| Revision as of 06:50, 2 May 2008 editTvoz (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers28,635 edits →tag team (meat puppets) attacking Obama article: replies← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 02:07, 25 December 2024 edit undoRusted AutoParts (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers137,259 edits →User:ZanderAlbatraz1145 Civility and Content #2 | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{Short description|Noticeboard for reporting incidents to administrators}}<noinclude><!-- Inside the noinclude, because this page is transcluded.-->{{/Header}}</noinclude>{{clear}} | |||
| <noinclude>{{Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentsHeader}}<!-- | |||
| {{stack begin|float=right|clear=false|margin=false}} | |||
| {{User:MiszaBot/config | |||
| -->__NEWSECTIONLINK__<!-- | |||
| -->{{User:MiszaBot/config | |||
| |archiveheader = {{Administrators' noticeboard navbox all}} | |archiveheader = {{Administrators' noticeboard navbox all}} | ||
| |maxarchivesize = |
|maxarchivesize =800K | ||
| |counter = |
|counter = 1174 | ||
| |algo = old( |
|algo = old(72h) | ||
| |key = 740a8315fa94aa42eb96fbc48a163504d444ec0297a671adeb246c17b137931c | |||
| |key = 4636e7fd80174f8cb324fd91d06d906d | |||
| |archive = Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive%(counter)d | |archive = Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive%(counter)d | ||
| |headerlevel=2 | |||
| }}<!-- | |||
| }} | |||
| ---------------------------------------------------------- | |||
| {{stack end}} | |||
| New entries go down at the *BOTTOM* of the page, not here. | |||
| <!-- | |||
| ---------------------------------------------------------- | |||
| NEW ENTRIES GO AT THE BOTTOM OF THE PAGE NOT HERE | |||
| --></noinclude> | |||
| NEW ENTRIES GO AT THE BOTTOM OF THE PAGE NOT HERE | |||
| NEW ENTRIES GO AT THE BOTTOM OF THE PAGE NOT HERE--> | |||
| == Disruptive editing and WP:TALKNO by ] == | |||
| 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 . | |||
| == Use of Misplaced Pages for class project == | |||
| 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 . | |||
| New user {{user1|Globalecon}} posted an article "Global Economics", since userfied to ], from which it appears that he is a professor planning to use Misplaced Pages as a web-space provider for his students' project papers. He advises them to put <nowiki>{{underconstruction}}</nowiki> at the top to avoid editing by others. Four student project articles have already appeared. How tolerant are we of this sort of thing? ] (]) 20:54, 28 April 2008 (UTC) | |||
| <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 15:20, 17 December 2024 (UTC)</small> | |||
| * Depends on the article produced. Of those four student essays, I think the last two of those, once wikified, could be perfectly adequate articles (I haven't checked to see if they duplicate existing content, though). The first two probably couldn't - and the first is at AfD already. <b>]</b> 21:00, 28 April 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :I've heard of teachers having their students write or significantly improve Misplaced Pages articles as part of a class. So long as everything is properly researched and written, I don't see much of a problem. --]<sub>(])</sub> 21:01, 28 April 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::We've had featured articles come out of school projects, see ] and the recent ] on the 2000th FA. Simply using Misplaced Pages for a school project isn't an issue at all (and should be encouraged, in my opinion). If the articles produced don't meet our standards, we just deal with them in the usual manner, perhaps giving a little bit of leeway to allow them a chance to improve the article. ] <sup>(]/]/])</sup> 21:12, 28 April 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::], apparently. I take issue with his attempt to ] the articles. Misplaced Pages is not a personal playground to store your stuff. Not the mainspace, at least. Otherwise, there's obviously nothing wrong with people creating legitimate articles, whether it's for a college experiment or something else. ''']''' '']'' 21:14, 28 April 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Update: Two of the four articles are now at AfD, and the other two have been tagged (one by me) with proposals to merge into existing articles. ] (]) 22:12, 28 April 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Is it a problem that ] mentions the real names of the students working on these pages? Although they're adults, the folks involved in this project seem to be new to Misplaced Pages and may not be fully apprised of the risks. Additionally, the names seem to have been posted by the professor running the project, not the students themselves. A full name plus the fact that they attend Brock University might be more information than is wise to disclose. --] (]) 23:22, 28 April 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Good point, and not only the university, but a specific class there. Maybe the names should be changed to initials, or first names and last initials? And the more specific info oversighted? ] ] 00:43, 29 April 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Further update: there are now eight articles listed on that page. One does not exist (and has never existed), 3 are on AfD, 1 has been prodded, and two have been proposed for merging (only 1 is actually going to survive on its own). And all of them have been tagged for cleanup. '''''<font color="#FF0000">]</font>''''' 06:43, 29 April 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) | |||
| ::::::'''Yet another update''': There are now nine articles listed and I suspect there are more to come. I hope this isn't one of those big lecture classes with 50 or 60 students. As it is, it's starting to put quite a strain on the time of admins and others monitoring this project, e.g. tagging, warning, participation in AfDs and merge discussions etc. It's a pity ] didn't read ] first. Many of the current pitfalls (and subsequent clean-ups), could have been avoided. Sigh! ] (]) 09:02, 29 April 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::Yes the is indeed about ]. I see the content dispute as stemming from the fundamental conduct issue, which has manifested itself most egregiously with insisting on violating ] repeatedly even after I that I had and that they should refrain from changing the heading again in order to preserve the integrity of the link, after which they went ahead and . ] (]) 16:00, 17 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::The heading dispute is between a date heading, and a descriptive heading? that's not really reformulating your entry. ] (]) 17:44, 17 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::It's a conduct issue. ] (]) 19:58, 17 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::But what conduct issue? TALKNO doesn't forbid changing headings. In fact the wider guideline makes it clear it's perfectly acceptable "{{tqi|Because threads are shared by multiple editors (regardless of how many have posted so far), no one, including the original poster, "owns" a talk page discussion or its heading. It is generally acceptable to change headings when a better heading is appropriate, e.g., one more accurately describing the content of the discussion or the issue discussed, less one-sided, more appropriate for accessibility reasons, etc. Whenever a change is likely to be controversial, avoid disputes by discussing a heading change with the editor who started the thread, if possible. It can also sometimes be appropriate to merge entire sections under one heading (often preserving the later one as a subheading) if their discussions are redundant.}}" To be blunt, if you don't want editors changing the headings of sections you start, don't use such terrible headings. I definitely recommend you stay away from ANI since changing headings is quite common here. ] (]) 06:25, 18 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Actually I missed the signature issue. That's far more concerning unfortunately lost IMO partly because you concentrated on silly stuff. ] (]) 06:29, 18 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::‎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) | |||
| Although I see nothing wrong with a professor assigning students the task of contributing to Misplaced Pages, I can't see how they can claim any right not to have their articles edited by others. ] (]) 00:35, 29 April 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 think it's ok so long as they don't violate any of Misplaced Pages's policies. If they are POV pushing, claiming ownership of articles or anything else I think they should be warned. Misplaced Pages is ]. <font face="comic sans ms" color="#454545">]</font><sup>] | ]</sup> 00:48, 29 April 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::], this is not good to see. Don't rewrite or reformat other editor's signatures. There is no reason to be doing this unless you are trying to provoke the other editor. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 07:51, 18 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::: For what it's worth, AnonMoos stated earlier that the changing of the signature was a unintentional technical issue, due to his use of some "non-standard tool" in accessing the internet . This seems plausible, as similar apparently unintentional changes to non-Ascii character data have happened in edits of his before (e.g. ). But if he knew of this issue, it's rather disappointing he let it happen again some days later . Equally disappointing is the extremely aggressive rhetoric and acerbic tone with which he has been escalating this essentially harmless, good-faith content dispute from the beginning. ] ] 10:25, 18 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I just can't fathom what tool they're using to get around the HTTPS requirement to edit Misplaced Pages securely. — <b>]:<sup>]</sup></b> 17:42, 18 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Should be impossible as it's required to even access the site in the first place according to ]]<sup>] </sup> 16:41, 19 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::<strike>Looking at his talk page it's been going back to at least 2011]<sup>] </sup> 16:17, 19 December 2024 (UTC)</strike> | |||
| :Guys, I do not deliberately set out to modify signatures, and when it happens, I am not usually aware of doing so. As I've already explained before in several places, since the December 2019 encryption protocol upgrade (NOT 2011!), the only way I can edit (or view) Misplaced Pages at all from home is by an indirect method which is not fully Unicode-compliant. To change this, I would have to get a completely different type of Internet connection, which would permanently disconnect my older computer, which I still use almost every day. | |||
| :Meanwhile, this thread has been set up so I can't add a comment to it from home without affecting Unicode characters, so I was unable to reply here for 36 hours or so. If I'm silent in the future, it will be for the same reason. ] (]) 01:14, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::Misplaced Pages uses Unicode characters (] encoding). Anyone who cannot edit without corrupting such characters should '''not edit'''. ] (]) 03:47, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::Whatever, -- I was using them perfectly fine until December 2019, and still use them perfectly fine on public WiFi, but in December 2019 a requirement was imposed that you can't access Misplaced Pages '''at all''' unless you can handle encryption algorithms and protocols that weren't introduced until the mid-2010s. I have a 2012 web browser on my home computer that handles UTF-8 just fine, but 2012 simply wasn't good enough for the Misplaced Pages developers -- you had to have software that was almost up to date as of 2019, or you would be abruptly totally cut off. If you can drag up the relevant archive of Village Pump Technical, I and others complained at the time, but our concerns were not listened to or considered in any way. The basic attitude of the developers was that if you weren't running almost up-to-date software, then screw you, and if your computer is not capable of running almost up-to-date software, then double screw you! The change was announced for January 2020, but was actually implemented in mid-December 2019, apparently because they were so eager and anxious to start excluding people. It wasn't one of Misplaced Pages's finer moments. Since that time, I have had to use an indirect method to access Misplaced Pages from my home computer, and I don't feel particularly guilty about it (other people's obnoxious behaviors in 2019 have done away with most of the guilt I might feel)... ] (]) 20:59, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::...] was created in ''1994'', and became an official specification in '''2000''', not "mid-2010s". I'm not sure what 2012 web browser you're using, but if it's not able to handle HTTPS not being able to access Misplaced Pages with it is the least of your browsing concerns, given that 85-95% of the World Wide Web defaults to it now. Also I hate to think of how many security holes your ancient computer has. I'm going to be honest: with a brower setup that old it isn't safe for you to be on the web ''at all'', and the security hole that lets you access Misplaced Pages without using a secure connection should be fixed, because that is ''not'' working as intended and is - as mentioned - a security hole. - ] <sub>]</sub> 00:18, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::You unfortunately don't know what you're talking about. New ENCRYPTION ALGORITHM AND PROTOCOL METHODS have been introduced ''within'' HTTPS from time to time. I was using HTTPS perfectly happily until December 2019, when the developers arbitrarily ENCRYPTION ALGORITHM AND PROTOCOL REQUIREMENTS. ] (]) 00:57, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::And even leaving that aside, as Johnuniq mentions - if you can't edit without corrupting Unicode characters, and by your own admission you ''don't know when it happens'', you shouldn't be editing. - ] <sub>]</sub> 00:20, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::This is probably a reference to when Misplaced Pages started requiring TLS 1.2 (because earlier versions were deprecated). Anyone who was/is still on Windows XP at that point couldn't connect any more. ] (]) 01:29, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::I'm not talking about when the update happening, I'm talking about how you have known about this issue, and have been getting complainants about it since <strike>2011</strike>and are still not taking any steps to do anything about it. What kind of internet connection would not support your PC? What on earth are you even using? Dial-Up? Because that still is supported by even Windows 10. ]<sup>] </sup> 02:59, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| <strike>:::Also, how did you see me saying "this has happened since 2011" as me saying that the update happened in 2011? Can you clarify. ]<sup>] </sup> 03:07, 23 December 2024 (UTC) </strike> | |||
| ::::The problem didn't start in 2011, and I have no idea what you're referring to when you mention 2011. The problem started in December 2019 when the developers arbitrarily imposed new ENCRYPTION ALGORITHM AND PROTOCOL REQUIREMENTS... ] (]) 00:57, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: Apologies. I was extremely tired when I wrote both above. I have striken the date parts. Rest of my comments still stand. ]<sup>] </sup> 01:06, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ===None of this matters=== | |||
| I don't care what tool this guy uses or what his excuse is. If he can't edit without screwing up people's sigs, then he must not edit. {{U|AnonMoos}} shouls consider himself on notice now that if one of his edits messes stuff up one more time, he'll be blocked until he can give assurance that he's come into the 21st century. ]] 18:05, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :That's nice -- and also totally inaccurate. I ''was'' in the 21st century, and using 2012 tools, up until December 2019, when the developers pitchforked me backwards by arbitrarily imposing HTTPS ENCRYPTION ALGORITHM AND PROTOCOL REQUIREMENTS which my home computer hardware is not able to run. Notice that I had no problem complying with character-set handling -- the problem is with arbitrary ENCRYPTION ALGORITHM AND PROTOCOL REQUIREMENTS. ] (]) 00:48, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::The century imagery is irrelevant. You have been warned. ]] 03:14, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::That was ''six years ago'', which is IMO about 3-4 years too long to keep using it as an excuse. Technology changes over time, so whatever this non-standard thing you think you need to do to edit here, it may be time to make a choice. ] (]) 00:56, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::As I said, to fix the problem, I would have to get a completely different type of Internet connection which would permanently disconnect my old computer, which I still use almost every single day. I would basically have to change my workflow and overall habits/methods of working because of an arbitrary decision by Misplaced Pages developers about encryption protocol updates. Anyway, when editing through public WiFi, I'm 100% Unicode compliant, and by exercising a little prudence, I can also avoid most problems when working from home. If I was constantly mangling Unicode right and left, there would have been a chorus of complaints long before now. But occasionally I can't anticipate a problem... ] (]) 01:06, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::And just to say for the third time: you're out of chances. "Occassionally" is too often. Once more is too often. And if and when that happens, your attitude of entitlement displayed here will pretty much ensure an indefinite block. ]] 03:14, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Think it's time to draft up a formal proposal at this point? ]<sup>] </sup> 18:29, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::I don't think that's necessary. The key isn't formally deciding the criterion for blocking (because that's obvious to everyone) but rather detecting the next incident. Best way to do that for everyone gathered here to watchlist ]. Sooner or later, futher trouble will show up there. ]] 21:31, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::If you have DSL or even DialUp. That still works with modern machines. ]<sup>] </sup> 01:08, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Heck, ''I'' am on DSL (and have been since, if I recall right, 2008). I have no idea what sort of ancient Internet connection AnonMoos is claiming to be using, but it's clearly one that was already obsolete before this change he's still up in arms about six years later was made. - ] <sub>]</sub> 05:44, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Not to mention it would STILL be supported these days. It's literally right there when you click wifi/network settings in Windows 10. ]<sup>] </sup> 18:20, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *The response by AnonMoos to feedback about this problem is bizarre. I don't really care what the excuse or the history behind it. If you are unwilling to edit Misplaced Pages using tools that work in 2024 then you should stop editing. The behavior is completely unnecessary and it seems like you don't understand the disruption. ] (]) 14:45, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| * AnonMoos hasn't really explained in any detail what their technical limitations are. They don't have to, but we can't really give advice otherwise. If as others have suggested their computer can't negotiate TLS 1.2, I'm surprised that they're able to use any websites at all from that computer. Requiring TLS 1.2 is not controversial; Misplaced Pages wasn't doing anything unusual in dropping TLS 1.0/1.1 around that time. ] ] 15:02, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :Someone could just fire an email off to the guy. I'm sure the Prof's page at the university has his email. Just a quick email explaining that it is cool to assign students to work on wikipedia but the manner in which students are being assigned violates the principles on which WP is based. Shouldn't be hard. ] (]) 05:44, 29 April 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::{{done}} Sent off a polite email (to his univ account) thanking him for encouraging contributions, but letting him know that he might want to read the discussion here and on his talk page. --] <sup>(])</sup> 06:06, 29 April 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Disruptive editing by ] == | |||
| :::'''Question''' Are you sure the professor is from ]? The Paul Hamilton there is in the Politcal Science Dept. On the other hand, '''Paul V. Hamilton''' is a professor in the economics department (specialising in global economics) at ]. Observe this comment in ]: | |||
| {{atop|1=IP blocked 24 hours, and then ] and created an account to evade the block, which has now been indef'd. - ] <sub>]</sub> 22:43, 24 December 2024 (UTC)}} | |||
| :::*'''Do NOT Delete''' This is a draft for course. Please leave unaltered until May 15, 2008. Thanks. pvh <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 14:37, 28 April 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| 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. | |||
| :::Not only are the initals at the end of the comment congruent with "Paul V. Hamilton", the IP traces back to Marshall University. His email address can be found . I notice that ] also has "email this user" enabled. ] (]) 10:33, 29 April 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::*No, I wasn't sure. That was just my best guess from an Internet search. Apparently, I was wrong. ''']''' '']'' 15:21, 29 April 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::{{done}} Sent an email as suggested by Protonk and Bfigura via "email this user". ] (]) 12:23, 29 April 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: Thank you for your comments and suggestions. Here are a few thoughts/clarifications: (1) Yes, I am a professor at Marshall (not Brock), (2) This is part of a class assignment (it's not an online class as one person suggested), (3) The students have been made aware of WP article criteria; if they don't live up to that criteria then their article can rightly be edited or deleted, (4) The "under-construction" / "please do not edit" was an attempt to give the student a few days to shape up the article. This idea was suggested on the main Misplaced Pages tutorial page. It was not meant to be interpreted as an exception to WP edit policy, (5) I will abbreviate the student names to preserve confidentiality, (6) Yes, ultimately there will be a wide range in the quality and suitability of articles. I've asked students to take their best shot; there are about 100 students in my two sections so unless you want to quit your day job I'd suggest that you give us a few days (May 10) to sort things out. I will personally delete any articles that don't meet the WP criteria after grading them in about a week. ] (]) 13:25, 29 April 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ] (]) 20:52, 18 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::The problem is, you can't personally delete articles, even your own. Only an administrator can do that. The individual authors can request deletion themselves by blanking the article and replacing it with {{tl|db-author}}. But an administrator still has to do the deletion, and it becomes even more complicated if others outside your project add sunstantially to the articles, despite your requests. Thus, Misplaced Pages administrators will potentially end up having to manually delete or merge 100 articles, even if they wait until after May 10th. Mightn't it be better for the students to write their articles on their ] or their ] and only contemplate publishing them in the ] once you and they have a greater understanding of what kind of articles are likely to survive and why? Just a thought. Best, ] (]) 14:46, 29 April 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. –<span style="font-family:CG Times, times">] ]<sup>]</sup></span> 20:33, 19 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| Are there any links to good / featured articles created as part of school projects? That way it'd be easy to say "this is how it's done right", and WP gets to keep newbie editors who aren't disillusioned about having to complete schoolwork which then gets deleted because they've been told to do it wrong. ] 13:30, 29 April 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::MJL why and how did you pick out that one article over the many this IP has made recent changes to? The IP has been making disputed edits for months and has been reverted by a number of editors, not just Moroike. ] (]) 01:10, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :As Hersfold said above, ''']''' came out of a school project, and was our 2,000th FA. ] ] 15:11, 29 April 2008 (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. –<span style="font-family:CG Times, times">] ]<sup>]</sup></span> 18:02, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::: Correction: one of the batch of five articles promote as the 2,000th. ]. And not a typical educational experiment, because they were accessorized by ], comprising many of Wiki's prolific FA writers, who did a good deal of the kind of tweaking and fine-tuning needed to achieve FA status. My past experiences with these educational projects has been more along the lines of what I'm reading here: a most frustrating time sink. ] (]) 16:31, 30 April 2008 (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) | |||
| ::::It is true that we had the invaluable help of the FA-Team, but that's not why we avoided this problem. I'd say that the three errors made in this case are: | |||
| 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) | |||
| ::::*that the professor has no history on Misplaced Pages | |||
| :After he/she was blocked for 24 hours, this IP created an account as ] in order to evade the block and has resumed his/her POV pushing. ] (]) 16:51, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::*that the professor shows no sign of wanting to edit actively to support his students | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| ::::*that the students are asked to pick their own article topics, rather than improve existing articles or fill clear gaps | |||
| ::::*that the students are writing the articles off-line and then uploading them in what is inevitably a non-Misplaced Pages format | |||
| ::::*that the students are writing the articles off-line, in a genre more suitable to term papers than encyclopedia articles | |||
| ::::*that the class has no clear goal beyond uploading content, any content | |||
| ::::] avoided all these errors. And it's in large part because we did avoid them, that we were, I believe, an attractive prospect for the FA-Team, and the collaboration could get off to a good start. --] (] • ]) 00:54, 1 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :'''A suggestion:''' Why not create the articles in Globalecon’s userspace, i.e. ], ], etc.? Globalecon could then simply add {{tl|db-userreq}} to the ones he wants deleted and the articles worth keeping could then be ] out to mainspace. —]] 14:58, 29 April 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::Now, of course, I’ve just seen the very handy link to ] on Globalecon’s talk page. —]] 15:17, 29 April 2008 (UTC) | |||
| * Agree that articles could be worked on in userspace but, people on both ends need to be aware of the NOT webhost thing. I'd suggest to the students and anyone else to write the text of the article in Word/or other word-like form and use the help pages alot in order to "wikify" it. They can then present the professor with text only (the way the article would look) and the "wiki" bit with code inserted. Finished articles could then be uploaded (if appropriate) and judged by the community on their own merits separate from any issues with the class. ] (]) 16:27, 29 April 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :*There are now 17 articles listed at ] (although some have already been deleted). If there are really going to be about a hundred of these, and if no one can persuade the teacher to get his students to do something other than what they've been doing, AfD is going to be severely clogged up for some time to come. ] (]) 02:56, 30 April 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::*People are now using that page as a source for articles to PROD or send to AFD. :P I looked through the pages listed there, and most of them have received that treatment. ''']''' '']'' 03:21, 30 April 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::*Enigmaman, you mean that wasn't what it was there for? How far do they have to go before we can rangeblock Marshall until May 10th? The prof doesn't seem to want to work within the rules here so this entire project doesn't seem much different concerted vandalism attack. One Hundred articles to be deleted, redirected, or merged? Woof...I'm sure we've all got better things to do than to be this guy's unpaid TAs. (sorry to sound so BITEY, but he appears unwilling to work with us, why should we allow him to swamp WP?) <font face="monospace" color="#004080">]·(])·(])</font> 03:24, 30 April 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::*Ha, I was actually considering recommending that myself. I think any administrator would be hesitant to rangeblock a university, even temporarily, but that seems to be where this is headed. The pages keep coming, and the professor isn't stepping in and informing the students of policy. He created a monster that is gaining strength. ''']''' '']'' 03:36, 30 April 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == User engaged in edit warring to remove disputed content prior to consensus == | |||
| :I think that there is real merit in what the academic in question is trying to do here, but only if he'd take the advice of others and have his students create their articles in userspace, after which any worthy offerings can be transported to mainspace or merged into existing articles. I can see this becoming very disruptive in a very short space of time. ] (]) 03:50, 30 April 2008 (UTC) | |||
| {{atop|There's nothing actionable in this content dispute, except perhaps trouting the original poster for failing to assume good faith and hounding friendly admins when they try to help. Longtime user ] (4.5 yrs, over 5K edits) has made several assertions based on their clear misunderstanding of social norms. In this discussion they've failed to notify the subject (they actually failed to use the subject's name in the OP), they've failed to bring any diffs, they failed to sign their post, and over and over they seem to have failed to assume good faith of their fellow editors. A number of editors including several admins have attempted to talk Sxbbetyy down. Nobody in this discussion seems to agree with Sxbbetyy on the merits, yet Sxbbetyy keeps circling back to their own personal interpretation of policy. The discussion at ], where Sxbbetyy refuses to listen to the admin they asked, gives another example of the problem. Sxbbetyy is reminded that creating a post on ANI puts all their own behaviors up for examination. ] (]) 15:46, 23 December 2024 (UTC)}} | |||
| Title is pretty self explanatory. Rather than engage in the consensus building process to determine if the disputed content discussed ] is problematic, ] editor has instead immediately reverted the disputed content. They have been informed of the relevant policies prohibiting this behavior and how it should normally be handled (tagging the content as disputed while the discussion is ongoing) but have elected to instead engage in edit warring to keep the disputed content removed prior to any consensus on the matter. Also important to note that they wish to have the content removed entirely, but have stated that they no longer intend to participate in the consensus building discussion. So this appears to be a ] tactic to accomplish their goal of removing the content immediately without a consensus. Seeking admin help to halt this behavior and restore the content with the correct tagging.<!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 23:36, 18 December 2024 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Xsign --> | |||
| ::*I'm really pretty sure that we don't rangeblock a university to '''prevent''' people from attempting to contribute articles in good faith. I don't have the whole blocking policy memorized or anything, but I'm really pretty sure about that. I also very seriously doubt I skipped over the part of ] where people honestly attempting to contribute articles, the best they can, with mixed success, are treated with contempt and dirision, and have their contributions called vandalism. With all the pure crap we get every day, with all the POV pushing and vandalism and egotistical ANI dramafests and editors drummed out of wikipedia by assholes, this is the way we treat people honestly trying to create something? We have 2 million someodd articles; these are automatically the 100 worst? AfD if you must, redirect if you must, try to convince the professor to alter his system if you must, or (God forbid) try to improve the articles if you must. I could care less if the professor's plan works or not, but let's show at least the students, the ones contributing articles the best they can, the ones who don't really have much of a choice in the matter, a tiny bit of respect. --] (]) 03:54, 30 April 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :It would help if you named the editor and signed your name to figure out what you are talking about; a noticeboard only works if you give us notice about the subject and what is happening. <span style="font-family: Roboto;">''']''' <span style="color:#00008B">•</span> <small>''(])''</small></span> 23:39, 18 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::The editor appears to be {{u|PerfectSoundWhatever}}, based on the under the word "this" as well as . — ] <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. — ] ] 17:24, 19 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| : Yes, I would leave that material out of the article. Whilst it may not exactly be synthesis ''per se'', it is certainly editorialising ("the removal of that amount of marine debris is of negligible consequence...") ''unless'' there is an actual source that says this by making a link between between the two statistics (the amount of waste removed by Team Seas and the rate at which waste is entering the ecosystem). And even then, I would say that such an edit would need to say something like "However, ARandomNewspaper pointed out that ...". ] 00:34, 19 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::*I don't consider it vandalism, but this is without question disruption. I agree that the professor is responsible more than the students, but no one said these were the 100 worst articles. Rather, it's an individual coordinating the mass addition of articles that don't belong in the mainspace. That's disruption, especially since he and many of the students have been informed of this and have not taken any steps to rectify the situation. ''']''' '']'' 03:59, 30 April 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::That is actually no longer the content that is being disputed. If you look at the that got reverted on the article you can see the current version. I had made edits to it precisely because of valid WP:NPOV concerns brought to my attention by PSW. However, their dispute with the content remains with the claim that is is synthesis rather than any other concern. Which they have been thus far unable to obtain a consensus on. ] (]) 17:27, 19 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *I have some pretty serious ] concerns about the topic starter here. They came to me for help (no idea how/why me, I have no connection to this dispute) and I repeatedly told them I didn't see any misconduct, and then they started attacking ''me'' when I refused to agree with them. And now this. This is a very simple content dispute, with a very simple ] outcome. I've told them this. It's a disappointing time sink on a rather trivial content dispute. ] ] 00:52, 19 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::*Would anyone have any objection to my creating a bright shiny banner at that listing page with links to helpful policies (like YFA/SYNTH/OR/NPOV) and a note that articles/essays that don't comply with those policies will probably be deleted in short order? Not to phrase it in a bitey way, but more along the line of the pragmatic tone of ]? After all, if the students aren't learning policies in class, someone needs to point them out. --] <sup>(])</sup> 04:00, 30 April 2008 (UTC) | |||
| *:At no point was he "attacked". I defended myself after he became hostile with me (as anyone can read in our convo, I stated multiple times that I would leave and did not want to be a burden if they didn't want to engage with this, but he made no such objections and continued). Eventually he just became outright hostile and refused to explain their points any further, devolving the conversation into them repeating themselves over and over, its all there to read on his talk page. As for why I contacted him, I wanted to ensure I chose impartially so I just randomly looked at the currently active admins at the time and he was the first one I found. ] (]) 18:23, 19 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::The discussion is , if anyone wants to look. The "attack" I'm referring to you is your accusation that I responded to you in bad faith. I was not involved in the dispute, have no stance on it, and had no pre-conceived notions about either of you - what in the world would my motivations be for "bad faith responses"? It doesn't make any sense. You simply didn't get the response you wanted, and proceeded to badger me on it. Did I get vaguely irritated when I volunteered my time to review and comment on a dispute I had no stance or interest in, only to get all sorts of ] responses on it? Yeah, sure, but who wouldn't? ] ] 18:44, 19 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *I'm here from my input at the 3rd opinion request. This is nothing more than a trivial content dispute, I see no reason for this to be at ANI. I somewhat agree with the claim of ], it becomes more susceptible to incorrect information, and from my analysis it seemed like the claim in the disputed content was completely wrong. Two different sources, from two different time periods. My $0.02: The claim of stonewalling is ridiculous, there was ample good-faith discussion based on existing policy and guidelines. This editor does not ], it appears that he claims that editors disagreeing are acting in bad faith. From him to administrator Sergecross73: {{tq|"I'm not wasting time engaging with you if you aren't going to speak with me in good faith."}} It seems that he roots his argument based on the editor who removed it rather than the content itself. Very unfortunate waste of time. — ] ] 15:31, 19 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::*That would be helpful, thanks. ''']''' '']'' 04:02, 30 April 2008 (UTC) | |||
| *:Exactly. It's not "stonewalling" that's happening here. PerfectSoundWhatever has discussed at-length at the talk page. They're simply not willing to ''talk circles indefinitely''. And we don't require that of editors. I've urged Sxbbetyy to, rather that spin their wheels arguing with the same person endlessly in a stalemate, to try to get other participants to take part. But they've refused, and instead decided to move their arguing to ANI instead. As I noted to them in one of my last comments to them, if they spent half as much effort in consensus-building as they did complaining and arguing, they could have built a consensus by now... ] ] 17:30, 19 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::*Done. Hopefully not too bitey. Feel free to reword/recolor as needed. (I ended up deciding against invoking blink tags). --] <sup>(])</sup> 04:17, 30 April 2008 (UTC) | |||
| *:Reading any of what I wrote in this dispute shows clearly that is not the case. Also, the quoted sentence is completely taken out of context. | |||
| *: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. | |||
| I find this part of the professor's note above especially troubling: "so unless you want to quit your day job I'd suggest that you give us a few days (May 10) to sort things out. I will personally delete any articles that don't meet the WP criteria after grading them in about a week." That sort of obvious arrogance, in the face of all this talk about how out of sorts with our policies he is, seems to say he knows that he's abusing the webhosting aspect of WP, but that he's somehow better than us, arrogating rights beyond our admins' power to assure us that he'll sort this all out for us later. It's a clear attitude that our policies don't matter to him. I would support a full university-wide rangeblock, if contacting his department head, or the dean of academics office doesn't yield satisfactory results. But go up the chain of command, then rangeblock the university. ] (]) 04:40, 30 April 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :This is a report of edit warring to revert disputed content prior to a consensus being reached (there was no consensus prior to the reversion and there still is no consensus, as admitted by PSW themselves in that very dispute and In their latest revert message, no idea why now in this report they are trying to claim that there is suddenly consensus for removal). | |||
| :Does anyone have the range to block if need be? ] 04:42, 30 April 2008 (UTC) | |||
| : |
:This is not a report on the dispute itself, just to make that very clear since those involved are responding as if it is. ] (]) 18:41, 19 December 2024 (UTC) | ||
| ::You've still got this backward. You need to show a consensus to keep your content in the article, as everyone else has been telling you. ] is directly on point, and I'll quote it here: {{Tq|The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content.}} ] (]) 18:53, 19 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::As an FYI, it would seem that at least half of the students are coming in via non-university ISP's. (Based on my whois'ing the IP editors who added pages. About half were verizon/comcast). Best, --] <sup>(])</sup> 05:29, 2 May 2008 (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) | |||
| Perhaps a ] admin might ] and unilaterally move the respective articles to the relevant place in userspace, namely the good professor's userspace? Granted some of these essays seem to have been added to existing articles in the mainspace. ] (]) 04:48, 30 April 2008 (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>. · · · ] ]: 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, · · · ] ]: 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=== | |||
| As the coordinator of ], I've started writing up some ] about how to use Misplaced Pages in educational assignments, and how not to. This does seem like a textbook example of how not to. --] (] • ]) 22:55, 30 April 2008 (UTC) | |||
| Despite its large size, the consensus here is quite clear. There's no misconduct here, just standard following of procedures of ] and ], which is perfectly acceptable. Not a single person has suggested taking any action towards PerfectSoundWhatver. Outside of a a potential IDHT BOOMERANG, there's nothing left to be done here. Can someone close this? ] ] 14:02, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :I second that. If there has been any edit-warring by any party that should be dealt with in the normal way. {{u|PerfectSoundWhatever}} has certainly done nothing wrong, and the OP will get blocked if they don't start listening to people pretty quickly. ] (]) 14:24, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::Exactly. And even that's probably unlikely, as most of the "edit warring" was singular reverts with days or weeks in between. It's far from a 3RR situation at least. ] ] 15:26, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :{{non-admin comment}} I don't think this conversation is going anywhere fast, other than seemingly coming to the conclusion that @] has done nothing wrong, which seems to be the opposite of what this ANI post was about. There's no edit warring here, and even if there was, it wouldn't be dealt with at this venue. Shut it down! ] (]) 16:48, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :In what way whatsoever is this editor's decision to revert the disputed content during the discussion "standard following of procedures of WP:STATUSQUO"? The literal first words that appear at that link are in bold and say, "'''Avoid reverting during discussion'''", followed by a detailed explanation of the actual proper procedure. And to make it very clear what it says, here is the literal first paragraph verbatim: "To eliminate the risk of an edit war, do not revert away from the '']'' '''during a dispute discussion'''. Instead, add an appropriate tag indicating the text is disputed. For an article, many of the ] are appropriate. For other pages, <code><nowiki>{{</nowiki>]<nowiki>}}</nowiki></code> is good. Leave the status quo and the tag in place until the discussion concludes." ] (]) 02:31, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::In what way is ''that'' your read of the consensus in the discussion above? ] ] 02:49, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::In what world do you logically come to that conclusion from a message that consist of almost entirely the word for word quote of the procedures described in WP:STATUSQUO, that directly counters the claim you just made? Are you saying it is "against consensus" simply because it presents a viewpoint you don't like and don't want to address? I don't see another reason why you would again twist my words, to the point of lunacy. And this is, once again, despite the fact that all of what has been said is literally within view. | |||
| :::Also, regarding the consensus. Out of everyone that has actually joined the discussion and all the messages sent (~90% of which are either from myself or you Serge), there have been only three people who have actually said anything in support of your interpretation of this. The rest either did not discuss the topic, did not express an opinion, or were Peter Southwood who supported the interpretation of WP:STATUSQUO as stated on its page. Seems like you're just trying to rush a end to the conversation to get the conclusion you want. ] (]) 15:02, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I'm saying there has been no consensus for anything you're arguing here. Not a single person has supported action against PSW. ] ] 15:15, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::The status quo ante bellum that shouldn't be reverted from is the version ''without the new content''. ] (]) 15:16, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| == Creating the need to make 400,000 unnecessary edits == | |||
| '''Comment''' Up above, it was noted that the students' real and full names appeared in the ] page. This has since been reduced to just initials, but their full names still appear in the page's history. Can/Should we get an administrator to purge a few history versions to protect their privacy? It seems like the proper thing to do given the situation. <font style="font-variant: small-caps;">-- ]<sup>(])</sup></font> 23:00, 30 April 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. | |||
| '''Update''' After a very bad start, there has at least been some improvement. There are now ] ] that are useful. Maybe if we try encourage, rather than discourage, this project will blossom. Maybe no school project will ever be able to emulate ], but we can at least encourage them to try. ] (]) 03:41, 1 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| I tried to get him to stop at ], to no avail. This isn't the first time, as you can see from that discussion. ] (]) 14:57, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :If you want to discuss {{tl|WikiProject banner shell}}, you should do so at ]. | |||
| :As for the size of the category, I have no plans to empty it, and was only going to update a few hundred more categories and templates. <b>~</b> <span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:16px;">] (] ⋅])</span> 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. <b>~</b> <span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:16px;">] (] ⋅])</span> 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. — Martin <small>(] · ])</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? — Martin <small>(] · ])</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) | |||
| ===Positive Reinforcement=== | |||
| *{{ping|Fram|Tom.Reding|Kanashimi|Primefac}} I got AWB working again. If cewbot would take time for making the changes, and if this needs attention soon, then should I file a request for that particular bot task? —usernamekiran ] 06:20, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| I'm going to try some positive reinforcement. The good articles (those being kept, or not redirected/deleted) get a {{Y}}, so that people will have some idea what constitutes a good effort. (I'll explain this in the top box too). With any luck, it won't be necessary to go rouge and start handing out {{Cross}}'s. (Seriously, that would not be nice -- it's not the kids fault that they weren't told how to go about this). Best, --] <sup>(])</sup> 04:47, 1 May 2008 (UTC) <small>....assuming I could go rouge, I think I might be missing a bit... --] <sup>(])</sup> 05:08, 1 May 2008 (UTC) </small> | |||
| *:The robot is in operation... ] (]) 09:09, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :Is there a "redirect" graphic to show that some of them no longer point to the article uploaded by the student? Thanks for the work on this Bfig... <font face="monospace" color="#004080">]·(])·(])</font> 18:41, 1 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| *::yay! —usernamekiran ] 16:04, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::Not that I know of. I was working from ] and ]. Cheers, --] <sup>(])</sup> 05:26, 2 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Meanwhile, the category has grown to over 800,000 pages. Perhaps next time an RfC to determine whether creating such a large cleanup task is warranted, would be better? ] (]) 16:34, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ===Me too=== | |||
| If they're writing the papers in Misplaced Pages space, they need to give more to Misplaced Pages than they get. | |||
| == ] == | |||
| Every one of those articles should be created in userspace with the explicit goal of creating quality encyclopedic entries. This summer I myself fully intend to require my students to either create Misplaced Pages articles on appropriate topics for which no articles already exist or seriously revise articles that are deficient. The goal is to create articles appropriate for Misplaced Pages while learning about their topics. I am stressing that they should use usernames that do not reflect their real names or personally identifying information, and that they MUST create these pages in their userspace, where the articles will remain until they are appropriate in quantity and quality of content. | |||
| I must stress that I personally have a history with Misplaced Pages, and I plan to support my students in their work. For purposes of their education, the most practical reason for doing their work through Misplaced Pages will be so that I can guide them through the editing process.] <sub>]</sub> 05:04, 1 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ] is making wholesale reverts of my edits in contravention to guidelines. ] (]) 19:17, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :Someone asked me about the idea that students could learn more about how Misplaced Pages works by posting in mainspace. He/she preferred not to post that comment here. Anyway, here's my reply on something I don't feel a need to have a private conversation over when the question was about the topic presented here on this forum. | |||
| :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. | |||
| :(1) They will disrupt Misplaced Pages with junk articles that aren't fit yet. An article that isn't even a real article yet doesn't belong outside userspace when the person fully intends to keep working on it. (2) Academically, this would be first and foremost for them to learn about their topics, not to learn about Misplaced Pages even though it should create an article that would benefit Misplaced Pages. By working in userspace, they can do their own work and develop the article without interference from other editors who might take charge of the whole thing. (3) See previously mentioned ownership problems. Once it leaves userspace, they don't own the work and they have no right to expect others to leave the things alone. ] <sub>]</sub> 05:14, 1 May 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. | |||
| ::Ideally in projects like this, the students should be learning '''both''' about their academic topics '''and''' how Misplaced Pages works. Otherwise, there's no point in assigning the students to post their essays on Misplaced Pages instead of simply submitting them in the normal way. The Misplaced Pages part just becomes a gimmick. Having said that, I strongly agree with you about starting the papers in user space. Furthermore, I don't think that the "user page first method" is incompatible with achieving both goals. But this is assuming that when the articles go into the mainspace, the professor/teacher is prepared to put a lot of thought and hands-on effort into guiding the students through the editing process and the interaction with 'outside' editors and the Misplaced Pages community as a whole. Hats off to ]!! | |||
| I can't remember the specific category guideline for the edits I did but is the undoing editors need to look it up. Categorisation is something that a lot of editor do not understand. Go and put a notice on WikkiProoject Categorisation and you will fing that there is support for my edits. | |||
| ::However, the ] is more than a little problematic, and probably a special case. The professor there seems to know nothing about how Misplaced Pages works, and appears to be giving little or no guidance (and worse, giving wrong information) to his students. He doesn't really interact on his talk page or the various article talk pages (nor does he encourage his students to). In fact, he explictly and actively '''discourages''' any kind of collaborative editing, e.g. requesting that nobody touch his students' articles until he's graded them, after which he appears not to care at all what happens to them. He doesn't take up the constructive suggestions that have been offered, and seems unwilling to explore Misplaced Pages and its resources for himself, e.g. . I also made some suggestions about the issue of his students uploading copyright images and claiming them as "self made" and/or failing to document them properly. No comment from him, no guidance added for his students (at least on the project page). Today I found from one of them. | |||
| WP could be sooo much better. ] (]) 02:02, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::Given that the GlobalEcon project ends in 10 days, and there is no sign that the students and their professor are intending to engage or collaborate with Misplaced Pages apart from storing their essays here, they're certainly not going to learn any more about Misplaced Pages itself by posting directly to the mainspace. In this case, the most pragmatic approach is to minimize the disruption they're causing by strongly encouraging them to write the articles first on their user pages. ] (]) 09:36, 1 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::*I have added to the warning box on the project page a P.S. about image copyrights. ] (]) 13:39, 1 May 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"> ‥ </span>]</span> 02:10, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ===Give it a rest=== | |||
| ::GO and read the guidelines. It does not need discussion. ] (]) 02:15, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| You can't stop good faith contributions to the wiki. We try, desperately, to make sure that new articles are better written, blah blah blah, but guess what people, this is no different from the massive amounts of articles we get every single day. So stop bitching about it and let these people edit like everyone else is allowed to do. We want to ''improve'' the situation, but never to prevent good faith article contribution. Never. -- ] 05:14, 1 May 2008 (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"> ‥ </span>]</span> 02:18, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :I absolutely agree with that. There are now several articles that have been made by students that can be improved. I have a '''suggestion''': Why not assign several veteran editors to oversee the project, and maybe one veteran for each student (or at least students who have created worthwhile articles). After all, ] probably couldn't have had such great success without the FA-Team's help. I think we should definitely try to reproduce a mentoring system in this case. ] (]) 08:09, 1 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::Bear in mind this is WP and not social media. ] (]) 02:16, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::I'm in quite a lot of sympathy with this approach, and agree that good faith contributions should never be pro-actively prevented. And, I suppose it's worth approaching the professor with your suggestion, but I see a couple of potential problems. | |||
| ::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"> ‥ </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) | |||
| ::1. The professor doesn't seem to be open to this, at least up to now. He's not taken up the offers of help from other educators, nor has he signed on to ], although he has been strongly encouraged to do so. | |||
| == User:ZanderAlbatraz1145 Civility and Content #2 == | |||
| ::2. GlobalEcon is not a group or even a collaborative project. It is quite unlike the ] project. It appears that each GlobalEcon student is expected to write their own essay and not contribute to those of other students on the course. It also appears that they are being graded individually on their articles (hence the requests to leave them 'untouched' until they're completed and the professor has marked them.) The quality and quantity of the mentoring could have a differential effect on the students' grade outcomes, giving some an unfair advantage in producing a good article. | |||
| *{{userlinks|ZanderAlbatraz1145}} | |||
| ::: Addenda. The re-directs and multiple re-directs on some of these articles could also produce differential grade outcomes unless the professor is clued in about how to access page histories and what a re-direct is, e.g. now redirects to the quite spiffy ]. But that's not Misplaced Pages's problem. ] (]) 13:13, 1 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| This user has engaged in a lengthy display of disruption. Namely through incessant incivility I have noticed . | |||
| ::Perhaps the best thing to do in this case is to minimize the disruption while the class assignment runs its course and then work to improve the surviving articles. ] (]) 10:45, 1 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| Instances such as , , on , etc. Users such as {{Ping|Waxworker}} and {{Ping|Jon698}} can speak to their experiences, I'll outline mine. | |||
| Now I'm wondering this: What is the ultimate goal of this project? If the professor sets goals similar to ] (i.e A+ for FA, A for GA), then the project has hope. But if the only aim is to just keep the article on Misplaced Pages without getting deleted, then I don't think anything can be done to help. | |||
| 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 . | |||
| Actually I'm feeling sorry for (some of) the students. There have been maybe four or five good article created, and with help, they could be greatly improved, but it seems that their professor's unhelpfulness is really messing everything up. ] (]) 13:59, 1 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| This editor displays no interest in conducting themselves cordially or cooperatively on this website. ] 23:20, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :I'm feeling sorry for '''all''' of the students. They've been thrown in at the deep end, with no preparation, guidance or support. Many of them are having their work raked over the coals in AfDs, sometimes quite brutally. And, they appear to have had no choice about uploading this stuff to Misplaced Pages - it's an assignment. I think all of us participating in the AfDs need to keep this mind, when discussing the students' work - be frank but considerate at the same time. | |||
| :I've given them a warning for canvassing: - ] <sub>]</sub> 04:08, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| : - ] <sub>]</sub> 05:36, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::And they appear to be continuing editing while ignoring here. - ] <sub>]</sub> 05:39, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::This feels par for the course for Zander frankly. As noted with the bit about Zander reverting after an explicit edit summary saying not to and there being two days worth of me saying that edit would be made and they made no objections until the move was made. They disengaged from discussion but only re-engaged when the situation changed to their disliking. ] 02:07, 25 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == SPA ] back at it on ] == | |||
| :''What is the ultimate goal of this project?'' As far as I can make out from what the students have been uploading and the professor's comments , and , the goal is for each of them to write an academic essay and publish it as a Misplaced Pages article. (Despite the fact that some key criteria for a good academic essay - original thought and a novel synthesis of ideas - are incompatible with writing a viable Misplaced Pages article.) The students are to try and avoid anyone else editing their 'articles' so they will be all their own work and more easily assessed as such. The professor then marks them, and that's that. He doesn't appear to care one way or another what happens to the articles after he's marked them. | |||
| 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, ] ]] 05:13, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :Oh well, 35 articles up, just another 65 to go.;-). Best, ] (]) 15:42, 1 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :]? ] (]) 06:25, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::I certainly share your sympathies for these kids and heartily applaud your optimism and positive outlook, but I think that if we are to be totally fair, they should be treated as any other Wikipedian would -- both positive and negative. In as much as it would be wrong to be prejudiced against their articles for being part of this assignment or simply IP-blocking them outright (as was discussed above), it would ''also'' be wrong to give them any preferential treatment as well. Ultimately, the Misplaced Pages community is not responsible for this professor's actions, including his class assignments or grading system. We should not place ourselves in the position to be sensitive in any way how this professor may grade his students off-wiki based on anyone's actions on-wiki. That is not our place and it would be presumptuous for us to make it so. That is between the students, their professor, and administration of their university. To me, the solution is simple. If the articles need fixing, we fix them. If the articles need deleting, they go to AfD. Not only does WP:OWN indicate that editors can not retain ownership of articles themselves, it also means that we as a community can't assign ownership of an article to any editor either. Given that, these students don't own these articles and they are subject to the same rules as any other article. <font style="font-variant: small-caps;">-- ]<sup>(])</sup></font> 19:35, 1 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::{{duck}}. I'm sending this ]. - ] <sub>]</sub> 11:16, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::, so might just be generic disruption. - ] <sub>]</sub> 22:47, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :What are you implying with regard to my username? My edit history has been limited to trying to correct two red flags that stood out so much that I followed the citations when I was searching these scientists who were in the news for censorship. It has been enlightening learning how wikipedia selectively chooses secondary sources but discourages the use of primary sources to help discriminate which secondary sources are credible. | |||
| :For my two attempted contributions to Misplaced Pages, the two red flags were pretty dramatic to prompt me to check out the citations--Sunetra Gupta's article implied more than 1 in 1000 people in England died from Covid in spring 2020 in an effort to discredit her, which was trivially easy to google as untrue. I corrected that without really changing the overall narrative. The article for Martin Kulldorff...I would probably not have spent time looking at the sources or realized how unscientific Kulldorff's critics were had there not been such superfluous "Wikivoice" editorializing and synthesizing suggesting Kulldorff lied in an essay to the public. ] (]) 06:30, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::] are not to be used for anything but simple facts about a subject. They absolutely are not to be used {{tqq|to help discriminate which secondary sources are credible}} because that is ]. - ] <sub>]</sub> 08:57, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::Not sure why you felt the need to repeat what I said. Maybe I am the sock puppeteer! ] (]) 03:33, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::What I am implying is that such a username in the context of an account pushing COVID-denialist rhetoric that flies in the face of the sources and Misplaced Pages policy is . Anyway, this editor continues to be a drain of editor time and attention. ] ]] 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) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| :::I agree 100% that we should just treat these students as any other editors, and these articles like any other new articles. The problem is, we generally treat any other editor who, in good faith, creates an article that doesn't meet our criteria for inclusion, like crap. So I guess when I suggest we treat the students with respect, I'm not sure whether to say "like any other editor" or not. --] (]) 19:41, 1 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| {{atop|result=Just officially closing this discussion as the account involved has been globally blocked. If an editor has Spore on your Watchlist and you see this occurring again, contact your local administrator. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 06:25, 24 December 2024 (UTC)}} | |||
| This user made 500 edits to their user page which were all completely useless (] to inflate their edit count) and then once receiving extended-confirmed permissions vandalized ] by copypasting another article. Their user page shows them editing and counting to 500. ]] 04:52, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :It's a ], and I just reported to AIV. ] (]) 04:58, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I couldn't help but chuckle because, as much as I'm ashamed to say so, you are absolutely right that sometimes well-meaning editors are "treated like crap". I suppose my actual point was that we shouldn't lay kid gloves on these articles simply because this professor might give his students poor marks as a result. We shouldn't allow that kind of reasoning to enter the equation. By all means, though, these editors should be treated with the utmost respect that is deserved by any Wikipedian. <font style="font-variant: small-caps;">-- ]<sup>(])</sup></font> 19:55, 1 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Mightn't the fairest thing be to delete ''all'' of these articles, so that every student is treated in the same way and their clueless teacher is thwarted in his effort to use WP as a Web host. Then, after the class project is over, we could have a combined DRV to restore the few that show promise of becoming legit articles. ] (]) 20:35, 1 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::No. If it's a decent article, it would be both counterproductive and very ]y to delete it simply because it was begun as part of this class assignment. ] ] 21:56, 1 May 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">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 05:15, 22 December 2024 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| ===So what do we do with articles like these? === | |||
| :::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? | |||
| Yes, AfD works, but it's a time sink. --] (]) 15:52, 1 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| *:Or is that just something that isn't done? – ] (]) (]) 05:28, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :They were up for '''four minutes''' before being AFD'd. That IMO is out of order. Maybe it's worth putting an underconstruction tag up for them, maybe they don't know how to? Edit: I've cleaned up the references. ] (]) 15:54, 1 May 2008 (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) | |||
| ::One such article might be legitimate. Two articles with essentially the same content from the same editor is spamming. They were sent to AfD by different editors. No speedy deletion category applies, so AfD is appropriate. And, in the end, they're essays inappropriate to Misplaced Pages, even after the formatting is fixed. --] (]) 16:13, 1 May 2008 (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) | |||
| :::How is it spamming. (S)he may not know how to create a redirect and created a duplicate on error. ] (]) 16:14, 1 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| ::::I agree, how is it spamming? These are very inexperienced editors. The student probably wanted to change the title but didn't know how to move a page or create a re-direct. I think we can show a little understanding here. As has been said at the AfD, pouncing on articles from this project with minutes of their appearance and AfD-ing them seems a bit ]. In each case, I think we should ask ourselves, "If I happened on this article by chance and didn't know it came from the GlobalEcon project, would I probably tag it for clean-up and wait a few days to give the editor a chance before sending it to AfD? ] (]) 16:50, 1 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: And the answer is (and ''should'' be) "Yes." Furthermore, there's obviously a difference of opinion over on AfD as to the worth of these articles, and they're not quite as universally disparaged as all of that. When all is said and done, though, yes: this prof is being a pain in the butt, he plainly expects Misplaced Pages to be something other than what it is, and yes, there's going to be a lot more AfDs before this is done. Not, mind you, that AfD doesn't get 100-150 articles a day all by itself, that there aren't hundreds of editors who don't already do this kind of cleanup, and that we should be in the habit of telling otherwise willing students that they're not allowed to play here. ] 17:12, 1 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Can we at least agree, as a beginning point, that the problem is not with the contributors themselves, but with the leadership they're (not) being provided? Could we perhaps create some sort of temporary project page, the barest possible bones of article-writing, policy, et al, to provide these (potentially good, potentially long-term and valued) contributors with the leadership they're (completely, totally, utterly NOT) getting at the other end of this project? Yes, I know--not our job, not our problem--but I would imagine that a little TLC and Wiki-spirit could go a long way in nurturing contributors. This isn't like we're trying to reform a pack of vandals--these could be great Wikipedians someday, given some guidance and leadership from OUR end. Just a thought. ] 17:31, 1 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::The page ] where they list their articles is effectively a project page, and already has a box at the top which gives them advice and links (in plain English, not Wiki-acronyms) to ], ], ], ], ], ] and ], together with suggestions for promising subjects. That should be enough to set them on the right lines. ] (]) 21:47, 1 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Disruptive editor on ] == | |||
| ::I'm also attempting to point out some common issues in an effort to make their job (and ours) easier and more productive. Please add what you think is needed. --] <sup>(])</sup> 21:56, 1 May 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) | |||
| ===A set up?=== | |||
| One almost wonders if the purpose of this isn't something else. In looking at some of the topics, their connections are tenuous at best (the viral marketing of a movie, for example). I almost wonder if the entire point isn't an experiment in disrupting an open informational economy, and observing the effects, in which case we're all playing into the hands of the class, and giving them plenty of raw data to use. I guess we'll find out whether this is benign willful ignorance, or malicious, deliberate interruptions. ] (]) 22:26, 1 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :I think that's needlessly harsh. It's much more likely that this is simply what happens when you tell a bunch of students to go write articles yet fail to provide proper guidance on what the difference between an essay and an article is. (Or fully explain the rest of our policies for that matter). Overall, the average here is still better than at NewPagePatrol. --] <sup>(])</sup> 23:39, 1 May 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. | |||
| == User:Tachyonbursts == | |||
| :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). ] ] 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...}} === | |||
| {{resolved|Tachyonbursts topic-banned from anything related to 9/11 for 1 month by {{user|Raymond arritt}} under the terms of the 9/11 ArbCom case. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 15:42, 1 May 2008 (UTC)}} | |||
| {{see|Talk:September_11%2C_2001_attacks#VegitaU_is_inserting_POV_and_he.27s_acting_against_consensus}} | |||
| Originally on ]. Editors on ] are having problems with this user. The latest is: (); vandalism after final warning, vandalism directly after release of block. This is a complicated issue. This user has constantly edited in the face of the Sept 11 ] giving editors the right to impose sanctions on those who engage in virulent edit warring. Examples: This editor has already been given a ] for his edits. Please redirect this to wherever it needs to go (if not the ARV), but this issue needs immediate resolution. -- ] (]) 22:32, 28 April 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :I concur with the gist of this argument, but this user's latest actions do not fall in this category, IMHO. I believe VegitaU's motives are pure, but we both simply disagree on this particular post. Given this particular user's penchant for disruptive edits, this latest edit appears to be the prelude to another onslaught. I ask that the discussion be monitored, but no action be taken at this time. "]" <span style="background-color: maroon; color: white">]</span> <sup>]</sup> 23:01, 28 April 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::The real problem is the fact he's done it before. And not in a test edit kind of way, but an , smear crusade anyone who disputes that 9/11 was an inside job of being a vandal. While I may be all for the official story, I'll accept discrepancies under the same standards as I would accept any other arguments: "show me the facts." Instead, this user does the opposite, deleting cited references (latest diff). There's a reason people are marked with a block. It's important to know their prior history regardless of "having served their time". All the arguments and counter-arguments we've given him obviously haven't served any use and have wasted time and detracted from the article. I was going to nominate it soon for GA, but I guess I can't now since it doesn't seem to be stable anymore. That's all I'm saying. -- ] (]) 23:12, 28 April 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::Unfortionatly, I have to agree with what ] has said. ] appears to be a powder keg ready to blow at any time. We've already seen one minor explosion in the form of a legal threat. Dispite my and other's best efforts to calm him down, he appears to simply say whatever comes to his mind. Sadly, it is mostly negative and attacking. If not a block, I agree with <span style="background-color: maroon; color: white">]</span>, that this needs to be monitored before he does serious dammage. --] (]) 23:59, 28 April 2008 (UTC) | |||
| On October 22 2024, {{lu|Pillowdelight}} changed the genre list that has stood in place for years and has been a variation of the same variety of genres: Art pop, art rock, jazz, alternative rock, jazz rock, chamber pop and jazz pop. Across the biggest music sites, this is what the album is described as. The user changed it to Alt pop using a single irrelevant and unreliable source. The album is not described as such anywhere else. The user is going against the general consensus. Sources have now been added to the genre list and I don't feel as though that would mean I'm breaking any rules. The user is threatening to get another editor banned because they're uncooperative with how us other editors feel the genre list should look like. It's an album that has been categorized as rock by Pitchfork at the time of its release and was added to rock charts when released too. | |||
| :::I gave it my best shot to try to soothe the savage beast, but he refuses to do anything buy use sarcasm and persional attacks on editors with good standing. He seems to have some sort of grudge against athority. I've given up trying to reason with him. --] (]) 00:25, 29 April 2008 (UTC) | |||
| Here's how the genre list has looked over a long period of time, without much controversy from editors not readers: | |||
| Personal attack on myself: () -- ] (]) 13:53, 29 April 2008 (UTC) | |||
| https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=When_the_Pawn...&oldid=1178937091 from 2023 | |||
| https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=When_the_Pawn...&oldid=1049316366 from 2021 | |||
| :I also think it's pretty clear that ] is the returning ] and before that ]...editing style (especially edit summaries) and similarly themed usernames, as well as topics and POV. ] (]) 14:06, 29 April 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::RxS, I'm not sure what are you talking about, but I'm sure that I've seen (the pattern behind the) rise and fall of the user you've mentioned above. Do say; are these sorts of unfounded allegations acceptable? What sort of conduct you're expecting in return. Honestly. ] (]) <small>—Preceding ] was added at 23:04, 29 April 2008 (UTC)</small><!--Template:Undated--> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| :Also note that his account is and has almost singularly focused on the September 11 attacks article or users editing that article. -- ] (]) 01:14, 30 April 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::There are plenty of banned 9/11 editors that ''might'' create a sock to edit this article. But that's sort of beside the point. ]. <font color="006622">]</font><sup><small><b>]</b></small></sup> 01:21, 30 April 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::I'm not arguing he's a sock; RxS is welcome to present any evidence he has. I'm just remarking this user has focused exclusively on this and it might be useful to ] this user for a short while. See if he moves on to something else (besides accusations of government propaganda). -- ] (]) 01:28, 30 April 2008 (UTC) | |||
| Thank you. ] (]) 19:32, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::All due respect, I don't think it's beside the point at all...when an editor is blocked for disruption it's relevant if he just comes back with another account. I'd add ] to the list as well. Note the themed usernames, editing style and POV....also blocked for disruption on these articles (which are under an Arbcom resolution as you know). ] (]) 01:34, 30 April 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Why do people have to argue about what genre music is rather than just listening to it, and hopefully enjoying it? ] (]) 19:58, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::A quick comparison doesn't show an obvious correspondence between Tachyonbursts and NuclearUmpf. At the moment I find more concern with Tachyonburst's conduct as such. Edits like this seem awfully ]y. ] (]) 01:38, 30 April 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::The genre list was fine and accurate and uncontroversial until this user decided to remove the entire thing. It's important that the genre list is accurate. People find albums through genres. There's other reasons as well. ] (]) 20:38, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I've formally notified him of the ArbCom discretionary sanctions, which I believe were intended to curb things like disruptive single-purpose accounts on these articles. If he continues to behave problematically, then it can go to ] or you can ask an admin to look at it under the umbrella of the 9/11 ArbCom case. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 16:59, 30 April 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::This is neither here nor there, but I thought albums are generally sorted in alphabetical order by band name or the musician's last name. | |||
| ::::::'''Note to Admin:''' I believe this issue has been ]. If you could put the proper template on this discussion, I can get this page off my watchlist. Thank you. -- ] (]) 01:43, 1 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::Please, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, or my information is incomplete. ] (]) 22:28, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| Do tell, do you fellows honestly believe that fueling decent discussion, demanding citations and seeking answers to unanswered questions is violation of policies? You're playing with your own freedom here, how free would you folks like to be? Seriously. ] (]) 02:41, 1 May 2008 (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) | |||
| :], I think one of the biggest issues we have is your attitude. I am not sure if you are aware of it, but you come across as very confrentational in your edits. I hope I am not assuming bad faith by saying that. I'm trying to work with you on this issue, but you have to meet me and the rest of us half way. If you have a problem with the way something is worded, first check the archives, because most of what is said has been gone over many times and consensus has been reached to the best of our ability. The other thing I can sugest is to cite RS from the beginning. Simply saying "This is wrong, fix it" does not help us determine if there actually is a problem, of if it is your oppinion there is a problem. Understand? --] (]) 02:48, 1 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::If we were going to list musical genres "accurately," we wouldn't bother at all. Except in very broad strokes ("rock," "punk," "Baroque," etc), so many of these horribly subjective "genres" are made up by bored media writers and bands that hate the notion of being The Same As Everyone Else. Get ten people to listen to ten different tracks of heavy metal, and you won't get as many as a third of them agreeing on any of them on the doom/grudge/dark/death/Goth/Viking/sludge/*-grind/*-core/etc etc etc spectrum. Beyond that, arguing whether any given artist is "that genre" is ''very'' highly subjective. (Hell, I've sung Baroque, classical, folk, rock, ethnic, shape note, so many genres I can't readily count.) ] 15:12, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Multiple users breaking 3RR on Gilman School article == | |||
| Indeed, but VegitaU, one has been through all the archives, since the beginning of the test, so to say, I already have a final response for you, if you want to make it final. It has been written. That sentence above is as clear as clear one could be. One cannot choose for you, you choose as a whole. | |||
| I'm sorry, I understand that this can be as silly as those popular references are, but this was far more than I'm allowed to go. You were given an organon long time ago. We can wait no more. Please decide, will you allow the questioning (discussion, that is) or are you ready to wrap things up. Simple yes or no will do. Thanks. ] (]) 03:20, 1 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :I'm not sure I entirly understand what you are trying to say. If you are asking that editors take your objections into concideration, of course. I can't speak for other users, but I will always try to listen to the other side, even if I don't agree with it. I admit, I haven't been this way in the past, but I would dearly love to avoid continuing down that path. The main problem, however, is repetativeness. Just because I am willing to hear all sides doesn't mean I haven't heard it before. And unfortionatly, many of the debates we are currently having have already been fleshed out in the archives. However, if you have some new information in the form of RS, or have noticed something that hasn't been talked about, by all means. This is an open encyclopedia after all. But the biggest change I can sugest is civility. I'm doing my best to remain calm, and restratin myself from making persional/sarcastic remarks. If we all do this, we'll be a lot better off. --] (]) 04:22, 1 May 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 | |||
| 24 hours it is. ] (]) 03:39, 1 May 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. | |||
| :Note that pursuant to the 9/11 ArbCom case and the accompanying discretionary sanctions, {{user|Raymond arritt}} has topic-banned Tachyonbursts from anything related to 9/11, loosely construed, through May 30. For the record, I fully support this action, as this is exactly the sort of behavior that the ArbCom sanctions were meant to curb. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 15:42, 1 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::What's the time? ] (]) 01:13, 2 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::A bit more than 2 hours, what will it be? ] (]) 01:13, 2 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::What will what be, what happens in 2 hours? ] (]) 01:22, 2 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| Think of our last encounters as you'd think of Arbcom. My job here is done; I'll respect your decisions as you will ours. You are as free as you've decided to be. ] (]) 03:28, 2 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ] (]) | |||
| == Disruptive edits by user Bermudatriangle == | |||
| *E/C applied. ] ] 19:51, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::{{u|Counterfeit Purses}}, please be aware that the ] article was kept in a recent Articles for Deletion debate, so the consensus of the community is that he is notable. Edit warring to keep his name off the alumni list is a ''really bad idea''. ] (]) 20:14, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::@] No problem, I've already given up. I would argue that ] applies here, but there's no sense in pushing against the tide. If you're content to have the lede section of Gilman School include "prominent graduates including "alleged murderer Luigi Mangione", I guess that's fine. It seems to be an unusual thing to include and an obvious case of undue weight given to something that is in the news at the moment. Perhaps someone should start a Wikiproject to add famous murderers to the ledes of other schools? ] (]) 22:00, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::{{u|Counterfeit Purses}}, in my view, ] is among our most misunderstood policy documents. It begins {{tpq|In principle, all Misplaced Pages articles should contain up-to-date information. Editors are also encouraged to develop stand-alone articles on significant current events.}} I believe that Mangione is notable, the evolving article is acceptable, and his name belongs in the alumni list. Many, many "bad people" are listed as alumni in countless school articles, and it is not at all unusual. The only unusual thing here is that the lead of this particular school article lists alumni, and so I have removed them from the lead. ] (]) 01:07, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I'm glad that misunderstanding WP:NOTNEWS is so common because I am going to continue to misunderstand it. I see that Liz Luigi Mangione from the lede before you removed the rest of the list. Acknowledging again that I have given up hope that Mangione will be removed from this article, let me ask you what you think the purpose of these alumni lists is? Including Mangione is an editorial decision. We don't include all notable alumni in these lists, so why should we include Mangione, and why now? It's too soon to know if he will have lasting relevance. ] (]) 04:22, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::{{tqq|We don't include all notable alumni in these lists}} Why not? If someone is Wikinotable and went to a Wikinotable school, then they belong in the "Notable alumni" section of that school's page, ] - ] <sub>]</sub> 04:28, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::@] I'm not saying "we shouldn't", I'm saying "we don't". We don't include every notable alumnus in these lists, nor should we because it would lead to long, unhelpful lists stuck in the middle of articles about the schools. ] (]) 04:49, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::If an alumni list bloats an article, it can be split out. See ]. 11:29, 23 December 2024 (UTC) (Oops, signing) ] (]) 16:01, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::Of course that's always an option, but what I am saying is that it isn't desirable to have every alumnus listed in an article for a school. Ideally, it would be a selection of alumni who have made significant achievements in their field. Otherwise, it's just trivia. Am I wrong? ] (]) 17:21, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::Yes. You're making a value judgment that some alumni (with articles, else they most definitely should not be included) are more notable than others. That is ]. ] (]) 20:05, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::Yes, that's called editorial judgment. Just like deciding not to include every known fact about something in an article. At some point, it is just trivia. Misplaced Pages is not a database. That info would probably be welcome over on Wikidata, which is a database. Alternatively, someone could just add ] (in this case). ] (]) 20:52, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::And a new user, who doesn't understand categories and has no idea Wikidata exists, is relying on the list on the page. - ] <sub>]</sub> 21:35, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Vandal encounter == | |||
| On the http://en.wikipedia.org/Diana%2C_Princess_of_Wales article, there was a minor dispute regarding the inclusion of a section refering to the http://en.wikipedia.org/%28Sri_Lanka%29_Princess_Diana_Institute_of_Peace princess diana institute of peace. | |||
| ] seems to be a vandal who seems to be ready to start an edit war. I have reverted their disruptive edits, and they have begun to add them back. | |||
| I and other editors were of the opinion that it was not notable. It was removed/reverted a few times. | |||
| diffs: </nowiki>] </nowiki>] </nowiki>] </nowiki>] | |||
| In an attempt to stop an edit war, I created a dedicated article devoted to the princess diana institute of peace. | |||
| This was actually suggested in the talk page, by one of the editors who opposed its removal | |||
| I would have put this at AIV, but I have no clue how to edit source. ] (]) 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, –]<sup>]</sup> 23:47, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::Ah, I see. Thank you! This has been noted for the future. Thank you, again! ] (]) 23:48, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::You're welcome, Happy editing, Thanks, –]<sup>]</sup> 23:51, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == User:Glenn103 == | |||
| {{userlinks|Glenn103}} has been mass creating unsourced stubs about Cyrillic letters, most of which have been draftified. They've also disruptively edited in the past, such as: <span style="white-space:nowrap"><span style="font-family:monospace">'''<nowiki>''']<nowiki>]]'''</nowiki>'''</span> (] • ])</span> 01:41, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :Most of these pages don't even make any sense (eg.: ]). The user also ignores any notice about his articles being moved to draftspace by simply recreating duplicates of them (eg.: ] & ]). Immediate action may be needed. ] (] <b>·</b> ]) 07:38, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::Given a uw-create4im with directions to come here, let's see what happens. - ] <sub>]</sub> 08:00, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::They've continued editing, this time adding infoboxes to the articles, so I don't think the warning worked... <span style="white-space:nowrap"><span style="font-family:monospace">'''<nowiki>''']<nowiki>]]'''</nowiki>'''</span> (] • ])</span> 08:10, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I have blocked them from article space and page moves, and will leave note on talk page to come here. — ] ] 15:33, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| Honestly, this almost feels like trolling. Their basic procedure seems to be: pick a random Cyrillic letter. Combine it with a random diacritic. Write a short stub on the combination, saying effectively "this letter combination is not used anywhere." The occasional historical mentions ("this combination was used in such-and-such obscure Siberian language") are completely unsourced, of course. (Everything is unsourced.) ] (]) 04:43, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :Excuse me for detracting from the report, but this was your 4th edit, your last edit was in January 2016... how have you found yourself here of all places? | |||
| '''I think we should create an article for it, and see if it stands on its own merits, although I believe that the current campaign to delete it is politically motivated. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 18:27, 28 April 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :I mean you might have a point, but wow. – ] (]) (]) 04:57, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| Similar behavior to {{checkuser|PickleMan500}} and other socks puppeted by {{checkuser|Abrown1019}}, which also made tons of drafts on Cyrillic characters that cited few sources (and none with in-depth coverage). Most drafts have been ]'d, of course, so only those with admin perms can verify the deleted contribs. <small>Since these socks have been banned (]), I haven't notified them of this discussion.</small> ] (] '''·''' ]) 17:08, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == North Korean involvement in Russian-Ukraine war discussion == | |||
| ''' That doesn't address the question of what it is that makes this institute notable for inclusion in this biography...besides their simply having attached her name to it? --Onorem♠Dil 18:39, 28 April 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. | |||
| ''' Ja, I concur. Cut and paste it into a new article. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 20:34, 28 April 2008 (UTC)''' | |||
| '''Key Points:''' | |||
| So consensus seemed to be obvious, create the new article, cut/paste from the old section, remove the old section. | |||
| # '''Prolonged Discussions and RfC Closure:''' | |||
| I did the above, I explained the removal in my edit summary, I also explained and linked to the new article in the original article's talk page. | |||
| #* The RfC on North Korea's inclusion was conducted thoroughly, with a wide range of arguments presented by both sides. | |||
| I requested that someone go to the new article, add some citations and try to improve it. | |||
| #* 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:''' | |||
| Problem solved? well that would be nice, but I wouldnt be here if the problem was solved. | |||
| I respectfully request that administrators address the following issues: | |||
| http://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Contributions/Bermudatriangle has constantly reverted on the princess diana article, in the past they reverted me with the summary " (→Marriage: Normally women are virgins since their birth until they consumate. So provide she consumated with someone before her marriage, if you want to challenge with her virginity.)" which I found laughable. | |||
| # Enforce the consensus reached in the closed RfC, as no new evidence significantly alters the previous conclusions. | |||
| It seems to be a single purpose account, and despite only having made 12 edits since registering, they are very familiar with wikipedia terms and protocol. draw your own conclusions. | |||
| # 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. | |||
| Thank you for your attention to this matter. | |||
| UPDATE: I just noticed that North Korea was removed as a belligerent and added to the 'supported by' section, completely violating the consensus. | |||
| ] (]) 08:48, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :Since this report isn't really about an incident and your request is directed towards admins, I think this complaint would be better placed at ] rather than ANI. It will also need more specifics, which articles, which edits, which editors. You'll need to provide that. I also question whether or not these are content standards that the community can't handle on their own. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 09:50, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::I was going to post it at ] but it said: "'''This noticeboard is for issues affecting administrators generally – announcements, notifications, information, and other matters of''' ''general administrator interest.'' | |||
| ::If your post is about a '''specific problem you have''' (a '''dispute''', user, help request, or other narrow issue needing an administrator), you should post it at the ''']''' (ANI) instead. Thank you." | |||
| ::I posted it on ANI beecause my specific problem was this dispute ] (]) 12:07, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::The original post in this thread appears to resemble LLM output. GPTzero confirms this impression, rating text as "99% probability AI generated". Using AI to generate ANI submissions is highly inappropriate. ] (]) 18:01, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Even when a message appears to be AI-generated, I think it is worth considering whether or not it is pointing out an actual problem. I think editors might be ignoring the results of an RFC, I just don't think asking for administrators to monitor a subject area, without identifying specific articles, is a feasible solution. It does seem like, possibly, a point that could come up in a complaint at AE regarding the Ukraine CTOP area. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 19:55, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I had a peek and it's a messy RfC and, as is generally the case with a messy RfC had a very involved closure message which seems to reflect that the closer felt constrained by the framing of the RfC. I didn't see any immediate indication in the edit history that anyone had tried to implement the RfC result and been rebuffed (although I might have missed it). So there's some smoke here but, I think, not a ton of fire. ] (]) 20:21, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Liz, I don't disagree but I'm not at all convinced that use of AI is a positive contribution to CTOP areas. ] (]) 20:27, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::It was written with AI assistance. Not all AI. ai detectors aren’t considered reliable, because you can put the U.S. constitution through one and it says 100% AI generated. Regardless, whether it’s AI or not has nothing to do with the topic. It’s just that there’a been so many discussions and when I checked the info box it said ‘supported by”, violating the consensus of the RFC ] (]) 12:45, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::I think the underlying issue here is that if you use AI to generate text which looks like obvious AI output then readers will wonder "does the end user even have sufficient English to understand what the AI has generated for them?" and "did the end user understand the material prior to deciding to employ AI?". Thus if a user is fluent in English, as you obviously are, it will always be better to communicate in your own voice. | |||
| :::::::At the end of the day, a user making a valid point in their own voice is generally speaking going to be taken more seriously than a user employing LLM output. | |||
| :::::::There are plenty of other reasons for users not to employ AI (see the recent thread here for extensive coverage) but the argument above seems like a good practical reason for fluent English speakers to always prefer using their own voice. | |||
| :::::::You will see from the recent thread that many users here are vehemently against AI use. ] (]) 15:46, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::I understood the material very well, its not like I just used 100% AI out of nowhere. I know the context. I have been involved in this discussion since September. ] (]) 16:43, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::It's a respect thing. It's disrespectful of other editors to make them read chatbot output rather than ''your'' words. ] (]) 16:49, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::Rc2barrington's user page says {{tq|This user believes in the bright future AI and robotics will bring}}, so there's probably no point in arguing here. However, I simply observe that in any kind of discussion where you're trying to convince other people, don't use a method that aggravates a significant number of readers (probably a significant ''majority'' of readers). It really is that simple. ] (]) 19:11, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Concern About a New Contributor == | |||
| In short I followed consensus, I made a dedicated article, and removed the original statement, fully complying with consensus and common sense. This editor is not respecting consensus, has a dubious single purpose account and their edits are disruptive. I dont think protection of the article is required, however someone informing this user that their actions are not acceptable, might be a good idea. ] (]) 06:17, 29 April 2008 (UTC) | |||
| {{atop|Suspected editor was indeed a sock. Unnecessary drama created by all-too zealous reporting--let this be the end of it. ] (]) 21:19, 24 December 2024 (UTC)}} | |||
| {{userlinks|Kriji Sehamati}} | |||
| Dear Wikipedians, | |||
| :::Your intention to create a new article for the Institute is only politically motivated on your part. Neither you are interested on Diana or the Institute or even the wikipedia.] (]) 06:23, 29 April 2008 (UTC) | |||
| I hope you’re doing well. I wanted to inform you about a new contributor @], despite lacking experience, has repeatedly attempted to vandalize multiple articles. These articles were properly aligned with Misplaced Pages’s guidelines and reviewed by experienced contributors, but he/she seemed unwilling to understand or respect their adherence to the policies. | |||
| I believe your experience could help address this situation effectively. | |||
| ::::::: Oh well, what can I say, do I need to say anything or does the above comment say it all? I have been editing wikipedia for 8 months, I have over 1000 edits, and I have no political interests relating to the Princess Diana Insitute of Peace, neither do I have any interests in Sri Lanka. I find the above comment to be not only absurd, but also to display a blatant lack of good faith. | |||
| Looking forward to your advice on how to proceed. | |||
| I think I should also post the last statement by the above editor, that was place on the talk page of the Princess Diana article. | |||
| Thankyou! ]] 15:21, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| '''You should have left someone else to create the article. If you are really interested on Diana, Princess of Wales, your contribution on her page might have shown that. But you have edited only petty things on her page and want to remove the sub section. I too believe with Gareth E Kegg that the current campaign to delete it is politically motivated."Bermudatriangle (talk) 06:15, 29 April 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. | |||
| ''' | |||
| :Perhaps if you supplied ] of this behaviour, someone would be able to help? If your issue is that they've nominated 4 articles of which you are a major contributor ''and'' are doing so by going through your contributions in order to find articles to nominate for deletion with specious reasons, then this board would be the place to come. If not, then making your arguments for keeping the articles on the AfDs in question would be your best bet. | |||
| :By the way is forum shopping. Stop that. ] (]) 16:06, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :(ec) This is an odd one. As S-Aura failed to provide diffs, I looked at Kriji Sehamati's contribution history. New account (9 Dec) began editing today, created two drafts and made a bunch of edits to those. Then began adding COI tags to articles S-Aura wrote, nominated those articles for deletion, and then left a template on S-Aura's talk page. Really seems to be something weird going on here between those two. (In addition to opening this ANI thread, S-Aura asked for help with basically the same message on the talk pages of Ipigott, Ryan shell, CFA, and BusterD, and S-Aura opened same complaint at AN.) ] ] 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. ] ] 18:16, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *We need to stop focusing on the OP's calling this vandalism; it is not. I've changed the header to reflect that. That said, the new user's edits ''are'' problematic and merit scrutiny. As for the UPE stuff, I've removed that post from the OP's Talk page; it's nonsensical coming from a new user and does not merit a response.--] (]) 18:42, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *It is, of course, not vandalism to nominate articles for AFD discussions as long as a legitimate deletion rationale is provided and the article hasn't just been discussed at a recent AFD. However, I don't think it's a good sign when a brand new editor claims to understand all of Misplaced Pages policies and whose first actions are to nominate articles at AFDs. They are almost never an actual new editor, especially when they know how to even set up an AFD or are familiar with using Twinkle on their first day of editing. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 19:34, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:It seems that she is not new to Misplaced Pages and might be operating multiple accounts. It appears she has an issue with one of my contributions, as she created her account just 15 days ago, yet she already has a good understanding of tools like Twinkle and AfD procedures. This level of familiarity suggests prior experience on the platform. I am now requesting her account to be blocked as I am completely disturbed by her repeated allegations and disruptive behavior. ]] 11:32, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::I am now genuinely confused—if all my contributions are not good, then why am I even here? Were the experienced editors who reviewed and approved these pages also mistaken? A newcomer, who joined just recently, is now disrupting and questioning the validity of all the work that has been carefully reviewed and maintained by experienced contributors. This situation is deeply discouraging. ]] 11:58, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:::Please resolve this situation—either block her for her disruptive behavior. How can i continue working under such constant targeting and stress ? ]] 12:00, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::::User:S-Aura, you seem to be making unsupported personal attacks against ]. You should provide specific evidence of wrongdoing, including diffs, or your arguments here will fall on deaf ears (and bring consequences for you). Meanwhile, as a filer on ANI, you have brought all your own edits to close scrutiny by the community. You may have to face that smart people disagree, and this is how we sort disagreements out on English Misplaced Pages. You are not required to edit, but we encourage you to do so. Nobody is going to block Kriji Sehamati at this point, because you've given us no reason to do so. ] (]) 12:01, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::Meanwhile, in the last few minutes S-Aura has disruptively about this exact issue on this same board, which by another editor. This is intentional disruption. ] (]) 12:07, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::As to the question "Why am I here?", poets and artists have been trying to answer this question for eons. Epistemology is outside the scope of this board, but there are articles about it. Show up to edit if you want to, but expect disagreement from time to time. (That's actually a sound answer to any epistemology question as well.) ] (]) 12:16, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::Dear @], | |||
| *:::::It means I have been proven wrong, and that user’s contributions have been more focused on me, which is quite insufficient to catch someone’s lie that she is pretending to be new, when in fact she is old. | |||
| *:::::Also, I am not against AfD; I am simply expressing my opinion. ]] 13:12, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::Could you please rephrase your point here? I don't understand. While it's okay to be suspicious that this editor is somehow socking or doing something else deceptive due to the familiarity, it seems unacceptable to deliberately accuse them of such repeatedly without firmer evidence. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff"> ‥ </span>]</span> 13:19, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::::Dear @], | |||
| *:::::::I am not engaged in paid activities on Misplaced Pages, and she claimed that I am connected with the subject, who is a judge, lawyer, etc. You all should understand that this is not a trivial matter; justice is a very respected position. Making such allegations can escalate court cases. I would like to remind you of the Misplaced Pages vs. ANI case. ]] 13:24, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::::One thing you need to understand immediately is you should never make another post that sounds vaguely like a legal threat, as you've just done above. ] That intonation is seriously not helping us decide who's right or wrong here. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff"> ‥ </span>]</span> 13:27, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::::::Okay! ]] 13:35, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::::I will caution you that this is tiptoeing right up to the edge of ] and you'd be advised to avoid making legal threats. ] (]) 13:28, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::::::Dear @], | |||
| *:::::::::I am merely showing that she can potentially do something inappropriate. I am following the guidelines and not making any legal threats. ]] 13:31, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::::::Accusing another editor of potentially making legal threats is not much better, when there is no concrete evidence that they would do so. Being interested in articles about judges does not suffice. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff"> ‥ </span>]</span> 13:32, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::::The page of Justice ], who had conducted over the Misplaced Pages vs. ANI court hearing, was also created by me. ]] 13:28, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::::::<del>State plainly what the implication you are making here is, because what I'm hearing is "I'm familiar with people who have hit Misplaced Pages with a mallet in court before, and I can make sure it happens again".</del> <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff"> ‥ </span>]</span> 13:30, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::::::This is becoming a rabbit hole. I urge you not to pursue the rabbit further. ] (]) 13:33, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::::::::Good call, I'll retract the above. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff"> ‥ </span>]</span> 13:34, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::::::No, that is not what I am implying. ]] 13:33, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:::No one has said your contributions are not good. However, it should be noted that a draft being accepted at AfC or a new page having been ] does not guarantee greater scrutiny would not result in a valid AfD nomination. That said, echoing others here it's clear something problematic is up with this user's behavior. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff"> ‥ </span>]</span> 12:02, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::You can't both criticize someone for {{tq|lack understanding of basic Misplaced Pages guidelines, particularly those related ] and ]}}, and then argue that she is too familiar with the platform to be a newcomer for knowing how to file an AfD. I wouldn't be surprised if most people here knew how to file an AfD before knowing all 14 notability guidelines by heart. ] (] · ]) 12:59, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:::There are detailed instructions on filing an AfD that can be found by googling "how can I get a Misplaced Pages page deleted" - if somebody had some personal reason for wanting to have pages removed it doesn't strain credibility to think that's why they created a WP account and that they just followed the very clear instructions on the appropriate pages. | |||
| *:::In fact that might explain why some of the AfD filings were reasonable and some were, on their face, incorrectly filed. If you looked up the AfD ''process'' but not ''criteria'' that is the likely outcome. That's why I find the "new user files AfDs must be a sock" idea here somewhat uncompelling. ] (]) 13:04, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *I believe we're entering boomerang territory at this point. Opinions? ] (]) 13:35, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:I think OP is upset that a cluster of their articles were put up at AfD. This in itself is understandable, but while there's reason to think there might be mischief by Kriji Sehamati, we don't have any real evidence of it. We either need the OP to make it clearer what misconduct, if any, has occurred, or they need to ]. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff"> ‥ </span>]</span> 13:37, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::The OP has been intentionally disruptive (by creating a new ANI thread which was reverted), and this thread is going nowhere. IMHO, there's nothing ANI can do here. Everything I'm reading about should be resolved at the page talk and user talk level, in my opinion. The AfDs are underway. If dispute resolution is needed, fine. Nobody is harming S-Aura. S-Aura can't come crying to ANI (or four random user talk pages like mine) anytime someone merely disagrees with them. ] (]) 14:08, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:::I'd have said close with trout for all if not for creating the second thread at AN/I. Based on that I'd say the OP should be formally cautioned against such antics in the future. ] (]) 14:10, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::I should have added that I largely hold with Remsense in their position. ] (]) 14:15, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:::] is definitely a sock puppet on Misplaced Pages, but we don’t have any evidence because understanding Misplaced Pages’s AfD process so quickly can be a bit challenging. I have no problem with AfD regarding my contributions, and it’s a good thing that experienced contributors are giving their feedback. If you believe that the kriji is 100% correct and her activity is not suspicious, then this discussion should be closed. ]] 14:27, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::::You need to stop insisting this is definitely the case if you don't have any evidence for it, period. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff"> ‥ </span>]</span> 14:28, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::::S-Aura, how did you make the determination {{tq|User:Kriji Sehamati is definitely a sock puppet on Misplaced Pages}}? Please share your process. That's a personal attack, and requires proof to prevent you from being in violation of ]. I've looked at the AfDs and they seem reasonable to me. When you've provided strong sources the article is being kept. So far the jury is out on the others. Both of you seem to be writing articles about obscure living persons who wouldn't normally (by my cursory reading) have a Misplaced Pages article about them because reliable sourcing is not readily found. When I see that, I must suspect COI or undeclared unpaid editing here, but nobody's admitting to it. ] (]) 15:05, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::::S-Aura's continuing to issue personal attacks makes it more difficult for us to just close this (without some form of consequence for the editor making unproven personal attacks after they've been warned repeatedly). ] (]) 15:08, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::I have made a level-four user talk page warning for the personal attack. FYI. We've been very nice about this up 'til now, but we need to stop being so kind. Doing foolish things has real world consequences. ] (]) 15:17, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| * Both editors' apparent use of AI is certainly disruptive. If it continues, it should lead to blocks. <span style="padding:2px 5px;border-radius:5px;font-family:Arial black;white-space:nowrap;vertical-align:-1px">] <span style=color:red>F</span> ]</span> 15:10, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:No personal hate intended, but I just found this and thought it would be worth checking. ]] 16:49, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::It would be nice if you could explain the significance for those who do not speak Hausa. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff"> ‥ </span>]</span> 16:51, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:::She had made contributions to pages in other languages a few months ago. I am attaching her contributions link. ]] 16:59, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::::How does this constitute evidence of sockpuppetry if we aren't to know what exactly happened? There's a reason we don't just automatically block anybody who is blocked on another language wiki, and I looked through the edits some and didn't find anything outrageous that made it past the language barrier. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff"> ‥ </span>]</span> 17:01, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::I agree that it’s important to ensure we have solid evidence before making conclusions. I appreciate your perspective on not automatically blocking users based on blocks from other language wikis. ]] 17:17, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::Please don't reply to me or others using ChatGPT. It is flat-out rude. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff"> ‥ </span>]</span> 17:18, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Support BOOMERANG''' - I've been uninvoled and have mainly just been watching the back-and-forths, but the personal attacks and ] mindset, such as "questioning the validity of all the work that has been carefully reviewed and maintained by experienced contributors", concerns me. Not sure for how long, but I don't think anything longer than a months is appropriate given the circumstances. ]<sub>]</sub><sup>]</sup> 15:47, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *This whole thread, but especially the 16:49, 24 December 2024 (UTC) comment, feels like the OP is just throwing literally everything at the wall to see what sticks. But, worse, what is being thrown at the wall lacks any significant body of evidence to support. I note that a personal attack warning has been given for the continued unfounded accusations being presented, which I think is a good move. I don't support a block at this point, although if I was the OP I would withdraw this complaint and/or drop the stick and walk away from this topic as a matter of urgency to avoid continuing to make the situation worse. ] (]) 17:41, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| == Darkwarriorblake making aspersions == | |||
| I want nothing more than the disruption on that article to cease, I have already left a message on the above editors talk page, stating that if they revert the edit, then I will consider this finished, I am not looking for blocks or protection, just a little good faith and common sense. ] (]) 06:32, 29 April 2008 (UTC) | |||
| {{atop|result=The OP says they don't care any more which I'm reading as a withdrawal and the other party says they won't be responding again so I'm closing this discussion. My only comment is that both editors in this dispute should have brought this to the article talk page to talk this disagreement out. I don't know if the differences would be resolved but this is what we advise editors to do when their edits are reverted. Now I just have to get that scene in the movie out of my mind. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 05:54, 24 December 2024 (UTC)}} | |||
| Postscript: Ah, someone just close this, I don't care any more. — ] <span style="color:#900">•</span> ] 22:56, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ---- | |||
| I'm posting here after a particularly underwhelming interaction with an editor in the form of edit summaries. I'll need to provide the context of a brief content dispute which hopefully won't take too long and then get to the point. I'm not asking for anyone to take my side in the dispute. | |||
| '']'' is a widely acclaimed comedy film from 1983, which is also widely acknowledged to have problematic elements by modern standards, including a scene in which the villain of the piece, stuck in a gorilla costume, is locked in a cage with a real gorilla, which is implied to sexually penetrate him without his consent. | |||
| The article states that ] demurred being cast in the role upon finding that out. for this claim is a ] on ], which contains the sentence | |||
| ::We don't need beautiful words to attract others, but the sequences to make others belive wether we are right or not. Not you 1000 edits that matters, then anyone with editcount can be here as administrators.] (]) 06:38, 29 April 2008 (UTC) | |||
| : ''Reportedly, Liddy was on board until he got to the part where Beeks .'' | |||
| Reportedly ''by whom'' is not mentioned, let alone is there a direct quotation from Liddy. Plus as can be seen the words "becomes a gorilla's mate" are linked to a very poor quality, hand-held video of the scene in question playing on a television. This alone should be enough to raise serious questions about the use of this "source" in a featured article. | |||
| :::: The fact that I have made over 1000 edits, was mentioned in order to respond to your claim that I was not interested in wikipedia. ] (]) 06:44, 29 April 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Then do you think those who are with more than 1000 edits and indefinitely blocked are not interested on wikipedia?] (]) 06:49, 29 April 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::: Hardly relevant, but I will entertain your question. I think some users with more than 1000 edits are still highly interested in wikipedia, because they ask to be unblocked and come back with new accounts. But as I said, that is not relevant, please deal with the current situation. ] (]) 06:53, 29 April 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::: OK, add to the above, blatant disregard for 3RR. I made an edit on the princess diana artlce, that did not remove anything, infact I added a link to the article that I created, the above user not only reverted my edit, but made his 4th revert within 24 hours. ] (]) 07:22, 29 April 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::My last revert is nothing to do with my previous edits. "See also" link to where? To your uncited article? ] (]) 07:40, 29 April 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: I made you fully aware that different reverts are just as unacceptable as identical reverts, there is a 3RR report against you. http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RR#User:Bermudatriangle_reported_by_User:Sennen_goroshi_.28Result:_.29 | |||
| ] (]) 08:05, 29 April 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::You should have discussed on the talk page of ] before you bring here the whole issue. Now you are adding citations to your newly created Institute. I think your too keen interest to remove the Institute sub section from the article Diana that quickly is clearly very "political". Can you elaborate your other edits on Diana's page other than your tad virginity issue.] (]) 08:23, 29 April 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :: Excuse me? I did put this on the Diana talk page, before bringing it here. This report was made 6:17 You reverted me at 6:01 (and again at 7:16 after I made this report) I stated on the talk page that I had made a new article at 5:51, you replied to me on the talk page at 5:59. The talk page was first, your reverts were second, my ANI report was third. | |||
| My edits are not political, as far as I am aware the only political interest would be to someone from Sri Lanka or of Sri Lankan origin, I am a white Englishman, who lives in Japan and has no knowledge of Sri Lanka, neither do I have an edit history relating to Sri Lanka, so please take your bad faith accusations elsewhere. ] (]) 08:35, 29 April 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::: I've got no idea what is going on here. I resent having my name bandied about by either side, and still have queries over the article's notability. ] (]) 09:22, 29 April 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Your reverts have started after ] reverts here. ] contributions and the article ] indicate ] and ]. So how we believe you are a white Englishman. Your initial edit on Diana's page about her virginity doesn't substantiate your claim that you are white Englishman as well. You should remember Diana is third popular among British people and the interest of the "White English" will very much differ on their first edit on her page. ] (]) 09:22, 29 April 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Even the article ] is very much differ from the name '''Princess Diana Institute of Peace''' and raise serious doubt over the name alteration.] (]) 09:45, 29 April 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::: Feel free to rename the article. Why would my edits about Diana's virginity say anything about if I was or was not English? I don't display bias in my edits, I edit with a NPOV, if you don't think I am English then you are displaying bad faith, and without being too rude, that is your problem not mine. | |||
| Gareth, I apologise for you being brought into this mess, I tried to solve a minor problem, in a manner that would reflect the interests of all parties, I thought it would not be a problem, until one editor starts making disruptive edits, this was a simple problem, with a simple solution. One editor has stood in the way of the simple solution, with his bad faith claims and absurd assumptions regarding what edits an Englishman should and should not make. ] (]) 09:51, 29 April 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::People use often bad faith for their escape on others. Here you are the one misleading others. You displayed you live in Japan and you hav't edited on issues related to Japan(and was critisised by another editor) and claiming yourself now you are a "White Englishman" live in Japan. I think you have created this account to mislead others.] (]) 10:03, 29 April 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::As this issue turns into a new direction, I have refered at ] for their comments.] (]) 10:23, 29 April 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: So now you are canvassing ? how many wikipedia guidelines are you going to ignore? And if you don't think I am actually living in Japan, born in England or whatever, that is your problem not mine. And once more, assume good faith. ] (]) 11:54, 29 April 2008 (UTC) | |||
| * Please to both ] and ]. I ask that you both take some time away from making further comment on this page. Give the rest of us a chance to read the articles and the associated talk pages on their own merits. If the article shouldn't have been created than taking it to AfD is the proper place for that. AN/I is not the place for some of the comments above and I ask both of you again to please step away for a little bit. Cool off. Then come back and discuss things in a civil manner in the appropriate places. Thank you. ] (]) 13:31, 29 April 2008 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Further comment''' now that I've read everything. I'm of the opinion that the information doesn't belong in the Princess Diana article and that the creation of a separate article was reasonable. If ] wishes to contribute constructively to wikipedia on this issue I'd suggest helping to expand the article on the Institute instead of going against the consensus that seems to exist about the information not belonging in the main article. I'd also suggest that renaming the separate article to ] may be appropriate (in case future Princess Diana Institutes of Peace are created). Thank you. ] (]) 14:05, 29 April 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::] is very possible ], See this Edit Summary and this diff, in both places "...care to explain" and "...care to answer" is there. After a few (...) '''care to''' phrase is there in both cases. They both claim they live in Japan. ] is vanished after from ]. | |||
| ::I think ] whose bio was deleted a year ago is a Tamil and ] is a Buddist Sinhalese. What is taking place is Sri Lanka Conflict on Diana's page. | |||
| ::I think the motive to separate the institute's details from the Diana's page is at one point to delete it from wikipedia. | |||
| ::When lookig at ], ] and ], I think it is better '''Princess Diana Institute of Peace''' is deleted from wikipedia at its earliest possible.] (]) 16:41, 29 April 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::Not sure what any of the last statement(s) has/have to do with the current discussion or if they area all input from the same user. The Princess Diana Institute of Peace information was removed from the Princess Diana article through concensus. If the resulting article should be "deleted from wikipedia at its earliest possible" than someone should nominate it at AfD. ] (]) 12:13, 30 April 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :: The above claim by ] has no connection to reality, as far as WikiProject Sri Lanka Reconciliation is concerned. ] has never been rejected. In fact, at the time of his last Misplaced Pages edit, people were trying to convince Iwazaki to join the Sri Lanka Dispute Resolution Agreement, which is closely connected with our project. The section link "]", which ] cites to back up {{genderneutral|eir}} accusation, never existed. Moreover, this accusation of sockpuppetry is irrelevant: The two accounts have not been used together, so no harm has been done. And WikiProject Sri Lanka Reconciliation has even less problems with sockpuppets since it is specifically set up such that creating sockpuppets doesn't give you the same benefits they may give you in other areas of Misplaced Pages: See ]. --— ] 07:56, 1 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| Colin dedicates all his time on the ] to obstructing editors who disagree with him. He’s demonstrating ownership issues, as well as obstruction of any attempt to reach consensus. | |||
| This user was previously warned for personal attacks regarding me and this article by ]. . | |||
| After the warning, he mostly just changed tactics, from attacks to word games. This is a typical example of an exchange between us on the Talk page, which I think shows more interest in word games than consensus: | |||
| <blockquote> | |||
| :::::Here's more specific policy that addresses my concern. I would only add that 1) if it is likely many people dispute that the Beatles are the greatest band, the opposite view needs to be present, and 2) anti-Americanism, as a potential pejorative about living people, requires a very high standard of neutrality. | |||
| ::::::"When we discuss an opinion, we attribute the opinion to someone and discuss the fact that they have this opinion. For example, rather than asserting, "The Beatles were the greatest band," we can say: "Most people from Liverpool believe that the Beatles were the greatest band," which can be supported by references to a particular survey; or "The Beatles had many songs that made the UK Singles Chart," which is also verifiable as fact. In the first instance we assert a personal opinion; in the second and third instances we assert the fact that an opinion exists, by attributing it to reliable sources." ] (]) 22:19, 18 April 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Just to say that what is classed as a 'fact' is only through someone's opinion. 'Facts' do not impinge on our consciousness with the blinding force of revelation and even if they did we would have to convince someone else that what was revealed to us is the TRUTH. Nobody knows what the true facts are about reality. Descartes, Kant and Hegel couldn't find out and even Einstein didn't know. All we can do is say e.g. "According to Einstein E = mc squared" or "According to George Bush the weapons of mass destruction are in Saddam's garden shed" and leave it to others to figure out what credit they are prepared to give to Mr Einstein or Mr Bush or whoever. ] (]) 09:48, 19 April 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::The policy of Misplaced Pages is that some things are classed as fact and some are not, and the policy is given in the link I provided above. If you want to start a nihilistic encyclopedia which recognizes nothing as fact, I will be very interested to see how it works out. Misplaced Pages is not such a project. ] (]) 12:10, 19 April 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::This is not nihilism. Science progresses. Newton's theory of physics was replaced by Einstein's which was replaced by quantum theory which itself is not the definitive answer. There are new discoveries being made every day in science and new philosophical theories and new definitions and new ways of analysis and new historical discoveries. If you want to start a medieval encyclopedia based on the immutable thoughts of Aristotle I would be interested to see how it turns out. Misplaced Pages is not such a project. ] (]) 15:21, 19 April 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Colin, make an effort. Misplaced Pages's policy is given in the link I provided. This is the fourth time in 2 days I've referred you to an actual page that explains the policy on classifying fact/opinion and how to write about them. ] (]) 21:30, 19 April 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Is that a fact or an opinion? ] (]) 09:26, 20 April 2008 (UTC) | |||
| </blockquote> | |||
| Lately, he’s resumed more dismissive, attacking comments. Here he sums up my ideas as “playing politically correct word games. This is an encyclopedia not a spin doctor's operating room.” | |||
| Here he dismisses my comments as “bar-room pronuncimentios” | |||
| Here he characterizes my concerns & edits as “butcherings…personal POV original research agenda…off the cuff lubrications.” This comment of his also goes on at great length about his important credentials, and demonstrates an attitude of ownership. | |||
| Here he calls me a “person who breaks all the windows and then tosses a hand-grenade inside” for the way I want to shorten the article. | |||
| Here he says the article is "being butchered by one highly persistent individual" (that would be me). <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 09:17, 29 April 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| I could go on. The main other aspect of this is his sarcastic caricatures of everything I say. Every rebuttal is a strawman argument. I won't document that here, but anyone perusing the Talk page will, I believe, see it. | |||
| This attitude has been going on for weeks. Even before he was warned, he made edits like “Restored the good version of this article - from before the uninformed axe-grinders and vandals ruined it” | |||
| I don't really want to use this board as a dumping ground for every problem, but I don't know what else to do. I've made every effort to use the tools of dispute resolution. I proposed a policy for cases like this at the Village Pump . I requested an opinion at the NPOV Noticeboard . I requested informal mediation (completely disrupted by Colin) . I requested Editor Assistance . I requested a Third Opinion (in my opinion, that editor is now being sucked into Colin's whirlwind of aggression). Nothing is going to work as long as Colin doesn't care about dispute resolution. | |||
| ] (]) 08:45, 29 April 2008 (UTC) | |||
| : Maybe you should both spend some time away from ]. That's what I did (I was involved in this article for a time). Everyone who spends an extended period of time there seems to have a slanted agenda over which they get exceedingly emotional. I don't see any actual civility violations (at least not by these particular two users) -- just people getting huffy over a difference of opinion. Give it up and go edit one of the other 2-point-something-million articles on Misplaced Pages where you won't run into your arch-nemesis. Let others worry about this particular article for a while. Chances are the article will benefit from that. No offense. <small style="font:bold 10px Arial;display:inline;border:#009 1px dashed;padding:1px 6px 2px 7px;white-space:nowrap">] ]/] ''08:52, 29 Apr 2008 (UTC)''</small> | |||
| :: You may be right, but I don't actually see myself as contributing to a problem here. I've been very conscientious in following the steps of dispute resolution, and only been cross a few times. Colin isn't going to do this to just me; he is going to do it to everyone he disgarees with. This was his attitude when you were editing; it is the attitude he's starting to bring to ] (the Third Opinion editor). He needs some (sharp) feedback about his behavior. ] (]) <small>—Preceding ] was added at 09:03, 29 April 2008 (UTC)</small><!--Template:Undated--> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| :::I had a look at this when Colin4c was being given some good advice, by another admin, to cool it in the mediation process. Equazcion also gives good advice to the two of you to avoid each other and let it lie. A brief look at your edit history shows a great preoccupation both with this one subject and the disputes that have circled round it. You'd both benefit from a holiday from each other. cheers ] (]) 09:21, 29 April 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::If I take a break, and after the break the same issues continue, what should I do? Cut and paste this back into a new complaint on the same board? Why not address the problems now? I appreciate different perspectives. I don't agree that this is a case of mutual antognists needing a mutual break. Colin is acting like he owns the article. It's a problem for anyone who thinks the article has a lot of neutrality problems--which it obviously does. ] (]) 09:50, 30 April 2008 (UTC) | |||
| See ''Are you in the right place?'' and ''What these pages are not'' (above). If you post a problem here, people are happy to take a look at it, but generally this is not the place for content or dispute resolution. As these are complex and lengthy disputes involving a number of editors - who also don't necessarily agree with either of you, the advice (above) is to present a case at a forum where the matter can be examined in depth and all parties can comment at length. My opinion is that Colin4c was given advice to calm down a short time ago in one of those forums and it seems to me his later posts have reflected that advice. | |||
| While I understand that these matters can get heated, the best advice we can ever give is to allow things to cool down and for the editors concerned to deal with each other civilly. The best way to achieve that is for both of you to take a break and reflect on what it is you can agree on. I hope you don't find that frustrating, but we can't manage your relationships. If behaviour ever becomes unacceptable, then there will be an intervention - and I believe that that was what happened when circumstances warranted it. | |||
| Both yourself and Colin4c need to develop consensus for changes to the article and avoid disputes with each other. ] (]) 10:35, 30 April 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Your advice doesn't address my concerns. It only takes one person to refuse dispute resolution, to refuse to work toward consensus, to disrupt editing. Suggesting that both parties "cool down" and "deal with each other civilly" is good advice when both parties are heated and uncivil. Why do you think that's the case here? I wonder if you've read through the Talk page and seen Colin's behavior in context, or if you're assuming a middle-of-the-road approach is best. I've tried almost every item in Misplaced Pages's list of dispute resolution steps, from 3rd opinions to mediation. I agree, this is not the place for dispute resolution. Is it the place for dealing with someone who refuses to participate in dispute resolution? ] (]) 11:40, 30 April 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::Most dispute resolution processes on wiki rely on voluntary participation. There's no compulsion, as the dispute is only resolved when both parties freely accept the outcome. Non-participation will only be considered material when there's subsequent action - say at ArbCom. As far as I understand, previous mediation was actually between yourself and a third party, and Colin4c presented evidence there - some, as to your own behaviour was (quite properly) rejected. | |||
| ::Article content is developed through consensus and the best way for Life.temp and Colin4c to proceed with the content disputes is to explain their respective positions to third parties on the talk page of the article. This forum doesn't make determinations on either content or behaviour - unless it blatantly requires intervention. My feeling is that there are enough admins watching ] to ensure that incivility doesn't go unremarked - and if necessary dealt with. | |||
| ::Maybe someone else has a better suggestion for you on how to proceed, but my personal advice to both of you is take your time and don't edit precipitately. Discuss the changes on the talk page and obtain consensus from others. Leave space for others to be involved. ] (]) 12:51, 30 April 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::Last comment on this particular exchange, just in case I wasn't clear. I made this complaint because I think Colin is disrupting the process. I think admins deal with that. I didn't request content and dispute resolution. I don't know what to do with "the best way for Life.temp and Colin4c to proceed with the content disputes is to explain their respective positions to third parties on the talk page of the article." I've been doing that for a month, with the results I excerpted above. (P.S. Thank you for the volunteer time you put in on this; I appreciate it even though I don't agree with you.) ] (]) 23:56, 30 April 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Finally, you might want to read ]. I'm not saying either party is a troll - but that essay does provide good advice on avoiding disputes - particularly behavioural ones. HTH ] (]) 10:16, 1 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Anon at ] == | |||
| I've never done this before, so I may not be in the right place. We have an anon that wants ] to reflect his/her particular bias. This is nothing unusual, and was addressed by semi-protecting the article for two weeks (until 06-May-2008). The anon refuses to engage in discussions, despite repeated requests on the ]. Again, this is nothing unusual, especially for an article in this subject area. However, I'm ''really'' unhappy about , which involves changing other editors' remarks and questions on the articles talk pages into glowing praise of the anon. This is clearly unacceptable. What is a reasonable response? Should we semiprotect the talk page? Should we block the IP address (likely a computer at school)? Is there another solution? ] (]) 18:56, 29 April 2008 (UTC) | |||
| : I've blocked the newest IP address, and will monitor the page for any future disruptions. Doesn't require semi-protecting right now... <small>] | ] | ]</small> 19:19, 29 April 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :: It's a dynamic IP that has been all over the Savant pages; blocking won't help. ] (]) 15:51, 30 April 2008 (UTC) | |||
| I don't know how I missed that one, WhatamIdoing. OK, this has had a couple of AN/I threads, Jfdwolff has intervened several times, but this altering of past editor comments for deceptive purposes takes it to another level. There are two editors (who are friends) and two IPs, one Comcast, the other Utah Educational Network, one edits during Utah daytime, the other in the evening, they're also working on ] who is a Mormon savant. This has gone on long enough and has been disruptive enough that it now needs a checkuser. I've never done one before, and will be out all afternoon, but I'll muddle my way through the instructions at checkuser later tonight. ] (]) 15:47, 30 April 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ]. ] (]) 03:10, 1 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :No feedback. ] (]) 03:06, 2 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Princess Diana Institute of Peace == | |||
| ] raised the noatability of the Princess Diana Institute of Peace at 17:50, 28 April 2008 at ] and then reverted the sub section (which was created nearly a month ago and after the main page has gone nearly 500 edits) at 14:09, 29 April 2008 . | |||
| The reason ] was given is, "I see no argument on the talk page for including this section, only bad faith accusations about the motivations behind its removal. Stand alone article is linked to from see also.". | |||
| This user is expecting within 24 hours other editors should jump into the talk page and should take their dicission of the section which has passed by nearly 100 editors and a bunch of administrators since its creation. The rush this User has shown is either his personal tendency on the issue or not showing good faith on other editors who are continuously contributing to the article ]. | |||
| ] justifies, "...Stand alone article is linked to from see also" on Edit Summary to this ill-formatted article ]. But it has been created poorly by cutting and pasting the content of the "Princess Diana Institute of Peace" which was in the ] without copying it from the HTML code. The User who has created the above mentioned stand alone article is vigourously campaigning its removal from the ]. The User has taken me for 3RR violation to the right place and even reported to ANI promptly. So it can't be an error this User missed to copy the HTML code and other sourced references to meet the wiki standard. | |||
| Misplaced Pages Merge criteria says, | |||
| {{cquote|'''3. Text''' - If a page is very short and is unlikely to be expanded within a reasonable amount of time, it often makes sense to merge it with a page on a broader topic. For instance, parents or children of a celebrity who are otherwise unremarkable are generally covered in a section of the article on the celebrity, and can be merged there.}} | |||
| Princess Diana Institute Peace was founded in a Third World country ] where raising fund is a major draw back. Even the media coverage on internet is very minimal to bring all its activities on-line. These factors with other political set backs and humanitarian violations are very distruptive to carry out its activities on regular basis and meet wikipedia Notability criteria compared to other NGOs in the developed nations. | |||
| For the question why it is something to do with the ] is its starting name "Princess Diana" gives more identical with late Diana and the recogdnition in its activities. | |||
| My opinion is the article "Princess Diana Institute of Peace" should be merged with the article ] until the page get expanded in a reasonable amount of time. | |||
| Though I can revert ]'s revert according to the following merging criteria, I don't want to do it as I could get caught into EditWar. | |||
| {{cquote|Merging is a normal editing action, something any editor can do, and as such does not need to be proposed and processed. If you think merging something improves the encyclopedia, you can ] and perform the merge, as described below. Because of this, it makes little sense to object to a merge purely on procedural grounds, e.g. "you cannot do that without discussion" is not a good argument.}} | |||
| I am leaving this information here for your opinion on ].] (]) 14:22, 30 April 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Thank you for your continuing lack of good faith in me and my edits. I created the new article in an attempt to solve the dispute. I did not copy the HTML code, because I have never created a new article before. There were no hidden agendas behind the simple cut/paste. If you don't like the format of the article, instead of complaining about it here, and making assumptions/accusations regarding my motives, you might want to spend your time improving the article. Put the HTML in, add some images, turn it into a top quality article. When I created the article, I mentioned that it needed work, and I requested that people help improve it, so once more, please show a little good faith. ] (]) 14:31, 30 April 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :One more comment/question. Why is this on ANI? surely the article's talk page would be more suitable.] (]) 14:59, 30 April 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::Why I brought to ANI is you a few people don't know even how to create a page on wikipedia but taking '''very interest''' on Princess Diana Institute of Peace and other tad issues like Diana's virginity.] (]) 15:33, 30 April 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::I don't mean to be rude but....1 ANI does not seem like the correct place for this. 2. I don't really understand what you are saying. ] (]) 15:39, 30 April 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I agree this is inappropriate. Use the talk page to discuss content issues and controversial merges, if a consensus cannot be reached consider ] such as using a third party or ]. Also consider helping inexperienced editors with creating a page. Misplaced Pages is not a ]. Don't get blocked for ]. --<span style="background: white;">neon</span><span style="color:white; background: black;">white</span><small> ] ]</small> 15:42, 30 April 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I too agree with you, ANI is not the right place. But the above User is taking extra interest over this issue, but don't know how to create an article on wikipedia. Now turning her stand that he is English and asking me who am I? I will have to ask my ancestors who are from the ] region same as ] who am I?. A ] or ] stock?] (]) 15:54, 30 April 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :I didn't feel that the information about the institute belonged in a biography about the person. Instead of simply removing it, I asked for input on the talk page. Instead of an explanation about why this institute should have ], there was a bunch of bad faith accusations about why people wanted the information removed. I'm sorry if you felt that the 20+ hours wasn't long enough for discussion, but there's no reason why that discussion can't still continue. AN/I seems very premature at this point. --]]] 16:16, 30 April 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::Really 20+ hours is not enough for discussion.] (]) 18:33, 30 April 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::In my opinion, it was. In any case, it's now been 48+ hours, and I still don't see an argument justifying why this institute deserves its own section on a page that is supposed to be a biography about ]. --]]] 18:40, 30 April 2008 (UTC) | |||
| * If ] hadn't removed the section I would have. I was on my way to do precisely that when I noted he had already done it. It was decided by consensus that the material did not belong in that particular article. The information is still on wikipedia and has "pride of place" in it's own article. As I said at the previous discussion on the matter if ] wants to be constructive he can help improve the new article (it is in drastic need). Otherwise the action he is taking is highly disruptive and not beneficial to the project. The "content" dispute was solved by consensus both on the talk page and at the previous discussion on this very page. If ] doesn't like what the new article says than he should help edit it constructively or nominate it for deletion under the appropriate criteria. ] (]) 16:38, 30 April 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::: What disruptive actions are you referring to? As far as i can see two users, ] and ] are guilty of edit warring. Continue the discussion until a consensus is reached or go to dispute resolution, that's my advice. Remember that ] and claiming a false consensus is not civil. --<span style="background: white;">neon</span><span style="color:white; background: black;">white</span><small> ] ]</small> 18:12, 30 April 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::: The disruptive actions I refer to is the refusal to help improve the new article and instead bringing this up again when matters had progressed through what on the talk page and the section on this very page looked like consensus. ] (]) 10:34, 1 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::Neon, though I agree with ] on "pride of place", still I have doubt whether the info available is enough for creating a new article for the institute.] (]) 18:33, 30 April 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::: i agree that such an article would unlikely survive an afd on grounds of notability. I can't find much evidence of it's existance considering the high profile but thats something that should be taken to an afd. --<span style="background: white;">neon</span><span style="color:white; background: black;">white</span><small> ] ]</small> 18:37, 30 April 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::: Why it can't be merged with section with '''thin content''' until the page get expanded in a reasonable amount of time.] (]) 19:05, 30 April 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::: Personally, I'd have no problem with the institue being mentioned in the legacy section but, it doesn't require the extensive write-up it had. As for consensus it looked on the talk page like consensus had been reached. I don't understand why content dispute or otherwise ] seems unwilling to help improve the new article. ] (]) 10:34, 1 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::If you could do the write-up (thin content) about the institute and being mentioned in the legacy section with the link to the new article, then fine I will involve with the new article.] (]) 13:47, 1 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ** I've fixed the content on the new article so it is using the exact html coding that ] was using in "his" section on the section in the ]] (]) 16:44, 30 April 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::That is not "my" section. Then what about these.] (]) 16:55, 30 April 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::: Please accept my apologies. It was the fact that you are the only one voicing concern for it's inclusion in the Diana article that made me think of it as "your section". Again, I don't understand why you don't wish to help improve the separate article. ] (]) 10:34, 1 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::: I am in two minds, if I were to be totally objective, I would suggest deleting the new article, and not having the reference in the old article. It is a stub at the moment, and is unlikely to grow. It is not notable, and is not relevant to the Diana article. It should not go back into the Diana article, that seems clear, it is a very minor organisation, named after her, with no involvement from her. It is unlikely to grow. But I do think that it might be nice to give it a chance, leave it where it is, let people hunt down some more information, and see if it can grow. If it were left in there, we might as well have Diana's favourite chocolate bar and what brand of soap she preferred. ] (]) 19:18, 30 April 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Your shows why you are so keen it should not go back to Diana article.] (]) 19:25, 30 April 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::: I would love to speak my mind right now, however civility prevents me from typing the words that are on the tip of my tongue. Since I encountered you, you have tried to interpret every single edit I make, you have seen motive - when there is none, you have accused me of lying about my origin, you have accused me of making politically motivated edits. When are you going to work it out? I have no political interest in these articles, I don't have any particular affection nor dislike for Princess Diana - I am just editing wikipedia. The fact that I removed the statement which said Diana was a virgin before marriage is just a fucking edit !!!! I don't know what you are trying to read into that edit, or into the related edit summary - but the only thing you can assume there, is that I like editing wikipedia. Stop assuming the worst about me and my edits. Stop making totally absurd comments and accusations. ] (]) 03:14, 1 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::Mind your language first. It is not your blog to use "... just a fucking edit !!!!" and "I don't mean to be an asshole about this...". | |||
| ::::::::You comment "...If it were left in there, we might as well have Diana's favourite chocolate bar and what brand of soap she preferred." shows your total stupidity and arrogance. | |||
| ::::::::I am not bothered of your origin, but you yourself declared you are a "White English". But in your userspace some other editor too questioned of your origin which you have placed as your . | |||
| ::::::::Talking with you is not productive but exhausting myself how an another editor , so I too choose not to talk to you.] (]) 07:07, 1 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::(undent) This is still a content dispute in the end. I'd suggest marking it as resolved and leaving them to go towards ] which is where this belongs. -- ] (]) 03:42, 1 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: Point One. Misplaced Pages is not censored. If you don't like to language such as "fucking" and "asshole" then perhaps you should reconsider your position as an editor of a site that is not censored, either that or make a proposal to bar all profanity from wikipedia. | |||
| :::::Point Two. While profanity is not banned, editors are expected to remain civil at all times, and not to make personal attacks. '''"your total stupidity and arrogance."''' is clearly a personal attack against me, which is blatantly in violation of wikipedia guidelines. Please apologise for that outburst and refrain from making personal attacks against me or any other editor in the future.] (]) 07:23, 1 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::If wikipedia is not censored, and you have the freedom to use the words "fucking" and "asshole". Then take this issue to ] that will help a change in wiki policy. Sorry, no appologies, your limitless freedom is the cause for my emotional outburst. ] (]) 08:45, 1 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::: well it is really nice of you to not only break the "no personal attacks" rule, and of all the pages to break it in, you chose to break it on the ANI board but also when it is pointed out, for you not to care.. you must either have friends in high places, or really not care about being blocked.] (]) 08:50, 1 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::I don't have friends in high places. Even if I know personally ], that won't stop an admin to do his task against me here. But what I am concered about is a change in wiki policy.] (]) 08:59, 1 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::: Hey !!! I have a great idea !!! instead of expecting an established website with a huge userbase to change policies just to suit you, why not try a website where you can control the policies yourself, you can remove comments, you can decide which nasty words are and are not allowed - and I know just the ] (]) 11:04, 1 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::: Talking with you is not productive but exhausting myself. But my personal opinion is a website with huge userbase should have some ethics how its members should communicate with each other.] (]) 13:47, 1 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| * Not sure if it means the matter is resolved but, ] has agreed to work on improving the new article and I've agreed to put something in the legacy section of the main Diana article. Confirmation can be had on ] but, please don't add to the discussion there. Thanks. ] (]) 15:21, 1 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| * I've agreed with ].] (]) 15:54, 1 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Persistent and refusing to see the point == | |||
| I am here at the AN/I as a last resort after a two long weeks of requesting, begging and demanding ] citations from ]. The user raised questions about ''jurisdiction of a ]'' as well as removing details about a ] project which is proposed in the falls area. Anyways, leaving details of the dispute aside, to solve the dispute itself I had first asked the user to provide ] material, and in failing to see any progress, I sought third party opinion and we recently also had an RfC too. Even before the RfC I left a detailed message on his ''beating around the bush'' attitude on his talk page ]. When the RfC was still going on both Naadapriya and I were asked not to revert or make any changes by the admin who was staying as an outside opiner. But, Naadapriya sought help of ] to add his views. Is this acceptable? Nevertheless, my '''major concern''' is that the user still fails to produce RS materia but seem to go on and on with the same story, but no RS with the support of another user (]). Everyone else on the talk page including the admins involved in the RfC have asked them repeatedly to show some reliable citations, but till date none. Because of this the article page has to be kept protected. The user's attitude is stalling the progress of the article. I get very little time on wiki and it is really unfair for a user to be stuborn and waste fellow editors time. <font color="Orange"><b>]</b></font><sup><i> <font color="green">]</font></i></sup> 15:58, 30 April 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Can I also know if I will be breaching ] if I alert the admins involved in this issue about this AN/I namely:<br> | |||
| :*] | |||
| :*] and | |||
| :*] <br> | |||
| :as well as the other frustrated editor like me ]. I reckon they will be able to throw more light into the issue. <font color="Orange"><b>]</b></font><sup><i> <font color="green">]</font></i></sup> 16:57, 30 April 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::'''It is very unfortunate the issue which is actively discussed is dragged here.(please see discussions)''' | |||
| #Before I made my comment several editors already had opposed to the statement in the lead about location of falls | |||
| #Editors opposing my correction repeatedly refused to accept the ] citations based on Govt sites and Google map | |||
| #Those recent ones presented by ] and ] were also refused by above group of editors. | |||
| #Rfc was prematurely initiated by solicited editor who joined the discussions with adhoc comments. | |||
| #Naadapriya '''did not''' invite ] to add comment. Responded to comments on talk page. | |||
| #Todate the group of editors appeared to have coordinated by Wikiality123 have refused to provide ] about the strong statement that falls is in a particular state. | |||
| #Most responses by above group of editors except ] included personal attacks. Above comment is a typical example of false accusations. | |||
| #All inquiries by Admns are answered either by me or other editors. | |||
| #During my tenure in Misplaced Pages this has taken maximum time but I do not regret in the interest of accuracy of information. | |||
| It is request refer this issue back to discussions which is almost coming to conclusion with a proposed ] statement | |||
| that will not contradict view points of all editors involved in discussions sofar. I do not plan to further respond here since it is waste of valuable time of Admns unless I am asked by an Admn. | |||
| ] (]) 23:09, 30 April 2008 (UTC). | |||
| :As someone who regularly monitors this page, I saw the notice myself. I will confirm that Naadapriya has regularly insisted that the page in question meet the standards of his own interpretation of sources, that interpretation not being explicitly stated in the sources themselves. Many/most of the other editors who have been involved in the discussion have also commented on his refusal to respond directly to points made against him, and at least one editor other than myself has indicated that his refusal to directly address points made by others, and instead simply basically repeat himself, makes it very hard to assume good faith of him. There has been an RfC initiated by Naadapriya on the talk page. The consensus of the RfC was that Naadapriya's position was not well supported by the evidence. I believe that this editor, who has already received a two-week block for abusive sockpuppetry since his account creation in December, seemingly also over pushing POV regarding Karnataka, may have some difficulties with POV and policy. This is somewhat supported by the fact that almost all, if not all, of his edits to date have related to Karnataka and certain opinions about it, including his more problematic edits. I am now finding myself forced to question whether this editor places his own opinions and goals over those of the encyclopedia. ] (]) 00:43, 1 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::No choice but to respond. Above comment is typical example of ad hoc comments by editors defending current ] statement in the lead opposed by about 10 editors to date. Following are responses to above inaccurate statements. | |||
| #Above Editor did not '''regularly monitor''' the page. Joined to ] on Apr 23, 2008 with possible invitation from Wikiality123 though discussions are going on since June 23, 07. | |||
| #Majority of comments by above editor to date are criticizing approach of other editors and blindly defending current ] statement without giving technical reasons. | |||
| # ''''RfC initiated by Naadapriya'''' is a '''false''' statement. It was initiated by editors opposing ] statement that falls is on the border. | |||
| # Naadapriya was not involved in 'sockpuppetry' as explained and acknowledged in the talk page. It was a result of multiuser system which was corrected later. | |||
| #Yes most of my edits are about ] a subject I know well. Grew up wondering around falls area. Obtained a post graduate training in irrigation/Hydraulics Eng studying about hydroelectric projects near falls and water projects. Misplaced Pages expects editors to be knowledgeable about the articles they get involved in. It does not expect editors to jump in the middle and make ad hoc comments to ] for someone else as done by some opposing editors.. To date naadapriya has made all comments with ] support. | |||
| #Naadapriya strongly believes in diligent use of wikipedia's ] policy. ] (]) 06:55, 1 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::For what it's worth, I agree that I was mistaken about who started the RfC. Sheffield started the RfC. Also, it should be noted that I have on several other occasions commented on this page, which makes it clear that the page is in fact on my watchlist. Regarding ], it is curious that per that editor's contribution history the account has been extant since 2005, but only made 8 previous edits before becoming involved in the current debate, and none of them to the page in question. ] (]) 15:23, 1 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::I strongly advice Naadapriya to read what others are saying before you respond. John was clearly saying that he ''monitors'' this page (AN/I) page and wasn't talking about the ] page. Yes I did invite John to the Hogenakkal page as a third party. I also asked another third party ] ] and ShefeildSteel joined us after the AN/I '''Naadapriya''' filed agaisnt me. Details of which can be found ]. The whole procedure was followed as per Wiki protocols. As in, if we have a trouble with a particular editor, to take it to their talk page and see if we can resolve it, then further if it goes on, get a third party (I asked for more than one third party) and at last an RfC. I, with all my conscience, have tried everything to ] with this user. Its not just me. The admin (Shefeildstreel)who precided over the AN/I that was filed agaisnt me by Naadapriya would himself later while posting his messages would say as a reply to Naadapriya (in his edit summary) that ''its difficult to AGf'' .I reckon all that is humanly possible has been done and I'm not a Mahatma enough to show more patience. Cheers <font color="Orange"><b>]</b></font><sup><i> <font color="green">]</font></i></sup> 08:09, 1 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::What is even more painful is that Naadapriya keeps telling us that he/she is a irrigation engineer, but till date, he or she wouldn't add anything constructive to this article which is on a water falls. Nothing about the hydrolics or geology or landscape or anything at all. BUT would just talk about the jurisdiction of the place with no RS. huh? <font color="Orange"><b>]</b></font><sup><i> <font color="green">]</font></i></sup> 08:14, 1 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::AN/I against Wikiality123 was because of use of ''''BS''''. He was warned here. In spite of that he continued to use unwarranted words which were ignored. Misplaced Pages is a source of accurate summary information not a text book to teach on Irrigation. Yes I am a trained Irrigation engineer therefore confidently stated that there is no relation between water falls and water project (that too when it does not exist). Wikility123 disagreed repeatedly!! without technical justifications and solicited support for his ] from other editors. Now he has dragged the issue here which is unwarranted. Just like the first sentence of the previous comment he appears to condition other editor's views to support his ]. | |||
| ::The latest ] lead statement proposed by ] et. al. based on input of all editors to date is the best solution to conclude this ongoing saga and move on. ] (]) 09:31, 1 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::So far as I can tell, there is no "et. al." to the rather remarkable proposal of the previously extremely inactive skhbat except Naardapriya himself. I believe that information should be noted. ] (]) 15:23, 1 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::Yes, it is indeed obvious that I disgreed with Naadapriya's POV repeatedly and consistently, because it had and has no RS to back it, in spite of us asking the user to produce such a one persistently. This is why am here anyways! As for the use of the term BS, I had already explained to the admin who looked at it that it was ] that I was refering too, and not the user. Naadapriya did not notify me of the AN/I that he had filed against me, which he/she '''should have done'''. More over after I explained the use of the term BS, ShefieldSteel struk off the word warning in my talk page to ''reminder'' as any one can see ]. To add to it ShefieldSteel himself commented that all he can see was '' examples of Wikiality123 being tirelessly polite to'' Naadapriya and further more in his own talk page he said that he ''did not think'' that what I was saying ''was that bad'' , but nevertheless in his own words he was trying to '''resolve the situation so that discussion about the ''real'' problem (where the Falls is located) can continue'''. Which by his good virtue he did and unfortunately Naadapriya still doesn't ] the fact. <font color="Orange"><b>]</b></font><sup><i> <font color="green">]</font></i></sup> 10:10, 1 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :I'd alike to make a couple of minor additions and corrections to the above accounts: | |||
| :*The content dispute (where the Falls is located) is complicated by real-world disputes over access to an island below the falls, and usage of water from the river. Sources relating to these disputes are often cited as evidence regarding the location of the Falls, although so far none of them address that question directly. Attempts to point this out to Naadapriya have ]. | |||
| :*My involvement: I am not an admin, merely an editor trying to help resolve a difficult issue. Apologies to anyone I may have mis-led. It was I who initiated the RfC about the location of the Falls. Unfortunately it did not get many responses, due perhaps to technical problems with the RfC system (or my own ineptitude). | |||
| :*I have ''not'' gone so far to to say that I think Naadapriya is acting in bad faith. I that their contribs are now tending towards disruptive/tendentious, but (per ] interpretation of WP:AGF and WP:NPA) there's a difference between cause and effect. <font color="006622">]</font><sup><small><b>]</b></small></sup> 15:00, 1 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::: Clarification on your position that counters the misinterpretation of your views by others, particularly wikiality123, is appreciated It is unfortunate you did not apply 'so far none of them address that question directly' to editors who are refusing to accept ] lead statement. I have listened to your views with ]. ] (]) 16:16, 1 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ;Update on the user's recent edits<small>I have pointed this out in the article page too</small><br> | |||
| Naadapriya has come up with a proposal to change the lead which can be found ]. Althouth the user called it for some reason ''Most accurate, WP:RS based, nonpolitical and unbiased NPOV Lead statement'', as I shall show you below, not only that the user had failed to understand the meaning of RS and wasting other's time and energy, but also blatantly used references which '''do not''' claim anything what they have been used for. | |||
| :*The first change was the sentence ''It is located near Dharmapuri and Chamarajanagar Districts from where the river reenters from Tamil Nadu to Karnataka'', but the citations shown doesn't even mention the word ''Chamarajanagar''<br> | |||
| ::*Next was to include the distance from the city of Chennai, which logically not a big problem, but the reference Naadapriya shows us didn't say it at all <br> | |||
| ::*Next sentence Naadapriya stated was ''near by towns are ] and ]'' backed by , but once again the citation has no content even in the subpages about this. | |||
| ::*Then the last sentence stating that ''Another uniqueness of this falls is that there is an island near the foot of the main falls'' is once again the same story. | |||
| ::So basically the changes that Naadapriya proposed were backed by citations that doesn't claim so. This is indeed a case of delibrately misleading the reader. <font color="Orange"><b>]</b></font><sup><i> <font color="green">]</font></i></sup> 15:06, 1 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :: '''Answers''' to above comments are posted in discussions of the article. It is requested to focus on ANI issue here if there is one and discuss technical issues in articles discussions. Otherwise it is waste of time to ADMNs.] (]) 16:16, 1 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Sorry, you still haven't justified using citations which don't state what you use it for as citations. I request an admin to attend to this as a matter of urgency, since we are just going in circles in the talk page of the article, with the progress almost to nill. <font color="Orange"><b>]</b></font><sup><i> <font color="green">]</font></i></sup> 17:03, 1 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::Please discuss this on article's discussion page.] (]) 22:27, 1 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::] seems to be the way to go here. ] (]) 20:20, 1 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Disruptive editing by sockpuppet of banned user, ] == | |||
| http://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Contributions/Chessy999 has been making constant references to vandalism regarding my edits. | |||
| We had a content dispute, which I think has come close to being resolved. | |||
| However when the above user reverted me, he used RVV or vandalism in the edit summary. | |||
| http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Monkey-baiting&action=history | |||
| Despite "dont template the regulars" he placed a vandalism template on my talk page, when I explained to him that it was just a content dispute, | |||
| he replied with "you are a vandal" http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Chessy999#civility | |||
| I have tried to deal with this content dispute in a civil and adult fashion, however these comments are trying my patience a little. | |||
| I find the vandalism and vandal comments to be rude, and a deliberate act of provocation. | |||
| The editor has been here long enough to know what is, and what is not vandalism. | |||
| This is a minor issue, I won't lose sleep over being called a vandal, however I think there are three issues here. | |||
| 1. The attitude of an editor who wishes to label anything that disagrees with them as vandalism, even when consensus is against them. | |||
| 2. The attitude of an editor who is abusing the templates and edit summaries to make a series of minor personal attacks | |||
| 3. The attitude of an editor who is continuing to make personal attacks, after requests not to, even when the actual dispute is over. | |||
| thanks. | |||
| ] (]) 17:12, 30 April 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :I advised this editor to discontinue deleting cited information from the ] article. He continued, I advised him to stop vandalizing the article. I stand by my statement. Please advise this editor to stop posting nonsense on my talk page, including profanity. Thank you. ] (]) 17:35, 30 April 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::Saying "I don't mean to be an asshole" might be profanity, but it shouldn't be considered to be a provoking statement either. You were engaged in a content dispute with Sennen goroshi. As I said on the VP (assistance) thread, in a perfect world you should have both taken it to the talk page earlier. But that doesn't make SG's contributions vandalism. ] (]) 17:46, 30 April 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: Misplaced Pages is not censored. If I wish to say "nice fucking edit" then that is fine. If I direct profanity towards you, in a negative manner then feel free to complain. The profanity was directed towards myself, and it seems rather strange that you only picked up on that profanity once there is an ANI report with your name on it. | |||
| I removed and changed your edits, due to general consensus - that is not vandalism - http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Vandalism | |||
| Cited information is removed on a daily basis, it can be removed for all manner of reasons, yet again - it is not vandalism. | |||
| I think that you might be best to rethink your attitude towards editing, comments that you don't agree with are not automatically vandalism, neither are they automatically nonsense. Perhaps a slightly more open mind and a slightly less aggressive attitude would be more suited to a wikipedia editor. | |||
| Final note, please don't call me a vandal unless you catch me putting goatse on your talk page or something similar that is actually vandalism. ] (]) 17:55, 30 April 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Chessy999, you might want to read ], paying special attention to sections on ''NPOV violations'' and ''Stubbornness'' and you will see that you are incorrect in labelling Sennen goroshi's edits as vandalism. According to the official ] policy, his edits cannot be considered vandalism unless the information in question was introduced ''in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Misplaced Pages'' which is clearly not the case. At the same time, I would like to caution the editors in this dispute that both of you are well over your ] within the past 24 hours so please come to some sort of consensus before making any further changes to the article and stop ]. ] <small>(] • ])</small> 18:43, 30 April 2008 (UTC) | |||
| I have accused Chessy999 of being the sockpuppet of a banned user, ]. The case: ]. I think it's pretty conclusive evidence. Chessy999 should get indef blocked--the user is the sockpuppet of a banned user and, looking at his talk page, has a history of civility complaints and tendentious editing. ] (]) 19:17, 30 April 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :I'm not familiar with the history of this editor nor the alleged sockpupeteer but ] might be appropriate for this case. ] <small>(] • ])</small> 19:56, 30 April 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::To me, recommending an RFCU is an indication that, while there's something there, the evidence isn't obvious. In this case, I feel like it's pretty obvious. ] (]) 21:05, 30 April 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::: Darkspots, I agree with you. Until I edited the monkey-baiting article, I was unaware of SirIsaac and Chessy - however a brief check of the edit histories of the page and the editors made me feel that they were one and the same. I am not very familiar with ] so maybe it would be best for you to make a request, damn I have problems just making a 3RR report. Either way, it would be nice to rid wikipedia of its more disruptive editors. ] (]) 03:18, 1 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| I have also had problems with incivility and disruptive editing by Chessy999. In one instance, he deleted 2 sections from and article (the material in both cited sources) with no explanation, then accused ''me'' of vandalism when I reverted him. In another, he created a stub about a book, but changed the capitalization of the book's title. I corrected this and, in doing so, moved the article. I also did some significant edits and added some material. He reverted everything I did; I re-reverted and explained the correct capitalization issue in more detail on the stub's talk page (although my original edit comment should have been sufficient). I raised both these issues on this talk page, under the headings '''Luca Pacioli''' and '''De ludo schaccorum'''; he never responded. From the look of his Talk page, other Wikipedians have had similar problems with Chessy999. Perhaps an admin's guidance would help this editor conform his behavior to the standards of the Misplaced Pages community. ] ] 08:09, 1 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Finell, this user is the sockpuppet of a banned user, SirIsaacBrock. Take a quick look at ] and . The user had plenty of guidance already. The fact that, two years later, he's still editing the same way means that I'm recommending that he be indef blocked right away. Like Sennen goroshi said on the SSP report, I would have no problem with this individual editing in good faith--but this is too much disruption, and the community's patience was exhausted long ago. ] (]) 11:15, 1 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Mccready topic ban == | |||
| {{user|Mccready}} has been placed under a topic ban and probation, as per ]. He is banned from all ] and ] related topics, broadly construed, for six months. He is under probation on all ] and ] topics, broadly construed, for the same duration. He must explain all reverts except blatant vandalism on the article's talk page and is warned against further disruption, such as ignoring ] or ]. Mccready has been notified. ] (]) 19:10, 30 April 2008 (UTC) | |||
| {{Rally}} | |||
| === Requested review === | |||
| {{userlinks|Mccready}} has requested a review of the above topic ban. Thoughts? Comments? ] (]) 03:23, 1 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Update'''. I have reset Mccready's block to one month for canvassing on this issue. I am not taking any action on a longer block or alterations to his topic ban until the conversation runs its course here. ] (]) 19:58, 1 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Comment'''. Since his response to the topic ban reveals a lack of understanding of his wrongdoing and a lack of repentance, I suggest a longer topic ban, or an indef ban. Nothing he has said indicates that he will change in any way after the ban is lifted. He has no intention to reform. -- <i><b><font color="004000">]</font></b></i> / <b><font color="990099" size="1">]</font></b> 04:07, 1 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :* Here is the response I am referring to above: | |||
| ::* ''"WOW. This is a new low for wikipedia. A user proposes such a drastic action, then the same user closes the discussion before I have a chance to respond. Great. What of all the errors in the info presented? What of the obvious bias in those who expressed a view (overwhelmingly altmeders)? What of the ridiculous assertion that I don't contribute to discussion on acupuncture? Since when do edit summaries not count? What of the many editors said my info was accurate and highly germane, but merely not formatted correctly and should have been referenced in lead rather than included. I'd like a review and a chance to put my defence. This is ridiculous."'' Mccready | |||
| :* That response doesn't indicate any degree of understanding that can lead to improvement. -- <i><b><font color="004000">]</font></b></i> / <b><font color="990099" size="1">]</font></b> 14:16, 1 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Comment''' - Per Fyslee. Keep the ban, and extend to a year if there is additional disruption. ] <small>]</small> 04:14, 1 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Response'''. (This is posted on behalf of Mccready.) I acknowledge I placed links on the acupuncture page (on average once per day for a few days) to 16 Cochrane studies showing acupuncture has no proven effect. After further research this was changed to 18 and I suspect further research would increase that number. I noted in my edit summaries the reasons, so the accusation that I have not communicated is not well founded. It had also been discussed on the talkpage previously by me. The record of talk on acupuncture also shows I have spent much time already, before this action, putting the point about UNDUE weight. The aim of inserting the 18 studies was to focus attention on the inappropriateness of the article mentioning first the tiny number of studies showing acupuncture MAY have effect, as against the overwhelming number of studies and metastudies showing no effect. My aim was also to note that the use of the Ernst sources was misleading (particularly on placebo if I recall correctly) - I had already discussed this on talk - so again, the accusation I don't communicate is ill-founded. I also noted in the ESs that I had limited time that week. I have often been the only pro-science editor on this page amongst a plethora of acupuncturist believers, most of whom have little editing experience and show little inclination to examine the sources properly, but who like to cheer on any edit which supports acupuncture, even going to the extent of leaving congratulatory messages on Jim Butler's talkpage. Other editors when alerted to my action agreed that my research was good. However there was legitimate objection to how my edit was formatted and placed. I acknowledged this in my ESs and was happy, as I said repeatedly and as I've said on my talk above, for the information to be summarized in the lead with the information below. What I objected to, and said so in my ESs was deletion of well-sourced research showing acupuncture is pointless (sorry about the pun). In the face of constant deletion of the information by acupuncturists (the claim that it was already below was erroneous because there were significant gaps) my view was that the information should be replaced, even if the formatting and position weren't ideal - I have since had time to fix this. I believe the proposed ban is too severe. The accusation that I do not use talk is patently motivated by a desire to get rid of a pro-science editor. The actions of Jim Butler in particular in supporting the proposed ban are clearly coloured by his wish as an acupuncturist to have the acupuncture page the way he wants it. I am happy to present more information as to why the discussion on the proposed ban contains many errors (claims on block frequency, mistaken blocks in past which were acknowledged by blockers etc), but do not wish to waste any more of the community's time. Accusations that I am not a net benefit to the project, (even Jim Butler has said my research is good) have only been expressed by altmeders for obvious reasons. Yes I am a robust editor and robustly express my views but this proposed ban is inappropriate. Overall I doubt that any objective person could say I am not a net benefit to the project. Indeed without me I can confidently say that the acupuncture page would be a much worse ad for acupuncture than it currently is. I might finish by saying that a careful analysis of all my work on acupuncture would take quite a bit more time than the editors you mention have had. My work on uncovering the research showing cultural bias in some of the studies from Chinese researchers is a case in point and one also objected to, unfortunately, by Jim Butler. I cannot recall but it may even be Mastcell who I wrote to (certainly it was a pro-science editor) saying Mastcell's views on acupuncture were skewed by the "apparent" science showing its effectiveness. These are not easy issues to deal with and need quite a bit of time and expertise. I throw myself on the intelligence of the community in deciding this issue and urge you to look at the facts sans emotion and special pleading from the altmeders. ] (]) 04:31, 1 May 2008 (UTC) (posted by ] (])) | |||
| **'''Further response'''. Give a dog a bad name is the problem here and a concerted effort by altmeders to sideline a robust pro-science editor. Here is my block history. | |||
| *** Block 1 by a young admin Ruud Koot who was editing the same article he blocked me on. He didn't block himself for reverting me. | |||
| *** Block 2 by Friday. yes I'm happy to own up to that in Aug 2006 | |||
| *** Block 3 by Flonight who was editing the same article (she didn't block herself for reverting me and I was unblocked) | |||
| *** Block 4 - mistake by KrakatoaKatie who then unblocked me herself and apologised. | |||
| *** Block 5 - by trigger happy Mastcell for violating the "spirit" of 3RR. This was reduced in time on appeal. So we have one real blocks which I deserved in Aug 2006 and yet I have been given a bad name by the altmeders who claim, without details, I've been blocked ad nauseum. The current block, which I dispute, is for "disruption". My defence - a question of the lesser evil considering my limited time at the time has not been addressed. As I said these are complex matters and need to be judged on facts - not on appearances as presented by a vocal altmed cabal of editors. ] (]) 07:34, 1 May 2008 (UTC) (posted by ] (])) | |||
| **'''Comment''': Notably, the above passage is by far the longest comment that Mccready has made on a talk page in many weeks if not months. During his most recent round of edit warring on ], he reverted 15 times between April 3 and April 26 (see ). In that same period of time, he made exactly zero contributions at ] (cf. ) despite being invited to discuss. His typical explanation is that he has a slow internet connection and . Yet he seems perfectly able to write at length when sanctions are imposed (see his talk page). A chronic problem editor with major blind spots, imo. (As for his criticisms of me, why is it that I manage to work just fine with other skeptical editors, like Orangemarlin and Eldereft and Fyslee?) --] (]) 07:56, 1 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ***'''Note''' Two points: first, it is transparently false that only "altmeders" have said Mccready does more harm than good. Second, FWIW, Mccready's assertion that I objected to material he added on cultural bias in acu research is incorrect. He added the material on , to the lead (as he habitually does for new material, notwithstanding ]). On I added the material to the appropriate section of the article (and expanded it a little). I've never objected to its inclusion. --] (]) 05:51, 2 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Comment''' I think that we as a community need to make a clear distinction between insistence on high quality references and POV-pushing of ] sources. ] is without a doubt guilty of edit warring and generally showing an abrasive personality, but the value of the research argues for leniency. I think some quality time with ] or a posting to the ] might have saved some headache, but here we are. The disruptive behavior merits a ban. A 0RR on acupuncture and chiropractic might be considered some weeks or months hence if their confrontational editing style softens. - ] ~(])]~ 05:42, 1 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| **'''Comment''': Mccready's positive contributions are good, but not unique, and are far outweighed by the negatives. On ] reviews, I restored a bunch on (the same ones Mccready would later go on to attempt to add to the lead section, redundantly and via edit warring: see 15(!!) diffs ). On cultural bias in research, Mccready added two good sources on , however, I had likewise added refs on that subject on . So, sure, he had made some good contributions, but they are not unique; other editors are equally capable of doing straightforward Cochrane and Pubmed searches. What most other editors do ''not'' do, as we know, is endlessly edit war and disrupt. That's why I believe that little of value will be lost via a topic ban, and a great deal of harm will be prevented. And I'm all for allowing him to contribute and improve his collaborative skills in other areas where his bias is not so intractable. --] (]) 07:34, 1 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Endorse <s>increasing</s> indef site ban''' There is canvassing afoot, I will disclose to another admin or an arb if this is disputed. I reccomend a longer topic ban. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 08:02, 1 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| **Considering the user has no understanding of the term ] (subsequent activities to my first post) and that they've now insulted my reputation via email, I support an indef site ban. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 13:07, 1 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Make the topic ban indefinite''': The last time Mccready was topic-banned (, by FloNight), he simply disappeared from WP for about a year () only to return with the exact same behavior pattern. He learned nothing from that ban, is impervious to advice, and is oblivious to the extent of his editorial misconduct. Some editors seem to be "incorrigible" in this way, and he is one of them. Make the topic ban indefinite. --] (]) 08:07, 1 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| **'''Note''' Further evidence of Mccready's misconduct can be found archived , including evidence of edit-warring against 5 editors, disingenuousness (leaving a message on my talk page and then saying, just half an hour later, that I'd "ignored" it), and possible COI. --] (]) 05:59, 2 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Comment''' When I see this, it makes me sad: "I don't contribute to discussion...? Since when do edit summaries not count?" I'm sick of seeing edit wars where both parties justify their actions using only their edit summaries. That, to me, is not contributing to discussion. It says to me that the author just ''doesn't get the wiki process''. If there's a solution to this that allows Mccready to return to productive editing in this area, I think it has to start from that realisation. <font color="006622">]</font><sup><small><b>]</b></small></sup> 20:49, 1 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Note''': I've just declined Mccready's most recent unblock request as it continued to display bad faith and a complete disregard for consensus. Since he was blocked for bad faith and this discussion is still ongoing, it seems inappropriate to unblock him while he's still accusing others and we're still discussing his fate. ] <sup>(]/]/])</sup> 03:42, 2 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == IP permanent block from editing == | |||
| {{resolved|1=], ] <sup>]</sup> 21:15, 1 May 2008 (UTC)}} | |||
| The IP address belonging to this messages' ('this' being the current message/complaint) author belongs to that of an Australian High School, and is reccommended that it should be blocked from editing permanently. My understanding is that you have been recieving many edits which are not of proper standards, and it makes logical sense that those who are familiar with the process would create edits that are satisfactory. Since users who regularly edit can use an account or alternative IP address, it would prevent student misbehaviour in school, and within wikipedia, as well as save time on giving warnings and temporary bannings. | |||
| Cheers. <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 00:22, 1 May 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| :You will need your network administrator, or school to official contact ]. ] <sup>]</sup> 00:26, 1 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| {{resolved}} | |||
| I'm becoming very concerned about this user's contributions. Since he was blocked a week ago (for reasons I fully stand behind), he's been going on a crusade of borderline harassment against me. In particular, he's been posting annoying and condescending posts on my talk page and ''demanding'' an apology ( | |||
| ). This behaviour has mutated into accusations that ''I'' am being more disruptive than he is within the fiction scope, citing ]'s "inflaming the dispute" ruling (]). Despite being from the situation by {{admin|Seraphim Whipp}} (who intervened because she has my talk page on watchlist), he's ignored her request (because me and SW both like ] and talk to each other regularly) and is still being disruptive, bringing up his block (which was endorsed by at least three admins) as an excuse for his disruption, including . I really want something to be done about this, because it's seriously disenchanting me from productive editing. ''']''' <sup>(])</sup> 01:03, 1 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :And apologies if my post is really badly worded - it is 2:10am and I'm staying up to make sure I write an article before its DYK closes (which I've put behind because of said disenchantment). ''']''' <sup>(])</sup> 01:09, 1 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::Shouldn’t you be in bed, young man? :P Anyway, I just blocked him for another 24 hours. —]] 02:19, 1 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ''From ]:'' | |||
| <blockquote> | |||
| :You know the ] policy says " someone without justification of making personal attacks is also considered a form of personal attack." Is there some diff you're referring to? --] (]) 02:21, 1 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::Several diffs ]. —]] 02:51, 1 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| I see now this is in response to an by ]. Anyone is free to move this comment to the ANI thread if they'd like. I believe that I am the one that has been harassed by Sceptre. He filed a on me to AIV. And yes, he was an involved party with me in the ] arbitration case. When I said I was leaving, he told ], another involved party in the ] arbitration case, that it was He also called me a . I did ask Sceptre three questions on his talk page, and he removed each of them without an answer. And yes, I him about false claims he made about me at the and he refused to reply, so I left on my talk page. | |||
| <br/><br/> | |||
| ] apparently took issue with a talkback template I on Sceptre's talk page. That was my fifth message to Sceptre. (Although I did a message on Sceptre's talk page in January, asking him to please stop archiving an ANI thread against me where several people made false claims about me. Sceptre then my message asking him to please stop without an answer. I don't believe Sceptre has ever replied to me on his talk page and I don't know why that is exactly.) I was "asked to disengage" by his apparent friend Seraphim Whipp. Calling Seraphim Whipp Sceptre's was uncivil of me. But from looking at Sceptre's talk page it appears to me they're both here for social networking, and Misplaced Pages is not ]. Sceptre appears to that some people would see Seraphim Whipp contacting me as a conflict of interest. I haven't contacted Sceptre since Seraphim Whipp asked me to disengage. However, Seraphim Whipp has continued to post again and again and again on my talk page, and didn't seem to appear to want to disengage herself. I have disengaged from Sceptre. He posted a message on my talk page saying if I mentioned his false vandalism report to ] that I would be I did not reply. And yes, I did a comment by Sceptre at ], where he said "Yeah, this is really getting to be ] now... but ." which I felt had nothing whatsoever to do with the ] policy. ] the comment saying I should ask an admin to look into it, so I J Greb for his opinion on his talk page. J Greb on my talk page, and I to J Greb, saying I feel I have been harassed by Sceptre. If Sceptre thinks posting 4 messages and 1 talkback on his talk page is "harassment" I apologize. I don't want to harass him and I'd appreciate it if he didn't harass me. ] is currently for a week and to me it looks like Sceptre wants to do anything to get me blocked as well. On April 9, 2008, Sceptre a user to AIV after they made to ] and without giving that user a warning first. I feel Sceptre has been abusing ]. Sceptre has said he has if he wants, and I find such a statement by a former admin alarming. I don't know if AGK and Sceptre are good friends. But I don't believe either of them understand the ]. --] (]) 02:57, 1 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| </blockquote> | |||
| :You want to accuse an editor of social networking? Don't accuse one who got ]. ''']''' <sup>(])</sup> 07:51, 1 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ===Review=== | |||
| Would another admin please review and comment on my action? (No prejudice against unblocking if deemed appropriate.) Thank you and good night —]] 03:12, 1 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :While one could say the block was well deserved, at the same time it probably won't do much to help the situation. I think a far better solution would to be a temp ban (say a week) of "no responding/ talking to Sceptre", perhaps? I don't even know if that is a good idea, but I'm 90% sure that blocking is going to make this situation worse. -- ] 04:51, 1 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::Scratch that, the only thing he did recently (in the last day) was remove a comment that he felt was a personal attack. That might be a bad judgement call for Pixelface, but that's certainly not blockable. If he was doing it a bunch of times, then yeah, but not for a single comment removal. Blocks are not a form of punishment, and I'd strongly favor an unblock. -- ] 04:59, 1 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :And he keeps bringing it up to explain away his disruption and using it as a defence to say "I'm automatically right". He stops it now or I keep brining it to ANI, because it's really pissing me off. ''']''' <sup>(])</sup> 07:51, 1 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| * I'm not going to review this, because I'm not uninvolved; but while I probably wouldn't have blocked for this, I would agree that Pixelface does have a habit of being unable to let things go, believing that if he says things enough times they become true. He has already "proved" that his previous block was incorrect, which it wasn't (probably Sceptre should've reported to ANI rather than AIV, and the block log should probably say "Edit-warring" or "disruption" rather than vandalism, but the block to prevent further disruption was reasonable - even on his talkpage now he is characterising the wholesale blanking of sections of policy pages as "a content dispute") and the hounding of Sceptre for an apology was not a good idea; he was also asked on his talkpage to disengage by "friendly" editors such as FatherGoose. He really needs to let go of this issue now and concentrate on the good sides to his editing. <b>]</b> 07:56, 1 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| *And he's using my edit to George W Bush which will, in 20 days time, be '''three years old''' - a) it's textbook ], and b) if 40 people didn't see anything wrong with it to promote me to an admin in January 2006, he shouldn't either. ''']''' <sup>(])</sup> 09:00, 1 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Unblock'''. I'm actually going to agree with Ned Scott on this one (gasp!). This whole Sceptre/Pixelface thing looks like a personality conflict. They get under each other's skin, and I'm seeing problematic behavior from both sides, for months. This isn't a case of Pixelface harassing an innocent Sceptre, since Sceptre has done his own harassment here, filing a vandalism report on Pixelface, removing Pixelface's comment with an edit summary of "troll", telling Pixelface that he would be "laughed at", or as he did just now, posting at Pixelface's talkpage ''while Pixelface was blocked'', and telling him to "shut up". It's one thing to react to what someone says out in Misplaced Pages article space, and it's another to be reacting to something that someone is saying on their own talkpage, especially while they're blocked. Yes, Pixelface deleted Sceptre's comment from the WP:NOT talkpage the other day, but then again, Sceptre's comment ''was'' a bit of a personal attack. He was definitely discussing the "contributor and not the content". If Pixelface is genuinely willing to promise to disengage, meaning to try and stop reacting to everything Sceptre says, I would say unblock. But Sceptre has to disengage as well. He shouldn't be personally trying to point out Pixelface's "problems". Sceptre has done his piece, he has raised awareness of what he thinks is a problem, and now he needs to step back and let others deal with it. If the two want to continue participating at talkpages (such as about WP:NOT), they should be allowed to do so, but only in a strictly "Discuss the content, not the contributors" way. If ''either'' one of them starts pointing the finger at the other again, I'd say block for disruption. --]]] 10:04, 1 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| * Well put Elonka - I would support an unblock here too. ]] 10:06, 1 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| * I did intervene in this situation because I felt Pixelface's behaviour was inappropriate. I stepped in, not as a friend, but as an admin seeing inappropriate behaviour and I cannot stress enough that I would have stepped in regardless of who was on the other end of it. I did tell Pixelface that his behaviour was looking like the onset of harassment and that he should disengage. Father Goose said much along the same lines. In the context of Pixelface already being warned how his behaviour was looking, and then him making an action that was likely going to irritate Sceptre or contribute to a feeling of harassment (by removing his comment, which someone else said could be described as trying to "silence" Sceptre), I can see how the block was justified. Perhaps it would have been better for me to pass the diffs on (the ones I discussed with Pixelface initially), to an uninvolved admin. I did seek feedback on how I handled the situation and I hope that regardless of what I would do differently in the future, that I handled this situation in an acceptable manner. ] ] 11:05, 1 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| I have gone ahead and unblocked Pixelface, who has given his (her?) word to behave from now on. I'd also like to thank the other admins for their participation here, and I don't think that anyone acted in bad faith. There definitely was problematic behavior on the part of a couple editors which was disrupting the normal flow of things, and as such, a block was appropriate to prevent further damage. However, in this case, I don't think that the damage was being caused ''just'' by Pixelface, so I don't think that justice was entirely served here. Now that Pixelface is unblocked, and has promised to let things go, hopefully we can mark this situation as resolved and all move on. :) --]]] 11:35, 1 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :I appreciate the efforts put forward by everyone, particularly Elonka, to resolve the situation and I agree with the unblocking. Thank you —]] 11:57, 1 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Vandalism patterns == | |||
| Recently ] and ] have been getting vandalized with near identical vandalism. Which is not too surprising since the same person or persons seem to be doing it. Going through the page history of recent events, I find the following vandalism-only accounts: | |||
| ::Desert Vista High School | |||
| :Bonzaibaby | |||
| :Elaborateliar | |||
| :SlayerofFools | |||
| :TerminatorD | |||
| :24.251.53.63 | |||
| :24.121.108.134 | |||
| :68.0.161.91 | |||
| :68.99.94.9 | |||
| :68.107.211.190 | |||
| :70.190.109.69 | |||
| :70.190.161.42 | |||
| :130.13.168.109 | |||
| :130.13.169.247 | |||
| :130.13.170.86 | |||
| ::Mountain Pointe High School | |||
| :Bonzaibaby | |||
| :Elaborateliar | |||
| :Keeweeman-ape | |||
| :Monkeyking123 | |||
| :SlayerofFools | |||
| :24.251.53.63 | |||
| :68.99.94.9 | |||
| :70.190.161.42 | |||
| :70.190.109.69 | |||
| :130.13.170.86 | |||
| :130.13.169.247 | |||
| ::Chelsea High School (Chelsea, Michigan) | |||
| :68.107.211.190 | |||
| The Chelsea High appears on the end because curiously the same IP vandalized it as vandalized the Desert Vista High article, in the same general time period. | |||
| None of these accounts have ever been blocked, and all the named accounts are recently created vandalism-only SPA (DPA?) accounts that only operate on these two articles. | |||
| I don't konw what should be done about this, or if this is the right place to report it. Suggestions? ] (]) 06:08, 1 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Both pages should be semi-protected. ] 06:10, 1 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::] is there now making similar changes, although not to the same lengths. I can't check his deleted contributions, but it seems to be the second time he's uploaded an image, which is the Mountain Pointe school logo. Judging from this , it looks like it was deleted before. ] (]) 03:41, 2 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Page-move vandal - lend a hand? == | |||
| {{resolved|Everything back where it should be. ]] 06:55, 1 May 2008 (UTC)}} | |||
| If someone else could help sort out the works of {{userlinks|Remus John Lupin}}, that'd be appreciated. ]] 06:23, 1 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Why am I getting redirects from ] to ]? ] (]) 06:38, 1 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::The page move seems to have added funny characters to the page name- look at the URL. I restored the redirect in case anyone searched for El Salvador. The same thing's happened to ]. '''''<font color="#FF0000">]</font>''''' 06:43, 1 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::Seems to have been fixed. '''''<font color="#FF0000">]</font>''''' 06:45, 1 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I had to move a couple of the pages to "Pagename (temp)" and then back to "Pagename" (without the special characters) as the move function thought that I was trying to move the page onto itself. That worked for, e.g. ] but (ironically) I couldn't work out ] despite two attempts and somebody else had to do it for me! ]] 06:50, 1 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| Out of curiosity, is this a Grawp sock again? It seems to be moving everything to a unicoded version of HAGGAR with junk on the end of the name. ] (]) 07:26, 1 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Yes, this was a Grawp sock. ] 17:30, 1 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::Yes; and this time it's Harry Potter characters (see my ] report). -<font color="32CD32">'']''</font> <font color="4682B4"><sup>(] ])</sup></font> 17:36, 1 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| I seem to be unaouthorized to create this user's talkpage to give the IP a warninig. This IP vandalized as shown in the IP's contribs. Someone please warn the IP. Thanks you.--] ('''''] ♠ ]''''') 06:42, 1 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Done by ''Gonzo fan2007''. ] (]) 07:46, 1 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Category:Jordanian businesspeople == | |||
| I seem unable to create the this category: ], which, I believe should be legitimate. It matches an automated regex pattern block. ] (]) 06:50, 1 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :This issue should be cleared by now. There was an error in adding something to the blacklisting regex. You should be able to make the page now.—] (]) 07:05, 1 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :: Thank you. Category created; issue resolved. ] (]) 07:34, 1 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Nomorebigots == | |||
| Hmmm. {{user5|Nomorebigots}}, clearly here to advance an agenda, but is this a username violation? <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 07:00, 1 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Looking at his edits he seems to be very polite, but unfortunately he seems to be one of these people that has mere facts and knowledge on his side, rather than popular opinion, and thus will not last long around here before being blocked for some form or another of violating protocols. The choice of username would seem to be a borderline case in point. | |||
| :I can see absolutely nothing he has done wrong so far other than pick an inauspicious username, and from the tone of his edits, unless he is a sock, I think he will tire of editing soon and go away by himself, if he doesn't get blocked for some trivial infraction first. I'm willing to AGF and let him weave his rope, and not complain of the choice of name. ] (]) 07:43, 1 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :: Those who have facts and knowledge are fine, it's the ones bringing ] who are the problem. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 08:04, 1 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| there's a reason for the username. Edits don't look amazingly horribly bad, yet. Let's AGF and see what happens. '']'' <small>(])</small> 12:45, 1 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| As many of you know, this is a huge current case in the news. I've been editing it in the past few days, fixing references and doing other minor stuff. However, I have noticed today, that the article is now ] for vandalism! I wouldn't mind seeing the article semi'd but fully-protecting it is a little too much IMO. Besides, most of the vandalism was coming from IP's, and if any other vandalism would to come, it would be doubt with very quickly I'm sure. I just think in this case it should be semi-protected, not fully-protected. Opinions? ] (]) 07:04, 1 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :{{user|Patrick}} changed it back to semi, and correctly so, I think. ] (]) 08:00, 1 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Edit warring & personal attacks by ] == | |||
| ] wages an on the ] article, removing reliable and sourced information. He ignores to explain his edits and several warnings on his talk page. He repeatedly leaves offending messages on my talk page and on ], full of ethnic insults and accusations of "fascism"., , . Any help would be appreciated. Thanks, --]<sup>]</sup> 11:34, 1 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :The guy's a troll who can barely speak English. I've alerted ], an admin who's dealt with him before. With any luck we can pull the plug on this. --] (]) 13:55, 1 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Saeb Erekat disruption == | |||
| I got an issue that needs inspection on {{article|Saeb Erekat}}. | |||
| Two editors tag-teaming to edit war a "dispute" tag out of the page even though both are uninvolved in recent discussions and a mediation. | |||
| One of the two, {{userlinks|PalestineRemembered}} was already given a last chance pre-indef block via and also previously noted by one of his multiple previous mentors that ''" "''. The other editor's ({{user|Rama}}) last contribution on the talk page was in September 200<u>'''''6'''''</u>. | |||
| PalestineRemembered also repeated the same personal attack that got him a 31 hour block: "". | |||
| * See: | |||
| * And: . | |||
| * Recent repetition:<br>''"After months of harrassment of people on their Talk-Pages, and a block of him..."'' | |||
| And also managed to recently cast a support vote to a permanent ban adding that ''""'' | |||
| He also noted there that ''"There is another top "Palestinian sympathetic" editor I've really wanted to contact but who has been similarly impervious to my advances."'' (PalestineRemembered) - apparently, ] was not that editor. | |||
| With respect, <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 11:42, 1 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Jaakobou, I don't think the removal of the totally disputed tag was a controversial move by PR. I think there's consensus now for the current version and all editors apart from yourself seem to find it acceptable. Tagging an article as disputed, when there's an overwhelming consensus against that isn't really appropriate. Not a huge fan of Rama rolling you back, I think a manual edit would have been better. If you still have concerns, could you consider bringing them up on the talk page and we can work them out? I still don't see any need for a disputed tag. ] 11:56, 1 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :The ] case has just been closed and there was a clear and final reminder to everyone involved on this mess. I know Rama is not directly related to this issue but it is clear that his rollback revert action is not appropriate adding more troubles than it could resolve anything. Jaakoubou and PalestineRemembered know better; ]. | |||
| :Jaakoubou blocked for 1 week. | |||
| :PalestineRemembered for 1 week. | |||
| :Rama blocked for 24h. -- ] - <small>]</small> 12:08, 1 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::I am (fortunately) not familiar with the amount of bickering and mediation around the whole case, but isn't it quite harsh? -- ] <sup>]</sup> 12:41, 1 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::Given both of their rather lengthy block histories, 1 week apiece was benevolent, IMO. ] (]) 12:45, 1 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Rama is unblocked as per ]. 1 week is the least minimum Lucas. Too much troubles and noise but fortunately we haven't lost yet the sense of judgement - with all the disruption caused at a large set of articles including BLP ones. Next time we can just go direct to article bans if people persist - and without warnings because there have been thousands of them. -- ] - <small>]</small> 13:05, 1 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::Keep up the good work, Fayssal. ] 13:06, 1 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::Yup, seconded. There's been a lot of bickering and needless reverting been going on from the pair of them for months. A 1 week break to stop the disruption seems fair. ] 13:10, 1 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::Wasn't PalestineRemembered under CSN mandated mentorship? Where is his mentor? ] (]) 13:26, 1 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::His mentor is '''here'''. PR's been away for a while and this removal was one of his first edits back. ] 13:27, 1 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Hmmm, I just checked your talk page and apparenly Jaakabou brought this to your attention hours before posting it here. Why did no communication occur prior to him posting here? It seems like this could have been taken care of before it spun into ANI drama.... ] (]) 13:34, 1 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Some things take longer to deal with than others, and given I've just come back off holiday, I've got plenty of other things to deal with. I was planning to look through it all today, but Jaakabou had already posted. ] 13:36, 1 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Nod. I don't disagree with this block and hope that once PR comes back we see some more proactive mentoring rather than letting things get out of hand. He needs watching. It took him four whole days to get blocked for a week after being gone for two months.... ] (]) 13:43, 1 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::What do you have to tell to his mentor Kyaa? Jaakobou's mentor is also informed. Mentors are feeling tired and suggest better things to sort this out but these users, instead of partcipating at ineteresting discussions as ] they go on with their troubles. Do you have a word for them Kyaa? -- ] - <small>]</small> 13:41, 1 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::You do realize that jaaka responded to Durova's note (the same one you linked to) on his talk page in a not-completely negative way. ] (]) 13:45, 1 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::That was his response and he was not blocked for replying positively or negatively but blocked for all the reasons mentioned above. And if ] didn't want to walk through it is because real administrative action is missing a bit. It was decesive for the smooth running of ]. We cannot push people to be friendly with each other but we have no better offer. This is a collaborative project and there are limits. There are plenty of projects around here serving for the main purpose - building an encyclopedia in a friendly and neutral manner. So we won't spend more time wikilawyering while keeping the articles locked or open for wars. Nope. Establish an online magazine or something similar. SLR is working and editors from both sides are feeling better. The I-P area is full of bickering and wikilawyering. And there's one single solution to that --> discipline (after all "discipline" is not-completely a negative thing). Please think about it. ] - <small>]</small> 14:07, 1 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::I repeat, I don't disagree with this block. Jaakabou has made some damn fine, even featured, contributions to this encyclopedia. He gets into deep shit in Isreal/Palestine articles. Maybe he should change his focus.... ] (]) 14:14, 1 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::Everybody gets into deep shit in Israel/Palestine articles and that's why some order is needed. We don't want it to smell like 'shit' all the time. -- ] - <small>]</small> 14:17, 1 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| (<-)What may be helpful here is upon PR's and Jaak's return, there should be some form of temporary injunction on each one from communicating with the other. The two have individually made contributions to the project, but they seem not to be able to get out of each other's way; as if each one is the other's catalyst. As sad as it sounds, if they could first learn to IGNORE each other, that may be the initial step in them--eventually--learning to work with each other, if only from a distance. -- ] (]) 14:22, 1 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Avi, I have long thought you would make a good role model and additional mentor for Jaakobou, as you are someone with a similar (but not so extreme) POV, long experience, and who knows how to edit Misplaced Pages ethically and within the rules. This is no reflection on Durova, who has done a good job in encouraging J to spread his efforts outside I-P articles, and whose mentorship I hope continues. It is clear to me, however, that something extra is necessary to improve J's behaviour, and reduce the problems he causes. Would you be willing to consider such a role (with Durova's agreement of course)? What do other editors here think of this proposal? | |||
| :--] (]) 17:04, 1 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :I saw the note left by Jaaka on PR's page the other day, but I don't have time to deal with this kind of thing (wikilawyering, imo) anymore, so I leave PR entirely in Ryan's capable hands. A week's block for both is fine, though it's not helpful that Jaaka keeps a running list of every even slightly dubious edit PR ever makes and constantly works to portray those edits is the worst possible light. Someone really needs to tell Jaaka to stop running to AN/I every time consensus forms against him, on top of endlessly pushing PR's buttons. I doubt a week long block is going to get that through to him. -- ]<sup>]</sup> 17:33, 1 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| (<-)NSH, with Durova's permission and blessing, I have been trying to work with Jaak. Here is one of the major issues in my opinion, and the following may equally apply to PR. Jaak has contributed many valuable edits to the project. However, Jaak also has a history of being somewhat, shall we say, confrontational in his edits. This, in my opinion, is due as much, if not more, to feelings of isolation and defensiveness as to a natural personality trait. Jaak feels that he can not perform an edit without someone reverting or complaining. Now much of this is a result of past interactions that were less-than-civil. However, at this point, it is almost as if Jaak is working under the principle of "guilty until proven innocent". If any temporary injunctions are placed on an editor, including mentoring and probation, then, in return, the wiki community needs to give the editor in question the ability to have a "fresh start" and not dig up old history for new issues. This does not always work, ala Isarig, but without the ability for others to allow the mentored editor some freedom from the past, then it is not fair to the editor in question and is bound to fail. | |||
| I would be glad to take a more active role in mentoring Jaak, with Durova remaining the primary mentor. That would possibly include temporary topic or userpage bans, but it must also include a commitment from the wiki project members, '''especially''' those who have fundamental philosophical differences with him, to allow him the fresh start; to understand his POV and realize that as long as he conforms to wiki policies and guidelines, he is allowed to have them; to treat him with the same civility and respect that they themselves desire; and to contact his mentors with issues, and not even always on-wiki, to minimize any wikidrama. It takes time for people to change habits, and everyone should be afforded that opportunity. | |||
| I also feel that the same measures should be applied to PR in the interests of equity and fairness. | |||
| -- ] (]) 17:58, 1 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| FWIW, Jaakobou came to me yesterday about the problem and I advised him to contact PR's most recent mentor. He did, and then while I was sleeping a lot of other things happened. I certainly appreciate assistance with mentorship, and this dispute in general would benefit from more attention on the part of the community. Most of the editors on both sides are intelligent and basically reasonable people. This situation needs clear boundaries with consistent, swift, and (usually) mild enforcement. | |||
| To other admins and editors who'd like to help, I have a few positive suggestions: | |||
| *Please put relevant articles on your watchlist. | |||
| *Please intervene early in mild ways. This ANI thread and its blocks probably could have been avoided if someone had placed 48 hours of full protection on the article when the template dispute first broke out. | |||
| *Please recuse yourself if your own history creates an appearance of bias, even if you know in your heart that you're neutral and perfectly fair. AGF is worn and tattered around here. | |||
| I've done what I can, and I'll continue, but one mentor can't work miracles alone. <font face="Verdana">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 18:24, 1 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::Durova, I think you and Ryan should discuss the possibility of some suggestions for both PR and Jaak vis-a-vis each other; just a thought. -- ] (]) 20:18, 1 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::I'm open to discussion. I also think this problem is not going to solve itself without intensive community oversight; the problem isn't so much two editors as an area that's underadministrated. Too many people who might have intervened have shied away for too long, so anyone who's active on either side of the dispute has a laundry list of legitimate unaddressed grievances. These complaints that keep erupting aren't entirely frivolous or disruptive--they're the symptoms of deep frustration. On the one hand I agree that it was exceptionally poor timing for Jaakobou to open this thread less than 24 hours after the lengthy AE thread closed. On the other hand, he has a point when he says this effectively denies him all means of seeking intervention when a problem emerges at a dispute where he's outnumbered. He is not an SPA who pushes fringe theories; he's a featured content contributor who wants to see a notable but controversial viewpoint included in the range of discussion. As a community, we're not handling this dilemma well. A handful of mentors for the individuals in this dispute is not going to make the problem go away, when the participants keep running into the problem that sysops don't intervene with the tools on the mild, consistent, and firm basis that would actually regularize things. <font face="Verdana">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 20:44, 1 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| This is not difficult. We've wasted far too much time on Jaakobou and PalestineRemembered. We have better editors to worry about who aren't here just to fight out the Middle East wars all over again in cyberspace. Next time either of them gets caught treating Misplaced Pages as a battleground, in such a manner as this, we should just topic-ban them indefinitely from all articles relating to the Israel-Palestine conflict. Neither of those two is going to be part of a constructive solution to the problem of Arab-Israeli articles. IMO they're incapable of writing neutrally on this manner, and, perhaps more importantly, understanding ] when it comes to dealing with their fellow editors. Ok, this is my "ban the bastards" approach. Simplistic, yes: also effective. ] (]) (]) 22:07, 1 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :I just don't think it's fair to lump the two of them together like that, Moreschi. If I'm following this episode right, ] for what everyone agrees was a consensus edit, PR complained about Jaak's threats in no uncertain, perhaps even colorful, terms to his mentor and upon Jaak's own request, and then Jaak came here and labeled PR's complaint about Jaak's threats as being the real harassment (above), and so now they are both blocked. Jaak used to maintain an entire User sub-page tracking PR's every edit with a paragraph long complaint next to each one (long since deleted, I believe). If it wasn't for Jaak's endless goading of PR, I don't think we'd have a problem here. -- ]<sup>]</sup> 22:31, 1 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| *Moreschi, Kendrick, and everyone, talking about indef banning either PR or Jaak from various articles is premature, especially without input from either of their mentors. Furthermore, one cannot just look at this one incident. I think it is fair to say that in his own way, PR has been similarly difficult as Jaak, to the point he was ] ''in toto'', if it wasn't for . Both of these editors have problems with each other, and with the I/P topics in general, and, in my opinion, both of them should be put on regimens that will '''help''' them learn to deal with the frustration that comes to ALL OF US when dealing with topics of these sorts ''without'' ending up at WP:3RR, WP:AN, WP:ANI, or WP:RFC every other week. If a strict regimen, combined with the authority of the <u>mentor</u> to '''both''' discipline '''''and protect''''' each of them does not work, then we can reopen the topic ban discussion. However, not only to the both need to break certain bad habits, they both need the time, and latitude to do so. It will not work if everyone is just going to dump on PR or dump on Jaak every time there is a mild infraction. Let the mentors know (and there should be multiple mentors for both, some JOINT in my opinion) and lets give them the chance they need. -- ] (]) 00:29, 2 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :*LOL, right, that ban almost happened because Jaak insisted PR had accused him of ], which I think was pretty ridiculous. It's the same pattern, Avi. -- ]<sup>]</sup> 02:57, 2 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| Has no one read my posts to this thread? <font face="Verdana">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 00:47, 2 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :I have. Did I say something different than what you said, other than perhaps asking the mentors to put them both on some kind of regimen? -- ] (]) 01:22, 2 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::Yes, very different. The community needs to become more involved in solving this dispute. It's unrealistic to expect a handful of mentors to pull rabbits out of a hat. I've been on this for months; I'm fresh out of rabbits. And I'm keeping the gerbils to myself. <font face="Verdana">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 02:20, 2 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::Understood. However, I am afraid that the more people become involved, the more likely things are to break down along pre-existing geopolitical tendencies. Where is the safety valve? As long as no permanent sanction can be placed on Jaak without your OK, or on PR without Ryan's OK, I guess its better than throwing our hands up in defeat now :( -- ] (]) 03:32, 2 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::This notion that mentors get veto power over community sanctions is strange; I'd like to know what precedent there is for it. I object to it on several levels, either for myself or for anybody else. <font face="Verdana">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 03:48, 2 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Not veto power ''per se'' but from a psychological and human nature perspective, anyone with a distinct history of a problematic character trait needs time and sheparding to change it, and I am afraid that the general membership's patience is worn somewhat thiin with both of these editors. If mentorship has been instituted, then the mentee's should be allowed to have the space needed to grow and change under the guidance of the mentor, otherwise what is the point? -- ] (]) 03:56, 2 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Wait a sec, are you aware that these mentorships formed under very different circumstances? PR's was explicitly as an alternative to sitebanning. Jaakobou sought me out himself, under no pressure at all, because he could see he was in a tough dispute and had enough self-awareness to ask for help. <font face="Verdana">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 04:07, 2 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::I know about PR's, it was my idea ]. -- ] (]) 04:16, 2 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::Well I wouldn't want editors to become fearful of seeking help proactively, if sometime later it takes on the appearance of a scarlet letter. <font face="Verdana">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 04:35, 2 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Possible abuse of Delete tag == | |||
| {{resolved|was sent to ]}} | |||
| ] may be abusing the delete tag in ]... placed a delete tag without explanation. Could an administrator check? If the article violates certain wikipedia guidlines, tag it as such or delete it, otherwise remove the tag and warn ]. | |||
| ] (]) 15:29, 1 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :The article has been tagged and sent to ]. The template will remain until the discussion completes. -]<sub>]</sub> 15:31, 1 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| OK, thankyou. Can you advice me how to resolve it, or who will resolve it? I may be able to help out on this topic. Is there a limit on how much time an article can be tagged for deletion if there is no discussion about it? The original tagger's complaints have been addressed but he has not posted a followup ] (]) 15:40, 1 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| *Without discussion, articles will tend to remain tagged as such forever. Discussions typically last ~5 days, and this may be extended if there's inadequate discussion. ]<font color="FF8800">]</font> 15:58, 1 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Blatant harassment, personal attacks, and stalking by repeat offender. == | |||
| {{resolved}} | |||
| ] is not a stranger to this board. This person has previously been by and was also a for me on my talk page without provocation. This did not stop them from actually using the same insult again on the noticeboard.<br /> | |||
| Recently, this person has now been ] myself and others in addition to ] and ]. This all began over a simple editing disagreement just like the last two incidents but started again with insulting and such. I tried, as always, to mediate this myself first by contacting ] to mediate as a third party and then Shabiha myself. Rather than help things, this person began ] me, following me onto random pages they never edit and decents of mine; in one Shabiha stalked me onto a page, reverted my edit, and then accused me of editing warring even though THEY were reverting ME. This person has also insulted me on the talk pages of without provocation. To top it off, they said something about making personal attacks on Itaqallah and myself and has now launched into on that user too.<br /> | |||
| Look, according to the last encounter Shabiha had with site admins they were told by ] that they were receiving a final warning and a number of other editors have also warned Shabiha about this. This user has been temporarily banned before for less offensive behavior and this has now escalated. I recommend them for a permanent ban at this point, because all attempts including by site admins have failed at moderating this person's behavior. ] (]) 15:56, 1 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::I see edit warring and POV edit summaries on both sides, but nothing that is really a personal attack. FayssalF has already appropriately warned both parties, and protected some of the articles. ''']''' (]) 16:45, 1 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Looks like consensus supported at least by the reported party. ] <small>(]?)</small> 16:47, 1 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :MM has now posted on my talk page that he is satisfied, and does not want to pursue this--and promises to pay attention to the advice & warnings. ''']''' (]) 18:45, 1 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::Calling it done then (or at least done here on this page...) ] | ] | ] 18:53, 1 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == ] article == | |||
| :<i>See prior incident report: ]</i> | |||
| An anon has begun making edits to this article which have effectively restored a POV version that had originally been created by ]. The version that this user is creating has multiple issues: POV, use of cut-and-paste of external marketing material from charities, peacock terms, etc. The anon also blanked the article's talk page, removing comments that provided references to negative information about the subject from the talk page. | |||
| The prior incident resulted in the named user being temporarilly blocked. I've already reverted the anon's edits to the article once and posted warnings to his/her talk page. The anon then restored his/her edits and blanked the article talk page. I will revert one last time after posting this; but I request an admin to monitor this article as I suspect the anon will likely return and continue to press their POV within the article. --- ] <small>(] • ])</small> - 15:59, 1 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Actually, I find the version you have reverted to is highly POV as well, and lacks inline citations for all the negative facts; my own inclination, in keeping with ] would be to blank the article and insist that it be carefully rebuilt with every sentence properly sourced. Perhaps an administrator with ] experience should review. ] (]) 16:10, 1 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::I noticed the inline issue, so added the tag prior to your commenting here. The two main negative comments do have sources (the Forbes and ABC reports), but not inline. I could likely move those inline now; <s>but I have no major objection to someone restarting the article, as it does need rework.</s> --- ] <small>(] • ])</small> - 16:12, 1 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::I've located the refs, and added them inline. Most were already listed in the article as ELs and in a non-inline refs section. I agree that the article could use some balancing in the POV, but the negative comments can be sourced. --- ] <small>(] • ])</small> - 16:24, 1 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| This user keeps stalking me and another user and repetaly critisizes or deletes anything he doesn't deem constructive.He gives me the feeling that he doesn't like me and I decided I would react in a mature manner and take it here. <font color="black">]</font><sup>]</sup> 16:07, 1 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Diffs? ] (]) 16:08, 1 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::]<br>] and he always does this sort of thing.I'm not experienced enough to put the other incidents. <font color="black">]</font><sup>]</sup> 16:28, 1 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::Seriously, that page does nothing to enhance the encyclopedia and should be deleted. But '''how''' does that show he is stalking you? ] (]) 16:32, 1 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Since it is possible to edit without a user account, every single User Page does not contribute to the encyclopedia. <font color="black">]</font><sup>]</sup> 16:35, 1 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::Toddst1 has been notified. ] <small>(]?)</small> 16:38, 1 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::How is nominating one article for deletion "stalking you". I've ] (not just nominated) 10 pages so far today, does that mean I'm stalking the authors?<font face="Trebuchet MS"> — ]]</font> 16:41, 1 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Stalking? Absolutely not. As far as I can see, Toddst1 has done well in nominating an unnecessary page for deletion and you seem to have got the hump. ] <small>(]?)</small> 16:44, 1 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Well if my talk page and user not been Oversighted I could show you the other parts that would prove my case. <font color="black">]</font><sup>]</sup> 16:47, 1 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::On a skim through the history seems to be the only previous interaction between the two I can see - hardly "stalking". Toddst has no power to oversight your talkpage, and if someone with oversight powers did, it would be because you were either publishing gross libels or releasing someone's personal details.<font face="Trebuchet MS"> — ]]</font> 16:49, 1 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Actually I was Oversighted because I put my birthdate on my page and it was with my permission.But before it was oversighted you could've seen that he went to my page frequently. <font color="black">]</font><sup>]</sup> 16:55, 1 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Oh, and he also from your userpage - is that the deleted edit you mean?<font face="Trebuchet MS"> — ]]</font> 16:52, 1 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Let me help Mr. Green out here: . There are a few others, but I think this shows the pattern. There's a difference between stalking and keeping someone on their watchlist. ] <small>(])</small> 16:52, 1 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::I agree. I have about 30+ user talk pages on my watchlist, not because I'm nosy, but because I've had close conversation with them in the past. ] (]) 16:57, 1 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::Suggest SNOW-closure of the MfD as delete. ''']''' '']'' 16:57, 1 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| O.K I win.Toddst, sorry for bringing this up. <font color="black">]</font><sup>]</sup> 17:05, 1 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :At the MfD, Green requested deletion. ''']''' '']'' 17:23, 1 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :FYI Misplaced Pages processes aren't contests.-] (]) 17:42, 1 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::I think (after creation of this thread) points to the source of the problem - a pattern of thinking (including this thread) that constructive feedback is in some way persecution of this user. ] <small>(])</small> 17:46, 1 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == ] and {{User|Keithmb}} == | |||
| I'm getting increasingly concerned about Keithmb's edits on ]. A bit of history first: Keithmb was allowed to edit here following no objections to his agreement with JzG that he could perform some edits on the article that he and JzG had discussed on OTRS. Fair enough, I trust JzG and OTRS in general. However, following these edits he has started to remove references and make other edits that have nothing to do with enforcing BLP. I asked JzG about this, hoping there was a good explanation that I simply weren't aware of. I was asked to ask him directly which I did with no response. I made a partial revert as I saw no reason for the edits and wasn't getting a response from him. Today I see that he now returned to the article and once again made significant removals of references. This concerns me. He is basically here to edit just this article and is not communicating at all. He has been asked nicely to explain his edits either in edit summaries or on the talk page. I have offered my assistance without getting any response. We don't normally allow people to edit on behalf of the subject, a rare exception was made. Where do we draw the line? I'm not going to edit war over this but surely something needs to happen. ] (]) 16:48, 1 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| * He is editing on behalf of the subject, who is not at all computer literate - he seems to me to be a pleasant chap. That does not give him a free pass, of course. I'll email him ad ask him to start discussing on talk pages. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 19:08, 1 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| **Note that there also seem to be some fair use problem tags on images used here. Since he is editing for the subject, our fair use rules probably need to be explained in some detail so that he can make the necessary markings here and there to keep the images from being deleted. ] (]) 05:27, 2 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == need help with ] == | |||
| I would be grateful for someone's help with ]. {{User5|JCeph}} and an IP, {{User5|66.93.111.98}} (both presumably someone at the organization itself) has added back what appears to be copyvio text that I deleted. I do not want to get into an edit war or risk a 3RR sanction. This may be pigheadedness rather than actual vandalism, but the end result is much the same. I think that the old version http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Voluntary_Protection_Programs_Participants%27_Association&oldid=209380065 (which includes references) is more appropriate than the current version. --] (]) 16:54, 1 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :I've reverted the copyvio and left a second warning for the IP, asking to discuss the matter before they re-add anything to the article. Some of that information may be useful as background, but it can't be added verbatim, as both the IP and the user have done. Though the connection between the two appears obvious, I'll add that JCeph and the IP have not been editing together; the IP started in when JCeph stopped. ] <sup> ] </sup>~<small> ] </small> 17:27, 1 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::May be a simple case of forgetting to log in. ] (]) 05:30, 2 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == expansion of range block == | |||
| {{Resolved|Anon blocked 189.192.160.0/19.}} | |||
| Yesterday I requested a block on an IP range as several of them were repeatedly making identical vandalism edits. I blocked a few of them individually and a small range block was put in place after I reported them on WP:ANI. Unfortunately another new one popped up today so I'm afraid the block may need to be expanded a bit. Can someone check this out? | |||
| My report from yesterday is ]. The newest IP is below. | |||
| *{{IPvandal|189.192.189.174}} | |||
| Thank you. - ] (]) 18:00, 1 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Looking into it, again :) -- ] (]) 18:02, 1 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::I would not call a 26,624 IP range block "small." I'll add the 8,192 IPs in 189.192.160.0/19 for now. Please realize that range blocking like this does affect tens of thousands of people, and if we can live with 34,816 instead of 65,536 that is a 47% improvement. -- ] (]) 18:08, 1 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == ] and misuse of rollback feature == | |||
| {{resolved}} | |||
| I’ve just come up with user:Aditya Kabir's recent contribution and his misusing of rollback feature. Rollback feature (for non admin) is intended for reverting nonconstructive contributions (]). But his recent action on these pages ( , , and ) seems to violation of rollback feature and sign of ]. The rollback should only be used to revert any vandalism. Misusing this feature is not helpful at all.--]] 19:54, 1 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Rollback removed. --] (]) 20:00, 1 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::Pardon me if I am wrong. But, both my reverts were part of an ongoing discussion (see ]). I really can't see how it was considered as an edit war. I have noticed that my rollback right was removed, which may be fine if an edit war was involved. I hope you have noticed that from a whole host of edits made by ] (see ), I have reverted only two that explicitly concerned the discussion. I have been within the confines of "as a fast method of undoing nonproductive edits" per ] at all time. As I see it, ] would be a more applicable guideline in interpreting these edits than ]. Do you really believe that it represents an edit war? If yes, would you, please, explain how? It would be very helpful to know. On top of that, though it may be a minor issue here, out of the four examples provided against me one was made by using ], and not rollback (see ). <font face="Kristen ITC" color="deeppink">]</font><sup>(] • ])</sup> 20:38, 1 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::] is not to be used for anything other than the most unconstructive edits. If you wish to revert a constructive edit, you should at the very least, leave an edit summary which rollback does not permit you to do. does not appear to be vandalism, no matter whose POV you believe in. Thus the argument of BRD is not applicable here. If you can appreciate the difference, I will not be opposed to any admin re-adding your rollbacker rights. --] (]) 20:55, 1 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I beileved it was not about POVs. It was about following policy. And, I was under the impression that I was following "Edit warring is the confrontational use of edits to win a content dispute" per ], as those particular reverts by ], as well as the whole edit blitz, happened in the middle of the discussion without notice. I think the discussion is still continuing. The edit made without an explanatory summary was made under the impression that since the incident was between two editors, and since the issue has been addressed in the discussion, it was not too necessary. The best thing is that the discussion is getting towards a constructive solution. | |||
| ::::If I am mistaken, I, of course, am ready to apologize to all parties involved. Unfortunately, the short time of two hours between a notice on my talk page and a removal of the right provided me with no opportunity to clarify in the case of misunderstanding or apologize in the case of a mistake or undo if there was a harm done. <font face="Kristen ITC" color="deeppink">]</font><sup>(] • ])</sup> 04:41, 2 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == aggressive editing of Deborah Jeane Palfrey .. == | |||
| {{resolved|protected for a week to muffle an unseemly melee --''']''' (]) 20:03, 1 May 2008 (UTC)}} | |||
| Enough with it, the page changes by the second. The allegations of suicide should be removed as the body isn't cold yet ... | |||
| http://en.wikipedia.org/Deborah_Jeane_Palfrey | |||
| ] (]) 19:56, 1 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Anonymous user edit warring on Ayn Rand (again!) == | |||
| Anonymous user who has been disrupting Ayn Rand article pushing POV point is doing it again. http://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Contributions/12.111.29.12 His contributions are almost entirely limited to Ayn Rand and he has been pushing hard for his POV while other editors are still debating certain points about the lead and reviewing sources. I think the article needs protection from anonymous users again. Thanks for looking into this ] (]) 20:15, 1 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Edit summaries such as are absolutely unacceptable. I'd agree that this is a problem, though I don't know about protection if it's a discrete few editors. ] <sup> ] </sup>~<small> ] </small> 20:27, 1 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::It's a user from an IP address, so I don't know if blocking the user is beneficial. He appeared and started supporting the POV pushed by spinoza1111 who was posting from an IP adress around a block. That IP address was blocked, so now he posts from Starbucks in Hong Kong noting he can't be blocked. They are both rude and insulting. The issue at hand is one worth debating and getting right as it's cropped up before. These two don't help as they just start either insulting, posting OR, or claiming that I'm the rude one and that they already have a consensus. It's getting dull at this point. ] (]) 20:51, 1 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| As is too often the case, the person who comes here to complain is the guilty party. Ethan is an incorrigible edit-warrior who is responsible for getting ] Protected recently. He's been dismissive, dishonest and generally disruptive. Since he is unable to justify his desired changes or participate in a genuine consensus, he's taken to trying to trick admins into creating a one-sided block that would let him edit but silence some of the people who have prevented him from making a mess of the article. He briefly got his way, but a wiser admin upgraded from Semi to Full protection. If he won't stop edit-warring, I guess you'll have no choice but to Protect the article again, but if you do, then please save a step by using Full Protection. Oh, and by the way, I'm not anonymous. My name, my real name, is Bert. Hi. - Bert 21:16, 1 May 2008 (UTC) <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) </small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| ::I hope the admins will take the time to read the edit history of talk ayn rand. If they do and find that I'm in the wrong, then by all means act as it warrants. I comfortable that the truth is right there in "Bert's" comments and mine. Thanks ] (]) 21:20, 1 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::The owner of indef-blocked ] has self-identified as Edward Nilges. Recently a long-term block was issued to {{user|202.82.33.202}} (a static IP in Hong Kong) since he identified himself on his Talk as being the same editor as Spinoza1111. But the IP being complained about here is from New Jersey, so it's unlikely to be Nilges. ] (]) 21:37, 1 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::He's surely not Edward, but jumped in to defend Edward who was hurling insults. This seems to becasue they have the same POV they wish to push. Bert, as the other anonymous IP person signs his posts is the one currently edit warring. Edward made his poiont, and has kept his word not to edit the article so far. He want to make his point and, at least provides arguements, although they are OR or, in the case of one site, outdated. Bert just trys to stir the pot and push. In any case, this is my opinion, but an admin should read through the comments. I can provide a timed transcript of comments (mine too) if anyone would find that easier. ] (]) 23:52, 1 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| You may withdraw my complaint. I'm leaving the Ayn Rand page to the blocked user Edward Nilges, and the anonymous edit war warrior "Bert." Apparently wikipedia source guidlines are meaningless if the article is about someone people don't like. I can't hold the line against them and their friends. It's just not worth the effort ] (]) 01:18, 2 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == tag team (meat puppets) attacking Obama article == | |||
| Tvoz, Bobblehead, and Scjessey are tag teaming (meat puppets) who are wiping out the Malia Obama article and making it a redirect. If they claim the article is not notable, they MUST discuss it, not tag team dictate their whims. | |||
| They are getting rude and uncivil. | |||
| Please force a discussion, not allow them to destroy hard work and article building. Block them for 6 hours if necessary to stop this encyclopedia destructive behavior. ] (]) 20:24, 1 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| The proper procedure for them is not to tag team but AFD and vote merge/redirect, not destroy (wipe it out completely) the article by tag teaming. ] (]) 20:26, 1 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :For reference - {{la|Malia Obama}}. ] <sup> ] </sup>~<small> ] </small> 20:28, 1 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :With respect, it appears that some discussion has taken place at the article's talk page, prior to the article being ]. The concern is that there is only trivial mention of the subject in reliable sources, all of which relate to her father, Senator and US Presidential candidate ]. I'll add that, as you note, the proper procedure is in place and being followed at the deletion debate, so further discussion on the merits should be directed there, particularly if you have any sources or information which would document the subject's notability in and of herself. Do you have diffs of any rudeness or incivility in relation to this article? ] <sup> ] </sup>~<small> ] </small> 20:35, 1 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| They were tag team throwing the article away but it has stopped for now. It is now an article for deletion debate. That's ok but vandalism is not. I suggest that if anyone wipes out the article, they must be stopped and blocked. You can't vandalize an article just because you think it should be deleted. You have to wait until the formal discussion is over. ] (]) 20:47, 1 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :I think you should probably review what ] actually is. ''']]''' 20:51, 1 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::I was getting there, as well - we're all on the same team, here, and accusing other editors of vandalism and meat-puppettry (as Watchingobama appeared to do above) isn't really ]. Let's calm down and discuss the merits, instead of each other, yes? ] <sup> ] </sup>~<small> ] </small> 20:57, 1 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Given that a deletion debate is ongoing, I agree wholeheartedly - blanking the article, redirecting it while it is under discussion in this manner, or removing the AfD tag ''would'' be vandalism. However, if the consensus at that debate is to redirect to ], as is proposed, then that is what would happen. So, as you indicate, the formal discussion will continue for the time being at ]. ] <sup> ] </sup>~<small> ] </small> 20:55, 1 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::Please note the timestamps: the redirect revert that was '''prior to''' the of the AfD, and I the AfD was a good idea and said I would revert my redirect, temporarily, pending the outcome of the AfD, which I didn't get a chance to do. Calling a redirect blanking vandalism is incorrect and this claim of tag teaming/meat puppetry is, well, very reminiscent of the actions of a particular sock farm, and that bears looking into.<strong>]</strong>/<small>]</small> 06:50, 2 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Just as a note, it was redirected first, then undone by watchingobama, then prodded, undone, and now brought to AFD, and will be deleted. ''']]''' 20:59, 1 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::Ah, the fortnightly posting of {{User|Tvoz}} and {{User|Bobblehead}} (plus another, this time) accused of bias regarding either, or, and and, the Obama and Hilary related articles. Since the bias complained of generally changes depending on the viewpoint of the complainee, it appears to me that Tvoz and Bobblehead are generally getting it right (which is a whole lot different that spreading ''the truth'', eh?) ] (]) 20:59, 1 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::Having read the AfD and watchingobama's contributions, I'll note that one editor may see tag-teaming where another sees consensus. I particularly liked the piece in "her" article where she asked her father if he shouldn't be vice-president first. ], that. <font color="006622">]</font><sup><small><b>]</b></small></sup> 21:14, 1 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I need to ask...how come this user has not been blocked. It basically says on his/her talk page that all the account is going be used for is the deletion of anything that puts Obama in a bad light...to my knowledge that is violation of ]. <font style="font-family: Papyrus, sans-serif"><font color="#775ca8">]</font></font> 03:38, 2 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::I reported at UAA ''twice''. And now that he went of on a rant and started nominating every presidential candidate's children's articles he could find just to make a point, he really needs a block. ''']]''' 04:35, 2 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| So is this another sock of ], or is something else going on here? ] (]) 05:34, 2 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Not likely. Dereks1x usually jumps to a new topic once found out. Most of the recent socks we've ferreted out have found something entirely new to work on each time. Most recently, he's been spotted assuming complex personalities and getting ], but he's been real quiet since that once came out. If you ask my opinion, diving back into the Obama mess would not be in his character. My guess is he's playing the good user trying to build a good cover for his next adminship run. This kind of thing just doesn't smell like him. No, this is just garden variety political editwarring... --].].] 05:41, 2 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::Jayron, I have to disagree with you - I am with Akhilleus on this, and I smelled exactly that a couple of days ago. This editor fits more than one of Dereks1x's mo's - not just this bogus accusation of Bobblehead and me, but also his language and including his one of Dereks1x and his socks' perennial Obama hobbyhorses, the FOP endorsement. There are other behavioral similarities as well, and in fact one of the ways we've found many of his socks was from such similarities. Note the , as well, a typical move of his - 4 days after establishing his account. And, unfortunately, I've seen him dive into Obama and other familiar places over and over and over again. <strong>]</strong>/<small>]</small> 06:50, 2 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == This is asinine == | |||
| <div class="boilerplate metadata discussion-archived" style="background-color: #f5f3ef; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;"> | |||
| :''The following discussion is archived. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.'' {{#if:|''A summary of the conclusions reached follows.'' | |||
| ::{{{1}}} | |||
| ---- | |||
| }} <!-- from Template:discussion top--> | |||
| You're looking for ]. ] 20:49, 1 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| The content dispute began when I changed it like this () with the comment ''Don't mince words; the interaction between Beeks and the gorilla is rape played for laughs'': | |||
| {{text diff|Liddy was interested in the offer until he learned that Beeks becomes the romantic partner of a gorilla.|Liddy was interested in the offer until he learned that Beeks is raped by a gorilla.}} | |||
| This was reverted () by {{u|Darkwarriorblake}} with the comment ''not what the source says''. | |||
| 6 months ago I was blocked by ] for an alleged 3RR violation on ]. Due to the circumstances I am quite sure that she vlocked me essentially because of having a grudge against me from the ] thread 6 months before that; namely, that no one else had responded to the 3RR report, that my opponent was clearly being a problem, that it had been 14 hours since the alleged offense, and that she ordinarily never reviewed 3RR reports. | |||
| 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.() | |||
| Now I have found that my opponent in that dispute, ], was shortly thereafter blocked indefinitely as a disruptive sock. I, of course, realized at the time I was dealing with a non-constructive editor (as I have many other times) and insist on treating such with the contempt they deserve. Now I have not edited the article since then, because I am sure she is just waiting to block me again (and given what has happened before I am convinced that no one will unblock me no matter how ridiculous a block is), but I believe the same issues with it are still outstanding; she allowed him, a disruptive sock, to win the argument by default. | |||
| {{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;...}} | |||
| Thus, I demand she apologize. ] (]) 20:40, 1 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| My accompanying comment was ''(a) That was the source's voice, not Liddy's. It's called a euphemism. Demonstrable by how it links to a clip of the scene in which a man is raped by a gorilla. (b) Source says "reportedly" for this claim, without evidence. Poor quality source. Removing claim'' | |||
| :You're inventing a problem that you insist is ''going to'' happen? And you demand an apology for something from 6 months ago? Yeah, this is asinine alright. Why not just move on? I see no problem here requiring a solution. ] ] 20:44, 1 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| That was reverted by Darkwarriorblake () with the comment ''Nothing wrong with Indiewire as a source, if there is I'd raise it at ]. Until then, there's a talk page for you to use per ]. Your comments sound agenda driven and therefore not Neutral.'' | |||
| ::Basically agree with Friday. Admins can't force somebody to apologize, especially six months after the fact. If you really, really want an apology, what you're looking for is ]. - ] ] 20:46, 1 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :''The above discussion is preserved as an archive. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.''<!-- from Template:discussion bottom --></div> | |||
| 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. | |||
| == Suspected spamer: ] == | |||
| 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''. | |||
| {{resolved}} ] <small>(])</small> 23:11, 1 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| looks like this user promotes a company, has bot warning about ads and one of his/her spam articles was removed. see contribs. not sure if it's really spam...pls investigate admins. thx. <small><span style="border:1px green;background:orange;padding:1px;">] | ]]</span></small> 20:45, 1 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Not very prolific if this is the case. ] <small>(])</small> 23:11, 1 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| This was reverted - again - by Darkwarriorblake () with the comment '' How are you an admin? "rape played for laughs" is an agenda, this went through FA as is so ] and ] apply. You must go to the talk page, not I. I don't know if you're going through a bad time or something but this isn't how an admin should be acting or communicating with others, up to and including ]'' | |||
| == ]: Indef Block Evasion via Socks == | |||
| 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 . | |||
| In a nutshell, user has returned, via multiple socks, , attacking the same articles & editors. Several admins refused to re-instate him/her after wikistalking, personal & racist attacks, etc, but there is question as to whether he is subject to a permanent ban, as likely he should be (currently tagged as such). Current suspected socks listed at: ] (backlog). I would appreciate clarification and action, if deemed necessary, on this issue. Thanks, -<b><span style="background:black"><font face="Comic Sans MS"><font color="gold">Ro</font></font></span>Bo<span style="background:gold"><font face="Arial"><font color="white">Tam</font></font></span></b>] 21:17, 1 May 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. — ] <span style="color:#900">•</span> ] 20:03, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == User willfully violating fair use policies past final warning == | |||
| :Hrrm, this seems a bit excessive. | |||
| :*I've added a second source for the claim. Really this should've been the first option rather than removing the content. | |||
| :*The first summary was, as stated, "Don't mince words; the interaction between Beeks and the gorilla is rape played for laughs". "Rape played for laughs" is a loaded comment and not something said in the article or the source text, so it's a personal opinion, it's not neutral, it's agenda-driven. | |||
| :*When this was reverted, the editor just removed the content entirely claiming IndieWire was unreliable. There is, as far as I'm aware, nothing wrong with Indiewire. I've since found a second source, the Telegraph, which is reliable per ]. | |||
| :*The editor ignored WP: BRD when raised, and as an admin they should adhere to policy. | |||
| :*The editor states that they are an admin on their page. Assuming this is true, the aggressiveness of their edits, hyper focus on the single area, and use of words like "crap listicle" seemed out of line with what I, personally, would expect from an admin on Misplaced Pages, certainly someone who has been so for nearly two decades. Perhaps the edit summary wasn't the place to have that discussion but, as stated, they weren't adhering to WP: BRD to start a discussion, and in the interim the article needed putting back to the status quo. | |||
| :*I find accusations of OWNERSHIP often tend to come when people don't get their way. Which is fine. I have plenty of reversions on the page for people adding unsourced content and there are plenty of changes as well. I find someone removing sourced content and me putting the sourced content back to not ''really'' be something you can fling ownership at. | |||
| :*Within the context of the film, Beeks does become the romantic partner of the gorilla, it seemed more appropriate and encylcopedic text than just saying 'rape', and neither source I've added says that either. | |||
| :*Anyways, my edit history shows I'm a massive contributor and helper and it's nearly Xmas, and I don't feel like engaging with this any further, good luck Hex. ] (]) 20:27, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::Of course you don't, having ignored the actual matter of your conduct that I'm raising here. Your comments about the content of the article are irrelevant. — ] <span style="color:#900">•</span> ] 20:43, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *Hex's position is not wholly supported, although in the entire issue, their toolset is irrelevant. There was no incivility on either part, and an all-out edit war seems to have been averted.{{pb}}Fundamentally the change Hex wanted to make was pure OR; rape may have been intimated—or, as Hex themself admits, implied—but its never overtly stated and is a wholly loaded term. This is the interpretation of an editor, not of secondary sources. If there is a pron=blem with Indywire as a source—currently used in —take it to WP:RSN. If it's disputed that it's a high quality source per WP:FA?, then take it to WT:FAC. Accusations of OWNership are as unhelpful—and as much an aspersion—as accusations of agenda-led editing. In fact, for OWNership, Hex should read the relevant policy: here, it is WP:FAOWN, which not only allows for careful stewardship of featured material, but requires significant changes to the consensus version to be discussed on talk; I don't suppose there's any suggestion that introducing rape—particularly "played for laughs"—wouldn't be a significant addition.{{pb}}Really though, this is an overblown content dispute which should have started with ''one revert'' each, and ended on the talk page. --]'']''] 21:10, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:"Never overtly stated... 'played for laughs' be a significant addition" - with John Landis, the director. {{talk quote|One of the executives was deeply appalled by a man being sexually molested by a gorilla. And I said you know, it's a joke and it goes by very quickly. But the first preview was very successful and it all went away. ''''}} | |||
| *:Feel free to amend the article on that basis. I'm certainly not interested in spending any more time on it. — ] <span style="color:#900">•</span> ] 22:48, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ===Followup=== | |||
| {{User|Jughead.z(1)}} has created and is maintaining ]. However, over the past week this user has been adding fair use images into this article against our fair use policies prohibiting such usage in lists/galleries. The history: | |||
| I just want to say that, now that we've had an ANI thread on the subjeect of Gordon Liddy's feelings about portraying the romantic partner of a gorilla, I can die happy. | |||
| * 15:48, 23 April: I remove the fair use images from the article noting they violate fair use policy in the edit summary . | |||
| * 19:33, 24 April: Jughead reinstates the images . | |||
| * 20:17, 24 April: I remove the fair use images, noting again in the edit summary that the images violate policy and including a commented text in replacement of each image which says "Do not place non-free licensed media here, per ] policy" . | |||
| * 20:56, 24 April: Jughead reinstates the images | |||
| * 14:06, 25 April: I remove the images again with similar edit summary and comment text | |||
| * 14:08, 25 April: I leave a note on Jughead's talk page informing him that the use of the images is against policy and advising him not to reinstate the images. | |||
| * 16:40, 25 April: Jughead reinstates the images | |||
| * 17:37, 25 April: I undo Jughead's edit | |||
| * 17:39, 25 April: I leave another note to Jughead, advising him that if he continues to do this he may be blocked from editing | |||
| * 20:14, 25 April: An anonymous IP obviously using a pool of IPs begins a series of reinstatements of the images . I revert all of these as vandalistic reinstatement of fair use images against policy. | |||
| * 21:59, 28 April: I request semi-protection on the article to prevent the IP from continuing to vandalize the article . | |||
| * 22:01, 28 April: I inform Jughead that I've requested semi-protection for the article to prevent the IP from continuing their actions | |||
| * 06:25, 29 April: {{admin|Gonzo fan2007}} semi-protects the article | |||
| * 15:39, 1 May: In a series of edits, Jughead reinstates the prior removed images and adds more fair use images | |||
| * 17:51, 1 May: I give Jughead a final warning | |||
| * 17:56, 1 May: I remove the images again | |||
| * 18:51, 1 May: Jughead places the article for speedy deletion , not citing a reason. | |||
| * 18:56, 1 May: I undo the speedy deletion request, since the article seems reasonable for inclusion | |||
| * 18:57, 1 May: I inform Jughead of my action | |||
| * 21:31, 1 May: Jughead reinstates the images yet again , then removed one , then reinstated it again . | |||
| While we're on the subject, recites that {{tq|Prior to his departure from the FBI in 1962, Liddy sought admission to various bars.}} I'm curious to know whether this is meant to imply that Liddy had a , and whether this could have had any bearing on the whole gorilla romantic partner situation. ]] | |||
| During this series, Jughead attempted to add fair use rationales to the various logos as an attempt to satisfy WP:NFCC. But, the issue isn't the rationales. I informed Jughead this was improper and removed the rationales. | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| == User Stationmanagerskidrow removing information on ] page == | |||
| I am requesting {{user|Jughead.z(1)}} being indefinitely blocked until he agrees to abide by our fair use and image use policies. His talk page contains a large number of postings regarding image problems, with this latest problem just being the last in a long line of problems. He refuses to communicate on these issues and has willfully acted in violation of our policies despite multiple warnings. Thank you, --] (]) 22:17, 1 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :This may be irrelevant as I have AfD'd this article ]. --''']''' (]) 22:42, 1 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::*The behavior is not irrelevant. Jughead refuses to abide by our image use and fair use policies. Whether the article exists or not, this is the case. --] (]) 22:43, 1 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Edit warring in ] == | |||
| ] is repeatedly removing information about a recent incident involving a Jewish DJ at ]. They say that it is incorrect information, even though it is sourced. The name also states clearly that this is a company account. Lastly, they have continued this behavior even after being warned on their talk page. ] (]) 03:07, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| Theres an edit war in the Top scorers section at this page. If youll enter the you'll se Pogribnyak is first and has 11, and Toni is second with 10. Nevertheless, i'm being reverted. Since this season UEFA also countes the gouals from the early stages, otherwise Pogrebnyak and Toni would both have 10 goals. On the ] a few users that it's not fair and want to count 10 Pogrebnyaks goals, and that way making 2 top scorers. The thing is, i dont think Wikipedians are allowed to decide what's fair and whats not. An UEFA desicion, an offical one, is what counts. | |||
| :User is now editing using ] ] (]) 03:34, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| P.S. The users who decided it contribute alot to Misplaced Pages and therefore i belive that what they need is an explanation and no harsh should be done. ] (]) 22:30, 1 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Shpakovich, please read ]. This is the third place I ] ] where you've posted this. -<font color="32CD32">'']''</font> <font color="4682B4"><sup>(] ])</sup></font> 22:35, 1 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::This is a content dispute and the article is being actively edited by many different editors. However, no discussion about the disagreements has occurred on the article talk page which is where this discussion should be happening. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 04:37, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| That article probably should be speedied as an A7 for not containing any assertions of notability; which obscures that Stationmanagerskidrow appears to have been edit warring on it with an undisclosed COI, and presumably was ]ing as , and if so violated 3RR as well. It's probably best for me not to take administrative action here tonight as I won't be around later/tomorrow to deal with any followups, but something should be done here beyond just saying "take it to the talk page." ]] <small><sup>Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!</sup></small> 06:22, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Please help == | |||
| :The page was longer, but sourced (all but?) soley to the station's site and it's been trimmed down to what it is now. Given the repeated edit-warring by IPs I've semi-protected the page for two days for now. - ] <sub>]</sub> 07:59, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::] and ] message added . I'm just about to make myself thoroughly ] by seeing what I can do about the ] article. ] (]) 🦘 09:11, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Insults == | |||
| Do I really have to read uncivil profonity on my talk page. Especially by one editor ChrisNelson who has been banned before? I work hard, follow the rules and get abused. ] (]) 00:43, 2 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :You may remove or delete anything from your talkpage that you want, so far as such removals do not distort or change others comments in a disruptive manner. Feel free to archive or remove anything you like. See ] for more info. You may also wish to create an account, as ]. Good luck.--].].] 00:53, 2 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::Membership also has its problems. I will do as you suggest, and remove the profanity, but what I was looking for is someone in authority to "cool down" chrisnelson and yankees10. ] (]) 01:04, 2 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::Mate everyone is in authority here. An admin is just another editor who was handed a mop. They handle what we those without the mop can not handle. I will warn the user if he continues and then if needed report to ] or here. Though I am looking at his conversation and seeing that he is just pointing out truths..though with an over use of profanity. <font style="font-family: Papyrus, sans-serif"><font color="#775ca8">]</font></font> 02:42, 2 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == We've gone to italics I see == | |||
| I'd like to report an incident related to ]. A person under IP already accused me of being "obsessed". Now someone (possibly the same person) . Please also see . I guess we can always agree to disagree with other people, but this is going a bit too far. Thank you. ] (]) 09:30, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| {{resolved}}<small>A comment would not sum up how weird this one is. <font style="font-family: Papyrus, sans-serif"><font color="#775ca8">]</font></font> 03:19, 2 May 2008 (UTC)</small> | |||
| :Hello, Psychloppos. What action are you seeking to happen here? <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 09:42, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::I have no idea which actions are warranted here. Maybe an admin could leave a message to this IP and this registered user and remind them that they should ] ? It would also be nice to remind them about ] and ]. Saying that I am "fuelled by an unhealthy obsession" or questioning my sanity do not seem to respect those guidelines. ] (]) 09:52, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :Um...what are you talking about...it looks fine on my side. <font style="font-family: Papyrus, sans-serif"><font color="#775ca8">]</font></font> 03:06, 2 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ==Nlkyair012 and LLM chatbots == | |||
| ::Er... OK, apparently it's just me then? | |||
| *{{Noping|Nlkyair012}} | |||
| ::] | |||
| This editor has been constantly using AI chatbots to respond and write messages. They are a single purpose account for glorifying the ] caste using unreliable ] era sources, I and several other experienced editors have taken time and effort to respond to their endless queries and ] generated using ChatGPT. They have posted AI generated walls of text on multiple noticeboards such as ] and ] and including here , accusing me of vandalism. | |||
| ::WTF? <span style="font-variant:small-caps"><font color="#800080">] § ]/]</font></span> 03:10, 2 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::I agree: WTF? Looks fine to me, except that hideous screen shot you just posted. ] (]) 03:14, 2 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::And back to normal now! ] <span style="font-variant:small-caps"><font color="#800080">] § ]/]</font></span> 03:15, 2 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Er...check your internet browser settings..and maybe a couple of scans..because that just isn't right. Um marked resolved. <font style="font-family: Papyrus, sans-serif"><font color="#775ca8">]</font></font> 03:19, 2 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| Despite my repeated requests and even a final warning to them (including a request by {{ping|ActivelyDisinterested}}) they are still continuing to do it. Their messages are repeating the same argument again and again and are frankly just ] that bring up fictitious guidelines or misrepresent the existing ones. Several editors have told them that Raj era sources are not reliable yet they continue to ask for more evidence on why that is the case based on AI generated claims of supposed academic value or neutrality. This is getting very disruptive and taking up valuable contributor time to respond to their endless AI responses which take a few seconds to generate. I have alerted them about ] and ], I would appreciate it if someone could enforce a restriction on this user from at minimum caste area. - ] (]) 13:07, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Persistant Spam Account (Part 2) == | |||
| :Hello @Ratnahastin, | |||
| {{resolved|1=User indef blocked by admin. --] (]) 03:22, 2 May 2008 (UTC)}} | |||
| :To start with I should admit that I am sorry for all the inconvenience that I may have caused as a result of my actions. It was never my intention to take people’s time or skew the conversation in a certain way. I appreciate the core idea to contribute the thoughts to the Wiki and share it borne in mind the overall rules and policies of this program. | |||
| Yesterday, I mentioned a problem with ] and their continued addition of material to the ] and ] articles concerning "...the video may be seen at her official website www.RihannaUpdate.com..." The result of that complaint was a 72-hour block of the registered user, as well as a one-month block of an associated IP address. | |||
| :I understand your fears about the AI utilities you have mentioned on your site. Even when I was using AI for the grammar check or, for instance, to elaborate on some point in the text, I saw to my mismanagement that over the process we probably confused the readers and repeated the same information and thoughts, which I would never wish to happen again. From now on I will ensure that in the future the input which I provide to wikipedia fits the Misplaced Pages standard and is more personal. I will also not write walls of text and will not make assertations that do not have substantiated evidence in sources. | |||
| :As for subjects that concern the Raj and the sources from this period and the discussions we have had it seems that I have gone too far in demanding clarification for the same thing. That being the case, with the understanding that the consensus will be acknowledged, I shall not be inclined to reopen this discussion unless new substantiated evidence is produced. I don’t want to prolong the conversation or bring any more stress. | |||
| :I will strive to learn from my experience to be more productive in my interactions going forward. If there are other limitations or additional rules to which I have to stick to, I will receive them with pleasure. | |||
| :In the same respect, let me specially apologize for the inconvenience and thank all of you for bearing with us. That was why I wanted to remind all of us that we can and should keep collectively improving Misplaced Pages as a resource. <span style="font-family:Georgia,serif; color:#FF4500; font-size:120%; font-weight:bold;">]</span> 13:31, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::This comment also has a typical LLM feel and contains meaningless statements such as "I understand your fears about the AI utilities you have mentioned on your site" and differs substantially from , although GPTzero said this is human input. - ] (]) 13:38, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::It seems human in that it contains some composition and grammar errors that I don’t think an LLM would produce. <span style="position: relative; top: -0.5em;">꧁</span>]<span style="position: relative; top: -0.5em;">꧂</span> 13:56, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Thanks for the reply sir, I can't explain how frustrated I'm feeling from this morning which this user made me experience <span style="font-family:Georgia,serif; color:#FF4500; font-size:120%; font-weight:bold;">]</span> 14:02, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::The time when I messaged Vikram banafar I was casual not formal and second of all your saying doesn't prove anything "and differs substantially from your usual (non-AI) writing style" that's a straight up false accusation and utter nonsensical point and 3rd point being that GPTzero stated that this is a human input then that's an human input end of the question. <span style="font-family:Georgia,serif; color:#FF4500; font-size:120%; font-weight:bold;">]</span> 14:01, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::No it's really not the end of the story if GPTZero says "likely human". In fact I'd actively discourage people depending on tools like GPTZero in favour of their human senses ] than yet another computer program. And, frankly, what you're hearing from people here is we'd rather your casual, human, flaws-and-all style of writing over ChatGPT output "formal" report templates. They are doing the opposite of what you're looking for and have become disruptive. ] (]) 14:05, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Man you still wanna do this? @] also says this doesn't seems AI generated to him and he used his actual "Human senses" to lean that way <span style="font-family:Georgia,serif; color:#FF4500; font-size:120%; font-weight:bold;">]</span> 14:10, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Admitting that you have used AI for writing your comments and then saying that you have not used AI is not going to help your case. - ] (]) 14:36, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::You know what I think this is getting to the ] point. Having to tell somebody to have the basic respect of other editors to not subject them to text-walls of chatGPT garbage over and over again is a disruptive distraction from what we should all be doing. ] (]) 14:38, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::This ain't getting anywhere <span style="font-family:Georgia,serif; color:#FF4500; font-size:120%; font-weight:bold;">]</span> 14:59, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::I really don't understand the problem. Cuz I literally also said many where that yes I used AI but for expanding and grammar correction <span style="font-family:Georgia,serif; color:#FF4500; font-size:120%; font-weight:bold;">]</span> 14:54, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::If this combative approach is your "casual" style, perhaps your use of AI and its over the top politeness was an attempt to mask it. In any case, I think you are ] but for caste glorification given your obsession with a certain sub-caste. - ] (]) 14:33, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::im not obsessed with a certain subcaste but am sure is obsessed with British Raj sources. <span style="font-family:Georgia,serif; color:#FF4500; font-size:120%; font-weight:bold;">]</span> 14:56, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::I don't think that's better. ] (]) 15:44, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::If we just temporarily put aside the AI-generated comments, can Nlkyair012 accept the view of experienced editors on Raj era sources and not push any viewpoint on a particulary caste? Because, to be honest, editors who have done this in the past usually end up indefinitely blocked. There is a low tolderance here for "caste warriors". <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 19:27, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Potential vandal trying to start edit war on the page for Frisch's. == | |||
| Tonight, I logged in to WP, reviewed my watchlist... and lo and behold, a new user, ] has appeared and is making the exact same edits to the above mentioned article. Thus, if someone could run a checkuser and assist, it would be much appreciated. | |||
| {{atop|1=Page protected, and now this admin is flashing back to his youth going to Frisch's Big Boy in ]. - ] <sub>]</sub> 22:37, 24 December 2024 (UTC)}} | |||
| This user keeps using IP addresses in order to revert creditable information about who makes their tartar sauce. Please look into this user. IP Addresses used were 67.80.16.30, 66.117.211.82, and 216.24.107.180. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 15:17, 24 December 2024 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| :Courtesy link ]. ] (]) 17:02, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :<del>This sounds a '''lot''' like the same edit warrer I dealt with on ], down to the false accusations of vandalism, removal of sourced information, and apparent use of proxies (all the IPs geolocate to different places). I wouldn't be surprised if this is the same person.</del> I've asked RFPP to intervene. ] | ] 21:05, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :Report to ] and present your evidence there. <font style="font-family: Papyrus, sans-serif"><font color="#775ca8">]</font></font> 03:20, 2 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::NVM, checked MaxMind for geolocation and they all are in the same general area. ] | ] 21:08, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| == ] inaccurate edit summaries == | |||
| == Would an experienced user please help with repeated vandalism? == | |||
| {{resolved|school, stale vandal ] <small>(])</small> 03:46, 2 May 2008 (UTC)}} | |||
| {{Userlinks|206.213.170.10}} recently vandalized the ] page, and upon checking I found that this person has repeatedly vandalized pages with irrelevent, sometimes racist and profane comments. They have also been warned repeatedly, and apparently continue to vandalize as no action to block them has actually been carried out. | |||
| All but 2 of user's edit summaries are "Fixed Typo" when they are in fact partially updating statistical information on the page. Have left multiple messages/warnings on TP, with no response. ] (]) 16:03, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| I am not a brand new user, but I am still learning about Misplaced Pages and am unsure how to deal with this other than reporting it here. I hope I am doing this correctly. | |||
| == Lil Dicky Semi-Protection == | |||
| May I politely request that an administrator (and yes, I understand you are all busy) investigate this issue and block this person if they feel it is necessary. I personally feel a half dozen "final warnings" are about four too many. Thank you very much. Bloopenguins | |||
| {{atop|1=] is thataway →. - ] <sub>]</sub> 22:34, 24 December 2024 (UTC)}} | |||
| ] (]) 03:40, 2 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ] was semi-protected back in 2019. Now that five years have passed, could the semi-protection be lifted? ] (]) 16:25, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :Mention them ]. You'll get a faster response. ] (]) 03:41, 2 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::It's a school. There are likely different people every hour. This one's actually not so bad, only two instances today. -- ] (]) 03:43, 2 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::Last edit was about 12 hours ago anyway. The trail is too cold to smack 'em. School-IPs tend to be a pain, though. If it starts up again, mention it's a school; they often get longer locks ''because'' they're a school. ] (]) 03:46, 2 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Ask at ] ] ] 16:28, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| == Request for Review of Neutrality and Repeated Actions == | |||
| {{resolved|semi-protectd and major amounts of unsourced material removed}} ] <small>(])</small> 04:38, 2 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| {{Atop|This complaint has no merit and does not require administrative intervention.--] (]) 18:08, 24 December 2024 (UTC)}} | |||
| Halp! | |||
| Dear admin, | |||
| This page needs serious BLP help, there appears to be an edit war going on over there...one party has added "Disclaimer: Please do not attempt to delete or change any content in this page. It would be swiftly replaced back by the author." I don't even know how to separate fact from fiction in this mess. Could someone who's RL job hasn't melted their brain please take a look? :) <font face="monospace" color="#004080">]·(])·(])</font> 03:56, 2 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| I hope this message finds you well. I am writing to express my concern regarding Psycholoppos, who has repeatedly applied the neutrality dispute tag to content related to Randa Kassis. Despite previous clarifications, these actions suggest a potential bias, which could undermine the objectivity and integrity of the platform. | |||
| :It is a mess, you're right. I've removed the disclaimer, and tried to clean it up a little. We'll see what happens. It'll need a lot more work, though, I'll check back in on it later. | |||
| ::Semi-protected the page - it appears that numerous socks are at work here. Warned those recently editing. ] <small>(])</small> 04:26, 2 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::I took out a couple more sentences of unsourced accusations. More needs doing. It is indeed a mess. ] ] 04:30, 2 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I took out quite a few more unsourced sentences. I think the article complies with ] now and I've left a note on the talk page saying BLP will be enforced. ] <small>(])</small> 04:38, 2 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| I kindly request that you review this matter and take appropriate steps to ensure that all users adhere to neutrality standards. If possible, I would also appreciate guidance on how to address such situations constructively in the future. | |||
| Thank you for your attention to this issue. Please feel free to reach out if further clarification is needed. | |||
| == Personal attacks and vandalism == | |||
| Hazar ] (]) 17:45, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :@], whether the NPOV tag is needed or not should first be discussed on the article's talk page. Also, see the large notice at the top of this page: you are required to notify the editor you are reporting. ] ] 17:53, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::The editor is also called Psychloppos, not Psycholoppos. I have notified them for the OP. – ] (]) (]) 17:59, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :I wouldn't give a chatbot-written thread the time of day. HS, ]. —] ] <sup><small>] ]</small></sup> 18:05, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| {{Abot}} | |||
| == Disruptive behavior from IP == | |||
| ] removes referenced info from ] article , and resorts to personal attacks ("fucking pig") on talk page. User was warned not to resort to personal attacks multiple times . and now he has violated ] ] (]) 05:04, 2 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| For the past month, {{ip|24.206.65.142}} has been attempting to add misleading information to ], specifically trying to use the unofficial "777-200LRF" designation beyond first mention in the relevant section and passing it off as official (, , , , , , , , , , ). Their behavior died down for a few weeks, but restarted several days ago (, ), including that {{u|Fnlayson}} is "okay with it". They have been asked numerous times on ] to either stop or provide evidence of official use of the designation, but they have failed to do so and have continued their disruption. - ] <sub>]</sub><span style="color:#6B8E23">\</span><sup>]</sup> 19:51, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :He also seems to be adding aquite a few geocities sites as external links, all detailing accusations against the subject. Seems like ], easily. ] (]) 05:21, 2 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::Krzyzowiec has six reverts on that page in the past 24 hours and also edit-wars persistently at ] by inserting geocities links and deleting references to sources like the Washington Post, calling them Soviet propaganda. --] (]) 06:38, 2 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| I forgot to mention that this user has used at least two other IPs; {{ip|24.206.75.140}} and {{ip|24.206.65.150}}. 24.206.65.142 is the most recent to cause disruption. - ] <sub>]</sub><span style="color:#6B8E23">\</span><sup>]</sup> 20:10, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Request admin intervention at ] == | |||
| :"777-200LRF" is not misleading, some cargo airlines do use that designation. Today I reverted to a previous version that ] was okay with . I feel that ] is going overboard with charges of misinformation and disruptive editing. ] (]) 19:59, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| There are a number of editors who automatically remove any criticism. The sourcing is not an issue: the deleted material came from Reuters and the San Diego Union-Tribune, no cause for complaint there. The most recent edit summary from this crew said simply "remove slander." | |||
| ::It is misleading to remove any mentions of it being unofficial. Boeing has never made a "777-200LRF", no aftermarket conversion has ever been offered under that name, nor has the FAA or any other regulatory agency ever certified such an aircraft. To pass such a designation off as official is by definition misleading and misinformation. Likewise, to continuously do so after you have been told to stop by multiple people and falsely claiming that others support your arguments is by definition disruptive. - ] <sub>]</sub><span style="color:#6B8E23">\</span><sup>]</sup> 20:06, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| The editor also removed the NPOV tag that I posted, without waiting for the dispute to be resolved. A look at the talk page indicates that this is a long standing problem, and that there are editors who may be in violation of ]. --] (]) 05:43, 2 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::Of note is the fact that this is not the first time the IP has claimed to have Fnlayson's support. ] not to assume support without a specific statement, yet it seems they've also ignored that. - ] <sub>]</sub><span style="color:#6B8E23">\</span><sup>]</sup> 20:23, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :Terrawatt has not explained what the neutrality problem is. He might want to do some research on this. ] (]) 05:50, 2 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::Its not misinformation as here are the sources which use "777-200LRF", including GE Capital Aviation (the engine supplier for most Boeing 777) and Leeham News (to avoid confusion with the upcoming 777-8F). ] (]) 21:06, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I have asked you for sources from either Boeing or the FAA, yet you still either refuse to do so or (more likely) cannot because they don't exist. Only Boeing and the FAA can designate factory-built Boeing aircraft. Airlines and misinformed news websites have no authority to do so, and any alternative names they use are purely unofficial and should not have anything more than a single brief mention in the appropriate article section. Your ] to get that after numerous people have told you is disruptive. - ] <sub>]</sub><span style="color:#6B8E23">\</span><sup>]</sup> 22:14, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :Relevant range is {{rangevandal|24.206.64.0/20}}, in case somebody needs it. ] | ] 21:02, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *Semiprotected ] for two days. - ] <sub>]</sub> 22:33, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 02:07, 25 December 2024
Noticeboard for reporting incidents to administrators| Noticeboards | |
|---|---|
| Misplaced Pages's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes. | |
| General | |
| Articles and content | |
| Page handling | |
| User conduct | |
| Other | |
| Category:Misplaced Pages noticeboards | |
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?
| 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 | |||||||||
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)
- 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)
- But what conduct issue? TALKNO doesn't forbid changing headings. In fact the wider guideline makes it clear it's perfectly acceptable "
- It's a conduct issue. إيان (talk) 19:58, 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)
- 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)
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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- Guys, I do not deliberately set out to modify signatures, and when it happens, I am not usually aware of doing so. As I've already explained before in several places, since the December 2019 encryption protocol upgrade (NOT 2011!), the only way I can edit (or view) Misplaced Pages at all from home is by an indirect method which is not fully Unicode-compliant. To change this, I would have to get a completely different type of Internet connection, which would permanently disconnect my older computer, which I still use almost every day.
- Meanwhile, this thread has been set up so I can't add a comment to it from home without affecting Unicode characters, so I was unable to reply here for 36 hours or so. If I'm silent in the future, it will be for the same reason. AnonMoos (talk) 01:14, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- Misplaced Pages uses Unicode characters (UTF-8 encoding). Anyone who cannot edit without corrupting such characters should not edit. Johnuniq (talk) 03:47, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- Whatever, -- I was using them perfectly fine until December 2019, and still use them perfectly fine on public WiFi, but in December 2019 a requirement was imposed that you can't access Misplaced Pages at all unless you can handle encryption algorithms and protocols that weren't introduced until the mid-2010s. I have a 2012 web browser on my home computer that handles UTF-8 just fine, but 2012 simply wasn't good enough for the Misplaced Pages developers -- you had to have software that was almost up to date as of 2019, or you would be abruptly totally cut off. If you can drag up the relevant archive of Village Pump Technical, I and others complained at the time, but our concerns were not listened to or considered in any way. The basic attitude of the developers was that if you weren't running almost up-to-date software, then screw you, and if your computer is not capable of running almost up-to-date software, then double screw you! The change was announced for January 2020, but was actually implemented in mid-December 2019, apparently because they were so eager and anxious to start excluding people. It wasn't one of Misplaced Pages's finer moments. Since that time, I have had to use an indirect method to access Misplaced Pages from my home computer, and I don't feel particularly guilty about it (other people's obnoxious behaviors in 2019 have done away with most of the guilt I might feel)... AnonMoos (talk) 20:59, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- ...HTTPS was created in 1994, and became an official specification in 2000, not "mid-2010s". I'm not sure what 2012 web browser you're using, but if it's not able to handle HTTPS not being able to access Misplaced Pages with it is the least of your browsing concerns, given that 85-95% of the World Wide Web defaults to it now. Also I hate to think of how many security holes your ancient computer has. I'm going to be honest: with a brower setup that old it isn't safe for you to be on the web at all, and the security hole that lets you access Misplaced Pages without using a secure connection should be fixed, because that is not working as intended and is - as mentioned - a security hole. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:18, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- You unfortunately don't know what you're talking about. New ENCRYPTION ALGORITHM AND PROTOCOL METHODS have been introduced within HTTPS from time to time. I was using HTTPS perfectly happily until December 2019, when the developers arbitrarily ENCRYPTION ALGORITHM AND PROTOCOL REQUIREMENTS. AnonMoos (talk) 00:57, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- And even leaving that aside, as Johnuniq mentions - if you can't edit without corrupting Unicode characters, and by your own admission you don't know when it happens, you shouldn't be editing. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:20, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- This is probably a reference to when Misplaced Pages started requiring TLS 1.2 (because earlier versions were deprecated). Anyone who was/is still on Windows XP at that point couldn't connect any more. MrOllie (talk) 01:29, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- ...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)
- 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)
- I'm not talking about when the update happening, I'm talking about how you have known about this issue, and have been getting complainants about it since
2011and are still not taking any steps to do anything about it. What kind of internet connection would not support your PC? What on earth are you even using? Dial-Up? Because that still is supported by even Windows 10. LakesideMiners 02:59, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- 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)
:::Also, how did you see me saying "this has happened since 2011" as me saying that the update happened in 2011? Can you clarify. LakesideMiners 03:07, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- The problem didn't start in 2011, and I have no idea what you're referring to when you mention 2011. The problem started in December 2019 when the developers arbitrarily imposed new ENCRYPTION ALGORITHM AND PROTOCOL REQUIREMENTS... AnonMoos (talk) 00:57, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- Apologies. I was extremely tired when I wrote both above. I have striken the date parts. Rest of my comments still stand. LakesideMiners 01:06, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- The problem didn't start in 2011, and I have no idea what you're referring to when you mention 2011. The problem started in December 2019 when the developers arbitrarily imposed new ENCRYPTION ALGORITHM AND PROTOCOL REQUIREMENTS... AnonMoos (talk) 00:57, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
None of this matters
I don't care what tool this guy uses or what his excuse is. If he can't edit without screwing up people's sigs, then he must not edit. AnonMoos shouls consider himself on notice now that if one of his edits messes stuff up one more time, he'll be blocked until he can give assurance that he's come into the 21st century. EEng 18:05, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- That's nice -- and also totally inaccurate. I was in the 21st century, and using 2012 tools, up until December 2019, when the developers pitchforked me backwards by arbitrarily imposing HTTPS ENCRYPTION ALGORITHM AND PROTOCOL REQUIREMENTS which my home computer hardware is not able to run. Notice that I had no problem complying with character-set handling -- the problem is with arbitrary ENCRYPTION ALGORITHM AND PROTOCOL REQUIREMENTS. AnonMoos (talk) 00:48, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- The century imagery is irrelevant. You have been warned. EEng 03:14, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- That was six years ago, which is IMO about 3-4 years too long to keep using it as an excuse. Technology changes over time, so whatever this non-standard thing you think you need to do to edit here, it may be time to make a choice. Zaathras (talk) 00:56, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- As I said, to fix the problem, I would have to get a completely different type of Internet connection which would permanently disconnect my old computer, which I still use almost every single day. I would basically have to change my workflow and overall habits/methods of working because of an arbitrary decision by Misplaced Pages developers about encryption protocol updates. Anyway, when editing through public WiFi, I'm 100% Unicode compliant, and by exercising a little prudence, I can also avoid most problems when working from home. If I was constantly mangling Unicode right and left, there would have been a chorus of complaints long before now. But occasionally I can't anticipate a problem... AnonMoos (talk) 01:06, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- And just to say for the third time: you're out of chances. "Occassionally" is too often. Once more is too often. And if and when that happens, your attitude of entitlement displayed here will pretty much ensure an indefinite block. EEng 03:14, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- Think it's time to draft up a formal proposal at this point? LakesideMiners 18:29, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- I don't think that's necessary. The key isn't formally deciding the criterion for blocking (because that's obvious to everyone) but rather detecting the next incident. Best way to do that for everyone gathered here to watchlist User talk:AnonMoos. Sooner or later, futher trouble will show up there. EEng 21:31, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- Think it's time to draft up a formal proposal at this point? LakesideMiners 18:29, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- And just to say for the third time: you're out of chances. "Occassionally" is too often. Once more is too often. And if and when that happens, your attitude of entitlement displayed here will pretty much ensure an indefinite block. EEng 03:14, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- If you have DSL or even DialUp. That still works with modern machines. LakesideMiners 01:08, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- Heck, I am on DSL (and have been since, if I recall right, 2008). I have no idea what sort of ancient Internet connection AnonMoos is claiming to be using, but it's clearly one that was already obsolete before this change he's still up in arms about six years later was made. - The Bushranger One ping only 05:44, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- Not to mention it would STILL be supported these days. It's literally right there when you click wifi/network settings in Windows 10. LakesideMiners 18:20, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- Heck, I am on DSL (and have been since, if I recall right, 2008). I have no idea what sort of ancient Internet connection AnonMoos is claiming to be using, but it's clearly one that was already obsolete before this change he's still up in arms about six years later was made. - The Bushranger One ping only 05:44, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- As I said, to fix the problem, I would have to get a completely different type of Internet connection which would permanently disconnect my old computer, which I still use almost every single day. I would basically have to change my workflow and overall habits/methods of working because of an arbitrary decision by Misplaced Pages developers about encryption protocol updates. Anyway, when editing through public WiFi, I'm 100% Unicode compliant, and by exercising a little prudence, I can also avoid most problems when working from home. If I was constantly mangling Unicode right and left, there would have been a chorus of complaints long before now. But occasionally I can't anticipate a problem... AnonMoos (talk) 01:06, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- The response by AnonMoos to feedback about this problem is bizarre. I don't really care what the excuse or the history behind it. If you are unwilling to edit Misplaced Pages using tools that work in 2024 then you should stop editing. The behavior is completely unnecessary and it seems like you don't understand the disruption. Nemov (talk) 14:45, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- AnonMoos hasn't really explained in any detail what their technical limitations are. They don't have to, but we can't really give advice otherwise. If as others have suggested their computer can't negotiate TLS 1.2, I'm surprised that they're able to use any websites at all from that computer. Requiring TLS 1.2 is not controversial; Misplaced Pages wasn't doing anything unusual in dropping TLS 1.0/1.1 around that time. Mackensen (talk) 15:02, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
Disruptive editing by User talk:185.146.112.192
IP blocked 24 hours, and then kept digging and created an account to evade the block, which has now been indef'd. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:43, 24 December 2024 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The User talk:185.146.112.192 is engaging in disrupte editing. Neither does this IP provide sources and is POV pushing. And this IP has been warned multiple times for this on his/her talk page.
Moroike (talk) 20:52, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Moroike: It looks like you both are edit warring on Kichik Bazar Mosque. That's not particularly helpful, so you should try to have a discussion on the article talk page as to whether you should include the Talysh language name for the article in the lead/infobox. –MJL ‐Talk‐ 20:33, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
- MJL why and how did you pick out that one article over the many this IP has made recent changes to? The IP has been making disputed edits for months and has been reverted by a number of editors, not just Moroike. CMD (talk) 01:10, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- @CMD: I am not suggesting that the IP editor isn't being disruptive, but my point is that Moroike isn't making the situation better (using the example of that one article). You can see this by looking at their last 50 contributions where they have mostly just reverted this editor without using a summary. –MJL ‐Talk‐ 18:02, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- The IP's edits were removed a total of 13 times on the page regarding the capital city of Azerbaijan, Baku. You can't let him continue engaging in further edit wars with other users besides Moroike, can you? Nuritae331 (talk) 17:24, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- 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)
Since this IP user won't stop and is stonewalling, either he/should be temporarily blocked, or all the pages he is POV pushing without sources, should be semi-protected, so that only registered users can edit them. Moroike (talk) 21:37, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- After he/she was blocked for 24 hours, this IP created an account as User talk:Ibish Agayev in order to evade the block and has resumed his/her POV pushing. Moroike (talk) 16:51, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
User engaged in edit warring to remove disputed content prior to consensus
There's nothing actionable in this content dispute, except perhaps trouting the original poster for failing to assume good faith and hounding friendly admins when they try to help. Longtime user User:Sxbbetyy (4.5 yrs, over 5K edits) has made several assertions based on their clear misunderstanding of social norms. In this discussion they've failed to notify the subject (they actually failed to use the subject's name in the OP), they've failed to bring any diffs, they failed to sign their post, and over and over they seem to have failed to assume good faith of their fellow editors. A number of editors including several admins have attempted to talk Sxbbetyy down. Nobody in this discussion seems to agree with Sxbbetyy on the merits, yet Sxbbetyy keeps circling back to their own personal interpretation of policy. The discussion at User talk:Sergecross73, where Sxbbetyy refuses to listen to the admin they asked, gives another example of the problem. Sxbbetyy is reminded that creating a post on ANI puts all their own behaviors up for examination. BusterD (talk) 15:46, 23 December 2024 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Title is pretty self explanatory. Rather than engage in the consensus building process to determine if the disputed content discussed here is problematic, this editor has instead immediately reverted the disputed content. They have been informed of the relevant policies prohibiting this behavior and how it should normally be handled (tagging the content as disputed while the discussion is ongoing) but have elected to instead engage in edit warring to keep the disputed content removed prior to any consensus on the matter. Also important to note that they wish to have the content removed entirely, but have stated that they no longer intend to participate in the consensus building discussion. So this appears to be a WP:STONEWALLING tactic to accomplish their goal of removing the content immediately without a consensus. Seeking admin help to halt this behavior and restore the content with the correct tagging.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sxbbetyy (talk • contribs) 23:36, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
- It would help if you named the editor and signed your name to figure out what you are talking about; a noticeboard only works if you give us notice about the subject and what is happening. Nate • (chatter) 23:39, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
- The editor appears to be PerfectSoundWhatever, based on the link under the word "this" as well as this notification. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 23:51, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
- My apology, this is my very first time making such a post. The other pages o have spoken on seemed to have signed themselves automatically. Will remember this going forward. And yes, that was the user, posted this using my phone so I didn't want to mis-spell their name, just linked instead. Sxbbetyy (talk) 17:01, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
- (Non-administrator comment) IMO the best practice is that in the event of a content dispute, the article should be reverted to the status quo of how the article's content appeared before the dispute started, until such a time that consensus is established to re-add it (see: WP:STATUSQUO). It seems like the beginning of the content that is in dispute was added on 18 August 2024, the dispute began a few weeks later on 23 September 2024 and has been ongoing ever since.In this case, since the article existed in a relatively steady state for several months (or even years?) previous to the disputed material being added, I think it'd be wise to leave the disputed content out of the article until the discussion comes to a close. RachelTensions (talk) 00:07, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
- I have been seeing this opinion from a few editors and even one admin on how to interpret this article. However, the first few sentences in that section do outright state to avoid reverting the disputed content prior to a consensus. And prior to opening this report, I asked several admins on the topic and got a response that reverting the disputed content immediately is incorrect per WP:STATUSQUO as it bypasses the consensus building process. I was advised that the content should instead be tagged as disputed rather than be outright removed. The offending user was made aware of the relevant policies but has nonetheless engaging in edit warring to keep it reverted, hence this report. Sxbbetyy (talk) 17:13, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
- The status quo of an article constitutes implicit consensus (WP:IMPLICITCONSENSUS). The person trying to include disputed content in an article despite it not being status quo is the one that could be construed as attempting to bypass the consensus building process, not the person trying to maintain status quo until discussion takes place. RachelTensions (talk) 17:20, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
- Correct, and at no point was the definition of what constitutes the status quo ever in contention. In fact, if you review the edit history of the article you can see that the disputed content was the status quo via implicit consensus at the time PSW chose to first outright revert the content, and then continued to revert it as others tried to restore it (both before and after the consensus discussion began). Sxbbetyy (talk) 23:38, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
the disputed content was the status quo via implicit consensus at the time PSW chose to first outright revert the content
Not really, I personally wouldn't define "been there a few weeks" as status quo.I think maybe the other replies to this thread provide pretty good reasoning to take a step back and say "hey maybe I'm the one in the wrong here" instead of talking in circles RachelTensions (talk) 00:30, 20 December 2024 (UTC)- Personally I think the number of contributions since the edit where it has gone unchanged is a more useful metric, especially on low traffic pages such as this one. Regardless, per the policy you cite, there seems to be no official Misplaced Pages stance on what exact criteria are needed for a contribution to be considered the current status quo, beyond it having been unchallenged in subsequent contributions (which is the case here).
- As for the rest of your comment, there seems to be a high amount of band wagoning and "Proof by assertion" going on in the rest of this. Or people trying to use this report as an extension of the dispute discussion on the article's talk page. Hopefully more actual admins to chime in on the topic as I don't actually want to waste my time talking in circles.
- On that note thanks for actually taking the time and baseline minimal effort to engage in a discussion where you actually support your point and don't just devolve into repeating the same talking points over and over. It's a nice change of pace. Sxbbetyy (talk) 02:48, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- 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 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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.
- Sxbbetyy (talk) 17:17, 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)
- 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)
- Come on, how many people need to tell you you're wrong? Sergecross73 msg me 02:05, 20 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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, 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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:
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- What? I never started an RfC. — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 19:07, 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)
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)
- In what way is that your read of the consensus in the discussion above? Sergecross73 msg me 02:49, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
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)
- 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)
- 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)
- "
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- Is it just me or are talk pages like Template talk:WikiProject banner shell just perpetual WP:LOCALCONSENSUS issues where a very small number of editors (frequently 5 or less) make major changes that affect thousands of articles, all without involving the broader community through, at minimum, places like Misplaced Pages:Village pump (technical)? Silverseren 04:03, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Fram, Tom.Reding, Kanashimi, and Primefac: I got AWB working again. If cewbot would take time for making the changes, and if this needs attention soon, then should I file a request for that particular bot task? —usernamekiran (talk) 06:20, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- The robot is in operation... Kanashimi (talk) 09:09, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- yay! —usernamekiran (talk) 16:04, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- The robot is in operation... Kanashimi (talk) 09:09, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- Meanwhile, the category has grown to over 800,000 pages. Perhaps next time an RfC to determine whether creating such a large cleanup task is warranted, would be better? Fram (talk) 16:34, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
User:Augmented Seventh
User:Augmented Seventh is making wholesale reverts of my edits in contravention to guidelines. 43.249.196.179 (talk) 19:17, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- You're removing demographic categories and templates by blanking them out; irreligion still deals with religion no matter your argument. That's definitely not compliant with WP:CAT and clearly vandalism. There's no action to take here except that you need to stop removing these categories and templates. Nate • (chatter) 19:42, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- And you are now required to cite how your edits meet WP:CAT; spamming it in edit summaries is not discussion. Nate • (chatter) 19:47, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- While doing routine vandal patrol, I came across what seemed to be a hasty and massive removal of content, being done in a very directed and personal manner.
- After looking at the persistent removal, and communicating, I restored the well-drawn categories.
- Hopefully, this is easily resolved.
- Augmented Seventh (talk) 20:40, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- 43*, do not continue to revert these category removals without discussing them first. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:48, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- THere is nothing to discuss. The guidelines are clear. What needs to be done is editors need to be familiar with the cat guidelines. We don't discuss whether the sky is blue do we? 43.249.196.179 (talk) 02:05, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- THey are not well drawn, it was not hasty, it was not massive, and it was not "personal". It was directed because they all had the same issue. 43.249.196.179 (talk) 02:07, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- 43*, do not continue to revert these category removals without discussing them first. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:48, 20 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)
- 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)
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)
- 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
- GO and read the guidelines. It does not need discussion. 43.249.196.179 (talk) 02:15, 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)
- 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)
Not overly impressed by 43's comments above. But do wish to note that their removal of Category:Corruption from at least one BLP appears to have been correct. The subsequent reversion of that removal is misfortune. Rotary Engine 08:06, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
User:ZanderAlbatraz1145 Civility and Content #2
- ZanderAlbatraz1145 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
This user has engaged in a lengthy display of disruption. Namely through incessant incivility I have noticed they were previously reported for.
Instances such as ordering IP editors to stop editing articles, hostilely chastising them, making personal attacks in edit summary on several occasions, etc. Users such as @Waxworker: and @Jon698: can speak to their experiences, I'll outline mine.
On December 10, I noticed on the article Luca Guadagnino's unrealized projects page several additions were made that didn't adhere to the article's purpose. Zander restored these with an introductory summary rife with bad faith assertions about my intelligence and asserting they'd engage in edit war behavior. For the most part there was an attempt to discuss the issue we had, but ultimately did not see eye to eye. I asserted I'd be escalating the issue to garner more substantive dialogue around it, Zander's response includes a needless "bite me". I made some attempts at engaging the topic at the article's talk page, in addition to WikiProject Film, it was over a week that saw no input. I would go on to state that (at the time) in two days, I would restore the page to it's status quo. I would do so, asking it not to be reverted. Zander reverted anyway, and after another terse interaction, I moved to nominate the article for deletion, finding with the conflicting views of what Unrealized meant, it was too open ended and led to these lists being essentially trivia. Since then, Zander has elected to take an antagonistic approach towards me, making swipes they openly admit add nothing to the discussion threads they're added to, and now that I am putting said comments behind collapsable tables for being offtopic, Zander is now doing the editing equivalent of mockingly repeating me, with edits such as this and this.
This editor displays no interest in conducting themselves cordially or cooperatively on this website. Rusted AutoParts 23:20, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- I've given them a warning for canvassing: - The Bushranger One ping only 04:08, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- And more personal attacks here - The Bushranger One ping only 05:36, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- And they appear to be continuing editing while ignoring here. - The Bushranger One ping only 05:39, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- This feels par for the course for Zander frankly. As noted with the bit about Zander reverting after an explicit edit summary saying not to and there being two days worth of me saying that edit would be made and they made no objections until the move was made. They disengaged from discussion but only re-engaged when the situation changed to their disliking. Rusted AutoParts 02:07, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
- And they appear to be continuing editing while ignoring here. - The Bushranger One ping only 05:39, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
SPA User:Tikitorch2 back at it on Martin Kulldorff
Hi, all, I'd like some assistance with the SPA User:Tikitorch2, who's been POV pushing on the Martin Kulldorff article since June. A quick view of their extremely short edit history shows that their sole focus is on pushing a vaccine-denialist POV on that and similar COVID-related topics. Started out on the talk page and BLPN, but now they've graduated to edit-warring on the article itself; they were active in June, made a single related edit in October, but now they appear to be back at it. They've already been notified about the CTOP status of COVID-19, and have received an edit-warring warning--to which they were less than receptive. Would appreciate a more permanent resolution, either a COVID-19 topic ban or just an indef considering their SPA status, so they don't just go back into hibernation and then turn up again like a bad penny. (And yeah, given this context, I don't love the implications of the username "Tikitorch2", either.) Thanks, Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 05:13, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- User:Michael.C.Wright? 173.22.12.194 (talk) 06:25, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
Looks like a duck to me. I'm sending this to SPI. - The Bushranger One ping only 11:16, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- SPI says unrelated, so might just be generic disruption. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:47, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- What are you implying with regard to my username? My edit history has been limited to trying to correct two red flags that stood out so much that I followed the citations when I was searching these scientists who were in the news for censorship. It has been enlightening learning how wikipedia selectively chooses secondary sources but discourages the use of primary sources to help discriminate which secondary sources are credible.
- For my two attempted contributions to Misplaced Pages, the two red flags were pretty dramatic to prompt me to check out the citations--Sunetra Gupta's article implied more than 1 in 1000 people in England died from Covid in spring 2020 in an effort to discredit her, which was trivially easy to google as untrue. I corrected that without really changing the overall narrative. The article for Martin Kulldorff...I would probably not have spent time looking at the sources or realized how unscientific Kulldorff's critics were had there not been such superfluous "Wikivoice" editorializing and synthesizing suggesting Kulldorff lied in an essay to the public. Tikitorch2 (talk) 06:30, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- Primary sources are not to be used for anything but simple facts about a subject. They absolutely are not to be used
to help discriminate which secondary sources are credible
because that is original research. - The Bushranger One ping only 08:57, 22 December 2024 (UTC)- Not sure why you felt the need to repeat what I said. Maybe I am the sock puppeteer! Tikitorch2 (talk) 03:33, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- What I am implying is that such a username in the context of an account pushing COVID-denialist rhetoric that flies in the face of the sources and Misplaced Pages policy is not an accident. Anyway, this editor continues to be a drain of editor time and attention. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 14:58, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- Ah an absurd, convoluted, and contrived personal attack. Assuming anyone but you knew tiki torches were present at a political event where someone was killed, why would I choose my username based on that? Tikitorches provide light, warmth, and keep the mosquitos away. I guess its not surprising an editor named writ keeper attacks the editor rather than effectively debating the subject of the edit. Tikitorch2 (talk) 03:28, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- Even if it was a personal attack, making one back isn't going to fly here. Knock it off. - The Bushranger One ping only 04:04, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- User:Tikitorch2, your edits are being examined at ANI. This is not a pleasant experience, I'll admit. So, it's best for you not to dig yourself into a hole. I know the instinct is to defend yourself but it doesn't help your situation to come out swinging. It's probably to your benefit to address any concerns that have been raised and say no more than that. Liz 04:30, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- Primary sources are not to be used for anything but simple facts about a subject. They absolutely are not to be used
User talk:International Space Station0
Just officially closing this discussion as the account involved has been globally blocked. If an editor has Spore on your Watchlist and you see this occurring again, contact your local administrator. Liz 06:25, 24 December 2024 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This user made 500 edits to their user page which were all completely useless (Misplaced Pages:Gaming the system to inflate their edit count) and then once receiving extended-confirmed permissions vandalized Spore (2008 video game) by copypasting another article. Their user page shows them editing and counting to 500. jolielover♥talk 04:52, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- It's a WP:DUCK, and I just reported to AIV. 184.152.68.190 (talk) 04:58, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- Would it be possible to put up some kind of filter to alert for this? Something that…say…catches when more than 25 edits are made in a single space (user space for example) or something that would trip if the edits added less than 5 characters consistently? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1011:B32F:11B9:7980:86CC:720C:8B57 (talk) 05:15, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- There is a filter for this. Look at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Special:AbuseLog&wpSearchUser=International+Space+Station0&offset=20241222044736, "New account unusual activity" covers exactly this. win8x (talk) 05:22, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
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)
- You didn't actually strike any comments. To do so, do this <s>Comment</s> which will make it look like this
- Okay, I strike. Longislandtea (talk) 21:17, 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)
- @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)
- 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)
- @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)
- 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)
- @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)
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)
- 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)
- 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)
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.
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- @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)
- 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)
- Counterfeit Purses, in my view, WP:NOTNEWS is among our most misunderstood policy documents. It begins
- @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, 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)
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.
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)
- Ah, I see. Thank you! This has been noted for the future. Thank you, again! Shovel Shenanigans (talk) 23:48, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
User:Glenn103
Glenn103 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been mass creating unsourced stubs about Cyrillic letters, most of which have been draftified. They've also disruptively edited in the past, such as: ''']''' (talk • contribs) 01:41, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- Most of these pages don't even make any sense (eg.: Draft:Yery with tilde). The user also ignores any notice about his articles being moved to draftspace by simply recreating duplicates of them (eg.: Draft:Tse with caron & Tse with caron). Immediate action may be needed. Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 07:38, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- Given a uw-create4im with directions to come here, let's see what happens. - The Bushranger One ping only 08:00, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- They've continued editing, this time adding infoboxes to the articles, so I don't think the warning worked... ''']''' (talk • contribs) 08:10, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- I have blocked them from article space and page moves, and will leave note on talk page to come here. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 15:33, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
Honestly, this almost feels like trolling. Their basic procedure seems to be: pick a random Cyrillic letter. Combine it with a random diacritic. Write a short stub on the combination, saying effectively "this letter combination is not used anywhere." The occasional historical mentions ("this combination was used in such-and-such obscure Siberian language") are completely unsourced, of course. (Everything is unsourced.) Oddwood (talk) 04:43, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- Excuse me for detracting from the report, but this was your 4th edit, your last edit was in January 2016... how have you found yourself here of all places?
- I mean you might have a point, but wow. – 2804:F1...57:88CF (::/32) (talk) 04:57, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
Similar behavior to PickleMan500 (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) and other socks puppeted by Abrown1019 (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki), which also made tons of drafts on Cyrillic characters that cited few sources (and none with in-depth coverage). Most drafts have been WP:G5'd, of course, so only those with admin perms can verify the deleted contribs. Since these socks have been banned (WP:3X), I haven't notified them of this discussion. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 17:08, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
North Korean involvement in Russian-Ukraine war discussion
The inclusion of North Korea as a belligerent in the infobox for the "Russian invasion of Ukraine" article has been a point of extensive and protracted discussion since September. A formal Request for Comment (RfC) on this matter ran for several weeks and was closed with a clear consensus to include North Korea as a combatant based on reliable sources and expert analysis. However, despite the closure, the discussion has continued unabated across multiple threads, with certain editors repeatedly rehashing resolved points and questioning the validity of reliable sources, leading to significant disruption.
Key Points:
- 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.
- 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 respectfully request that administrators address the following issues:
- Enforce the consensus reached in the closed RfC, as no new evidence significantly alters the previous conclusions.
- 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. Thank you for your attention to this matter. UPDATE: I just noticed that North Korea was removed as a belligerent and added to the 'supported by' section, completely violating the consensus. Rc2barrington (talk) 08:48, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- Since this report isn't really about an incident and your request is directed towards admins, I think this complaint would be better placed at WP:AN rather than ANI. It will also need more specifics, which articles, which edits, which editors. You'll need to provide that. I also question whether or not these are content standards that the community can't handle on their own. Liz 09:50, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- I was going to post it at WP:AN but it said: "This noticeboard is for issues affecting administrators generally – announcements, notifications, information, and other matters of general administrator interest.
- If your post is about a specific problem you have (a dispute, user, help request, or other narrow issue needing an administrator), you should post it at the Administrators' noticeboard for incidents (ANI) instead. Thank you."
- I posted it on ANI beecause my specific problem was this dispute Rc2barrington (talk) 12:07, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- The original post in this thread appears to resemble LLM output. GPTzero confirms this impression, rating text as "99% probability AI generated". Using AI to generate ANI submissions is highly inappropriate. Axad12 (talk) 18:01, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- Even when a message appears to be AI-generated, I think it is worth considering whether or not it is pointing out an actual problem. I think editors might be ignoring the results of an RFC, I just don't think asking for administrators to monitor a subject area, without identifying specific articles, is a feasible solution. It does seem like, possibly, a point that could come up in a complaint at AE regarding the Ukraine CTOP area. Liz 19:55, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- I had a peek and it's a messy RfC and, as is generally the case with a messy RfC had a very involved closure message which seems to reflect that the closer felt constrained by the framing of the RfC. I didn't see any immediate indication in the edit history that anyone had tried to implement the RfC result and been rebuffed (although I might have missed it). So there's some smoke here but, I think, not a ton of fire. Simonm223 (talk) 20:21, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- Liz, I don't disagree but I'm not at all convinced that use of AI is a positive contribution to CTOP areas. Axad12 (talk) 20:27, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- It was written with AI assistance. Not all AI. ai detectors aren’t considered reliable, because you can put the U.S. constitution through one and it says 100% AI generated. Regardless, whether it’s AI or not has nothing to do with the topic. It’s just that there’a been so many discussions and when I checked the info box it said ‘supported by”, violating the consensus of the RFC Rc2barrington (talk) 12:45, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- I think the underlying issue here is that if you use AI to generate text which looks like obvious AI output then readers will wonder "does the end user even have sufficient English to understand what the AI has generated for them?" and "did the end user understand the material prior to deciding to employ AI?". Thus if a user is fluent in English, as you obviously are, it will always be better to communicate in your own voice.
- At the end of the day, a user making a valid point in their own voice is generally speaking going to be taken more seriously than a user employing LLM output.
- There are plenty of other reasons for users not to employ AI (see the recent thread here for extensive coverage) but the argument above seems like a good practical reason for fluent English speakers to always prefer using their own voice.
- You will see from the recent thread that many users here are vehemently against AI use. Axad12 (talk) 15:46, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- I understood the material very well, its not like I just used 100% AI out of nowhere. I know the context. I have been involved in this discussion since September. Rc2barrington (talk) 16:43, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- It's a respect thing. It's disrespectful of other editors to make them read chatbot output rather than your words. Simonm223 (talk) 16:49, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- Rc2barrington's user page says
This user believes in the bright future AI and robotics will bring
, so there's probably no point in arguing here. However, I simply observe that in any kind of discussion where you're trying to convince other people, don't use a method that aggravates a significant number of readers (probably a significant majority of readers). It really is that simple. Axad12 (talk) 19:11, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- Rc2barrington's user page says
- It's a respect thing. It's disrespectful of other editors to make them read chatbot output rather than your words. Simonm223 (talk) 16:49, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- I understood the material very well, its not like I just used 100% AI out of nowhere. I know the context. I have been involved in this discussion since September. Rc2barrington (talk) 16:43, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- It was written with AI assistance. Not all AI. ai detectors aren’t considered reliable, because you can put the U.S. constitution through one and it says 100% AI generated. Regardless, whether it’s AI or not has nothing to do with the topic. It’s just that there’a been so many discussions and when I checked the info box it said ‘supported by”, violating the consensus of the RFC Rc2barrington (talk) 12:45, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
Concern About a New Contributor
Suspected editor was indeed a sock. Unnecessary drama created by all-too zealous reporting--let this be the end of it. Drmies (talk) 21:19, 24 December 2024 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Kriji Sehamati (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Dear Wikipedians,
I hope you’re doing well. I wanted to inform you about a new contributor @Kriji Sehamati, despite lacking experience, has repeatedly attempted to vandalize multiple articles. These articles were properly aligned with Misplaced Pages’s guidelines and reviewed by experienced contributors, but he/she seemed unwilling to understand or respect their adherence to the policies.
I believe your experience could help address this situation effectively.
Looking forward to your advice on how to proceed.
Thankyou! 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 15:21, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- "Vandalize" is a very loaded word here with a specific meaning. As far as I can tell, what they've done is nominate 4 articles for deletion, and your response has been to accuse them of vandalism, ignoring dispute resolution procedures and making personal attacks – none of which I can see at a glance through their contributions.
- Perhaps if you supplied evidence of this behaviour, someone would be able to help? If your issue is that they've nominated 4 articles of which you are a major contributor and are doing so by going through your contributions in order to find articles to nominate for deletion with specious reasons, then this board would be the place to come. If not, then making your arguments for keeping the articles on the AfDs in question would be your best bet.
- By the way is forum shopping. Stop that. 81.2.123.64 (talk) 16:06, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- (ec) This is an odd one. As S-Aura failed to provide diffs, I looked at Kriji Sehamati's contribution history. New account (9 Dec) began editing today, created two drafts and made a bunch of edits to those. Then began adding COI tags to articles S-Aura wrote, nominated those articles for deletion, and then left a possible UPE template on S-Aura's talk page. Really seems to be something weird going on here between those two. (In addition to opening this ANI thread, S-Aura asked for help with basically the same message on the talk pages of Ipigott, Ryan shell, CFA, and BusterD, and S-Aura opened same complaint at AN.) Schazjmd (talk) 16:06, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- I am concerned that User:Kriji_Sehamati’s actions, including unjustified deletion nominations and spamming, are disruptive and violate Misplaced Pages’s guidelines.
- She seems to lack understanding of basic Misplaced Pages guidelines, particularly those related WP:GNG and WP:NPOL. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 16:40, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- You were asked to provide diffs. You did, almost, here but then reverted yourself. Those diffs (well, the ones before those diffs) are just the other user nominating articles for deletion (which is allowed) or tagging them for what they believe to be conflict of interest edits (which is also allowed).
- Please provide some actual evidence that the other user is engaging in chronic, intractable behaviour, rather than just not editing how you would like them to. 81.2.123.64 (talk) 17:21, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- Here are some diffs highlighting her problematic edits. However, I believe that many of her contributions may be in violation of Misplaced Pages’s guidelines. It appears she has specifically targeted me and added the COI tag multiple times to the same page. I would appreciate it if you could review her actions more thoroughly:
- •
- •
- •
- •
- and many more
- Thankyou! 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 17:33, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- We wouldn't generally treat an AfD as vandalism. Simonm223 (talk) 17:39, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- I understand your point about AfDs not generally being treated as vandalism. However, I noticed that the major contribution history of the user seems suspicious. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 17:42, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- Not from where anybody else is standing so far. I get that you're upset to have four articles of yours nominated for deletion, and if you have any evidence at all that you are being deliberately targeted by the other editor, then people will very much act on that. Please provide it. 81.2.123.64 (talk) 17:58, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- I am here to contribute and edit articles in accordance with Misplaced Pages’s guidelines. However, today a new user targeted me and falsely blamed me for actions that are not accurate. I believe this is unfair and not in line with the collaborative nature of the platform. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 18:04, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- Please provide evidence of this. 81.2.123.64 (talk) 18:06, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- Please check! 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 18:07, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- The articles that have been nominated for deletion discussion have been reviewed by experienced contributors. These discussions involve articles about judges and lawyers, under WP:NPOL, a valid criterion according to Misplaced Pages’s guidelines. Therefore, the deletion decision was made after carefully reviewing these articles. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 18:11, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- Honestly it looks like this user, rightly or wrongly, believes you have a conflict of interest and are acting on the basis of that assumption. I would suggest, if you don't have a CoI, talking to them about this and maybe asking why they've come to this conclusion. Simonm223 (talk) 18:10, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- They have just started targeting my contributions, and I tried to inform her about the situation. However, she is acting as if she knows everything about Misplaced Pages and is dismissing my concerns. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 18:15, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- Please check! 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 18:07, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- Please provide evidence of this. 81.2.123.64 (talk) 18:06, 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)
- 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 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)
- We wouldn't generally treat an AfD as vandalism. Simonm223 (talk) 17:39, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Kriji Sehamati: hasn't edited since their AfD spree earlier today, let's wait and see what their response here is when they return to editing. Schazjmd (talk) 18:16, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- We need to stop focusing on the OP's calling this vandalism; it is not. I've changed the header to reflect that. That said, the new user's edits are problematic and merit scrutiny. As for the UPE stuff, I've removed that post from the OP's Talk page; it's nonsensical coming from a new user and does not merit a response.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:42, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- It is, of course, not vandalism to nominate articles for AFD discussions as long as a legitimate deletion rationale is provided and the article hasn't just been discussed at a recent AFD. However, I don't think it's a good sign when a brand new editor claims to understand all of Misplaced Pages policies and whose first actions are to nominate articles at AFDs. They are almost never an actual new editor, especially when they know how to even set up an AFD or are familiar with using Twinkle on their first day of editing. Liz 19:34, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- It seems that she is not new to Misplaced Pages and might be operating multiple accounts. It appears she has an issue with one of my contributions, as she created her account just 15 days ago, yet she already has a good understanding of tools like Twinkle and AfD procedures. This level of familiarity suggests prior experience on the platform. I am now requesting her account to be blocked as I am completely disturbed by her repeated allegations and disruptive behavior. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 11:32, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- I am now genuinely confused—if all my contributions are not good, then why am I even here? Were the experienced editors who reviewed and approved these pages also mistaken? A newcomer, who joined just recently, is now disrupting and questioning the validity of all the work that has been carefully reviewed and maintained by experienced contributors. This situation is deeply discouraging. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 11:58, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- Please resolve this situation—either block her for her disruptive behavior. How can i continue working under such constant targeting and stress ? 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 12:00, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- User:S-Aura, you seem to be making unsupported personal attacks against User:Kriji Sehamati. You should provide specific evidence of wrongdoing, including diffs, or your arguments here will fall on deaf ears (and bring consequences for you). Meanwhile, as a filer on ANI, you have brought all your own edits to close scrutiny by the community. You may have to face that smart people disagree, and this is how we sort disagreements out on English Misplaced Pages. You are not required to edit, but we encourage you to do so. Nobody is going to block Kriji Sehamati at this point, because you've given us no reason to do so. BusterD (talk) 12:01, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- Meanwhile, in the last few minutes S-Aura has disruptively created a second thread about this exact issue on this same board, which was reverted by another editor. This is intentional disruption. BusterD (talk) 12:07, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- As to the question "Why am I here?", poets and artists have been trying to answer this question for eons. Epistemology is outside the scope of this board, but there are articles about it. Show up to edit if you want to, but expect disagreement from time to time. (That's actually a sound answer to any epistemology question as well.) BusterD (talk) 12:16, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- Dear @BusterD,
- It means I have been proven wrong, and that user’s contributions have been more focused on me, which is quite insufficient to catch someone’s lie that she is pretending to be new, when in fact she is old.
- Also, I am not against AfD; I am simply expressing my opinion. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 13:12, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- Could you please rephrase your point here? I don't understand. While it's okay to be suspicious that this editor is somehow socking or doing something else deceptive due to the familiarity, it seems unacceptable to deliberately accuse them of such repeatedly without firmer evidence. Remsense ‥ 论 13:19, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- Dear @Remsense,
- I am not engaged in paid activities on Misplaced Pages, and she claimed that I am connected with the subject, who is a judge, lawyer, etc. You all should understand that this is not a trivial matter; justice is a very respected position. Making such allegations can escalate court cases. I would like to remind you of the Misplaced Pages vs. ANI case. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 13:24, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- One thing you need to understand immediately is you should never make another post that sounds vaguely like a legal threat, as you've just done above. Seriously. That intonation is seriously not helping us decide who's right or wrong here. Remsense ‥ 论 13:27, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- I will caution you that this is tiptoeing right up to the edge of WP:NLT and you'd be advised to avoid making legal threats. Simonm223 (talk) 13:28, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- Dear @Simonm223,
- I am merely showing that she can potentially do something inappropriate. I am following the guidelines and not making any legal threats. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 13:31, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- Accusing another editor of potentially making legal threats is not much better, when there is no concrete evidence that they would do so. Being interested in articles about judges does not suffice. Remsense ‥ 论 13:32, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- The page of Justice Subramonium Prasad, who had conducted over the Misplaced Pages vs. ANI court hearing, was also created by me. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 13:28, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
State plainly what the implication you are making here is, because what I'm hearing is "I'm familiar with people who have hit Misplaced Pages with a mallet in court before, and I can make sure it happens again".Remsense ‥ 论 13:30, 24 December 2024 (UTC)- This is becoming a rabbit hole. I urge you not to pursue the rabbit further. BusterD (talk) 13:33, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- Good call, I'll retract the above. Remsense ‥ 论 13:34, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- No, that is not what I am implying. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 13:33, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- This is becoming a rabbit hole. I urge you not to pursue the rabbit further. BusterD (talk) 13:33, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- Could you please rephrase your point here? I don't understand. While it's okay to be suspicious that this editor is somehow socking or doing something else deceptive due to the familiarity, it seems unacceptable to deliberately accuse them of such repeatedly without firmer evidence. Remsense ‥ 论 13:19, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- Meanwhile, in the last few minutes S-Aura has disruptively created a second thread about this exact issue on this same board, which was reverted by another editor. This is intentional disruption. BusterD (talk) 12:07, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- User:S-Aura, you seem to be making unsupported personal attacks against User:Kriji Sehamati. You should provide specific evidence of wrongdoing, including diffs, or your arguments here will fall on deaf ears (and bring consequences for you). Meanwhile, as a filer on ANI, you have brought all your own edits to close scrutiny by the community. You may have to face that smart people disagree, and this is how we sort disagreements out on English Misplaced Pages. You are not required to edit, but we encourage you to do so. Nobody is going to block Kriji Sehamati at this point, because you've given us no reason to do so. BusterD (talk) 12:01, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- No one has said your contributions are not good. However, it should be noted that a draft being accepted at AfC or a new page having been patrolled does not guarantee greater scrutiny would not result in a valid AfD nomination. That said, echoing others here it's clear something problematic is up with this user's behavior. Remsense ‥ 论 12:02, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- Please resolve this situation—either block her for her disruptive behavior. How can i continue working under such constant targeting and stress ? 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 12:00, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- You can't both criticize someone for
lack understanding of basic Misplaced Pages guidelines, particularly those related WP:GNG and WP:NPOL
, and then argue that she is too familiar with the platform to be a newcomer for knowing how to file an AfD. I wouldn't be surprised if most people here knew how to file an AfD before knowing all 14 notability guidelines by heart. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 12:59, 24 December 2024 (UTC)- There are detailed instructions on filing an AfD that can be found by googling "how can I get a Misplaced Pages page deleted" - if somebody had some personal reason for wanting to have pages removed it doesn't strain credibility to think that's why they created a WP account and that they just followed the very clear instructions on the appropriate pages.
- In fact that might explain why some of the AfD filings were reasonable and some were, on their face, incorrectly filed. If you looked up the AfD process but not criteria that is the likely outcome. That's why I find the "new user files AfDs must be a sock" idea here somewhat uncompelling. Simonm223 (talk) 13:04, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- I am now genuinely confused—if all my contributions are not good, then why am I even here? Were the experienced editors who reviewed and approved these pages also mistaken? A newcomer, who joined just recently, is now disrupting and questioning the validity of all the work that has been carefully reviewed and maintained by experienced contributors. This situation is deeply discouraging. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 11:58, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- It seems that she is not new to Misplaced Pages and might be operating multiple accounts. It appears she has an issue with one of my contributions, as she created her account just 15 days ago, yet she already has a good understanding of tools like Twinkle and AfD procedures. This level of familiarity suggests prior experience on the platform. I am now requesting her account to be blocked as I am completely disturbed by her repeated allegations and disruptive behavior. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 11:32, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- I believe we're entering boomerang territory at this point. Opinions? BusterD (talk) 13:35, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- I think OP is upset that a cluster of their articles were put up at AfD. This in itself is understandable, but while there's reason to think there might be mischief by Kriji Sehamati, we don't have any real evidence of it. We either need the OP to make it clearer what misconduct, if any, has occurred, or they need to drop the stick. Remsense ‥ 论 13:37, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- The OP has been intentionally disruptive (by creating a new ANI thread which was reverted), and this thread is going nowhere. IMHO, there's nothing ANI can do here. Everything I'm reading about should be resolved at the page talk and user talk level, in my opinion. The AfDs are underway. If dispute resolution is needed, fine. Nobody is harming S-Aura. S-Aura can't come crying to ANI (or four random user talk pages like mine) anytime someone merely disagrees with them. BusterD (talk) 14:08, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- I'd have said close with trout for all if not for creating the second thread at AN/I. Based on that I'd say the OP should be formally cautioned against such antics in the future. Simonm223 (talk) 14:10, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- I should have added that I largely hold with Remsense in their position. BusterD (talk) 14:15, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- User:Kriji Sehamati is definitely a sock puppet on Misplaced Pages, but we don’t have any evidence because understanding Misplaced Pages’s AfD process so quickly can be a bit challenging. I have no problem with AfD regarding my contributions, and it’s a good thing that experienced contributors are giving their feedback. If you believe that the kriji is 100% correct and her activity is not suspicious, then this discussion should be closed. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 14:27, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- You need to stop insisting this is definitely the case if you don't have any evidence for it, period. Remsense ‥ 论 14:28, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- S-Aura, how did you make the determination
User:Kriji Sehamati is definitely a sock puppet on Misplaced Pages
? Please share your process. That's a personal attack, and requires proof to prevent you from being in violation of WP:NOPERSONALATTACKS. I've looked at the AfDs and they seem reasonable to me. When you've provided strong sources the article is being kept. So far the jury is out on the others. Both of you seem to be writing articles about obscure living persons who wouldn't normally (by my cursory reading) have a Misplaced Pages article about them because reliable sourcing is not readily found. When I see that, I must suspect COI or undeclared unpaid editing here, but nobody's admitting to it. BusterD (talk) 15:05, 24 December 2024 (UTC) - S-Aura's continuing to issue personal attacks makes it more difficult for us to just close this (without some form of consequence for the editor making unproven personal attacks after they've been warned repeatedly). BusterD (talk) 15:08, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- I have made a level-four user talk page warning for the personal attack. FYI. We've been very nice about this up 'til now, but we need to stop being so kind. Doing foolish things has real world consequences. BusterD (talk) 15:17, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- User:Kriji Sehamati is definitely a sock puppet on Misplaced Pages, but we don’t have any evidence because understanding Misplaced Pages’s AfD process so quickly can be a bit challenging. I have no problem with AfD regarding my contributions, and it’s a good thing that experienced contributors are giving their feedback. If you believe that the kriji is 100% correct and her activity is not suspicious, then this discussion should be closed. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 14:27, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- The OP has been intentionally disruptive (by creating a new ANI thread which was reverted), and this thread is going nowhere. IMHO, there's nothing ANI can do here. Everything I'm reading about should be resolved at the page talk and user talk level, in my opinion. The AfDs are underway. If dispute resolution is needed, fine. Nobody is harming S-Aura. S-Aura can't come crying to ANI (or four random user talk pages like mine) anytime someone merely disagrees with them. BusterD (talk) 14:08, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- I think OP is upset that a cluster of their articles were put up at AfD. This in itself is understandable, but while there's reason to think there might be mischief by Kriji Sehamati, we don't have any real evidence of it. We either need the OP to make it clearer what misconduct, if any, has occurred, or they need to drop the stick. Remsense ‥ 论 13:37, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- Both editors' apparent use of AI is certainly disruptive. If it continues, it should lead to blocks. C F A 15:10, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- No personal hate intended, but I just found this and thought it would be worth checking. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 16:49, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- It would be nice if you could explain the significance for those who do not speak Hausa. Remsense ‥ 论 16:51, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- She had made contributions to pages in other languages a few months ago. I am attaching her contributions link. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 16:59, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- How does this constitute evidence of sockpuppetry if we aren't to know what exactly happened? There's a reason we don't just automatically block anybody who is blocked on another language wiki, and I looked through the edits some and didn't find anything outrageous that made it past the language barrier. Remsense ‥ 论 17:01, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- I agree that it’s important to ensure we have solid evidence before making conclusions. I appreciate your perspective on not automatically blocking users based on blocks from other language wikis. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 17:17, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- Please don't reply to me or others using ChatGPT. It is flat-out rude. Remsense ‥ 论 17:18, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- I agree that it’s important to ensure we have solid evidence before making conclusions. I appreciate your perspective on not automatically blocking users based on blocks from other language wikis. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 17:17, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- How does this constitute evidence of sockpuppetry if we aren't to know what exactly happened? There's a reason we don't just automatically block anybody who is blocked on another language wiki, and I looked through the edits some and didn't find anything outrageous that made it past the language barrier. Remsense ‥ 论 17:01, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- She had made contributions to pages in other languages a few months ago. I am attaching her contributions link. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 16:59, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- It would be nice if you could explain the significance for those who do not speak Hausa. Remsense ‥ 论 16:51, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- No personal hate intended, but I just found this and thought it would be worth checking. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 16:49, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- Support BOOMERANG - I've been uninvoled and have mainly just been watching the back-and-forths, but the personal attacks and VESTED mindset, such as "questioning the validity of all the work that has been carefully reviewed and maintained by experienced contributors", concerns me. Not sure for how long, but I don't think anything longer than a months is appropriate given the circumstances. EF 15:47, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- This whole thread, but especially the 16:49, 24 December 2024 (UTC) comment, feels like the OP is just throwing literally everything at the wall to see what sticks. But, worse, what is being thrown at the wall lacks any significant body of evidence to support. I note that a personal attack warning has been given for the continued unfounded accusations being presented, which I think is a good move. I don't support a block at this point, although if I was the OP I would withdraw this complaint and/or drop the stick and walk away from this topic as a matter of urgency to avoid continuing to make the situation worse. Daniel (talk) 17:41, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
Darkwarriorblake making aspersions
The OP says they don't care any more which I'm reading as a withdrawal and the other party says they won't be responding again so I'm closing this discussion. My only comment is that both editors in this dispute should have brought this to the article talk page to talk this disagreement out. I don't know if the differences would be resolved but this is what we advise editors to do when their edits are reverted. Now I just have to get that scene in the movie out of my mind. Liz 05:54, 24 December 2024 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Postscript: Ah, someone just close this, I don't care any more. — Hex • talk 22:56, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
I'm posting here after a particularly underwhelming interaction with an editor in the form of edit summaries. I'll need to provide the context of a brief content dispute which hopefully won't take too long and then get to the point. I'm not asking for anyone to take my side in the dispute.
Trading Places is a widely acclaimed comedy film from 1983, which is also widely acknowledged to have problematic elements by modern standards, including a scene in which the villain of the piece, stuck in a gorilla costume, is locked in a cage with a real gorilla, which is implied to sexually penetrate him without his consent.
The article states that G. Gordon Liddy demurred being cast in the role upon finding that out. The citation for this claim is a listicle on Indiewire, which contains the sentence
- Reportedly, Liddy was on board until he got to the part where Beeks becomes a gorilla’s mate.
Reportedly by whom is not mentioned, let alone is there a direct quotation from Liddy. Plus as can be seen the words "becomes a gorilla's mate" are linked to a very poor quality, hand-held video of the scene in question playing on a television. This alone should be enough to raise serious questions about the use of this "source" in a featured article.
The content dispute began when I changed it like this (diff) with the comment Don't mince words; the interaction between Beeks and the gorilla is rape played for laughs:
| − | Liddy was interested in the offer until he learned that Beeks | + | 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 | + | ...was offered the role of corrupt official Clarence Beeks with Paul Gleason eventually taking the role;... |
My accompanying comment was (a) That was the source's voice, not Liddy's. It's called a euphemism. Demonstrable by how it links to a clip of the scene in which a man is raped by a gorilla. (b) Source says "reportedly" for this claim, without evidence. Poor quality source. Removing claim
That was reverted by Darkwarriorblake (diff) with the comment Nothing wrong with Indiewire as a source, if there is I'd raise it at Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources. Until then, there's a talk page for you to use per WP:BRD. Your comments sound agenda driven and therefore not Neutral.
This is where the reason for me to raise this at this board begins, because that's solidly an example of casting aspersions. It came on top of a revert which reintroduced a claim cited to a rumor in a blog post into a featured article, but that's really not my concern, because if the champions of the featured article process have decided that it's somehow acceptable for our "best" content then I'm just going to move on to something else rather than argue.
There's one final back and forth which was enough to motivate me to post here. First, I reverted that revert (, my only time using the actual "Undo" button today), with this comment: a good source doesn't say "reportedly" (ie, spread a rumor), it specifies the origin of a fact. My only "agenda" is with a crap listicle being used as a reference, regardless of who published it. Take it to talk if you want to argue for the continued inclusion of a trash ref in a featured article, or source the claim properly yourself.
This was reverted - again - by Darkwarriorblake (diff) with the comment How are you an admin? "rape played for laughs" is an agenda, this went through FA as is so WP:STATUSQUO and WP:BRD apply. You must go to the talk page, not I. I don't know if you're going through a bad time or something but this isn't how an admin should be acting or communicating with others, up to and including WP:EDITWARRING
At this point it's gone firmly into the realm of knee-jerk reversions, because if Darkwarriorblake took the time to read the article which they've reverting changes to for years (is this ownership? Kind of feels that way), they would get down to the critical reassessment section. Which says "some critics have praised the film while highlighting elements that they believe aged poorly, including racial language, the use of blackface, and the implied rape of Beeks by a gorilla", cited to articles in four major publications. Or, you know, even search Google for "Trading Places gorilla rape".
So anyhow regardless of whether the Indiewire source is deemed suitable or not, I'm just wondering what the feeling here is about someone making goofy assertions on the record that another editor has "an agenda" (what agenda could it be?) and may not be emotionally stable, which really doesn't feel like assuming good faith at all. — Hex • talk 20:03, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- Hrrm, this seems a bit excessive.
- I've added a second source for the claim. Really this should've been the first option rather than removing the content.
- The first summary was, as stated, "Don't mince words; the interaction between Beeks and the gorilla is rape played for laughs". "Rape played for laughs" is a loaded comment and not something said in the article or the source text, so it's a personal opinion, it's not neutral, it's agenda-driven.
- When this was reverted, the editor just removed the content entirely claiming IndieWire was unreliable. There is, as far as I'm aware, nothing wrong with Indiewire. I've since found a second source, the Telegraph, which is reliable per Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Perennial sources.
- The editor ignored WP: BRD when raised, and as an admin they should adhere to policy.
- The editor states that they are an admin on their page. Assuming this is true, the aggressiveness of their edits, hyper focus on the single area, and use of words like "crap listicle" seemed out of line with what I, personally, would expect from an admin on Misplaced Pages, certainly someone who has been so for nearly two decades. Perhaps the edit summary wasn't the place to have that discussion but, as stated, they weren't adhering to WP: BRD to start a discussion, and in the interim the article needed putting back to the status quo.
- I find accusations of OWNERSHIP often tend to come when people don't get their way. Which is fine. I have plenty of reversions on the page for people adding unsourced content and there are plenty of changes as well. I find someone removing sourced content and me putting the sourced content back to not really be something you can fling ownership at.
- Within the context of the film, Beeks does become the romantic partner of the gorilla, it seemed more appropriate and encylcopedic text than just saying 'rape', and neither source I've added says that either.
- Anyways, my edit history shows I'm a massive contributor and helper and it's nearly Xmas, and I don't feel like engaging with this any further, good luck Hex. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 20:27, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- Of course you don't, having ignored the actual matter of your conduct that I'm raising here. Your comments about the content of the article are irrelevant. — Hex • talk 20:43, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- Hex's position is not wholly supported, although in the entire issue, their toolset is irrelevant. There was no incivility on either part, and an all-out edit war seems to have been averted.Fundamentally the change Hex wanted to make was pure OR; rape may have been intimated—or, as Hex themself admits, implied—but its never overtly stated and is a wholly loaded term. This is the interpretation of an editor, not of secondary sources. If there is a pron=blem with Indywire as a source—currently used in 1000s of articles—take it to WP:RSN. If it's disputed that it's a high quality source per WP:FA?, then take it to WT:FAC. Accusations of OWNership are as unhelpful—and as much an aspersion—as accusations of agenda-led editing. In fact, for OWNership, Hex should read the relevant policy: here, it is WP:FAOWN, which not only allows for careful stewardship of featured material, but requires significant changes to the consensus version to be discussed on talk; I don't suppose there's any suggestion that introducing rape—particularly "played for laughs"—wouldn't be a significant addition.Really though, this is an overblown content dispute which should have started with one revert each, and ended on the talk page. --SerialNumber54129 21:10, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- "Never overtly stated... 'played for laughs' be a significant addition" - here's an interview with John Landis, the director.
One of the executives was deeply appalled by a man being sexually molested by a gorilla. And I said you know, it's a joke and it goes by very quickly. But the first preview was very successful and it all went away.
- Feel free to amend the article on that basis. I'm certainly not interested in spending any more time on it. — Hex • talk 22:48, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- "Never overtly stated... 'played for laughs' be a significant addition" - here's an interview with John Landis, the director.
Followup
I just want to say that, now that we've had an ANI thread on the subjeect of Gordon Liddy's feelings about portraying the romantic partner of a gorilla, I can die happy.
While we're on the subject, our article on Liddy recites that Prior to his departure from the FBI in 1962, Liddy sought admission to various bars.
I'm curious to know whether this is meant to imply that Liddy had a drinking problem, and whether this could have had any bearing on the whole gorilla romantic partner situation. EEng
User Stationmanagerskidrow removing information on Radio Skid Row page
User:Stationmanagerskidrow is repeatedly removing information about a recent incident involving a Jewish DJ at their station. They say that it is incorrect information, even though it is sourced. The name also states clearly that this is a company account. Lastly, they have continued this behavior even after being warned on their talk page. Pyramids09 (talk) 03:07, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- User is now editing using User:159.196.168.116 Pyramids09 (talk) 03:34, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- This is a content dispute and the article is being actively edited by many different editors. However, no discussion about the disagreements has occurred on the article talk page which is where this discussion should be happening. Liz 04:37, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
That article probably should be speedied as an A7 for not containing any assertions of notability; which obscures that Stationmanagerskidrow appears to have been edit warring on it with an undisclosed COI, and presumably was WP:LOUTSOCKing as this IP, and if so violated 3RR as well. It's probably best for me not to take administrative action here tonight as I won't be around later/tomorrow to deal with any followups, but something should be done here beyond just saying "take it to the talk page." ⇒SWATJester 06:22, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- The page was longer, but sourced (all but?) soley to the station's site and it's been trimmed down to what it is now. Given the repeated edit-warring by IPs I've semi-protected the page for two days for now. - The Bushranger One ping only 07:59, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- WP:USERNAME and WP:COI message added here. I'm just about to make myself thoroughly WP:INVOLVED by seeing what I can do about the Radio Skid Row article. Shirt58 (talk) 🦘 09:11, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
Insults
I'd like to report an incident related to this discussion. A person under IP already accused me of being "obsessed". Now someone (possibly the same person) suggests that I may need psychiatric help. Please also see this comment. I guess we can always agree to disagree with other people, but this is going a bit too far. Thank you. Psychloppos (talk) 09:30, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- Hello, Psychloppos. What action are you seeking to happen here? Liz 09:42, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- I have no idea which actions are warranted here. Maybe an admin could leave a message to this IP and this registered user and remind them that they should assume good faith ? It would also be nice to remind them about Misplaced Pages:Civility and Misplaced Pages:No personal attacks. Saying that I am "fuelled by an unhealthy obsession" or questioning my sanity do not seem to respect those guidelines. Psychloppos (talk) 09:52, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
Nlkyair012 and LLM chatbots
This editor has been constantly using AI chatbots to respond and write messages. They are a single purpose account for glorifying the Kamaria Ahir caste using unreliable WP:RAJ era sources, I and several other experienced editors have taken time and effort to respond to their endless queries and WP:SEALIONING generated using ChatGPT. They have posted AI generated walls of text on multiple noticeboards such as WP:RSN and WP:DRN and including here , accusing me of vandalism.
Despite my repeated requests and even a final warning to them (including a request by @ActivelyDisinterested:) they are still continuing to do it. Their messages are repeating the same argument again and again and are frankly just hallucinations that bring up fictitious guidelines or misrepresent the existing ones. Several editors have told them that Raj era sources are not reliable yet they continue to ask for more evidence on why that is the case based on AI generated claims of supposed academic value or neutrality. This is getting very disruptive and taking up valuable contributor time to respond to their endless AI responses which take a few seconds to generate. I have alerted them about WP:GSCASTE and WP:ARBIPA, I would appreciate it if someone could enforce a restriction on this user from at minimum caste area. - Ratnahastin (talk) 13:07, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- Hello @Ratnahastin,
- To start with I should admit that I am sorry for all the inconvenience that I may have caused as a result of my actions. It was never my intention to take people’s time or skew the conversation in a certain way. I appreciate the core idea to contribute the thoughts to the Wiki and share it borne in mind the overall rules and policies of this program.
- I understand your fears about the AI utilities you have mentioned on your site. Even when I was using AI for the grammar check or, for instance, to elaborate on some point in the text, I saw to my mismanagement that over the process we probably confused the readers and repeated the same information and thoughts, which I would never wish to happen again. From now on I will ensure that in the future the input which I provide to wikipedia fits the Misplaced Pages standard and is more personal. I will also not write walls of text and will not make assertations that do not have substantiated evidence in sources.
- As for subjects that concern the Raj and the sources from this period and the discussions we have had it seems that I have gone too far in demanding clarification for the same thing. That being the case, with the understanding that the consensus will be acknowledged, I shall not be inclined to reopen this discussion unless new substantiated evidence is produced. I don’t want to prolong the conversation or bring any more stress.
- I will strive to learn from my experience to be more productive in my interactions going forward. If there are other limitations or additional rules to which I have to stick to, I will receive them with pleasure.
- In the same respect, let me specially apologize for the inconvenience and thank all of you for bearing with us. That was why I wanted to remind all of us that we can and should keep collectively improving Misplaced Pages as a resource. Nlkyair012 13:31, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- This comment also has a typical LLM feel and contains meaningless statements such as "I understand your fears about the AI utilities you have mentioned on your site" and differs substantially from your usual (non-AI) writing style, although GPTzero said this is human input. - Ratnahastin (talk) 13:38, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- It seems human in that it contains some composition and grammar errors that I don’t think an LLM would produce. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 13:56, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for the reply sir, I can't explain how frustrated I'm feeling from this morning which this user made me experience Nlkyair012 14:02, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- The time when I messaged Vikram banafar I was casual not formal and second of all your saying doesn't prove anything "and differs substantially from your usual (non-AI) writing style" that's a straight up false accusation and utter nonsensical point and 3rd point being that GPTzero stated that this is a human input then that's an human input end of the question. Nlkyair012 14:01, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- No it's really not the end of the story if GPTZero says "likely human". In fact I'd actively discourage people depending on tools like GPTZero in favour of their human senses which are better at detecting LLM outputs than yet another computer program. And, frankly, what you're hearing from people here is we'd rather your casual, human, flaws-and-all style of writing over ChatGPT output "formal" report templates. They are doing the opposite of what you're looking for and have become disruptive. Simonm223 (talk) 14:05, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- Man you still wanna do this? @Zanahary also says this doesn't seems AI generated to him and he used his actual "Human senses" to lean that way Nlkyair012 14:10, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- Admitting that you have used AI for writing your comments and then saying that you have not used AI is not going to help your case. - Ratnahastin (talk) 14:36, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- You know what I think this is getting to the WP:NOTHERE point. Having to tell somebody to have the basic respect of other editors to not subject them to text-walls of chatGPT garbage over and over again is a disruptive distraction from what we should all be doing. Simonm223 (talk) 14:38, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- This ain't getting anywhere Nlkyair012 14:59, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- I really don't understand the problem. Cuz I literally also said many where that yes I used AI but for expanding and grammar correction Nlkyair012 14:54, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- You know what I think this is getting to the WP:NOTHERE point. Having to tell somebody to have the basic respect of other editors to not subject them to text-walls of chatGPT garbage over and over again is a disruptive distraction from what we should all be doing. Simonm223 (talk) 14:38, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- Admitting that you have used AI for writing your comments and then saying that you have not used AI is not going to help your case. - Ratnahastin (talk) 14:36, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- Man you still wanna do this? @Zanahary also says this doesn't seems AI generated to him and he used his actual "Human senses" to lean that way Nlkyair012 14:10, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- If this combative approach is your "casual" style, perhaps your use of AI and its over the top politeness was an attempt to mask it. In any case, I think you are not here for building an encyclopaedia but for caste glorification given your obsession with a certain sub-caste. - Ratnahastin (talk) 14:33, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- im not obsessed with a certain subcaste but am sure is obsessed with British Raj sources. Nlkyair012 14:56, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- I don't think that's better. Shovel Shenanigans (talk) 15:44, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- im not obsessed with a certain subcaste but am sure is obsessed with British Raj sources. Nlkyair012 14:56, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- No it's really not the end of the story if GPTZero says "likely human". In fact I'd actively discourage people depending on tools like GPTZero in favour of their human senses which are better at detecting LLM outputs than yet another computer program. And, frankly, what you're hearing from people here is we'd rather your casual, human, flaws-and-all style of writing over ChatGPT output "formal" report templates. They are doing the opposite of what you're looking for and have become disruptive. Simonm223 (talk) 14:05, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- It seems human in that it contains some composition and grammar errors that I don’t think an LLM would produce. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 13:56, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- If we just temporarily put aside the AI-generated comments, can Nlkyair012 accept the view of experienced editors on Raj era sources and not push any viewpoint on a particulary caste? Because, to be honest, editors who have done this in the past usually end up indefinitely blocked. There is a low tolderance here for "caste warriors". Liz 19:27, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- This comment also has a typical LLM feel and contains meaningless statements such as "I understand your fears about the AI utilities you have mentioned on your site" and differs substantially from your usual (non-AI) writing style, although GPTzero said this is human input. - Ratnahastin (talk) 13:38, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
Potential vandal trying to start edit war on the page for Frisch's.
Page protected, and now this admin is flashing back to his youth going to Frisch's Big Boy in Tampa. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:37, 24 December 2024 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This user keeps using IP addresses in order to revert creditable information about who makes their tartar sauce. Please look into this user. IP Addresses used were 67.80.16.30, 66.117.211.82, and 216.24.107.180. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JrStudios The Wikipedian (talk • contribs) 15:17, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- Courtesy link Frisch's. Knitsey (talk) 17:02, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
This sounds a lot like the same edit warrer I dealt with on Redbox, down to the false accusations of vandalism, removal of sourced information, and apparent use of proxies (all the IPs geolocate to different places). I wouldn't be surprised if this is the same person.I've asked RFPP to intervene. wizzito | say hello! 21:05, 24 December 2024 (UTC)- NVM, checked MaxMind for geolocation and they all are in the same general area. wizzito | say hello! 21:08, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
User:Nadeem asghar khan inaccurate edit summaries
All but 2 of user's edit summaries are "Fixed Typo" when they are in fact partially updating statistical information on the page. Have left multiple messages/warnings on TP, with no response. Spike 'em (talk) 16:03, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
Lil Dicky Semi-Protection
WP:RFPP is thataway →. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:34, 24 December 2024 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Lil Dicky was semi-protected back in 2019. Now that five years have passed, could the semi-protection be lifted? 174.93.89.27 (talk) 16:25, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.Request for Review of Neutrality and Repeated Actions
This complaint has no merit and does not require administrative intervention.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:08, 24 December 2024 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Dear admin, I hope this message finds you well. I am writing to express my concern regarding Psycholoppos, who has repeatedly applied the neutrality dispute tag to content related to Randa Kassis. Despite previous clarifications, these actions suggest a potential bias, which could undermine the objectivity and integrity of the platform.
I kindly request that you review this matter and take appropriate steps to ensure that all users adhere to neutrality standards. If possible, I would also appreciate guidance on how to address such situations constructively in the future.
Thank you for your attention to this issue. Please feel free to reach out if further clarification is needed. Hazar HS (talk) 17:45, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Hazar Sam, whether the NPOV tag is needed or not should first be discussed on the article's talk page. Also, see the large notice at the top of this page: you are required to notify the editor you are reporting. Schazjmd (talk) 17:53, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- The editor is also called Psychloppos, not Psycholoppos. I have notified them for the OP. – 2804:F1...26:F77C (::/32) (talk) 17:59, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- I wouldn't give a chatbot-written thread the time of day. HS, we have less tolerance for AI-written arguments than the American court system. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v 18:05, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
Disruptive behavior from IP
For the past month, 24.206.65.142 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has been attempting to add misleading information to Boeing 777, specifically trying to use the unofficial "777-200LRF" designation beyond first mention in the relevant section and passing it off as official (, , , , , , , , , , ). Their behavior died down for a few weeks, but restarted several days ago (, ), including baseless claims that Fnlayson is "okay with it". They have been asked numerous times on their talk page to either stop or provide evidence of official use of the designation, but they have failed to do so and have continued their disruption. - ZLEA T\ 19:51, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
I forgot to mention that this user has used at least two other IPs; 24.206.75.140 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 24.206.65.150 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). 24.206.65.142 is the most recent to cause disruption. - ZLEA T\ 20:10, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- "777-200LRF" is not misleading, some cargo airlines do use that designation. Today I reverted to a previous version that User:Fnlayson was okay with . I feel that User:ZLEA is going overboard with charges of misinformation and disruptive editing. 24.206.65.142 (talk) 19:59, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- It is misleading to remove any mentions of it being unofficial. Boeing has never made a "777-200LRF", no aftermarket conversion has ever been offered under that name, nor has the FAA or any other regulatory agency ever certified such an aircraft. To pass such a designation off as official is by definition misleading and misinformation. Likewise, to continuously do so after you have been told to stop by multiple people and falsely claiming that others support your arguments is by definition disruptive. - ZLEA T\ 20:06, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- Of note is the fact that this is not the first time the IP has claimed to have Fnlayson's support. They have been told before by Fnlayson not to assume support without a specific statement, yet it seems they've also ignored that. - ZLEA T\ 20:23, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- Its not misinformation as here are the sources which use "777-200LRF", including GE Capital Aviation (the engine supplier for most Boeing 777) and Leeham News (to avoid confusion with the upcoming 777-8F). 24.206.65.142 (talk) 21:06, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- I have asked you for sources from either Boeing or the FAA, yet you still either refuse to do so or (more likely) cannot because they don't exist. Only Boeing and the FAA can designate factory-built Boeing aircraft. Airlines and misinformed news websites have no authority to do so, and any alternative names they use are purely unofficial and should not have anything more than a single brief mention in the appropriate article section. Your failure or refusal to get that after numerous people have told you is disruptive. - ZLEA T\ 22:14, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- Its not misinformation as here are the sources which use "777-200LRF", including GE Capital Aviation (the engine supplier for most Boeing 777) and Leeham News (to avoid confusion with the upcoming 777-8F). 24.206.65.142 (talk) 21:06, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- Relevant range is 24.206.64.0/20 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)), in case somebody needs it. wizzito | say hello! 21:02, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- Semiprotected Boeing 777 for two days. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:33, 24 December 2024 (UTC)