regarding pseudo-science and science denial. ] (]) 05:50, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
	== RfA canvassing by ] ==
	Does this count as canvassing or friendly notices? http://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Contributions/Yellowbeard I find it hard to draw the line because it's not like he's contacting 50 users; on the other hand, he is specifically writing to those who have been on the opposite side of Abd in debates at ] and similar fora. This would seem to fall under ]. He has been warned once. ] (]) 17:12, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
	:It appears he was warned by ] and has ignored that warning and persisted in inappropriately canvassing oppose !votes. I've blocked him for 24 hours; up to the closing 'crat at the RfA whether any !votes need to be weighted to account for canvassing. ''']'''&nbsp;<sup>]</sup> 17:49, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
	== Problem with anonymous user evading 2 week block using multiple ip's and engaging in edit warring. ==
	Ip ] had been blocked for 2 weeks earlier this morning (see ]). Since then, he has used multiple ip's to vandalize talk pages, and engage in edit warring at ]. The multiple ip's are ], ], ], ]. I'm asking for an sprotect for ], and for someone to look in to more drastic measures against that ip's dial-up service as this has been an ongoing problem for months with this person (see ], ], ], ], ], etc.) --] (]) 17:56, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
	: Yes please, this IP user is getting out of control again and it appears to be a regular cycle of abuse. ''']]''' 18:36, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
	::This may be in need of a Range-Block, since the nature of the drifting IP address indicates that individual whack-a-mole blocks may be futile and ineffective. --].].] 18:39, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
	:::For starters, I have semi-protected ] for 48 hours. — <span style="font-family:Palatino Linotype">]</span> 18:40, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
	:::: Thank you. :) *Breathes sigh of relief* ''']]''' 18:43, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
	::::: And I have blocked 217.237.148.0/27 for the same length. <b>]</b> 19:22, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
	::: Jayron32, since the IP user has continued to evade the block and has now started to blank this section many times I have to agree that a temporary range block for the user's IPs seems to be a prudent course of action. The range for ] and ] would appear to be 217.87.* and 217.237.148.23-25 so far. I realise this course of action is not to be taken lightly. Also please can I have semi-protection on my talk page as the same IP user keeps on reverting comments on there as well? ''']]''' 19:24, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
	::: Thanks Black Kite, another IP from the same ISP is doing the same thing ( ] ). ''']]''' 19:27, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
	:::: Block tweaked to 217.237.148.0/24. <b>]</b> 19:30, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
	:::::ANI semi protected for 48 hours... Feel free to shorten it if you think the vandal won't return. ] (]) 19:39, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
	:::::Another range of IPs which appears to be 217.237.* with the IP user vandalising my talk page. and many more in the edit history. Please can I have a semi-protect? :) ''']]''' 19:50, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
	::::::SirFozzie took care of it. — <span style="font-family:Palatino Linotype">]</span> 20:27, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
	== ] and talk page ==
	Following off-wiki coverage, this page has become a focus for some unhelpful behavior and perhaps also for some users with specific viewpoints and agendas. Examples evidencing the behaviors, and that others have noticed this: , , and incivility issues .
	Whatever the rights and wrongs of the matter are, Jossi has stated that he will not edit those pages for the time being. It is appropriate that others do not use the wiki as a battleground either to attack people on them.
	Proposed -- slightly more eyeballs on this page and its talk page, and a few warnings (and admin action if needed) when personal attacks, incivility, or unhelpful editing is taking place. Would it be okay for a few people to keep an eye on this area for conduct?
	]&nbsp;<sup><span style="font-style:italic">(]&nbsp;|&nbsp;])</span></sup> 18:26, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
	== ] protected, yet again ==
	I appealed to the protecting admin (whose only editing periodically now) and posted an unprotection on ] about this (at which point I was referred to ANI), so I'm here... again. Essentially, without repeating everything I said a few days ago and which was said by others on the talk page of the article, this article is not really being subjected to (much) ''edit warring''. We mostly have a variety of a drive-by editors removing the images without any willingness to participate in the ongoing discussions on the talk page and/or heed past (even recent past) consensuses. As a result, most of these editors have been blocked (or they have merely stopped). That appears to be the most sensible route to take, especially because the level of disruption is dwindling; we currently have a manageable number of drive-by removers. We should just leave this article without full protection (but with semi-protection), then refer drive-by image removers to the talk page of the article. If they still persist in removing the images without any discussion whatsoever, they can be blocked. A similar proposal was made by, among several others, {{user|Daniel}}. His proposal is mentioned ], but none of these proposals has every reached a solid conclusion. -- ''']''' 18:52, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
	:It's going to be difficult to come to a perfect consensus, but I !vote that the article remain semi-protected unless we see 4 day old accounts starting to edit war, then full protection. Misplaced Pages is not ], leave the Muhammad images there. We don't have to fold to any religions, activist groups, or any other crowd that wants to change our goal: provide information to the world. ] (]) 19:00, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
	::I agree with Useight entirely. ''']''' <small>]</small> 23:13, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
	:You should remove the images , this website might get a "message" from some crazed out Islamic radical group or something. Does Jimbo Walles or the Foundation has a protocol for "anything" like that.] (]) <small>—Preceding ] was added at 22:47, 11 February 2008 (UTC)</small><!--Template:Undated--> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
	::We don't censor out of fear about what some un-named radical might or might not do. While I personally would probably have removed the images out of my personal sense of propriety (so as not to offend someone's sensibilities), the community has decided that they're important to the article and should stay. No faceless, nameless, potential threat should deter us from intellectual honesty. - ] &#124; ] 00:09, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
	:: So Misplaced Pages is going to stand there if OBL(Osma) or some crazed out nutjob makes threats to Misplaced Pages or the Foundation on that article here. Someone should removed the pictures. It the same thing with people putting pictures on paintings of the death of Christ. People dont want to see '''SHOCK'''. Is there a policy for this. I thought we cannt show images of the Prophet because we might get sued or get threats from Mr. OBL or his "buddies". If you pics of the Prophet Misplaced Pages is going to be in the news or in hot water just as that Danish-Cartoon BS in 2006.] (]) 01:03, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
	::: Nobody's actually made any credible threats, to my knowledge, so that's a theoretical argument. If they did, I feel certain we would involve the Foundation's legal counsel and appropriate law enforcement bodies. - ] &#124; ] 01:05, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
	:::Something tells me Osama has more important targets to blow up than some website he's likely never heard of. The apparent threat that random, unknown people will somehow harm Misplaced Pages's servers because the project won't bend to radical Islamic thinking isn't going to affect change. As far as the original topic goes, I'd support going back to semi-protection, if it hasn't already been done. There are plenty of eyes watching it, and we are weeding out the sleeper accounts. ]] 03:31, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
	:::The relevant policy is ], by-the-by. ]<font color="FF8800">]</font> 03:45, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
	::::Osama's got better things to do with his time, and he's frankly far more likely than many of the so-called radicals that hit that page, to be aware of the variations in Islam that led to devout Muslims making that art. A lot of the 'radicals' here are likely to be teenagers in their middle eastern nations, finding that it's easy to vandalize WP, not much different that any other vandals. The few 'true believers' arent' the highly educated ones who could carry out any sort of attack. If they WERE educated, they'd understand the controversy. But how often do they assert that the 'wrong branch' of Islam made them? rarely, if ever. It's never a theological argument, just dogma. ] (]) 05:41, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
	:::::Osama is dead . In any case, this section is to decide whether we want to unlock ] or not per Tariqabjotu's comment above. --] (]) 08:35, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
	::::::I don't think the main article can be unprotected at the moment unless we plan on biting more new users than a swarm of blackflies. But one can always try for an hour or two to convince themselves of this. ]<font color="FF8800">]</font> 13:27, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
	== Trying to recreate a banned page ==
	As a favor to the author of a web cartoon, I have been recreating the Misplaced Pages article about his cartoon. Unfortunately I cannot create the page by moving--it gives a message
	"You cannot move a page to this location, because the new title has been protected from creation"
	The author said he had "given up" trying to create this article, but could not remember the specifics or which administrator was involved. I feel that I have written an article that is acceptable for Misplaced Pages, meeting the NPOV, format, and citation requirements.
	The title of the original article was "Retarded Animal Babies". I would appreciate some attention to this. My email is synth...metasonix..com. Thank you. ] (]) 20:29, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
	:Hi Eric - I'd suggest posting the article in your user space and linking to it, so that we can evaluate whether it's worth unprotecting the page to create it. I confess that your statement that you're doing this as a favor to the cartoon's author doesn't strike me as a good sign to begin with. ] (]) 20:33, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
	::I've dotted out your email because it's not necessary and that might stop you getting a little spam. Hope you don't mind <span style="font-family:Verdana, Arial, sans-serif;">&mdash;]•]</span> 20:35, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
	::The article was deleted via ] on the grounds of being ] (]). The proper venue for this is ], where you should link to your new version so that editors can decide whether it alleviates the concerns raised in AFD. ] (]) 20:36, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
	:::I don't think I agree; deletion review is for cases in which the closing admin didn't correctly determine consensus. In this case, Eric seems to be saying that the article that he's written - as distinct from the one that was deleted - is policy-compliant. I don't think ] is the right place for a case like that. ] (]) 20:43, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
	:::::That is only one of the four criteria for listing an article at DRV. The point here is that the AFD acts as a pre-existing consensus that this subject does not deserve an article, and the proper place to contest that ruling is at DRV. It actually sounds to me pretty much like Eric is making a claim (unwittingly) that ''that'' consensus is incorrect. ] (]) 20:48, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
	::::::In general, an AfD only establishes that the article, ''as it existed at the time of the AfD'', does not meet WP's requirements. If someone had written an article on ] in 1988, and it went to AfD, it would have been deleted. However, by 1992, the band was notable - they had an album and a world tour; someone re-writing an article on the band then should not need to go to DRV. Note that I don't know if the AfD for the subject article has established that; and the page protection raises suspicions - but DRV may not be the place to go - as Wildthing suggests, ] might be better. <span style="font-family:serif;font-size:120%">''']''' ]</span> 21:06, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
	::::Correct me if I am wrong, but wouldn't the correct place for this then be ], since the page is protected from recreation? ] (]) 20:45, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
	::::::Deletion review has been used many times to successfully validate a new version of a deleted article, particularly if said article had a messy history. Given the extensive deletion log of that entry, a community consensus ''prior'' to recreating the article in mainspace is wise if for no other reason that to prevent an over-zealous G4 speedy deletion or a potentially-needless 2nd AfD. Eric Barbour should take the new article at ] to ] and be sure to include any secondary coverage since the initial deletion in this case. &mdash; ]'']'' 21:09, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
	:::::::Okay, I wasn't aware that DRV had been used in this way in the past (I spend very little time there). I defer to more knowledgeable admins than I. ] (]) 21:12, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
	::::::::No problem--I wasn't aware of it myself until I participated in one of the same type myself about 6 months ago. &mdash; ]'']'' 21:29, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
	(undent) Actually, this venue is as good as any. If the new version created in the userspace meets ] any admin can use his or her own good judgement and unsalt the page. There is no need to jump through pointless beurocratic hoops. Lets see his new version of the page, and then we can judge for ourselves if it should be unprotected. --].].] 21:33, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
	:It's already been listed at ]. Feel free to add a comment there or be bold yourself in whatever you think should be done. Directing people to a forum in which analysis of past AfD results and present content is routine isn't bureaucracy, it's organized discussion. As I stated, if this article has been a problem in the past, why not get a consensus on its proposed reinstatement? If a bold admin unprotects/restores, there's a decent chance this will end up at AfD again...that's just my gut feeling given the article history and a reasonably-perceived COI. &mdash; ]'']'' 22:07, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
	::The exception to the 'unilateral' theme being, of course, ] (requires ''explicit'' consensus to restore). ] (]) 00:44, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
	:::Not relevent since the article being restored here is not a BLP. No BLP, no need for insanely complicated beaurcracy. But, it looks like the DRV has started, so no need NOT to see it through. --].].] 05:48, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
	== ] ==
	Hi. I posted a complaint at ] against User Quizimodo. He responded to reasonable comments by me at ] with incivility. I took my complaint to his talk page, where he continued to be rude. I made my posting and informed Quizimodo at his talk page. Not only am I personally affronted, but his incivility makes it impossible to conduct a useful discussion. ] also posted a complaint about his incivility. ] offered to be a go- between. Quizimodo has not responded, but has told GoodDay he does not acknowledge the complaint. I do not want him blocked. I do not want an apology even. All I want is for him to conduct himself with some dignity and respect. Could an Admin pop over to his page? The history of the complaint is at Wikiquette alerts.--] (]) 20:41, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
	:What good would an admin do? We carry no special weight in the matter; any user may respond to the Wikiquette alert, and their opinions should be taken with the weight of any other user, including an admin. If no one is to be blocked at this time, there is nothing for us to do... --].].] 21:43, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
	::Thank you for answering my query. I have never made a complaint before and don't understand the process. So are you telling me that if Quizimodo doesn't respond to the Wikiquette alert, there is nothing we can do? Myself and other uses must suffer his rudeness?--] (]) 21:49, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
	:::As has been suggested at the Wikiquette alert section, I'd strongly advise going to ] to get some other perspectives on his behaviour. If everybody seems to agree that it's inappropriate, he would be well-advised to change it or he might ultimately be blocked. I'd be happy to help you with the process; just contact me on my talk page. ] (]) 21:54, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
	::::Thank you. I'll do that.--] (]) 21:59, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
	:::::To reply Gazzster's earlier comment (Edit conflict): Not at all. All I am saying is give the WQA report some time to work its course. Perhaps mediation will work, and the user will reform their ways. All I am saying is that until there appears to have been some serious attempts by outside users to get this guy to straighten out, blocking should probably not be the first course of action. Also, Sarcasticidealists suggestion to follow up the WQA with a RFC is a good idea, since the more editors that find this users behavior inappropriate, the greater justifcation there is for a block should the behavior continue. A block may well be appropriate in the future when all other attempts at ] have been attempted, but lets not throw around a plan to do so until those avenues turn out to really be dead ends... --].].] 22:03, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
	:::::::You're quite right. Thank you.--] (]) 22:41, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
	== Interpreting checkuser results ==
	Would someone mind having a look at ] historic checkuser and clarify something for me. The last line doesn't explicitly say that the six or so users are socks of ], but each has been blocked with that as the reason. Is it therefore the case that the socks were socks of Wikinger, even though the RFCU report doesn't say so in as many words? Thanks. <sub>]</sub><sup>]/]</sup> 21:14, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
	== Various users stalking and harassing ] ==
	Hello. Over the past few weeks, several people have been harassing ], calling him a sockpuppet, troll, and various other things, impeding his ability to work on the encyclopedia. I have dealt with this situation twice, short blocks had no effect whatsoever. Please see ] and ] for more information. I do think there's a possibility of sockpuppetry between the users mentioned (not Charles), and would recommend an indef block on {{user|Tfoxworth}} and {{user|I vonH}}. Thank you. ]<nowiki>|</nowiki><sup>]</sup> 00:58, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
	:Thank you for filing this report, Keilana. Tfoxworth initially was the subject of a report here a year or so ago (my memory is a little fuzzy on that matter), but it didn't go far because the report was not really noticed (much more must have been going on at the time) a pattern had not yet really developed and it certainly appeared then to be a content dispute. However, over a period of weeks and months it developed into stalking behaviour involving this user, another user who claims to be his wife (I vonH, and therefore his meatpuppet, at the least, on the basis of tag-team reversions and stalking) and a number of proven IP addresses, all of which can be viewed at ]. Initially, the sockpuppets were all tagged and categorized as a means of organizing a report which was filed more or less at the same time as a previous WP:AN/I report. Over the passing weeks and months, Tfoxworth's and I vonH's behaviour has been consistently disruptive and aggressive and has usually been targeted at me but now also at others who may or may not share my viewpoint. More specifically, I should say people who ''oppose'' the two users' viewpoints are those who are targeted. This is a long-term abuse situation that has been steadily going on and I truly feel it should be dealt with accordingly with a final ban, discussed here as a record of the situation. There have also been a number of other similar stalking editors in the past that seem to arrive in a cascading effect but I have not been able to make as clear of a connection between any of them as the obvious connection between the presumed Mr. and Mrs. Foxworth. ] 02:19, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
	::Both Tfoxworth and I vonH have *just* turned up reverting a lot of the changes made to a number of articles. ] 02:27, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
	:::For example, see ]. Tfoxworth has removed newspaper citations. ] (]) 08:45, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
	:Trying to get some more comment here. ] 22:10, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
	::Very ugly situation, this… It appears to be a clear case of stalking and, given the warnings and blocks that both ] and ] have received, an indef block for both would seem in order. —]] 23:07, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
	* A persual of both accounts' histories shows that there is no doubt that ] is either a sock or meatpuppet of ] (editing days and times, article choice, stalking of users and edit summaries), I have blocked the former indefinitely and ] for a week. I invite review of these actions, and if any admin wishes to extend the latter block, please feel free to do it without informing me. Thanks, <b>]</b> 23:40, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
	**Wasn't there a recent discussion on this page where it was stated that I vonH has claimed to be Tfoxworth's wife? <font face="Arial">]<sub>'']''</sub></font> 00:22, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
	*** A possibility - but given their edit history, that would still be meatpuppetry. And I would be dubious of that anyway - their editing styles and summary are <i>very</i> similar. <b>]</b> 00:24, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
	== BoxCrawler ==
	{{resolved}} <small>The bot owner is aware of the situation.</small>
	<small>''This report has been moved from ]''</small>
	*{{vandal|BoxCrawler}} - On ], ], as examples; Bot making a lot of mistakes. It causes duplication on wikiproject schools wikiproject boxes under some circumstances. I have seen it make several duplication mistakes now, so it is probably making a lot all over the wiki. I reported this on its talk page, but I am not sure if it has come to anyones attention yet. . ] (]) 22:39, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
	:*] has left a message at the talk page of the bot owner, but I wanted to bring it here in case they're not around to see the message. ] (]) 23:04, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
	:*A random sampling of the edits shows the bot is functioning (mostly) correctly. Some of the find/replace routines needs to be tweaked to account for spaces, etc... ] (]) 23:12, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
	::* I have recieved the message and stopped the bot. The issue was that the bot didn't recognize parameters with extraneous spaces (Many of them cut-and-paste of the exact same template text). I am fixing the bot so that it will remove such spaces and fix the errors it has generated. Thanks for not just killing the bot as the vast majority of it's edits have not produced this error. ] (]) 23:14, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
	:There is also some discussion on my talk page at ] ] (]) 00:20, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
	== ] ==
	{{userlinks|Pax Arcane}}, despite several warnings by three editors: ], ], ], he continues disrupting . ] <small>]</small> 03:21, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
	== Barefoot? ==
	I just noted a page in AfD called ] that rang a bell -- I can't pin it down exactly but I remember reading a report of a persistent vandal who inserted references to the barefooted status of various individuals into articles. Could ] possibly be a sockpuppet of ]? I know there's someone out there who knows more about this than I do, and I'm sorry my memory is so poor. ]:<small>]</small> 03:32, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
	:Creepy tends to focus on creating categories for comic book characters and soap opera characters, usually using capital letters to begin each word. ] (]) 04:04, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
	:Sounds like {{user|BorisTheBlade}}. ] (]) 10:44, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
	::Thanks, that seems correct judging by previous contributions -- he may have disappeared upon suggestion of sock-puppetry, but if he pops up again, I think I know what to do. ]:<small>]</small> 17:17, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
	== several things. ==
	Look, I want to leave Misplaced Pages. I don't want to stand around several months [[Misplaced Pages talk:Request for comment/Vanished user|waiting for Misplaced Pages to fix bugs that mean I still show up on google
	To that end, will people stop insisting that my real name feature prominently in Misplaced Pages's bureaucracy and google? The Request for comment, the Arbcom case - let me leave, alright? Don't poke me with a stick. Just rename nmme, like I asked, buut which is evidently being delayed until the arbcom get off their arses and approve it - oh, gee, sending it to the group that have buggered me over at every turn! I'm so glad that I can trust them to do a good job at doing things at a timely point, and not to lose e-mails left, right and centre.
	I just want to leave. ] is my precedent. LET ME.
	Oh, and don't include me in the damn signpost, alright?
	] 04:00, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
	== ] ==
	A user named Betacommand has been acting very rude to me. I uploaded an image: ], which I understand is free to use as a magazine cover. I was unable to add the image to a page because my account was too new, but Betacommand tagged it as orphaned. I tried to explain to him that I would be able to add the image, but he reverted me and called my edits vandalism. He has been spamming my talk page about once every 10 seconds now with frivolous vandalism warnings, even though this obviously is a content dispute. After I added it to the page, he changed his dispute to one over the rationale. I have tried to familiarize myself with your policies, but I am no expert. So I would have appreciated some guidance from him instead of edit warring on my own talk page and accusing me of vandalism. He's also removing my image from the article. Is he supposed to be your ambassador? I'm trying to help ''Misplaced Pages'' by adding a good image to an article. I'm certainly not a vandal. The image is perfectly legal and does not violate ''Misplaced Pages'' policy, either. So, why is he wasting so much of our time edit warring and attacking me? I understand there are rules on civility, being helpful to newcomers, and disruption. So, how many rules does he need to violate to enforce some obscure rule of which I admit I am unaware? To add an image I shouldn't have to fight such an intense struggle with this guy.--] (]) 04:06, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
	:That's because you don't realize you're . You have to provide a ] with the image. You haven't done this, and instead repeatedly removed the valid warning tag, which is ]. --] (]) 04:10, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
	:(edit conflict) Betacommand isn't doing anything wrong. You inappropriate removing the notice from the image without adding a fair use rationale (which the warning clearly states) and you ignored multiple warnings that you were violating policies in doing so. Also you are not allowed to use non-free images on your user page, so if it is not going to be used in an article, it should be deleted, otherwise yes, it does violate policy. ] (]) 04:14, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
	::Or alternatively, people could stop acting like unhelpful ] round here? When someone says they can't add an image due to their account being new and the page being semi-protected, don't . How about asking them what page the image should be on and adding it yourself? <font face="Verdana">]<sub>'']''</sub></font> 04:15, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
	:::I don't have a lot of patience for people who pretend to be new users so they can needle Betacommand about "biting" them and such. --] (]) 04:18, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
	::::<blockquote>'''Vandalism''' is any addition, removal, or change of content made in a ''deliberate'' attempt to compromise the integrity of Misplaced Pages. The most common types of vandalism include the addition of obscenities or crude humor, page blanking, or the insertion of nonsense into articles.</blockquote>I was contributing valid content to your encyclopedia and was acting in good faith. The only person acting in bad faith is you. It doesn't need a rationale, anyway. All you two seem to care about are rationales. That's the most important thing in the world to you. Add it yourself since you know so much about policy instead of vandalizing the article and insulting me. See if you can contribute something useful to the site.--] (]) 04:21, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
	::(EC)this is not a new user. this is a long time user coming back under a new account. they threaten me with ], ], ] and ANI. As for not adding the image, one it has no rationale, two the page he wants it on should not have it per our NFC policy. ] 04:19, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
	:::Yeah, as no ''existing'' users ever complain about your civility or makes other complaints on ANI.... Let's not forget how many times you reverted to the orphaned tag before claiming it lacked a fair use rationale - , , , . Then . <font face="Verdana">]<sub>'']''</sub></font> 04:25, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
	:sorry I only pointed out one of several errors with that image. it was flagged by BCBot as orphan so that is what I tagged as. once it was used in an article ''then'' it needs a rationale. you cannot have a rationale for a usage that isnt there. Once the image was used without a rationale I tagged it as such. either way I was correct. ] 04:44, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
	I've blocked ] for 24 hours for 3RR (actually 11RR) after several warnings to stop removing appropriate tags from ]. - ] (]) 04:29, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
	:My views on this are as follows: Endorse 3RR violation block of Guywithdress for repeatedly improperly removing the DI tag ''11'' times. In response to One Night In Hackney, edits considered to be vandalism - including the improper removal of CSD and DI tags - nullify the 3RR. And then, another question: If ], a bot which monitors fair use violations on images, tags your image, if I understand the bot mechanics correctly, if you remove the tag without rectifying the problem, the bot will re-add the tag. This would result in the same cycle that is being discussed at this thread currently. There is no point in creating an ANI report about that, because it is a bot doing what it is supposed to do. There is no difference here between what was done and what the bot would have done, so why treat it as such? --] (]•]•]) 04:58, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
	== User:66.245.194.183 and Cartoon All-Stars 2000's ==
	Please do something about these edits, I'm pretty sure this special doesn't exisit!
	--Hailey 04:27, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
	== Sockpuppetry of Solumeiras? ==
	For as long as he's been a member here, there has been a cloud of suspicion from some editors (myself especially) about {{User|Solumeiras}} and his connections to past users. A checkuser was brought back as unrelated, but this looks like it may have been because of stale data on the past accounts (see the now-courtesy blanked ]).
	It's always been a suspicion that he's been related to {{User|TheM62Manchester}} for similar edit patterns and general focuses. Both display a love for templates. Both focus on articles that involve cars. Both focus on radio articles (see TheM62Manchester's deleted ] which is on a Q103 presenter and Solumeiras's edit as well as two non-notable radio presenters up for AFD ] and ]).
	But the edit that sent all my suspicions over the edge today is this: Solumeiras added a controversial tag to ] with . This is '''''exactly''''' what TheM62Manchester did . In fact, TheM62Manchester had a very fond liking to adding controversial tags to non-controversial pages (see ). This edit is so minor and unnecessary in nature that it is '''extremely''' unlikely two unconnected editors would make the same edit. It seems that Solumeiras is taking on a similar interest in controversial templating with 3 added today ( ).
	And while researching this just now I discovered yet another remarkable discovery. Solumeiras has taken a strong liking to ] as a point of edits. Guess who else did. and . Note that in addition to Solumeiras and TheM62Manchester, you'll also find ] who was connected to TheM62Manchester.
	I believe that with all this evidence laid out, we definitely have a sock situation at hand. TheM62Manchester and Sunholm were part of a large good hand, bad hand accounts that even went as far as Willy on Wheels. With his edit nature, I wouldn't doubt the same situation is in place with Solumeiras where he is the good hand with other bad hands out there. Thoughts? ] (]) 04:35, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
	:And I forgot to mention Solumeiras loves to edit the pages of banned/blocked users like ] and ]. ] (]) 04:55, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
	:My question: does it matter? ] has been blocked since November 2007, but he/she is not on the ]. Is there any evidence that ] is using abusive sockpuppets ''currently''? Is Solumeiras causing disruption to Misplaced Pages at this time? We're supposed to act proactively, not punitively. I don't care if Solumeiras was or was not a misbehaving user in the past. What matters is what he/she is doing now. The bottom line is, based on current activity, is this person a net benefit or detriment to Misplaced Pages? ] 05:00, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
	::The belief is that Solumeiras, like the past carnations of this vandal, was using a good hand/bad hand system. Solumeiras would be the good hand in this situation. So while the Solumeiras account might not appear as a vandal, the person behind it is acting as a vandal. ] (]) 05:02, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
	::And yes, there has been disruption through Solumeiras personally. He has been making nonsense edits like the controversial tags, creating inappropriate articles like the two "radio personalities/models", he has been requesting unprotection on pages that are not going to be unlocked (] and ] being two prime examples), and some other issues as well including this ] where Solumeiras was using his own AFD template which was creating deletion discussions at Votes for deletion instead of Articles for deletion for, what he deemed, "nostalgia". ] (]) 05:05, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
	:::I have taken a look at this with CheckUser and I can confirm that Solumeiras (SunStar Net) is very likely the same as Sunholm/Sunfazer, who I gather is probably the same as TheM62Manchester (though I don't have records on that one). ]·] 05:14, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
	::::His requests for unprotections lately are interesting.--] 09:03, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
	:::::Yes, one of the unblock requests was for ], which was vandalized three times within an hour of removal. He seemed to be looking for long-term protected articles and asking for them to be unprotected, simply because they had been protected for a long time. ''']''' <small>]</small> 13:06, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
	* I don't believe he's a sockpuppet of any of those users, nor is he being deliberately disruptive. Dmcdevit, I don't think he is likely to be the same as those users.
	Crotalus, I agree with your point though. Anyway, leave the guy alone, people, do you want him to become another {{tl|retired}} editor (like {{user|Jaranda}} was, ages ago.).
	I'm only really a sporadic editor here, but I'm commenting anyway purely because I have a bias: I know the guy in real life. Also, Metros, you're violating ] - you're treating him in the same way as the Armenia-Azerbaijani editors in that Arbitration case.
	Please leave him alone. --] (]) 10:04, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
	* One more thing... he's not a good hand/bad hand account, and is a separate user from them.
	You might think I'm a ], but I'm just a sporadic editor. Anyhow... he hasn't done too much wrong with his mainspace editing. Yes he tagged talk pages as controversial, but what's wrong with that?? Anyway, I've ] his user/user talk pages for him... nothing wrong with that. --] (]) 10:12, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
	One more thing:
	{{quote|'''Clean start under a new name'''
	* If you have a negative track record and you have decided to make a genuine, clean, and honest, new start, and do not wish it to be tarnished by your prior conduct, you can simply discontinue using the old account(s), and create an unconnected new account which becomes the only account you then use, and is used in a good manner. Note that the "right to vanish" does not cover this, and repeated switching of accounts is usually seen as improper.
	The most common two concerns and their usual answers are:
	*I'll be noticed: If you change your behavior, and also the articles you work on, there is no reason for a connection to be made. If you continue on the same articles or your writing style is so distinctive it will quickly be noticed, or you return to problematic editing, then it is likely a connection will be made whether or not you change account, and any perceived concealment will probably be seen more negatively when discovered.
	* I'll be identified by checkuser or accused of being a sock puppet later: Checkuser is used for suspected breaches of policy. If you don't use the old account or engage in problematic conduct, there is little reason a request would be made, and a request without good reason is likely to be declined for lack of cause.
	(That said, if future usage does draw attention by concerned users or administrators, then it is likely the connection will be made. See alternative account notification for how to reduce the likelihood of problems.) }}
	--] (]) 10:38, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
	:Heh, it's funny how when we discussed the Sunholm/Sunfazer and TheM62Manchester accounts on this here noticeboard, the same thing happened. Socks/SPAs/friends etc came out of the woodwork to tell us that the user was a good editor. Come on, Solumeiras. This is too pathetic and transparent for words. Log into your account and come and talk to us properly. ] 10:54, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
	* But I am not Solumeiras, honestly. He'll probably be editing today, I don't know. But I'm a sporadic editor, not a SPA. --] (]) 11:05, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
	::I'm sorry but I don't believe you...once bitten and all that. for example: Meybe you can staart tiping liek a unliteatable prson. Either you're Solumeiras or you're a meatpuppet here at his request. Either way, we've seen this dance before. As Matt said eighteen months ago "I have blocked the IP that Sunholm (former Sunfazer, it is claimed) uses, since the promises from last time it was blocked that no more vandalism or sockpuppet creation from this IP would occur have been proven to be lies, and the old tricks are back.
	::I ask that no admin unblock this IP without talking to me. Vandalism and sockpuppetry from this IP has been going on for at least nine months; despite numerous blocks and promises to reform, the behaviour returns each time. The person/people behind this IP are playing us for fools; don't let them do so again. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 01:12, 21 June 2006 (UTC)" If Solumeiras is Sunholm/Sunfazer and this crap has been going on for ''another'' eighteen months then enough said, I think. We've wasted enough time on this and that IP over the last couple of years. By the way, if you're going to be maintaining the claim that you aren't him you shouldn't be retiring him on his behalf. ] 11:26, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
	:::Needless to say, this "friend" is on the same IP as Sunholm, TheM62Manchester, and Solumeiras. ]·] 11:43, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
	I just got an email from ]. This user's been blocked since March 23, 2007 as a compromised account. Who was the person the person to tag this user's user page as a compromised account? Solumeiras. Now, suddenly after all this time, the user claims . If that doesn't prove that good hand/bad hand is going on, I don't know what does. ] (]) 11:54, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
	:Metros, that person emailed me, too. Look at ], the person/people behind that account claimed to have compromised some old account by guessing the passwords. I really don't think we need to tolerate this rubbish. I would support a community ban of the people/person behind these accounts. ] 12:12, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
	This behaviour (good hand/bad hand, protestations of innocence, claims that the IP is now OK although yes it was a source of bad edits before ("it was my little brother", "it's a library", "It's a school", "my roommates did it but I've spoken to them", etc), unwarranted and keen interest in CUs and the process of CUing and other people who have been CUed, vandalism of admin pages after an admin takes action (often on other wikis), creating impersonator accounts, offers to be a CU/crat/admin/steward on one of their personal wikis, and a host of other things too long and bizarre to mention in detail here unless it's necessary) is not confined to en:wp... This user is a frequent topic of discussion on the CU mailing list and has been blocked on and off under various guises on many many wikis to the point that it's almost a running joke (as in "what has he come up with THIS time??"), so it strikes me that it's time to permanently block the IP, with account creation disabled, on en:wp at the very least. (I am aware this will probably get me some angry protestations of innocence in my mail, and possibly some vandalism of some of my pages somewhere). Note also that this IP and its accounts are poster children for ] ++]: ]/] 13:42, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
	===What now? Block? Ban?===
	What is the best course of action from here? Something is clearly up and it seems indisputable that one user is responsible for all these accounts. Do we go ahead and block Solumeiras indefinitely for the disruption? Do we then ban whoever is behind all this (I'm assuming we're calling this "Sunholm" in terms of who it is, right? Obviously this can't keep happening and frustrating us all. ] (]) 14:05, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
	:Ban the person behind the accounts, block Solumeiras and any other still not blocked accounts and reblock the IP as Lar suggested. I'm not sure if the IP is still 82.42.145.158 or not. ] 14:20, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
	::I've blocked Solumeiras and his alternate accounts. What's funny is that each of his alternate accounts were tagged with {{tl|User Alternate Acc}} which was heavily edited by...Sunholm, Windmill 000eh, and Solumeiras. It doesn't get any better. ] (]) 14:38, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
	== Talk page edits ==
	Continuing issues here and here , from ] who makes similar and sometimes identical edits as the following:
	*]
	*]
	*]
	*]
	*]
	*]
	*]
	*]
	*Provider: Stentor National Integrated Communications Network
	*Explanations from others as to the inappropriateness of the edits are ignored , , and talk page histories , and reveal the process. ] (]) 05:04, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
	:I have been enlightened by this information regarding the puppet's scope: . Maybe an administrator can help. Thanks, ] (]) 06:45, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
	== Remove an edit? ==
	I sent an e-mail to Oversight about this; but I appear to have done something wrong, since I got some sort of bounce message back. Could an admin please delete , which appears to include someone's phone number (the area code matches the area where the IP is located) in both the edit and the summary? ] (]) 04:45, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
	:I did it... twice because I messed up the first time. --] (]) 05:00, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
	::Thanks. ] (]) 05:02, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
	== BetacommandBot blocked ==
	I've blocked BetacommandBot again: it's failing to follow redirects when trying to decide if an image has a valid rationale or not. See for an example. --] (]) 05:03, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
	:you know Carnildo you could have shown me a little respect and left me a talk page note about it. Please unblock and ill look into it. ] 05:05, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
	::Has the bot stopped running? Are you going to fix the problem? --] (]) 05:16, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
	:::He just said he'll look into it... I think it's reasonable to assume that means he's stopped it and is trying to fix it. <small style="font:bold 10px Arial;display:inline;border:#009 1px dashed;padding:1px 6px 2px 7px;white-space:nowrap">] ]/] ''05:21, 12 Feb 2008 (UTC)''</small>
	:::Im looking at what the API gave me as redirects to the article in question, and they are not the same information.
	<pre>
	Image:Angyali udvozlet.jpg
	Lenght:752
	Rationale:False
	Regex 1:(Angyali\sÜdvözlet|The\sAnnunciation\s\(film\))
	Regex 2:(Angyali_Üdvözlet|The_Annunciation_\(film\))
	Time:True
	</pre>
	:::but ] and ] dont match. the API have me the first page as instead of the second. Im not sure what caused that. but I will be looking further the API error. ] 05:23, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
	::::I'll unblock as long as the bot doesn't do any image-rationale work until this bug and the μTorrent bug mentioned on your talkpage are fixed. --] (]) 05:30, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
	::::Carnildo, there was no need to block the bot in the first place. Like I have stated several times to you. Leave me a talkpage notice and Ill stop the bot. I said im looking into this and will see if I can figure out if its fixable on my end. As for the μTorrent issue that is a seperate issue. ] 15:50, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
	:::::I have to agree with Betacommand here. Why do we feel it neccessary to block this bot the moment someone has "an issue" with the bot? ] (]) 15:54, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
	::::::Any bot should be immediately blocked if it makes serious mistakes (like here, tagging images for deletion that shouldn't be deleted), as restarting the bot is far easier than checking all of its edits. ] (]) 15:56, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
	::::::It's a quick easy way to make it stop. It's not remotely a big deal. ] ] 15:57, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
	::::::Friday, when people hold it against the bot in every argument, and a talkpage notice would do the same thing. and Ive asked Carnildo repeatedly to do it before blocking it, and he ignores my simple request. Leave a note and give me 5-10 minutes to kill the bot, instead of blocking. If I dont respond then feel free to block it. ] 16:24, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
	:::::::Blocking bots that are malfunctioning is standard practice. Why should yours be treated differently? ] (]) 17:06, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
	::::::::Natalie, when there are as many improper blocks on the bot as there is, people saying there "BCBot is malfunctioning", when they dont understand policy. and I have repeatedly asked this user to discuss it prior to blocking (you get about the same speed results) and the user repeatedly ignores my request I have a problem with that. ] 17:16, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
	== CSDWarnBot ==
	Something might be broken with this bot. See ]. --] <sup><font face="Calibri">''] ♦ ]''</font></sup> 05:11, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
	:This is the large print edition of the usual warning, customized for those who have the "vision-impaired" flag set to TRUE in their preferences. Pay it no mind. ] (]) 05:20, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
	CSDWarnBot is leaving gigantic icons on user talk pages... . It looks like it's been doing it for the last few days at least...Is this normal? --]] 05:13, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
	:It wasn't really a bot error. The image has been deleted at en.Misplaced Pages some hours ago, and the image displayed afterwards was the larger scaled one from Commons with the same title. I've restored the image for now, even if the bot's code is changed for future messages, all messages that were previously made would display the large scaled version. --]<sup>]</sup> 05:29, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
	== Zenwhat blocked again ==
	I've blocked {{userlinks|Zenwhat}} for continued trolling after Jimbo him to stop. He continued and was by ]. As a result, I've blocked him for a week. Since this editor's conduct is currently being discussed in an above section that may be archived soon, I have started a new section for further discussion. ] 05:47, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
	:This is the first of this user's blocks that I actually endorse. Which is a shame, since I think that were it not for the previous ill-advised blocks, he might never have stooped to the level of deserving blocks. But he's responsible for his own conduct, and today his conduct hasn't been good. ] (]) 05:49, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
	::Actually, this is exactly the kind of behavior I have come to expect from Zenwhat. He has been posting tripe like this at the Village Pump for some time, and its been getting tiresome. This is not new behavior since the last blocking above, and I do not expect this to stop when the block expires. I would really love Zenwhat to prove me wrong, but his past behavior has not led me to believe that that will happen. I endorse this block, and pray that he returns from it with a better attitude. --].].] 05:54, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
	:I've gotta endorse Nakon's actions. When Jimbo says "stop trolling" you stop trolling. A week (as opposed to a longer, perma block/ban) is being generous. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 05:55, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
	::I'm not being snarky, but if all he wants to do is discuss meta issues, perhaps someone should point him to an offsite area to do this, like the mailing list, forums, blogs, or whatever. I'm just saying the guy ''really'' likes talking about Misplaced Pages, maybe he can blow off steam elsewhere. ] 08:05, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
	:::If he put that energy into article editing-- wow. I think he has problems not necessarily related to Misplaced Pages, and that he should better spend his energy elsewhere. The one week block is fine for the sake of reducing the disruption level. I don't foresee any change in his editing patterns after the block expires.]]] 08:39, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
	:::Actually, Dave, he seems to have done just that and moved some of his efforts to Meta (]), but aside from some possibly license-breaking copy-and-paste moves, his contributions there seem to be on the up-and-up. --]-]] 08:44, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
	FWIW, I cannot bring myself to see his posts as anything else than a bit distressed and eccentric, but also rather interesting meta comment. That someone who adores Ayn Rand has considerable difficulties sharing that perspective doesn't come as a big surprise. User:] 10:55,&nbsp;],&nbsp;200]
	:If I were a meta admin, I'd probably be inclined to do something about . --] (]) 13:57, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
	:Agree with Dorftrottel, for the most part. My only concern is that repeatedly banning this user will make him back come more outrageous than the last time and eventually turn him against the project entirely. Some may say that he is already against the project-but I disagree. If he were, he wouldn't spend so much time commenting on it. That said, I don't see any of this ending well, unfortunately. :-( If he is doing this for attention, then the offsite alternatives like meta, mailing lists, and message boards won't provide him enough. I find it easy enough to avoid his commentary if I find it annoying. Violating the sanctity of Jimbo's talk page seems to be the latest offense. If he said it elsewhere it probably would have gone unnoticed. This user either has other problems or he just hasn't understood the subtleties of how to interact here yet, which is something to consider. I still think he should be encouraged to read and interact at other meta sites, maybe he can find something positive to do. ] 17:42, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
	::Fully agree, particularly with the word ''encourage''. That's the key, imo. ''Dis''couraging him is definitely counterproductive. Maybe his energies can be gently directed into more appropriate channels, so why not give it a shot instead of jumping the gun on him (npi)? User:] 17:50,&nbsp;],&nbsp;200]
	:::Much as I apperciate Jimbo, "the sanctity of his Talk page" seems a bit excessive. Regardless, I do think Zenwhat is a tragic case of what happens when a Wikipedian is brought low by what we call Wikistress, and a downward spiral of incivility between editors. --<span style="border:1px solid #63B8FF; font-weight:bold; color:#23238E; background-color:#D0E7FF;"> ] <sub> ] ] </sub> </span> 18:13, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
	=== Move? ===
	I've seen a lot of discussions come up about Zenwhat in the past few days. To keep all discussions centralized and in one place, I think it would make sense to have discussions located at ]. Opinions (note, I will move this discussion if users below agree). Regards, ] (]) 15:11, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
	:I think that is a good idea. ] 17:42, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
	== ] edit warring and being uncivil ==
	{{userlinks|Duke53}} has been perpetuating an edit war at ], continually that is questionable under the ] policy. However, he has not crossed the ] in his recent edits. A short while ago, Duke53 left a on the talk page of an anonymous user who reverted him at ], which I view as a violation of the ] policy.
	He has also recently edit warred at ], though a resolution to that dispute was reached by some patient editors. Duke53's behavior is worst at articles on whose subject he has a strong point of view: these two articles, for example, are related to ], of which he is a strong partisan.
	This comes a few months after a ] on Duke53's behavior stalled, which happened after he basically dropped off the radar for a month or so. Upon his return he showed some improvement in his behavior, but this is a serious relapse.
	I'm not sure whether to re-list the RfC (which was never resolved), to escalate this to Arbcom, or to let an admin here take whatever action they deem proper. Advice in this regard would be appreciated. I will notify Duke53 of this thread as a courtesy. ] <sup>/]/</sup> 06:17, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
	: Well, alanyst, here you go again ... why don't you acknowledge exactly why you keep stalking my every move here at Misplaced Pages?
	: I view your continual haranguing of me as harassment ... you can call it whatever you choose. Did you ever stop to think that I make those edits because I am correct? Seems to be like the pot calling the kettle black; your behavior is worst on the pages where you expect everyone to accept your edits as gospel, even when there is much disagreement about what is factual.
	:We both know that this all goes back to the 'issues' at ] and ] and my not kowtowing to your attempt at censoring items because of so-called 'sacredness'.
	: Again I will tell you: <I><B>"you do what you have to do and I will do what I have to do"</B></I>. What I <I><B>don't</B></I> have to do is accept any guff from you, so don't expect me to take it lying down. <I><B><U>Cheers.</U></B></I> <font face="raphael" color="green">] | <sup>]</sup></font> 08:30, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
	:p.s. <I>as far as "dropping off the radar"</I>: <B>look to your own house first</B>. Your M.O. seems to be 'attack & disappear'. <font face="raphael" color="green">] | <sup>]</sup></font> 08:30, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
	:p.p.s. I am just waiting for your usual 'gang' to start swarming this page. Have you notified them yet? Ho-Hum. <font face="raphael" color="green">] | <sup>]</sup></font> 08:30, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
	::Regardless of whether or not your edits are correct, you are edit warring on ]. I would suggest that you actually try to discuss the sentence in question on the talk page rather than continuing to revert, as you will be blocked if you continue. I have no comment on the claimed incivility - the diff seems borderline incivil at worst, but obviously others may have a different opinion. Your comments here, however, are quite incivil and completely fail to assume the good faith of another contributor. If the two of you have problems this is not the place to solve them. If you do not, then I am at a loss to explain Duke53's hostility. ] (]) 17:17, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
	I'm going to refrain from arguing anything here. I'm asking for admin advice or at least a look into the issue. If you want to start discussing things you know where my talk page is, and there's also the RfC page. If an admin has any questions for me, I'd of course be happy to respond here or on a talk page. ] <sup>/]/</sup> 17:12, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
	== Please review my block ==
	I indef blocked {{Userlinks|Crapitsalec}} for attack page/inappropriate page creation as a VOA. Please unblock or reduce block if I was overly zealous. Cheers, and happy editing.]]] 08:26, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
	:Looks like a good block based on the deleted contributions. Also, the user name is rather inappropriate so either way, that account's future isn't a bright one. --] (]) 13:49, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
	::Thanks]]] 16:03, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
	== Block review ==
	{{resolved}}
	I have blocked {{userlinks|PouponOnToast}} for 24 hours (originally 3) for disruption. His recent behaviour has been far from civil, he has been attacking Durova and has now decided to troll the Matanmoreland RfC. Block was originally 3 hours, but when i checked my watchlist to post this notice (quick link rather than typing) I notice he had re-added the trolling after it was removed. Thus block was extended to 24 hours. ]] 08:34, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
	:Please unblock. Editors are allowed to disagree with me. We were having a civil difference of opinion. I would have complained if I thought he'd gone overboard. <font face="Verdana">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 08:45, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
	::That went beyond disagreement, and is just one part of his recent problematic behaviour. Hd has been very caustic about the whole issue, so in the spirit of Jimbo's recent "tough on incivility" stance I blocked. I would liek to hear some more opinions however. ]] 08:48, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
	:: (inserted twice despite being reverted) is pure trolling for instance. ]] 08:50, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
	:::(ec)He's also asked me to courtesy delete the section of my user talk, and promised to walk away from the conflict. I'd prefer to have people come to me with their opinions and express civil disagreement without fear of getting blocked for it. Please do a good faith unblock. <font face="Verdana">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 08:54, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
	Viridae is on the opposite side of the dispute with PouponOnToast...he is NOT a neutral admin in this situation.--] 08:52, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
	:leave it out MONGO, I appear to be in a dispute with the whole site in your eyes. ]] 08:54, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
	::I second Durova's request. Or going back to the original 3 hour block. Maybe he can think and edit more clearly then.]]] 08:57, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
	(ec) Unblock. "It's a witch, burn it," is neither uncivil nor disruptive under the circumstances. ] (]) 08:58, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
	:Thank you for unblocking. <font face="Verdana">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 08:59, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
	:(40th bloody ec tonight)NOte that was one of many exchanges that caused the block. He is now unblocked however having agreed to stay civil. ]] 09:01, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
	::Good idea...next time, (and there is bound to be a next time), don't block anyone you have been in a dispute with again.--] 09:04, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
	:::Not a dispute MONGO...Will you EVER get that one? ]] 09:07, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
	== Another block review: ] ==
	I've blocked {{user|CBMIBM}} (former ]) for a week for and related stuff. This is a bit of a complex history involving various forms of disruption, a lot of sockpuppeting allegations (some true, some not), and difficult to see through for the outsider, so I decided to take the quick route and do the block myself, even though on a different unrelated level I'm currently involved in some content disagreements with this user. Therefore submitting for review here. Will gladly provide more background explanation if needed. ] ] 09:11, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
	:The unblock request reads"admitting that my retaliation was totally wrong, possibility of editing articles" ''']''' (]) 13:19, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
	::The trouble is: he was ostensibly insulting another user who some people believe is in reality a sockpuppet of himself. The suspicion is that he made those insults only in order to demonstrate they are not the same person. So, either it's a rather schizophrenic but quite elaborate sockpuppeting scheme, or it's a case of quite egregiously losing control of himself. In either case, it's a very deep-rooted personality problem. This guy reminds me of another disruptive user I used to be dealing with, who it later turned out suffered from Asperger's... ] ] 13:25, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
	== AntiVandal Bots and the Bot flag ==
	I thought policy was that AntiVandal bots under no uncertain terms do not get the Bot flag? Has this policy changed? ] <sup>] ]</sup> 09:14, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
	:As far as I know, they have the bot flag set so they can edit faster. Their edits are not marked as bot edits, though, so they do show up on the watchlist. Policy seems to be "anti vandal bots have a bot flag, but their edits don't". ] (]) 09:17, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
	::That doesn't seem to be the case for all bots. ] <sup>] ]</sup> 09:25, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
	:::Kusma's understanding checks with what I know. AV bots didn't used to get the flag, so that they would show up in recent changes (etc) for some measure of supervision. With rollback in particular, there was some interest in getting them bot flags so that they could be exempted from the rollback rate limiting; with that in mind, an optional URL parameter was added to allow bots to flag particular edits as non-bot (the idea being that AV bots could get flagged, but mark all edits as non-bot, thus hopefully having their cake and eating it, too). Is there a specific bot you're asking about, by chance? &ndash; <span style="font-family: Garamond">] (])</span> 10:10, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
	::::Not really, just working through ] and was curious as why some bots weren't showing up anymore. ] <sup>] ]</sup> 10:21, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
	:::::Whether or not an account has the bot flag or not has no effect on whether it shows up in the IRC Recent Changes (which VF uses). It's possible that VF automatically whitelisted the bots&mdash;you might want to remove them from the whitelist if that's the case. ]<sup>]</sup> <span title="Misplaced Pages:Administrators&#39; noticeboard/Incidents">§</span> 15:58, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
	== 143.235.215.* harassing {{user|Ckatz}} ==
	A range of IP addresses seems to be coming around simply to harass Ckatz (a prospective future admin) and interfere in articles he's involved in. See (deceitful edit summary) . Very likely socks of banned user {{user|EverybodyHatesChris}}. ] (]) 10:30, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
	*. ] (]) 16:47, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
	== Consistent edit warring/POV pushing, pesonal attacks, 3RR violations, etc. ==
	Someone please tell me what we should do with ]. Please see ]. He unapologetically edit wars against consensus and pushes a fringe point of view (see ]), accuses everyone with whom he agrees of being a "radical Evangelical", and just willfully violated 3RR using socks at ] (for which he was not blocked, because I'm less interested in reporting him than seeing a solution). That being said, I'm not entirely convinced we can work with this user on en at all unless we get some major promises of attitude adjustment. For admins, just look at the deleted versions of his userpage to get an idea. I'm reluctant to report this here at all due to the fact that the comments are certainly meant to illicit a ] effect. Some help? And, BTW, ''please'' actually read the comments at the Talk:Religion page before commenting here. ] (]) 10:34, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
	==Disruptive edits: ]==
	For over two months now, Iwanafish has repeatedly inserted POV material into the ] article. Here's the history:
	* Iwanafish adds unsourced text on ], ]. His addition is reverted .
	* He re-inserts the text and is reverted with the edit summary: "undid changes made by iwanafish, as he attaches his own personal opinion to the end of the opening paragraph." Iwanafish again re-inserts the text.
	* On ], ] ] adds a note on the ], stating that the material shows a lack of objectivity.
	* On ], ] ] edits and moves the text . Iwanafish reverts.
	* A total of six editors, other than Iwanafish, comment, on the talk page. All agree that the text is unacceptable, referring to it as ]. On ], ] it is proposed to give Iwanafish until the end of December to find citations for the text. All those who comment on this agree. Iwanafish responds with scorn for "Westerners view of the I Ching" but does not comment on the need for sources.
	* The pattern of reverts continues. Edit summaries refer Iwanafish to the talk page , and then warn him that if he doesn't discuss his edits on the talk page his reverts will be treated as vandalism .
	* On ], ], a note on his ] describes the problem of lack of sources, explains that editorial decisions are made by consensus and warns him he could be blocked if he continues his actions.
	* No sources are provided but the pattern of reverts slows in late December and early January, then starts up again on ], ]
	* On ], ], Iwanafish is given a 4th level warning. He ceases to edit the I Ching article as Iwanafish.
	* On ], ] ] adds the identical text with the identical MO as Iwanafish. A 4th level warning is added to the IP talk page. On ], ] ] reverts again.
	I recommend that a block of several days be given to his IP address. ] (]) 11:08, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
	::Having been a victim of more than one setup in my history on wikipedia, and having an interest and expertise in Chinese, this post caught my eye. When I investigated I found Iwanafish was not alone in wanting some of his edits included, despite Sunray's portrait. Indeed Iwanafish sourced one of his edits to p131 of Needham's classic. Sunray's rejection of Needham is most unwarranted. Needham's is one of the modern classics of world and China related scholarship. If his views on Chinese mysticism are not relevant then it is a very sad day for wikipedia. Having said that, I do not condone Iwanafish's style - though I point out that Sunray equally shares a tendency for reversion, and further, a tendency for ownership of the page in question. I recommend guidance for Iwanafish and Sunray, not the penalty Sunray seeks. ] (]) 15:26, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
	== persistent personal attacks and deliberate vandalism ==
	{{Resolved|User reverted and issued final warning.}}
	I have been subject to persistent personal attacks from user ] who has taken exception to my edits of articles of Saskatchewan. Evidence of personal attacks can be found from edit summaries of , , , and a few other occasions. this user persists with the notion that I am not a native English speaker, which I clearly am as noted in the most recent personal attack on me . Their recent revert changes refer to my proper labelling sections as "Notes and References" as per http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:LAYOUT#Standard_appendices_and_descriptions which Masalai continues to revert in deliberate violation of these rules and I believe solely because of my role as a contributor. I have tried to ask this user to stop with no success. . Masalai was given another warning today as well by another user Masalai has previously tried to attack me as another user warned them about this last year. ] (]) 11:51, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
	:I'm not an admin... but the edit summaries of Masalai's edits look downright idiotic. :\ ] (]) 12:06, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
	::As far as the disruptive behavior and personal attacks, they are utterly ridiculous. The user has been warned. Another incident should result in a somewhat lengthy block, in my opinion. I'm looking further into the content issue. ''']''']''']''' 14:12, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
	== E-mail from user about taking legal action ==
	I've been on an undeclared wikibreak but just received an e-mail from a user about a vandal I've blocked and how s/he continues to "commit acts of libel" and how the person intends to proceed with legal action. I don't know how to respond and haven't really the time to investigate it; would someone be so kind as to handle this for me? Cheers. -- ] 14:54, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
	:Just tell the person that you are not active in Misplaced Pages right now and direct the user to ] and ]. That should be enough (we need to identify who the person is in order to prevent the person from editing Misplaced Pages according to our policy). -- ] (]) 15:02, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
	::<s>Don't reply to the email and reblock them with email disabled. <font face="Broadway">]'']</font>'' 17:05, 12 February 2008 (UTC)</s>
	:::I don't think the emailer is the one who's blocked, so that wouldn't really help. ] (]) 17:22, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
	::::Yes, that appears right, I misread it. <font face="Broadway">]'']</font>'' 17:23, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
	== Weird contributions ==
	Can someone have a look at ] contributions starting from the beginning of this month. Something seems a bit fishy looking at some of the contribs. Could another user/admin look at the contributions and see what they think? ] (]) 15:04, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
	:How very strange, few of this users edits seem legit, but they don't seem malicious. Perhaps a small child?--] (]) 15:13, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
	::Um. ] stands out to me as it is not formatted properly, yet they can create pages, for instance ], ] and ]. Maybe more than one person is controlling this account? ] (]) 15:18, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
	:::I didn't really get that impression. It's a tricky one - one one hand, it looks as if all the edits are made in good faith, but on the other hand, much of what they're doing is disruptive (albeit in a fairly minor way). Maybe we should encourage them to ]? ] (]) 15:27, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
	:::::Maybe. However, the user has a lot of CSD warnings on ]. ] (]) 15:48, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
	::::::Some which have now evolved into at least usable stubs, others of which include a notable settlement in Senegal (but mis-spelled) and a reference to a Pokemon character, which arguably could have been at least stubified. The others, well, they are just nonsense redirects and come across to me as good-faith attempts to contextualise some local slang. I'd support adoption if the editor is willing, because some of his more complete articles have potential to be useful additions. * Meanwhile have advised editor of this conversation ] --''']''' (]) 16:00, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
	::::::::Thanks, my apologies, I forgot to do that. While scrolling through some more of the users contributions, seems bizzare to say the least. ] (]) 16:24, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
	<outdent. What I see is a new user, keen to get on with article writing, but unfamiliar with our policies and ways. Some of the templates may seem to him to be a bit ], but he's still here. Other users might have given up in frustration. The above edit says to me that he's not familiar with <nowiki>{{inuse}}</nowiki> or <nowiki>{{under construction}}</nowiki> and wants to defend against having his article speedied. Hence the misplaced stub. I say he should have a chance, preferably with adoption, but once he knows what he's doing a little better, I see him being a useful editor. --''']''' (]) 16:38, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
	: I find the repeated creation of articles solely for the purpose of nominating them for AfD a bit concerning. On February 9th, s/he created ] at 1:45 and created an AfD for it within a minute. (Itself since deleted: ]). At 5:43 that same day, s/he created ]. At 5:45, s/he created ](also since deleted). The AfD s/he opened on ] for the article s/he created, ] (February 7th) is still ongoing. --] <sup>]</sup> 16:45, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
	::*Unfamiliarity with <nowiki>{{db-author}}</nowiki> would explain this.--''']''' (]) 17:00, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
	:::*How? The ] page was created . Its not like the user created the article, then AFD'd it 15 minutes after. The user created the article '''with''' the AFD template. ] (]) 17:09, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
	::::*CSD is usually within an hour; AFD gives the author five days to get it into shape. Desperate, perhaps, but I don't think it's useful to speculate further until we've heard from the editor. --''']''' (]) 17:25, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
	::That is partially the reason why I think the account is being used by 2 different people. S/he created ], which seems to be a solid stub article a month ago, yet now seems to be creating what look like test pages, hence my concern about two possibly people using the account. ] (]) 16:56, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
	:::That's something that needs to be looked at, but I don't see any need to throw the baby out with the bathwater. --''']''' (]) 17:00, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
	::::Do you think it's possible that the user misunderstands the purpose of deletion discussions and is trying to confirm rather than delete the articles? I had a peek at the deleted AfDs, and neither of those nor the existing one actually indicate a desire to see the article deleted. --] <sup>]</sup> 17:26, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
	:::::That's certainly a possibility, although it would be a pretty masochistic editor who understood AFD who would do this. As I say, speculation is unhelpful, but it may be that the editor, having had a few articles CSD'd already, is trying to have their articles peer-reviewed, using the wrong process. Can we see what the editor has to say before getting into too much mind-reading, as I'm trying to ]? I don't see any need for admin intervention at this stage. --''']''' (]) 17:34, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
	::::::I'm not sure that anyone here is ''not'' trying to ]. Indeed, it seems ]. :) --] <sup>]</sup> 17:49, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
	==]==
	{{User|Anglepush}} is known for his POV and propagandist material pushing into different Armenia-related articles. Currently that user made a redirect from ] to the ] and attacked me at the ] ("modifications of the ]"), made some denialist statements and then deleted a large part of sourced text and bibliography on Armenian genocide denial . ] (]) 16:15, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
	== Repeated tactics ==
	If they dont get it its not my fault.] (]) 16:23, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
	:Sorry, I don't understand the question - do you have a concern of some sort? ] (]) 16:26, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
	::They refuse to interact and simply keep on reposting rejected material.Again on my ethnicity ,denying ,irony and ignore my postings and of any user or admin rejecting them] (]) 16:32, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
	:::Megistias is mixing up complaints against two different users: ], who is indeed a ] and forever in danger of earning himself a renewed ban, and a new guy ], who has so far not done anything outrageously disruptive by Balkanic standards. ] ] 16:50, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
	::OK. In which case, can we have some diffs so that we can resolve, or try to resolve the problem. Regards, ] (]) 16:53, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
	:::I am pretty frustrated.This is like deja vu] (]) 16:57, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
	:::Dodona is a loooooong story. I've been trying to guard him through a "second chance", that's the only reason I'm not just joining in with Megistias' cry for bans, but I have doubts if it's going anywhere. I somehow don't know where to start with the links :-( ] ] 17:04, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
	==MfD moved and vandalized==
	I nominated several pages in ]'s userspace for deletion at ]. He moved the MfD to ] and blanked the page. I need an admin to move the page back and would request a 24 hour block of ] for purposefully disrupting the MfD. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 17:01, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
	:Why do you want to delete a page on someone's userspace? ] (]) 17:04, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
	::Per ]. ] 17:09, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
	::The set of pages relate to a game the user created where people earn points for doing things on wikipedia that are redeemable for barnstars. I feel this is an inappropriate use of the userspace as it is a ]. I've nominated for MfD to allow a discussion on the issue. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 17:12, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
	:Moved back to correct place and blocked Jay Tuner for 31 hours for needless page move vandalism. ] 17:09, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
	::For the record, this page seems germaine to this discussion. --].].] 18:04, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
	:::Good find, now the tough question, since their both from the same IP address (no checkuser needed) do we trust the anon. IP or not? ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 18:06, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
	:::And now the old-user name request ] ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 18:10, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
	== Unblock request ==
	*{{userlinks|Sportman2}}
	User is requesting an unblock to their indefinate block. The block was instituted for repeated image copyvios, and repeated refusal to abide by Misplaced Pages's image policy. They have been blocked for months at this point. I have proposed that he be unblocked if he agreed to a community ban on uploading any files at all, since that was the particular problem that led to his block. The user would be allowed to edit articles in good faith. Would other admins agree to endorse a conditional unblock, under the specific rules that this user is not allowed to upload any more image or other media files, and that doing so would result in a return of the block indefinately... Comments? --].].] 18:02, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
	*'''Endorse unblock''' - Per ]. Agree to the terms. ] <sup>]</sup> 18:06, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
	*'''Decline unblock''' '''''but''''' implement the ] template. ] (]) 18:08, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
	**What good would second chance do? The user wasn't blocked for bad editing of articles, but for image violations... Second chance proves nothing with regard to reforming their prior behavior? --].].] 18:16, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
	==]==
	Complaint about this user who is deleting information, even if sourced, here: ] and here: ]. He lectures other users and tells them what he will permit here: ] as though we have just arrived. He may, of course, be someone's puppet. But we should not be bullied by editors who are effectively vandalising articles and deleting things they simply don't like. ] (]) 18:09, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
	== Ovi Online Magazine ==
	Can someone look into ] and the recent edits that have taken place there? Apparently there are two sites calling themselves Ovi Online: ovimagazine.com, and theovimagazine.com, which are apparently quite different. An IP user has repeatedly changed the link back and forth; it's clear that one of those two sites copied the other but I have a hard time determining which. I presume ovimagazine.com is the original and correct one, but my reasoning isn't very good: that's the link that was first in the article when it was created in 2006. Also, I'm a bit concerned about potential ] issues here. ]]<sup>]</sup> 18:10, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

---

Latest revision as of 02:07, 25 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)

This feels par for the course for Zander frankly. As noted with the bit about Zander reverting after an explicit edit summary saying not to and there being two days worth of me saying that edit would be made and they made no objections until the move was made. They disengaged from discussion but only re-engaged when the situation changed to their disliking. Rusted AutoParts 02:07, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

SPA User:Tikitorch2 back at it on Martin Kulldorff

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

User talk:International Space Station0

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

• 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