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

Revision as of 01:36, 20 February 2008 editMrSchimpf (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, File movers, IP block exemptions, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers94,633 edits →Higher (Heidi Montag song)← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 00:00, 24 December 2024 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,290,785 editsm Archiving 4 discussion(s) to Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1174) (bot
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 = 370
	|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-->
	<!-- ---------------------------------------------------------- -->
			== Globallycz ==
	<!-- Vandalism reports should go to ], not here. -->
			{{Atop|This problem was over a few days ago. There's no point in keeping it open.--] (]) 01:42, 22 December 2024 (UTC)}}
	<!-- ---------------------------------------------------------- -->
			This user has been on disruptive edits and bad faith reviews. I as an bystander can't help with these edits as this user used only mobile phone edits to edit he please and his edit summaries was rather harsh and accusing editors of bad faith. He only joined Misplaced Pages for three months, and this is rather concerning for the accord. Please investigate. ] (]) 04:56, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
	== SqueakBox and Personal Attacks ==
			:Have you looked at majority of my edits? Or are you basing your views here of me based on narrow baised view. I offered mg reason for reverting your edits which removed the age content without explanation. You failed to respond adequately and now instead of addressinfmg my feedback on good faith, you dropped a baseless accusation without any proper qualification. Stop nitpciking editors jus because we are a few months. That is irrelevant. And dont abuse the words "good faith". Cite specific examples where there is a basis. Otherwise, i am sorry. It will be disregarded. ] (]) 05:10, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
	: FInally, I have got to ask for help on this. In spite of agreeing in the past to leave me alone and to cease personal attacks in general, {{userlinks|SqueakBox}} is back, editing my talkpage (something I had requested he not do and I have agreed not to edit his...which I have abided by) multiple times, removing an obvious self-deprecating joke, and now is making his personal attacks on me again. This user, with a long, distinguished list of blocks and interventions, has been begging for a indef block forever. Granted, or even . Now it's these: . Can something be done? He has worked very, very hard to antagonize, vilify, harrass, and belittle many users on Misplaced Pages. Something has got to be done about this highly disruptive, verbally violent user. ] (]) 21:27, 15 February 2008 (UTC) <small>''if more links and diffs for history of attacks is needed, let me know... but they'd fill up an entire page.''</small>
			::It is your majority of edits, and two, Your talk page also shows it and so was edit summaries, and you felt like you want to confront readers. ] (]) 05:17, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
	::I think it's safe to say that the patience of the community is wearing thin. I, for one, am very tired of seeing the same names appear at AN/I with issues. I recommend that both parties find a way to solve this on their own, because I have a feeling that if administrator action is required, it will be of a grave nature. - ] &#124; ] 22:09, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
			:::The talk page represented a small percentage of all my edits. Have you considered whether these few editors were reasonable or unreasonable when they brought issues to talk page. Sadly, most were behaving unreasonably or without basis. Some are somewhat like your case; no explanation was given to remove content. I suggest you put away personal feelings. I offered my reason(s) for reverting your edits which primarily removed the age content without any explanation. Again please do not nitpick editors just because they are a few months. That is irrelevant. Quality of edit matters more. Again, i will not defend myself further. I just hope Adnin will be fair and look at the issue broadly and openly. Admin: If this particularly editor using the IP address as his user id continue to edits or remove content without adequate reasons or source, i will try to put them right again. ] (]) 05:29, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
	::: ]. I leave him alone, I do not edit his userpages, but I cannot get rid of his following and attacking. '''I have worked hard to not be involved with him.''' ] (]) 22:15, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
			::::IP, as the notice at the top of the page says, "please provide links and diffs here to involved pages". Globallycz has made more than 1500 edits in the last few months and we're not going to shift through them all trying to guess which edits you might think are a problem. Give us some examples. See ] if you don't know how to make a diff. ] (]) 05:46, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::Well, here it is one of them, and even accused that one of irrational behavior. I am not. ] (]) 06:36, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::That's the best you can come up with? Globallycz's edit summary is uncivil, as is your retaliatory edit summary where you used the same term in reference to Globallycz. You might want to read ]. The disputed content is simply a matter of a difference of wording, which neither of you has attempted to discuss on the talk page. In general I prefer your wording, but it has some minor grammar and punctuation errors that need correcting, and you introduce the error "0Viet" as part of a reference elsewhere. The more important thing is that both of you are edit warring over this material. You have both broken ]. ] (]) 06:58, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::I just like to highlight that the disputed content was not just a matter of wording. Please review carefully. I dont think i was being rude nor uncivil. The person accusing me of this and that has used strong words like asking me to get a life and daring me this and tbat. On my part, i only insisted that all WP edits should be properly justified. Suggest you reviewed the edits again.
			:::::::i dont wish to add to your burden unless necessary. The irony is that he had earlier removed the space between a full stop and two references along with other age content on the WP describibg serious crimes in Singapore between 2020 and 2024. When i did the same thing to remove the space between full stop and reference, he undid it. That is not rational. Being civil means respecting others by following basic rules like justifying each edit reasonably. I dont see him doing that. You wont hear from me anymore. ] (]) 07:23, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::I'm assuming that the related edits in the 122.11.212 range are yours too. ] (]) 07:09, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
			*{{tq|You have both broken ]}} - Indeed they have, and thus they've both been blocked. - ] <sub>]</sub> 08:37, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:Frankly if you admin people are more informed or less lazy, you will check the edits by IP user 122.11.212.156 and notice most of his edit were reverted by others due to vandalism or unsubstantiated edits. This is partly why I.dont have any kind of respect to the check and balance system in WP. ] (]) 10:36, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
			*::I'm not seeing "most" of the IP's edits being reverted as vandalism. In fact, you're the ''only'' person I'm seeing reverting them. Also, lashing out at the admins as {{tq|lazy}} is ]. — <b>]:<sup>]</sup></b> 16:48, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:::Well, that is not honest. If you are unhappy with being labelled as lazy and deny several reverting of past edits of IP user 122.11.212.156 by other editors, that is not being objective. I cant do anything if you deny them. I only reverted 2 of this edits which involved removals of content without reasons. Your response is the reason I dont have respect for the work Adminstrator do. ] (]) 17:31, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
			*::::], nobody said you're obligated to "respect the work admins do", however you do have to abide by ] and ], which are ] (in fact, one of the ]), and ''not'' some optional motto or decorative set of words. Calling people "irrational" or "lazy" is uncivil, and as an uninvolved observer I would suggest you stop. ] (]) 14:35, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:::::It is called criticism and not an attack. WP Administrator needs to do a better job when carrying out arbitration of complaints or disputes. I am fine with being blocked one day for breaking the 3RR rule but Admin should look deeper into the IP user 122.11.212.156's track record. He got off too lightly.
			*:::::Sorry, i disagree that using the words lazy and irrational is deemed uncivil. It is not personal. It is my general observation from this episode. If Admin does a bad job, are we suppose to pretentiously thank or praise them? I can easily cite examples to support my claim about IP user 122.11.212.156 unconstructive edits. I just couldnt understand why Admin let the user off so easily.
			*:::::Of course, I am not obligated to respect the work Admin does. Nobody needs to tell me that. ] (]) 16:15, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
			*::::::Just giving you advice here, in line with what multiple different people have already told you.
			*::::::Though if you choose ] and dig your hole deeper instead, that's of course your prerogative. I will now disengage, good luck. ] (]) 16:57, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:::::::Globallycz, it's interesting that you think the IP "got off too lightly"" seeing as how you were both given identical blocks for edit warring with each other. If that's the case then it appears that '''you''' also got off too lightly.
			*:::::::Stating that you prefer a block to discussing the contested edits, and doubling down on your incivility/personal attacks does not bode well for you. ] before EducatedRedneck's following call for an indef is accepted. ] (]) 22:59, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
			*::::::::I have repeatedly highlighted to look into the track record of IP user 122.11.212.156. But it seems none of you wish to do so and cant bother to look deeper and beyond just the single snap shot on his edit warring with me over WP on serious crimes in Singapore 2020 onwards. Please do not misinterpret what I said. I am fine with the 24 hours block over the edit warribg incident but 122.11.212.156 has a history of unconstructive edits that were reverted by others. 122.11.212.156 knowingly edited the disputed WP without citing any reasons and still has the audacity to complain about me. His or her action are done to disrupt others. Just check his contributions in the past and you will notice many others were reverted either manually or using undone function. On that basis, he got off too lightly. Well, if Admin refused to check the IP user track record, I cant do anything but label it as lazy. My comments are nothing personal but directed at the actions. Even my comment that 122.11.212.156 is irrational was directed at his or her actions. I dont even know any of you. Why would I be personal? I am just voicing my unhappiness with the way dispute are decided here by Admin which I feel are sometimes too superficially done and decided. I would sign off here on this topic too. ] (]) 05:22, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:::::::::I looked at the ] and I don't see anything like the record you are describing. That IP has made a total of 14 edits in the past year, all in the last 2 months, of which only six have been to article space. Five of those edits to article space have been reverted, and '''all''' of those reversions were done by you; no reversions have been done by any other editor. It's not very meaningful to look at edits further back than a year since it's likely the IP address was reassigned so the old edits may not have done by the same editor. But even looking back at the older edits, there were a total of 15 edits from this IP before 2024, of which 5 were reverted. This all hardly shows a pattern of widespread disruptive edits or "many" reversions.{{pb}}I also looked at the edits to ] that Globallycz is so worked up about and is calling disruption. They are very minor, basically the argument is just about whether to include the ages of some people involved in a crime. Ironically, 122.11.212.156's last edit was to restore Globallycz's preferred version, yet Globallycz still can't let this drop and continues to call for sanctions. Given their uncollaborative and uncivil comments here and elsewhere, I would support an indef, or at least fairly lengthy block, especially since they have repeatedly indicated that they are ready to accept a 24 hour block as a price they're willing to pay in order to get their way. ] (]) 07:15, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
			*::::::::::You are not being reasonable and fair
			*::::::::::(1) when you discount the explanation I gave to revert the two edit(s) by 122.11.212.156 pertaining to removal of age content . I had repeatedly asked 122.11.212.156 to explain the age content removal but it was never given. I justified the reversion of his edit by explaining that the sources listed the age of the suspect and victim along with their names.
			*::::::::::(2) when you did not considered that the multiple reversions in 2024 were pertaining to the same WP and same disputed content while those earlier were of different WPs and content. I quote 3 WPs below which had edit by 122.11.212.156 reverted by other editors. Reason given by those who reverted the edits are quoted below too.
			*::::::::::1. WP Osmanthus fragrans:
			*::::::::::Date: Jul 2022
			*::::::::::Undid revision 1100529442 by 122.11.212.156 (talk)-repeated disruptive edits
			*::::::::::2. WP Mass Rapid Transit (Singapore)
			*::::::::::Date: 1 Nov 2021
			*::::::::::Undid revision 1053014105 by 122.11.212.156 (talk) unexplained removal of material and change of references
			*::::::::::3. WP Wunmi Mosaku
			*::::::::::Date: 17 Sep 2021
			*::::::::::Reverting edit(s) by 122.11.212.156 (talk) to rev. 1045008960 by 42.188.141.191: unsourced BLP birth date
			*::::::::::In your eagerness to see that I am banned indefinitely, you have conveniently claimed it is not meaningful to look at edits beyond one year since IP may be reassigned and past edits may be done by a different person. This is so convenient since there is no need to provide proof.
			*::::::::::I can also conveniently claim that there are different people manning the IP address and their common objective is to disrupt WP edits. Likewise, I dont have to prove what i say too and there is no way for you to disprove this possibility too.
			*::::::::::He decided to undo the reversion after knowing he has beem exposed for irrational behavior. I have explained why he was irrational. And I dont wish to repeat here again. If none of you wish to take that into account, I cant do anything. Please be objective. ] (]) 13:51, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
			*::::::::::By the way, I have just looked at the edit by IP user 122.11.212.156 in Oct 2024 pertaining to WP Jurong Group Representative Constituency. The content introduced by IP user 122.11.212.156 was illogical and unsupported by any source. As such I have reverted them. ] (]) 16:39, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
			*::::::::::Just to add, if we just look at 2024 contributions of IP user 122.11.212.233 involving 7 edits of mainly same content on just 2 WPs (Major Crimes in Singapore 2020 - Present and Jurong GRC), it is hardly representative of the disruptive behavior. A telltale sign that he is possibly from the same person was the evidence that in Nov 2021, he edited WP page related to Singapore MRT and in 2024, his edits were also pertaining to Singapore related WPs on major crimes in Singapore and Jurong GRC. ] (]) 01:37, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:I don't think Globallycz has gotten the message. Their denial that calling editors (admins or otherwise) "lazy" is a ] seems to suggest ]. On their talk page, they ]: {{tq|q=y|Frankly, i rather get blocked for 24 hours rather than go through dispute resolution}}. They ]: {{tq|q=y| For me, it is fine to be blocked. I rather take that route.}} Finally, they seem to admit to using personal attacks to prove a ] in ] edit, where after being told to not attack editors, they state: {{tq|q=y|I am highlighting a problem here}} If they won't even pay lip service to following community guidelines, I think an indef is appropriate. If they change their approach and convince an admin, they can be welcomed back. ] (]) 17:01, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
			{{Abot}}
			==Obvious sock threatening to take legal action==
	:::: I've looked through some history and at the risk of taking sides, I have to say it looks to me like SqueakBox is the short fuse in this dispute. He's very quick to use colorful adjectives to describe other people and their actions, in statements that could probably often be considered personal attacks. I think at the least, he could use a stern reminder about civility from an uninvolved admin. <small style="font:bold 10px Arial;display:inline;border:#009 1px dashed;padding:1px 6px 2px 7px;white-space:nowrap">] ]/] ''22:47, 15 Feb 2008 (UTC)''</small>
			{{atop|1=VPN socking blocked. - ] <sub>]</sub> 01:41, 22 December 2024 (UTC)}}
	::: Squeak is a decent person. I blocked him in the past, and he impressed me with his ability to understand that a time out was right in that case. What SqueakBox doesn't like, being a decent person, is any hint of the promotion of pedophilia, racism and a number of other things that decent people don't like. Each time I've investigated an issue with Squeak recently, it's turned out that the problem was excess of decency. Make of that what you will. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 22:54, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
			{{atop|result=IP 2409:40D6:0:0:0:0:0:0/32 range block has been blocked for 6 months. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 03:15, 18 December 2024 (UTC)}}
	:::: Translating that into objective terms, he acts inappropriately but since he does so in accordance with your POV then it must be okay. In the interest of neutrality I don't think the cause he's fighting for, even if it's the majority POV, should be a determining factor. Considering blowing up at people as an "excess of decency" means little since "decency" is subjective, and even if his views were considered decent by matter of fact, you can be excessively decent and still conduct yourself appropriately. We don't judge people based on their views but on how they act, the two being mutually exclusive. <small style="font:bold 10px Arial;display:inline;border:#009 1px dashed;padding:1px 6px 2px 7px;white-space:nowrap">] ]/] ''23:44, 15 Feb 2008 (UTC)''</small>
			] has been socking to edit a wide range of caste articles, especially those related to ]s . This range belongs to ] and has been socking using proxies and VPNs too. Many of which have been blocked. Now they are threatening to take legal action against me "{{tq|but how far we will remain silence their various optimistic reason which divert my mind to take an legal action against this two User}}" . - ] (]) 11:51, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
	::::: Not quite. Pro-pedophile advocacy brings the project into disreupte and has led to bans. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 00:46, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
			:Just as ignorant as he is known longtime abnormal activation and especially on those of ] article see his latest revision on ] you will get to urge why he have atrocity to disaggregating ] but pm serious node i dont mention him not a once but ypu can also consolidate this ] who dont know him either please have a eyes on him for a while ] (]) 12:06, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
	:::::: POV-pushing, ''not'' pro-pedophile advocacy or anti-pedophile advocacy in particular, leads to bans. And regardless of the reasons, inappropriate behavior is still inappropriate behavior. You can't justify it by saying you were acting for the good of Misplaced Pages. If you want to do good things, you do it the right way, or you leave it to someone else. <small style="font:bold 10px Arial;display:inline;border:#009 1px dashed;padding:1px 6px 2px 7px;white-space:nowrap">] ]/] ''01:00, 16 Feb 2008 (UTC)''</small>
			:But wait a second as per ] i dont take his name either not even so dont even try to show your true culler midway cracker and admin can you please not i am currently ranged blocked as my network is Jio telecom which was largely user by various comers] (])
	::::::: Squeak mainly does ''N''POV pushing, in my experience. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 10:51, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
			::Please tell me there's a language issue at play here, and that the IP didn't mention ] and use a racist slur in the same sentence there... —''']''' (]) 12:26, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
	:The history is perhaps more complex than you have seen, Equazcion, this is perhaps a case for dispute resolution (possibly arbcom) and I have initiated that while also resolving the current flame at VPs talk page. Thanks, ] 22:55, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
			:::I think it's both. ] (]) 12:37, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::Well, we linguists don't like anecdotal evidence, but I'll provide some: I (non-native speaker of English, with a linguistics PhD) had to look up all the potential candidates for a slur in that post, and when I did find one it's not one I'd ever heard. However, "crackers" is an insult in Hindi, so I'd say it is most likely a PA, just not the one an American English speaker might understand it as. --'']'' <small>] ]</small> 13:02, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::At least in the South, an American would recognize ] as a pejorative. '''<span style="font-family: Arial;">] <small>]</small></span>''' 13:19, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::Sure, but the IP user who used the word said they are in India, and their post contains various typical non-native speaker errors. ("culler" instead of "colour", for instance) --'']'' <small>] ]</small> 16:31, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::<small>Funny thing is you go far ''enough'' south it wraps back around again: ] - ] <sub>]</sub> 22:24, 17 December 2024 (UTC)</small>
			* Observation: the IP just on the talk page of the ] article. It's peripheral, and the IP is pretty clearly involved. Is this a bad-faith edit by the IP, or should we just take their suggestion and extended-confirmed protect the page?... —''']''' (]) 12:54, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:Is there a Dudi ]? Though I will note there is a lot of overlap between the "Indian Subcontinent" and "South Asian social strata" topic areas. —] ] <sup><small>] ]</small></sup> 21:59, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
			{{abot}}
			*Noting that this person (Truthfindervert?) has taken to using VPNs. I’ve blocked a couple today. --] (]) 22:15, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
			{{abot}}
			== Disruptive editing and WP:TALKNO by ] ==
	::It may be more accurate to say that Squeakbox has a long fuse, but that it's been re-lit over and over by a succession of POV warriors. ]] ] 23:37, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
	*Rules should be applied consistently - you get the same sentence for assaulting sinners as saints... oh, and assaulting a sinner makes a sinner of the assaulter. i.e. If you are on the side of the angels, then act like one! ] (]) 00:28, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
			The main issue with this editor at the moment is disruptive editing based on continuous abuse of ] and ]. Issues began when this editor . They did it and and .
	:* That's a denial of human nature. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 00:47, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
			Instead of starting a discussion on the talk page of the article, the user came to ] to let me know of their opinion of my contributions. When I on the talk page of the relevant article, the user and according to their POV. When I let them know that this was highly inappropriate according to ], both and , they ] stating {{tq|ever since the stupid Misplaced Pages Dec. 2019 encryption protocol upgrade, to able to edit or view Misplaced Pages at all from my home computer, I have to use an indirect method which involves a non-fully-Unicode-compliant tool. I couldn't even really see your signature that way, and so didn't know to try to avoid changing it|q=y}}, which I had never heard of. In any case, they kept reverting the content supported by the reliable source, they also kept attempting to apply their POV to the discussion heading and and . I that I had and that they should refrain from changing the heading again in order to preserve the integrity of the link, and they went ahead and .
	::* this is wikipedia, not the nsdap. its not the job of any editiors on here to attack verbalyl any users that he doesnt like just becuase he feels that they are "acist" "pedophilic" or any other pejorative. ] (]) 00:52, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
			<!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 15:20, 17 December 2024 (UTC)</small>
	:::*Spot on , as usual, ]. Thanks for cutting through the "acist" crap, again. --''']''' (]) 04:17, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
	*I guess I just don't understand why it was necessary for Squeak to even edit Vigilance's page. I didn't see any attacks, I saw the (rather odd) addition of a template. How does that involve Squeak at all? Why even get involved? Frankly, if I were he, I think I'd have walked away from that, even if I thought it was incredibly offensive, because of previous involvement with Vigilance. Strikes me as an astonishingly bad choice to even engage there. - ] &#124; ] 00:56, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
			:The other user in this case is ]? This looks like a content dispute over whether the article is on the English version of a German-Arabic dictionary or the dictionary itself. ] (]) 15:47, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
	I have to agree with SJ and other users. As demonstrated in a (now deleted) subpage of VP's, this user has a history of disruption and repeated harassment of editors on stigmatic, personal grounds. I would not personally support an indefinite block, but see the umbrella ] as a good dividing line when it comes to what articles this user should e allowed to edit. <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> 01:22, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
			::Yes the is indeed about ]. I see the content dispute as stemming from the fundamental conduct issue, which has manifested itself most egregiously with insisting on violating ] repeatedly even after I that I had and that they should refrain from changing the heading again in order to preserve the integrity of the link, after which they went ahead and . ] (]) 16:00, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
	*VigilancePrime's deleted subpage was an attack page against Squeakbox that contained similar content to the material currently on VigilancePrime's user page. The subpage was deleted by MfD:
			:::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)
	:with comment from the closing admin that : ''" The subpage is serving no other purpuse besides serving as a attack page against another editor..."'' When content is deleted by MfD as an attack page, what is the policy on re-creating that content on a user page? --] (]) 03:45, 16 February 2008 (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)
	::He appears to be holding up a mirror on his talk page. It is not disruptive to simply list edits that you dislike. <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> 03:57, 16 February 2008 (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)
	:::You're entitled to your opinion. You brought up the deleted subpage, not me. So I provided the MfD link and the quote from the closing admin, who found that consensus in the discussion considered it an attack page. --] (]) 04:11, 16 February 2008 (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)
	:::::* I guess I should note, though I had hoped to stay out of this, that EVERYONE in that discussion saw it as an obvious keep except: SqueakBox (of course, as it quoted his poor word choices), you, Jack-A-Roe (always jumping to his defense and a partner with him in deleting content you don't like), Will Beback (same difference), and Pol64 (who was very soon after permablocked for the same type or aggregious personal attacks). As one user said, ''"Quite frankly, I just don't see how accurate quotations (supported by diffs, no less) constitute personal attacks."'' Other comments about the former page: ''"The piece is neutrally worded and consists almost exclusively of literal quotes with links."'', ''"no apparent policy vio"'', ''"does not violate bad faith or civility"'', and finally ''"This is not an attack page; it makes no decisions or judgments about the comments themselves, merely puts them on display in a concise manner. There is no reason for this page NOT to exist, and quite frankly, looking at the diffs on display, it's a wonder such a page hasn't surfaced sooner. Clearly something needs to be done about SqueakBox's conduct."'' ] (]) 05:13, 16 February 2008 (UTC) ''''':-)'''''
	:::::::You're entitled to your opinion too, sure. In the situation with your user subpage attacking SqueakBox, the MfD consensus did not agree with your interpretation. --] (]) 06:33, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
			:{{replyto|AnonMoos}} I don't see a problem with changing the heading but why on earth did you change their signature multiple times ? That is indeed a clear violation of ] since the signature was perfectly valid per ]. In fact your change was far worse since it changed a perfectly valid signature which would take other editors to the contributor's talk page and user page into an invalid one which lead no where. If you're using some sort of plugin which does that, it's your responsibility to manage it better so it doesn't do that ever again especially if you're going to edit talk pages where it might be common. If you're doing that intentionally, I suggest you cut it out or expect to be indeffed. ] (]) 06:48, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
	::::I brought it up because it demonstrated something (listed edits, just like his user page), not to discuss its creditability as a project, which I would have to look at in further detail. <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> 04:18, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
			::], this is not good to see. Don't rewrite or reformat other editor's signatures. There is no reason to be doing this unless you are trying to provoke the other editor. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 07:51, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
	::In point of fact, the MfD Jack refers to was closed against consensus, with comments 2:1 in favor of '''keep'''ing the page. It went to DRV, and VP, in the kind of selfless act I'd like to see more of, agreed to withdraw their DRV request in exchange for SqueakBox's agreement to stay away from VP's userspace. It's not a matter of opinion; it's reading the MfD & DRV. I believe Jack-a-Roe's description above is inconsistent with the facts. --]'']'' 19:16, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
			::: For what it's worth, AnonMoos stated earlier that the changing of the signature was a unintentional technical issue, due to his use of some "non-standard tool" in accessing the internet . This seems plausible, as similar apparently unintentional changes to non-Ascii character data have happened in edits of his before (e.g. ). But if he knew of this issue, it's rather disappointing he let it happen again some days later . Equally disappointing is the extremely aggressive rhetoric and acerbic tone with which he has been escalating this essentially harmless, good-faith content dispute from the beginning. ] ] 10:25, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
	::*That's the third opinion expressed here about the way that MfD was closed. Everyone is entitled to their opinions. The process of the MfD resulted in deletion of that page, and the closing admin described it as an attack page. That's the history, not an interpretation. If someone wants the facts they can view the archived page directly, and they can check the DRV too. They don't need me or anyone else to interpret it for them. --] (]) 03:13, 17 February 2008 (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)
	:::*I applied ] to the situation; Referring to that as mere ''opinion'' is like saying that ] is just a ]. A 2:1 ratio in favor of keeping is no demonstration of consensus to delete; Therefore, the MfD was closed against apparent consensus. The ] was tied 7:7 when VigilancePrime stepped up and ended the drama by agreeing to the deletion per ], provided that Squeak were to leave VP alone. A consensus in support of the MfD closer's point of view has never been demonstrated, and was, in fact, explicitly opposed. --]'']'' 07:59, 18 February 2008 (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)
			::::Looking at his talk page it's been going back to at least 2011]<sup>] </sup> 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. ] (]) 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)
			::::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 2011 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)
			:::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)
			===None of this matters===
	*I feel I must say a few words here. I'm sure SqueakBox will believe I'm persecuting him but he still has not offered me (or anyone else he has unfairly stigmatized) any sort of decent apology for labelling me a passive supporter of pedophile activists (because of I speedy closed ]), repeatedly calling a now deleted ] "your beloved category" (because ] to nominate it for deletion rather than unilaterally depopulate it). He has unfairly accused {{user|Haemo}} of pedophile sympathies, during his RfA no less. This is the umpteenth ANI thread about his short fuse and while I understand that it's not always easy to deal with POV warriors and the typical sockpuppeting nonsense that surrounds many of the ], his behaviour cannot be tolerated. Guy, I've told you this before and you refused to listen . Now all I can do is repeat it and you'll tell me again "ah, deep down SqueakBox is a good chap" and of course, I can't even disagree with that. But tell me: how many times can you say this before doubt starts creeping in that maybe a good chap can sometimes go overboard, way overboard. If need be, I'll go back and dig out all the diffs that have popped up in the numerous ANI threads and User talk threads where SqueakBox's behaviour has been utterly unacceptable. There are many people who have the courage and patience to work with PAW but somehow, SqueakBox is the one that keeps generating ANI threads. Where does it stop? Fighting the good fight doesn't buy you a get out of jail card. SqueakBox has got to stop or leave. ] (]) 04:21, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
			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)
	:PS for Guy. It had been a while since I got involved in that crap. But I just looked back at the details of our last conversation about SqueakBox. I was trying to explain that SqueakBox was not a good idea to mentor {{user|Pol64}}. As far as I can see, that experiment . ] (]) 06:47, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
	::Stop editing altogether or be blocked from editing PAW? For me, based on his disruption and its rather narrow focus, a modest and workable solution would be a permanent curfew on PAW. I have saved quite a few of his mistakes, and would be happy to set up an e.mail so that I can communicate them to you off wiki. ] 06:43, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
	*''']''' needs more good-faith editors like SqueakBox, not less. Those topics are difficult areas for Misplaced Pages. More editors participating can help air out what otherwise might be a dark corner. Concerns about those topics affect the whole community, so the community is best served by more people becoming involved. It doesn't matter what POV editors bring, more participation is better in highly polarized situations. With more editors, it's less likely that discussions devolve into POV-pushing arguments. With more editors, it becomes easier to find actual community consensus, because there's less chance of getting sidetracked into arguments between indivudals or small groups.
	*Whatever else comes of this AN/I report, I hope that more administrators and other editors visit the ] project and bring their skills to the various articles involved with those topics. --] (]) 07:12, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
	:* Jack should probably specify that he/they only want editors that will edit to their liking. NPOV is not the goal, "SPOV" or their POV is. Fair warning: If you have even the slightest disagreement, you'll be labeled a pedophile, vilified, harrassed, personally attacked, and listed at Wikisposure. Contribute at your own risk, as this phenomenon has been widely documented ]. <small>] (]) 07:16, 16 February 2008 (UTC)</small>
	::*'''Don't twist my words.''' Your opinions and ideas are yours, not mine. I wrote what I intended to write. All POVs are welcome - a wide cross-section is preferable, to avoid POV-pushing - the editing must be NPOV of course. Broader attention on these topics can only be a positive thing for Misplaced Pages. --] (]) 07:24, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
			== User:Vazulvonal of Stockholm ==
	::*I agree that it comes across as assuming bad faith. Beyond that, I made it clear to VigilancePrime that the Arbitration Committee is willing to provisionally open any<sup></sup> related case put before them, but that such a case needs to be submitted privately via email. VigilancePrime, however, does not wish to disclose his email address to the Arbitration Committee.<sup></sup> Which is his right. I, for example, refused to disclose my real identity to the OTRS (a condition to joining), therefore, I don't do OTRS (although, it isn't as if VigilancePrime disclosing an email account amounts to the same thing, privacy-wise). But there's no way around this: arbcom-l is the venue for complaints about these topics (and, yes, it being a ''private'' procedure is not optional), so, VigilancePrime may wish to avoid editing that set of articles, because the constant ''public'' complaints are becoming increasingly disruptive. Thx. ] 07:41, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
			{{atop|1=Indefed until communication improves. - ] <sub>]</sub> 00:12, 22 December 2024 (UTC)}}
	:# I twisted nobody's words. I added my own. Stop the false-issue whining.
			*{{userlinks|Vazulvonal of Stockholm}}
	:# How is this complaining? Oh, "I was asking for it", eh? And reporting abuse is wrong now?
			Hi, I recently came across the edits of {{U|Vazulvonal of Stockholm}}, who seems to be very stubborn in his editing. The user doesn't seem to understand the basic rules and policies of Misplaced Pages (such as the use of reliable sources and no original research), even after being . Problems include self-promotion; e.g., at ], , have tried to push the inclusion of 5 non-notable persons, of which I suspect "Lars Laszlo Schüszler" to be related to the user, as Vazulvonal seems to have created the article , which was deleted later. Other major issues include the use of very poor quality sources (e.g., ), poor grammar and spelling (e.g., ), pushing nationalist POV (e.g., ). At ], the user keeps reinstating poor quality text and sources, and even had the nerve to call me . At ], some Swedish IP Addresses (which are ), have created . Per ], I'm not sure this site is the right place for someone who doesn't take advice, warnings and policies very seriously... ] (]) 12:35, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
	:# I have stopped contributing to those after being driven off those articles by Squeak, Jack, Will, now-perbablocked Pol, and the admin Herostratus. This choice was made after all the above actually happened to me and a couple other editors. If we don't edit to their satisfaction (meaning their bias rather than to actual neutrality), ] and ] become the license of the day.
	: If you want the littany of diffs that demonstrate the longstanding harrassment and name-calling and personal attacks (getting back to the issue at hand, from which many seem to be trying to distract), let me know and I'll post them all right here.
	: ] (]) 16:13, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
	::I'd gladly act as a go-between: If VP wants to make any submissions to ArbCom, they can email me and I'll pass them on. --]'']'' 19:16, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
			Update: The user keeps ignoring all manuals and rules of Misplaced Pages, and keeps adhering to his own rules, despite being reverted and/or warned almost every time ( ). I don't know if it is a case of serious incompetence or just trolling. I would appreciate it if someone would take a look, because it does not seem that he is stopping with these shenanigans. ] (]) 13:58, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
	In to my talk page, Squeak described me as '''a troll, an idiot, hysterical, uncivil, a liar, disgusting, intolerable, rude, and a brat'''. In his defense, he did end his comments by saying '''thanks'''. I could cite multiple examples of similar commentary and worse, either in edits or edit summaries. Part of that history is hidden by deleted edits, however. I've tried very hard to assume good faith in Squeak's conduct, since it's motivated by pure motives. But, at some point, even the most ardent and righteous zealot must forswear zealotry in favor of harmonious editing. I sympathize with SqueakBox's frustration, but not with how he expresses it. In my view, he doesn't understand that his approach to these conflicts creates a ] whereby his sharp comments don't get him the outcome he seeks, which frustrates him more, so that his next round of comments is even more strongly worded, and so on. His ArbCom case and his history of warnings and blocks bear out my concerns about his conduct.
			:I have also had problems with this editor, on a specific BLP (]), to which they insist on adding unsourced details (for instance on December 14 ) after a 3rd-level BLP warning on November 27 ). They also appear to be somewhat indiscriminate about putting ethnically-Hungarian people of other nationalities into Hungarian-nationality categories (such as in this case, where we have sourcing for Fülöp identifying as Hungarian but being born in Romania and emigrating to Sweden). I would be unsurprised to find that these issues are more widespread than this one article. —] (]) 02:35, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
	There's another side to SqueakBox, however. He's got a significant contribution history (41,415 edits), largely undeniable improvements to the encyclopedia. Similarly, he's undeniably passionate about the topics he covers, and about this project. One example that springs to mind is when he & I worked out our differences on the inclusion of a photo in a biographical article. We started on opposite sides of the question, but we maintained open communications and worked things out. Over the time we've collaborated here, I've had several thoroughly enjoyable interactions with him, and, aside from Misplaced Pages work, he's been patient enough to help me with my Spanish.
			::The excessive additions to ] and ], based on original research and overbroad definitions of what it means to be from one country (Hungary) have continued unabated despite this thread. I see no sign that VoS has ever replied to anything on their user talk. They have made a lot of contributions on ] but it is of a piece with their article-space edits, broad original-research-based categorization of people as Hungarian and not much listening to other editors.
			::Is it perhaps time for a block to try to prod them into participating here and not continuing down the same path? —] (]) 22:24, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::They may not be aware of their own talkpage. I have blocked them indefinitely for persistent addition of unsourced or badly sourced content despite warnings, and for non-responsiveness on their page, adding a note in the log linking to their talkpage and encouraging them to communicate there. ] &#124; ] 18:41, 21 December 2024 (UTC).
			{{abot}}
			== Disruptive editing by ] ==
	I'm honestly in a quandry . He's made multiple contributions to the encyclopedia and I have a good deal of respect for him. Conversely, he's engaged in the same pattern & practice of contentious commentary and tendentious editing on multiple occasions over multiple subject areas. He's been warned; he's been blocked; he's been to ArbCom. None of these have worked to modify his behavior. No matter how good the reason, we all have to ] if we're going to play in ]. SqueakBox does that, for the most part. But, when he breaks from that, he does so spectacularly. --]'']'' 18:08, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
	:Amen to that SSB. There's no denying that Squeak can be a positive force. It's also clear that one can only sympathize with the frustration that comes with editing and policing delicate articles. But random insults and accusations don't help, they make things worse. SqueakBox tends to get away with it because powerful admins like Guy protect him as a useful guardian of these delicate articles. Similarly, ArbCom doesn't want to intervene (I did ask), lest they be accused of supporting pedophile activists. It's just oh so easy to look the other way. But many have demonstrated that it's entirely possible to counter extremism on Misplaced Pages without resorting to insults, accusations, blatant contempt for Misplaced Pages processes, etc. It's not too much to ask of SqueakBox. ] (]) 19:04, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
	::Pascal, I've been tarred with that brush too. It's perhaps the most personally painful accusation I've ever had leveled against me, in any forum. I give no quarter to '''any''' harm inflicted upon a child. Those that know my personal history know why. A friend of mine, raped as a child, survived two unsuccessful suicide attempts, but did not survive his third. I've assisted ] in my own small way in investigating and bringing to justice ]s who had abused children, including schoolmates of mine. Accusations of pro-pedophile activism against you, me, and others has been part of the problem, to be sure. --]'']'' 19:40, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
	:::Wow... that's interesting. I admit until now I had you pegged as a PPA, and I don't even edit in the area - had just watched contribs, the kinds of editors (including now-indefinitely-banned ones) and proposals you supported and opposed etc. :/ Certainly says something for assumptions that can be made (and also how important it is to be careful in a place like this what impressions one gives off). ] 03:34, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
	::::In my view, one of the big problems with discussions around this topic is that any perspective other than absolute deletionism is tarred as PPA. I find it disgusting that I even have to assert that I oppose the sexual abuse of children. For the record, I oppose ], ], and ], but I never need to assure anyone of that. I've faced repeated intemperate remarks from Squeak and others, and been forced to defend my commitment to child safety more than once.
	::::I think that the pro-pedophile viewpoint is notable, and I see zero chance that someone would read an article that neutrally covers that view and come away thinking that child sexual abuse is a good idea. We've been shooting mosquitoes with an elephant gun in this topic area, largely initiated by Squeak and editors in league with him, and enabled by sympathetic admins and editors swayed by pejoratives. That all of these are well-intentioned is beside the point. Well-intentioned people have done some pretty unwise things throughout history. --]'']'' 07:59, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
			The ] is engaging in disrupte editing. Neither does this IP provide sources and is POV pushing. And this IP has been warned multiple times for this on his/her talk page.
	:VigilancePrime has been canvassing around this, as around so many issues , hardly the act of a good faith editor. I am extremely unhappy to not only have to put up with VPs abuse but also his canvassing his friends. This kind of behaviour is not acceptable, will an admin do something about it or will people just allow him to troll me off the site. Thanks, ] 18:23, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
			] (]) 20:52, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
	:::Having been on the receiving end of some of your comments, I'd view VP's action more as a case of ] than ]. Despite your insinuation, VP & I are not "friends;" However, I'm glad VP let me know about this because, while I don't agree with VP's methods, I agree that your actions have been problematic. --]'']'' 19:16, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
			:@]: It looks like you both are ] on ].<sup class="plainlinks"></sup> That's not particularly helpful, so you should try to have a discussion on the ] as to whether you should include the ] name for the article in the lead/infobox. &#8211;<span style="font-family:CG Times, times">]&thinsp;]<sup>]</sup></span> 20:33, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
	:: I'll tell you one thing I find rather irritating right now, no offense, but it's that damn "thanks" in your signature. It's like, dude, what are you thanking me for? If you say "thanks" at the end of each one of your comments during a heated argument with a person, it makes it sound as if you think you've "won" something with each comment you make. Believe it or not, and some might disagree with me, but removing that "thanks" would really help ease some tension in your exchanges with people. Thanks, <small style="font:bold 10px Arial;display:inline;border:#009 1px dashed;padding:1px 6px 2px 7px;white-space:nowrap">] ]/] ''18:44, 16 Feb 2008 (UTC)''</small> (see what I mean?)
			::MJL why and how did you pick out that one article over the many this IP has made recent changes to? The IP has been making disputed edits for months and has been reverted by a number of editors, not just Moroike. ] (]) 01:10, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::@]: I am not suggesting that the IP editor isn't being disruptive, but my point is that {{u|Moroike}} isn't making the situation better (using the example of that one article). You can see this by looking at <span class="plainlinks"></span> where {{gender:Moroike|he has|she has|they have}} mostly just reverted this editor without using a summary. &#8211;<span style="font-family:CG Times, times">]&thinsp;]<sup>]</sup></span> 18:02, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			::The IP's edits were removed a total of 13 times on the page regarding the capital city of ], ]. You can't let him continue engaging in further edit wars with other users besides Moroike, can you? ] (]) 17:24, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			Since this IP user won't stop and is stonewalling, either he/should be temporarily blocked, or all the pages he is POV pushing without sources, should be semi-protected, so that only registered users can edit them. ] (]) 21:37, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			== User engaged in edit warring to remove disputed content prior to consensus ==
	:::I agree. To thoroughly insult me, then thank me doesn't come across as polite, but rather as rubbing salt into the wound. I'd recommend saying thanks only when it appears not to be meant sarcastically. --]'']'' 19:16, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
			{{atop|There's nothing actionable in this content dispute, except perhaps trouting the original poster for failing to assume good faith and hounding friendly admins when they try to help. Longtime user ] (4.5 yrs, over 5K edits) has made several assertions based on their clear misunderstanding of social norms. In this discussion they've failed to notify the subject (they actually failed to use the subject's name in the OP), they've failed to bring any diffs, they failed to sign their post, and over and over they seem to have failed to assume good faith of their fellow editors. A number of editors including several admins have attempted to talk Sxbbetyy down. Nobody in this discussion seems to agree with Sxbbetyy on the merits, yet Sxbbetyy keeps circling back to their own personal interpretation of policy. The discussion at ], where Sxbbetyy refuses to listen to the admin they asked, gives another example of the problem. Sxbbetyy is reminded that creating a post on ANI puts all their own behaviors up for examination. ] (]) 15:46, 23 December 2024 (UTC)}}
	::::Not only that, but where does Squeak get off saying people are behaving hysterical. As far as I know, he can't see me on his monitor. How does he know one is hysterical, without seeing the person's face. Thanks :) ] (]) 22:39, 16 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 -->
	:::::Why doesn't someone start an RfC on this? &mdash;] (''']''') 22:50, 16 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)
	::::::Nobody wants to start an RfC because it's not really an effective process to resolve this kind of problem. It's not like SqueakBox just suddenly started having problems controlling his temper. There was an arbitration process a while back that resulted in him being on civility parole for a year. He was blocked 3 times for violating that parole. After he told me and I quote, "''if you think there is anything frivolous about propmoting pedophilia perhaps you would care to explain it''", he was asked by arbitrator {{user|Morven}} to get a grip and tone it down. A few weeks later there was the Haemo incident, Morven asked him to tone it down. A few weeks later, Guy assigned him as Pol64's mentor. The result was SqueakBox encouraging Pol64 to have SSB desysopped. And that's just the incidents I remember hearing about. There have been countless threads on his behaviour here and they always end up dying out because no admin has the guts to say "enough is enough". I can tell you exactly how an RfC will end up: the two conclusions will be "SqueakBox is unacceptably rude and uncivil. He should get a grip" and "deep down SqueakBox is a good chap and he often faces trolls and sockpuppets". And then nothing will happen and new ANI threads will appear periodically. Bottom line is that as long as we continue to tolerate crusaders which are fighting the good fight through unacceptable means, no ANI thread, RfC and I even suspect arbitration case will really make much of a difference. ] (]) 20:53, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
			::The editor appears to be {{u|PerfectSoundWhatever}}, based on the under the word "this" as well as . — ]&nbsp;<sub>]</sub> 23:51, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
			::My apology, this is my very first time making such a post. The other pages o have spoken on seemed to have signed themselves automatically. Will remember this going forward. And yes, that was the user, posted this using my phone so I didn't want to mis-spell their name, just linked instead. ] (]) 17:01, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
			:{{non-admin comment}} IMO the best practice is that in the event of a content dispute, the article should be reverted to the status quo of how the article's content appeared before the dispute started, until such a time that consensus is established to re-add it (see: ]). It seems like the beginning of the content that is in dispute was added on 18 August 2024, the dispute began a few weeks later on 23 September 2024 and has been ongoing ever since.{{pb}}In this case, since the article existed in a relatively steady state for several months (or even years?) previous to the disputed material being added, I think it'd be wise to leave the disputed content out of the article until the discussion comes to a close. ] (]) 00:07, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
			::I have been seeing this opinion from a few editors and even one admin on how to interpret this article. However, the first few sentences in that section do outright state to avoid reverting the disputed content prior to a consensus. And prior to opening this report, I asked several admins on the topic and got a response that reverting the disputed content immediately is incorrect per WP:STATUSQUO as it bypasses the consensus building process. I was advised that the content should instead be tagged as disputed rather than be outright removed. The offending user was made aware of the relevant policies but has nonetheless engaging in edit warring to keep it reverted, hence this report. ] (]) 17:13, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::The status quo of an article constitutes implicit consensus (]). The person trying to include disputed content in an article despite it not being status quo is the one that could be construed as attempting to bypass the consensus building process, not the person trying to maintain status quo until discussion takes place. ] (]) 17:20, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::Correct, and at no point was the definition of what constitutes the status quo ever in contention. In fact, if you review the edit history of the article you can see that the disputed content was the status quo via implicit consensus at the time PSW chose to first outright revert the content, and then continued to revert it as others tried to restore it (both before and after the consensus discussion began). ] (]) 23:38, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::{{tq|1=the disputed content was the status quo via implicit consensus at the time PSW chose to first outright revert the content}}<br>Not really, I personally wouldn't define "been there a few weeks" as status quo.{{pb}}I think maybe the other replies to this thread provide pretty good reasoning to take a step back and say "hey maybe I'm the one in the wrong here" instead of talking in circles ] (]) 00:30, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::Personally I think the number of contributions since the edit where it has gone unchanged is a more useful metric, especially on low traffic pages such as this one. Regardless, per the policy you cite, there seems to be no official Misplaced Pages stance on what exact criteria are needed for a contribution to be considered the current status quo, beyond it having been unchallenged in subsequent contributions (which is the case here).
			::::::As for the rest of your comment, there seems to be a high amount of band wagoning and "]" going on in the rest of this. Or people trying to use this report as an extension of the dispute discussion on the article's talk page. Hopefully more actual admins to chime in on the topic as I don't actually want to waste my time talking in circles.
			::::::On that note thanks for actually taking the time and baseline minimal effort to engage in a discussion where you actually support your point and don't just devolve into repeating the same talking points over and over. It's a nice change of pace. ] (]) 02:48, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
			:I am the editor being discussed here. I'll provide a summary of events since the initial statement by Sxbbetyy is misleading.
			:Myself and the editor had a content dispute at ] (]) and following circular discussion, I stopped engaging since I felt I had laid out my points. Per ], I maintained the state of the article to before the dispute. I requested for a ], which was answered by {{ping|BerryForPerpetuity}}, who agreed the statement should be removed, albeit for a different reason than mine. I took this 2-1 as rough consensus. I also posted the dispute on two WikiProjects, and have received no response so far. Sxbbetyy reached out to three admins about the matter, {{ping|Sergecross73|Oshwah|Pbsouthwood}}. The ] can be summarized as Sergecross believing that I haven't engaged in misconduct, and that I have presented a "plausible, good-faith interpretation of ]". Sxbbetyy then accused Sergecross73 of not acting in good faith. Oshwah did not respond to the post on ], but {{ping|BusterD}} did, essentially agreeing that the sourcing does not back up the claim in the content dispute. Sxbbetyy received help on ] about responding to a content dispute. And now we're here.
			:Throughout these interactions, Sxbbetyy has demonstrated a failure to assume good faith, refuses to accept ], and ]s talk pages, refusing to let the other editor have the last word. Frankly, this is a massive waste of editor time: it should have been a brief talk page discussion then an RfC. Apologies for all the pings. — ] (]; ]) 00:23, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
			::This summarization in itself leaves out critical context, (such as berry's concern being alleviated and them no longer expressing a desire to remove the content), the specifics of why that conversation with Serge ended the way it did despite my repeated attempts to engage with them in good faith, and the entire discussion with pbsouthwood (who quite definitively explained that the behavior PSW was engaged in was not correct). So I urge all involved to go read those topics to get the correct context through your own eyes and then discuss any concerns from what you see here. That being the case, it seems pretty clear cut imo. ] (]) 17:20, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::Just to be clear, in no way did I express that I didn't want the content to be removed. I did not receive a notification for your reply, and I wouldn't have engaged either way. —&nbsp;] ] 17:24, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
			: Yes, I would leave that material out of the article. Whilst it may not exactly be synthesis ''per se'', it is certainly editorialising ("the removal of that amount of marine debris is of negligible consequence...") ''unless'' there is an actual source that says this by making a link between between the two statistics (the amount of waste removed by Team Seas and the rate at which waste is entering the ecosystem). And even then, I would say that such an edit would need to say something like "However, ARandomNewspaper pointed out that ...". ] 00:34, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
	:::::::Just for the record, I'm not an admin (though I'm open to being drafted). I think that Squeak was intending to encourage the desysopping of ] or ], but I'm not sure since it's 100% based on my recollections. Squeak has successfully advocated the banning of certain users based on their supposed status as ]s, ]s, or ]. At least one of these accusations has been erroneous, based on my investigation. I wonder how many other contributors have been driven away by the civility and abuse issues raised here. --]'']'' 07:59, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
			::That is actually no longer the content that is being disputed. If you look at the that got reverted on the article you can see the current version. I had made edits to it precisely because of valid WP:NPOV concerns brought to my attention by PSW. However, their dispute with the content remains with the claim that is is synthesis rather than any other concern. Which they have been thus far unable to obtain a consensus on. ] (]) 17:27, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
	::::::::Ah yes, my bad. It was SSGH indeed. The thing is: there's nothing wrong with identifying pedophile activists trying to impose themselves in relevant articles and there's nothing wrong with advocating a ban for them. Of course, if you work on PAW articles and you label everyone you're in disagreement with a pedophile activist, well, you're gonna be right quite often. You'll also be wrong quite often and really these accusations are extremely hurtful for the victims. That pattern of behaviour participates in the toxic paranoia on these talk pages and they scare away a lot of editors who would be willing to try and arbitrate disputes but (not so surprisingly) are quick to give up in the face of the "you're either with us or with them" attitude. ] (]) 23:23, 18 February 2008 (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)
	== Userbox!==
			*: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)
	<small><small><small><small>This thread is being considered for deletion by those guilty of discriminatory anti-dramatism.</small></small></small></small>
			*::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)
	No, not that sort of drama. Just a userbox for all you guys.
			*: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.
	{{User:Dihydrogen Monoxide/Wikidrama}}
			: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).
	<br clear=all />
			: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)
	Cheers, '']'' <small>(])</small> 03:00, 16 February 2008 (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===
			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}}
			== user Stan1900 and the films of Shannon Alexander ==
	::Ooooooooooooooooooooooh that one's for me! Thanks :) ] 03:19, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
			{{atop|1=Right, we're done here. {{User|Stan1900}} is indef blocked for ] and ] among many other issues. Four !votes for topic ban below, four !votes for indef ''ban'' below - with all of the most recent !votes being for indef overall - so splitting the difference while bearing in mind ]. - ] <sub>]</sub> 23:14, 21 December 2024 (UTC)}}
	:::Me plz. ''']''' <sup>(])</sup> 03:39, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
			I'm posting here in an attempt to get admin oversight on a situation playing itself out over threads at COIN, NPOVN and the relevant article talk pages.
	::::The real question is, can we put this on ''other'' users' pages as needed? :) ''']'''&nbsp;<sup>]</sup> 04:02, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
	(outdent)Adding it to my userpage now :-) ] (]) 04:13, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
			] is a ] dedicated to producing articles on the films of Shannon Alexander, an individual who they admit to having had dealings with . The user previously made a small group of edits back in 2017/18 on the same subject, but the account was then dormant for 6 years until recent activity commenced. Recent activity seems to coincide with the US release of one of the films.
	::::: That is just awesome. ] (]) 04:57, 16 February 2008 (UTC) ''''':-D'''''
			Concerns were first raised when the user opened multiple threads trying to hurry the articles through AfC and talking about when the articles would appear on Google searches (raising concerns about a possible SEO motivation).
	Agreed. To my subpage! <font face="georgia">'''] (])'''</font> 15:07, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
			The articles created have been consistently identified as being of a promotional nature, primarily due to being composed primarily of quotes from positive reviews. See for example , and .
	::::: Sweet, I was looking for the right place to advertise my userboxes. Now I know that it's ] ] (]) 16:19, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
			COI templates were added to the articles, which the user has created multiple threads in an attempt to remove, clearly forum shopping looking for a different answer.
	Works for me!
	{{User:Jéské Couriano/UBX/Mudkipz}}
	<br clear=all />
	-'']'' <sup>(<font color="0000FF">] ]</font>)</sup> 23:18, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
			The lengthy (and promotional) Reception sections were removed following talkpage discussion sufficient to indicate that there was no consensus for inclusion. However, it is clearly inappropriate for an article to be composed primarily of reviews (good or bad) so removal was noncontroversial in any case. Nonetheless the user has argued at great length for reinclusion in various locations.
	Can you make one ] as well? :) ] ] 21:43, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
			The user is now proceeding in a highly confrontational and argumentative fashion in multiple different threads (diffs for which above) and does not seem capable of accepting that wherever they take their concerns they routinely receive the same response. Users including ] and myself have raised concerns that the user is a promo only account dedicated to the promotion of the films of Shannon Alexander.
	::What, you mean for people who AREN'T tired of lieking Mudkipz?? Didn't know there WAS such a point of view! >: ] 20:48, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
			I’d be grateful if an admin would take some action here. ] (]) 07:13, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
	::I know this is sad, but I can see a range of T-shirts being made lol ] 00:57, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
			:Stan1900 has also initiated two lengthy and similar threads at the Help desk, one of which has been archived. ] is the other and taken together, these multiple discussions show bludgeoning in defense of a highly focused promotional editing campaign. I have interacted heavily with this editor in recent days, and so I prefer that another uninvolved adminstrator read these conversations and take appropriate action. I want to admit that I made an error in evaluating the copyright status of three movie posters, and I apologize for that. ] (]) 07:44, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
			::Some further background here…
			::The user has claimed that {{tq| My account was created to edit Katherine Langford's article, completely unrelated to Shannon Alexander}}. However, all of the 2017/18 edits were actually directly related to Shannon Alexander, e.g. here . Note also that the 2017/18 activity coincided with the release of the Shannon Alexander film mentioned in those edits.
			::The user has also claimed: {{tq|I have a history of editing articles related to notable figures from Perth, Western Australia on Misplaced Pages}} .
			::However, at that time (and now) the user had only made a small number of edits (all related to Shannon Alexander), so if true this would have required the use of an alternative account. Similarly, as pointed out by Cullen328 (here ), the user claims to have {{tq|been an active editor for 8 years, with contributions spanning a variety of topics}}, but their edit history indicates 6 dormant years since 2018.
			::The user states here that they have only contacted Shannon Alexander for {{tq|fact verification}}, although what purpose that was intended to serve is unclear given the requirements of ] and ]. However the degree of association between the two individuals would clearly appear to be greater than that given the persistency of the activity and the apparent interest in, for example, urgency of publication and search engine optimisation around the time of a film release, as per ].
			::The user has also used a great deal of very obviously AI generated posts (as pointed out in various of the threads that the user has started). The user consistently denies AI use, despite the fact that one subset of their posts consistently scores "100% likelihood AI generated" on GPTzero while the rest of their posts show up as "entirely human generated", clearly indicating two different origins. The user claims they have a very formal style of writing that GPTzero mistakes for AI, but if that were true GPTzero would consistently produce results suggesting "part AI/ part human". They then claim that GPTzero is not 100% reliable, which is correct, but that does not invalidate the very clear cut evidence above.
			::So, it does seem to me that there is a consistent pattern above of statements which seem inclined to mislead. ] (]) 08:22, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::Responding to these allegations which contain several misrepresentations:
			:::1. Regarding contact with Shannon Alexander: As previously stated, my only contact has been for fact verification - a standard practice explicitly allowed by Misplaced Pages policies. The obsessive focus on the filmmaker rather than the articles' content is concerning. These are independent films that received critical coverage from reliable sources - their inclusion on Misplaced Pages should be evaluated on those merits.
			:::2. The claims about 'promotional' content are misleading. The removed content consisted of properly sourced reviews from reliable publications, following standard film article format. No specific policy-based issues with the content have been identified.
			:::3. The "forum shopping" accusation misrepresents proper use of Misplaced Pages venues:
			:::- Talk pages for content discussion
			:::- Help desk for process guidance
			:::- NPOV board for neutrality issues
			:::- Each serves a distinct purpose
			:::4. Regarding GPTZero claims: The logic here is flawed. Different types of Misplaced Pages contributions naturally require different writing styles - technical documentation vs. talk page discussion being obvious examples. Using unreliable tool results to dismiss properly sourced content violates core principles.
			:::5. Note that Cullen328 has admitted to error regarding the improper deletion of properly licensed images, which demonstrates the pattern of hasty actions being taken without proper verification.
			:::The core issue remains: properly sourced, policy-compliant content about notable films is being removed based on unsupported accusations rather than specific policy-based concerns. The apparent determination to suppress well-sourced information about these independent films is puzzling. Misplaced Pages exists to document notable subjects based on reliable sources - which is exactly what these articles do. I remain committed to improving them more than ever ] (]) 16:21, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::At the end of the day this is all very simple...
			::::Other users have interpreted your work as promotional in intent. Therefore COI/PAID tags have been added.
			::::Also, articles on Misplaced Pages do not consist primarily of quotes from reviews, so that material has been removed (and perceived again to be promotional).
			::::You have attempted, over and over again, in various threads to get the tags removed and the removals overturned - but no one in any of those threads has ever agreed with you.
			::::The appropriate course of action is therefore to accept that you are in a minority and that the changes you wish to make have no community support.
			::::Continuing to argue in multiple different places is not an appropriate response. ] (]) 16:42, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::Also see ] and ] that every editor and group is here to improve Misplaced Pages—especially if they hold a point of view with which you disagree. ] (]) 16:46, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::I was correct about the fact that Stan1900 falsely claimed on Wikimedia Commons that the three movie posters in question are their "own work" and that false claim remains on the Commons file pages for those posters. ] (]) 16:59, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::Stan1900 is currently arguing that the words 'own work' actually refer to their 'work' clicking the upload button. I'm not sure if this is all covering up for what looks more and more like an obvious COI, or a simple inability to admit to making a mistake. I think either is incompatible with the collaborative work needed for this project. I'm also very concerned about obviously dishonest statements such as , there they claimed edits were unrelated to Shannon Alexander when they were clearly about a film of Alexander's .
			:::::::I think a topic ban from the subject of Shannon Alexander, broadly construed, would be the best thing here. ] (]) 17:09, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
			*'''Support''' topic ban for Stan1900 on Shannon Alexander and her films, broadly construed. ] (]) 17:39, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:Your characterizations here fundamentally misrepresent both the situation and Misplaced Pages's purpose:
			*:1. "Articles do not consist primarily of quotes from reviews" - Misrepresents standard film article format. Well-sourced critical reception sections are common in film articles. The removed content followed established patterns for film articles, with proper citations from reliable sources.
			*:2. "Interpreted as promotional" - No specific policy violations have been identified. Proper sourcing from reliable publications isn't "promotional" simply because the reviews are positive. This seems to reflect a bias against independent films receiving positive coverage.
			*:3. Regarding the "own work" designation on Commons - As DMacks confirmed, proper licensing documentation was verified through official channels. The template language about authorized uploads is being deliberately misinterpreted to justify improper deletions.
			*:4. The underlying issue here seems to be a systematic effort to suppress coverage of certain independent films. My interest is in documenting underrepresented works that meet notability guidelines through reliable sources. Many editors focus on their own areas of interest - the hostile reaction to well-sourced content about independent films is very surprising and concerning.
			*:5. Claims of "forum shopping" misrepresent proper use of established channels for different purposes (talk pages, help desk, NPOV board). Each place serves a distinct purpose in processes.
			*:The suggestion of a topic ban for contributing properly sourced content about notable subjects is inappropriate. This appears to be an attempt to use process to suppress legitimate content rather than address specific policy-based concerns.
			*:I remain committed to improving Misplaced Pages's coverage of notable but underrepresented subjects through proper sourcing and neutral presentation. The aggressive opposition to this goal raises serious questions about systemic bias. ] (]) 18:15, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
			*::* '''Support''' topic ban for Stan1900 on Shannon Alexander and her films, broadly construed. User is clearly ] and is bludgeoning the same flawed interpretations of policies over and over again. User also refuses to acknowledge that every other user in various threads disagrees with what they are trying to achieve, which is clearly contrary to collaborative work. Alternatively I would support a site block for what is obviously a promo-only account (but given their narrow focus on a single subject a topic ban would effectively be functionally identical to a site block). ] (]) 18:35, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
			*::*:Your accusations and push for a ban are baseless personal attacks that ignore policy and precedent:
			*::*:The articles were already reviewed and the paid tags were removed. Restoring them without cause is disruptive.
			*::*:The image licensing was properly vetted via official channels, as confirmed by a Commons admin. Claiming otherwise is misleading.
			*::*:I've consistently engaged on content and policy, while you resort to vague claims of "promotion" without evidence. That's not collaboration.
			*::*:Consensus is not "everyone disagreeing" with sourced additions. It's built through policy-based discussion, not mob rule.
			*::*:WP:HERE is about constructive editing, not battle lines. My focus on notable films in my area of knowledge is entirely appropriate.
			*::*:A topic ban would unjustly exclude neutrally written, reliably sourced content about verifiable subjects. That's a heckler's veto against core policies.
			*::*:If you have specific concerns, raise them on article talk pages so they can be addressed. But unsubstantiated aspersions and ban threats are the real problem here.
			*::*:Stop edit warring against consensus to remove properly vetted content. If you can't engage productively, step back and let those of us who actually want to improve the encyclopedia get on with it. ] (]) 18:58, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
			*::*::The user is now claiming over at COIN that {{tq|Acting as an authorized representative doesn't constitute as COI}}. I'll leave that comment for others to consider at their leisure. ] (]) 19:33, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
			*::*:::Note here that the user had previous claimed repeatedly that they had only engaged in {{tq|fact verification}} with Shannon Alexander while operating in what they described as a journalistic capacity. That is not what any reasonable person would describe as being an {{tq|authorized representative}}. ] (]) 19:41, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
			* '''Support''' topic ban for Stan1900 on Shannon Alexander and her films, broadly construed. "As an authorized representative" the conflict of interest is crystal clear, despite the ] denials. ] (]) 19:48, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:1. Yes, I acted as an authorized representative specifically for verifying poster copyright/licensing. This was a limited, transparent interaction done through proper Misplaced Pages channels to ensure images were correctly licensed.
			*:2. However, this narrow administrative role for image licensing does not extend to content creation. My article contributions are based entirely on reliable, independent sources, maintaining neutral POV.
			*:3. I have been transparent about fact verification contacts (dates, releases, etc.), which were conducted in a manner similar to how any Misplaced Pages editor might verify facts with a primary source.
			*:4. The suggestion of a topic ban seems unwarranted given that:
			*: - All content is properly sourced from independent publications
			*: - Image licensing was handled through proper channels with full disclosure
			*: - I've engaged constructively in discussions and made requested changes
			*: - No promotional content has been demonstrated
			*:I remain committed to improving Misplaced Pages's coverage of independent films while following all policies and guidelines. Being authorized to handle image licensing does not prevent me from making properly sourced, neutral contributions to related articles. ] (]) 20:30, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
			*On December 15, at the Help Desk, I said to Stan1900 {{tpq|You are now behaving effectively like a one person public relations agency for Shannon Alexander on Misplaced Pages}}. Stan1900 denied that, criticized me for saying that, and ''repeatedly'' denied any conflict of interest. Now that we have learned that Stan1900 is an "authorized representative" of Shannon Alexander, it is clear that my December 15 assessment was correct. This editor has been ''repeatedly'' deceptive. Accordingly, I now '''Support''' an indefinite sitewide block. ] (]) 20:37, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:I need to address what has become an exhausting cycle of repeated explanations:
			*:1. For what must be the 50th time: I served as an authorized representative SPECIFICALLY AND SOLELY for image licensing/copyright verification - a standard Misplaced Pages process that requires verification of rights. This was handled through proper channels and is documented. The images were challenged, reviewed, and officially reinstated.
			*:2. Every single piece of content I've contributed:
			*: - Is based on independent, reliable sources
			*: - Follows NPOV guidelines
			*: - Has been properly cited
			*: - Includes balanced coverage
			*: - Has been verified through proper channels
			*:3. This constant need to repeat these same points, which are documented across multiple discussion pages, is preventing productive work on Misplaced Pages. The evidence is clear:
			*: - Images reinstated through proper process
			*: - Paid editing tags removed after review
			*: - Content properly sourced
			*: - Constructive engagement documented
			*:The suggestion of an indefinite block for following Misplaced Pages's proper processes is both disproportionate and concerning. At this point, the repeated disregard for documented evidence and proper procedures seems more disruptive than any of my contributions.
			*:I suggest we move past this circular discussion and focus on actual content improvements. ] (]) 20:59, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
			*::I agree that the specific phrase "authorized agent" in the specific context of file-upload license release does not necessarily mean they are generally an agent (for PR, general employment, or other representation) in the general sense. Here, they might merely have specific authorization or act as a conduit limited to those images. However, they have explicitly stated that they actually are the license holder themselves, which is quite different from acting as the conduit between the license-holder and the Wiki world. And that contradicts all assertions they might make that they have no COI or similar tight relationship with the subject, or are anything more than the conduit. ] (]) 22:47, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
			::Stan1900 is the undisputed champion of repeating themselves over and over and OVER again, under the mistaken notion that repetition is persuasion. The three movie poster files on Wikimedia Commons ''still'' falsely state that the posters are Stan1900's "own work", denying credit to the designer or designers who actually created the posters. ] (]) 22:14, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::1. DMacks: You've misinterpreted my role. I have consistently stated I am an authorized representative for licensing verification - NOT the license holder. This distinction is important and has been explained repeatedly. In fact, many production entitles who haven't created Misplaced Pages entries for their work are happy to authorize agents to handle public information and image licensing, as evidenced by this very situation. Film artwork is regularly made available through multiple channels (IMDb, theaters, press kits) - having an authorized representative handle Misplaced Pages licensing is neither unusual nor suspicious.
			:::2. Cullen328: Your comment about "repeating over and over" is ironic given that you and others continue to repeat the same disproven accusations despite:
			::: - Images being officially verified and reinstated through proper channels
			::: - Confirmation by administrators
			::: - Clear documentation of my limited representative role
			::: - Proper sourcing of all content
			:::The fact that you're still focused on image claims that have already been resolved through official Misplaced Pages processes suggests you're more interested in casting aspersions than improving content. These posters were challenged, verified, and reinstated - continuing to dispute this is what's actually disruptive to Misplaced Pages.
			:::I'm happy to update template language to be more precise about representative status, but let's be clear: the licensing has been verified and confirmed. Repeatedly questioning this doesn't change the facts. ] (]) 23:57, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::{{u|Stan1900}}, the file information pages for the three film posters STILL falsely state that they are your "own work". Why is that? ] (]) 01:03, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::Your continued fixation on this already-resolved issue is becoming tiresome. Nevertheless, I'll explain one more time:
			:::::The "own work" designation indicates upload process handling as an authorized representative - not artistic creation. This has been explained repeatedly, the images have been verified, and administrators have confirmed their reinstatement.
			:::::To spell it out yet again:
			:::::- Not the creator
			:::::- Not the copyright holder
			:::::- Authorized for licensing verification only
			:::::- Images officially verified
			:::::- Reinstatement confirmed
			:::::Your insistence on rehashing this same point, despite official resolution through proper channels, suggests you're more interested in finding reasons to object than improving Misplaced Pages. If template language is truly your deepest concern, I'm happy to update it. Otherwise, if we could focus on actual content improvement rather than this circular discussion about already-verified images would be great! ] (]) 01:11, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::This isn't a thread about content, it is about your conduct. ] (]) 01:14, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::My conduct has been straightforward: Basically creating properly sourced articles while following guidelines. The burden of proof lies with those making repetitive and outlandish accusations, yet you've been unable to demonstrate any policy violations. Instead, you're repeatedly removing verified content and making unsupported claims.
			:::::::The real disruption and misconduct here is the constant interference with legitimate article creation. ] (]) 01:24, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::::{{u|Stan1900}}, ''correct that false claim'' that those posters are your "own work" and give credit to the actual poster designers. ] (]) 01:29, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::::::I've updated the file pages to properly reflect copyright attribution and clarify roles. The changes align with the documentation in OTRS ticket #2024113010007335, which covers all three posters. This removes the "own work" designation while accurately reflecting the licensing chain. ] (]) 03:12, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
			:*'''Support''' the topic ban, on Shannon Alexander, and her films, broadly construed. Stan1900 is clearly here for only promotional activities, and given the change from "only contact has been for fact verification" to "authorized representative but ''only'' for this thing," makes me even more skeptical that we're currently getting the whole truth, as opposed to what they were forced to admit when called out on conflicting evidence. The doublespeak about "own work" just confirms to me that this editor would present a great time sink on anyone trying to collaborate with them effectively, which is a bit of a death knell on a collaborative project. ] (]) 04:53, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
			{{od}}Thank you, {{u|Stan1900}}. ] (]) 03:33, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
			:Stan, I appreciate that you're keen on repeating yourself, but getting others to repeat themselves is rather unfair. The reasons that multiple users have considered you to be a promotional only account are given at the top of this thread, but to jog your memory:
	*This userbox should immediately be deleted as it is '''extremely offensive'''. I suffer from ''lovidus exemptulus'', a rare syndrome denying one the emotion of love, and am therefore unable to love, like, or know the wikidrama. This is both offensive personally and generally, and is considered racist since I am not only of race, but of a disabled race. Failure to immediately delete this template will result not only in a TfD, MfD of the TfD, AN/I thread, MfD of the AN/I thread, RfC, MfD for the RfC, etc., and an MfD for the etc. Let us please not turn this into one drawn out wikidrama and just stop the nonsense now; please delete this dreadful userbox to avoid any further wikidrama. --''']]''' 20:50, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
			:Since 2017, your account has been dedicated solely to editing around the films of Shannon Alexander.
	::Rofl! I find that the alternate statement, 'ignore all dramas' is deeply offensive to me, because I have a recognised disability, a personality disorder that leads me to be dramatic and call endless attention to myself (I believe there to be an epidemic of it on wiki and ANI) as such, to ignore all dramas would be to ignore me and my deepest needs, and be discrimination on grounds of disability. This disability has also been found to be genetic and hereditary and yes, racial, I am shocked at the high levels of anti-dramaism I see on wiki, all other racism seems to be fought to some extent, but it's fashionable for people to say that the dramatic, should be ignored and even killed. Shocking. I may have to write to that friendly journalist at ]. ] 23:06, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
			:You have an obvious conflict of interest because you've admitted to having dealt with Alexander and being their authorized representative.
			:You've created articles which other users have identified as promotional (mainly due to the articles consisting primarily of quotes taken from positive reviews).
			:You've set up multiple threads to try to get the articles fast-tracked through AfC, with the stated motivation of getting the articles on to Google searches (presumably it isn't coincidental that this is at the same time that one of the films has its US release).
			:You've then spent an inordinate amount of time, across multiple threads, unsuccessfully attempting to remove tags and reinstate the elements that others have found to be promotional.
			:That is all the textbook activity of a promotional account. Indeed, whether this activity is being done directly on behalf of Alexander or simply off your own back, it is still promotional.
			:However, if we look beyond all that, the continual ] of multiple threads, the ] behaviour and various deceptions have worn out the patience of those who have interacted with you. Hence we now have 4 users calling for you to be topic banned from the films of Shannon Alexander, broadly construed. Unfortunately that would seem to be the only way to get you to ]. ] (]) 04:30, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
			::Who are you to question editors' personal interests or timing of contributions? Many filmmakers haven't created Misplaced Pages entries for their notable works, and having authorized representatives handle public information and image licensing is completely normal - as evidenced by the very processes Misplaced Pages has in place for this.
			::Of course I want these articles to be visible and indexable – the same way you want everyone to see your contributions and the articles you've edited. If visibility was suspicious, why do any of us contribute to Misplaced Pages? The whole point is to document notable subjects for public access.
			::Film artwork and information is readily available through multiple public channels (IMDb, theaters, press kits). Creating properly sourced articles about notable films, regardless of timing or subject matter, is exactly what Misplaced Pages is for.
			::Your continued attempts to paint standard Misplaced Pages processes as suspicious suggests you're more interested in finding problems than improving content. ] (]) 04:52, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::Your tally of "4 users" consists of the same individuals who have repeatedly removed properly sourced content without policy justification. Tags were removed and images reinstated through proper channels because they met Misplaced Pages's requirements - that's not coincidence, that's following process.
			:::Your "coincidental timing" argument falls apart considering I'm writing about films from 2018 and 2022 in late 2024. If this was promotional, why wait years?
			:::I'm not getting others to repeat themselves - I'm providing the same answer to the same baseless accusations because you refuse to accept documented evidence. The fact that multiple administrators have verified and reinstated content you've removed suggests you're the one being disruptive, not me. ] (]) 05:00, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::Actually it is now 5 users calling for a topic ban.
			::::I'm not sure when you are referring to admins reinstating material I've removed, but I work pretty much solely on conflict of interest cases and it's fairly normal for material to be removed and reinstated on those sort of cases as discussions develop. I don't take that personally, it's just an occupational hazard that happens to everyone in that field from time to time as articles work towards a stable version. I'm not aware of having been reverted by any admins on the articles under discussion in this thread. In other situations I'd have thought it was a rare event for me to be reverted by an admin although no doubt it has occurred.
			::::My work in the COI area is, I suspect, fairly well known to a good number of readers here. I am a user in good standing who has contributed to the removal of much COI and promotional material from Misplaced Pages. All of my work on Misplaced Pages for the last year or so has been done on forums with significant administrator oversight and if my conduct was generally disruptive that would have been pointed out to me by an administrator at some point.
			::::I opened this thread in the clear knowledge that my own conduct might be placed under the spotlight, but instead it is 5 users who are calling for you to be topic blocked.
			::::For you to suggest that I am the problem here only serves to demonstrate your lack of self-awareness. ] (]) 05:35, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::Also, re: {{tq| want everyone to see contributions and the articles 've edited}}... No, actually I have no particular feelings on that score - probably because I resolutely avoid editing any article where I might be perceived to have a COI. With the exception of a few very minor edits I've only ever contributed to obscure articles (so hoping that "everyone will see them" would be a vain hope indeed). ] (]) 05:53, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::{{u|Axad12 }} {{u|CoffeeCrumbs}}
			::::::1. The paid editing tags were reviewed successfully. Their reinstatement without new evidence defies this original determination.
			::::::2. All images have been properly verified through Wikimedia VRT process and have valid licensing. Their deletion and reinstatement of them shows proper process was followed.
			::::::3. I have already addressed all questions about authorized agent status through official Misplaced Pages channels. This matter is resolved.
			::::::4. I have consistently followed every procedure to a T:
			::::::- Using talk pages
			::::::- Providing reliable sources
			::::::- Following dispute resolution
			::::::- Getting official review of tags
			::::::- Verifying image licensing
			::::::- Addressing repetitious concerns transparently
			::::::5. The suggestion of a topic ban - what topic exactly? Arts and culture coverage? That would be an unprecedented scope based on properly sourced contributions.
			::::::6. Regarding CoffeeCrumbs' claims of 'promotional activities' - I have several drafted articles about artists with similar encyclopedic gaps in coverage that I've had to delay working on due to this ongoing situation. The fact that a few users are trying to discredit me simply because I focused on documenting 3 films that had no Misplaced Pages presence is, frankly, pathetic.
			::::::All of my edits are fully sourced, neutral, and follow policy. Each accusation has been officially reviewed and resolved through proper channels. If there are content concerns, they should be raised with diffs and policy citations, not broad accusations. ] (]) 17:06, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::Please see ]. You've said all of that stuff time and time again but other users still fundamentally disagree with you and find your conduct problematic. You just need to drop the stick now. ] (]) 17:10, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::::Citing WP:BLUDGEON is ironic given you repeatedly make the same accusations after they've been officially resolved through proper channels:
			::::::::1. (Some) paid editing tags - officially reviewed and removed (then slapped back on)
			::::::::2. Image licensing - verified through VRT
			::::::::3. Authorized agent status - addressed through proper process
			::::::::I've responded to concerns as they arise and made improvements based on constructive feedback (see discussion with Gråbergs Gråa Sång). Yet you continue repeating claims without new evidence.
			::::::::Repeatedly making resolved accusations while telling others to "drop the stick" is bad form. ] (]) 17:20, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::::Sorry, how have the issues in this thread {{tq|been officially resolved through proper channels}}? This is an open thread and 5 users have called for a topic ban. The issues have not yet been {{tq|officially resolved}} by any definition of the term. ] (]) 17:27, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::::::The tags WERE successfully removed through proper review
			::::::::::The images WERE successfully reinstated through VRT verification
			::::::::::The authorized agent status WAS officially resolved
			::::::::::These are documented facts with clear outcomes through proper Misplaced Pages channels. See:
			::::::::::- VRT verification: commons.wikimedia.org/search/?title=Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests&oldid=prev&diff=973304583
			::::::::::- Discussion with @Gråbergs Gråa Sång showing constructive collaboration
			::::::::::Your reference to "5 users" is misleading when multiple official processes have already concluded in favor of the content and proper procedures were followed. A handful of editors repeating already-resolved claims doesn't override completed official processes.
			::::::::::If there are new concerns, they should be raised with policy citations rather than attempting to relitigate resolved issues. ] (]) 17:33, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::::::The thing is that the tags, the images and the authorised status issues aren't the matters under discussion in this thread (and they weren't resolved by "official processes" anyway). This is a thread about conduct, not about content. If you find it {{tq|misleading}} that 5 users have called for a topic ban in relation to your conduct then there is no helping you. ] (]) 17:44, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::::::::Your attempt to separate "conduct" from the actual documented timeline is misleading:
			::::::::::::1. These issues ARE relevant because they demonstrate consistent proper conduct
			::::::::::::2. You claim these 'weren't resolved by official processes' - this is factually incorrect:
			::::::::::::- See VRT verification: commons.wikimedia.org/search/?title=Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests&oldid=prev&diff=973304583
			::::::::::::- See constructive discussion with @Gråbergs Gråa Sång leading to content improvements
			::::::::::::3. My "conduct" has been consistently focused on improving Misplaced Pages through proper channels while facing repeated unfounded accusations and content removals without policy basis. Your Vague allegations while ignoring documented proper process is itself problematic conduct. ] (]) 17:50, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::Yeah, I read this the other 15 times you said it. Getting you to follow procedure is like pulling teeth. There's no credit in disclosing things on the 10th opportunity after stonewalling the first nine. And it's clear what the topic ban would entail: Shannon Alexander and her films, broadly construed. My only question is if this is enough, but I want to ] that the conduct won't continue in the event you actually make edits not related to Shannon Alexander somehow. ] (]) 17:36, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::::Your accusations are baseless and contradicted by the record:
			::::::::I have engaged transparently and promptly through proper channels at every stage:
			::::::::- Used talk pages consistently
			::::::::- Responded to concerns promptly
			::::::::- Had tags officially reviewed and removed
			::::::::- Had images verified through VRT
			::::::::- Resolved authorized agent status
			::::::::- Made improvements based on constructive feedback
			::::::::2. A topic ban on is a solution in search of a problem. The articles are properly sourced, neutrally written, and part of addressing gaps in coverage. It's absurd to suggest banning someone for documenting notable films following policy.
			::::::::3. The relentless accusations regarding these 3 simple articles that previously had no coverage must stop. The paid editing and COI tags are demonstrably untrue based on the official resolutions through proper channels.
			::::::::I will continue to refute these baseless allegations because they are false. Please stop making unfounded accusations and let those of us who want to improve the encyclopedia do so.
			::::::::The documentation exists. The proper processes were followed. The official resolutions are clear. These constant attempts to relitigate resolved issues are what's actually disruptive to Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 17:46, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::::I think it would be productive here for an administrator to review the contents of this discussion and take action based on the views expressed by multiple users. Further discussion is not going to advance matters any further (unless other users would like to add their voices to whether or not a topic ban would be appropriate). ] (]) 17:51, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::::{{u|CoffeeCrumbs}} Your proposed topic ban is arbitrary and unjustified. If you're concerned about my editing conduct, why limit it to Shannon Alexander specifically? Why not ban me from writing about films in general, or movies from the late 2010s?
			:::::::::The fact that you're targeting a single filmmaker whose work I've documented following policies and guidelines exposes the lack of logic behind your argument. It's a transparent attempt to shut down coverage of notable topics simply because you don't like that I'm the one writing about them.
			:::::::::Misplaced Pages's mission is to encompass all of human knowledge, not to censor editors who are working in good faith to expand that knowledge in accordance with site policies. If there were legitimate issues with my conduct, they would apply across topics, not just to one filmmaker.
			:::::::::The reality is, there is no evidence of policy violations or misconduct on my part. The paid editing and COI tags were reviewed and removed through proper channels. The images were officially verified. My role as an authorized representative was documented and resolved.
			:::::::::Your continued efforts to relitigate these settled issues and impose baseless sanctions are the real disruption here. If you have specific concerns about the content of the articles, raise them on the talk pages with policy-based arguments. But stop trying to game the system to get rid of content and contributors you personally disapprove of.
			:::::::::Misplaced Pages is not here to indulge personal vendettas. It's here to provide free, reliable information to the world. That's why we're all here and love the platform greatly. ] (]) 17:54, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::::::I proposed it, not CoffeeCrumbs. And I proposed a ban limited to Shannon Alexander because that is the only area you have been disruptive - in fact it is the sole focus of 100% of your activity on Misplaced Pages. I proposed a limited topic ban in the hope that you could move forward and show us you could work collaboratively elsewhere on some other topic that interests you. But if you think we're better off just banning you from more, or even from everything, that is certainly workable as well. ] (]) 18:05, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::::::This is getting absurd. Let's be clear - you're escalating from topic ban to broader bans because I defended properly sourced contributions with documented evidence?
			:::::::::::Sure, I focused on documenting films that had no Misplaced Pages coverage - that's called filling a gap in the encyclopedia. I have other articles about artists in development too, but this constant barrage of unfounded accusations is preventing that work.
			:::::::::::At this point, an admin needs to review this situation. The escalating threats of bans over properly documented contributions has become farcical. This isn't how Misplaced Pages is supposed to work. ] (]) 18:10, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::::::::No, that is a Straw man argument. I proposed a topic for the reasons I explained above. Kindly don't put words in my mouth. ] (]) 18:12, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
			:<s>'''Support T-ban at least'''</s> the continued ] and ] per the above bludgeoning by said user. ] (]) 17:53, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
			::Your comment perfectly demonstrates the circular logic being employed:
			::1. I defend against unfounded accusations with documented evidence = "BLUDGEONING"
			::2. I refute false claims about resolved processes = "BATTLEGROUND"
			::3. I provide proof of proper conduct = "continued bludgeoning"
			::Supporting a topic ban while misapplying WP:BLUDGEON to silence defense against false accusations is what actually creates a battleground atmosphere. I will continue to refute untrue claims with evidence because that's not "bludgeoning" - it's maintaining integrity. ] (]) 17:55, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::After that response I strike my support of a t-ban and move to '''Support an indef''' it is clear that the behaviour will not change. I have never interacted with you before or even edited in the area and you are immediately attacking me. ] (]) 17:58, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::So you've never edited in this area or interacted with me, yet you're calling for a T ban/indefinite ban? Because I defended my contributions with evidence?
			::::I've had images verified through VRT, tags reviewed and removed through proper channels, and consistently improved content through collaboration. Check the documentation if you don't believe me.
			::::Why exactly are you proposing to ban someone you've never interacted with? That seems contrary to collaborative spirit. ] (]) 18:07, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::The purpose of this board is to get additional input from previously-uninvolved editors. If all you want to do is keep saying the same thing to the same people repeatedly, you'll keep getting their same response no matter where you say it. The fact that the new participants look at what's happening and still don't agree with you should tell you something. The fact that you object to their participation and reject their input because it doesn't say what you want definitely tells us something. ] (]) 18:31, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::Regardless of any ], the inability, or extreme reluctance, of this editor to:
			::::* ] such basic site policies as ];
			::::* ] wrongdoing, or error, or even merely recognize the concerns of other editors as potentially valid ''in any way'';
			::::* ] any sort of feedback on board, with ] only managing to get them to correct necessary attribution only after '''4''' long, tedious and frustrating exchanges (not even counting Cullen's related replies, or others' similar remarks on it, or even the original complaint raised on other pages);
			::::* ] hammering their own viewpoint repeatedly in response to every dissenting view;
			::::leads me to, unfortunately, also '''support an indef ban''', at least until the user can show they understand how their behavior has not been collaborative, as well as commit to improving and also ''properly'' responding to other editors' concerns, while ] to what they're actually saying.
			::::To be clear, this is only based on the behavior observed here. I am making no comments about the original report. ] (]) 19:48, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::I must firmly correct several serious mischaracterizations with documented facts:
			:::::1. Re: "4 tedious exchanges about attribution"
			:::::This completely misrepresents what occurred:
			:::::- The extended exchanges were NOT about attribution changes
			:::::- They were days of me defending against unfounded COI accusations and false claims about my identity
			:::::- When attribution format was finally raised as an actual issue, and I convinced them of my legitimacy, I implemented changes immediately
			:::::- The record clearly shows this timeline
			:::::2. Re: "inability to take feedback"
			:::::The evidence shows consistent implementation of suggested changes:
			:::::- Gråbergs Gråa Sång's wiki-voice improvements implemented promptly
			:::::- Article refinements based on additional verified sources
			:::::- Format changes adopted when specifically requested
			:::::- Image licensing properly verified (now restored through VRT after repeated proof requirements)
			:::::3. Re: "not understanding WP:CONSENSUS"
			:::::- I fully understand and respect consensus processes
			:::::- Current disputes involve content removals without proper consensus discussion
			:::::- I have actively sought broader community input through appropriate channels
			:::::4. Re: "hammering viewpoint"
			:::::What's being characterized as "hammering" has actually been:
			:::::- Defending against continuous unfounded allegations (false claims about my identity as Shannon Alexander/affiliates, paid editing, COI, AI use etc.)
			:::::- Having to repeatedly correct misrepresentations
			:::::- Responding to new accusations after previous ones are disproven
			:::::- Protecting properly sourced content from removal
			:::::- Having to repeatedly prove already-verified image uploads
			:::::5. Re: "not being collegial"
			:::::The record shows I have maintained professional discourse while:
			:::::- Following every proper procedure
			:::::- Implementing requested changes when actually specified
			:::::- Using appropriate Misplaced Pages venues
			:::::- Facing repeated unfounded allegations
			:::::Suggesting an indefinite ban based on my defense against continuous unfounded accusations, while ignoring my documented policy compliance and willingness to implement actual requested changes, is deeply concerning. ] (]) 20:05, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
			:Can an uninvolved admin please implement the obvious consensus before Stan digs himself into an even deeper hole? And, if they are not using an AI chatbot, give them a job impersonating one, because they do a very good impression? ] (]) 20:27, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
			::I think a chatbot might explain why Stan hasn't answered my question about where he found a 9-year-old definition of COI. ]&nbsp;] 20:49, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::{{u|Phil Bridger}} {{u|Schazjmd}} Accusing me of being an chatbot for thoroughly defending sourced content is a baseless personal attack. Disagreement is not grounds for abuse.
			:::After countless policy citations and talk page discussion research over these last several days I don't recall where I found that outdated COI definition. I am only human. But it doesn't change my core arguments about content. Even if I were a cyborg (sadly I'm not), compliance is what matters.
			:::The reason I've had to repeatedly defend my work is the endless stream of unfounded allegations I keep facing. If there's an upside, it's that I've gained an even deeper knowledge of Misplaced Pages guidelines - knowledge I'd prefer to use improving articles, not battling more false claims. ] (]) 21:24, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
			{{od}}
			IN THE NAME OF JESUS, MARY, JOSEPH, AND ALL THE SAINTS AND APOSTLES, WILL SOMEONE BLOCK THIS PESTILENTIAL TIMEWASTER? ]] 21:39, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
			* '''Support CBAN''' of this bludgeoning ]. They are a clear ]. ] (]) 22:10, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:This thread could be Exhibit A for the recent proposal at VP that LLM-generated posts be banned from talk pages . ]] 22:51, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:To take an example of Stan1900’s serial misrepresentations…
			*:Initially PAID tags were added to the articles. Stan objected and another user replaced them with COI tags. Later 2 further users expressed an opinion that PAID would be more appropriate so the tags were switched back to PAID in accordance with the developing consensus. Those PAID tags have remained in place since that time.
			*:Stan1900 has since claimed on several occasions, above and elsewhere, that the PAID tags were “removed following official review” (or similar words to that effect) and has presented this as a success for his point of view.
			*:Either the user is exceptionally deluded or is attempting to misrepresent matters to those without the patience to read through all the documentation elsewhere. Further evidence of the user's serial misrepresentation can be located here .
			*:And breaking news.. the article that was still in AfC was recently turned down for reading like an advertisement . ] (]) 22:56, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
			{{abot}}
			== Gender-related arbitration issue? ==
	== Hmmm, just a bit disturbing. ==
			{{atop|1=Removed from editing (indef'd). - ] <sub>]</sub> 22:56, 20 December 2024 (UTC)}}
			{{userlinks|Masquewand}} is removing "gender" from {{pagelinks|Sexual orientation}}. First {{diff||1264041220|1261563622|02:48, 20 Dec 24}} which I reverted then on {{diff||1264051379|1264041261|04:12, 20 Dec 24}}. Masquewand was left a gender-related contentious-topics notice and has been blocked for this issue on 7 Dec 24. The article has a hidden comment that explains the reason "gender" is in place. ] (]) 11:14, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
			: makes me think ] applies. ] (]) 11:45, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
	<div style="margin: 1em;" class="resolved"><span style="border: 1px solid #aaa; background: #f9fcf9; margin-right: .5em; padding: 6px;">] Resolved. </span>{{#if: ] (]) 09:33, 17 February 2008 (UTC)|<span style="font-size: 85%;">] (]) 09:33, 17 February 2008 (UTC)</span>}}</div>
			:The whole of that user talk page is a study in ]. Someone for whom the concept of consensus is incomprehensible -- and throw in his charming assertion that a source as much as five years old is invalid -- is not going to be deflected from His! Mission! ] 12:02, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
			{{abot}}
			Take note of comment they made. Seems to imply a threat of socking? ] (]) 05:07, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
			== Mgtow definition ==
	I came across IP 72.130.32.142 making some death threats during their vandalism, as seen in their ]. I have blocked them for 48 hours for the time being, and come here to ANI as I honestly do not come across these everyday, and am unsure of where else to turn/go. What is the next step (if any) in this situation? ]]] 00:25, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
			{{atop|1=Editor was pointed to the talk page and then stopped editing. It looks like this was a case of ]. - ] <sub>]</sub> 03:45, 22 December 2024 (UTC)}}
	:Yeah, 99% chance it's just run-of-the-mill vandalism. If you feel like reporting it to the authorities, go ahead, but there's almost no chance it's serious, and the authorities might not be able to do much anyway. Then again, I might be biased; my friends and I used to joke around all the time in high school that we'd kill each other, and my one time best-friend got caught doing so on a webpage and was hauled before a judge... ] (]) 01:36, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
			There are blatant lies in the wiki definition of "mgtow".
	::I think any death threat that names a specific individual should probably be reported. Reporting to the ISP is easy enough, but can anyone narrow that IP's location down further than all of southern California? ] (]) 01:46, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
			The goal is accuracy, not "man bashing". ] (]) 14:48, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
	:::Narrowed it down some to Orange, California. 33.7949, -117.8410. I think that is specific enough. The same search came up with "Is proxy: false" and a Certainty rate of 99%. Regards, — ] ] 01:58, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
			:@], you should discuss this at ]. This noticeboard is for conduct issues, not content issues. ]&nbsp;] 14:54, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
			:Nothing wrong with the definition of MGTOW. Maximum Gross Takeoff Weight is an internationally accepted and used term used by every airplane and airline in the world. ] ] 16:17, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
			::The cintent is incorrect. Mvto is NOT "misogynistic". There is no "hate" towards women, only avoidance. ] (]) 20:21, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
			:@], you were directed to the talkpage, which includes an FAQ on the term you keep trying to remove, along with extensive discussion. You should start there before just removing sourced content that you don't like. We'll leave aside the absence of required notifications to Black Kite and myself who have warned you for your conduct. '''<span style="font-family: Arial;">] <small>]</small></span>''' 17:41, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
			::Where do I find the talk page? ] (]) 20:21, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::@], I linked it for you in my comment above. ]&nbsp;] 20:27, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
			* Camarogue100's removal of material unfavorable to the subject with an edit summary of indicates to me that they are here to play games, not ]. Any more disruption should result in an immediate block IMO. —] (]) 20:33, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
	::::Just to make sure, you're referring to the city and not the county? ] (]) 02:04, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
			{{abot}}
	:::::Yes, the search resulted in the parameter "city: Orange". — ] ] 02:09, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
			== Creating the need to make 400,000 unnecessary edits ==
	Alright, I've contacted the police and the ISP's abuse address. ] (]) 02:54, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
	:Ugh, we should have coordinated our timing, I've done the same. — ] ] 03:01, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
	::Question: where did you get this place information? It isn't on the WHOIS and it gives a probability (I would like to have that, as I know WHOIS is often wrong). ] (]) 03:55, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
	:::Geobytes. I've found it mostly reliable for static IP addresses, but Geobytes is mostly useless for open proxies or dynamic IP addresses, which results will be misleading. — ] ] 04:40, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
	:::: (slightly offtopic) I just tried Geobytes with a static IP and it got the country right, but the city was way off. ] (]) 10:36, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
	:::::Really? hmm... awkward, maybe something changed with the IP? — ] ] 03:57, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
	:::::: Well, one erroneous result does condemn the service. FWIW, the country is England and the cited city was London - which could well be a "default". I have had the same static IP assigned to me by my ISP for the last six years and neither myself or my ISP are in London. ] (]) 23:20, 18 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.
	== Meatpuppeting on ] ==
			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)
	SlimVirgin has been edit warring on the layout guideline page. She wants an expansive view of "see also" sections. She started nitpicking the section in December. Earlier this week she made an undiscussed change and it was reverted. Today she inserted disputed text. The text she proposed two days earlier on the talk page had ZERO positive remarks before she edited the page. Two editors told her this was disputed text., . Her text was removed, and she reverted.. She was called out for edit warring and inserting non-consensus text again . When it was removed again, she made a disruptive ] removal of the admonition not to make see also into a link farm.. This material has, in one form or another, been in the guideline for nearly two and a half years. When this edit was reverted as POINTy, rather than go through another revert, she had Crum375 come by and perform the edit for her..
			: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)
	This pattern of ] revert wars by SlimVirgin and Crum375 is well known. Crum375 has never edited this page. Crum375 has never edited this talk page. Quite simply, Crum375 has no dog in that fight and is there to act as a warring proxy so SlimVirgin doesn't cross 3RR. This behavior '''is the definition of ]'''. This behavior is deliberately gaming 3RR to make a disruptive pointy edit.
			== ] ==
	Something needs to be done to break up this tag team meatpuppetry. ] (]) 08:29, February 17, 2008 (UTC)
	:Admin action suggested? Any misuse of admin powers? Do you seriously want them blocked for meatpuppetry? (I strongly object to the removal of the section that represents a long-standing consensus as well, as would most people, I think, but seriously - meatpuppetry?) ] (]) 10:02, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
			] is making wholesale reverts of my edits in contravention to guidelines. ] (]) 19:17, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
	:Clearly no abuse of admin powers, but I have to say I'm curious about the pattern of editing you describe. I've seen other similar reports about these editors; I'd be interested to know what the story is here. -- ] (]) 11:30, 17 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.
	:I have that page, along with most policies and guidelines, on my watchlist, and have been following the issues there. I happen to believe that "See also" contents depend on editor discretion and talk page consensus, not on rigid rules. I made an edit to that effect, noting my opinion in my edit summary. This was not based on any communication or coordination with anyone. If Schmucky has a problem with my edit, the article's talk page is a better place to address it than here. ] (]) 13:42, 17 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.
	::] is in fact saying he has a problem with what he perceives as meat-puppetry, rather than merely a problem with that specific page. The problem is that shared interests leads to the appearance of meat-puppetry among people who agree and the appearance of wiki-stalking among those who disagree. One must AGF as much as possible or one will see conspiracies everywhere. ] (]) 14:47, 17 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.
	::Thanks for that clarification, Crum. -- ] (]) 15:33, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
			WP could be sooo much better. ] (]) 02:02, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
	There are (at least) three issues here. First, as an experienced editor, SlimVirgin must know that ] doesn't allow her to revert three times, particularly without consensus. (''In this spirit the rule does not convey an entitlement to revert three times each day, nor does it endorse reverting as an editing technique.'') After SV reached three reverts, Crum375 appeared. Second, SV often claims "stalking" whenever someone else edits an article for the first time; Crum375 had never edited ] before. Third, this type of editing is occurring on other guideline and policy pages, for example ], where SV even started a section heading naming another editor to discuss sockpuppetry (subsequently changed when I pointed out SV's violation of ] and ] ). There appears to be a double standard; the ] violations and SV's accusations of "wikistalking" and sockpuppetry should stop, and extra eyes are needed on these policy and guideline pages, where ] tendencies are apparent (reference the numerous past similar issues at ], ] and others). Policy and guideline pages benefit from stability, yet SV edit wars on them to instate her preferred versions. ] (]) 16:56, 17 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)
	Crum375 and SlimVirgin have established this pattern dozens of times before. Edit wars are bad. Meatpuppetry, even the appearance of it, is bad. I don't think it is out of line for administrator intervention to tell these two to stay out of each others edit wars. If one sees the other in "trouble", they can use the talk page to gain consensus rather than continue the poor behavior of edit warring. Two simple and well established rules: 1. Don't edit war. 2. Don't edit war for your friends. Why should this pair be immune to that? ] (])
			::GO and read the guidelines. It does not need discussion. ] (]) 02:15, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::Discussion is required when other editors ask you questions in good faith in order to resolve present disputes and prevent future ones. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>]</span> 02:18, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
			::Bear in mind this is WP and not social media. ] (]) 02:16, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
			::How do you get the impression that "I don't remember what policy says but I'm right so leave me alone". ] (]) 02:18, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::No. You brought this here. The ] is on ''you'' to explain how the guidelines justify your edits, not to say "go look it up". Also {{tqq|How do you get the impression that "I don't remember what policy says but I'm right so leave me alone"}} - because that's exactly what you said. - ] <sub>]</sub> 02:19, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::It's not unreasonable in many cases to link to a very specific passage of a guideline and expect an editor to understand its meaning as regards a pertinent dispute, but you can't just fail to clearly articulate your argument while also insisting it's vindicated somewhere within the full text of a guideline. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>]</span> 02:21, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
			:Content dispute. Bold edits were reverted; next step is discussion, probably at ]. If there is dispute over interpretation of the guideline you can consider leaving a pointer at ]. If there are any categories that shouldn't be used at all that can be discussed at ]. ] (]) 03:31, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
			::The content dispute could have been discussed on any of the talk pages. Yet it was brought here first. ] (]) 06:16, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::When a content dispute involves several pages it is often <small>though not always</small> best to centralize discussion. Misunderstanding ANIs purpose and bringing content disputes here is a common and understandable error; best just to point people at appropriate ] when that happens. ] (]) 06:53, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
			Not overly impressed by 43's comments above. But do wish to note that their ] of ] from at least one BLP appears to have been correct. The subsequent reversion of that removal is misfortune. ] <sup>]</sup> 08:06, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
	:I think we should assume good faith here, the Crum375 and SlimVirgin accounts do overlap a lot in their editing interests, and invariably back each other up in editing disputes. However, these accounts are probably just two close friends who talk to each other, not the same person. ] (]) 17:51, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
			== Excessive range block ==
	::Tim, I'm not alleging they are the same person. Close friends who talk to each other and whose interests overlap should not be tag team edit warring. ] (])
			{{atop|1=IP-using sockmaster complains that their IP range is blocked. ]. - ] <sub>]</sub> 21:00, 21 December 2024 (UTC)}}
			] has been blocked for 3 years. For anyone unfamiliar please read ]. You can also click on the contributions to see that this block affects editors literally all over the United States. I am not saying that no disruption ever came out of this range but this range is so massive it blocked countless editors who never did anything wrong trampling on the rights of far too many IP editors. Please unblock and in the future just block the 64. ] (]) 20:27, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
			:And yet, since May there has only been a single unblock request, one which did not use the template so no one responded, doesn't seem like a lot of collateral. It's an anonymous only block, so accounts (created in other ranges) can be used to edit from that range without issue.
	:Ah, sorry, I misread your post. I agree that since Crum375 has never made an edit to that page or its talkpage before intervening in this current dispute to revert for his friend, the claim that he "had it on his watchlist" is highly unlikely. I believe that he either followed another editor's contributions to this page, or was contacted directly and asked to intervene. Any other hypothesis is pushing AGF to the point of credulity. Therefore if revert-warring on this guideline continues, SlimVirgin and Crum375 should be regarded as a single account. ] (]) 19:09, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
			:Secondly, this should probably be at ], or better yet the blocking admin's user talk page, as this is not an incident nor anything requiring urgent admin attention, seen as the block has been like that since May, and blocked for long lengths of time before that as well with no apparent issue. &ndash; ] (]) (]) 20:42, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
	::Great. Here's witchhunt #3141529. ''']''' <sup>(])</sup> 19:22, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
			::Most IP editors don’t know how to submit an unblock request. And a new editor would be unable to create an account thanks to this block. We’ll never know how many would be wikipedians we lost. I don’t know why the fact that this range block is problematic needs to be explained. It affects way more people than the editor(s) they were trying to block. Literally the entire United States can fall on that range. ] (]) 21:28, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
	:::Requiring editors to play fair isn't a witch hunt. ] (])
			:::{{xt|Most IP editors don’t know how to submit an unblock request.}} Right, that's factored into the calculation that only one request means there isn't a lot of collateral damage. If every editor that wanted one automatically filed one, a total of one filing wouldn't be small, but minuscule collateral. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>]</span> 21:39, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::That doesn’t make any sense. If every editor that wanted one automatically filed one, we wouldn’t have a total of one filing. No one even responded to the unblock request, so we likely lost a would be wikipedian. The collateral damage is not small and can be minimized by blocking the 64 instead of a 40 range. There have been far too many editors that didn’t do anything wrong blocked. ] (]) 00:11, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::We can't facilitate absolutely every case unfortunately. Every block might lose someone we could've known and loved in a perfect world. With experience, the evidence indicates that the trade-off here has been acceptable to prevent disruption to the encyclopedia. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>]</span> 00:26, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::No one has any "rights" to edit this website. ] (]) 00:40, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
			:This is actually a rather complicated subject. Firstly number of addresses ≠ number of affected users. Some very broad ranges are little used, some rather narrow ones are extremely busy. Secondly there's a tricky calculation involved with broad range blocks, but much as we want to limit collateral to as little as necessary, there are some extremely nasty sockmasters who have no qualms about abusing large ranges to their advantage, so that large rang-blocks really are the least bad option. As just one example the entire T-Mobile range has been repeatedly blocked. In fact blocks as wide as /29 are not as unreasonable as you may think.
			:Getting back to this specific case, it's a Verizon Business range, and it wouldn't surprise me if individual users floated within a /40 making the block of smaller subnets of less utility. I don't know all the specifics of why {{U|Widr}} blocked that range, but then again you don't either since you didn't ask them first which you really should have done before bringing this here. That range has in fact been repeatedly blocked including for BLP violations and sockpuppetry. Ideal? no. Least bad option? Almost certainly. Those are experienced sysops; I would trust their judgement. ] (]) 02:08, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
			::FYI, OP is a block evader, latest socks and . ] (]) 07:56, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::Figures, at least they were kind enough to bring their block-evasion to everyone's attention here; to the limited extent I have time available I'll try to keep an eye out. ] (]) 15:01, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
			: Blocking a /64 on this IP range would be pointless. Admins can do blocks like this without disabling account creation, though. Unless there's logged-in disruption, such as the creation of sock puppets, vandals, or trolls, account creation can be left enabled on wide IP ranges like this. Personally, I'm not so sure that Mediawiki should make it so easy to perform range blocks. I think maybe there should be a user right required, like ]. ] (]) 04:38, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
			* I came across similar thoughts a few days ago. Because of bot reasons, and others, a lot of the times I am in incognito mode - without logged in. I often need to see the source. And all this time (in last 2-3 years), all of the time my IP/range was blocked with ACB. Is it possible to block the IP ranges only from mainspace? or something similar? —usernamekiran ] 12:00, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
			* This is, I think, a mobile network with dynamically assigned IP addresses. It may be necessary to block a range if there is disruption by people whose IP address change frequently within that range. --] (]) 12:21, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
			*: regardless ISP (mobile/DSL/fibre or anything), the default IP system in India is dynamic. Static IPs are provided upon request, which are done only by hosting service providers and similar people. So it is safe to say that 99.9 home users/individual in India have dynamic IP address which change a lot. —usernamekiran ] 13:31, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
			*::] is in the United States, not India. — ] (]) 19:26, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:::I believe {{U|Usernamekiran}} was referring to their own experience <small>mentioned in their first comment</small> rather than this specific case. Regardless, this thread was started in bad-faith by a sockmaster unhappy their favorite range was blocked and should now be closed. If I hadn't already involved myself by weighing in here I would have done so already. ] (]) 20:31, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
			*::::I think this is a sockmaster that is just unhappy with Widr in general, seeing the accounts Widr mentioned - may or may not make this report an attempt at harassment.
			*::::Should be closed either way. Also on you closing it, IPs shouldn't really close threads, even when uninvolved - reverting a sock's unresponded post is probably the most an IP might do, closing just shouldn't happen. &ndash; ] (]) (]) 20:51, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:::::There is, or perhaps was <small>the last decade or so has been a bit of a blur</small>, a complex etiquette governing such closes, but if sentiment has turned entirely against them that would be news to me. At one point I might have ventured on essay on that and other many other facets of unregistered etiquette, but now I don't have the time and would probably just wind-up dating myself badly anyway. ] (]) 20:59, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
			{{abot}}
			== Unblock request of Rereiw82wi2j ==
	That Crum is Slim's meatpuppet most of the time, I think has been said by various people, many times before. Good luck getting anything done about it, though :) 'Meatpuppet' is a controversial word if you think about it, and it's usually used towards new users or those who work on a very limited type of articles. ] 21:21, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
			{{atop|1=Blocked, blocked, they're all blocked. - ] <sub>]</sub> 18:47, 21 December 2024 (UTC)}}
			The user {{u|Rereiw82wi2j}} was blocked for blanking talk page discussions. They were removing discussions they participated in with an now-vanished account, for the purpose of removing their username from the talk page(which isn't removed via a vanishing). I believe that per ] their vanishing needs to be reversed, am I correct? Do they need to be asked to resume using that account?(if they can) ] (]) 20:49, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
			:It seems to need reverting because with their previous account, they only edited one article/talk page and when asked what articles they wanted to edit with their new account, they just mention this same article. That violates the entire principle of a clean start account. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 23:00, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
			::Could we revoke TPA per ? ~ ] (]) 14:19, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
			::: I have revoked their talk page access and declined the unblock request. ] (]) 14:34, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::User has created another account {{u|Human82}}. ] (]) 15:39, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::Also now blocked. ]] 16:17, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::There's also ] now. ] (]) 16:32, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::Blocked by PhilKnight. ]] 16:36, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
			{{abot}}
			== User:ZanderAlbatraz1145 Civility and Content #2 ==
	:Slim's postings are far more subtle, cogent, and bright than Crum's, so I just can't imagine they're the same person. There's too much stylistic difference. The duckling editing is obvious—Crum will show up whenever she does, on disputes. I basically agree with Merkinsmum and earlier comments: most everybody knows he follows her around, and that they must communicate off-site (which isn't disallowed).
			*{{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.
	:But what to do? Admit they have a six-revert rule, and...? *Shrugs.* I mean, really, what can you do? You can't police that stuff.
			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 .
	:<s>I think it more important that people know Crum's signature. Slim remains herself: an intelligent, informed, and sometimes maddening presence on policy. Crum is a duckling—ignore his edits, because it's always "per her." That's my policy.</s> ] (]) 22:35, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
			This editor displays no interest in conducting themselves cordially or cooperatively on this website. ] 23:20, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
	::''"what can you do? You can't police that stuff."'' If this behavior is recognized and it's bad, then it's blockable. It's disruptive, it's pointy, it's 3RR, it's gaming. 3RR is an electric fence, not an entitlement. If Crum and Slim are acting together and they go over 3RR, collectively, then block one or both. ] (])
			:I've given them a warning for canvassing: - ] <sub>]</sub> 04:08, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			: - ] <sub>]</sub> 05:36, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			== there is wrong information on the article shia in iraq ==
	:::Are you an admin? Want to watch their edits together? Block on the first breach of 3RR? Feel free. ] (]) 22:58, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
			{{atop|1=Content dispute. ] is thataway →. - ] <sub>]</sub> 02:11, 21 December 2024 (UTC)}}
			in this article the editor saying that the shea in iraq 65% and Sunni in iraq is 25-30% this is totally wrong statement in Iraq we never have census established based on sect all the census was established based on Male and female please see the reference below, please remove this false information and corrected, wekepedia shouldn't publish Article backed by weak source the, the editor used the world factbook that belong to CIA , i cant believe this, how the hell that the CIA conducted a Census overseas and get the number of Sunni and Shia people in Iraq, this is the same fake information that the CIA told the world that Iraq have mass destruction weapon which leaded to occupied Iraq, so please edit and remove these false info . below are links showing Iraq Census database showing all the Census that been conducted since 1950 till 2024, was based on male and female never have Census based on Sect.
			https://countryeconomy.com/demography/population/iraq?year=1978
	:Here's a recent example from ], Crum375's sole contribution to the discussion was a post that began with - ''"I think SV is right"'' ] (]) 22:57, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
			https://www.populationpyramid.net/iraq/1978/
			https://www.macrotrends.net/global-metrics/countries/IRQ/iraq/population
			https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/iraq-population/
			https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/iraq-hold-first-nationwide-census-since-1987-2024-11-19/
			https://www.usnews.com/news/world/articles/2024-11-25/iraqs-population-reaches-45-4-million-in-first-census-in-over-30-years
			https://cosit.gov.iq/ar/62arabic-cat/indicators/174-population-2?jsn_setmobile=no <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 01:11, 21 December 2024 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
			:Hello, {{u|Freeman7373}}. This noticeboard does not resolve content disputes. Please discuss your concerns at ]. That being said, estimates of religious affiliation do not require an official census. The ] is considered a reliable source for this type of information, as is the ] which is also cited. ] (]) 01:56, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
			::how you gave population rate based on sect without Census, what you said doesn't make any sense and showing the ignorance, your CIA is not a reliable source they lied about the mass destruction weapon in IRAQ which leaded to the occupation and many people died from both side , i know people life doesn't mean anything to the evil side, so this is one example of your reliable source. see links below
			::https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2023/03/the-iraq-invasion-20-years-later-it-was-indeed-a-big-lie-that-launched-the-catastrophic-war/
			::https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/mar/18/panorama-iraq-fresh-wmd-claims
			::https://www.quora.com/Was-the-CIA-dumb-to-conclude-that-Iraq-has-WMDs
			::Shame on your reliable source ] (]) 02:09, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::Quora isn't reliable, and please be ]. ]<sub>]</sub><sup>]</sup> 02:10, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
			{{abot}}
			== MumbaiGlenPaesViolinStudent ==
	::I guess my point was lost in the shuffle; even without Crum's additions, SlimVirgin edit wars on policy and guideline pages. ] is not an invitation for SV to revert three times; talk page discussion was underway, and there was no consensus for her version. The double standard troubles regular editors like me. ] (]) 23:09, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
			{{atop
	:::The solution is aptly described in ]: "Block for edit warring, not 3RR." The double standard troubles me too. ] (] | ]) 03:42, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
			| result = MumbaiGlenPaesViolinStudent was warned to cease this conduct. ] (]/]) 02:27, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
			}}
			{{User|MumbaiGlenPaesViolinStudent}} has been warned by several users about their improper ] but has not changed their behavior.{{Diff2|1263492476}}{{Diff2|1264201007}} It unfortunately appears to be a competence issue. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>]</span> 01:29, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
	::::It's rather unfortunate to see SandyGeorgia, TimVickers, and Marskell join forces yet again for another attack, and somewhat ironic given the claims of meatpuppetry. Sandy, I thought you and I had agreed to stay out of each other's way. There were 11 editors on that guideline's talk page wanting a change; just because you didn't get your own way doesn't mean there was a conspiracy to deprive you of it. <font color="Purple">]</font> <small><sup><font color="Blue">]</font><font color="Green">]</font></sup></small> 05:09, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
	:::::Nice dodge SV. You're defending yourself by putting Sandy on offense based on the ''content'' dispute. What is at issue here is the ''behavior'' of serial tag-team edit-warring. Care to comment on the behavior? ] (])
	::::::Schmucky, if anyone's behavior needs correction it's yours: you start an ANI thread about me for having posted an edit expressing my view to an article on my watchlist, with an appropriate edit summary. If you don't like my edit, the proper place to address it is on the article's talk page, not here. ] (]) 05:32, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
	:::::::I'm not taking your bait to defend myself Crum. You didn't use the talk page. You dived straight into an edit war to defend SV. This is a pattern that has occurred dozens of times, and I'm calling you on it. ] (])
	::::::::I wasn't "defending" anyone, and I didn't see a need to add anything to the talk page, as my edit summary said all that was needed to explain my view. You, on the other hand, ] for my edit, with no evidence to back your assertions, and a complete ]. That is behavior that requires correction. ] (]) 06:09, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
	:::::::::Let me try and defuse this.
	:::::::::'No evidence' is absolutely correct, it was just a single example. However, I fancy it's happened to most people who've disagreed with SV on something. I am not currently in a dispute with her, and I certainly know I wouldn't win a dispute that descended to reverts, so it doesn't affect me; but it is true that it appears to be a pattern of behaviour on your part. If that is a mistaken impression, as it well may be, since I haven't studied your behaviour, only noticed it a half-dozen times, I apologise. However, I would be very careful about demanding evidence; I imagine it might be possible to check over a six month period what percentage of times SV reverted to the limit you've turned up to take it over the limit. (There are several alternative methods I can vagely think of.)
	:::::::::You have four options: deny you have a tendency to do that, throwing around accusations of bad faith and demanding evidence; say you're concerned that this is generally believed, and say you'll look out for signs of it happening; admit that you have this tendency, and that its because you trust SV to find difficult situations, to make the right calls in those situations, and what's wrong with that; or to just not comment any more, because there's nothing anyone could do. I would strongly recommend the third or fourth options, rather than the first, which might just madden people enough to start thinking about evidence.
	:::::::::Now, I go, because there ''really'' is nothing to be done here. I knew I should have closed this earlier. ] (]) 21:11, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
			:Looks like they . I'd be inclined to take a wait and see approach here. ] (]) 02:23, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
	Schmucky, you made 3 reverts of your own in about 10 hours. Takes two to tango. ] 06:21, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
			::Agreed. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>]</span> 02:24, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
	:No, in this case it took 3. But this is a single instance where I am involved with those two. What I pointed out, and what several others have agreed with, is that this is pattern behavior by SV and Crum. That's why it's an incident needing community attention, and not just a one-off dispute. ] (])
			{{abot}}
	:: And I'm saying that you have your own reversion issues in this very dispute, and you were the only one reverting SV. ] 07:07, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
			== Consistent unsourced changes by IP 2604:2D80:E283:4400:6966:1764:DC7C:6329 ==
	:::Is this going anywhere? Everyone knows that Crum follows SV around, everyone knows that SV tends to over-revert because she never "loses" editwars while Crum's around, everyone, apparently except Schmucky, knows that nothing's ever going to be done about it, because its not technically illegal, and because SV's paid dues. Can I close this before people begin snapping at each other worse than they are already? ] (]) 08:56, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
			{{atop
			| result = the /64 for one week. ] (]/]) 02:24, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
			}}
			{{userlinks|2604:2D80:E283:4400:6966:1764:DC7C:6329}} has been changing composer fields across various movie articles with no sources. All of them have been plain wrong. ] • ] • ] 01:41, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
			:'''Note:''' The user has persisted after I issued a level 4 final warning for continued deliberate insertion of incorrect information on the user's talk page Yutah<sup><span style="color: #D19FE4;">1</span><span style="color: #373A77;">2</span><span style="color: DeepSkyBlue;">3</span></sup>&#124;]&#124;]&#10038; 02:00, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
	(od) As he contacted me, I must admit that I came down rather hard on Crum. I don't suggest ignoring the sum of his contributions here and I don't mean to denigrate mainspace contributions he has made independent of Slim. But there is zero daylight between these two editors on policy, and when they do run up to more than three reverts in tandem, it should be called out. (Gimme does point out the obvious: you can't have an edit war alone, Schmucky. My own record, admittedly, is not umblemished on P&Gs.)
			:This seems to be purely an ] issue - especially since it's an unregistered user. <span style="color: #0f52ba; font-weight: bold; text-shadow: 0px 0px 1px #111111;">]</span> (]) 02:15, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
			::Good timing, I've opened a report on AIV just a few minutes ago Yutah<sup><span style="color: #D19FE4;">1</span><span style="color: #373A77;">2</span><span style="color: DeepSkyBlue;">3</span></sup>&#124;]&#124;]&#10038; 02:17, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
			{{abot}}
			== SPA ] back at it on ] ==
	"It's rather unfortunate to see SandyGeorgia, TimVickers, and Marskell join forces yet again for another attack." I must address this. TimV and I rarely interact and it would be hard to construct an argument that we conspire. I do, often, wind up on discussion pages with Sandy. But I never, ever follow her to revert disputes. I have never gone to the medical articles she works on, for instance, even when I know she's having difficulty. I make a point of not doing so, precisely because people view us as friends. I've actually been watching the LAYOUT dispute unfold on my watchlist, and haven't commented for this reason. It would be wise, Crum, to adopt a similar strategy. ] (]) 09:07, 18 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)
	:Thank you Marskell for your partial retraction. I believe that editing Misplaced Pages should be a fun process &mdash; I can't see another good reason for investing a lot of effort over a long time for free. If I see an issue that I have a strong opinion about, anywhere on this site, I believe I should be able to contribute, regardless of who else has reverted or edited the entry previously. I do agree that canvassing of others for help, e.g. by putting out a call on IRC or elsewhere, is wrong, especially if the others have no particular interest in the issue. I don't see a problem with like-minded editors working on a given entry, however, if this is something they are interested in and enjoy doing. ] (]) 15:54, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
			:]? ] (]) 06:25, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
	::The problem, Crum, is that you seem to suddenly have a strong opinion whenever Slim gets into a revert dispute. Schmucky is right, no doubt: a look at your contribs would turn up dozens of examples of this sort. Between you, she, and Jayjg, there's likely hundreds. A reasonable person is going to call this gaming of 3RR.
			::{{duck}}. I'm sending this ]. - ] <sub>]</sub> 11:16, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::, so might just be generic disruption. - ] <sub>]</sub> 22:47, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
			:What are you implying with regard to my username? My edit history has been limited to trying to correct two red flags that stood out so much that I followed the citations when I was searching these scientists who were in the news for censorship. It has been enlightening learning how wikipedia selectively chooses secondary sources but discourages the use of primary sources to help discriminate which secondary sources are credible.
			:For my two attempted contributions to Misplaced Pages, the two red flags were pretty dramatic to prompt me to check out the citations--Sunetra Gupta's article implied more than 1 in 1000 people in England died from Covid in spring 2020 in an effort to discredit her, which was trivially easy to google as untrue. I corrected that without really changing the overall narrative. The article for Martin Kulldorff...I would probably not have spent time looking at the sources or realized how unscientific Kulldorff's critics were had there not been such superfluous "Wikivoice" editorializing and synthesizing suggesting Kulldorff lied in an essay to the public. ] (]) 06:30, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
			::] are not to be used for anything but simple facts about a subject. They absolutely are not to be used {{tqq|to help discriminate which secondary sources are credible}} because that is ]. - ] <sub>]</sub> 08:57, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::Not sure why you felt the need to repeat what I said. Maybe I am the sock puppeteer! ] (]) 03:33, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			::What I am implying is that such a username in the context of an account pushing COVID-denialist rhetoric that flies in the face of the sources and Misplaced Pages policy is . Anyway, this editor continues to be a drain of editor time and attention. ]&nbsp;]] 14:58, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::Ah an absurd, convoluted, and contrived personal attack. Assuming anyone but you knew tiki torches were present at a political event where someone was killed, why would I choose my username based on that? Tikitorches provide light, warmth, and keep the mosquitos away. I guess its not surprising an editor named writ keeper attacks the editor rather than effectively debating the subject of the edit. ] (]) 03:28, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::Even if it was a personal attack, making one ''back'' isn't going to fly here. Knock it off. - ] <sub>]</sub> 04:04, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::], your edits are being examined at ANI. This is not a pleasant experience, I'll admit. So, it's best for you not to dig yourself into a hole. I know the instinct is to defend yourself but it doesn't help your situation to come out swinging. It's probably to your benefit to address any concerns that have been raised and say no more than that. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 04:30, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			== Persistent addition of unsourced content by 2601:243:CB00:7F10:0:0:0:0/64 ==
	::Simply offering an opinion in support of a wiki-friend is not something I have a problem with, as far as it goes. It's what human beings tend to do. But reverting has specific policy implications. I'd advise, bland as it sounds, that you pause and ask yourself whether you should revert to Slim the next time you notice something like this (or have it pointed out). Maybe, instead, you should just move along and leave it. As I've just discussed with you off-site, I don't think you're insensible to the fact that people view you and Slim as tandem reverters, and I don't think you're unconcerned. ] (]) 19:16, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
			{{Atop|Blocked for one month.--] (]) 14:52, 21 December 2024 (UTC)}}
			{{userlinks|2601:243:CB00:7F10:0:0:0:0/64}} - Keeps adding unsourced content to articles, hasn't responded to warnings, and continued after block expired. /64 has previously been blocked on December 8th for a week due to "Persistent unsourced genre changes", and 2 weeks on September 7th due to addition of unsourced content. Recent examples of addition of unsourced content: {{diff|The Iron Giant|prev|1264168891|1}}, {{diff|Joker (2019 film)|prev|1264169891|2}}, {{diff|Candyman (2021 film)|prev|1264170248|3}}, {{diff|Spirited (film)|prev|1264235847|4}}, {{diff|Sausage Party: Foodtopia|prev|1264237619|5}}. ] (]) 10:22, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
			{{Abot}}
			== Disruptive editing ] ==
	:::Marskell, you need to stop the poison. This is one of several poisonous threads you've either started about me or gleefully joined in. It has been going on ever since I opposed you changing the content policies many months ago. Since then I've had nothing but the drip, drip, drip of toxicity from you, SandyGeorgia, and Tim, and from one or two other of your friends, but especially from you and SG. I would say there's much less harm in following someone's edits to articles than turning up, as you do, to attack people simply because your friend disagrees with them about a content issue or admin action. If I'm wrong about this, I hope you'll prove me wrong in future.
			{{atop
			| result = I've protected the page for 24 hours. @] and @] are both warned against edit warring, including during the course of this discussion. RR, HR, and .82 should follow ] processes. Further disruptive editing or edit warring after page protection expires will result in blocks. ] (]/]) 21:13, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
			}}
			] has been trying for about a month now to put across his own opinion about the party' infobox. An opinion which he cannot back up with any source whatsoever. Although it has been pointed out to him by both the user ] and me, continues the disruptive editing. Ιt is worth noting that although other users made the same "mistake", when the lack of sources to support the addition was pointed out to them, they accepted it and did not continue to try to pass on their own opinion.
	:::That's hopefully all I have to say about this. Crum is a good editor, and a kind, decent, and intelligent human being, who does not deserve the abuse you've heaped on him in this thread. <font color="Purple">]</font> <small><sup><font color="Blue">]</font><font color="Green">]</font></sup></small> 19:29, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
			https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Movement_for_Democracy_(Greece)#5/300
	::::I did not start this thread and I'm not participating gleefully. Schmucky raised a specific concern: gaming 3RR. It's valid, in this case. My first comment re Crum was obviously intemperate, and I did retract in part.
			https://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Greek_Rebel#Movement_for_Democracy
	::::Anyway, if you're concerned about people dealing in poison, I'd start at home. ] (]) 19:51, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
			https://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Greek_Rebel#Disruptive_editing....again
	:: ''If I see an issue that I have a strong opinion about, anywhere on this site, I believe I should be able to contribute, regardless of who else has reverted or edited the entry previously.'' Thank you for that clarification, Crum, as I may have misunderstood your position previously on other pages, where I have plenty to contribute. Since SlimVirgin has left inappropriate and threatening warnings on my talk page about "personal attacks" (which have never occurred), it appears that this discussion is very upsetting to her and would best be wrapped up. It's surprising that an admin considers discussion initiated by someone else on ANI of her three reverts in three hours as a personal attack. I've reviewed this thread and am unable to find any instance of a personal attack by me, but do find examples of failure to ] in SlimVirgin's false accusations. I hope admins reading this will consider the double standard the next time they're inclined to block another editor for edit warring, and I'm dismayed to see that SlimVirgin has continued unfounded accusations on ]. ] (]) 21:42, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
	:::SV accused someone who didn't let her get her way of committing a personal attack? I'd say these tactics by SV and Crum are getting old. Yes, this is an implied warning that this behavior of theirs needs to stop. ] (]) 11:13, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
	::::I think Misplaced Pages needs a "what's good for the goose is good for the gander" policy. I've seen rank and file editors summarily banned for the sort of behavior that gets explained away when people higher up the pecking order do it. --] (]) 15:47, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
	::::: My concern here was not so much the meatpuppetry that was raised originally by Schmucky as the double standard tolerated wrt edit warring. The change to ] arose out of a content dispute SlimVirgin was having at ]; expressing concern about an admin edit warring to change guideline/policy when engaged in a content dispute is not ]. The false accusations of a "personal attack" on my talk page are a new concern; I'd like to see SV use diffs more often to back her allegations. That another policy change is proposed at ] because of content disputes arising in other ]-related articles is also a concern. Repeating, more eyes needed on policy and guidelines pages, to help avoid edit warring and ownership issues. ] (]) 17:48, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
	::::::I agree with SandyGeorgia, there is absolutely a double standard regarding the edit warring of olde-tyme-valued-contributers. As a community we need to either decide that's what we want or decide that's what we don't want. Right now it's not entirely clear (consensus may be changing). --] (]) 22:55, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
	::::::Sandy, how dare you continue this extreme bad faith? As you know very well, the proposal for change at LAYOUT was not started by me. It was started by Sean's Potato Business supported by CrZTgR and Boracay Bill. All I did was agree with them, because I had seen Threeafterthree a few weeks earlier go systematically through a bunch of articles removing See also links for no reason. He was even removing links that weren't in the article, but that he thought ought to be -- though he didn't add them; he just removed them from See also, citing LAYOUT in the edit summaries. Altogether about 11 editors on that page wanted that change.
	::::::This is exactly what you did to Zeraeph. Constant needling and personal comments about her to other editors until you got her into a position where she was so upset, she started lashing out at you. Then you used that to get her banned. If you want yet another ArbCom case, Sandy, you're heading in the right direction. I hope instead you'll accept my proposal of yesterday that we simply try to avoid each other instead. It's a big encyclopedia.
	::::::I've also changed the attack header to this thread. <font color="Purple">]</font> <small><sup><font color="Blue">]</font><font color="Green">]</font></sup></small> 23:04, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
	::::::: Reviewing diffs may help refresh memory. Here is the at ] about the long-standing guideline during a dispute at ]. Please stop the personal attacks on me and repeating the tale that I got Zeraeph banned. Remember, I didn't want the ArbCom, I didn't want her banned, I wanted escalating sanctions; you put up roadblocks to sanctions, and right after I put up a very generous compromise and then announced I would be busy with my family for several hours, the ANI thread was closed (I believe that was supported by Crum and the thread was closed by Jossi) and the issue went to Arbcom, ''against my wishes'' and better judgment, as I knew the evidence and what would ensue. I'm sure when you write these things, you believe them to be true; please review history and diffs before making unfounded allegations and attacks on me, as the community tires of rehashing old history. Had you supported or allowed reasonable sanctions, that whole situation might have been avoided. ] (]) 23:47, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
	== ] ==
			] (]) 19:15, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
	] has been leaving rude remarks and accusing of be a sockpuppet at my talk page. This was after a ] alert was filed by ]. I proceeded to become a mediator in the situation by leaving calm warnings at both of their talk pages. ] suggested bringing the incident here. Thank you, ] (]) 19:37, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
			:This is a content dispute, not a conduct dispute. Since discussing the issue on article talk has not worked, please follow ] processes, such as seeking guidance at ] or ], or going to ]. ] (]/]) 19:50, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
			::@] taking a look because I've been tagged. While there may be content elements to it I think this has gone into a behavioural issue, namely due to it being a user actively edit warring without providing sources but instead endlessly insisting on edits that are entirely ]. ] (]) 20:00, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
			::It is not a problem of content but of behaviour. His claim is original research, is his own conclusion and is not verified by any source. He knows it, has admitted it, and yet he insists on adding it. ] (]) 20:02, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
			(nac) ] is a moderately stable DAB page, with which I have been involved. I assume this dispute relates to ]. ] (]) 20:59, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
	Please note that I have not, nor will I, endorse either side of this dispute. I simply suggested that since SISKYWARN wanted administrator attention, and was in a dispute with an administrator, that he bring his complaints here. The WQA isn't the place to hash out issues that (at least in his opinion) require admin-on-admin intervention. --] (]) 20:24, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
			{{abot}}
			== Sugar Bear returns with personal attacks ==
	:I tried to stay neutral initially, but when ] left the messages on my talk page, I stated that on the WQA page and left the user a kind warning. Also at that point, I asked for administrator intervention. ] (]) 20:29, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
			{{atop|1=/24 blocked for two weeks. - ] <sub>]</sub> 01:36, 22 December 2024 (UTC)}}
			*{{rangevandal|166.181.224.0/19}}
			*]
			Using the IP range ], Sugar Bear has returned to Misplaced Pages to disrupt film and music articles. After I recognized this fact and began reverting him, Sugar Bear began a campaign of personal attacks at my talk page, using the IP ]. Can we get a rangeblock?
	:As Southern Illinois SKYWARN says, I was the one who opened up ]. When I first saw that this ANI had been opened, I was going to post to say that I didn't think it was necessary at this point. However, having seen Mikkalai's reaction to that WQA (which I described ), I concede that this ANI probably is necessary after all. Hopefully we can resolve this issue to everyone's satisfaction. I really hope it doesn't escalate any further. :( -- ] (]) 21:29, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
	::Mikka knows what he's doing, and he's (wisely) decided to take a break until things cool down. I think you guys got what you wanted. --] (]) 22:10, 17 February 2008 (UTC)		There's a decade-plus history of this vandal attacking me, for instance his creation of the username ]. I can spot his contributions quite easily by now. ] (]) 22:35, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
	::::With respect, I don't think you're right at all. His response to this ANI and the original WQA is indicated by what he posted to his user and talk pages: '''"Taking a break until wikilawyers move onto other victims. Have fun with cangaroo courts."''' This is not the actions of a person who recognizes that he is in any way at fault. As such, there is every reason to believe that if this just silently blows over he will continue attacking people and abusing ]. -- ] (]) 02:13, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
	:::I am trying to stay cool, but I find the above response outrageous. I was initially a mediator in this case. I left calm warnings on Mikka's talk page, and he responded by attacking me on my talk page. His comments are illustrated . He accuses me of being a sockpuppet, and calls WQA "Cangaroo courts". Thank you, ] (]) 22:30, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
	::::Edit warring to repeatedly add ''templated'' warnings to the Talk page of an admin (after he has acknowledged the ''templated'' warnings by removing them from his Talk page) is not the way to go about winning friends and influencing people. <font face="Arial">]<sub>'']''</sub></font> 23:28, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
	::::::There has been no edit warring here. Southern Illinois SKYWARN left two separate warnings on Mikkalai's talk page and Mikkalai reverted them both (as he's entitled to do, although imo doing so while the dispute is ongoing tends to look pretty bad, as if the reverter is trying to hide something). But the more important issue is the incivility and the ] stuff. Perhaps you could comment on that? (Details at the WQA link above, if you need them.) - ] (]) 02:20, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
	:::::I left two warnings on Mikkah's talk page (one of them for ownership, the other for personal attacks). I added my own words to the first warning in addition to the template. I believe that warnings should be left on talk pages unless they have been rectified in some way so other editors are aware of infractions. If anyone has a problem, please say so, but also back up your argument. Thank you, ] (]) 01:44, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
	:::::::You may believe that, but ] disagrees. <font face="Arial">]<sub>'']''</sub></font> 01:47, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
	::::::::I am sorry I had never seen that essay. ] (]) 01:51, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
	I want to repeat that I was initially an outside mediator in this case. I knew that I should have never gotten involved with dispute resolution even though it usually does not turn out like this. Also note that this was my first mediation ever. ] (]) 02:03, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
	:] has had trouble with civility before. Given the number of long-term users who are having real trouble with civility, I'm beginning to think our current policy on this is completely broken. ] (]) 17:56, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
	::I would agree. --] 22:17, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
	::Relata refero: I found this comment of yours further down the current page quite eye-opening (emphasis mine):
	::<blockquote>if you look up and down this board and think about what tends to happen, there are usually dozens of complaints about civility, '''most of them against long-term, established users'''. Half of them are against the same small set of people - and '''we all know that Guy, Mikka and Betacommand top the list''' and Jay and a couple of others usually aren't too far behind. This system is broken, people, until somebody has the good sense and/or courage to stand up and say "Listen, I don't care if X deals with trolls on a regular basis, these last questions weren't trolling/insensitive/necessarily bad faith, and I'm blocking this established user for being grossly uncivil just as I would if he had 250 edits."</blockquote>
	::I don't tend to pay much attention to this or similar pages, so I'm not well aware of the history, but if what you imply is true - that long-term established users are basically being allowed to get away with being grossly uncivil ''because'' they're long-term, established users then that's a big problem. It goes dead against the whole point of Misplaced Pages as a fair, welcoming place for people to contribute, and is inevitably going to make large amounts of users lose all respect for the disciplinary processes that have developed here as a means to make the site a better place. That can't possibly be a good thing. -- ] (]) 02:08, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
	:::I suspect it might be a case of "Yeah, we know these people tend to mouth off and treat people badly, but they also do a lot of really great stuff on the wiki - if we alienate them by making them play by the rules, we'll lose their services." I'm not saying I condone this line of thinking, but if it happens to be the line of thinking, I can sorta understand it. &mdash; ''']''' (]) &mdash; 03:15, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
			.I've blocked the current IP, I may not have time to properly investigate the range right now. '''<span style="font-family: Arial;">] <small>]</small></span>''' 22:39, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
	'''Outside comment:''' I left a message on the WQA page as well, explaining that when a user removes warnings from his own talk page, it's taken as a sign that he has read and acknowledges the warnings (even if, in fact, he hasn't) - the warnings are acknowledged for purposes of admin action. However, with all due respect, I'm disappointed with the initial responses to this report. I found the initial response of "Mikkalai has (wisely) decided to take a break" to be overly trivial, and the further responses of "edit warring on Mikkalai's talk page" to be rather dismissive of the original complaint. It came across as justifying Mikkalai's actions by way of pointing out how Hux's/Skywarn's actions were less than perfect.
			::Past disruption from nearby IPs includes the following:
	I don't believe it's right to condone an admin breaking established policies under any circumstances without consensus, and I further do not believe it's right to dismiss a user's complaints about an admin's actions via procedural technicalities. And, more personally, I agree with Skywarn's assessment that Mikkalai's "kangaroo court" comment about WQA indicates a disdain for WP's dispute resolution process and an unwillingness to acknowledge or change his behavior. I've reviewed some of Mikkalai's edit history and agree that his behavior has been out of line, especially for an admin. &mdash; ''']''' (]) &mdash; 00:22, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
			::*] was blocked in 2018 and 2019.
			::*] was blocked in 2018 for one month.
			::*] was blocked in 2020, identifying Sugar Bear.
			::*] was blocked twice in 2020 for personal attacks.
			::*] was rangeblocked in 2023 for three years. ] (]) 22:53, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
			::I've blocked the current /24 for two weeks, but I see a lot of potential for collateral damage for longer or broader blocks. '''<span style="font-family: Arial;">] <small>]</small></span>''' 22:59, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
	== Tasc0/Payne2thamaxx ==
			{{abot}}
			== Comments by Locke Cole ==
	{{Resolved|All involved have been blocked.}}
			{{atop
			| result = No support for a block for either party, and filer is fine with closure. ] ] 16:56, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
			}}
			'''Involved''': {{userlinks|Locke Cole}}
	:{{user5|Payne2thamaxx}}
			So I honestly think we should both receive a (24 hr) block for our behavior, but bringing it here for that to happen. This started when I posted a list of "keep" votes with no rationale at ]. Comments made by Locke Cole in response to the list include:
	:{{user5|Payne2thamax}}
			* {{tq|Sour grapes are over there, in case you're lost.}}
	:{{user5|Same As It Ever Was}}
			::I replied to this with {{tq|What?? Voting on an AfD should be policy-based, not just "keep" or "he's too notable". I'm giving evidence to my claim that keep votes were given unnecessarily large amounts of weight when closing this. Yes, I left out the ones with evidence, because that wasn't the point of the list. Again, would you give weight to the five keep votes that just said "keep"? I believe this is the second time I've had to say this to you, but way to WP:ABF.}}
	:{{user5|Tasc0}}
			* {{tq|Well, you're already violating WP:DRVPURPOSE #8 by casting WP:ASPERSIONS about other editors. Carry on, I look forward to seeing you blocked for being an idiot.}}
	This whole thing is one big mess. Tasc0 was a good faith albeit somewhat short tempered editor. My only two encounters with him ever were at recent AN3 reports. He was indefinitely blocked by {{admin|Ronnotel}} following against Ronnotel's family. A quick glance at this evening's history of ] will show you what blew up, but basically, Payne2thamaxx made a trolling comment , Tasc0 responded in kind , Ronnotel blocked Tasc0 for the personal attack , the unblock was declined, and Tasc0 left the aforementioned parting shot prompting the indefblock.
			::And I replied to this one with {{tq|Yes, I removed a comment after realizing it violated our aspersions policy. Do you have an issue with that? Feel free to take this to ANI if you want to continue, as it’s clogging up the DRV.}}
			This user has a long history of behavioral blocks, including '''six '''civility blocks over a span of nine years. Since this behavior clearly won't be getting better, bringing it here. It's up to y'all to decide if a BOOMERANG should happen, if we should both be blocked, or only one party gets the hammer. :) ]<sub>]</sub><sup>]</sup> 02:41, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
			:I'm not sure that the cited comments are in themselves enough to justify a block. I also note that LC has recently ]. Speaking from experience, I can state that when in deep mourning we are not always at our best. That said, I find LC's block log disturbing.-] (]) 02:52, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
	Tasc0 has been in a long-term dispute with Payne2thamaxx going back at least to October 2007 .
			::While I do get that, and I do respect that and am deeply sorry that happened to them, this behavior has been going on since late 2005, and includes an arbitration request, hence why I brought it directly here. Calling me an "idiot" was 100% an NPA vio, and having a personal loss shouldn't excuse that (also speaking from experience with the loss of my mother from ] in 2014). This is a rare case where I'll say that a block log should give you an idea of whether this behavior will continue. ]<sub>]</sub><sup>]</sup> 02:56, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::{{tqq|bolding policies I've added at the end}} - I'll just note that every one of the "policies" you linked to (bar ], where I'm pretty sure you wanted ]) goes to ]. Which is very useful and well-thought-out, and by all means should be used as a tool at AfD, but is not policy. It's an essay ''on'' policy. There's a difference. - ] <sub>]</sub> 03:42, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::Okay then, per that I've removed the list. The comments still stand though. ]<sub>]</sub><sup>]</sup> 03:57, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
			*So the OP wants themselves and the other party to receive blocks for incivility? Why don't you just stop being rude to each other? Change your own behavior. Opening this discussion is just drawing attention to a few comments that otherwise would have likely been forgotten. I don't see how this post helps the situation at all. Just do better. And if Locke Cole comes to this discussion, I pray this doesn't devolve into bickering. Let's all just get back to editing productively and not taking shots at each other. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 05:23, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:I don’t know, maybe I just thought it’d continue and brought it here, likely too early. Is it possible to close this? ]<sub>]</sub><sup>]</sup> 13:19, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
			:From what I read from the DRV, it definitely seemed like it got heated, but it definitely seemed to cool down. Trouts for sure, but I don't see why blocks are necessary. As for you, given that you're asking to be punished, you seem to recognize what you did wrong, and you pledge to not continue this behavior. Just change your password for a day or a week and change it back later; I don't think admin intervention is necessarily warranted. ] (]) 11:43, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
	It seems at least possible that Payne2thamaxx and Same As It Ever Was are one in the same. Payne2thamaxx admits at that he follows the edits of SAIEW. At , 12 days after registering, SAIEW is familiar with a dispute between {{user|Kemor}} and Payne2thamax from some time before.
			::Though as actual admins above have mentioned, their block history is indeed concerning. ] (]) 11:50, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
			{{abot}}
			== ] ==
	Payne2thamax (of whom Payne2thamaxx is an admitted reincarnation) was indefblocked for making a death threat. Payne2thamaxx was indefblocked for harassment, then later (September 2007) unblocked after he promised to reform. I see no evidence whatsoever of reform and have therefore reinstated that block.
			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 have filed a checkuser request at ] to confirm whether {{user|Same As It Ever Was}} is related.
	For now, pending the results of that check, I would like to ask for a review my block of Payne2thamaxx. Thank you. --] (]) 02:30, 18 February 2008 (UTC)		:It's a ], and I just reported to AIV. ] (]) 04:58, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
	:I wasn't in a long-term dispute with Payne2thamaxx, he just wanted to make false accusations of me attacking another user, which I clearly did not do it. It was a NY IP address, that can be seen .
	:I also would like to ask my e-mail feature back, I can't e-mail nobody. I don't think that's very fare.
	:I sent an e-mail to my blocking admin apologizing for the threats and seconds after, he blocked my e-mail feature. I did not harass him over the message and I didn't get any response.
	:I have to admint that I don't even knew who Payne2thamaxx was before this situation. Now that I see, it's clear he's a sock of ]. ]'s proves this with the diffs.
	:Note, yes: this is my IP address. It's the only way I have to comunicate. ''']''' 07:29, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
	::Just check my edits and you people will see how vandal am I. I enjoy vandalazing Misplaced Pages so much. ''']''' 07:38, 18 February 2008 (UTC) <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) </small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
	:::Tasc0, I've responded to your remark at my talk page, too, but I'm going to make a couple of the same points here:
	:::* I don't think anybody's saying that you were a vandal. In fact, ] says the opposite, calling you "a good faith albeit somewhat short tempered editor". I would agree that I never saw any evidence of bad faith or vandalism from you; in fact, you did some good work fighting vandals.
	:::* That said, if ''any editor'' - you, me, B, Jimbo, anybody - posts the kind of thing you did directed at ], that user should expect to be blocked. That sort of comment is - and this shouldn't even need to be said - totally unacceptable, no matter what the circumstance.
	:::* You should be aware that what you're doing here is technically ], since you're evading your block. That said, I do agree that if you haven't abused the e-mail function, that should be restored. I won't do so unless I hear from Ronnotel, though. ] (]) 08:19, 18 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-->
	: Checkuser results are now in - ] <sup>]</sup> 10:20, 18 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)
			== POV IP editor and 2024 Kobani clashes ==
	I remember thinking there was something fishy with Payne2thamaxx. His most recent contribs against Tasc0 came after long inactivity. I think ], ], and ] (IPs which pretended to be Tasc0 on ]) could've been used by Payne2thamaxx. The IPs lead to New York, where he says he lives. And Tasc0, it's unfortunate this happened considering you're a productive editor. No matter what personal attacks you get, you have to keep your cool. I'd support an unblock, but first you ''really'' owe an apology to ]. SAIEW was also productive, but it's unfortunate he used abusive socks. I guess personal vendettas bring out the worst in people. ] (]) 14:33, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
			{{atop|1=Blocked. - ] <sub>]</sub> 21:36, 23 December 2024 (UTC)}}
			This engages in BLP and POV pushing with things like this and this , and then edit warring and then makes personal attacks like this , in a source documenting casualties for all of December instead of the specific date, and then when he is reverted by another editor respond with . I believe this person is ] to build an encyclopedia, and also the ] article should potentially be given semi-protection status as it's part of the Syrian Civil War which has discretionary sanctions. Thanks. ] (]) 05:34, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
			:Oh also . ] (]) 05:55, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
			::{{an3|b|72 hours}} (]) and pages protected ] 13:15, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			{{abot}}
			== Promotional content about Elvenking (band) ==
	:I ''very strongly'' oppose an unblock. Maybe a lift on the e-mail block, so he can plead his case, but (directed at children!) do not warrant a drop of consideration from me, and they shouldn't from anyone else either. - ] 17:41, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
			{{atop
			| result = There does not appear to be an actionable COI here, just an avid fan. Content issues can be handled through the appropriate channels. {{ping|Elvenlegions}} please be mindful of musical notability and what Misplaced Pages is and isn't for. ] ] 17:03, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
			}}
	*I'm willing to apologize, but how I'm supposed to do it when my talk page is salted and the e-mail feature it's disabled? I'm not asking for an immediately unblock. ] (]) 00:32, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
	:There should be an unblock if there's consensus for it. Considering most admins who've commented endorse the block, there's no consensus to unblock yet. Although you were productive for a year, those attacks put a permanent stain on your image. I mean, who would want to continue editing and be known as "the guy who made threats to a family" (even if it wasn't a literal threat)? If the comments were less severe, you'd probably be unblocked. Like B suggested on your talk page, you could appeal to arbcom. ] (]) 17:32, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
			I noticed a consistent addition of promotional content about an apparently unencyclopedic band, namely ], with articles being also dedicated to each band member (eg.
	== User refuses to communicate, continues to introduce possible copyvio images and mos issues. ==
			] and ]) and their unsold discography, which also got a dedicated template ({{tl|Elvenking}}). I also noticed a weird pattern by ], which appears to be either a very big fan or in conflict of interests, as well as other accounts apparently created just to support the band (eg. ]).<span id="Est._2021:1734845816539:WikipediaFTTCLNAdministrators&apos;_noticeboard/Incidents" class="FTTCmt"> —&nbsp;] (] <b>·</b> ]) 05:36, 22 December 2024 (UTC)</span>
			:I am indeed a big fan of the band and am trying to update the band's wikipedia information to make it as accurate as possible so people can learn about the band. I hope this helps support the band and also helps wikipedia readers and users who wish to learn more about the band. ] (]) 06:14, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
	I've reported this twice already, but as of yet, nothing has been done and the user continues to cause issues ]. This is the last report with a link to the first. I first took this to village pump but a suggestion was made for me to take it to AN/I. {{user|Marcopolis}} has uploaded many copies and parts of an image which I'm sure are a copyvio (can't find the original, but another editor also agreed these were likely not his own work) yet he's claimed them as his own work. He continues to insert them in to the ] which also introduces some formatting issues in addition to the questionable origin of these images. Links to several copies of this image are to be found in the first report. User claims to speak English, but I cannot continue to assume good faith at this point. I've continually used edit summaries, made posts on the article talk page, and made comments on his talk page, but he hasn't responded to a single one of them. Nor does he use edit summaries to do anything except label the photos he uploads. Another editor had previously asked him a question in English but I can find no evidence that he ever answered them. It seems the ONLY conversation he's engaged in, has been in Korean with another Korean editor. He claims to be going to school in Montreal and a native french speaker. Someone who can speak either Korean or French well enough needs to get through to this editor, or he has to prevented from continuing to edit wikipedia since he either refuses to or can't communicate over issues he's creating.--] (]) 03:07, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
			:*If these musicians are not notable, you can always tag the articles CSD A7. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 07:42, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
	:These two edits on the same day seem extremely questionable. In one article he tries to introduce improper formatting , and yet in another article he removes it --] (]) 03:18, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
			::Understood, Elvenlegions, but ]. If the band, nor its members, nor its discography qualify as notable under the ], then the band's fans will have to learn about it elsewhere. ] 07:51, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
			{{abot}}
			== Disruptive editor on ] ==
	::Hmm. I speak neither Korean nor French, but I wanted to suggest that we might find somebody who ''does'' at ]. I have previously had to hunt down translators to help with editors who do not speak English, and I've found the WikiProjects a helpful way to do so. Elsewhere, I see ] are listed as willing translators from Korean. Most active among them seem to be ] and ]. Perhaps if we approached one of them, they might be able to help you open a dialog with this user to clear up questions about his image use. I'd be happy to approach one of them about it, if you'd like, or you can try it yourself. Alternatively, perhaps a French/Korean speaking administrator will come along who can handle things without the need of a go-between. :) --] <sup>]</sup> 14:27, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
	:::Looks like PC78 just has a page for holding templates, I'm not sure he actually speaks korean. The other fellow has a notice up about being tied up for a couple weeks. I'll try asking to get started though.--] (]) 15:44, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
	::::I saw the notice on the other fellow's page, but his contribution history suggests he's doing stuff anyway. I hope he has the time to help out. :) --] <sup>]</sup> 15:51, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
			User ] has repeatedly removed reliably sourced refs to the genres infobox by removing ] simply because they don't believe it to be correct as the ref is "new" and that the artist isn't that genre. I had sent them two warnings now and also explained that's not how this works, so they decided to add more genres with refs that don't even mention the genres they included. I do not believe this editor is going to cooperate. ] (]) 08:27, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
	::I'm a Korean editor and don't see any big problem on the mentioned user. The format looks not good, but I think he intended to put more contents in the spaces. Some of his pictures don't look like professional photos. Admin, ] can speak Korean. --] (]) 16:48, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
	:::The issue with the formatting is that he's changing it away from what's recommended in the MOS as well as what is already established in the article. The problem with the image in question is he claims it as his own work, but the logos from the lines are way too perfect to be his own creation, and he keeps uploading it, both in complete form and cropped sections of it. The bigger issue is that he can't or won't communicate and just continues to insert these things over and over even though they're being removed with explanation.--] (]) 20:14, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
	:::In addition when a map he uploaded as his own was deleted as a copyvio ] instead of discussing it or realizing the problem he just uploaded it under a new name which was once again speeded as a copyvio ]. I'm not denying that he's adding lots of great images to the project that aren't a problem, the problem is when he does something against guidelines or policy, he just keeps doing it over and over no matter how many times someone tries to communicate with him or undoes the edit.--] (]) 20:30, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
	: I'am just asking him, in french, to be more precise on the origins of his pictures. Wait and see .... ] (]) 17:53, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
	::Its specifically the images in this section. My second post outlines all the various copies and crop jobs on this one questionable image he's claiming as his own work: ].--] (]) 20:17, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
	::I translated Crossmr's comment on his talk page to Korean. I hope that works. I'll keep an eye on his talk page. --] (]) 22:30, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
	:::Thanks. I know enough french to see he says he made them in illustrator and photoshop. Exactly how did he make them? Did he just cut the logos from another source, or did he perfectly reproduce them? There is still an issue here whether they're cut and pasted or whether or not he perfectly reproduced them by hand, it amounts to the same thing. There is also a formatting issue with the image he keeps trying to insert in to the article. Someone may want to kindly suggest to him that he remove English from his user page as its becoming very apparent at this point that he doesn't speak enough English to communicate effectively in it.--] (]) 01:42, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
	::::For the moment, i'am askink him for the pictures. Each thing in its time. ] (]) 07:43, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
	:::::Could you possibly tell him to relax on adding the image to the article? There are more issues than just copyright here. This is where the problem comes in. He can't communicate in english, another editor has an obvious issue with what he's doing, but he just keeps doing it over and over.--] (]) 14:35, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
	:::::I've stumbled through some french to try and get through to him again. Even though you were explaining what the problem was, and it appears asked him for further detail he just kind of ignored what you said and added the image yet again.--] (]) 19:44, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
	:::As well does anyone know if there is an equivalent section for the MOS in french or Korean which explains how to properly format section headers so we can also get him to stop trying to format them with HTML?--] (]) 01:53, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
	::::Have a look to the interwiki : ] give the basic structure of an article and ] told that it's better to use the wiki syntax but it's not an official rule. ] (]) 07:36, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
	:::::No but we have the same encouragement here, and really its a standard. And its already set up with wikiformatting in every article.--] (]) 14:35, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
			:User:Pillowdelight changed the genre list of When the Pawn... which originally had been a variation of certain genres: Art pop, jazz rock, art rock, alternative rock, jazz pop, chamber pop, all of which are somewhat accurate and agreed upon by various editors of this page over many years. It was changed to just Alt pop, a genre that is used to describe the newer sounds of pop in the early 2010s with Lorde, Sky Ferreira and Lana del rey. It is not a genre that fits the album hence it has never before user:Pillowdelight been described as such beyond what her poor source says, a Fiona Apple revisit (that is not even about When the pawn.. specifically) from a new, small and virtually unheard of web magazine. Sources such as Rateyourmusic, allmusic and Pitchfork are far more accurate and robust and that's why this album has never been described as alt pop. That genre did not exist at the time of the release of the album. The source needs to be accurate, it is not. It's not an album review, it is a fluff article about Fiona Apple by a small web magazine. It's not even about When the pawn... specifically, it makes no sense. I think the other editors agree, it is inaccurate.
	== Slow Motion Vandalism ] ==
			: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...}} ===
	]'s sole contributions are slow motion vandalism. The IP has targeted
	and over the last two days. ClueBot got his ] and then he moved to as I'd been the one to create the original re-directs. Have had no contact with this IP but am trying to avoid 3R and don't want to spent a week reverting clear nonsense. Apparently AIV is not the place as it's slow-mo vandalism. Thanks! ] (]) 04:11, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
	:Seems to have stopped now but have left a warning & will monitor this IP's activity. Reverting clear vandalism does not invoke ], so you're OK on that one.--''']''' (]) 04:17, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
	:: Thanks! ] (]) 04:29, 18 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.
	:The IP is at it again. My , Jossi and ClueBot have been busy reverting it this evening. Just another heads up. ] (]) 04:49, 19 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
	: , with Josh Cobb. I semi-protection since there's nothing constructive. Thanks all for your help so far. ] (]) 17:22, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
			Thank you. ] (]) 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? ] (]) 19:58, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
			::The genre list was fine and accurate and uncontroversial until this user decided to remove the entire thing. It's important that the genre list is accurate. People find albums through genres. There's other reasons as well. ] (]) 20:38, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::This is neither here nor there, but I thought albums are generally sorted in alphabetical order by band name or the musician's last name.
			:::Please, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, or my information is incomplete. ] (]) 22:28, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::I was trying to explain the important of listing genres accurately. If you go to a record store then yes, albums are listed in alphabetical order. But they're still put in categories of genres. ] (]) 22:43, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::If we were going to list musical genres "accurately," we wouldn't bother at all. Except in very broad strokes ("rock," "punk," "Baroque," etc), so many of these horribly subjective "genres" are made up by bored media writers and bands that hate the notion of being The Same As Everyone Else. Get ten people to listen to ten different tracks of heavy metal, and you won't get as many as a third of them agreeing on any of them on the doom/grudge/dark/death/Goth/Viking/sludge/*-grind/*-core/etc etc etc spectrum. Beyond that, arguing whether any given artist is "that genre" is ''very'' highly subjective. (Hell, I've sung Baroque, classical, folk, rock, ethnic, shape note, so many genres I can't readily count.) ] 15:12, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			== Bunch of racist IPs/account ==
	This user is reverting material at ] claiming it is sourced.. I have tried to explain on the talkpage but he keeps reverting. He claims the source is at the end of the paragraph. When this is checked it does not support his inclusions. Grateful for help. ] (]) 06:44, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
			{{atop|1=Sent packing. - ] <sub>]</sub> 21:12, 22 December 2024 (UTC)}}
	:I've given him a 3RR warning. Its a content dispute. Use ] or if he continues file a report at the 3RR noticeboard.--] (]) 06:49, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
			Article: ]
			* {{user|GREEKMASTER7281}}
			* {{ip|112.202.57.150}}
			* {{ip|186.154.62.233}}
			] (]) 13:53, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
			:Named account indeffed, IPs blocked for 72 hours each. ]] 14:12, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
	::Crossmr, I cannot see why you have given me a 3RR warning and not Mccready. He has reverted exactly the same number of times as I have. Actually, though, neither of us has violated 3RR. However, if you read the talk page carefully, you will see that he has been acting alone and I have been working with other editors on the talk page.
			{{abot}}
			== Urgent need for page protection on BLP ==
	::Some background: I re-wrote the text in that paragraph in accordance with long-standing concerns raised on the talk page ] and ]. The text I added contains the quotation from Needham that he likes but provides an online source and gives it context (per discussion on the talk page referenced above). My addition is a paraphrase of an article, which I cited. Mccready reverted me here, , but kept ''my'' citation, calling my addition "original research" (it is not, as I and another editor have explained to him on the talk page . He reverted a second time , as did I . I make that two reverts.
			{{atop
			| result = Protection applies. Appears admin eyes are on the Talk page. ] ] 19:53, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
			}}
			There is currently a content dispute going on at ] involving allegations of a mental health crisis with mulitple IPs involved in a dispute over wether the information is reliable or not. A discussion is underway on the article's talkpage, but in the meantime there is revert warring taking place on the article. The page could really benefit from temporary semi protection. -- ] (]) 18:46, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
	::In addition, I reverted his insertion of a neutrality tag . I did that because Mccready failed to give policy-based reasons for placement of the tag. I make that three reverts. However, following further discussion, I restored the tag . Thus, no 3RR violation by my count. <small></small> ] (]) 08:16, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
			:Looks like ] got it. ] (]) 19:15, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
	:::Quite simply because you performed 3 reverts in a 24 hour period on the same article. , , . As for McCready I didn't notice that his first edit was to restore a tag that had been removed a few days prior so I didn't realize it was a revert.--] (]) 15:25, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
	::::Yes, that is what I said: '''three reverts.''' And, since in five years of editing, I've never broken the ] and Mccready has many times, I am still unsure why you gave only me a warning. ] (]) 16:26, 18 February 2008 (UTC)		::{{reply to|DMacks}} Thanks! Yeah. I assume they will also need a third-party closer given the heated nature of the argument. -- ] (]) 19:27, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
			{{abot}}
	:::::As I said, I didn't realize at the time that his first edit was a revert. Nor did I delve in to both of your extensive editing histories. For completenesses sake I've gone and left one on his talk page as well.--] (]) 01:49, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
	::::::Thank you for your understanding. ] (]) 16:06, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
	. ——''']'''</span> ] Ψ ]<span style="color:#ffffff;">——</span> 07:00, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
			== Multiple users breaking 3RR on Gilman School article ==
	== Misuse of Privledges ==
	Hi, I started discussion on ] and ] removed that discussion, claiming it was general which most of muslims would not agree on, when I reverted his edit and placed {{tl|Uw-tpv1}} on my talk page, he issued me a warning that I will be blocked. If I get blocked, It will most definately be misusage of his priveledges. Are my actions eligible to get blocked? Thank you ] <sup>]</sup> 10:16, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
	* It would probably have been a good idea to read the huge pink box at the top of that page, before starting a new thread which has been said hundreds of times already. <b>]</b> 10:36, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
	**Yeah sure, you complain about censorship on the article page, but are censoring the talk page yourself. There is no reason to stop the discussion. Those huge pink box is illegitimate as it hinders consensus building and violates ]. --] 10:49, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
	*** Dozens of people turning up and starting the same thread over and over again is not furthering the discussion - it just clogs up the page and obscures the useful material. That's why the warning box is at the top of the page. <b>]</b> 11:44, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
	****Sure. And big censors like you decide what is useful material, aren't you? If you are not interested in improving the article go somewhere else, but let those who want to improve that mess discuss their issues.--] 17:30, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
	I admit that the thead was repeat of older discussions. I must have missed the pink box. ] <sup>]</sup> 12:00, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
	::There used to be a subpage there recently for newcomers to the article to talk about their opinions on that issue. Don't know if it's still there. The thing is the debate was taking up all the space on the talk page so it was hard for it to be used for article changes to be worked out. ] 12:41, 18 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 haven't checked in for a couple of days but all mo stuff about the images was being moved to the sub-page intended for that purpose, all general chat that wasn't ''about the improvement of the article'' was being removed on sight in accordance with policy (a bit more quickly than on a normal page because of the need to stop it being swamped with crap). --] (]) 15:35, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
			, , .
	::::The page is still there. It's still swamped with crap (demands for image removal, censorship, threats, etc.), and I've been trying (often in vain) to keep it organized, as well as trying to avoid a ] from erupting. ]]] 21:18, 18 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.
	== Betacommand's use of bot on MickMacNee's talk page ==
			] (])
	''This discussion has been moved to ].'' 15:27, 18 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)
			== Persistent addition of unsourced content by 2600:480A:4A72:6000:0:0:0:0/64, yet again ==
	''Summary of issue:'' Betacommand used Betacommandbot to make 46 edits to an editor's page in six minutes, following that user's making of a page questioning BCBot's handling of NFCC 10 c. ] (]) 19:39, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
			{{atop|1=Genre warrior sent packing. - ] <sub>]</sub> 02:42, 23 December 2024 (UTC)}}
			{{userlinks|2600:480A:4A72:6000:0:0:0:0/64}} - Keeps adding unsourced content to articles, hasn't responded to warnings, and continued the same behaviour immediately following the end of a 3 month block. See block log and the two previous ANI threads from September (], ]) related to this /64. Recent examples of addition of unsourced content: {{diff|You Could Be Born Again|prev|1264637321|1}}, {{diff|Kites are Fun|prev|1264637435|2}}, {{diff|Heaven/Earth|prev|1264641723|3}}, {{diff|Stars/Time/Bubbles/Love|prev|1264642096|4}}, {{diff|...Sing for Very Important People|prev|1264642646|5}}. ] (]) 20:33, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
			:I see the genre warriors are out today. Don't you realise how childish you are? (Not you, ].) ] (]) 20:37, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
			::I thought I was the only one who noticed how many were running rampant today. So exhausting. . . ] (]) 20:45, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::/64 blocked for six months. '''<span style="font-family: Arial;">] <small>]</small></span>''' 22:16, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
			{{abot}}
			== User:NoahBWill2002 ==
	It should be noted that this incident report is only a few hours old, and there is disagreement over whether it should have been moved to the subpage. Also, for some reason, the other report below, also about Betacommand and his bot, was not moved. ] (]) 15:53, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
			{{atop|1=NOTHERE blocked. - ] <sub>]</sub> 02:42, 23 December 2024 (UTC)}}
			*{{userlinks|NoahBWill2002}}
			It looks like there's a pretty severe ] issue with this user. Virtually every one of their edits has had to be reverted either for adding copyrighted content/, (), or . Lastly and indicates that they're unlikely to learn from any of this. <br>
			(As an aside, I just blocked them on Commons for uploading non-free files after warnings (and having copyright/the issue with their uploads explained them in detail) and uploading out-of-scope files after warnings.)<br>
			I think admin action is warranted here. ] (]) 22:09, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
			:I 100% agree with ] on this. ] appears completely unable to comprehend and/or follow some of the core rules of Misplaced Pages, especially ] and ], despite multiple editors trying to help them understand. The comment that Squirrel Conspiracy , followed by a series of blatant copyright violations, makes it abundantly clear that this editor is not going to change and is not here to build an encyclopedia. ] (]) 22:47, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
			::They have only had an account for a few days. It's seems rather soon to proclaim they are "not going to change". The images they were trying to add have been deleted from the Commons, let's see if they can find other ways to contribute to the project now that they can't promote their artwork here. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 23:09, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::Given ], I'm not sanguine about their intention to contribute productively. ] (]/]) 23:11, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::They added ] grossly inappropriate religious screed to ] on their third day of editing, then they responded to a warning about it with ]. I had hoped they would get the message but just today they made ] non-NPOV edit apparently based on their religious beliefs. Apart from religious edits, apparently the only other thing they've done is add self-produced fan art to a variety of articles. I'm willing to AGF while they learn what are acceptable edits here but I'd like to see some acknowledgement from them that they understand why all their edits so far have been unacceptable. (It would also show good faith if they would clean up the now-broken links in numerous articles now that their fan art has been deleted from Commons, rather than leaving it for other editors to do.) ] (]) 00:16, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::I have indefinitely blocked NoahBWill2002 as not here to build an encyclopedia. ] (]) 01:21, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			{{abot}}
			== Vandal encounter ==
	== Does Misplaced Pages want David Shankbone or should we just tell him to leave? ==
			] 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.
	{{discussiontop}}
	I think that's the question that needs to be answered.
			diffs: </nowiki>] </nowiki>] </nowiki>] </nowiki>]
	I really appreciate the words of support above and on my Talk page, but I'm at the end of my rope on this website, and to be honest, on Wikinews as well. The last few weeks have been a bit too much for me. I started to edit Misplaced Pages and contribute to it because I can't stand the narrative that is force-fed the public in the mainstream media. In addition to scoring in the 95th percentile on the LSAT and going through law school, I also have a lot of energy, talent and creativity. I felt I brought a lot to the Misplaced Pages table. Two years ago today I did not own a camera until my sister bought one for my birthday, a cheap 2.1 megapixel Fuji camera. Some of you may not remember that back in 2006 there were very few photos on Misplaced Pages, and I thought I could contribute that way. Since that time, I have purchased PhotoShop, new camera equipment, new lenses, audio equipment. I have kept track of how much I have spent contributing to Misplaced Pages and Wikinews, and it is just under $5,000 (I can PDF you the receipts). Yes, I put my '''WIKIPEDIA''' name (everyone from the Misplaced Pages Review to Wikinews knows that's not my birth name) in the files - you spend the money, effort and time I put into it, you can name files the way you want as well.
			I would have put this at AIV, but I have no clue how to edit source. ] (]) 23:43, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
	With over 3,000 photographs on Misplaced Pages. 10 to 20 have been controversial. And this is a mark of a spammer? Of a COI? Of someone who routinely inserts POV? I dunnno - the ] photo has now been twice removed by ], who is perhaps still upset that few people agreed with him over on ] about my photo.
			:{{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)
	Since August 2006 I have taken over 3,000 photographs that illustrate articles in almost every language. I don't "hold back" in what I give this site. You aren't getting 100KB-size photos while I keep the 7MB versions in case I want to sell them. Indeed, when the brother of the kid on my ] photo wanted to buy it from me, I told him he could have it for free. Additionally, when better photos that are superior to mine are put up, not only am I okay with it, but I at times congratulate the photographer. (See ], ], ], ], ] (I actually liked the other photo better, but someone liked mine better and re-replaced it), et. al.)
			::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)
			== ] mass-creating articles for non-notable or nonexistent places ==
	In the last few weeks I had ] and ] block me on a whim when I violated no policy, simply because I allowed a page owner on ] to get me in a revert war over a title in the Talk page (even though he had been blocked for that behavior just a few days ago, and the non-3RR revert war was over a Talk page heading the disparaged me, I still got blocked). When the Israeli government invited me to their country ''specifically'' to take pictures for Misplaced Pages to improve how Israeli articles look, I had someone raising COI, ANI, BLP and writing all over my Talk page and on article talk pages that I was getting fucked up the ass by a porn star. '''Few admins took notice or even cared.''' Same thing with the ] issue, where it raised it on ANI and nobody did a thing (and then I got blocked by Georgewilliamherbert, who by the way, wanted me blocked for a few months back at ArbCom when nobody else thought that was an insane suggestion). I ] (who thinks he is Jimmy Wales) threaten to 'punish' me on ]'s page, saying that you all "let" me contribute (essentially).
			{{atop
			| result = GDJackAttack1 has agreed to no further creation of the problematic articles. Extant ones being handled via usual channels. No further action needed here. ] ] 02:39, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			}}
			{{user|GDJackAttack1}} has been mass-creating stub articles for places such as insignificant residential subdivisions and other localities in Alabama and Maryland (]), islands in the Bahamas and Senegal (]), and other insignificant highways and airports around the world. None of these articles are sourced by anything that verifies notability, just databases and maps, which has resulted in at least one article being pointed out as a map misreading and therefore nonexistent community at ]. I can only speculate how many more of these places do not exist and if any of them are ]s.
	I don't get involved in the politics on this site (you notice I'm rarely involved in voting or any of the other drama), so when I need help I don't have a "network" I can turn to. I apparently am one of the few contributors left that if you look at my contributions, they are almost all '''content''' and not '''talk page arguments'''. Then when a handful of my photos out of thousands become become an issue, suddenly I'm tarred.
			There are too many of these articles to send through AfD or PROD manually and there is really no point in draftifying them or converting the articles into redirects since we have little proof that these topics are notable or even exist at all. Their ] consists of nothing but notices of their articles being moved to the draftspace, AfD/PROD notices, and messages informing them to be more careful about article creation, yet they have seemingly ignored these messages and have persisted with spamming these stub articles for no clear reason. <span style="border-radius:9em;padding:0 5px;background:#3366cc">]&nbsp;]&nbsp;]</span> 01:13, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
	I have over 3,000 photos on this site that illustrate major concepts, people, places and things. I don't have my own website; everything I have done has been for this site.
			:I will stop creating these articles. ] (]) 01:27, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
	But seriously, I have a lot of talent, I have a lot of intelligence, and I have been offered to be paid for everything I do on this site (but I make too much money on my day job). So, you guys should maybe figure out if you want to find someone else in New York City, who has the access I have, and is willing to spend 20 to 40 hours a week (every week, since I started) trying to build this site up because they believe in the ] movement. I don't know about anybody else on this site, but I have other things I can do with my time, and that would be more lucrative. I just happen to '''believe''' in the principles of this project; but I'm beginning to feel like human nature may doom it. I know I feel too battered from the last few weeks to want to continue. Really - some of the attitude toward me, some of the vile things that have been said about, and some of the ridiculous reasoning against work I put a lot of thought, time and money into, is not worth it. So vote away and let me know the results. Because the last few weeks working on Wiki have been about the shittiest, kick me in my teeth.
			:I tagged one as '''CSD A7''' to see if that would work. ] ] 01:36, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			::{{replyto|Bgsu98}} Thank you, I also considered PROD-ing them all but I noticed you have so already. <span style="border-radius:9em;padding:0 5px;background:#3366cc">]&nbsp;]&nbsp;]</span> 02:20, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::I think I got all of the ones that that Maryland batch, but I’m sure there are more. ] ] 02:22, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			{{abot}}
			== User:Glenn103 ==
	Seriously, I'm at the end of my rope on this site. If there is a cabal, I wish I was part of it, because the only way to work on Misplaced Pages is to form tribes of people who actually care about the project so that they can get past the nonsense, such as "I don't like protest photos - find somewhere else people get angry." And that Fury statute on the page doesn't even look like anger, it looks like ].
			{{userlinks|Glenn103}} has been mass creating unsourced stubs about Cyrillic letters, most of which have been draftified. They've also disruptively edited in the past, such as: <span style="white-space:nowrap"><span style="font-family:monospace">'''<nowiki>''']<nowiki>]]'''</nowiki>'''</span> (] • ])</span> 01:41, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			:Most of these pages don't even make any sense (eg.: ]). The user also ignores any notice about his articles being moved to draftspace by simply recreating duplicates of them (eg.: ] & ]). Immediate action may be needed. ] (] <b>·</b> ]) 07:38, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			::Given a uw-create4im with directions to come here, let's see what happens. - ] <sub>]</sub> 08:00, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::They've continued editing, this time adding infoboxes to the articles, so I don't think the warning worked... <span style="white-space:nowrap"><span style="font-family:monospace">'''<nowiki>''']<nowiki>]]'''</nowiki>'''</span> (] • ])</span> 08:10, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::I have blocked them from article space and page moves, and will leave note on talk page to come here. —&nbsp;]&nbsp;] 15:33, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			==TPA for 83.106.86.95==
	So, you all can have this site. I have better things to do with my time instead of giving away my time, energy, money, creativity and intelligence away for free. I've given enough to the ] movement, and I'm tired of being smacked around for it.
			{{atop|1=Done. - ] <sub>]</sub> 02:39, 23 December 2024 (UTC)}}
			{{userlinks|83.106.86.95}}
			Could someone revoke TPA for blocked IP, based on ? ] (]) 02:07, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
	--<font color="#0000C0">David</font> ''']''' 15:32, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
	:<small>Fixed a couple userlinks -- ] <sup>]</sup> 15:46, 18 February 2008 (UTC)</small>
	::Well, I'm not surprised. I am going to refrain from saying what I think of ] and the other editors that have contributed towards pissing off our best image contributor. ] ] 15:48, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
	::In my opinion, you're fine - anyone who has a sysop flag anywhere on a Wikimedia project automatically gains my trust unless something happens otherwise. ''']''' <sup>(])</sup> 15:51, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
			:Done and revdel'ed, thanks to JJMC89. ] (]) 02:23, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
	::This is quite sad and disappointing; ''malgré'' the brief dispute I had with him the other week about the ] picture, I admire and respect David, and consider him to be (doesn't feel right to say "to ''have been''") a definite asset to the project. David, I sincerely hope that at some point you reconsider your decision to walk away. ] (]) 15:52, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
			{{abot}}
			== Can you please help? ==
	::David, I don't know how other to say this but if anybody has actually suggested we would be better off if you left us, they are a fucking idiot. Three thousand free photos. Wow. Just wow. Please don't quit. — ] 15:55, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
			] got moved from ] (because his middle name might not be John). But the talk page for this person is at ], and the talk page for the disambiguation page is at ]. I don't know what happened to the disambiguation page, and I don't know how to fix this. ] (]) 02:29, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
	:::I must agree. I haven't had more than a moment's interaction with Mr. Shankbone but I know him to be a tireless and dedicated contributor of excellent images and common sense. He is the kind of editor of whom we need more, not fewer. I'll add my voice to those who ask him to reconsider his decision. ]:<small>]</small> 15:59, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
			:{{done}} Couldn't be moved because the target page had to be deleted; its now fixed. As a note for the future, ] would be a better place for this, since it isn't an 'incident'. That said - ''was'' there a dab page at ] before? - ] <sub>]</sub> 02:38, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			::Thanks to everyone for resolving this. As to the place for this, at some point I was told that "if you're a new user you have no reason to post at ]" or something similar. I appreciate the help. ] (]) 05:28, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			:(edit conflict) I think that the disambiguation page's revisions were merged into the history of the moved page, if I'm reading ] correctly.
			:@], can you confirm what happened/fix this? &ndash; ] (]) (]) 02:39, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			::Actually, WAS that the intention (merging the histories)? I have no idea how this works.
			::Maybe The Bushranger already did all that needed to be done. &ndash; ] (]) (]) 02:46, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::(edited): There was a dab page with two entries. It is now a redirect from William Swainson to William John Swainson and the direction is now different. The full histories are (merged) restored and visible. PS: I have added a hat-note to the one other (far less notable) lawyer - ] - if there are many more entries to be dealt with then the (currently a redirect) page at ] could be reinstated/used. ] (]) 02:59, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::(nac) An intitle search turned up no other William Swainson, so I've tagged {{-r|William_Swainson_(disambiguation)}} (which has no significant history) for speedying under ]. ] (]) 06:52, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			== POVPushingTheTruth ==
	::I'm with Charlotte Webb on this one. Your contributions are incredibly valuable and I do hope that anybody who suggests you leave is prepared for a brush with a cluestick. ] (]) 16:00, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
			{{atop|1=The truth may set you free, but ] will get you blocked. - ] <sub>]</sub> 05:30, 23 December 2024 (UTC)}}
			] is clearly NOTHERE. <span style="padding:2px 5px;border-radius:5px;font-family:Arial black;white-space:nowrap;vertical-align:-1px">] <span style=color:red>F</span> ]</span> 05:05, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			:Blocked. -- ] (])| <!--Template:Undated--><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added 05:09, 23 December 2024 (UTC)</small><sup>]</sup>
			{{abot}}
			== North Korean involvement in Russian-Ukraine war discussion ==
	::You are an excellent contributor of images. I don't know enough about your conflicts with other editors to comment, but the quality of your images speak volumes. ] ] 16:03, 18 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.
	:: I was going to expound forcefully on this one but I think CharlotteWebb nailed it. I hope you can think again about this. <b>]</b> 16:04, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
			'''Key Points:'''
	:::(ECx6)(!)'''Support''' per above. ] <sup> ] </sup>~<small> ] </small> 16:06, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
			# '''Prolonged Discussions and RfC Closure:'''
	::: Yup, Charlotte nailed it indeed. -- ] (]) 16:07, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
			#* The RfC on North Korea's inclusion was conducted thoroughly, with a wide range of arguments presented by both sides.
			#* The closing administrator, S Marshall, determined there was a clear consensus to include North Korea as a belligerent based on reliable sources and the strength of arguments.
			#* The close explicitly allowed for reevaluation if new battlefield events or sources emerged, but no substantial new evidence has invalidated the prior consensus.
			# '''Ongoing Disruption:'''
			#* Despite the RfC's resolution, the same arguments are being repeated across multiple threads, often by the same editors.
			#* This behavior includes undermining reliable sources, misrepresenting their content, and insisting on a higher standard of verification (e.g., requiring firsthand evidence of North Korean combat, which is unreasonable given the context).
			# '''Reliable Sources Confirming North Korean Involvement:'''
			#* Multiple reputable outlets, including the BBC, Reuters, and Pentagon statements, confirm North Korean military involvement and casualties in the conflict.
			#* Experts from institutions like Chatham House and RUSI have explicitly stated North Korea's role in combat, aligning with the community's decision.
			# '''Impact on the Community:'''
			#* The continued disruption consumes editor time and resources, detracting from the article's improvement.
			#* These actions disregard Misplaced Pages's consensus-building principles and guidelines for resolving disputes. This dispute has been ongoing for months, with multiple threads being opened and closed on the same topic.
			'''Request for Administrative Action:'''
	::I agree with CharlotteWebb, too. Your work here has been excellent, and I still remember those great images you got for the ] article. 3,000 free images from a single contributor...that's amazing. ] 21:36, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
			I respectfully request that administrators address the following issues:
	:David, you are an asset to Misplaced Pages. Please stay. But let's rename those images so "David Shankbone" is not part of the name, if you really really are not promoting yourself. (But you ''are'' promoting yourself, and we don't mind, so long as its kept within reason.) ] (]) 16:05, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
	::He seems to be implying above that "David Shankbone" is just a pseudonym that he uses on Wikimedia projects. Maybe using this name, which apparently isn't his real one, in the titles of his photos would fall under a '''''very, very broad''''' definition of "self-promotion", I really don't know and really don't care as no photo credit or watermark is visible in the image itself (and even if this was the case, the creative commons license used would permit us to remove it). When I see an image title like "]" I think of it as a ] more than anything, an alternative to simply numbering the titles when we have multiple photos of the same subject. Harmless, seriously. — ] 16:28, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
	:::His name is not Shankbone by birth, but seeing as he got a trip to Israel, while telling the press that this was his name, I'm not sure how that much it matters. He appears to be using it as a kind of photography name, which is sensible enough because his birth name is dirt common.
	:::And David, you should stay. And I'm saying this as someone you consider (one of?) your archenemies. But stop threatening to leave every time you're not getting your way. You did this over citing your own Wikinews work on Misplaced Pages as well (which you continue to do, incidentally). You're cool. Please stay. ] '']'' 17:42, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
			# Enforce the consensus reached in the closed RfC, as no new evidence significantly alters the previous conclusions.
	:I hope David stays, and I appreciate the work he does. But even when supporting someone at a difficult time, using rhetorical labels like "Our best image contributor" and "our best article writer" (a label applied to someone else recently) insults the other people who contribute images and articles. We ''all'' contribute and we should ''all'' work together. It is very dangerous for individuals to ever think they are indispensable, or for others to state that they think someone is indispensable. Certain types of photos (even if difficult to obtain) shouldn't be lauded over others. 3,000 photos is amazing, but a drop in the ocean compared to the 2,000,000+ at Commons. I could take 3,000 free photos over the next few years (admittedly not at 7MB file sizes), but I chose not to. This is a long-term project involving thousands and thousands of volunteers. People come and go at their own time and with their own money. No single person is indispensable. When people feel they are getting upset, it is best to take a break. The encyclopedia will still be here when you get back. ] (]) 16:09, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
			# Discourage editors from rehashing resolved discussions, particularly when arguments have been repeatedly addressed and dismissed.
			# Consider imposing a topic ban or other appropriate measures on editors who persist in disrupting the article with repetitive or bad-faith arguments.
			This matter has been discussed exhaustively, and it is essential to prioritize Misplaced Pages's goals of maintaining a high-quality, well-sourced, and consensus-driven encyclopedia.
	: I would have voiced support for David Shankbone here, but Carcharoth makes it clear that any such support would be biased, and he will push for a block of anyone who does so. So see ya later, David Shankbone. ] (]) 16:14, 18 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)
			== Dispute Over Edits and Use of British Raj Sources ==
	::Where on earth did that come from? Thuran, are you attacking me here? ] (]) 16:18, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
			{{Atop|Content dispute.--] (]) 15:00, 23 December 2024 (UTC)}}
	::::No offense Carcharoth, but that is the impression you tend to give off. When I read what you write about many established contributors, the attitude that comes across basically is "get the hell out we don't need you". You might want to reexamine your way of interacting with your fellow editors here, Sir. We are not all "dogs" you know.--] (]) 17:01, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
			Hello,
	:::::I'm not attacking you any more than you're attacking David Shankbone, or Betacommand. Filll hit it on the nose. Your comment makes it impossible to support David Shankbone without obviously admitting bias as a "Pro-Shankbone" editor, and thus, once bias is admitted, such editors as voice said support are disregardable, as they are obviously biased. the only editors who 'understand' the problem are the ones who agree with you. As such, I re-iterate: goodbye, David Shankbone. ] (]) 17:32, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
			I’m seeking administrator input regarding a dispute with @] over the content in the the "]" article. The editor removed significant content, citing ] as justification. Here are my concerns:
	::::::What I don't understand is where you get ''"he will push for a block of anyone who does so"'' from? Is this going back further to something else before all this happened? ] (]) 18:01, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
			'''1. Misapplication of Policy''':
	:::::::That's what you do when an editor disagrees with you, and you don't like their side of things. you're currently pushing for a block on Betacommand, and you're pushing David Shankbone out the door fast as you can. That said, I'm abiding by your instructions, as an admin, to not compliment one user and not all users, because is shows undue favoritism. that's your point above. I am supporting you in throwing David Shankbone's ass out the door as fast as possible, so I'm confused by your hostility to me. ] (]) 18:27, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
			Sitush’s essays are not official Misplaced Pages policy. Content decisions should follow ], ], and ].
	::::::::This is what I wanted to say originally. I'm sure there's a block comign, but here it is: Misplaced Pages wants david Shankbone. (but not in a dirty way.) David, you need to stick around. In the recent Betacommand and BetacommandBot threads, I've held you up as a model Uploader, one who creates and fully labels his content. Your work is almost always visually engaging, well thought out material, which adds to the subjects. (Sorry, Pubic hair might be a useful picture, but your ] isn't visually stimulating.) It would be a huge loss to the project to see you go. If peopel are getting on your back about images, please bring the problem here faster. Sunlight is the best disinfectant. I quote charlotte Webb - "Fucking idiot"s. Don't let them chase you off. ] (]) 16:14, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
			'''2. Dismissal of Reliable Sources''':
	:::And if you must know, my argument is that I've seen this cycle repeat many times on Misplaced Pages. Editor digs themselves in deep, thinks they are indispensable, something goes wrong, editor gets upset, community supports them, cycle repeats. That may not be what has happened here, but it is a vicious circle that is best broken, in my opinion, with a break and a refocusing when the editor returns. ] (]) 16:23, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
			The removed content was based on ]-era sources, which are neutral and historically significant. The editor claims these are unreliable without specific evidence or discussion on the article’s talk page.
	::hi david, just to say that if you look at the thread Aminz started about the anger pic, hardly anyone has agreed with him particularly :) On the other hand, the amount of time you put into wikipedia is up to you, you can't expect people to fawn over you over it (though of course, some will appreciate it greatly), nor should you feel like a martyr over it. Remember that this is just a hobby. This is just the internets at the end of the day. Only you are responsible for putting your hobbies in perspective and the nature of the friendships built on the internet is pretty transient. ] 16:22, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
			'''3. Unilateral Edits and Dismissive Behavior''':
	:::I don't know what Thuran is saying exactly, but your comment is a touch curmudgeonly. David should be applauded not just for his photos but his many interesting interviews. ] (]) 16:24, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
	::I'm assuming you mean Thuran, not I :) ] 16:36, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
	:::I think he meant me, actually, as I was questioning Thuran's comment. Still, my comments below were a general response. ] (]) 16:42, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
	::::(Responding to Marskell) I agree, but my point is that you need to strike a balance between supporting people and making sure they get their contributions in perspective. Too much support at the wrong time can lead to even more angst further down the road and a departure at that point instead of now. Supporting someone can be as much about helping them keep things in perspective as it is about offering uncritical support. David's contributions ''are'' immense and valued, but he should know that without having to ask here. Does that make sense? ] (]) 16:37, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
			Despite my attempts to discuss the matter constructively, the editor dismissed my concerns as "]" and warned me about sanctions under ] and ], discouraging collaboration.]
	::::: ''he should know that without having to ask here. Does that make sense?'' should he? after the giant timewasting exercise we saw this morning (well morning where I am), I'm surprised more GF editors don't just pack it in on account of the complete shite that is allowed to carry on here at AN/I. --] (]) 16:41, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
			'''Evidence''':
	If this doesn't shut the people driving him away to shut the hell up then I don't know what to do. David's more valuable to the project than them so we can deal accordingly. ] 16:38, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
	::''series of comments removed by mutual agreement''
	::::I can see David made lots of good contributions here, tirelessly. We all suffer from disagreements, human nature, squabbles, spammers, vengeful (or just plain off-kilter) behavior, occasional bad administrative actions, and on and on. The more you participate the more you are exposed, perhaps even more so if you are prominent and stick your neck out. You may suffer sometimes from not playing the political game in a certain way, but those who live by that game die by that game. It's safer to stay neutral and fair than join a faction. Anyway, Misplaced Pages has very little politics as compared to other endeavors this big and important. Because it is a participatory project, no matter how productive and uncontroversial you are, by the odds you will occasionally find someone who misunderstands, doesn't get it, has their own agenda, is having a bad day, you just have an online personality conflict with, etc. That is the way of the world. Plus, people are free to simply disagree, and because this is a meritocracy, each person's opinion starts out with equal weight and is judged on its merits, not whose opinion it is. If you take 2,999 great photos, one is still free to say the 3,000th photo doesn't belong. David has earned the right to complain but I do think there is more drama here than necessary. Maybe that's not the intent, but when people support David to the point of singling each other out to the point of bitterness and calling names for having upset him, that's unhealthy. ] (]) 16:47, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
	::Are you serious? He didn't cause the drama. Aminz did. ] 16:54, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
	:::Of course I'm serious. You might want to take my comments to heart too. ] (]) 16:59, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
	:I think that the consensus here is that David's contributions to the project have been extremely helpful over the years, and that he will be welcomed back in the future should he find that his values, lifestyle, and outlook so permit him.
	:Carcharoth raises the legitimate points that we shouldn't take our other contributors for granted in ''their'' time for us; that we should be proud of the project that we have ''all'' built; and that as both individuals and the project grow, mature and change, partings of ways &ndash; temporary or permanent &ndash; are inevitable from time to time.
	:In the meantime, '''personal messages to David are probably best placed on ]''', both because this matter seems to be well beyond the scope of AN/I, and because David is more likely to see your comments there. ](]) 16:49, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
	::Are you saying he should leave? ] 16:54, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
	I do get the impression some think he should leave. But this is common among a certain "in group". Established contributors are of minimal value. I do not blame him for taking a break, either temporary or permanent. I have had 3 friends leave in the last 2 months because of the same attitude. Others can see some of the discussion on a related topic at --] (]) 17:08, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
	:A better question should be: 'Does Dave want a cookie'? Seriously, Dave, get over yourself. ] (]) 17:11, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
	::What an idiotic thing to say, David is infinitely more valuable than you. ] 17:14, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
	:::Really? Because someone who goes through the trouble of telling us how great they are sort of defeats the purpose. ] (]) 17:20, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
			]
	:I think Misplaced Pages wants David Shankbone. I know I do. ''']''' '']'' 17:28, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
	::That's a good conclusion. How about we just answer the question that Misplaced Pages can use David Shankbone, we hope he doesn't leave, we all get down sometimes, and if he ever needs help or support he can write any of us a message and we're there for him? That kind of celebrates the positive. ] (]) 17:31, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
	I will be glad to support him, but I certainly understand his frustration. Particularly when someone who has 3000 mainspace edits in 2.5 years, with the largest contribution being 161 edits to a list of ] episodes feels sufficiently superior to suggest that David's contribution pales in comparison to this editor's documentation of the Backyardigans, ], ], and ]. This really is uncalled for. We should be encouraging people like David, not chasing him away.--] (]) 17:41, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
	:Considering I'm not the one jumping up and down shouting 'Look at me! Oh gosh, look at all the things I've done!', yes. Yes I do. Thanks ever so for proving my point. ] (]) 18:30, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
	::That's ok HS. You keep telling yourself how wonderful you are and how you have every right to kick other editors savagely. Wow what a nice example of civility.--] (]) 20:26, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
			'''Request for Administrative Action''':
	Gah, David, I hope this is a Wikibreak rather than a departure. I know what you went through with that bio article and now I'm sorry to have backed away from the anger image dispute. <font face="Verdana">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 19:46, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
			1. Review the removed content and the editor’s justification.
	:I am sorry to see David leaving and I hope he comes back. I think our dispute over addition of those pictures was a mild dispute. It was about addition of certain pictures to several articles. That's all. It didn't matter for me if they were uploaded by David or someone else. And I honestly think (and still think) they were not appropriate for the reason I stated above. If the community disagrees, I would of course follow the majority.
			2. Ensure that disputes are discussed on the article’s talk page.
	:I find some of the above comments against myself as an editor, rather than against my opinion. So, they are inappropriate (e.g. ]'s comment). This particular dispute was a genuine disagreement of opinions, and was mild compared to the typical wikipedia disputes that continue for a long long time and are about the content of the central articles of Misplaced Pages. --] (]) 21:01, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
	::I think Shankbone has a right to be a bit upset. He's invested time and energy in making Misplaced Pages better, and some ass-clowns working off a different sort of memo than the rest of us decide he's useless or in dire need of some tough love and they push him out. A lot of the comments (refactored and otherwise) should serve as a relative gauge as to how respected Shankbone is in Misplaced Pages. As for the asinine suggestion that if we respond to his frustration at the block-headed thinking he feels he's encountered, we are only perpetuating a childish tantrum I say this - yes, there are editors who are self-important. There are definitely editors and admins who are legends in their own minds. Yes, we should limit the terms of sys-ops to about a year or two max, with a year of actual editing in-between.
	::However, David's contributions ''are'' important. It isn't an opinion - it's a friggin' fact. He is the benchmark that a lot of image-uploaders use to verify the usefulness of their contributions. How on earth could that be considered a bad thing. At the very least, Shankbone should be applauded for his contributions; at least he doesn't lie about his background, ].
	::Clearly, there is some direction in the steering here at Misplaced Pages. While most of the editors seem to have their shoes tied correctly, there is a growing number who simply fail to get the point. Maybe calling for some de-sys-opping might serve to get the point across. - ] ] 21:19, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
			3. Address the editor’s dismissive tone to foster collaboration.
	:I've been watching this go on for a few hours now, and figured I'd bring something to the table. While everyone is grateful for the images, I'm of the opinion that some tend to get slightly overused possibly. For example of ] with one of the disputed images, which is already in three other articles. It's hardly a matter of life and death if it gets removed is it? Let's use the images where they are most appropriate, not attempt to shoehorn them into every article possible. <font face="Verdana">]<sub>'']''</sub></font> 21:08, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
	:: I tend to concur. Just as everyone's text gets mercilessly edited, so too do images. ] (]) 22:25, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
	:Let me point out something. If I posted something here saying "I've written dozens of FA and GAs, I'm invaluable, but people are holding me back," would that really be any better than what David's doing? I can sympathize to an extent, but the whole "I'm important, look at me" attitude which pervades his writing troubles me. I'm not casting any sort of shadow on his contributions; I barely know the guy, but I'm sure his contributions have been very helpful. But we're all just cogs, and shouldn't get some inflated sense of self over an online encyclopedia. <font color="#cc6600">]</font><sup> <nowiki>(</nowiki><small><font color="#993300">]</font></small><nowiki>)</nowiki></sup> 21:44, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
	::See? At least ''one'' of you gets it. ] (]) 22:18, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
	As far as I'm concerned, any admin is free to review my comments at Guy Fawlkes. Frankly I knew nothing about this fella until I saw the ANI thread rearding the content dispute, and gave my input in good faith. Alas it seems some seem to want to elevate certain contributors above the rest, as this guy is being likened to Betacommand, to whom we are all supposed to bow to. Misplaced Pages is not an editcountocracy. ] (]) 21:40, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
	:Your statements are nonsense, and wrong. There is a reason why new editors aren't allowed the same editing capabilities as more established editors -they have proven themselves via edit-counts and quality of edits. While mere editcount is not a worthy in and of itself, the quality of those edits is indeed worthy of merit. Misplaced Pages seems a bit like a meritocracy - do good work and make positive contributions, and you get kudos for it. Do bad work (vandalism, edit-warring, etc) and your activity within the community is severely hampered. If an editor does good work, shut the hell up and listen to him/her, and stop throwing an infantile tantrum about why they get celebrated and you don't. - ] ] 21:49, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
	:::I'm sorry, but ''that'' is complete nonsense. What has kudos got to do with anything, how does that affect the application of policies? If you upload 3,000 images then your opinion on a specific content dispute overides someone who has uploaded 10? Patent nonsense and absolutely counter Misplaced Pages ethos. And how can you construe what I wrote as a tantrum for crying out loud, he has cited me in a complaint, I am entitled to respond. ] (]) 21:54, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
	::David, if you didn't own a camera until you started on wikipedia, well you have also benefitted greatly from working ont he project. I wouldn't dream of staying around if it weren't for those personal benefits that the work here gives us and surely your decision to stay or go should be based on your own selfish interests of how much you gain fromt he work you do on the project. Thanks, ] 21:43, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
			4. Prevent further disruptive edits/vandalism by IP editors (which hasn't happened yet) And from Autoconfirmed users(e.g. @GrilledSeatJet , -) and even from Extended Autoconfirmed users(@]) by banning such editors and putting an extended protection on the Article which I have once put request ] for but it got denied and now the results are as follows.
	So, we have a prolific editor with much-needed talents that he is bringing to us for free, offering us expensive pictures that are not only free but completely '''free''' within our mandate as a ''free'' encyclopedia. We give him shit for it. He gets sick of the shit. So what do we do? Tell him to not mention his name at all, coz it's promotion. Because the world would come to a fucking stop if a good editor should be ''mentioned'' somewhere, somehow, for it. We say "it is best to take a break" like he's nothing in particular. "based on your own selfish interests" as if that's ''entirely'' what he's here for like some common spammer. "Seriously, Dave, get over yourself" and "Considering I'm not the one jumping up and down shouting 'Look at me! Oh gosh, look at all the things I've done!', yes. Yes I do. Thanks ever so for proving my point". You people - and the latter person in particular - ''disgust'' me. What part of "collaborative editing" don't you get? It means ''working together''. I'm appalled. I really am. ➔ ''']''' knows how Joan of Arc felt 21:51, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
	:Well, congrats. If he's sick of the shit, no one is compelling him to stay. But flagrant self promotion in his "retirement" speech only proves others points that he's thinking of himself too highly. I don't think anyone is complaining about his contributions; his form, yes. <font color="#cc6600">]</font><sup> <nowiki>(</nowiki><small><font color="#993300">]</font></small><nowiki>)</nowiki></sup> 22:23, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
	::Lovely. I only hope someone somewhere values you as much as you value him. I only hope nobody values you as much as I now value you. ➔ ''']''' knows how Joan of Arc felt 22:27, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
	:::(e/c)No, David Fuchs, you're wrong. Yes, Redvers is right. When you David Fuchs get to be as prolific an editor (and yes, it does matter if you've contributed 3000 vs. 10), I would expect that your "going away speecy" would be as drawn out as this one. Mr. Shankbone is welcome here, as are you, David Fuchs, as is Redvers. I hope he stays because I like looking at articles with nice pictures. I couldn't care less if it said "drew barrymore" or "drew barrymore by david shankbone". What a joke. 'Nuff said. ] | ] | ] 22:30, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
	::::The implication being you should think twice before contributing to any discussion lest you fail to meet the required number of kudos points. Take a look at guy fawkes and tell me why my opinion is worth less than his? ] (]) 22:34, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
	::::::No implications. Simple facts. When you, MickMacNee, have made 3000 image uploads, and are then treated the same way as DS, I would think that you would have a similar post as DS. If not, well then you are truly a saint. Can you honestly say that your contributions are equal in quality, quantity, profile, and length of time as DS's? And you think he is being "self-congratulatory?" Are you really that high on yourself and your ''own'' meager contribs? ] | ] | ] 23:08, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
	:::::]. ➔ ''']''' knows how Joan of Arc felt 22:38, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
	::::::What is your problem? What allegation are you making here? I was mentioned, I gave my opinion. Just because you are not interested in it for reasons that are your own, you do not have the right to stalk me accusing me of trolling. ] (]) 22:44, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
	Is there any reason why this thread is still open? What administrator intervention is required here? The conversation seems to have degraded a bit... --]♠] 22:40, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
			Thank you for your time and attention. I’m happy to provide further information if needed.
	{{discussionbottom}}
			----Best Regards
			--- ] (]) 10:47, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
	== Personal attack by ] ==
			{{Abot}}
			== Nothing to say about me really bot ==
	{{resolved|No administrative action necessary.}}
			{{atop
	I had a problem with the ] article. Although reliably sourced material, I believed a to be irrelevant to the article as it had almost nothing to do with Khazars which I explained in . I had agreement from several editors with one of them (]) deleting the section. It then became a very minor edit war reverting the sections deletion without comments. Instead of continuing the revert war I added a cited qualifier sentence to the section which started another revert war to get rid of that. I again gave up and took it to which was suddenly flooded by editors supporting the revert, however none of these editors would explain relevance instead arguing the section had to stay for NPOV without any explanation of why despite my asking.
			| result = Locked {{nac}}. <span style="padding:2px 5px;border-radius:5px;font-family:Arial black;white-space:nowrap;vertical-align:-1px">] <span style=color:red>F</span> ]</span> 13:34, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			}}
			*{{vandal|WilhelminaBlosse}}
	], who had not taken part in this discussion then
	and in effect accused me of anti-Semitism despite the “debate” being up to this point relatively civil and gave "examples" of my edits that proved it. This accusation was extremely upsetting to me. The edits he gave as examples actually not only did not support his claim but several were even favourable to Israel so I for an apology, instead Jayjg and told me to accept the consensus that it was relevant (without any reason required for relevance).
			Please delete the user page, block the bot and report to stewards for a global block, as per ]. Thank you! ] (]) 11:31, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
	I started a WP:ANI to get an apology for the accusation but it was archived without resolution. I resubmitted the
			{{abot}}
	but was told that as an Israel/Palestine article dispute was already being worked out in Arbcom the admins had put my case on hold pending a resolution to that Arbcom so that the result could give a guideline on how to handle my case. That Arbcom was resolved I believe but I let the apology go and hoped to get on with editing.
			== Concern About a New Contributor ==
	Then this edit was made () on the Khazar page. Distortion of history is a particular pet peeve of mine so I admit it annoyed me so I reverted () the edit and was in turn reverted by ] () with the comment that the sources given backed the new version. This started a minor edit war with myself, ] who also backed the old version and Briangotts. After Schlcoh also checked the sources (which were not online) he also found they actually supported the original version not the new one. The talk history for this is and .In the interests of peace (Briangotts would not accept his own sources wording) we let his version stand and I added a note to the sentence () to qualify it which was apparently accepted by all involved.
			{{userlinks|Kriji Sehamati}}
			Dear Wikipedians,
	Now Jayjg came along and deleted the note () claiming in the summary it was OR and my own personal commentary. In fact the note was copy/pasted complete with cites from a section in another Misplaced Pages article ] which I explained in my summary when adding the note. This has led to another edit war with Briangotts now trying to modify the note so it confirms more with his view. Obviously I’m not getting any respect as an editor and along with Jayjg’s previous accusation not being withdrawn and now with another vieled personal attack on my credibility in a summary he made, I fear I could end up permanently labelled as an anti semite.
			I hope you’re doing well. I wanted to inform you about a new contributor @], despite lacking experience, has repeatedly attempted to vandalize multiple articles. These articles were properly aligned with Misplaced Pages’s guidelines and reviewed by experienced contributors, but he/she seemed unwilling to understand or respect their adherence to the policies.
	I request this issue be resolved and Jayjg be made to apologise for his original accusation. Thank you. <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 16:17, 18 February 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
			I believe your experience could help address this situation effectively.
	:This is a misuse of this board. How many times are you going to demand an apology (longwindedly)? ] 16:22, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
	::Why shouldn't he demand an apology? ] (]) 17:50, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
	:::There's nothing wrong with requesting an apology, so long as he does so civilly - which he has. However, I have to concur that this is not the proper forum. If discussion with the editor directly has been unfruitful, then a user conduct ] would be in order. There is no relevant admin action to be requested here. ] <sup> ] </sup>~<small> ] </small> 17:59, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
	::::Yes, well, if you've seen RFC/U recently, you'll see why I think its broken. And why is there no relevant admin action? Are blocks for incivility no longer handed out? (Not that I'm saying I support one in this case, but why is discussing incivility considered irrelevant?) ] (]) 18:23, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
	:::::As I note, there is nothing wrong with requesting an apology, particularly when it is done as clearly and civilly as WLRoss has done here. However, I'm looking at the diff that generated this report, (). Jayjg looks to have made what amounts to a good faith removal of material that he thought constituted personal commentary (which is, by definition, OR). Sure, he probably could have noted "Source doesn't support assertion" or "Synthesis" or some similar term, but he did not. The proper course would be for WLRoss to leave a note on Jayjg's talk saying "Hey, you reverted this, it isn't actually OR, I cite this source that says this, this source that says that, etc." If the edit summary was indeed a personal attack, then a note saying "Please refrain from personal attacks, as that is how I interpreted your edit summary at this diff" would be sufficient to convey WLRoss's displeasure. My concern was that the first impulse in this event was to run to ANI, which is unresonable. Jayjg was also not notified about this thread to defend himself, so I'm posting a note to his talk so informing him. ] <sup> ] </sup>~<small> ] </small> 20:25, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
	:::::::Fair enough, but see below. I am growing impatient with a growing culture that marks stuff like this "resolved" on sight and says things "nobody cares". ] (]) 20:57, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
	:I think we can just basically say "nobody cares". Seriously, ANI has had so many troll complaints about him it isn't funny any more. ''']''' <sup>(])</sup> 20:29, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
	::Let me make it clear: this guy who's complaining doesn't sound like the most reliable complainant, and I'm not going to stick my neck out about Jay calling somebody anti-semitic who's edit-warring at ]. That being said, if you look up and down this board and think about what tends to happen, there are usually dozens of complaints about civility, most of them against long-term, established users. Half of them are against the same small set of people - and we all know that Guy, Mikka and Betacommand top the list and Jay and a couple of others usually aren't too far behind. This system is broken, people, until somebody has the good sense and/or courage to stand up and say "Listen, I don't care if X deals with trolls on a regular basis, these last questions weren't trolling/insensitive/necessarily bad faith, and I'm blocking this established user for being grossly uncivil just as I would if he had 250 edits." Until that happens, the complaints will continue, and if you, Will, don't like it, try and fix the problem instead of complaining that it isn't funny. ] (]) 20:53, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
	::: The way to fix the problem is for more people to help damping down the trolls and fewer to spend time enabling them. In case you hadn't noticed, Misplaced Pages is now the number one most important place to get your conspiracy theory or fringe view promoted. Look at the vitriol Judd Bagley unleashed when he was prevented from promoting his holy jihad against naked shorting. Look at freepers like Bryan from Palatine. Look at the level of disruption from JB196 because we wouldn't let him promote his book. And these people set up shop off-wiki and recruit allies, and undermine the people who protected Misplaced Pages against their '''flagrant and unambiguous abuse''', because it is '''really really really important to them''' to get their POV on Misplaced Pages. {{la|Morgellons}}. {{la|Homeopathy}}. The Troubles. Israel-Palestine. This is not the good-natured laughter at the silly and inept wars over Gdanzig any more, there are genuine concerted campaigns to make Misplaced Pages ''not neutral'' on important subjects. So please OPEN YOUR EYES, people. We need to find a much ''much'' better and quicker way of dealing with obvious POV-pushers, because the old way ''does not work'' with the aggressive high-stakes POV-pushing we now get. Frankly I don't care who deals with it, but if nobody else is going to then it falls to the same burned-out surly old bastards every time. All hands to the pumps, lads, the ship's taking on water fast. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 22:41, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
	::::And you have no idea how strongly I agree with that. But the problem is that when rudeness becomes a weapon being used all round, it becomes very hard to figure out who's doing the right thing, and it becomes totally bloody impossible to get anyone else to weigh in. I disagree with you completely about Bagley/Weiss, though the problem was that if it hadn't been such a cesspool of incivility, other people might have waded in there and fixed it by now. I don't want to touch half the things Jay or IZak or Humus or Nishidani edit because they can be a little free with the insinuations. Somewhere on this page right now is ] of an interminable war about issues which nobody outside certain parts of India would understand at the first go and nobody's touching that either because of the snappiness on display. Do you see the connection?
	::::So yes, ArbCom needs to take a tougher line, no more blasted lets-all-get-along amnesties, and someone had better start handing out blocks to POV-pushers. And as for the rest of us who plug along in low-attention high-intensity warzones, it tends to undermine requests for civilized editing when the defenders of the blasted pedia are misbehaving in their own way.
	::::Which is why I'll back Guy in particular, because at least he's an equal opportunity offender. What's Jay's excuse? Or Mikka's? ] (]) 23:23, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
	::::: It's not a weapon, not in any sense. It's a natural human response to frustration. I have the ability to assume good faith of the most unlikely candidate given the slightest glimmer of light; a lot of people right now seem intent on a Blitz-grade blackout in that respect. I suggest that every single question be brought back to the same question: what will improve the encyclopaedia. In many case,s the encyclopaedia will be best served by someone with patience and tact explaining to the problem editor what they need to do to satisfy the community that they can be a net positive - and not arguing for an unblock until the user has demonstrated that they understand the problem. I know I am out of step here, but I don't see blocking as that big a deal, it's just one of many ways we protect the project. Maybe the block messages need to be more explanatory. Sorry, we had to block you this is not a big deal, we just need to get your attention and be sure you're here for the right reasons. And, you know, a lot of people aren't. That's not to say they are evil, but they are in the wrong place. We'd do better if people from specific wikis - alt medicine, paranormal and so on - picked up these folks who are here to spread the word and helped them to learn their craft on another site where advocacy is OK, and in the mean time teach them that on WP it isn't. Hell, I think people know what I mean, and if they don't them I'm likely wasting my time explaining. Bottom line: if Mantanmoreland is Weiss, I want him gone (but I don't see it being proven right now). We don't need crusaders. Experts, yes, but not crusaders after ]. And we get far too bloody many of them. Oh, plus there's an inevitable tension between teenagers, and people who are parents of teenagers. I guess everyone knows which group I'm in.
	::::: Incidentally, Mikka's excuse is probably ], or at least in part. Mikka is a surly old bastard like me, but fundamentally sound and a decent fellow. Try talking to him some time. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 23:43, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
	:::::: OK, I think that's fair enough, though I maintain you'd get a lot more done if you could keep your temper in check about 25% more. And to refocus this thread ever so slightly, I will make excuses for you or for Dab or even for Squeakbox, because all of you are indeed trying to keep the cruft out. Unfortunately, however, when they ask us all to make a list of those whose agenda is keeping WP clean of that stuff, Jay, inspite of the laurels with which this community in its wisdom has covered him, will not be on most people's top 100 list. (To put it as mildly and unexcitingly as possible.) So he doesn't get cut the same slack, even if some deserve it. ] (]) 10:16, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
			Looking forward to your advice on how to proceed.
	I don't know ]'s work, but I do know Jay's, and there are reasons beyond troll vendettas that his name comes up so often on AN/I boards, dispute resolution fora, RfArbs, and so on, and why so many intelligent, erudite, good-faith editors simply despair of trying to collaborate meaningfully with him. He does not approach core content policies like ], ], and ] (the apparent locus of the present dispute) as goods in themselves, as higher principles, as guides to editorial self-discipline – the way, say, an ideal Supreme Court judge would approach constitutional law. Rather he approaches them the way a lawyer approaches legal precedent, as a means to a frankly partisan end, as rhetorical tools useful for retaining content he agrees with and expunging content he disagrees with, and if need be, as sharp weapons to be used against rival editors. He would no more submit his own work to the principles he cites against the work of others than he would grab hold of a scimitar by the blade end instead of the handle. Take for example his two back-to-back interventions today, on ] and ], the latter being a vociferous critic of Israeli policies, the former an equally vociferous advocate of same. The policy issue in both cases is identical – ], and how it specifically requires ''especially'' good sources for negative material about living persons. Look at the and its corresponding talk-page : Jay removes the following paragraph –<blockquote>
	According to Ilan Pappé, Morris is biased in his use of sources (he uses mainly Israeli sources), and is contemptuous of Arabs and Arabic sources, which Morris, furthermore, cannot read. Pappé accused Morris of having racist views about the Arabs in general and the Palestinians in particular. He also attributes Morris's work, critical and historical, to a wish to be popular in mainstream Zionist circles.
	</blockquote>
	– on the grounds that the source, Electronicintifada, does not meet the BLP clause for sources of negative commentary. Jay goes on to delete a better-written (and more temperate) version of the same material from ], where its context was clearer: it's a response to Morris's own vociferous attack on Pappé, which begins, '"Unfortunately much of what Pappe tries to sell his readers is complete fabrication."' Jay leaves the Morris attack and deletes the Pappé attack, citing BLP. Now look at Jay's edit over on , where he restores the following paragraph, which had been removed citing the same BLP clause:<blockquote>
	According to ], Shahak "regaled his audience with a stream of outrageous libels, ludicrous fabrications, and transparent hoaxes. As each successive allegation was exposed and discredited, he would simply proceed to a new invention."</blockquote>
	– which is cited to FrontPageMagazine (!). On the talk page, Jay that this attack on Shahak – which is unprovoked (i.e. not a rebuttal to a Shahak attack on Bogdanor) and considerably more incendiary and potentially libelous – "seems well and reliably enough sourced." Front Page F'ing Magazine, are you kidding me? Jay's edit also restores the following sentence – ''"Shahak's works also found a receptive audience among ], ] and ], and his articles and the full texts of his works can be found on websites such as ], ], ], ], and "Historical Review Press"'' – which is sourced to CAMERA, WorldNetDaily, and some other junk.
			Thankyou! ]] 15:21, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
	Now, whatever one may think of Shahak, Pappé, and Morris, it should be clear that for Jay, ] represents a strategic weapon and not an editorial principle. Edits like this are the meat and potatoes of his work here, and quite naturally they infuriate less powerful – but more intellectually serious – Wikipedians and would-be collaborators.--] (]) 00:03, 19 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.
	:All due respect, G-Dett, but... Electronicintifada calls itself "Palestine's Weapon of Mass Destruction". Can we really take that as a neutral sources of information? As to Front Page Magazine, It hardly seems little better than a Right Wing political opinion blog, and thus probably no better. Both sections should be removed per BLP and the RS writings on the uses of Blogs. I would like to see Jayjg explain why one source is so much better than the other. ] (]) 00:25, 19 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.
	::I should have been clearer. I do not personally think ElectronicIntifada, CAMERA, or WorldNetDaily should be used as sources for potentially defamatory material. Removal of information cited to EI citing BLP is absolutely justifiable. In the present context – where the quote is one scholar's rebuttal to criticism from another, and both criticisms are comparably heated/negative, and the initial criticism is included in the article – then you could also make a case for its retention. Removal would be justified by a very firm, strict application of BLP, and one could reasonably expect the removing editor to apply an equally firm hand elsewhere. In this case, Jay's firm hand is waving its middle finger at his interlocutors, as is clear from his adjacent edits to the other articles.
			:By the way is forum shopping. Stop that. ] (]) 16:06, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
	::: What in the world does ] have to do with ], who is dead? ] (]) 19:18, 19 February 2008 (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)
			== Darkwarriorblake making aspersions ==
	::EI is doubtless a partisan source, somewhat like CAMERA, but it isn't an outright laughable source like FrontPageMagazine or WorldNetDaily. It's run by Ali Abunimah, a relatively respected writer if not quite an academic heavy-hitter, and it's a sort of clearing-house for pro-Palestinian articles of all kinds, many from other sources. And in this case, remember, the source is Pappé himself, and his response to a potentially defamatory criticism.
			Postscript: Ah, someone just close this, I don't care any more. &nbsp;— ] <span style="color:#900">•</span> ] 22:56, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
	::Incidentally, where do you find EI describing itself as "Palestine's Weapon of Mass Destruction"? I can find only reference to EI in those terms, by an unaffiliated with EI. Is this what you're referring to? At any rate, here is what EI's site mission statement says: "The Electronic Intifada (EI), found at electronicIntifada.net, publishes news, commentary, analysis, and reference materials about the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict from a Palestinian perspective. EI is the leading Palestinian portal for information about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and its depiction in the media."--] (]) 00:43, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
	:It's how the site lists itself on Google. Check it out. ] (]) 03:22, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
	::'''''In'''''struction, Thuranx.--] (]) 03:31, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
	:::Hrmm, so it is. Still not much better, really. It's still just as clearly a biased site and source, and the play on words doesn't do much to distance it from the more violent biases of its readership. I still say both should go. ] (]) 05:50, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
	::::That's a pretty offensive statement, ThuranX, but at least we are agreed that both should go.--] (]) 16:49, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
	"''this guy who's complaining doesn't sound like the most reliable complainant, and I'm not going to stick my neck out about Jay calling somebody anti-semitic who's edit-warring at David Irving.''" This type of comment is exactly why I ask for an apology. Although I accept that writers GF opinion I'm still automatically labelled by the original accusation. Why am I not a reliable complainant? I've never been blocked for my actions, this is the first time I've lodged a complaint and I've never had problems with any other users or on any other articles despite averaging far more than 100 edits a month. And why does edit warring David Irving justify a personal attack? Has anyone even looked to see what was edit warred there? Although it was a year ago I think it was about his credibility on subjects not involving Jews which had nothing to do with Irvings anti semitism. Before this I have had (as far as I can recall) only one dispute with Jayjg. When I first started editing WP I deleted a dead reference in the Hamas article which he reverted. I asked him why and he told me policy allows dead links because they worked when first used. This led to me being ridiculed by other editors when I used that same explanation later for replacing a dead link in another article (one was MONGO so if you know him you know he doesn't beat around the bush when giving an opinion on someone). This incident is why I did't deal with Jayjg again after his first refusal to apologise. To address other points brought up that this ANI is not appropriate I would also point out that I was originally told to lodge the complaint here. It was archived twice on the basis that it would be dealt with later. I never informed Jayjg of this ANI as I posted it at 3am and forgot so i apologise for that (I did however inform him of the previous ANI and he chose not to take part). I also apologise for being "longwinded". Not being experienced with complaining I have no idea how much detail is required. It was Jayjg's comment that reminded me to bring it up again and the ANI is not actually for that comment, it's for the original unjustified personal attack. I believe this ANI is more important than me, too many editors are getting away with too much because they have a high profile or a large group of friends. Unless they are made to be responsible for their actions everyone suffers. ] (]) 06:46, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
	:I apologise. ] (]) 07:43, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
	I'm marking this resolved, because it is not at all clear why this is an issue for AN/I. As near as I can tell, this is a dispute over content and a series of unfortunate user interactions. I suggest that you and JayJg try to work things out civilly on a talk page or, failing that, seek dispute resolution via mediation or an RFC. ] (]) 23:46, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
	== Personal attacks by Bleek25 ==
	I've just about reached the end of my rope. {{User|Bleek25}} has gone to other users talk pages and made personal attacks after the filing of a (dismissed) sockpuppet case against me failed and has also filed false 3RR reports against me. I don't mind the 3RR and the sock, they were both disproven, but the repeated personal attacks which I tried to simply remove but he puts back three times, is over the line. This and this where he returned it and called my removal vandalism, and then again . I asked for help from an administrator who helped with a 3RR issue but he continues to do this and it's gotten out of hand. I just ask he leave me alone and now he's bringing other editors in to this grudge he seems to have because he violated policy and I reported him. Could someone just warn him to stop?] (]) 16:28, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
	:Please note, I asked him to stop before bringing this here, but he removed the request as "vandalism." He has a gross misconception of vandalism. Apparently even removing a personal attack is vandalism according to him. ] (]) 16:34, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
	Kellyana must think that she is an adminstrator.she has gotten in to it with me and ].randy even tried to make a truce and she just slapped him in the face see .] (]) 16:38, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
	:I'm not a gal, but I think his comments to you would be very offensive to women and they are offensive to me. I also agree you removing a personal attack is not vandalism, see . He posted at least three of these. Someone just final warned him. If he makes personal attacks again, please report here. <span style="font-family: verdana;"> — ] • ] • </span> 16:46, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
	:This is obviously offensive to a woman and this is harassment .--] 00:16, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
	== Unblock range ==
	Hi, I seldom edit en.wiki just to add interwiki to my local wiki . <br />
	Starting from some weeks ago, in most cases, I'm unable to edit en.wiki because my IP is blocked. The page says User:Ryulong blocked the entire range 79.6.0.0/16 for a very long time (a month or even more). I don't know if this is the standard procedure in en.wiki, but seems to me that blocking thousands people just to stop a single vandal it's not the best choice... the vandal probably changed his IP the same day you blocked him, and instead I'm a good (blocked) guy ;) Regards. --] (]) 17:18, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
	:() Thanks for your message. I can understand the frustration. ] is probably more able than I am to answer you, but apparently the vandal is especially annoying since the range has been blocked twice because of him. The good news is that if you register an account, you will be able to edit even when your IP falls within this range. I know this is not optimal, but there are other benefits from ]! ;) -- ] <sup>]</sup> 17:26, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
	::Thanks for the answer Lucasbfr. Well, I've seen the log, so the range is blocked since January 4! 65000 IPs for two month to stop a vandal who can change IP, and probably he can get also an unblocked IP (like I can). ::You're right, I should create an account, but it's not just my problem... in 2 months, how many people gets one of those 65000 IPs? --] (]) 08:23, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
	:::The range described is of an abusive user who I had been attempting to reconcile with until he continually exhausted my patience and the patience of other administrators from which I sought assistance. The user in question is {{user|Tenkasei Ryo}}. I am terribly sorry for the inconvenience, but I have not been able to narrow down that block (a semi-full list of his activities is ]), and as soon as the first range block expired, the user in question came back. As I stated in the block log, you can seek assistance from the Unblock Mailing list. And if you would like to prevent this from happening on March 4 (which may very well happen as this user is persistent, despite my attempts), any assistance you could provide me in stemming this abuse and helping me file an abuse report with your ISP concerning this individual's actions.—] (]) 08:41, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
	== IP User who refuses to use Talk pages ==
	For about a month now, an IP user who posts from addresses in the range 156.61.xx.xx has been attempting to impose his views on the nature of Roman leap days and leap years in articles related to the Roman calendar: ], ], ] and as of today ].
	This user absolutely refuses to debate on Talk pages, he just edits the articles. He only communicates his "justifications" via the Edit Summary line. The reason I have listed so many articles is that semi-protecting an article only causes him to find another one, even when the semi-protection notice clearly states that it is being applied to force discussion to the Talk page.
	His POV represents outdated scholarship. He does not respond to attempts to point out contrary data or contrary argument, he just reasserts his own views. He also does not respond to proposals to change the text to say "the ancient sources aren't explicit. The current consensus is...", which would change the text to an accurate statement of fact that does not conflict with his views.
	He used to insert long rants inside the articles, mostly against me, but final warnings for disruptive editing caused him to stop doing that. He now mostly confines his edits to statements that should keep him below the radar on that. I had hoped that his toning down the edits might mean we were getting somewhere, but this is not the case. His behaviour, though low key, is very persistent and is still disruptive. It's also the kind of activity that seriously undermines any reputation WP might hope for as an authoritative source.
	Please follow through on the final warnings and block this user.
	Thanks.
	--] (]) 17:36, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
	:I've blocked a couple of IPs (the only two, as far as I know, he's used more than once). Unfortunately, blocking can only achieve so much here since he changes IP frequently, and a /16 range (156.61.xx.xx) is a bit too large to give a block of significant duration too. Assuming those four pages are the only ones he's interested in, semi-protection should work fine. &ndash; ] 18:37, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
	Based on past behaviour, I wouldn't assume that. I'm sure he'll find another page to carry on with. Also, a week's semi-protection has already been tried on ] and ], and has proven useless. He just waits for it to expire and then circles back. Perhaps a semi-protect duration of 2 months on all of these pages might have an effect.
	I understand that asking for a range of addresses to be blocked is a serious step. I think I've been very patient with this guy, and I didn't make the request lightly. I honestly can't see any other way to get him to behave. --] (]) 18:52, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
	== User:Bellwether BC seems to object to this unblock. ==
	] has created a user account and was blocked, presumably for having a corporate name and a user name that was similar.
	I led a WP:AN discussion here. which said this (see below).
	I notified the blocking administrator. He did not object or say anything. About 3 days have passed and still no objection.
	The user has been advised on what not to edit. They have complied and not caused trouble. Should we be bitey and block the person again like Bellwether BC and Friday seem to suggest?
	] (]) 18:14, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
	*I'll thank you to stop opening threads about me without proper notification, and to quit misrepresenting my positions. I think you shouldn't be using your tools at '''''ALL''''' during your mentorship, per the RfC. This also appears to be Friday's position. It's not about '''''this case''''', it's about '''''your use of tools''''', AT. Please stop obfuscating. ] ]] 02:25, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
	<small>=== Usernames being blocked, is this according to policy? ===
	http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Usernames#Company.2Fgroup_names
	"Use of a company or group name as a username is not explicitly prohibited, but it is not recommended..."
	The policy states that use of a company name as a user name is not recommended but it is not prohibited. I used to think that all corporate names are prohibited and are to be blocked but I see this is not the case.
	Should we stop blocking people for this reason? Or should we just ask that users certify that they are not a group account. ] (]) 17:14, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
	:My personal rule on this is I block only if the user is using Misplaced Pages for advertising their group, business, what have you. If a user like "KevinsShoeWarehouse" created the article ] or adds the business to an article like ], that deserves a block. And really, unless they're using WP to advertise, it's pretty tough to tell if a username is a business, group, etc. Of course, if a user chooses the name of a very well known business or group, it is my opinion that they should be blocked, as this invites potential lawsuits, e.g. if a user named "Microsoft" vandalizes ]. Cheers, ] ] 17:38, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
	<small>
	::The way I come by most company usernames is as faithless says above, they post ana d for their company. More generally, I think we assume that if its a group name, then its a ] account. Also, for major corps, there is of course the trademark issue. Even if ] didn't edit movie articles, there would still be the concern of trademark dilution. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 17:46, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
	:::This came up recently. We assume it's a role account unless we get confirmation (somehow, OTRS I guess) that it's used by only one user. I'm not sure what the relevant policy page is. ] (]) 18:28, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
	: The other problem is that of people believing the account represents the company in some official capacity, either to push a certain view point or to vandalise. The question aside from advertising, is the username likely to be confusing or misleading? --] (]) 19:24, 15 February 2008 (UTC)</small>
	===Comments and opinions===
	*I think this unblock, after discussion, along with counseling to the new user is the correct thing to do. I think that trying to create controversy about this non-controversial action is being disruptive and trolling. Others have been indefinitely blocked for trolling before.] (]) 18:14, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
	**Where was your discussion about the specific name with the blocking admin or on AN/I? The post you made was a general statement about company usernames, it was far from a specific block review. ] 18:28, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
	:::If you are unhappy, continue the discussion here about why this user should be blocked. Is it to prevent disruption? If so, what disruption has the user done in the past 3 days since unblock (None). What disruption has the user ever done? (None). What punishment should this user get for using a user name similar to his corporate name? (Severe punishment? If so, isn't blocking not supposed to be used as punishment?) Discussion on proposed re-blocking welcomed; that's why I put the topic up for ANI discussion. ] (]) 18:33, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
	::::The implied suggestion to always list the user name in question will be followed in the future. If someone is unhappy, how would the discussion have changed if a specific user name was listed? Is it that someone has an anti-gambling agenda or anti-American agenda so they would act harshly in that case but not harshly in other cases? I hope this is not the case. ] (]) 18:37, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
	:Hi Archtransit, on your talk page, Ryan has said that unless you stop using the unblock button, he's going to take the matter to ]. Other than agreeing with Ryan, my only comment is that you don't appear to understand that nobody prevented the person behind the account from editing - the block merely required him /her to create a new user name. ] (]) 18:35, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
	::Hi Addhoc! Blocks should follow policy. It would not be following policy if you were blocked on the reason "Addhoc's name is mis-spelt, this is disruptive, he can edit under 'Ad hoc' but the Addhoc name is blocked". ] (]) 18:39, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
	:::Ok, I'm going to leave mentoring you to Ryan and Riana, however I'm concerned about your lack of understanding. ] (]) 18:45, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
	You say above, Archtransit, that ''Three days have passed and still no objection'', yet you unblocked only one hour after your talkpage message to the blocking admin and your ambiguous post to ANI that was not even close to a consensus to unblock (or block, or anything else since you didn't name the user). Curious. ] | ] | ] 22:14, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
	::::If you are mad, block the user and see what happens (I don't advise this but you seem to be mad that this user was unblocked.] (]) 22:22, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
	:::::Nope. Not mad. You've misread my post. I don't get mad at Misplaced Pages, but instead ]. It's not about the blocking or unblocking. You have to know that Arch. I've been an ardent supporter of you in the past, but everytime I read a post here, or at your RfC, or on your user talk, I continue to be baffled by your responses. Simply baffled. It's not about the tools. It's about your communication style, your wikilawyering.. this isn't the place for this. ] | ] | ] 23:05, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
	::::Seeing as I'm being quoted. I took that conversation as a broad, hypothetical, "what if"/"why" scenario. It certainly was not a block review/unblock check to me. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 23:21, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
	== Please help me! ==
	{{resolved|see below}}
	I reported ] at Wikiquette alerts (take a look). For his removal of legitimate warnings, his discreetly racist edits and other things. He has since edited my report on several occasions to misrepresent my comments http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages%3AWikiquette_alerts&diff=192345406&oldid=192197739 - He then threatens a Checkuser request against me without suggesting which user he believes I am and why. I believe that PJ is attacking me in order to divert attention from the report I have filed against him and am now of the opinion that PJ's threats warrant harder action than a mere discussion at Wikiquette. It is grossly innapropriate for a user to threaten another just because they have asked for comment on the user's conduct! Help me out here! (Also per WP:RFCU "checkuser is not for fishing") --] (]) 18:16, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
	: Stop ]; so far, it's made its rounds at WQA and at two user talk pages. You made one complaint which contains a lot of 2006 and 2007 vios. which Prester John was . You were unsatisfied with the reply I gave at WQA, which you and I have restored, given that it is material of your current possible bad faith nominations and possible ]. As a side note, Capitana user also has a current ] open. ] <small>(]) (])</small> 19:19, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
	: You were correct to take this to ]. I'm sure an admin can intervene somehow as an objective party and warn the user. My advice would be to warn the user about ] first, and if it continues, report him/her to ]. ] <sub>(] / ])</sub> 19:19, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
	::I checked into it, and it appears that the ] was done in bad faith (none of the requirements or criteria for it have been met) after the filed report to wikiquiette alerts. ] <sub>(] / ])</sub> 19:25, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
	:::That's my point. Where are the admins to help here! PJ is going to get away with this corrupt request! --] (]) 19:29, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
	No, the ] is legitimate, No bad faith at all. ] (]) 19:36, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
	: I believe it will be closed (if not already) because many of the users you claim are Capitana are just so old. ] <small>(]) (])</small> 19:59, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
	::Interesting to note is this here. which seemed to confirm that Capitana is Lancastria. ] (]) 20:31, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
	:::Also, ] appears to have been indef blocked. ] (]) 20:38, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
	:::: By a checkuser, no less. I think we can mark this one resolved. <b>]</b> 00:32, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
	== Is it okay to use my real name? ==
	Hi,
	I would like to know if it's okay with other editors if I use my real name to edit ]. ] (]) 18:56, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
	:You can edit under any name you like, as long as it is not promotional or offensive. However, you cannot redirect your userpage to an article, and your signature really shouldn't point there either. - ] 18:59, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
	Go right ahead, I do. ] (]) 19:03, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
	::Just one reminder, that you can't uncork the genie. If you use your real name, and things go pear shaped somehow, you cannot magically take back the information about your real name. It's out there. ] (]) 19:04, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
	:::Jason Smith, you need to fix your signature to avoid ] which are not allowed. Also, given that you claim to be Jason Smith, the actor, you should not edit that article, per ] guidelines. --].].] 19:06, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
	::::It is not OK to use your real name to edit Misplaced Pages if your real name is also the name of someone famous, unless you are willing to prove it by contacting the Wikimedia Foundation office. Try info-en-q@wikimedia.org. It is also not ''forbidden'' to edit an article about you but it is discouraged, please read the ] policy. ] 19:12, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
	:::::Okay, It's not like everyone knows my name. I'm not a household name like ]. I was only asking if you're allowed to edit ] if you have an article about yourself. ] (], ]) 19:23, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
	::::::Anyone is allowed to edit, although you might want to steer clear of the article about yourself for various conflict of interests purposes. However, if for whatever reason you think that somehow having you appear by your name here might in the future potentially lead to trouble, as anyone can see anything you do on the internet at any time, you might want to follow ] like some of the rest of us do and use a name other than your real one. That is a matter which apparently several other editors have encountered, and I can't know that the same thing might happen to you, but stranger things have happened. By the way, this isn't actually my name either, although "John" is actually my middle name. ] (]) 19:27, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
	:::::I'm not sure how true that is, Thatcher. ] merely says ''You should not edit under the name of a well-known living person unless it is your real name, and you either are that person or you make it clear that you are not.'' I've always assumed the {{tlx|userpage otheruse}} on my userpage, making it clear that ] is not ]. suffices. If I'm incorrect there let me know and I'll be on to the Foundation straight away to prove my bona fides! ]&nbsp;<sup>]</sup> 09:48, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
	: You also might want to avoid using your real name if it's anything similar to in an ] comic, or if you've changed your name to ]. --] <sup>]</sup> 21:22, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
	has some words of wisdom on this. But many Wikipedians use their real names, I used to use my full real name as a signature. ] (]) 12:43, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
	:Those words of wisdom could equally be taken to mean either "don't use your real name online" or "don't shoot your mouth off online", of course &#9786; ]&nbsp;<sup>]</sup> 14:07, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
	== ] ==
	{{archive top}}
	Seems to have a desired outcome, he restored the good revisions of his talk pages that weren't vandalism, etc., and that seemed to be the main issue. Lets move on. Regards, — ] ] 00:16, 19 February 2008 (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.
	FCYTravis was asked by another user to restore the deleted history of his talk page, and refused. I him to do the same, as well as remove the indefinite semi-protection from his talk page, and he responded he'd only do it if ArbCom forced him to. Now, he's threatening to leave the project if he isn't allowed to keep both his talk page history deleted and page semi-protected. Threatening to leave the project is not an acceptable reason to allow somebody to violate policy, so I'd like some comments on his behavior. I'm stepping away, as the discussion on his talk page was becoming less and less civil with each post. - ] ] 19:33, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
	: Is there any particular revision that you think needs to be resurrected? --] 19:40, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
	::All of them. We don't get to delete our talk pages simply because we are admins, then refuse the speedy deletion requests of non-admins. This is a basic policy/guideline issue he is refusing to follow, especially with the protection. - ] ] 19:43, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
	::: I agree with ]. ] can undo vandalism just the same as the rest of us and the history is there for all to see. Using admin privileges to actually delete stuff and semi-protect you own talk page looks like a ]. ] (]) 20:06, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
	::::It does seem unethical. Blanking ones page as 'archiving' is fine, but deleting it is clearly not the same, as only admins CAN see it, and only an admin who knows what they're looking for will even try to find it. ] (]) 20:22, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
	::: I agree with AuburnPilot as well. This is particulary bad form on his part. Deleting of the talk page (even as rare as that is) should not be done unless the users aim was to leave Misplaced Pages for good. In addition to that the indefinite semi-protection is horribly assuming bad faith to IP's on his part, and in fact, not being willing to communicate is something that was brought up at ] in the proposed principles. I to request FCYTravis to undelete his talk page and unprotect it (until a legitimate protection is warrented). — ] ] 20:28, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
	:::A quick scan of his user talk page log sees that his old method of archiving was moving the history to sub-pages (which if I'm not mistaken is a satisfactory way of archiving), but he hasn't done that since April of 2006. All history of his talk from then until December 2007 is lost. His talk page log also shows he has his talk page on an almost constant protection, having protected twice in December (the last December protection is still in effect). — ] ] 20:39, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
	:My understanding is that past revisions of user talk pages are only deleted if the revisions contain personal information, gross violations of WP:BLP, or other unpleasantness of that sort. Editors are welcome to ''blank'' their talk pages at any time at their own discretion, but we keep the history. Retaining a transparent history (as much as possible) is doubly important for admins. If an admin ''departs'' from Misplaced Pages, we will blank (and protect, if necessary) that individual's talk page upon request. In my experience, it is very rare for a request to delete a user's talk page history to be granted. Such pages are almost always retained, as it may sometimes be necessary to refer to old discussions in resolving future or ongoing disputes; talk pages contain the record of many editor's contributions, not just those of the nominal owner.
	:Semiprotection of user talk pages is relatively rare, but not unheard of. If FCYTravis has been the target of a particularly pernicious and persistent troll or vandal, extended semiprotection is a legitimate response. He is still reachable via email, and any concerns about his administrative actions can take place on AN/I.
	:I'd appreciate it if everyone here could step back from using words like 'unethical' until FCYTravis has a chance to comment. Turning up the drama unnecessarily tends to make people dig in rather than work to resolve an issue. He may well have a very good reason for wanting to clear those revisions from the history. ](]) 20:35, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
	::FCYTravis already made comments on his talk page regarding this earlier today, some responses include " Not going to happen unless ArbCom tells me to - and if that happens, I quit the project.", "I do not want anon IP crap on this page" and "Please go away." Something I must say TenOfAllTrades, is how are IP addresses supposed to e-mail him or know to go to WP:AN/I if they disagree with him. Adminsitrators should be open to comment on their actions, no matter who it is from. I think his intent is very obvious from his comments: ''"Every time I get anon IP shite here, I have to delete the page and start from scratch again. There's no way I'm going to go through and individually select eleventy squillion good edits to undelete. So the semi-protection that you're complaining about, keeps the talk page history problem that you're complaining about from being worse."'' That comment is counter-productive to communication that is required from administrators. — ] ] 20:47, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
	::There's nothing 'dramatic' about using the word 'unethical' for his actions. They fit 'unethical' perfectly. He's using his admin buttons to stop contact, refusing to listen to others about it, and gives us a 'my way or i leave' ultimatum. I think someone today said, Users come and go, it's the nature of the project. So let him go. ] (]) 20:54, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
	:::What is this IP vandalism that he says is so egregious that he has to ''delete'' his talk page?! I've gotten plenty of user and talk page vandalism - swastikas and the whole bit - and have never felt the need to delete it. —] (]) 20:57, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
	::::I don't know. I'm hoping that he'll offer an explanation. It's possible that there is an IP pestering him for something he doesn't want to discuss in detail because (for example) it's related to his OTRS work. I do hope that he'll be more forthcoming here than he was on his talk page, though. If he has misinterpreted community standards or expectations about administrators' talk pages, that should be hashed out here. If he's being harrassed or there's something else going on, we'd like to know that, too. ](]) 21:10, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
	:::::After reviewing both the deleted talk pages in question and existing policy, unfortunately I am forced to agree that this does indeed appear to be an unethical use of the mop. I also find it rather troubling that when ''FCYTravis'' was contacted about the issues presented here, his response was to threaten leaving the project. --] (]) 21:11, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
	:Incidentally, FCYTravis has just left a brief but polite note on my talk page indicating that he has been the victim of extensive off-wiki harrassment, and that he believes that the on-wiki vandalism is related. If that ''is'' the case, I can see why he might seem disproportionately troubled by apparently minor childish vandalism. He also mentioned that he is in class at the moment, but will offer a (presumably fuller) response here in a few hours. I urge patience and calm here in the meantime.
	:Should it be necessary to explore the specifics of Travis' situation, perhaps he and AuburnPilot could select some mutually-acceptable trustworthy individual; I can understand why he wouldn't want to discuss the full details of off-wiki harrassment in an open forum, though I urge him to be as forthcoming as is reasonably possible. ](]) 21:56, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
	::If immature vandals insist on targeting him I'd say using semi-protect is no problem at all. Undoing that type of vandalism just wastes everyones time. ] ] 22:03, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
	::My full reply is ]. I feel the essense of his talk page protection goes the core of ]. The policy states specifically that user talk pages should not be semi-protected indefintely, and it goes on to say that the sole purpose of stopping anonymous editors' contributions with semi-protection when no vandalism occured, is a violation. Again, I sympathize with FCYTravis having trouble with anonymous IP editors comments, but pre-emptive protection when there are innocent IP addresses is wrong. — ] ] 22:17, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
	:::When the preponderance are not innocent I see no issue. There are other talk pages they can interact with him if they are desperate. If in dispute, the article talk page, if they have been warned for something, their own talk page. It's not as if all their avenues for communication have been cut off. ] ] 22:26, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
	:::To Save Us 229, we do make exceptions to policy where it is in the best interests of the project as a whole. While semiprotection should not be used "''solely to prevent editing by anonymous and newly registered users''", I would argue that this is not what is happening here. FCYTravis has suggested that the semiprotection is to prevent editing (attacks) by a specific individual who always uses an anonymous IP. The distinction is subtle but important&mdash;his ''intent'' is to prevent a specific individual from engaging in harrassment (a legitimate aim), that anonymous and newly registered users can't edit his talk page is an unintended and unwanted side effect.
	:::I generally support the policy on semiprotection. I agree that there are strong, sound reasons for not semiprotecting user talk pages indefinitely. I also agree with editors who note that Travis' intemperate responses to unprotection requests have not helped matters here. ''However'', I think that if FCYTravis is able to make a compelling case then there is room for flexibility in this policy. I sincerely hope that all the participants in this discussion can continue to keep cool heads&mdash;today seems a day where a lot of good-faith contributors are in a bit of a bad temper. ](]) 22:37, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
	::::FCYTravis has made a selective restore, so I believe this can be archived or marked resolved. - ] ] 23:34, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
	:::::Agree. — ] ] 00:16, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
	{{Archive bottom}}
	== ] ==
	'''caveat''' - This is a copy and paste from ]. Thought this might have been more appropriate: ] <sub>(] / ])</sub> 21:14, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
	::::I've closed the AN thread an pasted a couple of add'l comments that were there to this thread. --] (]) 21:16, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
	A dumb, quick question: It seems templates ] thru ] are for people to experiment with. However, some editors (including me, and embarrassingly, including a block) are reverting edits to these templates, and warning the users doing so. The template itself says these templates are for experiementation. So,
	*Am I correct in my newfound understanding that people can do whatever they want to these templates?
	*Is there a way to make this fact more clear to clueless individuals like myself?
	*Wouldn't it make sense for a bot to periodically restore them to their original state, as is done with the sandbox itself?
	*An editor with multiple IP's has recently gone thru and blanked all 9 templates and their respective talk pages (my talk page too, but that's probably because I mistakenly blocked him). In spite of the templates' experimental nature, this seems vaguely disruptive to me. But semiprotecting would kind of defeat the purpose. Any ideas (beyond the bot I suggest above)?
	Thanks. --] (]) 20:46, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
	:] has set me straight on some of this, but question about a bot, and question about whether to consider this disruption or not (i.e. blanking all of them), and blockable for repeated occurances, still open. --] (]) 20:58, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
	:::Since I became involved in this, I myself reverted the continuous blanking of these templates X1 - X9. It seems user's with a similar string of IPs (e.g have a propensity for blanking the ''entire'' template purposefully, and then turning on the users who warn or undo their blanking. What is the appropriate action here? ] <sub>(] / ])</sub> 21:00, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
	:::My talk page contains two conversations about the disruption of these templates ] <sub>(] / ])</sub> 21:01, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
	:(edit conflict) {{tl|x1}} is like ], but designed for testing templates. The templates used to have headers that were reset automatically by bots, but the bots seem to have gone missing. The standard practice would have been to revert the template to the version with the headers, but I can't even find it in the history so the bots must have been missing for a while. --] 21:04, 18 February 2008 (]]])
	:Are you referring to the bot that is supposed to reset those templates every 12 hours? ] <sub>(] / ])</sub> 21:07, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
	'''Update''' This is kind of getting out of hand, several editors are now involved in reverting almost continuous blanking vandalism from multiple IP's on these templates and their talk pages. Does anyone think a rangeblock is needed, and if so, does anyone know how to do one? --] (]) 21:33, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
	:Blocked 151.49.0.0/16 for 3 hours. Let me know if IPs from that range continue vandalizing the templates after the rangeblock expires. ] 21:39, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
	::That seems to have done the trick, thanks Nakon. --] (]) 21:47, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
	:::Yup, thanks Nakon - Every IP involved has had that string. ] <sub>(] / ])</sub> 23:53, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
	== Trolling behavior by 12.39.2.83 ==
	The user in question is engaged largely in trolling or baiting. His contributions to the NIU incident consist mostly of comments designed to confront, and not to further the article. Also, when he's warned about that, he deletes the warning, and goes to the user page to further his baiting. ] <sup>'']''</sup> 21:45, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
	:Your initial characterization of the seige at Waco could possibly have been better worded, true - but I agree, the IP is not justified in editing anyone's remarks as he/she has. I've warned the editor, and further reverting should result in a block of 31 hours or more. I am leaving shortly, and won't have a chance to monitor. ] <sup> ] </sup>~<small> ] </small> 21:59, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
	::Nevermind, blocked for 31 hours due to disruption and . ] <sup> ] </sup>~<small> ] </small> 22:03, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
	:::Thank you. I want to point out that I balanced the media-based flippant comment by characterizing the siege as a disaster. It was bad news all around. ] <sup>'']''</sup> 22:05, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
	He's got either a buddy or a sockpuppet removing the warnings on his page. This one (71.229.80.58) has a similar attitude to the blocked one, in his very short list of edits. ] <sup>'']''</sup> 00:57, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
	:I posted a note on 71.229.80.58's talk page advising him that deleting stuff from "other peoples" user pages was against the rules. As expected, he deleted it without comment. ] <sup>'']''</sup> 03:50, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
	== "It's on his blood" ==
	:: ] saying "It's on his blood" referring to me] (]) 22:10, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
	::NOw we know who wrote these on my page and many more ,
	,
	] (]) 22:28, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
	::Can someone tell me what is wrong with my blood and why i am an inferior race person or whatever.Should i kill myself now? jump of the window?] (]) 22:39, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
	:::Perhaps you could ask ] to speak to Taulant about lack of ] in that post on FP's talkpage. Note however that all the anonymous edits you quote are from an ISP in Sweden, whereas Taulant23 claims to be in LA, California. ]&nbsp;<sup>]</sup> 22:56, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
	::Goodbye.] (]) 22:59, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
	== ] ==
	Um ... take a look at the (Main page featured) article, the penises aren't going away, I have no idea what to do, or where else to get the problem fixed. ] (]) 23:20, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
	Still there... ] (]) 23:26, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
	: Also on ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], and it shows up in old versions of the pages. --<font face="Comic sans MS">]</font> <small><sup><font color="Blue">]</font><font color="Green">]</font></sup></small> 23:28, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
	:Looks fine now. ] (]) 23:32, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
	::I wonder what happened? ] (]) 23:33, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
	:::Something about the PSV Eindhoven manager's template I think ... ] ] 23:34, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
	::::Yeah, that's the only way so many articles were hit so quickly. Luckily, the template's been fixed and the user who did it has been blocked. ] <font size="1"> (], ])</font> 23:37, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
	::::Yes - see . Fixed and the miscreant blocked by KurtShapedBox. I've protected the template. I thought someone was supposed to protect all the templates on main page articles. This was there for almost 30 minutes. ] ] 23:38, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
	:::::I should have figured something like that. Thanks. ] (]) 23:38, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
	:I've copied the text of the article to my userspace and have protected with cascading enabled. This should stop any more vandalism to the article today. Also, you may want to check out the ]. ] 23:45, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
	== Religion in China ==
	{{Resolved|1=Article protected for two weeks to give everyone a chance to resolve the issues ]. ] (]) 01:11, 19 February 2008 (UTC)}}
	] in the main article of ] between pro-Buddhist and anti non-Christian religions/pro-Christian and pro-Secularist ]. If you don't mind, block this article for a week at least!
	] (]) 23:30, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
	:No doubt I protected the ], but it is at least secured. For future reference, please see ] for these sorts of requests. --] (]) 01:11, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
	::Omg... I'm not pro Christian! ] ]|] 06:22, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
	== ] needs more eyes ==
	There are a number of questionable images located at ]. However, there is a particularly mean and nasty user (different IP addresses but it's one guy) who refuses to discuss in any sensible manner what exactly they are doing. We just need more eyes there. I to ], which may have issues. He listed some at ]. So far, we'd had ], ], and ] go after them (and then the user pages in response). Attempts to communicate have been less than fruitful, to be nice. More eyes would be helpful, as the last one decided to respond by tagging legitimate images for deletion. -- ] (]) 01:56, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
	== IP Vandalism of userspace ==
	Over the past few minutes, myself and others have been reverting similar and somewhat disgusting vandalism from a variety of IPs to ] and ] Here are the diffs:
	*
	*
	*
	*
	*
	*
	*
	*
	*
	Some of these contain threats. I think protections of the pages and blocks of the IPs may be helpful.
	Sincerely, --<font face="Times New Roman">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 02:10, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
	: Looks like others took care of it. What is it with these new mean and nasty vandals? I remember when the worst a vandal would do is write like "poop" on your page. Ah, for the good old days. -- ] (]) 02:25, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
	::If you've been here since October 2004 you ''must'' remember ] (that's one of the few surviving archives). Always good for a chuckle, if you're easily amused. See you in Trenton. :) ] ] 02:55, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
	:::Looks like another 4chan sweep. Seriously guys: suicide. Consider it. ] (]) 02:57, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
	There is more on this at ]. I expect that it is ] related. Cheers, ] 09:29, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
	== Personal attacks on ] ==
	A recent AfD discussion on ] has gotten out of hand, with one ] about myself and ] not even involved with this discussion - said allegations were by a ]. These accusations are provided without any kind of proof, although the editor in question claims that they come from the subject of the article in question. Regardless of the basis of the argument between the subject of the article and the editor in question (a Google search provides no verifiable evidence), this posting clearly violates the rules on ], and I ask that the offending material be removed by an administrator and ] be warned about posting similar material in the future. ] (]) 02:27, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
	== Archtransit desysopped ==
	See ].
	]&nbsp;<sup><span style="font-style:italic">(]&nbsp;|&nbsp;])</span></sup> 02:53, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
	:Fixed link--] (]) 02:56, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
	== Lilkunta unblock request ==
	See past discussion at ].
	{{user|Lilkunta}} has e-mailed me (directly, not via Misplaced Pages e-mail) asking for additional assistance. From the past AN/I discussion (a little less than a month ago) it was discussed ''why'' Lilkunta was blocked, but little to no discussion regarding a trial unblock. Behavior was the main reason, not the font mess, but even with that I would like to ask that this situation be reviewed and a trail unblock be granted. Given that blocking, let alone indefinite blocking, is a last resort, I believe a trail unblock after almost nine months is a reasonable request. -- ] 04:06, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
	:I don't see why we can't give them another try, but if the behavior starts up again it will have the same result. ]] 05:37, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
	== Attempted Outing of Misplaced Pages Editor ] by Tawdry Tabloid Journalist ==
	=== Comments on the Article ===
	:''(this was posted by Griot as an additional subsection, originally copied from comments on ) —] 16:48, 19 February 2008 (UTC)''
	I was disappointed to read the article, having talked with her by phone and e-mail. I had nothing to tell her about you at all, nor any of the articles that she was interested in. &mdash;] (''']''') 06:42, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
	:We talked for awhile but she did not use anything that we discussed. I don't want to publish details inasmuch as I asked her to maintain the privacy of my real name and she has honored that. I have had no involvement in editing articles pertaining to Ralph Nader nor have I had any prior dealings with you. &mdash;] (''']''') 06:55, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
	::I exchanged some correspondence with her, but she lost interest when I wouldn't discuss any individual editors (in particular, Griot.) --]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 16:00, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
	=== Original post ===
	{{3RRV|Marynega}}
	Submitted by: ]
	Last week, I was the subject of a tabloid article in the '']'' called in which author Mary Spicuzza (''Wikiname:'' Marynega) tried to “out” me and obtain my real name. The article explains how she employed her newspaper’s IT systems manager “to work some of his computer nerd magic,” presumably to link my IP address with my name. She then, on the basis of information from the IT manager, “hung out in Griot’s neighborhood” hoping to locate me. Was she trolling with a WIFI detection device looking for my IP address and home location? It’s hard to believe she would just walk around at random looking for me, because of course she doesn’t know what I look like.
	Using the resources of a newspaper to unmask a person’s online identity is unconscionable, but there is even more to this tawdry episode. Mary Spicuzza subtitled her story “The Edit Wars of San Francisco.” However, Mary Spicuzza was moved to write her article not by disagreements at Misplaced Pages about San Francisco topics, but by something altogether more personal, as I will explain.
	'''The cyber-vendetta.''' Mary Spicuzza wrote, “I first learned about (Griot) during a conversation with my sister, Jeanne... (He) seemed to be on a no-holds-barred campaign to delete her page after he blamed her for making dubious edits to Ralph Nader's page.” Mary Spicuzza doesn’t say that the “page” in question was in fact a . Another editor nominated this article for deletion on notability grounds; I was one of 16 editors (out of 19) who voted to remove the article from Misplaced Pages. An article about Spicuzza’s company, Seasons & a Muse, Inc., was also removed. Mary Spicuzza also doesn’t mention that was banned from Misplaced Pages for sock-puppeteering at Ralph Nader articles, each time for six months.
	After Jeanne Marie Spicuzza’s “page” was removed from Misplaced Pages, another Spicuzza family member &mdash; she describes herself as “21 year old female,” where Jeanne Marie is nearly 40 &mdash; began keeping a . In her latest entry, she describes herself as “Accomplished,” gives a link to her aunt’s (sister’s?) ''SF Weekly'' article, and pronounces it “Awesome!” (The Wikip spamblock feature does not allow My Space links, but trust me.)
	(In fairness to Jeanne Marie Spicuzza, author Mary Spicuzza’s sister, it should be noted that Jeanne Marie claims to be unacquainted with Misplaced Pages. In the to her sister’s ''SF Weekly'' article she wrote, “I do not participate on Misplaced Pages, nor do I use it as a source” (see comment #10, dated Feb. 13, 2008). However, this statement contradicts author Mary Spicuzza’s claim to have heard about me first from her sister Jeanne; moreover, the quotes Mary Spicuzza used in her article show an understanding of my Misplaced Pages dealings with Jeanne Marie that Mary could not have acquired on her own.)
	'''The hit is in'''. On Jan. 23 of this year, Mary Spicuzza joined Misplaced Pages under the name Marynega and wrote this invitation on my Talk page: “My name is Mary Spicuzza and I’m a reporter with the ''SF Weekly.'' I’m working on an article about Misplaced Pages and I’d love to speak with you. May I give you a call?” Given my history with the Spicuzza family, I let it slide. Next day, Mary Spicuzza wrote invitations to other Misplaced Pages editors, several of whom, I noticed, had had disagreements with me. asking for an interview, five more than she wrote anyone else. Never did she mention her connection to Jeanne Marie Spicuzza. She was counting on me not recognizing her name. She only wanted my perspective, she said, “on how San Francisco is represented in the encyclopedia.”
	The author clearly misrepresented herself, and it was easy to see why. Mary Spicuzza wanted to make me the subject of a tabloid article, something along the lines of: "At last I tracked down Griot. But should I tell him that I was Jeanne's sister? I pitied him, I really did. Still, he deserved what was coming to him. And I had tracked him this far. It would be a shame not to let him have it. But still, maybe I should wait a bit longer..." The author has trouble distinguishing between investigative journalism and theater.
	'''False portrait of the encyclopedia.''' Misplaced Pages editors who manage to slog through “Misplaced Pages Idiots: The Edit Wars of San Francisco” will not recognize the encyclopedia. In Mary Spicuzza’s rendering, Misplaced Pages is a free-for-all of constant edit wars, where editors try to embarrass one another and “violations of Wikiquette are rampant.” She holds these views because she sees Misplaced Pages through her sister’s eyes and because she deliberately sought out people like her sister who had had run-ins with me. If Mary Spicuzza had looked objectively at my work on Misplaced Pages, she would have seen that 99 percent of what I’ve done here consists of copy editing to make articles easier to read. But Mary Spicuzza had a cyber-vendetta to pursue; her sister’s cyber-honor was at stake.
	'''It gets even weirder.''' In a very odd twist, Mary Spicuzza’s article quotes her own niece (sister?) SeeknDistroi, who wrote her by e-mail, "Yeah, Griot. ... You disagree with him, he harasses you, you get blocked." I know that SeeknDistroi is a Spicuzza because her is identical to her (“Investigation of edit history and User:Griot contributions reveal bad faith. Documentary to follow (how's that for a B-movie, Griot? Or should I say Matt?”). Mary Spicuzza quoted SeeknDistroi, her own niece (sister?), for her tabloid article about me, the evil Griot. How’s that for keeping to ]?
	Right about the time Mary Spicuzza was “hanging out in my neighborhood” looking for me, she wrote my Talk page to tell me what I suspected all along: “Hey Griot, I just wanted to give you a heads up &mdash; my editor and I have decided to make you the main focus of my newspaper article. Best, Mary.” We exchanged several messages after that, with me asking “Why me?” I wanted her to come clean about her connection to Jeanne-Marie Spicuzza and the Spicuzza blogger who have been harassing me for six months, but she didn’t do it. Finally, I wrote her a explaining that I knew who she was. I copied this message to her editor and managing editor, believing they should know the true motive behind her story. I told her, “Next Christmas Santa Claus is going to put a large lump of coal in your cyberstalking.”
	Now a disclosure: Last week I was banned for one week for sock-puppeteering. I would like to apologize to the Misplaced Pages community for this. I can tell you with complete certainty that it will never happen again because I am not going to edit at Misplaced Pages anymore. This place makes me tired.
	'''Where to now?''' I don’t think it matters to user Marynega (Mary Spicuzza) if she is punished at Misplaced Pages; she joined only to research her article. It doesn’t matter to me either whether she is punished or banned. For me, the larger questions that remained to be answered are:
	# Mary Spicuzza mentions interviewing members of the Wikimedia Foundation (she doesn't, of course, report what they said, as Misplaced Pages wasn't the real subject of her article). Did they talk about me with her? And if they did, do they have some kind of policy for talking about editors?
	# How safe is a Wikipedian's online identity? Does Mary Spicuzza's "magical computer nerd" have a chance of finding anyone's identity?
	# What are the ethics of a journalist or anyone else pursuing an edit war off Misplaced Pages, in this case onto the pages of a print newspaper?
	# What are the ethics of a journalist or anyone else misrepresenting themselves on Misplaced Pages for their own purposes? For example, should someone researching a topic be discouraged from registering if his/her only goal is to conduct private research by interviewing editors?
	'''Documents of interest to this matter:'''
	* The article:
	* Petition to delete the Jeanne Marie Spicuzza article from Misplaced Pages:
	* My Talk page (I'd like to get people's take on this):
	* Tom Walsh and Will Harper:
	: Ummm - I'm not sure how this ties in here, but I just completed ] checkuser request tonight - ] <sup>]</sup> 07:36, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
	:"Misplaced Pages editors ...will not recognize the encyclopedia. In Mary Spicuzza’s rendering, Misplaced Pages is a free-for-all of constant edit wars, where editors try to embarrass one another and “violations of Wikiquette are rampant.”" Very recognisable. Sounds like accurate reporting to me. ] (]) 08:23, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
	::Only if you have an axe to grind. did you actually read this hatchet-job, or are you simply projecting? --] | ] 09:13, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
	:::I did. What's your point? ] (]) 09:25, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
	While I find the account above a little overheated, its basic facts are true and disturbing: a journalist decided to use her position and the resources of her paper to carry on an on-Wiki battle -- by stalking, personal attacks, and, in effect, the real-life equivalent of sockpuppeting by the quoting of a phony and misrepresented witness -- on behalf of her own sister. And it's hard to avoid the conclusion that it was done deliberately and with malice aforethought. This is a textbook lapse of basic journalistic ethics and conflict-of-interest guidelines, and her editors, perhaps looking for yet another gotcha story, fell for it.
	''In fairness to Jeanne Marie Spicuzza, author Mary Spicuzza’s sister...'' You don't need to bend over backwards to do that, given her long track regard of sockpuppetry -- which she's denied even when caught red-handed -- and ban evasions. Besides, given that she's posted at SF Weekly's website, she's left behind her IP number with them, and they can compare -- if the paper's management and editors have the slightest shred of intellectual honesty -- that IP number with edits made by the same IP number on Misplaced Pages. For their covenience, if they're reading this, they can just replace "XXX" with the IP number and see where it leads.
	* <nowiki>http://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Contributions/XXX</nowiki>
	* <nowiki>http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:XXX</nowiki>
	Betcha I know what they find. --] | ] 09:13, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
	:You seem to think that they'll care that their "investigative journalist" used a couple of sockpuppets to get a good story. Sometimes I wonder what happens to people's memories of RW ethical judgments once they spend enough time on here. ] (]) 09:25, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
	::Having actual real-world experience of journalism, yeah, I do know that they'll care -- at least about the appearance -- of ethics, especially when the evidence in shoved in their faces, and I can easily dig up examples to back me up. Other than your content-free cynical affect of "the real world", what else do you wonder about? --] | ] 10:29, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
	:::You missed the point, of course. The point was that standard journalistic ethics hardly cover the avoidance of sockpuppetry in order to get a story. (I can dig up examples of deception that are considerably worse. So much for "content-free".) Ours do, but we have different aims.
	:::Other things I wonder about are available elsewhere on this board, particularly the persistence of incivility among some of our longer-term accounts. ] (]) 10:47, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
	::::I think the issue of whether the Foundation has a policy on talking about editors is worth asking them about. We've had a couple of cases that suggest they don't have one, and I think it's needed, not only when it comes to talking about editors but article subjects too. <font color="Purple">]</font> <small><sup><font color="Blue">]</font><font color="Green">]</font></sup></small> 11:51, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
	:::::I've said it before and i'll say it again, Outing is highly dangerous and will get a wikipedian killed or seriously injured. Also the foundation has a moral duty to protect its editors and atleast in Europe a legal duty to do just that. ] 15:47, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
	For reference see ] ] ] 16:06, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
	::Fascinating. Ex-user Griot writes "In Mary Spicuzza’s rendering, Misplaced Pages is a free-for-all of constant edit wars, where editors try to embarrass one another and “violations of Wikiquette are rampant.”" Which pretty accurately sums up what Griot and his contribution to the project has been in the course of his residence here. Read through his talk page--he was playing the Mary Spicuzza bit for all he could, blowing it into a major drama, writing volumes when a simple "I don't wish to speak with you" message to Spicuzzacould have ended it nicely. But , he has to turn his user page into an , providing ample fuel for Spicuzzi's fires all by himself. All the while lashing out at others rather than for what his own brought upon his own self. Outed? He outed himself. Well at least we won't be hearing his misogynistic rants anymore; "tawdry journalist"--how mid-20th century! Although in his latest email to me he informed me "It's been a long time since you got laid" and was kind enough to call me "a dried up " (ohh, I'm sorry, is that "outing the poor little fella?") ] (]) 16:33, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
	::::"Outed? He outed himself" No he didn't, but again i to am not going to defend his appalling behavior. What i want you and this journalist to understand that not every wikipedia editor lives in a nice safe western democracy. Other editors like me edit very controversial topics like Terrorism or Democracy, both which could lead an editor getting hurt if shes in the wrong part of the world. I'm glad this Griot is perm banned, sounds like hes been very disruptive, but there is a bigger issue at stake here. ] 21:08, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
	::::::Hypno, I agree entirely with your sentiment. However, I don't think it applies to this case, in which the purported victim is just a boy behaving badly crying wolf and hiding behind a charge of "outing." In fact, from what I recall of the article, ''all'' of the info about Griot was gleaned from the public Wiki archives of Griot's own seemingly uncontrollable compulsion to engage in bombast; and I assume the SFN's own bombastic claim of sleuthery via IP address was itself gleaned from Wiki edit histories. Yes of course there are important issues here, but in this case, methinks the "outed" editor protesteth too much. Was it an unethical use of journalistic resources? I'll leave that for the paper to worry over; the article provided full disclosure in the article itself, and the authors trickiness in getting griot's attention is as old as the journalism game and pretty tame. ] (]) 22:58, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
	:::I'm hardly going to stick my neck out to defend Griot as a constructive encylopedist, given his recently uncovered farm of sockpuppets and his long history of combativeness. Still, the most rational explanation of events here is that someone carried a Misplaced Pages-based grudge against him to the point of using the resources of a major publication to try to belittle and "out" him. Does anyone, anywhere, still have a sense of perspective? The fact that the editors of ''SF Weekly'' went along with this is puzzling, at best. Two conclusions: while anyone is free to say anything to the press, it might be worthwhile to have some sort of common-sense policy about what the ''Foundation'' will say about specific editors. Secondly, I used to wonder which was the lamer free paper: ] or the ] (formerly a neck-in-neck race). Now there's a clear winner. ''']'''&nbsp;<sup>]</sup> 18:57, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
	== Black history daily ==
	{{ipvandal|66.174.79.228}} and ]. Do we care? <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 07:56, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
	:For context, the BBC's linked, and also the NYT and the Globe and Mail. I don't think we need any more North American ones.
	:About a single user adding it to all those months, yes, assume its spamming. ] (]) 08:16, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
	:: Also sympatico.ca, whihc I think is unnecessary - the others at least attempt to be global in scope; do we need "January 1 in Uzbekistan" style external links added for every country and every date? I'd say not. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 12:24, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
	* See also {{ipvandal|66.174.79.234}}. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 09:12, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
	There might be some more IPs. ''']''' (]) 10:12, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
	:Also {{user|Bradhemmings}}. Suggest blacklisting the site. • ] <sup>(])</sup> 19:06, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
	== ] ==
	{{resolved|no action required}}
	There are some facts about this user.
	#He/she is continuously removing non English sources from from the article ] despite opposition from other editors.
	#He/she is blanking his/her talk page after anyone posts a message with a edit summary "welcomes". When he/she was told not to blank non-English sources in his/her talk page, he/she blankes talk page, then I undid his/her edit, he/she again blanked the page. I again reverted, this time he used the edit summary "Kun üstünlüğü ile evrensel insan haklar". At present he/she is blocked by ] for edit-warring. ''']''' (]) 08:02, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
	* There's absolutely nothing wrong with blanking warning messages off a talk page - it is assumed that the user has therefore read them. It is how they act upon the warnings that is important. No admin action is required here. <b>]</b> 10:23, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
	== ] ==
	I need some newbie admin advice on my first potential block for incivility rather than simple vandalism. Yesterday, ] was deleting portions of user talk pages at and , in theory due to some issue with his broadband service. ] warned him about this, and Hammerandclaw reacted poorly, being rather uncivil on , ], and that ] has made now-deleted racist comments on someone's talk page. I've looked, admittedly not at every single edit, and have found nothing of the sort. I noticed this while watching recent changes, and asking him to stop, and that further disruption would be met with a block. His reply to me wasn't very civil, but I don't care. He later emailed me, explaining the supposed technical difficulties, and I on his talk page. Meanwhile, Nh.jg had evidently had enough, and has retired. Hammerandclaw's response was this: . My questions:
	*That final hahahahahaha seems over the top after his warning yesterday, and I consider it worth a 24 hr block. Yes? No?
	*I'm unclear whether, due to being the subject of some of his incivility, I've somehow become "involved", and in a bad position to issue a block. I don't think so, but better safe than sorry.
	*I'm unclear on whether, in addition, to somehow push for a retraction (or I suppose, verification) of his comments about Nh.jg before lifting the block, but that seems heavy-handed. Still, at this point he appears to have driven someone off the project.
	Any and all advice appreciated. I will notify him of this thread. --] (]) 11:48, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
	No, I refuse to accept this, User: Nh.jg made several racist comments on the user page of an IP user, and has shown poor conduct towards me in an e-mail he sent, hugely insulting. There is no way you can block me without blocking him, but then he's retired, too scared to face the consequences for his actions, because he knows he will be blocked. Honestly check his edits. It's a disgrace.--] (]) 14:12, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
	:(edit conflict) I'm not an admin, but I suggest based on what you say above, barneca, including a "hahaha.." posted about 4 hours ago on the page of a retired user, that a 24 hour block would be reasonable. On the other hand, without having read every word of your comments on the user's talk page, perhaps your previous warning had not been sufficiently strongly worded, and perhaps the user has stopped the incivilities after receiving notice of the existence of this AN/I thread, so unless you consider some of the subsequent remarks by the user to still be sufficiently out of line to warrant blocking, (some of them look rather angry; I'd have to study the context) perhaps it may also be reasonable not to block at this time but to keep an eye on the user and block if they do anything else out of line. I would suggest choosing a length of time for the block and letting the block expire after that length of time, or possibly earlier if the user shows remorse etc.; not blocking indefinitely until a specific behaviour is exhibited. I believe that's the usual procedure and that this is not an unusual case. Re when you start to count as being involved: difficult to say, but people should not be allowed to disqualify admins by swearing at them. --] (]) 14:15, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
	::(ec)"Remorse" doesn't matter - refraining from unconstructive behaviour does. And blocks are not punitive, they're to protect the integrity of Misplaced Pages. If there were any evidence that Hammerandclaw's (apparently) completely spurious allegations had caused Nh.jg to retire then I would say an immediate block would be warranted, however there isn't. I'd agree that keeping a close eye on Hammerandclaw's interations with other editors would be good, with the possibility of mandatory mentoring if incivility of this nature continues. ]&nbsp;<sup>]</sup> 14:27, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
	:(ec)I looked at NH.jg's edits and failed to see any evidence whatsoever of what you claim. Diffs, please. I can, however, see a good deal of evidence that you have but a passing familiarity with ] (diffs above, by Barneca) ]&nbsp;<sup>]</sup> 14:19, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
	:(]) Reply to Hammerandclaw: Incivilities against yourself are not an excuse for incivilities you commit. (I.e. "two wrongs don't make a right.") You might want to provide ] here, showing the alleged incivilities by the other user; but that would probably be pointless anyway, since as I said they would not be an excuse for your behaviour, and I doubt anybody is going to block a retired user. --] (]) 14:22, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
	Hey, buddy, I didn't swear at him did I? No, I didn't. Nh.jg's retirement is completely fake, he's just operating under sockpuppets, and will continue his racism in no time at all.
	Besides you can't do squat, you have no more powers that I do, so if yoou think I'm gonna keel to you...get real.--] (]) 14:28, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
	::With the additional clue that this "racist comment" was on an ''IP'' talk page, I've now gone to the trouble of reviewed every single one of hn.jg's contribs to IP talk pages, and all of them are simple standardized templates. This is a blatantly false allegation, and I can't imagine how it could be a good faith mistake. The civility is a concern, but I find nasty allegations of racism completely beyond acceptable behavior. 24 hours now seems quite short, especially considering the fact that the false allegations are continuing to be made. --] (]) 14:26, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
	So you're gonna block me are you? I've had it with you Barneca, go get a job, and help out your racist buddy boy.--] (]) 14:30, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
	* Blocked for 48 hours. Completely unacceptable. <b>]</b> 14:35, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
	:*Thank you, Black Kite, I was still hesitant to do it myself. I'm curious though, in your opinion, it would have been OK for me to have done the blocking, right? Otherwise, you just curse at all the admins and you're immune from blocking... --] (]) 14:39, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
	::* I think so. Obvious failure of NPA and CIV towards you isn't the same as blocking someone who you've been in conflict with over an article, especially when it's as blatant and public as that. <b>]</b> 14:41, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
	::Barneca, you showed remarkable patience and good judgment here. I would certainly have supported you blocking Hammerandclaw, and wa about to block him myself, but Black Kite got there first. ] 14:43, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
	:::*Off the record: You don't have to take that shit. On the record: You '''DON'T''' have to take that shit. Seriously, no one is going to overturn a block you give if someone attacks you personally. Once it degrades to what this guy did, you are completely free to block them yourself. You don't have to wait for another admin to notice. --].].] 14:44, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
	Replying to Tonywalton down here so it doesn't get lost; yes, it appears Nh.jg left specifically because of this: . I've left a note on his talk page and hope he chooses to return, and in retrospect, wish I'd noticed the racism allegation sooner. --] (]) 14:52, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
	::Well spotted! I'd missed that one. Well handled, Barneca. Agreed 100% with Jayron32, by the way. Once H&C came up with the slaggngs off and "nyah nyah you can't touch me" ''here'', of all places, where you are guaranteed to find admins, I was reaching for the block button myself but Black Kite beat me to it. <s>] (]) 17:44, 19 February 2008 (UTC)</s>]&nbsp;<sup>]</sup> 17:46, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
	Replying to everyone else: Thanks much for the advice. I ''thought'' I wasn't "in conflict", but doesn't hurt to check. --] (]) 14:52, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
	:I'd just like to note that I don't think the "legal threat" was intended as such, the phrase used "report you for harassment" can mean reporting to (for example) this noticeboard, rather than to the police. —] 16:54, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
	Hammerandclaw seems to me to be a new and unacculturated user. I don't think anything he has done is unreasonable, although it has tripped some wires here and I don't think that is unreasonable either. I ask for patience. He and I are engaged in a dialog and if I give up I'll let you know.
	I would like those who have blocked him to consider their reasons. In particular, the claim that he has made any kind of legal threat seems to me quite inexplicable. --] 17:30, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
	:As I stated on , I would not consider it wheel-warring if TS lifted my block on this user, provided he is convinced it would be appropriate to do so. I think there should be a consensus for such an unblock, but again, if TS is convinced, that satisfies ''me'', the current blocking admin. --] (]) 17:43, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
	:: Though as the original blocking admin, I will say that I believe the 48 hour ban should at least be served out. He certainly deserved that. <b>]</b> 18:49, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
	After fully disproving the racism allegation, and noting his response to, well, everyone, here and on his talk page, I was set to block for a week '''without''' considering the "legal threat" aspect, which I agree is probably a misread. I don't ask for, or want, any kind of apology, and I'm not trying to play some "look who's winning now" power game, but I'm just frankly opposed to an unblock until there is an apology to Nh.jg, whether or not he is under your tutelege. If that happens, I'm still slightly uncomfortable with, but would not oppose, an unblock after the original 48 hours is up. But really, shouldn't there be consequences to that kind of nteraction with other human beings? That "aw, come on, I'm sorry" thing he did after the second unblock request strikes me as nothing more than seeing if he can eek a little more fun out of us. --] (]) 17:38, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
	:Update: the user has now . Thoughts now? ] (]) 19:41, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
	::I guess when I demand someone apologize, I can't complain that it doesn't sound real. It doesn't, but whatever. Unfortunately, Nh.jg isn't around to accept it, but I guess, whatever again. There probably was never a legal threat, the mysterious broadband problem has cleared up right on time, so I'm grudgingly OK with a reduction back to the original 48 hours, although I will make a final note for the record that his unacceptable behavior has continued right up until 10 minutes before the apology. --] (]) 19:56, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
	:::Good block, unacceptable behavior by Hammerandclaw. If he's apologized, however perfunctorily, and an experienced Wikipedian (Tony Sidaway) is working with him, then I think letting the block run for 48 hours is the best approach. It should be abundantly clear that this editor has used up most of his allotted patience, and that a recurrence of these sort of issues will result in a longer or possibly indefinite block. ''']'''&nbsp;<sup>]</sup> 19:59, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
	::::Agreed, and I'd still love to hear the details (details, not "my f**** broadband won't process it", whatever that's supposed to mean) of the apparent problem that obliges an editor to delete things. Hammerandclaw, if what you meant was "I screwed up and deleted something by mistake" then an admission is fine. Assuming ], if there's a real problem with an ISP, browser or (unlikely as it seems) broadband provider then it should be reported as a bug. I'd also add that your comments here will probably have led to your subsequent behaviour, if the block is reduced, being quite extensively watched. ]&nbsp;<sup>]</sup> 20:10, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
	== Inflammatory behaviour ==
	User Cherso made these edits on Feb 17, 2008, in a timespan of 30 minutes. I find that these edits weren't made in good faith:<br>
	19:48, 17 February 2008, Cherso wrote: <br>
	'''Today (february 17, 2008) for the first time since WWII a piece of Yugoslavia breaks away from the Slav control!! KOSOVO IS INDEPENDENT ! I hope soon other parts of ex-Yugoslavia will follow....may be even my CHERSO, or Istria or Zara....who knows''" ??????? On his userpage. Inflammatory statement. Territorial expansionism.<br>
	20:11, 17 February 2008, Cherso wrote: <br>
	. "''Independence of Kosovo...... what a beautiful day for the non-slav (and even Italian) Irredentism!)''". ????? Comment on of the edit on the article Italia irredenta. Glorifying of irredentism ??? Non-Slav - what does this mean, that every cr*p is can be good unless it comes from Slavs?? Are we going to tolerate this? <br>
	20:24, 17 February 2008, Cherso wrote: <br>
	. "''! BTW, "Enjoy" the independence of Kosovo! Finally, the Slavs have lost some territories in ex-Yugoslavia since WWII and withdraw from Albanian Kosovo.....As you can see, the legacy of your Tito (with his ethnic cleansing) is starting to disappear..."''"??? On my talkpage. With this one he obviously tried to taunt me. That's inflammatory behaviour.<br>
	Am I wrong or he has bad attitudes towards Slavs? Please, make conclusions for yourselves what kinds of attitudes are these. From my experiences with him, this looks like anti-Slav attitude.<br>
	As you see, he gradually shows that ("...breaks away from Slav control... I hope other parts of ex-Yugoslavia will follow", "beautiful day for non-Slav irredentism", "finally, the Slavs have lost some territories????????????"). <br>
	These are heavily inflammatory edits and even worse. Something must be done. Sincerely, ] (]) 14:26, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
	: If you're opposed to people abusing their Misplaced Pages user pages to make divisive political statements that have nothing whatever to do with Misplaced Pages, then why does your own user page say "This user is against the joining of Croatia to the EU" ? -- ] | ] 14:30, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
	:: Because this is how nationalist conflicts work on Misplaced Pages. You continue to call the kettle black, hoping that someone will grab the bait and block the opposite party of the dispute. ] (]) 14:38, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
	::: My favorite is always when I end up having to block the original poster because they were the one initiating things. -- ] (]) 00:29, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
	== Legal threats at ] ==
	{{user5|71.254.249.21}} removed what appears to be sourced negative information about Kosovo's prime minister . The edit summary included a legal threat that implied that the IP is associated with Thaçi's office. I checked the sources, reverted, and left a talk page warning. Thought I should report it here since this is a contentious topic. // ] <sup>]•]</sup> 14:36, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
	:Good call. The IP has not re-asserted the legal threat since the warning, so a block MAY not be necessary at this point, but please keep an eye on it. If the problematic behavior continues after the warning has been given, let us know and we will escalate to the next step. --].].] 14:46, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
	== Hacking ==
	I'm not sure whether this is the right place for this. Someone seems to have added a non-existent page to my watchlist. How much else of the system is open to hacking? ] (]) 15:46, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
	:] is the right place to go. ] 15:52, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
	*You can save your time, though. Check the article histories; what probably happened was that an article on your list was moved to a new name (perhaps by a vandal) and then moved back, and the new name remains on your watchlist. --]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 15:58, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
	Do you mean I should check the history for every article on my list? Is that saving time? ] (]) 17:08, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
	:You don't have anything to worry about, this is just the result of pagemove vandalism. If you really want to find out, go to the history page and click "view logs for this page" to see if there was a bad move somewhere. ]
	== Let's ban Ln of x ==
	{{resolved|1= - was that so hard? We shouldn't have wasted so many bytes on a simple vandal. —] 20:55, 19 February 2008 (UTC)}}
	{{User|Ln of x}} is a particularly abusive sockpuppeteer. See ] and ]. The user has a long history of abuse stretching back more than six months. The user is continuing to set up sockpuppet accounts as recently as a few minutes ago, with {{User|Entershikarirules}} and {{User|Ilovepunk}}. The vandalism is always similar to , describing someone as cute and cuddly. I seriously doubt given the long history of abuse that any admin would unblock this user; as a result, they are defacto banned already. Let's make that official. --] (]) 16:50, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
	:What benefit is there to "make that official" besides bureaucracy for its own sake? The edits are pure vandalism, it's not like anyone's going to suggest not reverting them. —] 16:55, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
	:::A ban is virtually impossible to overturn, an indef block isn't. <span style="font-family: verdana;"> — ] • ] • </span> 17:10, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
	::We can add the user to the list of banned users, and add a ban notice to the user page. --] (]) 17:03, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
	*'''Support ban''' <span style="font-family: verdana;"> — ] • ] • </span> 17:10, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
	*I'm going to '''oppose''' this in principle as there is absolutely no reason to hold an in-depth community ban discussion for a blatant vandal. ], ], etc. —] 17:46, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
	**Incidentally, any listing for this "user" belongs on ], not ]. —] 19:06, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
	*Why on earth bother? Ln of X is a blatant vandal, nobody will ever unblock them. ] (]) 18:39, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
	*'''Strong support ban''' I have encountered this vandal multiple times before, have blocked several of their socks, and have been trolled by them at least once. They have caused nothing but disruption to Yamla, to various other users, and numerous articles. I think a ban is appropriate here. ] 20:11, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
	I'm putting a stop to this before we waste any more time on process for its own sake. —] 20:55, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
	Further explanation: A community ban is _defined_ as "no admin is willing to unblock" - the discussion/process stuff came later. By any reasonable definition, this "user" (if you can call him a user) is already banned. So, this whole exercise is pointless. We can revisit this if his status as being banned is ever disputed (but it's unlikely it will be). —] 20:58, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
	== Irony and ArbCom enforcement ==
	Can someone other than myself deal with this? As a result of AE report I placed {{user|Radical-Dreamer}} on a variety of editing restrictions per ]. As you can see , these restrictions included civility supervision. His first comment: , aimed at yours truly. I'm unwilling to block, due to the fact that the comment was directed at myself - can someone else please decide on appropriate action? ] <sup> ]</sup> 17:05, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
	: Well, the comment certainly was uncalled for, but I'm having a hard time distinguishing whether it's incivility, or just minor disgruntlement. He should certainly be warned about it, though, if he keeps it up, a block might be warranted. ]<sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub> 17:11, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
	:I think an accusation of abuse of admin tools is incivil, and someone on ArbCom civility parole ought to be more careful. Is WP:AE backed up, or should this report be directed there? ]] 17:14, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
	::It's certainly an assumption of bad faith. Read the terms of the civility supervision - you'll see those aren't permitted. ArbCom restrictions are supposed to be enforced fairly stringently. I brought this here, as opposed to AE, to get a fast response.. ] <sup> ]</sup> 17:20, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
	:::I'm inclined to give him a one-time pass to vent his frustration about being called on his disruptive editing, which he's ; and no more leniency from here on. But a block would certainly not be out of place, either, under the circumstances. The tactic of accusing an admin enforcing policy of being motivated by anti- bias says alot about the accuser, and it's ''really'' tired on this particular set of articles. ''']'''&nbsp;<sup>]</sup> 18:32, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
	::::Of course, it's not a "tactic" if the admin really does happen to be biased. (And I'm not talking about Moreschi, who I don't know from anything.) ] (]) 21:48, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
	:::::Ah. Then why are you commenting here? ''']'''&nbsp;<sup>]</sup> 01:27, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
	== Image on ] ==
	{{archive top}}
	Content issue. No admin action required. ] ] 20:09, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
	----
	The article for ] previously had an image (Image:Russian Birth Certificiate of Michael Lucas.JPG) of a Russian birth certificate. The image was deleted due to its improper licensing and subsequently removed from the birth certificate page, based on the fact that its fair use claims by the uploader ], who has a ] of adding inappropraite photos to Misplaced Pages, were invalid and that its use in ] was unnecessary and added very little valid information to the article's content. The uploader has reverted my removal of the image and added it back into the article. The uploader is adding this image for novelty purposes, as it allegedly depicts the birth certificate of a pornographic actor, although this is unverified, as is the claim that the document is a birth certificate at all. The image is not beneficial to the article at all, as there are very few Russian-readers who visit the Engligh-language article for ], and the remaining viewers will not understand the document's content. Furthermore, because the article has no section on Russian birth certificates, the image has no place on the article as there is no text in the article referring to Russian birth certificates. This further invalidates the user's claim that the image's use in the article is fair use. Please review this issue and advise at your earliest convenience. ] (]) 17:40, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
	:] doesn't need any kind of fair use justification. It is freely licensed under the ]. Have you tried using the talk page or contacting ] directly before bringing this here? --]♠] 17:49, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
	:Also, your choice of a link to show his "history" of adding inappropriate photos is odd. If I remember correctly, his photos were largely supported in that discussion. --]♠] 17:53, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
	Yes. The uploader was informed. The image was nominated for deletion, but all history of that issue has mysteriously erased itself from my contribution history. ] (]) 17:56, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
	:It looks like the image was speedied - but only because an identical version of the same image was available from commons, and not because of any fault in licensing or origin. ] <sup> ] </sup>~<small> ] </small> 17:58, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
	Regardless of the original reason for deletion, the main issue here is that the image does not currently contribute to the article at all. If David Shankbone has sufficient knowledge on Russian birth registration to add a section to the article, I welcome his addition. However, there are no sources to indicate that this image is actually that of a birth certificate. In my opinion, it looks more like a passport. Of course, I have no knowledge in this area, but this is simply my opinion. ] (]) 18:02, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
	:Soviet era paperwork of this type and age actually would be closer to a passport in design, depending on when and where it was issued. Your request to this noticeboard was for advice on the matter, and I have no evidence to suggest that the photo is anything other than what the uploader claims it to be. In this case, with regard to this image in and of itself, I don't see any issues. The inclusion of the image in a particular article is a content issue, but I note that free images (such as this one) are always preferred to non-free images. ] <sup> ] </sup>~<small> ] </small> 18:17, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
	: So let's get this right - someone uploads a picture of a Russian birth certificate, and despite having no knowledge whatsoever about the subject, you suggest that it might not even <i>be</i> a birth certificate? Wonderful. As for the photo itself, I'd say it adds to the article, especially as free photos of birth certificates are difficult to find. <b>]</b> 18:46, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
	=== ] and ] issues ===
	That's an interesting post by Rhythmnation. Not only did Rhythmnation about the reason for the removal of the photo, claiming it was a "deleted image", but also now questions whether the photo is a fake. Why is Rhythmnation here? Why are they not at the Talk page to discuss why a "Soviet birth certificate" does not belong on the ] article? What admin action, exactly, is an editor who removes sourced, cited content on an appropriate article by asking for? It seems pretty relevant for a global encyclopedia to mention in a sourced caption that the Soviets used to describe a Jewish person's nationality as "Jewish" and not "Soviet". But it's a content issue, not an admin issue. --<font color="#0000C0">David</font> ''']''' 18:05, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
	:Out of curiosity, did they label non-Jewish people as "Soviet"? "nationality" may not be the right translation if not. —] 18:10, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
	::Good question, although it might be more relevant to wonder if they named people "Catholic" "Lutheran" "Greek Orthodox" etc. for the nationality. Considering the Soviet state was officially atheist, I would assume that other religions weren't considered "nationalities" but I'm sure a little research will answer. The citation I have makes mention of the history of "Jewish" being seen as a race (when it's not, it's a religion and ethnicity) as a way to single out Jews for discrimination. --<font color="#0000C0">David</font> ''']''' 18:13, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
	:::I was actually speculating that it might have been intended to refer to the ethnicity, and that the field in question would be filled in with other ethnicities. Regardless, it's not clear that a caption describing this issue belongs above the fold in an article about ]s - ] might be a more appropriate place —] 18:18, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
	::::Sure, that could be, but a lot of photos are used multiple times. ] photo is on a lot of articles I never placed it on. My issue is with a content question being raised on the admin board - it muddies the water too much between content and policy/guideline enforcement. It's hard to argue that my placement of a birth certificate on the ] article is superfluous, and how many people today are willing to have their birth certificates photographed and released GFDL? Not many... --<font color="#0000C0">David</font> ''']''' 18:28, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
	:Rhythmnation2004 has a long history of taking issues to noticeboard well before an issue needs to be brought there. He also has issues with ] of articles, with this one in particular being one he feels attached to. ] (]) 18:22, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
	:: Indeed, my own encounters with this individual suggest he's a) time-waster (in regards to his contributions to those sorts of discussions) and b) forum-shopper - check out his recent waste of bandwidth "efforts" around Harry Potter. Similar waste of times are littered through his history. I see ''nothing'' here that requires any admin intervention or ''any'' evidence that all efforts to use normal dispute channels have been exhausted. Oh and I've asked him to remove the misleading "wikibreak" notice on his userpage (for full disclosure on my part). --] (]) 18:59, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
	{{Archive bottom}}
	=== ] and ]===
	This '''admin''' and I had an issue in ] awhile back, and now appears to be trolling pages (ones he never edited before) removing my work., , , . Then Nandesuka went on ] and ''again'' renamed the man a name that was never his. Lucas has made it clear on the Talk page that he was never given his father's name. There are sources that only refer to him as "Treivas". Then, to top it all off, I actually photographed his Soviet birth certificate, his Soviet passport, AND his US passport that ALL show his name is "Andrei Treivas". What more does this guy need to do to not have Misplaced Pages rename him simply because our "reliable" mainstream media wantonly assumed he was given his father's name when his mother never did so? The photos of these documents, at Lucas' request, are on his ] page - what more is this guy supposed to do? Force New York Magazine to write a new article with the correct name so Misplaced Pages will stop calling him a name he never had? I seriously doubt he is running away from his father's name--his father actually works for him at his porn company! '''Two issues''': Please advise the admin ] that his trolling my work and his poor editing that seem to be focused on me (); and two, can we finally put to rest the stupid 'Bregman' business considering three different forms of identification are photographed and provided on the man's talk page, all showing his birth name was "Andrei Treivas"? --<font color="#0000C0">David</font> ''']''' 18:05, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
	* Removing photos with an edit summary of "rv vanity" does seem to be assuming bad faith, especially when those photos do seem to be relevant to the subject. <b>]</b> 18:21, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
	: It seems incontestable to me that ] mandates that Misplaced Pages can't be a primary source for biographies of subjects about which Misplaced Pages is writing. I personally am more than willing to believe that Michael Lucas's birth name is not Bregman, and I'm personally willing to believe that the documents you photographed are authentic. What I'm ''not'' willing to do is to substitute ] for a ]. Like it or not, ''New York Magazine'' published this fellow's name as Bregman. All we need to do is to find ''one'' reliable, independently-published source that refers to him without that name, and then we can put the issue to bed by citing that source instead of ''New York Magazine''. Photos taken by Misplaced Pages editors don't seem to me to meet that (fairly low) bar. ] (]) 18:25, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
	:::We are not establishing the info with a photo, but with a birth certificate. The photo is merely the mechanism to reproduce that info. Are you really suggesting that a journalist is a more reliable source for someone's birth name than their birth certificate? <font face="Verdana">]]</font> 18:33, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
	::Couldn't this be a case for a (sometimes referred to as Adrei Treivas Bregman) notation? That would acknowledge the existence of another name in reliable sources while satisfying the BLP concern (the individual's name isn't actually that). Is there an OTRS ticket somewhere that refers to this? ] <sup> ] </sup>~<small> ] </small> 18:28, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
	::: That makes perfect sense to me. ] (]) 18:34, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
	:::: Has he actually been called "Adrei Treivas Bregman" anywhere other than this one piece from New York Magazine? <font face="Verdana">]]</font> 18:41, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
	:::Does it make a difference whether he sends a copy of his birth certificate to OTRS or has it uploaded locally? If anything, the latter is better for verification purposes... <font face="Verdana">]]</font> 18:30, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
	::::I was more asking if the subject had formally provided notice of the error, or if he had simply posted on the talk page claiming to be himself. Either way, the birth certificate is persuasive. ] would come into play if an editor drew conclusions from that document, but using it as a reference to say "'''Michael Lucas''', born Andrei Treivas, is..." in the lead. The birth certificate documents a birth, and that birth involves the name Andrei Treivas, so it could source a statement that an individual was born and, at birth, had a given name. ] <sup> ] </sup>~<small> ] </small> 18:55, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
	::::: I'm willing to accept that current practice has passed me by, but I will simply say that I don't believe this is a correct interpretation of our policy against original research. Misplaced Pages is, at its core, a tertiary sourced encyclopedia. Relying on photographs of things that purport to be primary documents, especially when there are reliable sources that claim otherwise, in the absence of OTRS action, goes against our best practices. ] (]) 19:23, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
	::::::That you so frequently edit war over issues where you don't understand policy (or common sense) really raises grave concerns about your status as an admin. That you are following me around with some kind of bone to pick with me also makes it questionable. At the very least, you are simply hurting your reputation; at the worst, you are hurting Misplaced Pages and affecting people's lives outside of it who consistently have to tell people that 'Bregman' was never their name (thus, again, hurting Misplaced Pages since it makes us look silly). I wish you would give more thought to your behavior, since admins are supposed to be examples for the rest of us, and you aren't setting a particularly good one with your behavior. --<font color="#0000C0">David</font> ''']''' 19:47, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
	::::::: Your inability to assume good faith is, in the end, your own problem. I will continue to edit diligently, regardless of your wish that your writing not be edited. Kind regards, ] (]) 20:15, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
	::::::::Nandesuka's a good admin, David. This seems to have boiled up over nothing, and it's a shame to see two good editors fall out over it, because you both have a point. Self-published sources are allowed to be used in articles about themselves, so if the subject puts his name on his blog, for example, we can source our article to it within reason. But Nandesuka's also right that we need to be careful about when we do this, just in case someone's trying it on with us. I'm not saying anyone is in this case, but that's probably Nandesuka's concern -- that, in general, this could be regarded as OR, so caution is required. <font color="Purple">]</font> <small><sup><font color="Blue">]</font><font color="Green">]</font></sup></small> 20:21, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
	* I have looked only into the Michael Lucas matter. I find Nandesuka's position there to be absurd. We have a copy of the subject's birth certificate - an official document that establishes his birthname. Nandesuak has instead replaced this information with information sourced from a piece from New York magazine - based on whatever research the journalist conducted. The subject has confirmed the latter is inaccurate and provided us with proof of this? To demand third party publishing of the correct name in this circumstance is absurd, contrary to ], against the interests of Misplaced Pages readers, and has the potential to make Misplaced Pages look fairly ridiculous. I am stunned that someone trusted by the community to exercise judgment could have done so in so poor a manner in this instance. <font face="Verdana">]]</font> 18:30, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
	** Agreed. "Absurd" is putting it mildly. We have WP:BLP for a reason. <b>]</b> 18:32, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
	** When you say "we have a copy of his birth certificate", do you mean "He has provided a copy of his birth certificate to ]" or do you mean "A Misplaced Pages editor has uploaded a photo of something purporting to be his birth certificate to a talk page?" If we mean the latter, I agree that the situation is absurd, but perhaps not quite in the way you intended. ] (]) 18:34, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
	***Are you really boiling this down to such a formality? Are you saying that if he sent a copy of his birth certificate to office (either a photocopy or photograph would I believe satisfy the OTRS respondent) that is somehow better than allowing that same copy to be uploaded locally where it can be looked at by anyone? <font face="Verdana">]]</font> 18:39, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
	*** I'm not sure what you're driving at. Are you suggesting that the birth certificate is fake, the photo is (brilliantly) PhotoShopped, or that the uploader managed to find a Russian birth certificate from someone born on the same day and with the same name? <b>]</b> 18:41, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
	**** I'm saying that the provenance of the document in the photo simply isn't verifiable. But see my response to SV below. ] (]) 18:43, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
	:*We do allow subjects to offer us sources regarding issues like that -- names, birth dates and so on. If the subject has written his name on his website or blog, that would be enough for us normally, even without a birth certificate. Self-published sources are allowed to be used in articles about that source. <font color="Purple">]</font> <small><sup><font color="Blue">]</font><font color="Green">]</font></sup></small> 18:38, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
	::* I'd always considered such things to be original research, but I'll take your word that I'm behind the times on this. Thanks for the correction. ] (]) 18:44, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
	:::'''And please stop following me around.''' Are you open to recall? (the same way you edit warred on ]), and some of your judgment that I outline above, and some of your edit summaries, are hardly what I would call admin behavior ]. --<font color="#0000C0">David</font> ''']''' 18:46, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
	:::: Thank you for your input. Have a nice day. ] (]) 18:48, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
	Outdent. Being familiar with the ] article and issues, I suggest that if a reliable source has stated that his name is something other than ''Andrei Treivas'' (apparently Lucas' birth name) that we simply note it and correctly state that it was mistakenly reported by __ as "Bregman" although he never was given his father's name. ]] 19:55, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
	::That's a good idea, to articulate that his father is Bregman, but that he was never given that name at birth. Good suggestion Benji. --<font color="#0000C0">David</font> ''']''' 20:05, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
	Surely the point here is that the birth certificate is the source? If it's an official government document, and anyone can walk into the appropriate office and pay for a copy, then it's both reliable and verifiable. Of course any online image or physical copy of it could be faked, but since we already accept offline-only sources that can't be an issue. On another topic, I'm confused about how a scan of a birth certificate can be released under the GFDL. Surely the scan shares its copyright status with the original, which presumably rests with the government in question. Are they releasing birth certificates under the GFDL? ] (]) 20:23, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
	:The alleged birth certificate in discussion is printed in the Russian language, using a Cyrillic alphabet. Who here is claiming expertise to read Russian, Bregman? The interview with New York Magazine was conducted with Andrei Treivas Bregman present and answering questions, was it not? The notion that one party in a court case used Misplaced Pages to identify the other side is preposterous. And none of this addresses the matter of Lucas being a prostitute, which was the real issue raised on Nandesuka's talk page and is well documented.--] (]) 22:01, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
	:Addendum: Shankbone and others reversed and contradicted themselves in removing the prostitute reference as Bregman wanted it removed, so as to whitewash and sanitize his bio. It's quite a different thing to say he was an escort than a prostitute. Escort ignores the sexual component of the trade, the actual prostitution where Bregman sold his body for money.--] (]) 22:05, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
	== Really ''really'' blatant POV pushing ==
	We have some ''really'' obvious POV pushing on ]. I am giving a heads-up that I am highly considering ] and breaking 3RR, seeing as a) the POV pushing is really obvious (see ]), b) this is being done by two obvious sockpuppets, c) the said editor has been blocked in the past. As I said, I am more worried about keeping Misplaced Pages pure, so if I get blocked, fine, then block away, but I'd rather ignore the rules and keep it correct. ] (]) 19:04, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
	:There is absolutely no rush. Those articles are on probation, its up at WP:AE, dont go overboard. ] (]) 19:13, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
	:Damn, he did it anyway. ] (]) 19:15, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
	::That's fine. I've never edited Palestinian/Israel-related, at least not significantly (that I remember). But I'll be straight with y'all, if we do anything other than call this ] by what it is, then I have no part in this encyclopedia. <removed by me>. ] (]) 19:19, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
	I would like to get information about the evil spartan for he/she is defaming palestinians and their homeland, by removing the information needed for the article. I did not defame or make any POV just the facts according to the references on the article itself.
	The map has nothing to do with the map of a state, it is a geographical map, and I did not alter the Israel map for example. However this person is altering freely the Palestinians article , because he says that a map of the middle east with out israel is offensive, (where did he got that info from) and how did he not figure out that removing the homeland map of the Palestinians is not offensive, and was he expecting that Palestinians should put the political map of Israel on their homeland map is not offencive to them.
	This is very insulting, especially that Palestinians outnumber jews of the world and the number of Isreali citizens!I demand immediate response to stop his vandalism and hiding behing unreachable name to be contacted!] (]) 19:21, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
	: I've blocked {{User|Adnanmuf}}, and ''not'' The Evil Spartan, for blatant POV-pushing and edit warring. ] if that makes me an evil admin. ] ] 19:24, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
	::No it doesn't at all, but as Guy says further up on this page, we should be worried about crusaders. ] (]) 19:34, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
	: And I've reverted to the previous revision. Obvious POV edits and a the MOS mess he was making. — ] ] 19:29, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
	==Twinkle being used to incorrectly re-nominate article for deletion over previous closed discussion==
	I just noticed the following:
	*
	As you can see, this new AfD is written right over an older already closed AfD, i.e. instead of creating a new discussion as ]. I'm not sure if it should just be reverted back to the closed version and a note left to the nominator that he has to start a new page or how we handle these sorts of things. Sincerely, --<font face="Times New Roman">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 20:09, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
	:Yea, I would recommend reverting and leaving a detailed note with the nominator about how to nominate an article for the second time. Just remember to ]. ] <sup>]</sup> 20:14, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
	:I nominated this as every fiction has a sidekick, plus I feel that the list is too indiscriminate and will never be completed otherwise it will become cluttered. ] (]) 20:19, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
	::It's not that you nominated the article, it is that it is not properly done. We do not write new nominations over old nominations. You have to create a new page with (3rd nomination) in the title. You should create that page, move all the comments from DGG, Colonel Warden, etc. to the new page and then revert the current page back to the closed version. Again, the AfD was not properly formatted, which could just be a problem with Twinkle. Sincerely, --<font face="Times New Roman">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 20:24, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
	I've copied the discussion-to-date (with reference to the source in the edit history) to a new 3rd-nomination page, reverted the 2nd nomination page to the prior discussion, and corrected the transclusion link on the current day's log. I ''think'' that puts things right for this to go forward. - ] (]) 20:50, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
	This is a bug in Twinkle. I've previously reported it, see ]. ] (]) 20:53, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
	'''Wait'''. Am I missing something here? This article was deleted by consensus after its ''second nomination''. (]). The article ]then shows up again, by a spa, a few days ago without any of the history, meaning a copy paste from an off-wiki site most likely, (according to my magic admin screens, 553 deleted edits are not visible - doesn't that constitute a GFDL violation??) This should be speedy deleted as recreation of deleted material after discussion at AfD (G4). Anyone object to a G4 deletion? ] | ] | ] 20:58, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
	:Yea that would be a GFDL violation and shouldve been a db-repost. If this AfD somehow resolves as a keep, we'll need to do a history merge to resolve the GFDL issues. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 21:03, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
	::Given it was created with "List of sidekicks PDF Print E-mail" as part of the article, it is very likely a copy/paste from elsewhere. I'd agree with a G4 speedy. Even putting aside the GFDL violation, this should have gone to Deletion Review first. ]] 21:09, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
	== User:Taulant23, incivility ==
	Pls take a look , is the reason the barnstar was given tolerable? ] (]) 20:19, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
	:Just found out ] is already on civility parole... ] (]) 20:54, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
	== User:Hollis01, spamming and advertising ==
	Not sure the right procedure here. http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Special:Contributions&limit=500&target=Hollis01 shows basically all spam/advertising. I've cleaned up the current mess as seems right to me. But note on his talk page that there is a history of recreating rapidly deleted articles, etc. DTRT.
	] (]) 21:21, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
	==Latha P Nair==
	{{User|Latha P Nair}} has been adding a link to ] into dozens of articles on application software and technologies. In many cases, the link seems of questionable relevance, since the comparison deals only with current office suites. For example, the addition of the link to the article on the long-defunct ] doesn't seem helpful, nor does it seem useful in ]. The editor is not responsive to concerns raised on their talk page, and has re-added the links after their removal in some cases.
	This is a relatively minor matter, so would I be overreacting if I issue a block for say 24 hours to try to force the user to discuss their edits? What other options are available when the editor does not respond to talk page queries?-<font face="cursive" color="#808080">]</font> 22:24, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
	==]==
	Page has been hacked to add gross NSFW and racist imagery in that I cannot seem to edit out even after going manually into the history to revert (image tags do not show up in page edit mode). This needs an emergency deletion and restore to rectify. <font face="Myriad Web">''']''' <span style="color:dark blue">•</span> <small>''(])''</small></font> 22:30, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
	:No it doesn't! {{tl|YouTube}}, which is used on this and many other articles, had been vandalised, but has been fixed before I looked at this. I've fully protected the template as a result. ]] 22:34, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
	::Thank you for the quick fix, I didn't know exactly what was causing the problem. I didn't think of one of the templates being the cause of it. <font face="Myriad Web">''']''' <span style="color:dark blue">•</span> <small>''(])''</small></font> 22:38, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
	:::Hint: if you can't find what's causing it, it's '''always''' a template. —] 00:26, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
	::::After three years here, you can always learn something new in your editing travels :). I just never ran into something like this before so you could call my reaction sort of a 'panic report'. I knew it had to be in the wiki-coding, but I just couldn't place it in my view of the pagesource where it came from. Thanks for the advice and keeping me level! <font face="Myriad Web">''']''' <span style="color:dark blue">•</span> <small>''(])''</small></font> 01:36, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
	== ] and verifiability ''and rules violation'' ==
	We have a peculiar case here of a red-link user who started on the 17th and seems to know his way around wikipedia very well. Of course, he could have edited under an IP address for a year. But his approach seems oddly familiar. Be that as it may, his edits, confined to TAOS and ] so far are based on the peculiar notion that a published book is not a verifiable source. Specifically, he's saying that he can delete any opinion given by author Gary Grossman on the grounds that "he's biased and is trying to sell books". According to this user's theory, no published book (or website, presumably) about a subject is a usable source. Taking that to the extreme, that would clobber most of wikipedia. In talking with an admin about this, he pointed out that a blanket accusation that an author is biased is a very serious charge and could get someone in big trouble. What's up with this? ] <sup>'']''</sup> 22:25, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
	:And just so we're clear, I'm not arguing about specific POV complaints (like uncited claims by editors which find their way into articles), I'm arguing about his assertion that the author of a book can't be cited for his analysis and conclusions about the topic he's writing about. ] <sup>'']''</sup> 22:35, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
	::I've encountered the same user and share Baseball Bugs' concerns. User:] 22:51,&nbsp;],&nbsp;200]
	The red-link user lifted the ] directly from a wikipedi-banned website called tvrage. That's funny, considering he was lecturing me on copyright violation for quoting the series spoken intro. Something is fishy here. ] <sup>'']''</sup> 00:00, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
	:Again, I've noticed similar: he removed external links, saying ''"WikiP doesn't cite TV.com and IMDb as External links"''. But , he added links to those same pages as references in another article. Also, most users don't know about the concept of ] on their third day of editing. User:] 00:20,&nbsp;],&nbsp;200]
	::Now that I've turned him in here, and notified him about it, he's hurriedly paraphrasing the descriptions. I advised him that I will be preparing a suspected sockpuppet report, on the grounds that he knows way too much about wikipedia for a guy who just started 2 days ago and immediately started in on revamping the ''Superman'' and ''Gidget'' articles. ] <sup>'']''</sup> 00:23, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
	:::Rather than reacting indignantly at being notified, he reacted with another comment that seems a newbie would be unlikely to make. ] <sup>'']''</sup> 00:52, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
	::::And copping a flippant and un-newbie like attitude when I asked him to explain himself. ] <sup>'']''</sup> 01:03, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
	== White Cat ==
	ANI regular ] is at it again. In keeping with his regular pattern of overreaction when confronted with editors who disagree with him (compounded in this case by the high emotional drama and general juvenalia of the ongoing episodes debate), ] is "assembling evidence" to "prove" the meatpuppetry of another editor. I think it's a vicious smear, but admin attention would be appreciated, especially since making this kind of very public accusation at arbcom is inappropriate. Relevant link is ] and ]. Of course, I may be wrong that making sock/meat accusations against other editors at an unrelated arbcom case is not problematic. ] (]) 22:31, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
	:Uh, it's at ArbCom. I think we'll just have to let them deal with this trash. I'm pretty sure they can see this for what it is. --] (]) 22:48, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
	*Agree with Eusebeus that this appears very inappropriate and that this aggressive behaviour is also typical for White Cat. Incidentally, I had regarding the same issue, to little response. User:] 22:50,&nbsp;],&nbsp;200]
	== Vandalism to ] ==
	Someone is using template transclusion to vandalize ], as you will see the second you click the wikilink. I caught ] doing this and reverted and warned him, but it appears he has help. Administrator assistance is requested. --] 22:39, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
	:Related to Higher vandalism I reported above...I've reported him to ]. <font face="Myriad Web">''']''' <span style="color:dark blue">•</span> <small>''(])''</small></font> 22:44, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
	::Yes, but he had assistance from ]. Sockpuppet, probably. Anyway, this has been solved for now. --] 22:46, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
	:::Blocked that one too. There's definitely some socking going on here... --] (]) 22:50, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
	::Blocked. Related to ]'s vandalism on ] yesterday? --] (]) 22:48, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
	::Why should we "obey" this . Because Mr. ] is a ] that has ruled ] for 5 decades with an iron fist. Misplaced Pages is just '''honoring''' Castro the same way it has an article on ]. People proably Vandalize the article of Castro because they are againist his dictaorship he has held since the 1950s. I support these people because they fight for freedom, the right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. Asking us to "repect" the article, is saying to "respect" ] and the ]. I have the right to free speech by the Founding Fathers of the ]. Misplaced Pages cannot censor me. Its a violation of the First Ammendent. ] (]) 22:54, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
	:::This is a private website, and we are neutral; that means that we neither support nor oppose these people or their actions in their respective articles. You have no right to free speech here. Get used to it. --] 23:00, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
	::::See ]. It gives a good explanation of why you have no right to free speech over here. The article about Castro is supposed to be written neutrally, meaning that a person who will read it will not be influenced positively or negatively about Castro-they'll form their own opinion. Having access to unbiased information is one of the best things about democracy. ] (]-]) 23:14, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
	:::: The vandalism was to a template: ] which effects potentially hundreds of Misplaced Pages articles. It just happened that the ] article was the most visible. ] (]) 22:57, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
	:::It was probably less to do with Castro's politics than someone obtaining lulz from getting large, floating, difficult to remove pictures of wangs on as many WP articles as possible. It's not a new idea by any means... --] (]) 23:04, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
	:::Ridiculous, Rio de oro. Exactly how does adding a penis template to an article constitute fighting for freedom? ] (]) 23:20, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
	::::My toughts exactly, our goal here is to present a neutral biography, not push our own pov because we disagree with the actions of a certain politician. - ] 23:26, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
	::::Well you guys techinally wrong, the servers are in the USA. So its USA law. Get it right you Cubans. --] (]) 00:05, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
	:::::Two things, number one I'm not Cuban and I hold no particular POV over the country's political status, and two your last comment can be considered a personal attack, I recommend that you stop your pov-pushing and political trolling before you get blocked for personal attacks. - ] 00:22, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
	::::::It doesn't matter where the servers are, the US constitution says that congress shall not pass laws that restrict the right to free speech; it says nothing about private websites like Misplaced Pages. Get it right you ]. --] 00:38, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
	== Shock templates ==
	{{resolved|User indef blocked}}
	{{Vandal|Ruddigger}} has been inserting shock images into common templates (such as ], .) Anyone willing to block without warning? This is a fairly serious form of disruption, and should not be tolerated at all, since the vandalism affected a huge number of pages. ] (]) 22:49, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
	: Nevermind: . ] (])
	::] would probably be the fastest way to stop this next time. ] 00:31, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
	== Kosovo after independence ==
	Could we agree to semi-protect all articles on Kosovo's cities for a couple of days (or a few hours, at least) ? Compare the edit histories of all cities (]) with that of ], which I semi-protected some three hours ago. There's little more than sterile nationalistic edit-warring. - Best regards, ] (]) 00:06, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
	PS: I'll take advantage of this opportunity to mention the existence of a shared watchlist for Kosovo-related articles, ]. - ] (]) 00:13, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
	:I dont think so, protection shouldnt be used pre-emptively. That said, if any specific articles need it then we should consider only on the basis of what is happening at that article, not what is happening in the world. Just my two cents.<span style="white-space:nowrap">] <sup>''] ♦ ]''</sup></span> 00:14, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
	== Need to reopen Archtransit's sock cases and other actions ==
	Archtransit's short career as a sysop included killing a number of suspected sock reports. In at least ] he deemed a SSP "counterproductive" which another admin later closed as an obvious sock.
	; Suspected sock closes to be reopened
	* <s>]</s> <small> reclosed - <font face="Broadway">]'']</font>'' 01:35, 20 February 2008 (UTC)</small>
	* <s>]</s> <small>reclosed - <font face="Broadway">]'']</font>'' 01:22, 20 February 2008 (UTC)</small>
	* <s>]</s> <small>reclosed - <font face="Broadway">]'']</font>'' 01:14, 20 February 2008 (UTC)</small>
	* <s>]</s> <small>reclosed - <font face="Broadway">]'']</font>'' 01:09, 20 February 2008 (UTC)</small>
	Note this does not presume a different conclusion will be met. It is merely appropriate cleanup after the actions of the user in question. Whoever reviews the last of these four, please note there is evidence examined by Arbcom that suggests at least one of the comments made to it was influenced by Archtransit, and therefore ''all comments should be set aside'' in re-evaluating the case.
	; Other actions
	I have reopened the above sock closes; someone else needs to review his ANI and other project space actions since January 9 - 10, when his RFA passed and he ceased being scrutinized by the community.
	Can a note be posted below when this is done, and any dubious matters noted and reopened or fixed?
	]&nbsp;<sup><span style="font-style:italic">(]&nbsp;|&nbsp;])</span></sup> 00:18, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
	:<s>{{doing}}</s>] <sup>]</sup> 00:32, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
	::{{done}}, all looks okay, as there really is not much project space contributions during that period of time. There are two AfD's that where closed by him during that time though, those being ] (which had a clear consensus), and ] (which had a somewhat clear consensus). I do not see the need to re-open them though. ] <sup>]</sup> 00:45, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
	New concern, {{user|Congolese fufu}} supported the ] FAC. I just realized s/he was involved somehow in all those blocks. ] (]) 00:36, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
	:Its looking strongly like Congolese fufu was a sockpuppet of Archtransit. Investigating further, I noticed that one of the accounts in ] identified as a sock of Congolese fufu, {{User|Wikipeace2008}}'s edits bore a similarity to {{user|Fairchoice}}. ] has confirmed that Wikipeace2008 is a match for Archtransit so it would appear all the accounts confirmed as socks by Alison in that check were also Archtransit. <font face="Verdana">]]</font> 00:58, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
	::Also take a look at this: ], and then edit made by {{user|Fairchoice}}. After {{user|Jehochman}} blocked {{user|profg}}, Archtransit blocked Jehochman. ] <sup>]</sup> 01:08, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
	:::Ah -- I've been looking at {{user3|Congolese fufu}} for a while as a possible {{user3|Dereks1x}} sock. He has been found to use socks; it doesn't surprise me to learn that he was involved in these blocks done by Archtransit who appears to be a Dereks1x sock. Easy enough to connect the dots - also please note that a confirmed Dereks1x sock is named {{User3|Peace2008}} and one of C.f.'s confirmed socks was named {{User3|Wikipeace2008}}. Further evidence tieing the two sockfarms together. <strong>] </strong>|<small>]</small> 01:15, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
	::::Looks like we need to start reviewing all of their contributions.....*sigh* ] <sup>]</sup> 01:21, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
			'']'' 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.
	Can someone point me at a list or a category that summarizes all of these? I need to go through a lot of contribs and old FACs. ] (]) 01:22, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
	:SandyGeorgia, the list of socks identified so far can be found at ] and ]. Should the two groups be merged under the Dereks1x moniker since Dereks1x is the older of the accounts? --] <sup>]</sup> 01:30, 20 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
	== Please review block ==
			: ''Reportedly, Liddy was on board until he got to the part where Beeks .''
			Reportedly ''by whom'' is not mentioned, let alone is there a direct quotation from Liddy. Plus as can be seen the words "becomes a gorilla's mate" are linked to a very poor quality, hand-held video of the scene in question playing on a television. This alone should be enough to raise serious questions about the use of this "source" in a featured article.
			The content dispute began when I changed it like this () with the comment ''Don't mince words; the interaction between Beeks and the gorilla is rape played for laughs'':
	I blocked ] for an inappropriate user name. Please let me know if I was over zealous.]]] 01:11, 20 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.}}
	:Looks straightforwards and correct to me. The use of l33tsp33k to try and avoid our username restrictions is a non-starter... ] (]) 01:13, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
	:Agree. Looking at his few contributions, looks like a joker but is not prevented from contributing useful content under another username. --''']''' (]) 01:17, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
	::OK. ] (]) 01:19, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
	:::All is well here. ] <sup>]</sup> 01:23, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
			This was reverted () by {{u|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.()
	Hi all. After the recent kerfuffle over the ] case, I took a closer look at ] to see if any further sock-puppetry could be seen from some of the ] which voted there. It has already been proven by checkuser that ] has voted no less than four times there. Unfortunately, I found another account which I initially suspected was connected with someone else.
			{{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;...}}
	Given that it was obvious that the account was also set up to make the minimum threshold for franchise and little else, I ran a checkuser on the account, per ]. This was the result;
			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''
	: {{confirmed}} - the following:
			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.''
	:#{{Userlinks|Sweetfirsttouch}}
	:#{{Userlinks|La voz de su amo}}
	:#{{Userlinks|Vintagekits}}
			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.
	As checkuser cases go, this was pretty straightforward and was a direct hit. The account ] was actually used to troll on ]-related articles, adding information about ]. This account created an article that ] eventually got into trouble over when he blocked ]. Trolling and votestacking on ArbCom elections.
			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''.
	The account, ] was actually used during the ArbCom case when Vintagekits was indefinitely blocked to evade the indef block placed on his account at the time. It was created two days after his indefinite block.
			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 ]''
	] was blocked indefinitely by myself last year in a turn of events that ultimately led to the ] ArbCom case, in which Vintagekits was unblocked and put on probation.
			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 .
	Placing this here for community input as this is bound to be controversial - ] <sup>]</sup> 01:18, 20 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)
	::Not controversial in the slightest, to me. If we're going to be even handed, block evasion is block evasion. It's obvious that VK snookered us all. I am blocking all three accounts per the ArbCom case. ] (]) 01:20, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
			:Hrrm, this seems a bit excessive.
	:::All three accounts now blocked. ] (]) 01:25, 20 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.
			:*The first summary was, as stated, "Don't mince words; the interaction between Beeks and the gorilla is rape played for laughs". "Rape played for laughs" is a loaded comment and not something said in the article or the source text, so it's a personal opinion, it's not neutral, it's agenda-driven.
			:*When this was reverted, the editor just removed the content entirely claiming IndieWire was unreliable. There is, as far as I'm aware, nothing wrong with Indiewire. I've since found a second source, the Telegraph, which is reliable per ].
			:*The editor ignored WP: BRD when raised, and as an admin they should adhere to policy.
			:*The editor states that they are an admin on their page. Assuming this is true, the aggressiveness of their edits, hyper focus on the single area, and use of words like "crap listicle" seemed out of line with what I, personally, would expect from an admin on Misplaced Pages, certainly someone who has been so for nearly two decades. Perhaps the edit summary wasn't the place to have that discussion but, as stated, they weren't adhering to WP: BRD to start a discussion, and in the interim the article needed putting back to the status quo.
			:*I find accusations of OWNERSHIP often tend to come when people don't get their way. Which is fine. I have plenty of reversions on the page for people adding unsourced content and there are plenty of changes as well. I find someone removing sourced content and me putting the sourced content back to not ''really'' be something you can fling ownership at.
			:*Within the context of the film, Beeks does become the romantic partner of the gorilla, it seemed more appropriate and encylcopedic text than just saying 'rape', and neither source I've added says that either.
			:*Anyways, my edit history shows I'm a massive contributor and helper and it's nearly Xmas, and I don't feel like engaging with this any further, good luck Hex. ] (]) 20:27, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			::Of course you don't, having ignored the actual matter of your conduct that I'm raising here. Your comments about the content of the article are irrelevant. &nbsp;— ] <span style="color:#900">•</span> ] 20:43, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			*Hex's position is not wholly supported, although in the entire issue, their toolset is irrelevant. There was no incivility on either part, and an all-out edit war seems to have been averted.{{pb}}Fundamentally the change Hex wanted to make was pure OR; rape may have been intimated—or, as Hex themself admits, implied—but its never overtly stated and is a wholly loaded term. This is the interpretation of an editor, not of secondary sources. If there is a pron=blem with Indywire as a source—currently used in —take it to WP:RSN. If it's disputed that it's a high quality source per WP:FA?, then take it to WT:FAC. Accusations of OWNership are as unhelpful—and as much an aspersion—as accusations of agenda-led editing. In fact, for OWNership, Hex should read the relevant policy: here, it is WP:FAOWN, which not only allows for careful stewardship of featured material, but requires significant changes to the consensus version to be discussed on talk; I don't suppose there's any suggestion that introducing rape—particularly "played for laughs"—wouldn't be a significant addition.{{pb}}Really though, this is an overblown content dispute which should have started with ''one revert'' each, and ended on the talk page. --]'']''] 21:10, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:"Never overtly stated... 'played for laughs' be a significant addition" - with John Landis, the director. {{talk quote|One of the executives was deeply appalled by a man being sexually molested by a gorilla. And I said you know, it's a joke and it goes by very quickly. But the first preview was very successful and it all went away. ''''}}
			*:Feel 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)

---

Latest revision as of 00:00, 24 December 2024

Noticeboard for reporting incidents to administrators

v t e Noticeboards
Misplaced Pages's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles and content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Misplaced Pages noticeboards

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents Shortcuts

• WP:ANI
• WP:AN/I

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

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

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

---

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

Start a new discussion Centralized discussion

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

Noticeboard archives

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

Globallycz

This problem was over a few days ago. There's no point in keeping it open.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:42, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

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

---

This user has been on disruptive edits and bad faith reviews. I as an bystander can't help with these edits as this user used only mobile phone edits to edit he please and his edit summaries was rather harsh and accusing editors of bad faith. He only joined Misplaced Pages for three months, and this is rather concerning for the accord. Please investigate. 122.11.212.156 (talk) 04:56, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Have you looked at majority of my edits? Or are you basing your views here of me based on narrow baised view. I offered mg reason for reverting your edits which removed the age content without explanation. You failed to respond adequately and now instead of addressinfmg my feedback on good faith, you dropped a baseless accusation without any proper qualification. Stop nitpciking editors jus because we are a few months. That is irrelevant. And dont abuse the words "good faith". Cite specific examples where there is a basis. Otherwise, i am sorry. It will be disregarded. Globallycz (talk) 05:10, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

It is your majority of edits, and two, Your talk page also shows it and so was edit summaries, and you felt like you want to confront readers. 122.11.212.156 (talk) 05:17, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

The talk page represented a small percentage of all my edits. Have you considered whether these few editors were reasonable or unreasonable when they brought issues to talk page. Sadly, most were behaving unreasonably or without basis. Some are somewhat like your case; no explanation was given to remove content. I suggest you put away personal feelings. I offered my reason(s) for reverting your edits which primarily removed the age content without any explanation. Again please do not nitpick editors just because they are a few months. That is irrelevant. Quality of edit matters more. Again, i will not defend myself further. I just hope Adnin will be fair and look at the issue broadly and openly. Admin: If this particularly editor using the IP address as his user id continue to edits or remove content without adequate reasons or source, i will try to put them right again. Globallycz (talk) 05:29, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

IP, as the notice at the top of the page says, "please provide links and diffs here to involved pages". Globallycz has made more than 1500 edits in the last few months and we're not going to shift through them all trying to guess which edits you might think are a problem. Give us some examples. See H:DIFF if you don't know how to make a diff. Meters (talk) 05:46, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Well, here it is one of them, and even accused that one of irrational behavior. I am not. here 122.11.212.156 (talk) 06:36, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

That's the best you can come up with? Globallycz's edit summary is uncivil, as is your retaliatory edit summary where you used the same term in reference to Globallycz. You might want to read WP:POTKETTLE. The disputed content is simply a matter of a difference of wording, which neither of you has attempted to discuss on the talk page. In general I prefer your wording, but it has some minor grammar and punctuation errors that need correcting, and you introduce the error "0Viet" as part of a reference elsewhere. The more important thing is that both of you are edit warring over this material. You have both broken WP:3RR. Meters (talk) 06:58, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

I just like to highlight that the disputed content was not just a matter of wording. Please review carefully. I dont think i was being rude nor uncivil. The person accusing me of this and that has used strong words like asking me to get a life and daring me this and tbat. On my part, i only insisted that all WP edits should be properly justified. Suggest you reviewed the edits again.

i dont wish to add to your burden unless necessary. The irony is that he had earlier removed the space between a full stop and two references along with other age content on the WP describibg serious crimes in Singapore between 2020 and 2024. When i did the same thing to remove the space between full stop and reference, he undid it. That is not rational. Being civil means respecting others by following basic rules like justifying each edit reasonably. I dont see him doing that. You wont hear from me anymore. Globallycz (talk) 07:23, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm assuming that the related edits in the 122.11.212 range are yours too. Meters (talk) 07:09, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

• You have both broken WP:3RR - Indeed they have, and thus they've both been blocked. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:37, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

  Frankly if you admin people are more informed or less lazy, you will check the edits by IP user 122.11.212.156 and notice most of his edit were reverted by others due to vandalism or unsubstantiated edits. This is partly why I.dont have any kind of respect to the check and balance system in WP. Globallycz (talk) 10:36, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

  I'm not seeing "most" of the IP's edits being reverted as vandalism. In fact, you're the only person I'm seeing reverting them. Also, lashing out at the admins as lazy is not a good look. — The Hand That Feeds You: 16:48, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

  Well, that is not honest. If you are unhappy with being labelled as lazy and deny several reverting of past edits of IP user 122.11.212.156 by other editors, that is not being objective. I cant do anything if you deny them. I only reverted 2 of this edits which involved removals of content without reasons. Your response is the reason I dont have respect for the work Adminstrator do. Globallycz (talk) 17:31, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

  Globallycz, nobody said you're obligated to "respect the work admins do", however you do have to abide by WP:CIV and WP:NPA, which are policies (in fact, one of the five pillars), and not some optional motto or decorative set of words. Calling people "irrational" or "lazy" is uncivil, and as an uninvolved observer I would suggest you stop. NewBorders (talk) 14:35, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

  It is called criticism and not an attack. WP Administrator needs to do a better job when carrying out arbitration of complaints or disputes. I am fine with being blocked one day for breaking the 3RR rule but Admin should look deeper into the IP user 122.11.212.156's track record. He got off too lightly.

  Sorry, i disagree that using the words lazy and irrational is deemed uncivil. It is not personal. It is my general observation from this episode. If Admin does a bad job, are we suppose to pretentiously thank or praise them? I can easily cite examples to support my claim about IP user 122.11.212.156 unconstructive edits. I just couldnt understand why Admin let the user off so easily.

  Of course, I am not obligated to respect the work Admin does. Nobody needs to tell me that. Globallycz (talk) 16:15, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

  Just giving you advice here, in line with what multiple different people have already told you.

  Though if you choose not to hear it and dig your hole deeper instead, that's of course your prerogative. I will now disengage, good luck. NewBorders (talk) 16:57, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

  Globallycz, it's interesting that you think the IP "got off too lightly"" seeing as how you were both given identical blocks for edit warring with each other. If that's the case then it appears that you also got off too lightly.

  Stating that you prefer a block to discussing the contested edits, and doubling down on your incivility/personal attacks does not bode well for you. WP:DROPTHESTICK before EducatedRedneck's following call for an indef is accepted. Meters (talk) 22:59, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

  I have repeatedly highlighted to look into the track record of IP user 122.11.212.156. But it seems none of you wish to do so and cant bother to look deeper and beyond just the single snap shot on his edit warring with me over WP on serious crimes in Singapore 2020 onwards. Please do not misinterpret what I said. I am fine with the 24 hours block over the edit warribg incident but 122.11.212.156 has a history of unconstructive edits that were reverted by others. 122.11.212.156 knowingly edited the disputed WP without citing any reasons and still has the audacity to complain about me. His or her action are done to disrupt others. Just check his contributions in the past and you will notice many others were reverted either manually or using undone function. On that basis, he got off too lightly. Well, if Admin refused to check the IP user track record, I cant do anything but label it as lazy. My comments are nothing personal but directed at the actions. Even my comment that 122.11.212.156 is irrational was directed at his or her actions. I dont even know any of you. Why would I be personal? I am just voicing my unhappiness with the way dispute are decided here by Admin which I feel are sometimes too superficially done and decided. I would sign off here on this topic too. Globallycz (talk) 05:22, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

  I looked at the contributions of 122.11.212.156 and I don't see anything like the record you are describing. That IP has made a total of 14 edits in the past year, all in the last 2 months, of which only six have been to article space. Five of those edits to article space have been reverted, and all of those reversions were done by you; no reversions have been done by any other editor. It's not very meaningful to look at edits further back than a year since it's likely the IP address was reassigned so the old edits may not have done by the same editor. But even looking back at the older edits, there were a total of 15 edits from this IP before 2024, of which 5 were reverted. This all hardly shows a pattern of widespread disruptive edits or "many" reversions.I also looked at the edits to List of major crimes in Singapore (2020–present) that Globallycz is so worked up about and is calling disruption. They are very minor, basically the argument is just about whether to include the ages of some people involved in a crime. Ironically, 122.11.212.156's last edit was to restore Globallycz's preferred version, yet Globallycz still can't let this drop and continues to call for sanctions. Given their uncollaborative and uncivil comments here and elsewhere, I would support an indef, or at least fairly lengthy block, especially since they have repeatedly indicated that they are ready to accept a 24 hour block as a price they're willing to pay in order to get their way. CodeTalker (talk) 07:15, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

  You are not being reasonable and fair

  (1) when you discount the explanation I gave to revert the two edit(s) by 122.11.212.156 pertaining to removal of age content . I had repeatedly asked 122.11.212.156 to explain the age content removal but it was never given. I justified the reversion of his edit by explaining that the sources listed the age of the suspect and victim along with their names.

  (2) when you did not considered that the multiple reversions in 2024 were pertaining to the same WP and same disputed content while those earlier were of different WPs and content. I quote 3 WPs below which had edit by 122.11.212.156 reverted by other editors. Reason given by those who reverted the edits are quoted below too.

  1. WP Osmanthus fragrans:

  Date: Jul 2022

  Undid revision 1100529442 by 122.11.212.156 (talk)-repeated disruptive edits

  2. WP Mass Rapid Transit (Singapore)

  Date: 1 Nov 2021

  Undid revision 1053014105 by 122.11.212.156 (talk) unexplained removal of material and change of references

  3. WP Wunmi Mosaku

  Date: 17 Sep 2021

  Reverting edit(s) by 122.11.212.156 (talk) to rev. 1045008960 by 42.188.141.191: unsourced BLP birth date 

  In your eagerness to see that I am banned indefinitely, you have conveniently claimed it is not meaningful to look at edits beyond one year since IP may be reassigned and past edits may be done by a different person. This is so convenient since there is no need to provide proof.

  I can also conveniently claim that there are different people manning the IP address and their common objective is to disrupt WP edits. Likewise, I dont have to prove what i say too and there is no way for you to disprove this possibility too.

  He decided to undo the reversion after knowing he has beem exposed for irrational behavior. I have explained why he was irrational. And I dont wish to repeat here again. If none of you wish to take that into account, I cant do anything. Please be objective. Globallycz (talk) 13:51, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

  By the way, I have just looked at the edit by IP user 122.11.212.156 in Oct 2024 pertaining to WP Jurong Group Representative Constituency. The content introduced by IP user 122.11.212.156 was illogical and unsupported by any source. As such I have reverted them. Globallycz (talk) 16:39, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

  Just to add, if we just look at 2024 contributions of IP user 122.11.212.233 involving 7 edits of mainly same content on just 2 WPs (Major Crimes in Singapore 2020 - Present and Jurong GRC), it is hardly representative of the disruptive behavior. A telltale sign that he is possibly from the same person was the evidence that in Nov 2021, he edited WP page related to Singapore MRT and in 2024, his edits were also pertaining to Singapore related WPs on major crimes in Singapore and Jurong GRC. Globallycz (talk) 01:37, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

  I don't think Globallycz has gotten the message. Their denial that calling editors (admins or otherwise) "lazy" is a WP:PA seems to suggest an incompatibility with a collaborative project. On their talk page, they state: Frankly, i rather get blocked for 24 hours rather than go through dispute resolution. They double down: For me, it is fine to be blocked. I rather take that route. Finally, they seem to admit to using personal attacks to prove a WP:POINT in this edit, where after being told to not attack editors, they state: I am highlighting a problem here If they won't even pay lip service to following community guidelines, I think an indef is appropriate. If they change their approach and convince an admin, they can be welcomed back. EducatedRedneck (talk) 17:01, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

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

Obvious sock threatening to take legal action

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

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

---

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

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

---

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

Just as ignorant as he is known longtime abnormal activation and especially on those of Jat article see his latest revision on Dudi you will get to urge why he have atrocity to disaggregating Jat articles but pm serious node i dont mention him not a once but ypu can also consolidate this User:TheSlumPanda who dont know him either please have a eyes on him for a while 2409:40D6:11A:3D97:D46A:3CB4:A474:99A0 (talk) 12:06, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

But wait a second as per WP:NOPA i dont take his name either not even so dont even try to show your true culler midway cracker and admin can you please not i am currently ranged blocked as my network is Jio telecom which was largely user by various comers2409:40D6:11A:3D97:D46A:3CB4:A474:99A0 (talk)

Please tell me there's a language issue at play here, and that the IP didn't mention WP:No personal attacks and use a racist slur in the same sentence there... —C.Fred (talk) 12:26, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

I think it's both. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:37, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Well, we linguists don't like anecdotal evidence, but I'll provide some: I (non-native speaker of English, with a linguistics PhD) had to look up all the potential candidates for a slur in that post, and when I did find one it's not one I'd ever heard. However, "crackers" is an insult in Hindi, so I'd say it is most likely a PA, just not the one an American English speaker might understand it as. --bonadea contributions talk 13:02, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

At least in the South, an American would recognize Cracker as a pejorative. Acroterion (talk) 13:19, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Sure, but the IP user who used the word said they are in India, and their post contains various typical non-native speaker errors. ("culler" instead of "colour", for instance) --bonadea contributions talk 16:31, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Funny thing is you go far enough south it wraps back around again: Florida cracker - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:24, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

• Observation: the IP just tried to place a contentions topics notice on the talk page of the Dudi article. It's peripheral, and the IP is pretty clearly involved. Is this a bad-faith edit by the IP, or should we just take their suggestion and extended-confirmed protect the page?... —C.Fred (talk) 12:54, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

  Is there a Dudi caste? Though I will note there is a lot of overlap between the "Indian Subcontinent" and "South Asian social strata" topic areas. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v 21:59, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

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

• Noting that this person (Truthfindervert?) has taken to using VPNs. I’ve blocked a couple today. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:15, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

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

Disruptive editing and WP:TALKNO by User:AnonMoos

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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 2011 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. 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)

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)

User:Vazulvonal of Stockholm

Indefed until communication improves. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:12, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

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

---

• Vazulvonal of Stockholm (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Hi, I recently came across the edits of Vazulvonal of Stockholm, who seems to be very stubborn in his editing. The user doesn't seem to understand the basic rules and policies of Misplaced Pages (such as the use of reliable sources and no original research), even after being alerted and warned many times. Problems include self-promotion; e.g., at Schüssler, some Swedish IP Addresses and himself, have tried to push the inclusion of 5 non-notable persons, of which I suspect "Lars Laszlo Schüszler" to be related to the user, as Vazulvonal seems to have created the article , which was deleted later. Other major issues include the use of very poor quality sources (e.g., Geni), poor grammar and spelling (e.g., ), pushing nationalist POV (e.g., ). At List of Hungarian Nobel laureates, the user keeps reinstating poor quality text and sources, and even had the nerve to call me anti-semitic and anti-Hungarian. At List of Hungarian Academy Award winners and nominees, some Swedish IP Addresses (which are very likely related to the user), have created this very odd section of very poor quality and original research. Per WP:COMPETENCE, I'm not sure this site is the right place for someone who doesn't take advice, warnings and policies very seriously... Eem dik doun in toene (talk) 12:35, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Update: The user keeps ignoring all manuals and rules of Misplaced Pages, and keeps adhering to his own rules, despite being reverted and/or warned almost every time (diff diff). I don't know if it is a case of serious incompetence or just trolling. I would appreciate it if someone would take a look, because it does not seem that he is stopping with these shenanigans. Eem dik doun in toene (talk) 13:58, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

I have also had problems with this editor, on a specific BLP (Tünde Fülöp), to which they insist on adding unsourced details (for instance on December 14 diff) after a 3rd-level BLP warning on November 27 diff). They also appear to be somewhat indiscriminate about putting ethnically-Hungarian people of other nationalities into Hungarian-nationality categories (such as in this case, where we have sourcing for Fülöp identifying as Hungarian but being born in Romania and emigrating to Sweden). I would be unsurprised to find that these issues are more widespread than this one article. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:35, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

The excessive additions to List of Nobel laureates by country and List of Hungarian Nobel laureates, based on original research and overbroad definitions of what it means to be from one country (Hungary) have continued unabated despite this thread. I see no sign that VoS has ever replied to anything on their user talk. They have made a lot of contributions on Talk:List of Hungarian Nobel laureates but it is of a piece with their article-space edits, broad original-research-based categorization of people as Hungarian and not much listening to other editors.

Is it perhaps time for a block to try to prod them into participating here and not continuing down the same path? —David Eppstein (talk) 22:24, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

They may not be aware of their own talkpage. I have blocked them indefinitely for persistent addition of unsourced or badly sourced content despite warnings, and for non-responsiveness on their page, adding a note in the log linking to their talkpage and encouraging them to communicate there. Bishonen | tålk 18:41, 21 December 2024 (UTC).

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

Disruptive editing by User talk:185.146.112.192

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Request for closure

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

user Stan1900 and the films of Shannon Alexander

Right, we're done here. Stan1900 (talk · contribs) is indef blocked for WP:IDHT and WP:BATTLEGROUND among many other issues. Four !votes for topic ban below, four !votes for indef ban below - with all of the most recent !votes being for indef overall - so splitting the difference while bearing in mind "ban" is often used when "block" is meant. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:14, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

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

---

I'm posting here in an attempt to get admin oversight on a situation playing itself out over threads at COIN, NPOVN and the relevant article talk pages.

user:Stan1900 is a WP:SPA dedicated to producing articles on the films of Shannon Alexander, an individual who they admit to having had dealings with . The user previously made a small group of edits back in 2017/18 on the same subject, but the account was then dormant for 6 years until recent activity commenced. Recent activity seems to coincide with the US release of one of the films.

Concerns were first raised when the user opened multiple threads trying to hurry the articles through AfC and talking about when the articles would appear on Google searches (raising concerns about a possible SEO motivation).

The articles created have been consistently identified as being of a promotional nature, primarily due to being composed primarily of quotes from positive reviews. See for example , and .

COI templates were added to the articles, which the user has created multiple threads in an attempt to remove, clearly forum shopping looking for a different answer.

The lengthy (and promotional) Reception sections were removed following talkpage discussion sufficient to indicate that there was no consensus for inclusion. However, it is clearly inappropriate for an article to be composed primarily of reviews (good or bad) so removal was noncontroversial in any case. Nonetheless the user has argued at great length for reinclusion in various locations.

The user is now proceeding in a highly confrontational and argumentative fashion in multiple different threads (diffs for which above) and does not seem capable of accepting that wherever they take their concerns they routinely receive the same response. Users including Cullen328 and myself have raised concerns that the user is a promo only account dedicated to the promotion of the films of Shannon Alexander.

I’d be grateful if an admin would take some action here. Axad12 (talk) 07:13, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Stan1900 has also initiated two lengthy and similar threads at the Help desk, one of which has been archived. WP:Help desk#Dispute over Paid Editing Tag on "It's Coming" and Review of "The Misguided" Draft is the other and taken together, these multiple discussions show bludgeoning in defense of a highly focused promotional editing campaign. I have interacted heavily with this editor in recent days, and so I prefer that another uninvolved adminstrator read these conversations and take appropriate action. I want to admit that I made an error in evaluating the copyright status of three movie posters, and I apologize for that. Cullen328 (talk) 07:44, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Some further background here…

The user has claimed that My account was created to edit Katherine Langford's article, completely unrelated to Shannon Alexander. However, all of the 2017/18 edits were actually directly related to Shannon Alexander, e.g. here . Note also that the 2017/18 activity coincided with the release of the Shannon Alexander film mentioned in those edits.

The user has also claimed: I have a history of editing articles related to notable figures from Perth, Western Australia on Misplaced Pages .

However, at that time (and now) the user had only made a small number of edits (all related to Shannon Alexander), so if true this would have required the use of an alternative account. Similarly, as pointed out by Cullen328 (here ), the user claims to have been an active editor for 8 years, with contributions spanning a variety of topics, but their edit history indicates 6 dormant years since 2018.

The user states here that they have only contacted Shannon Alexander for fact verification, although what purpose that was intended to serve is unclear given the requirements of WP:V and WP:RS. However the degree of association between the two individuals would clearly appear to be greater than that given the persistency of the activity and the apparent interest in, for example, urgency of publication and search engine optimisation around the time of a film release, as per WP:DUCK.

The user has also used a great deal of very obviously AI generated posts (as pointed out in various of the threads that the user has started). The user consistently denies AI use, despite the fact that one subset of their posts consistently scores "100% likelihood AI generated" on GPTzero while the rest of their posts show up as "entirely human generated", clearly indicating two different origins. The user claims they have a very formal style of writing that GPTzero mistakes for AI, but if that were true GPTzero would consistently produce results suggesting "part AI/ part human". They then claim that GPTzero is not 100% reliable, which is correct, but that does not invalidate the very clear cut evidence above.

So, it does seem to me that there is a consistent pattern above of statements which seem inclined to mislead. Axad12 (talk) 08:22, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Responding to these allegations which contain several misrepresentations:

1. Regarding contact with Shannon Alexander: As previously stated, my only contact has been for fact verification - a standard practice explicitly allowed by Misplaced Pages policies. The obsessive focus on the filmmaker rather than the articles' content is concerning. These are independent films that received critical coverage from reliable sources - their inclusion on Misplaced Pages should be evaluated on those merits.

2. The claims about 'promotional' content are misleading. The removed content consisted of properly sourced reviews from reliable publications, following standard film article format. No specific policy-based issues with the content have been identified.

3. The "forum shopping" accusation misrepresents proper use of Misplaced Pages venues:

- Talk pages for content discussion

- Help desk for process guidance

- NPOV board for neutrality issues

- Each serves a distinct purpose

4. Regarding GPTZero claims: The logic here is flawed. Different types of Misplaced Pages contributions naturally require different writing styles - technical documentation vs. talk page discussion being obvious examples. Using unreliable tool results to dismiss properly sourced content violates core principles.

5. Note that Cullen328 has admitted to error regarding the improper deletion of properly licensed images, which demonstrates the pattern of hasty actions being taken without proper verification.

The core issue remains: properly sourced, policy-compliant content about notable films is being removed based on unsupported accusations rather than specific policy-based concerns. The apparent determination to suppress well-sourced information about these independent films is puzzling. Misplaced Pages exists to document notable subjects based on reliable sources - which is exactly what these articles do. I remain committed to improving them more than ever Stan1900 (talk) 16:21, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

At the end of the day this is all very simple...

Other users have interpreted your work as promotional in intent. Therefore COI/PAID tags have been added.

Also, articles on Misplaced Pages do not consist primarily of quotes from reviews, so that material has been removed (and perceived again to be promotional).

You have attempted, over and over again, in various threads to get the tags removed and the removals overturned - but no one in any of those threads has ever agreed with you.

The appropriate course of action is therefore to accept that you are in a minority and that the changes you wish to make have no community support.

Continuing to argue in multiple different places is not an appropriate response. Axad12 (talk) 16:42, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Also see WP:BATTLEGROUND and assume in good faith that every editor and group is here to improve Misplaced Pages—especially if they hold a point of view with which you disagree. Theroadislong (talk) 16:46, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

I was correct about the fact that Stan1900 falsely claimed on Wikimedia Commons that the three movie posters in question are their "own work" and that false claim remains on the Commons file pages for those posters. Cullen328 (talk) 16:59, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Stan1900 is currently arguing that the words 'own work' actually refer to their 'work' clicking the upload button. I'm not sure if this is all covering up for what looks more and more like an obvious COI, or a simple inability to admit to making a mistake. I think either is incompatible with the collaborative work needed for this project. I'm also very concerned about obviously dishonest statements such as this one, there they claimed edits were unrelated to Shannon Alexander when they were clearly about a film of Alexander's .

I think a topic ban from the subject of Shannon Alexander, broadly construed, would be the best thing here. MrOllie (talk) 17:09, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

• Support topic ban for Stan1900 on Shannon Alexander and her films, broadly construed. Cullen328 (talk) 17:39, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

  Your characterizations here fundamentally misrepresent both the situation and Misplaced Pages's purpose:

  1. "Articles do not consist primarily of quotes from reviews" - Misrepresents standard film article format. Well-sourced critical reception sections are common in film articles. The removed content followed established patterns for film articles, with proper citations from reliable sources.

  2. "Interpreted as promotional" - No specific policy violations have been identified. Proper sourcing from reliable publications isn't "promotional" simply because the reviews are positive. This seems to reflect a bias against independent films receiving positive coverage.

  3. Regarding the "own work" designation on Commons - As DMacks confirmed, proper licensing documentation was verified through official channels. The template language about authorized uploads is being deliberately misinterpreted to justify improper deletions.

  4. The underlying issue here seems to be a systematic effort to suppress coverage of certain independent films. My interest is in documenting underrepresented works that meet notability guidelines through reliable sources. Many editors focus on their own areas of interest - the hostile reaction to well-sourced content about independent films is very surprising and concerning.

  5. Claims of "forum shopping" misrepresent proper use of established channels for different purposes (talk pages, help desk, NPOV board). Each place serves a distinct purpose in processes.

  The suggestion of a topic ban for contributing properly sourced content about notable subjects is inappropriate. This appears to be an attempt to use process to suppress legitimate content rather than address specific policy-based concerns.

  I remain committed to improving Misplaced Pages's coverage of notable but underrepresented subjects through proper sourcing and neutral presentation. The aggressive opposition to this goal raises serious questions about systemic bias. Stan1900 (talk) 18:15, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

  • Support topic ban for Stan1900 on Shannon Alexander and her films, broadly construed. User is clearly WP:NOTHERE and is bludgeoning the same flawed interpretations of policies over and over again. User also refuses to acknowledge that every other user in various threads disagrees with what they are trying to achieve, which is clearly contrary to collaborative work. Alternatively I would support a site block for what is obviously a promo-only account (but given their narrow focus on a single subject a topic ban would effectively be functionally identical to a site block). Axad12 (talk) 18:35, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

    Your accusations and push for a ban are baseless personal attacks that ignore policy and precedent:

    The articles were already reviewed and the paid tags were removed. Restoring them without cause is disruptive.

    The image licensing was properly vetted via official channels, as confirmed by a Commons admin. Claiming otherwise is misleading.

    I've consistently engaged on content and policy, while you resort to vague claims of "promotion" without evidence. That's not collaboration.

    Consensus is not "everyone disagreeing" with sourced additions. It's built through policy-based discussion, not mob rule.

    WP:HERE is about constructive editing, not battle lines. My focus on notable films in my area of knowledge is entirely appropriate.

    A topic ban would unjustly exclude neutrally written, reliably sourced content about verifiable subjects. That's a heckler's veto against core policies.

    If you have specific concerns, raise them on article talk pages so they can be addressed. But unsubstantiated aspersions and ban threats are the real problem here.

    Stop edit warring against consensus to remove properly vetted content. If you can't engage productively, step back and let those of us who actually want to improve the encyclopedia get on with it. Stan1900 (talk) 18:58, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

    The user is now claiming over at COIN that Acting as an authorized representative doesn't constitute as COI. I'll leave that comment for others to consider at their leisure. Axad12 (talk) 19:33, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

    Note here that the user had previous claimed repeatedly that they had only engaged in fact verification with Shannon Alexander while operating in what they described as a journalistic capacity. That is not what any reasonable person would describe as being an authorized representative. Axad12 (talk) 19:41, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

• Support topic ban for Stan1900 on Shannon Alexander and her films, broadly construed. "As an authorized representative" the conflict of interest is crystal clear, despite the bludgeoning denials. Theroadislong (talk) 19:48, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

  1. Yes, I acted as an authorized representative specifically for verifying poster copyright/licensing. This was a limited, transparent interaction done through proper Misplaced Pages channels to ensure images were correctly licensed.

  2. However, this narrow administrative role for image licensing does not extend to content creation. My article contributions are based entirely on reliable, independent sources, maintaining neutral POV.

  3. I have been transparent about fact verification contacts (dates, releases, etc.), which were conducted in a manner similar to how any Misplaced Pages editor might verify facts with a primary source.

  4. The suggestion of a topic ban seems unwarranted given that:

  - All content is properly sourced from independent publications

  - Image licensing was handled through proper channels with full disclosure

  - I've engaged constructively in discussions and made requested changes

  - No promotional content has been demonstrated

  I remain committed to improving Misplaced Pages's coverage of independent films while following all policies and guidelines. Being authorized to handle image licensing does not prevent me from making properly sourced, neutral contributions to related articles. Stan1900 (talk) 20:30, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

• On December 15, at the Help Desk, I said to Stan1900 You are now behaving effectively like a one person public relations agency for Shannon Alexander on Misplaced Pages. Stan1900 denied that, criticized me for saying that, and repeatedly denied any conflict of interest. Now that we have learned that Stan1900 is an "authorized representative" of Shannon Alexander, it is clear that my December 15 assessment was correct. This editor has been repeatedly deceptive. Accordingly, I now Support an indefinite sitewide block. Cullen328 (talk) 20:37, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

  I need to address what has become an exhausting cycle of repeated explanations:

  1. For what must be the 50th time: I served as an authorized representative SPECIFICALLY AND SOLELY for image licensing/copyright verification - a standard Misplaced Pages process that requires verification of rights. This was handled through proper channels and is documented. The images were challenged, reviewed, and officially reinstated.

  2. Every single piece of content I've contributed:

  - Is based on independent, reliable sources

  - Follows NPOV guidelines

  - Has been properly cited

  - Includes balanced coverage

  - Has been verified through proper channels

  3. This constant need to repeat these same points, which are documented across multiple discussion pages, is preventing productive work on Misplaced Pages. The evidence is clear:

  - Images reinstated through proper process

  - Paid editing tags removed after review

  - Content properly sourced

  - Constructive engagement documented

  The suggestion of an indefinite block for following Misplaced Pages's proper processes is both disproportionate and concerning. At this point, the repeated disregard for documented evidence and proper procedures seems more disruptive than any of my contributions.

  I suggest we move past this circular discussion and focus on actual content improvements. Stan1900 (talk) 20:59, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

  I agree that the specific phrase "authorized agent" in the specific context of file-upload license release does not necessarily mean they are generally an agent (for PR, general employment, or other representation) in the general sense. Here, they might merely have specific authorization or act as a conduit limited to those images. However, they have explicitly stated that they actually are the license holder themselves, which is quite different from acting as the conduit between the license-holder and the Wiki world. And that contradicts all assertions they might make that they have no COI or similar tight relationship with the subject, or are anything more than the conduit. DMacks (talk) 22:47, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Stan1900 is the undisputed champion of repeating themselves over and over and OVER again, under the mistaken notion that repetition is persuasion. The three movie poster files on Wikimedia Commons still falsely state that the posters are Stan1900's "own work", denying credit to the designer or designers who actually created the posters. Cullen328 (talk) 22:14, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

1. DMacks: You've misinterpreted my role. I have consistently stated I am an authorized representative for licensing verification - NOT the license holder. This distinction is important and has been explained repeatedly. In fact, many production entitles who haven't created Misplaced Pages entries for their work are happy to authorize agents to handle public information and image licensing, as evidenced by this very situation. Film artwork is regularly made available through multiple channels (IMDb, theaters, press kits) - having an authorized representative handle Misplaced Pages licensing is neither unusual nor suspicious.

2. Cullen328: Your comment about "repeating over and over" is ironic given that you and others continue to repeat the same disproven accusations despite:

- Images being officially verified and reinstated through proper channels

- Confirmation by administrators

- Clear documentation of my limited representative role

- Proper sourcing of all content

The fact that you're still focused on image claims that have already been resolved through official Misplaced Pages processes suggests you're more interested in casting aspersions than improving content. These posters were challenged, verified, and reinstated - continuing to dispute this is what's actually disruptive to Misplaced Pages.

I'm happy to update template language to be more precise about representative status, but let's be clear: the licensing has been verified and confirmed. Repeatedly questioning this doesn't change the facts. Stan1900 (talk) 23:57, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Stan1900, the file information pages for the three film posters STILL falsely state that they are your "own work". Why is that? Cullen328 (talk) 01:03, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Your continued fixation on this already-resolved issue is becoming tiresome. Nevertheless, I'll explain one more time:

The "own work" designation indicates upload process handling as an authorized representative - not artistic creation. This has been explained repeatedly, the images have been verified, and administrators have confirmed their reinstatement.

To spell it out yet again:

- Not the creator

- Not the copyright holder

- Authorized for licensing verification only

- Images officially verified

- Reinstatement confirmed

Your insistence on rehashing this same point, despite official resolution through proper channels, suggests you're more interested in finding reasons to object than improving Misplaced Pages. If template language is truly your deepest concern, I'm happy to update it. Otherwise, if we could focus on actual content improvement rather than this circular discussion about already-verified images would be great! Stan1900 (talk) 01:11, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

This isn't a thread about content, it is about your conduct. Axad12 (talk) 01:14, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

My conduct has been straightforward: Basically creating properly sourced articles while following guidelines. The burden of proof lies with those making repetitive and outlandish accusations, yet you've been unable to demonstrate any policy violations. Instead, you're repeatedly removing verified content and making unsupported claims.

The real disruption and misconduct here is the constant interference with legitimate article creation. Stan1900 (talk) 01:24, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Stan1900, correct that false claim that those posters are your "own work" and give credit to the actual poster designers. Cullen328 (talk) 01:29, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

I've updated the file pages to properly reflect copyright attribution and clarify roles. The changes align with the documentation in OTRS ticket #2024113010007335, which covers all three posters. This removes the "own work" designation while accurately reflecting the licensing chain. Stan1900 (talk) 03:12, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

• Support the topic ban, on Shannon Alexander, and her films, broadly construed. Stan1900 is clearly here for only promotional activities, and given the change from "only contact has been for fact verification" to "authorized representative but only for this thing," makes me even more skeptical that we're currently getting the whole truth, as opposed to what they were forced to admit when called out on conflicting evidence. The doublespeak about "own work" just confirms to me that this editor would present a great time sink on anyone trying to collaborate with them effectively, which is a bit of a death knell on a collaborative project. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 04:53, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, Stan1900. Cullen328 (talk) 03:33, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Stan, I appreciate that you're keen on repeating yourself, but getting others to repeat themselves is rather unfair. The reasons that multiple users have considered you to be a promotional only account are given at the top of this thread, but to jog your memory:

Since 2017, your account has been dedicated solely to editing around the films of Shannon Alexander.

You have an obvious conflict of interest because you've admitted to having dealt with Alexander and being their authorized representative.

You've created articles which other users have identified as promotional (mainly due to the articles consisting primarily of quotes taken from positive reviews).

You've set up multiple threads to try to get the articles fast-tracked through AfC, with the stated motivation of getting the articles on to Google searches (presumably it isn't coincidental that this is at the same time that one of the films has its US release).

You've then spent an inordinate amount of time, across multiple threads, unsuccessfully attempting to remove tags and reinstate the elements that others have found to be promotional.

That is all the textbook activity of a promotional account. Indeed, whether this activity is being done directly on behalf of Alexander or simply off your own back, it is still promotional.

However, if we look beyond all that, the continual WP:BLUDGEONING of multiple threads, the WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour and various deceptions have worn out the patience of those who have interacted with you. Hence we now have 4 users calling for you to be topic banned from the films of Shannon Alexander, broadly construed. Unfortunately that would seem to be the only way to get you to drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. Axad12 (talk) 04:30, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Who are you to question editors' personal interests or timing of contributions? Many filmmakers haven't created Misplaced Pages entries for their notable works, and having authorized representatives handle public information and image licensing is completely normal - as evidenced by the very processes Misplaced Pages has in place for this.

Of course I want these articles to be visible and indexable – the same way you want everyone to see your contributions and the articles you've edited. If visibility was suspicious, why do any of us contribute to Misplaced Pages? The whole point is to document notable subjects for public access.

Film artwork and information is readily available through multiple public channels (IMDb, theaters, press kits). Creating properly sourced articles about notable films, regardless of timing or subject matter, is exactly what Misplaced Pages is for.

Your continued attempts to paint standard Misplaced Pages processes as suspicious suggests you're more interested in finding problems than improving content. Stan1900 (talk) 04:52, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Your tally of "4 users" consists of the same individuals who have repeatedly removed properly sourced content without policy justification. Tags were removed and images reinstated through proper channels because they met Misplaced Pages's requirements - that's not coincidence, that's following process.

Your "coincidental timing" argument falls apart considering I'm writing about films from 2018 and 2022 in late 2024. If this was promotional, why wait years?

I'm not getting others to repeat themselves - I'm providing the same answer to the same baseless accusations because you refuse to accept documented evidence. The fact that multiple administrators have verified and reinstated content you've removed suggests you're the one being disruptive, not me. Stan1900 (talk) 05:00, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Actually it is now 5 users calling for a topic ban.

I'm not sure when you are referring to admins reinstating material I've removed, but I work pretty much solely on conflict of interest cases and it's fairly normal for material to be removed and reinstated on those sort of cases as discussions develop. I don't take that personally, it's just an occupational hazard that happens to everyone in that field from time to time as articles work towards a stable version. I'm not aware of having been reverted by any admins on the articles under discussion in this thread. In other situations I'd have thought it was a rare event for me to be reverted by an admin although no doubt it has occurred.

My work in the COI area is, I suspect, fairly well known to a good number of readers here. I am a user in good standing who has contributed to the removal of much COI and promotional material from Misplaced Pages. All of my work on Misplaced Pages for the last year or so has been done on forums with significant administrator oversight and if my conduct was generally disruptive that would have been pointed out to me by an administrator at some point.

I opened this thread in the clear knowledge that my own conduct might be placed under the spotlight, but instead it is 5 users who are calling for you to be topic blocked.

For you to suggest that I am the problem here only serves to demonstrate your lack of self-awareness. Axad12 (talk) 05:35, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Also, re: want everyone to see contributions and the articles 've edited... No, actually I have no particular feelings on that score - probably because I resolutely avoid editing any article where I might be perceived to have a COI. With the exception of a few very minor edits I've only ever contributed to obscure articles (so hoping that "everyone will see them" would be a vain hope indeed). Axad12 (talk) 05:53, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Axad12 CoffeeCrumbs

1. The paid editing tags were reviewed successfully. Their reinstatement without new evidence defies this original determination.

2. All images have been properly verified through Wikimedia VRT process and have valid licensing. Their deletion and reinstatement of them shows proper process was followed.

3. I have already addressed all questions about authorized agent status through official Misplaced Pages channels. This matter is resolved.

4. I have consistently followed every procedure to a T:

- Using talk pages

- Providing reliable sources

- Following dispute resolution

- Getting official review of tags

- Verifying image licensing

- Addressing repetitious concerns transparently

5. The suggestion of a topic ban - what topic exactly? Arts and culture coverage? That would be an unprecedented scope based on properly sourced contributions.

6. Regarding CoffeeCrumbs' claims of 'promotional activities' - I have several drafted articles about artists with similar encyclopedic gaps in coverage that I've had to delay working on due to this ongoing situation. The fact that a few users are trying to discredit me simply because I focused on documenting 3 films that had no Misplaced Pages presence is, frankly, pathetic.

All of my edits are fully sourced, neutral, and follow policy. Each accusation has been officially reviewed and resolved through proper channels. If there are content concerns, they should be raised with diffs and policy citations, not broad accusations. Stan1900 (talk) 17:06, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Please see WP:BLUDGEON. You've said all of that stuff time and time again but other users still fundamentally disagree with you and find your conduct problematic. You just need to drop the stick now. Axad12 (talk) 17:10, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Citing WP:BLUDGEON is ironic given you repeatedly make the same accusations after they've been officially resolved through proper channels:

1. (Some) paid editing tags - officially reviewed and removed (then slapped back on)

2. Image licensing - verified through VRT

3. Authorized agent status - addressed through proper process

I've responded to concerns as they arise and made improvements based on constructive feedback (see discussion with Gråbergs Gråa Sång). Yet you continue repeating claims without new evidence.

Repeatedly making resolved accusations while telling others to "drop the stick" is bad form. Stan1900 (talk) 17:20, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, how have the issues in this thread been officially resolved through proper channels? This is an open thread and 5 users have called for a topic ban. The issues have not yet been officially resolved by any definition of the term. Axad12 (talk) 17:27, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

The tags WERE successfully removed through proper review

The images WERE successfully reinstated through VRT verification

The authorized agent status WAS officially resolved

These are documented facts with clear outcomes through proper Misplaced Pages channels. See:

- VRT verification: commons.wikimedia.org/search/?title=Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests&oldid=prev&diff=973304583

- Discussion with @Gråbergs Gråa Sång showing constructive collaboration

Your reference to "5 users" is misleading when multiple official processes have already concluded in favor of the content and proper procedures were followed. A handful of editors repeating already-resolved claims doesn't override completed official processes.

If there are new concerns, they should be raised with policy citations rather than attempting to relitigate resolved issues. Stan1900 (talk) 17:33, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

The thing is that the tags, the images and the authorised status issues aren't the matters under discussion in this thread (and they weren't resolved by "official processes" anyway). This is a thread about conduct, not about content. If you find it misleading that 5 users have called for a topic ban in relation to your conduct then there is no helping you. Axad12 (talk) 17:44, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Your attempt to separate "conduct" from the actual documented timeline is misleading:

1. These issues ARE relevant because they demonstrate consistent proper conduct

2. You claim these 'weren't resolved by official processes' - this is factually incorrect:

- See VRT verification: commons.wikimedia.org/search/?title=Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests&oldid=prev&diff=973304583

- See constructive discussion with @Gråbergs Gråa Sång leading to content improvements

3. My "conduct" has been consistently focused on improving Misplaced Pages through proper channels while facing repeated unfounded accusations and content removals without policy basis. Your Vague allegations while ignoring documented proper process is itself problematic conduct. Stan1900 (talk) 17:50, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, I read this the other 15 times you said it. Getting you to follow procedure is like pulling teeth. There's no credit in disclosing things on the 10th opportunity after stonewalling the first nine. And it's clear what the topic ban would entail: Shannon Alexander and her films, broadly construed. My only question is if this is enough, but I want to WP:AGF that the conduct won't continue in the event you actually make edits not related to Shannon Alexander somehow. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 17:36, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Your accusations are baseless and contradicted by the record:

I have engaged transparently and promptly through proper channels at every stage:

- Used talk pages consistently

- Responded to concerns promptly

- Had tags officially reviewed and removed

- Had images verified through VRT

- Resolved authorized agent status

- Made improvements based on constructive feedback

2. A topic ban on is a solution in search of a problem. The articles are properly sourced, neutrally written, and part of addressing gaps in coverage. It's absurd to suggest banning someone for documenting notable films following policy.

3. The relentless accusations regarding these 3 simple articles that previously had no coverage must stop. The paid editing and COI tags are demonstrably untrue based on the official resolutions through proper channels.

I will continue to refute these baseless allegations because they are false. Please stop making unfounded accusations and let those of us who want to improve the encyclopedia do so.

The documentation exists. The proper processes were followed. The official resolutions are clear. These constant attempts to relitigate resolved issues are what's actually disruptive to Misplaced Pages. Stan1900 (talk) 17:46, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

I think it would be productive here for an administrator to review the contents of this discussion and take action based on the views expressed by multiple users. Further discussion is not going to advance matters any further (unless other users would like to add their voices to whether or not a topic ban would be appropriate). Axad12 (talk) 17:51, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

CoffeeCrumbs Your proposed topic ban is arbitrary and unjustified. If you're concerned about my editing conduct, why limit it to Shannon Alexander specifically? Why not ban me from writing about films in general, or movies from the late 2010s?

The fact that you're targeting a single filmmaker whose work I've documented following policies and guidelines exposes the lack of logic behind your argument. It's a transparent attempt to shut down coverage of notable topics simply because you don't like that I'm the one writing about them.

Misplaced Pages's mission is to encompass all of human knowledge, not to censor editors who are working in good faith to expand that knowledge in accordance with site policies. If there were legitimate issues with my conduct, they would apply across topics, not just to one filmmaker.

The reality is, there is no evidence of policy violations or misconduct on my part. The paid editing and COI tags were reviewed and removed through proper channels. The images were officially verified. My role as an authorized representative was documented and resolved.

Your continued efforts to relitigate these settled issues and impose baseless sanctions are the real disruption here. If you have specific concerns about the content of the articles, raise them on the talk pages with policy-based arguments. But stop trying to game the system to get rid of content and contributors you personally disapprove of.

Misplaced Pages is not here to indulge personal vendettas. It's here to provide free, reliable information to the world. That's why we're all here and love the platform greatly. Stan1900 (talk) 17:54, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

I proposed it, not CoffeeCrumbs. And I proposed a ban limited to Shannon Alexander because that is the only area you have been disruptive - in fact it is the sole focus of 100% of your activity on Misplaced Pages. I proposed a limited topic ban in the hope that you could move forward and show us you could work collaboratively elsewhere on some other topic that interests you. But if you think we're better off just banning you from more, or even from everything, that is certainly workable as well. MrOllie (talk) 18:05, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

This is getting absurd. Let's be clear - you're escalating from topic ban to broader bans because I defended properly sourced contributions with documented evidence?

Sure, I focused on documenting films that had no Misplaced Pages coverage - that's called filling a gap in the encyclopedia. I have other articles about artists in development too, but this constant barrage of unfounded accusations is preventing that work.

At this point, an admin needs to review this situation. The escalating threats of bans over properly documented contributions has become farcical. This isn't how Misplaced Pages is supposed to work. Stan1900 (talk) 18:10, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

No, that is a Straw man argument. I proposed a topic for the reasons I explained above. Kindly don't put words in my mouth. MrOllie (talk) 18:12, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Support T-ban at least the continued WP:BLUDGEONING and WP:BATTLEGROUND MENTALITY per the above bludgeoning by said user. Lavalizard101 (talk) 17:53, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Your comment perfectly demonstrates the circular logic being employed:

1. I defend against unfounded accusations with documented evidence = "BLUDGEONING"

2. I refute false claims about resolved processes = "BATTLEGROUND"

3. I provide proof of proper conduct = "continued bludgeoning"

Supporting a topic ban while misapplying WP:BLUDGEON to silence defense against false accusations is what actually creates a battleground atmosphere. I will continue to refute untrue claims with evidence because that's not "bludgeoning" - it's maintaining integrity. Stan1900 (talk) 17:55, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

After that response I strike my support of a t-ban and move to Support an indef it is clear that the behaviour will not change. I have never interacted with you before or even edited in the area and you are immediately attacking me. Lavalizard101 (talk) 17:58, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

So you've never edited in this area or interacted with me, yet you're calling for a T ban/indefinite ban? Because I defended my contributions with evidence?

I've had images verified through VRT, tags reviewed and removed through proper channels, and consistently improved content through collaboration. Check the documentation if you don't believe me.

Why exactly are you proposing to ban someone you've never interacted with? That seems contrary to collaborative spirit. Stan1900 (talk) 18:07, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

The purpose of this board is to get additional input from previously-uninvolved editors. If all you want to do is keep saying the same thing to the same people repeatedly, you'll keep getting their same response no matter where you say it. The fact that the new participants look at what's happening and still don't agree with you should tell you something. The fact that you object to their participation and reject their input because it doesn't say what you want definitely tells us something. DMacks (talk) 18:31, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Regardless of any COI, the inability, or extreme reluctance, of this editor to:

• understand such basic site policies as WP:CONSENSUS;
• admit wrongdoing, or error, or even merely recognize the concerns of other editors as potentially valid in any way;
• take any sort of feedback on board, with Cullen328 only managing to get them to correct necessary attribution only after 4 long, tedious and frustrating exchanges (not even counting Cullen's related replies, or others' similar remarks on it, or even the original complaint raised on other pages);
• avoid hammering their own viewpoint repeatedly in response to every dissenting view;

leads me to, unfortunately, also support an indef ban, at least until the user can show they understand how their behavior has not been collaborative, as well as commit to improving and also properly responding to other editors' concerns, while listening to what they're actually saying.

To be clear, this is only based on the behavior observed here. I am making no comments about the original report. NewBorders (talk) 19:48, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

I must firmly correct several serious mischaracterizations with documented facts:

1. Re: "4 tedious exchanges about attribution"

This completely misrepresents what occurred:

- The extended exchanges were NOT about attribution changes

- They were days of me defending against unfounded COI accusations and false claims about my identity

- When attribution format was finally raised as an actual issue, and I convinced them of my legitimacy, I implemented changes immediately

- The record clearly shows this timeline

2. Re: "inability to take feedback"

The evidence shows consistent implementation of suggested changes:

- Gråbergs Gråa Sång's wiki-voice improvements implemented promptly

- Article refinements based on additional verified sources

- Format changes adopted when specifically requested

- Image licensing properly verified (now restored through VRT after repeated proof requirements)

3. Re: "not understanding WP:CONSENSUS"

- I fully understand and respect consensus processes

- Current disputes involve content removals without proper consensus discussion

- I have actively sought broader community input through appropriate channels

4. Re: "hammering viewpoint"

What's being characterized as "hammering" has actually been:

- Defending against continuous unfounded allegations (false claims about my identity as Shannon Alexander/affiliates, paid editing, COI, AI use etc.)

- Having to repeatedly correct misrepresentations

- Responding to new accusations after previous ones are disproven

- Protecting properly sourced content from removal

- Having to repeatedly prove already-verified image uploads

5. Re: "not being collegial"

The record shows I have maintained professional discourse while:

- Following every proper procedure

- Implementing requested changes when actually specified

- Using appropriate Misplaced Pages venues

- Facing repeated unfounded allegations

Suggesting an indefinite ban based on my defense against continuous unfounded accusations, while ignoring my documented policy compliance and willingness to implement actual requested changes, is deeply concerning. Stan1900 (talk) 20:05, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Can an uninvolved admin please implement the obvious consensus before Stan digs himself into an even deeper hole? And, if they are not using an AI chatbot, give them a job impersonating one, because they do a very good impression? Phil Bridger (talk) 20:27, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

I think a chatbot might explain why Stan hasn't answered my question about where he found a 9-year-old definition of COI. Schazjmd (talk) 20:49, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Phil Bridger Schazjmd Accusing me of being an chatbot for thoroughly defending sourced content is a baseless personal attack. Disagreement is not grounds for abuse.

After countless policy citations and talk page discussion research over these last several days I don't recall where I found that outdated COI definition. I am only human. But it doesn't change my core arguments about content. Even if I were a cyborg (sadly I'm not), compliance is what matters.

The reason I've had to repeatedly defend my work is the endless stream of unfounded allegations I keep facing. If there's an upside, it's that I've gained an even deeper knowledge of Misplaced Pages guidelines - knowledge I'd prefer to use improving articles, not battling more false claims. Stan1900 (talk) 21:24, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

IN THE NAME OF JESUS, MARY, JOSEPH, AND ALL THE SAINTS AND APOSTLES, WILL SOMEONE BLOCK THIS PESTILENTIAL TIMEWASTER? EEng 21:39, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

• Support CBAN of this bludgeoning WP:SPA. They are a clear WP:TIMESINK. Allan Nonymous (talk) 22:10, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

  This thread could be Exhibit A for the recent proposal at VP that LLM-generated posts be banned from talk pages . EEng 22:51, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

  To take an example of Stan1900’s serial misrepresentations…

  Initially PAID tags were added to the articles. Stan objected and another user replaced them with COI tags. Later 2 further users expressed an opinion that PAID would be more appropriate so the tags were switched back to PAID in accordance with the developing consensus. Those PAID tags have remained in place since that time.

  Stan1900 has since claimed on several occasions, above and elsewhere, that the PAID tags were “removed following official review” (or similar words to that effect) and has presented this as a success for his point of view.

  Either the user is exceptionally deluded or is attempting to misrepresent matters to those without the patience to read through all the documentation elsewhere. Further evidence of the user's serial misrepresentation can be located here .

  And breaking news.. the article that was still in AfC was recently turned down for reading like an advertisement . Axad12 (talk) 22:56, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

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

Gender-related arbitration issue?

Removed from editing (indef'd). - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:56, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

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

---

Masquewand (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is removing "gender" from Sexual orientation (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). First 02:48, 20 Dec 24 which I reverted then on 04:12, 20 Dec 24. Masquewand was left a gender-related contentious-topics notice and has been blocked for this issue on 7 Dec 24. The article has a hidden comment that explains the reason "gender" is in place. Adakiko (talk) 11:14, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

This comment makes me think WP:NOTHERE applies. Simonm223 (talk) 11:45, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

The whole of that user talk page is a study in WP:IDHT. Someone for whom the concept of consensus is incomprehensible -- and throw in his charming assertion that a source as much as five years old is invalid -- is not going to be deflected from His! Mission! Ravenswing 12:02, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

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

Take note of this comment they made. Seems to imply a threat of socking? 2001:EE0:1AC3:C498:84A4:3BCE:C7B7:9F5F (talk) 05:07, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Mgtow definition

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

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

---

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

@Camarogue100, you should discuss this at Talk:Men Going Their Own Way. This noticeboard is for conduct issues, not content issues. Schazjmd (talk) 14:54, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with the definition of MGTOW. Maximum Gross Takeoff Weight is an internationally accepted and used term used by every airplane and airline in the world. Canterbury Tail talk 16:17, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

The cintent is incorrect. Mvto is NOT "misogynistic". There is no "hate" towards women, only avoidance. Camarogue100 (talk) 20:21, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

@Camarogue100, you were directed to the talkpage, which includes an FAQ on the term you keep trying to remove, along with extensive discussion. You should start there before just removing sourced content that you don't like. We'll leave aside the absence of required notifications to Black Kite and myself who have warned you for your conduct. Acroterion (talk) 17:41, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Where do I find the talk page? Camarogue100 (talk) 20:21, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

@Camarogue100, I linked it for you in my comment above. Schazjmd (talk) 20:27, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

• Camarogue100's removal of material unfavorable to the subject with an edit summary of "typo" indicates to me that they are here to play games, not improve the encyclopedia. Any more disruption should result in an immediate block IMO. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 20:33, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

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

Creating the need to make 400,000 unnecessary edits

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• 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)

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)

Excessive range block

IP-using sockmaster complains that their IP range is blocked. Complaining IP-using sockmaster is blocked. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:00, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

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

---

Special:Contributions/2600:1007:B100:0:0:0:0:0/40 has been blocked for 3 years. For anyone unfamiliar please read User:TonyBallioni/Just block the /64. You can also click on the contributions to see that this block affects editors literally all over the United States. I am not saying that no disruption ever came out of this range but this range is so massive it blocked countless editors who never did anything wrong trampling on the rights of far too many IP editors. Please unblock and in the future just block the 64. 2600:1012:B1AA:C837:B0E8:BE4F:395:C300 (talk) 20:27, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

And yet, since May there has only been a single unblock request, one which did not use the template so no one responded, doesn't seem like a lot of collateral. It's an anonymous only block, so accounts (created in other ranges) can be used to edit from that range without issue.

Secondly, this should probably be at WP:AN, or better yet the blocking admin's user talk page, as this is not an incident nor anything requiring urgent admin attention, seen as the block has been like that since May, and blocked for long lengths of time before that as well with no apparent issue. – 2804:F1...74:E386 (::/32) (talk) 20:42, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Most IP editors don’t know how to submit an unblock request. And a new editor would be unable to create an account thanks to this block. We’ll never know how many would be wikipedians we lost. I don’t know why the fact that this range block is problematic needs to be explained. It affects way more people than the editor(s) they were trying to block. Literally the entire United States can fall on that range. 2600:1012:B1AA:C837:B0E8:BE4F:395:C300 (talk) 21:28, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Most IP editors don’t know how to submit an unblock request. Right, that's factored into the calculation that only one request means there isn't a lot of collateral damage. If every editor that wanted one automatically filed one, a total of one filing wouldn't be small, but minuscule collateral. Remsense ‥ 论 21:39, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

That doesn’t make any sense. If every editor that wanted one automatically filed one, we wouldn’t have a total of one filing. No one even responded to the unblock request, so we likely lost a would be wikipedian. The collateral damage is not small and can be minimized by blocking the 64 instead of a 40 range. There have been far too many editors that didn’t do anything wrong blocked. 174.243.177.85 (talk) 00:11, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

We can't facilitate absolutely every case unfortunately. Every block might lose someone we could've known and loved in a perfect world. With experience, the evidence indicates that the trade-off here has been acceptable to prevent disruption to the encyclopedia. Remsense ‥ 论 00:26, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

No one has any "rights" to edit this website. 331dot (talk) 00:40, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

This is actually a rather complicated subject. Firstly number of addresses ≠ number of affected users. Some very broad ranges are little used, some rather narrow ones are extremely busy. Secondly there's a tricky calculation involved with broad range blocks, but much as we want to limit collateral to as little as necessary, there are some extremely nasty sockmasters who have no qualms about abusing large ranges to their advantage, so that large rang-blocks really are the least bad option. As just one example the entire T-Mobile range has been repeatedly blocked. In fact blocks as wide as /29 are not as unreasonable as you may think.

Getting back to this specific case, it's a Verizon Business range, and it wouldn't surprise me if individual users floated within a /40 making the block of smaller subnets of less utility. I don't know all the specifics of why Widr blocked that range, but then again you don't either since you didn't ask them first which you really should have done before bringing this here. That range has in fact been repeatedly blocked including for BLP violations and sockpuppetry. Ideal? no. Least bad option? Almost certainly. Those are experienced sysops; I would trust their judgement. 184.152.68.190 (talk) 02:08, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

FYI, OP is a block evader, latest socks here and here. Widr (talk) 07:56, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Figures, at least they were kind enough to bring their block-evasion to everyone's attention here; to the limited extent I have time available I'll try to keep an eye out. 184.152.68.190 (talk) 15:01, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Blocking a /64 on this IP range would be pointless. Admins can do blocks like this without disabling account creation, though. Unless there's logged-in disruption, such as the creation of sock puppets, vandals, or trolls, account creation can be left enabled on wide IP ranges like this. Personally, I'm not so sure that Mediawiki should make it so easy to perform range blocks. I think maybe there should be a user right required, like edit filter manager. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:38, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

• I came across similar thoughts a few days ago. Because of bot reasons, and others, a lot of the times I am in incognito mode - without logged in. I often need to see the source. And all this time (in last 2-3 years), all of the time my IP/range was blocked with ACB. Is it possible to block the IP ranges only from mainspace? or something similar? —usernamekiran (talk) 12:00, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
• This is, I think, a mobile network with dynamically assigned IP addresses. It may be necessary to block a range if there is disruption by people whose IP address change frequently within that range. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 12:21, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

  regardless ISP (mobile/DSL/fibre or anything), the default IP system in India is dynamic. Static IPs are provided upon request, which are done only by hosting service providers and similar people. So it is safe to say that 99.9 home users/individual in India have dynamic IP address which change a lot. —usernamekiran (talk) 13:31, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

  Special:Contributions/2600:1007:B100:0:0:0:0:0/40 is in the United States, not India. — Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:26, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

  I believe Usernamekiran was referring to their own experience mentioned in their first comment rather than this specific case. Regardless, this thread was started in bad-faith by a sockmaster unhappy their favorite range was blocked and should now be closed. If I hadn't already involved myself by weighing in here I would have done so already. 184.152.68.190 (talk) 20:31, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

  I think this is a sockmaster that is just unhappy with Widr in general, seeing the accounts Widr mentioned - may or may not make this report an attempt at harassment.

  Should be closed either way. Also on you closing it, IPs shouldn't really close threads, even when uninvolved - reverting a sock's unresponded post is probably the most an IP might do, closing just shouldn't happen. – 2804:F1...A7:86CC (::/32) (talk) 20:51, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

  There is, or perhaps was the last decade or so has been a bit of a blur, a complex etiquette governing such closes, but if sentiment has turned entirely against them that would be news to me. At one point I might have ventured on essay on that and other many other facets of unregistered etiquette, but now I don't have the time and would probably just wind-up dating myself badly anyway. 184.152.68.190 (talk) 20:59, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

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

Unblock request of Rereiw82wi2j

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

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

---

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

It seems to need reverting because with their previous account, they only edited one article/talk page and when asked what articles they wanted to edit with their new account, they just mention this same article. That violates the entire principle of a clean start account. Liz 23:00, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Could we revoke TPA per this? ~ Pbritti (talk) 14:19, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

I have revoked their talk page access and declined the unblock request. PhilKnight (talk) 14:34, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

User has created another account Human82. Lavalizard101 (talk) 15:39, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Also now blocked. GiantSnowman 16:17, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

There's also User:ResearchAbility now. win8x (talk) 16:32, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Blocked by PhilKnight. GiantSnowman 16:36, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

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

User:ZanderAlbatraz1145 Civility and Content #2

• 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)

there is wrong information on the article shia in iraq

Content dispute. Talk:Shia Islam in Iraq is thataway →. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:11, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

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

---

in this article the editor saying that the shea in iraq 65% and Sunni in iraq is 25-30% this is totally wrong statement in Iraq we never have census established based on sect all the census was established based on Male and female please see the reference below, please remove this false information and corrected, wekepedia shouldn't publish Article backed by weak source the, the editor used the world factbook that belong to CIA , i cant believe this, how the hell that the CIA conducted a Census overseas and get the number of Sunni and Shia people in Iraq, this is the same fake information that the CIA told the world that Iraq have mass destruction weapon which leaded to occupied Iraq, so please edit and remove these false info . below are links showing Iraq Census database showing all the Census that been conducted since 1950 till 2024, was based on male and female never have Census based on Sect.

https://countryeconomy.com/demography/population/iraq?year=1978 https://www.populationpyramid.net/iraq/1978/ https://www.macrotrends.net/global-metrics/countries/IRQ/iraq/population https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/iraq-population/ https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/iraq-hold-first-nationwide-census-since-1987-2024-11-19/ https://www.usnews.com/news/world/articles/2024-11-25/iraqs-population-reaches-45-4-million-in-first-census-in-over-30-years https://cosit.gov.iq/ar/62arabic-cat/indicators/174-population-2?jsn_setmobile=no — Preceding unsigned comment added by Freeman7373 (talk • contribs) 01:11, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Freeman7373. This noticeboard does not resolve content disputes. Please discuss your concerns at Talk:Shia Islam in Iraq. That being said, estimates of religious affiliation do not require an official census. The CIA World Factbook is considered a reliable source for this type of information, as is the United States Institute of Peace which is also cited. Cullen328 (talk) 01:56, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

how you gave population rate based on sect without Census, what you said doesn't make any sense and showing the ignorance, your CIA is not a reliable source they lied about the mass destruction weapon in IRAQ which leaded to the occupation and many people died from both side , i know people life doesn't mean anything to the evil side, so this is one example of your reliable source. see links below

https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2023/03/the-iraq-invasion-20-years-later-it-was-indeed-a-big-lie-that-launched-the-catastrophic-war/

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/mar/18/panorama-iraq-fresh-wmd-claims

https://www.quora.com/Was-the-CIA-dumb-to-conclude-that-Iraq-has-WMDs

Shame on your reliable source 2603:8080:2602:2000:34F5:E43C:C23B:E584 (talk) 02:09, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Quora isn't reliable, and please be civil. E_F 02:10, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

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

MumbaiGlenPaesViolinStudent

MumbaiGlenPaesViolinStudent was warned to cease this conduct. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:27, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

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

---

MumbaiGlenPaesViolinStudent (talk · contribs) has been warned by several users about their improper short descriptions but has not changed their behavior. It unfortunately appears to be a competence issue. Remsense ‥ 论 01:29, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Looks like they just committed to stopping. I'd be inclined to take a wait and see approach here. 184.152.68.190 (talk) 02:23, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. Remsense ‥ 论 02:24, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

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

Consistent unsourced changes by IP 2604:2D80:E283:4400:6966:1764:DC7C:6329

Blocked the /64 for one week. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:24, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

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

---

2604:2D80:E283:4400:6966:1764:DC7C:6329 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been changing composer fields across various movie articles with no sources. All of them have been plain wrong. Kline • talk • contribs 01:41, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Note: The user has persisted after I issued a level 4 final warning for continued deliberate insertion of incorrect information on the user's talk page Yutah|UPage|(talk)✶ 02:00, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

This seems to be purely an AIV issue - especially since it's an unregistered user. Synorem (talk) 02:15, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Good timing, I've opened a report on AIV just a few minutes ago Yutah|UPage|(talk)✶ 02:17, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

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

SPA User:Tikitorch2 back at it on Martin Kulldorff

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

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

Disruptive editing Movement for Democracy

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

diff1 diff2

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

This is a content dispute, not a conduct dispute. Since discussing the issue on article talk has not worked, please follow dispute resolution processes, such as seeking guidance at WT:GREECE or WT:POLITICS, or going to WP:DRN. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:50, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

@Voorts taking a look because I've been tagged. While there may be content elements to it I think this has gone into a behavioural issue, namely due to it being a user actively edit warring without providing sources but instead endlessly insisting on edits that are entirely WP:OR. Rambling Rambler (talk) 20:00, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

It is not a problem of content but of behaviour. His claim is original research, is his own conclusion and is not verified by any source. He knows it, has admitted it, and yet he insists on adding it. 130.43.66.82 (talk) 20:02, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

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

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

Sugar Bear returns with personal attacks

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

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

---

• 166.181.224.0/19 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))
• Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Sugar Bear/Archive

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

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

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

Past disruption from nearby IPs includes the following:

• Special:Contributions/166.182.84.172 was blocked in 2018 and 2019.
• Special:Contributions/166.182.80.0/21 was blocked in 2018 for one month.
• Special:Contributions/166.181.254.122 was blocked in 2020, identifying Sugar Bear.
• Special:Contributions/166.181.253.26 was blocked twice in 2020 for personal attacks.
• Special:Contributions/166.182.0.0/16 was rangeblocked in 2023 for three years. Binksternet (talk) 22:53, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

I've blocked the current /24 for two weeks, but I see a lot of potential for collateral damage for longer or broader blocks. Acroterion (talk) 22:59, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

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

Comments by Locke Cole

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

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

---

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

• Sour grapes are over there, in case you're lost.

I replied to this with What?? Voting on an AfD should be policy-based, not just "keep" or "he's too notable". I'm giving evidence to my claim that keep votes were given unnecessarily large amounts of weight when closing this. Yes, I left out the ones with evidence, because that wasn't the point of the list. Again, would you give weight to the five keep votes that just said "keep"? I believe this is the second time I've had to say this to you, but way to WP:ABF.

• Well, you're already violating WP:DRVPURPOSE #8 by casting WP:ASPERSIONS about other editors. Carry on, I look forward to seeing you blocked for being an idiot.

And I replied to this one with Yes, I removed a comment after realizing it violated our aspersions policy. Do you have an issue with that? Feel free to take this to ANI if you want to continue, as it’s clogging up the DRV.

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

I'm not sure that the cited comments are in themselves enough to justify a block. I also note that LC has recently suffered a personal loss. Speaking from experience, I can state that when in deep mourning we are not always at our best. That said, I find LC's block log disturbing.-Ad Orientem (talk) 02:52, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

While I do get that, and I do respect that and am deeply sorry that happened to them, this behavior has been going on since late 2005, and includes an arbitration request, hence why I brought it directly here. Calling me an "idiot" was 100% an NPA vio, and having a personal loss shouldn't excuse that (also speaking from experience with the loss of my mother from Cancer of unknown primary origin in 2014). This is a rare case where I'll say that a block log should give you an idea of whether this behavior will continue. E_F 02:56, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

bolding policies I've added at the end - I'll just note that every one of the "policies" you linked to (bar WP:ABF, where I'm pretty sure you wanted WP:AGF) goes to Misplaced Pages:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. Which is very useful and well-thought-out, and by all means should be used as a tool at AfD, but is not policy. It's an essay on policy. There's a difference. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:42, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Okay then, per that I've removed the list. The comments still stand though. E_F 03:57, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

• So the OP wants themselves and the other party to receive blocks for incivility? Why don't you just stop being rude to each other? Change your own behavior. Opening this discussion is just drawing attention to a few comments that otherwise would have likely been forgotten. I don't see how this post helps the situation at all. Just do better. And if Locke Cole comes to this discussion, I pray this doesn't devolve into bickering. Let's all just get back to editing productively and not taking shots at each other. Liz 05:23, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

  I don’t know, maybe I just thought it’d continue and brought it here, likely too early. Is it possible to close this? E_F 13:19, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

From what I read from the DRV, it definitely seemed like it got heated, but it definitely seemed to cool down. Trouts for sure, but I don't see why blocks are necessary. As for you, given that you're asking to be punished, you seem to recognize what you did wrong, and you pledge to not continue this behavior. Just change your password for a day or a week and change it back later; I don't think admin intervention is necessarily warranted. guninvalid (talk) 11:43, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Though as actual admins above have mentioned, their block history is indeed concerning. guninvalid (talk) 11:50, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

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

User talk:International Space Station0

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)

POV IP editor and 2024 Kobani clashes

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

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

---

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

Oh also this. Des Vallee (talk) 05:55, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 72 hours (User talk:88.243.192.169#Block) and pages protected El_C 13:15, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

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

Promotional content about Elvenking (band)

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

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

---

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

I am indeed a big fan of the band and am trying to update the band's wikipedia information to make it as accurate as possible so people can learn about the band. I hope this helps support the band and also helps wikipedia readers and users who wish to learn more about the band. Elvenlegions (talk) 06:14, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

• If these musicians are not notable, you can always tag the articles CSD A7. Liz 07:42, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Understood, Elvenlegions, but Misplaced Pages is not a webhost or a promotional site. If the band, nor its members, nor its discography qualify as notable under the standards we set for musical notability, then the band's fans will have to learn about it elsewhere. Ravenswing 07:51, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

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

Disruptive editor on When the Pawn...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bunch of racist IPs/account

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

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

---

Article: Anti-Turkish sentiment

• GREEKMASTER7281 (talk · contribs)
• 112.202.57.150 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 186.154.62.233 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

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

Named account indeffed, IPs blocked for 72 hours each. GiantSnowman 14:12, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

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

Urgent need for page protection on BLP

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

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

---

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

Looks like User:Schwede66 got it. DMacks (talk) 19:15, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

@DMacks: Thanks! Yeah. I assume they will also need a third-party closer given the heated nature of the argument. -- Lenny Marks (talk) 19:27, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

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

Multiple users breaking 3RR on Gilman School article

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

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

Awshort (talk)

• 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)

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

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

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

---

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

I see the genre warriors are out today. Don't you realise how childish you are? (Not you, Waxworker.) Phil Bridger (talk) 20:37, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

I thought I was the only one who noticed how many were running rampant today. So exhausting. . . Shovel Shenanigans (talk) 20:45, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

/64 blocked for six months. Acroterion (talk) 22:16, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

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

User:NoahBWill2002

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

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

---

• NoahBWill2002 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

I 100% agree with The Squirrel Conspiracy on this. User:NoahBWill2002 appears completely unable to comprehend and/or follow some of the core rules of Misplaced Pages, especially WP:COPYVIO and WP:NPOV, despite multiple editors trying to help them understand. The comment that Squirrel Conspiracy highlighted, followed by a series of blatant copyright violations, makes it abundantly clear that this editor is not going to change and is not here to build an encyclopedia. Opolito (talk) 22:47, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

They have only had an account for a few days. It's seems rather soon to proclaim they are "not going to change". The images they were trying to add have been deleted from the Commons, let's see if they can find other ways to contribute to the project now that they can't promote their artwork here. Liz 23:09, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Given this comment, I'm not sanguine about their intention to contribute productively. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:11, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

They added this grossly inappropriate religious screed to Babylon on their third day of editing, then they responded to a warning about it with more proselytizing. I had hoped they would get the message but just today they made this non-NPOV edit apparently based on their religious beliefs. Apart from religious edits, apparently the only other thing they've done is add self-produced fan art to a variety of articles. I'm willing to AGF while they learn what are acceptable edits here but I'd like to see some acknowledgement from them that they understand why all their edits so far have been unacceptable. (It would also show good faith if they would clean up the now-broken links in numerous articles now that their fan art has been deleted from Commons, rather than leaving it for other editors to do.) CodeTalker (talk) 00:16, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

I have indefinitely blocked NoahBWill2002 as not here to build an encyclopedia. Cullen328 (talk) 01:21, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

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

Vandal encounter

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

diffs:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

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

I will stop creating these articles. GDJackAttack1 (talk) 01:27, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

I tagged one as CSD A7 to see if that would work. Bgsu98 (Talk) 01:36, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

@Bgsu98: Thank you, I also considered PROD-ing them all but I noticed you have so already. Waddles 🗩 🖉 02:20, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

I think I got all of the ones that that Maryland batch, but I’m sure there are more. Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:22, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

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

User:Glenn103

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

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

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

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

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

TPA for 83.106.86.95

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

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

---

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

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

Done and revdel'ed, thanks to JJMC89. LizardJr8 (talk) 02:23, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

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

Can you please help?

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

 Done Couldn't be moved because the target page had to be deleted; its now fixed. As a note for the future, WP:AN would be a better place for this, since it isn't an 'incident'. That said - was there a dab page at William Swainson before? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:38, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks to everyone for resolving this. As to the place for this, at some point I was told that "if you're a new user you have no reason to post at WP:AN" or something similar. I appreciate the help. Oholiba (talk) 05:28, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I think that the disambiguation page's revisions were merged into the history of the moved page, if I'm reading Special:Log/Shyamal correctly.

@Shyamal, can you confirm what happened/fix this? – 2804:F1...60:4C25 (::/32) (talk) 02:39, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Actually, WAS that the intention (merging the histories)? I have no idea how this works.

Maybe The Bushranger already did all that needed to be done. – 2804:F1...60:4C25 (::/32) (talk) 02:46, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

(edited): There was a dab page with two entries. It is now a redirect from William Swainson to William John Swainson and the direction is now different. The full histories are (merged) restored and visible. PS: I have added a hat-note to the one other (far less notable) lawyer - William Swainson (lawyer) - if there are many more entries to be dealt with then the (currently a redirect) page at William_Swainson_(disambiguation) could be reinstated/used. Shyamal (talk) 02:59, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

(nac) An intitle search turned up no other William Swainson, so I've tagged William Swainson (disambiguation) (which has no significant history) for speedying under WP:G14. Narky Blert (talk) 06:52, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

POVPushingTheTruth

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

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

---

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

Blocked. -- Euryalus (talk)| — Preceding undated comment added 05:09, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

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

North Korean involvement in Russian-Ukraine war discussion

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

Key Points:

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

Request for Administrative Action:

I respectfully request that administrators address the following issues:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dispute Over Edits and Use of British Raj Sources

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

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

---

Hello,

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

1. Misapplication of Policy:

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

2. Dismissal of Reliable Sources:

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

3. Unilateral Edits and Dismissive Behavior:

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

Evidence:

Diff of my original version

Diff of their first edit

Diff of their second edit

Ratnahastin talk page

Request for Administrative Action:

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

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

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

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

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

---

Best Regards

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

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

Nothing to say about me really bot

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

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

---

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

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

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

Concern About a New Contributor

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

Dear Wikipedians,

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

I believe your experience could help address this situation effectively.

Looking forward to your advice on how to proceed.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

•

•

•

•

and many more

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Darkwarriorblake making aspersions

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 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)

Category:

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards