Misplaced Pages

:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 23:52, 11 October 2012 editIn ictu oculi (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers180,551 edits →Suspension of article movepage rights of User:Kauffner← Previous edit Latest revision as of 15:24, 25 December 2024 edit undoFolly Mox (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users14,082 edits →Creating the need to make 400,000 unnecessary edits: ReplyTags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit Advanced mobile edit Reply 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Short description|Noticeboard for reporting incidents to administrators}}<noinclude><!-- Inside the noinclude, because this page is transcluded.-->{{/Header}}</noinclude>{{clear}}
<noinclude></noinclude>{{Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentsHeader}}__NEWSECTIONLINK__
{{stack begin|float=right|clear=false|margin=false}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config {{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{Administrators' noticeboard navbox all}} |archiveheader = {{Administrators' noticeboard navbox all}}
|maxarchivesize = 700K |maxarchivesize =800K
|counter = 771 |counter = 1174
|algo = old(24h) |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
}}<!--{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveThis
|header={{Administrators' noticeboard navbox all}}
|archiveprefix=Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive
|format=%%i
|age=24
|index=no
|numberstart=756
|minarchthreads= 1
|minkeepthreads= 4
|maxarchsize= 700000
|key=d85a96a0151d501b0ad3ba6060505c0c
}} }}
{{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
----------------------------------------------------------
NEW ENTRIES GO AT THE BOTTOM OF THE PAGE NOT HERE
As this page concerns INCIDENTS:
NEW ENTRIES GO AT THE BOTTOM OF THE PAGE NOT HERE-->
Place the PAGENAME of the incident in the header.
== 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 .
Otherwise, if the notice is about the actions of an individual across several pages, then place the USERNAME of the individual in the header.
----------------------------------------------------------
Do not place links in the section headers.
(Immediately UNDER the header is preferred).
----------------------------------------------------------
Entries may be refactored based on the above.
----------------------------------------------------------
--></noinclude>


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 .
== Attacks on wikipedian and BLP subject ==
<!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 15:20, 17 December 2024 (UTC)</small>


:The other user in this case is ]? This looks like a content dispute over whether the article is on the English version of a German-Arabic dictionary or the dictionary itself. ] (]) 15:47, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
] is a ], edit warring to insert attacks and soap boxing against the Wikipedian and BLP subject ] ] : , (milder but still focussed on Connolley: ). The editor believes himself to be defending a deceased non-notable climate change denial scientist : "If you'd care to read the reason why this file was uploaded, you'd realize this was the only way to defend the reputation of Professor Leroux against an unjust attack. ". Considering the accounts attacks on Connolley and knowledge of wikipedia, it seems a likely ] as well. ] (]) 12:34, 7 October 2012 (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)
*CU found no links, but it isn't magic pixie dust and can't rule out meatpupptry. I do see some disruptive behavior, let me take a closer look. ] - ] ] <small><b>]</b></small> 12:54, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
::::It's a conduct issue. ] (]) 19:58, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
*Pointy behavior like adding to an AFD talk page after it closes, likely meatpuppetry at that AFD (I did the SPI investigation, BTW, which is ]). His combative and single purpose intent is obvious here , as well as his soapboxing at the AFD itself. (first link). Like most SPAs, he isn't here to build an encyclopedia, that is certain. Many SPAs serve a worthwhile purpose, and just have a single interest, thus pose no problem. This editor doesn't appear to be one of them. The question is: has he passed the threshold for ]? If he hasn't, it is certainly within his sight, if not his crosshairs. ] - ] ] <small><b>]</b></small> 13:04, 7 October 2012 (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)
:ANI header states ''Before posting a grievance about a user here, please discuss the issue with them on their user talk page.'' Not seeing that on ]. Suggest this be closed pending completion of that step. <small>]</small> 13:27, 7 October 2012 (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)
::Technically, Nobody Ent is right. I suppose I worked the SPI and saw all the disruption that was taking place, including likely meatpupptry, leading me to conclude a positive resolution isn't very likely, but that is just my opinion. ] - ] ] <small><b>]</b></small> 13:31, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
:::::::&lrm;إيان: I suggest you stop messing around with the section heading since it's a distraction which could easily lead to you being blocked. But if AnonMoos changes your signature again, report it and only that without silliness about section headings, mentioning that they've been warned about it before if needed. ] (]) 06:50, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
:::"he isn't here to build an encyclopedia," if true, is a facial case for an indefinite block. Furthermore, a cursory glance over the edits suggests that Misplaced Pages is being abused by this editor as a battleground. --] (]) 00:25, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
::::Are you trying to say '']''? ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 00:37, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
:::::Pretty much. May have been getting something confused with facial challenge. Somewhere between per se and presumption.--] (]) 00:59, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
::That would be pointless Bureaucracy. It's self evident that an editor shouldn't go around attacking other editors (which constitutes about half his edits). ] (]) 13:33, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
:::Non sequitur -- we have the {{tl|uw-npa}} series specifically to point this out to users on their talk page.
:::The thought occurs to me that inviting a new user to ANI for attacking other editors is like putting someone in a prison <small>in the US, at least</small> -- just as likely to learn better ways of attacking other editors as they are to be rehabilitated. <small>]</small> 13:58, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
:::If the rule to discuss at a talk page before posting at ANI is "pointless Bureaucracy", let's amend the rule. While it may be "evident" to regulars that one shouldn't attack, but different places have different rules, so I suggest it is not "self evident".--]] 14:05, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
*] is notable, and new citations from paywalled French newspapers have been found to further support his notability. ] is a participant in this singling out scientists skeptical of some aspect of global warming for non-notability claims, and in the case of ] initiated the attack with either a bad faith or incompetent google scholar search.
: Regarding the dismissive "pointy behavior" characterization above, it should be noted that ] has "respected" the prohibition on editing the closed deletion article itself, despite a precipitous closing of the deletion discussion by ] while work was still being done.--] (]) 13:40, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
::I would argue that editing the talk page of a closed discussion is just as pointy as adding to the closed discussion. It is closed. I also agree that you shouldn't have been dragged into an SPA tag, but none of that changes the fact that there is a battleground mentality at work with ShowtimeAgain/Showtimenow. ] - ] ] <small><b>]</b></small> 13:47, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
:::I would argue that sticking to the talk page is showing respect, and if anything makes it clear that you should always have a battleground mentality when WMC is involved, it is the fact that he was in a revert war on the talk page.--] (]) 14:01, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
::::Yes, but after the close is putting it there where no one will see it, which is pointless, or ]y. Taking it to the talk page of the editor or another venue is the proper response. As to the article or merits of the AFD, I have no clue and not interested. My focus is on behavior. And now I see that a large amount of off-wiki canvassing took place against Connolly, which appears to be ShowTime's "enemy", so to speak. When SPAs take a battlefield mentality, as demonstrated by the totality of edits (and not the validity of any argument), then it becomes a problem for all of us. It is entirely possible to be 100% right on the merits of an argument, but to be so disruptive in how you present them that you get blocked. I see it regularly. It isn't enough to be right, you also have to get along. ] - ] ] <small><b>]</b></small> 14:17, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
:::::Please see User:StillStanding-247's behavior over the last 2 months to prove this point. Search these archives for one of his 15 or so visits to this board. --] (]) 14:23, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
:::::When I was surprised at the precipitous closing of the deletion page, the talk page is the first place I went to look for a discussion of what was going on. Even experienced users like myself, aren't necessarily experienced at page deletions, and a different talk page standards once they are closed. I was far more shocked that someone was reverted on a talk page than that someone was posting on one. I had only seen reverting on talk pages before when vandalism or namecalling vitriol was involved.--] (]) 14:31, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
*Hmmm, the closing notice even mentions that discussion should take place on the talk page:
::"The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page."
:--] (]) 16:42, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
:::AFD talk pages are for procedural issues, which is why it is pointless to use them. Like it says, DRV or the article talk page if it had been kept. There is a laundry list of places off-wiki that this AFD was canvassed at, leading to this whole mess and the SPI investigation. Again, my concern is behavioral, in particular, ShowTimeAgain's behavior. I have no idea if they are the one that spammed the canvassing off wiki, but they have maintained a battleground attitude ON wiki, and that needs to stop if they expect to stick around. It is fine to disagree, we all do, but Show's comments indicate he has trouble not being "disagreeable" at times. Several have noted this and brought it to his attention. ] - ] ] <small><b>]</b></small> 17:25, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
:::I'm leaving a final note of sort on his talk page. If he continues to act in a disruptive way to make points, he is likely going to be blocked. Hopefully he will be wise and consider this, and find a way to contribute without the drama, soapboxing and grandstanding. ] - ] ] <small><b>]</b></small> 17:36, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
:::*I just read this and wish to contribute, while I still can: IRWolfie is mistaken. My knowledge of Misplaced Pages's process is "beginner" and it is obvious: it took me a while to even manage to upload the image of the certificate. I even accidentally duplicated it. Notwithstanding how to include a link in the conversation. So much for knowledge...
:::*Connolley's reputation as a Misplaced Pages editor had reached beyond Misplaced Pages and it is fair knowledge to anyone watching the climate debate. His bursting in the deletion discussion with inflammatory "delete - the article has been hijacked by global warming deniers William M. Connolley (talk) 08:11, 28 September 2012 (UTC)" accusations were not an aggressive characterization perhaps? No ANI there. I argued that IRW and WMC had little knowledge of Leroux's works and WMC acknowledged having not read Leroux. He should. When in good faith I showed proof of Leroux's title as Chevalier de l'Ordre des Palmes Academiques, its authenticity was immediately rebuked. Is that the attitude of people wishing to see information shared in a 💕 or is it the attitude of people with an agenda?
:::* As for my interventions: Did I go on modifying pages from those I disagree scientifically with? No. I posted on talk pages as I promptly discovered that the conversations were moved over various multiple pages. Aren't these talk pages for discussion? I had not intervened on Misplaced Pages for a long time as there was no need for me to. But the reputation of Prof. Leroux had to be defended against what became, especially after WMC's intervention and his endless hunt to delete every bit of Leroux on En.wikipedia, including the Palmes certificate used in other pages, a clear biased process. Notability was an excuse. Opinion was the reason, as adequate Google search results by another poster have demonstrated, the notability of Marcel Leroux is among the 1% of scientists .
:::*I notice in this discussion that IRW is advocating a swift banning process against me. No surprise. To me this confirms that the Leroux deletion was a premeditated action and that these two editors hoped for a quick, eventless deletion of the Leroux page. Tough luck. On a final note, I have made my point so anyone can read our exchanges and draw their own conclusions.] (]) 21:30, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
Only two have brought editing complaints to Show's attention on his talk page, and one of those was IRWolfie. I doubt there is any harm in putting the notice on Show's page, he shouldn't sweat it. Show and Lucy are vindicated. I've made an open and shut case for reversing this totally unnecessary deletion at WilyD's talk page. Did IRWolfie, WMC and even WilyD really not know what the real criteria was for academic notability? Why should this deletion and an injustice to this scientist's memory, have been allowed to go through in peace? --] (]) 22:23, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
*As the person who did the investigation, I completely understand why IRWolfie brought it to SPI, it did look very suspicious (with the exception of Africangenesis, not sure why he was in there). I will vouch for that. One new user. One user who hasn't edited in over SIX YEARS, magically show up? Coincidence? Maybe, but the amount of canvassing off wiki combined with those coincidences certainly does qualify for someone at SPI to look at it. And I did. And no one is blocked. And I did find ShowTimeAgain's old account from 2010 (which isn't a problem since they aren't both being used at the same time). Now, I've left Show a message, and the best thing anyone can do is help him understand how things work here a bit better, so his actions don't look as disruptive. He came here and it looks like he did in good faith. I don't want to block him and don't expect to. I was hoping to get his attention, which it seems I did, and hopefully he will tread a little less aggressively in the future so we can avoid ANI and the like. Just back the tone up a little, try to cooperate more, ask questions instead of accusing people, and you will be fine, Show. This is expected from all of us. ] - ] ] <small><b>]</b></small> 22:32, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
::*Dennis Brown, I created this profile in order to defend against the Leroux page deletion attempt in September 2012 as I thought my original handle from 2010 was not working anymore. So much again for my supposed knowledge. Since you investigated, you therefore know that my first ever contribution to wiki in December 2007 had nothing to do with climate. It however involved someone of immense talent that may be lesser known to the masses. Since my 2010 interventions, there have been many improvements to Leroux page which I did not object to. I came here in good faith and informed, about Leroux's work and publications. Africagenesis was even more informed than I was, and more computer literate (easy...). I was also informed about some of those who worked and pushed for this deletion, who seem to enjoy total immunity despite serious incidents. I have no quarrel with you and find your demands reasonable in an environment of good faith, which in this particular case, on this subject was not the case . Again, a properly executed Google search reveals another picture of Leroux's notability .
:::*I will leave the discussion of whether or not he is notable or not up to you and the other editors who are involved. At ANI (here), we just deal with short term issues like behavior, not content. Admins shouldn't decide content, interested editors should. You can take the deletion to ] if you so choose, but it is something I'm not familiar enough to have an opinion on. ] - ] ] <small><b>]</b></small> 23:54, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
:::* Thank you.] (]) 00:06, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
::::*As I've also closed the SPI with no action, feel free to archive this. I'm thinking we are done here. ] - ] ] <small><b>]</b></small> 01:35, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
:*There was canvassing , and possibly elsewhere. Which is presumably why it looks like socking, but isn't. ]<font color="FF8800">]</font> 08:18, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
===DRV and canvassing===
* It seems Africangenesis intends to go to DRV. Can an uninvolved admin semi-protect it if this occurs to stall some of the canvassing issues of the last deletion discussion? ] (]) 16:13, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
:* You cannot at the same time complain about not finding new water sources and criticize efforts to making other people who could contribute aware of what's going on here and potentially help finding new data. Unless your agenda is definitive suppression.] (]) 17:48, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
:::I'm not sure what you are saying. Did you notify people about the discussion off wikipedia? ] (]) 00:18, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
:::: Let me restate: why would you want to restrict the flow of information if it can improve the page? Isn't that what wikipedia is all about?] (]) 00:25, 9 October 2012 (UTC) Addendum: That's what I understood from your post. Could you explain further what "admin semi-protect" means and why it may be relevant to this discussion? Others obviously have seen what happened, even suggesting article deletions (see comment section) and not the least because of this ] (]) 00:36, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
:::::This appears to be a tact admission by ShowTimeAgain of off-wiki canvassing of the worst type (canvassing people of a specific viewpoint in order to stack a discussion). In combination with the general battleground mentality and attacks against WMC, I'm inclined to think that this editor is simply not understanding how collaborative editing works and may not be working in the best interests of the project. ] (]) 02:03, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
:::::: You must mean tacit? What is "the project"? If the project is a permanent deletion of the Marcel Leroux page regardless of information, indeed I do contest this approach and shall work with any wikipedian (?) to revert this decision. If "the project" is to bring a wide range of information pertaining to Marcel Leroux, then I believe to have done my part as demonstrated (certificate, precisions on OMM). Africagenesis has done also a significant amount of work. I have cleared any misunderstanding with Dennis Brown regarding battleground mentality. Now how collaborative is "admin semi-protect"? That is why I requested IRWolfie to clarify what he meant in order not to misinterpret him. As for WMC anyone can read his blog and draw conclusions. BTW I did not recall your contribution to the subject at hand. Did I miss it with so many lines of questions and answers? Thanks.] (]) 03:05, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
:::::::ShowTimeAgain, On Misplaced Pages we expect editors to try to work, however they can, for the advancement of the encylopedia as a whole, colloquially called "the project." Editors who are persistently distracted by personal, petty, or single topic disputes are not welcome here. You appear to be such an editor, and in response to concerns about your behavior to run back to the Marcel Leroux article, which suggests you are not getting it. Most, probably all of us reading this thread have no idea who Leroux is, nor do we care. It helps maintain our objectivity. I am inclined to block you since you are not both willing and able to edit collaboratively for the improvement of the encyclopedia. Please show cause otherwise.--] (]) 03:13, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
:::::::: Thank you for clarifying what the project is. May I point out you just told me you have no idea who Leroux was. But I do and this is precisely why I edited on his page not someone else's and tried to understand precisely how Misplaced Pages works. I imagine that knowledgeable editors contribute on the pages they have specific knowledge to share, as the best way to improve the encyclopedia. That is why I refrain to edit where I have nothing to bring.] (]) 03:53, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
::::::::There are ] ways you could choose to improve the encyclopedia. If however, your sole contribution is on Leroux, and you have otherwise shownyourself to be misusing wikipedia as a place to wage idealogical or personal war, well, you won't be much of a loss, will you? --] (]) 04:22, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
::::::::: I modestly did not dare to think these fields could require my help. Thanks for pointing them out. I think I'll get more involved now that you invited me to discover them. One has to learn and start as a beginner in every field.] (]) 04:34, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
::*What is DRV? Would this semi-protect be the salting thing that WMC was asking for?--] (]) 17:52, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
::: FYI ] ] (]) 17:57, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
:::It's deletion review as you have indicated here: ]. ] (]) 09:44, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
::::Deletion review is exactly where it needs to go, and yes, I would support semi-protection and consider it not preemptive, since we already have a history of off-wiki canvassing to demonstrate it would be necessary to prevent ''further'' disruption. I would also remind ShowTimeAgain that my backing off of a block wasn't an agreement of his actions, only allowing you some extra ] since you are new-ish. If your only objective to being here is to maintain/restore that one article, it will likely be a short career. Most of the editors here really don't care about him one way or another, but we do care about disruptive acts, which causes us to stop editing articles and have to deal with the disruption, a non-optimal use of our time. If '''any''' admin this it is obvious that you aren't here to build an '''encyclopedia''' and instead to protect one article at any cost, you can expect to be blocked. Off-site canvassing alone is enough to get you blocked because it is stacking the deck and a form of bias, which isn't tolerated in a neutrally written encyclopedia. ] - ] ] <small><b>]</b></small> 11:40, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
:::::In case it isn't abundantly clear, I am an administrator, and I am still strongly considering placing the block that Dennis Brown has decided not to.--] (]) 12:41, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
:::::: I am a Rennaissance man, I just edited on a painter, is that far enough from climate?] (]) 14:20, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
:::::::Yes. Do your best to comply with Misplaced Pages policies and norms and you'll go far. My suggestion is spending time getting your feet wet around here before returning to climate-] (]) 01:08, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
::::::::Well I should start with spelling Renaissance perhaps] (]) 03:13, 10 October 2012 (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)
Africangenesis is persisting with the battlefield mentality:
* ]: "''I notice that you edit war on the same page, edit other climate pages and are chummy with Schulz, and that is just the first 50 contributions. And you are a quick swooper on the page. Recuse yourself.-''"
* ]: "''OK, I'm calling time on the intellectually honest bone in the body test on this one. The clock is starting on the rest of the crew''",
* : "''If you are going edit scientific articles, it helps to have some scientific literacy, to be able to read the literature. You apparently aren't willing to perform the due diligence even after your revert has been called into question, that should should have done before your reverted. Now that you know you were wrong, are you failing to reverse your revert, because you think I am wrong, or for tactical reasons?"
] (]) 12:49, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
** . ] (]) 22:37, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
::If you are actually making an arbitration enforcement request, you'll want to file at AE. If this is just a standard complaint, let me look into it.--] (]) 01:08, 10 October 2012 (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)
::], 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)
'''For what it's worth'''<br />
] on other Wikipedias:
:'''French Misplaced Pages:'''
*] &nbsp; <small>(, ])</small>
*Lengthy article (about 2,000 words). Created in 2006; about 115 edits by a range of IPs and users.
*A little controversy on talk page, ] &nbsp; <small>(,])</small>
*No wiki-dramas sufficient to make it to Misplaced Pages-space pages like our WP:ANI.
*Unsuccessful deletion attempt in 2009: ] &nbsp; <small>(,])</small>
**Substantial expansion since the AfD closed <small>()</small>
*ShowTimeNow, using 3 accounts, has been an uncontroversial editor on fr.wikipedia:
**] <small>(],])</small>,&nbsp; ] <small>(],&nbsp; ])</small>, ] <small>(],])</small>


*If it's that much of a problem for his computer, go and buy a new computer. It would certainly be better than whining about how Misplaced Pages broke his ability to edit without screwing things up for other users.] (]) 07:06, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
:'''Spanish Misplaced Pages:'''
*] <small>()</small>
*No article talk page. Created this year by a high-volume (100k+ edits) editor in one big edit. Possibly a translation of the English article. Little activity since.
Looking at the French article, I'd say you could make a good case for the restoration and retention of the English-language article.<br />
--<font face="Futura">] <sup>(] • ])</sup> </font> 19:24, 10 October 2012 (UTC)


:Meh. None of ''this'' matters. Signatures sometimes get accidentally fucked up. This is an encyclopedia, not a forum, and this signature thing is not a real disruption to the creation of encyclopedic content. <span style="position: relative; top: -0.5em;">꧁</span>]<span style="position: relative; top: -0.5em;">꧂</span> 07:21, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
* And now more canvassing by ]: see the comment at . ] (]) 09:51, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
::While true, it's still a violation of ], and if it's accidentally changing characters in signatures, who knows what ''else'' it might be doing that isn't getting caught or reported? - ] <sub>]</sub> 07:27, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
::I think I'm best off posting this at enforcement. ] (]) 09:52, 11 October 2012 (UTC)


== Disruptive editing by ] ==
== Fry1989 and DrKiernan ==
{{atop|1=IP blocked 24 hours, and then ] and created an account to evade the block, which has now been indef'd. - ] <sub>]</sub> 22:43, 24 December 2024 (UTC)}}
The ] is engaging in disrupte editing. Neither does this IP provide sources and is POV pushing. And this IP has been warned multiple times for this on his/her talk page.


* ] and (I think): ] (]) 20:52, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
** ]
* ] and
*


:@]: It looks like you both are ] on ].<sup class="plainlinks"></sup> That's not particularly helpful, so you should try to have a discussion on the ] as to whether you should include the ] name for the article in the lead/infobox. &#8211;<span style="font-family:CG Times, times">]&thinsp;]<sup>]</sup></span> 20:33, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
] is well known to be rather mild; ] not so much. Fry's talk popped up on my watchlist and he's in it pretty hot and heavy with DrKiernan; {{diff|commons:User talk:Fry1989|prev|80367956|called him a troll}}, on commons, for example. This seems to be about fictitious flags, which Fry does rather a lot of. I had some dispute with him about a made-up image of a coat of arms some six months ago, which is why his page is on my watch. The talk is pretty messy and will have rolled along while I've been typing this. I think Fry's unblock needs reconsidering. I've seen very little constructive participation from him. ] (]) 22:22, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
::MJL why and how did you pick out that one article over the many this IP has made recent changes to? The IP has been making disputed edits for months and has been reverted by a number of editors, not just Moroike. ] (]) 01:10, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
:I haven't done anything on Misplaced Pages that broke my editing restrictions, I've barely made 30 edits this past week alone and none of them had anything to do with Drkiernan or pages he has worked on. Everything he is complaining about happened on Commons (how can my English Misplaced Pages restrictions apply to Commons???? That's not even stated on ], it's ridiculous!), and is filled with half-truths and assumptions. He blames me for "following him around". I haven't done anything of the sort. The fact I came across those files is easily explained because I go through the daily upload logs, The files aren't even Drkiernan's. All I did was remove a fictitious tag from those three files which Drkiernan added, and I only did that once on each file. I haven't even touched them since!!! Trajan is the one who removed Drkiernan's tags a further two times, which is when Drkiernan nominated them for deletion on Commons. I was completely unaware of this until Trajan came to my talk page and ASKED me to give input in the DR. I have only posted in the DR once, give my view, and haven't gone back since. I do not understand what I have done that could possibly be worthy of a block, nevermind an indef block. ''']''' <sup>''']'''</sup> 22:32, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
:::@]: I am not suggesting that the IP editor isn't being disruptive, but my point is that {{u|Moroike}} isn't making the situation better (using the example of that one article). You can see this by looking at <span class="plainlinks"></span> where {{gender:Moroike|he has|she has|they have}} mostly just reverted this editor without using a summary. &#8211;<span style="font-family:CG Times, times">]&thinsp;]<sup>]</sup></span> 18:02, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
::The IP's edits were removed a total of 13 times on the page regarding the capital city of ], ]. You can't let him continue engaging in further edit wars with other users besides Moroike, can you? ] (]) 17:24, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
Since this IP user won't stop and is stonewalling, either he/should be temporarily blocked, or all the pages he is POV pushing without sources, should be semi-protected, so that only registered users can edit them. ] (]) 21:37, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
:After he/she was blocked for 24 hours, this IP created an account as ] in order to evade the block and has resumed his/her POV pushing. ] (]) 16:51, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
{{abot}}


== User engaged in edit warring to remove disputed content prior to consensus ==
In my view, I think it's rather bad form to bring a dispute from some other Wiki project over here to the English Misplaced Pages, and then for DrKiernan and Br'er Rabbit, who are fully aware of Fry1989's temperament, to fan the flames to goad Fry1989 into violating his unblock restrictions. That's how it appears to me. I would support an interaction ban on all parties. ~] <small>(])</small> 22:40, 7 October 2012 (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)}}
*{{ec}} I just wanted to make a tentative comment. Fry1989 notified me about the problem he was having on his talk page. While looking there, this topic was opened by Br'er Rabbit, whose involvement puzzles me a bit, but no matter. I was involved in the unblock conditions (listed above), but there was extensive discussion with ], and I've notified him of this topic. I won't comment much on the merits of DrKiernan's complaint at this time, and I'm not sure what DrKiernan seeks at this point as he didn't open this topic. My brief comment is that DrKiernan was asking Fry to leave him alone at Commons. Br'er Rabbit inflamed things. Fry felt pushed. DrKiernan got more forceful because he didn't get the response he wanted, and here we are.--] (]) 22:41, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
*Now responding to Amatulic's comment, I fully agree with everything he said except I haven't yet decided whether an interaction ban is needed. Depends on other comments here.--] (]) 22:44, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
::Br'er Rabbit won't even answer my repeated requests for what he thinks I have done to deserve an indeff block. "Long-term problematic"? What is that supposed to mean? What "problems" have I caused here since my unblock? I've been following my restrictions as laid out on ] to the letter. I haven't gotten into revert wars, I haven't flamed people, I haven't followed anybody around, I haven't done ANYTHING! But somehow he thinks he can support me being indeff blocked without even stating why! So what if I called Drkiernan a troll on Commons? First off, that was my personal opinion after being asked by another user to participate in a deletion request. Second, it was on Commons!! My restrictions have nothing to do with Commons, this is completely a Commons matter if it's an issue at all! Also, I came here not too long ago myself asking for an interaction ban between me and Drkiernan because of the constant spats we have had for 2 long years. He and I can't get along so I try to avoid him the best I can. Yes, I went to his talk page, about an issue on Commons, but he is doing the same now. I used language which is a bit strong, but when you look at the actual full sentences, I didn't call him anything, I didn't attack him. I have followed my restrictions very clearly. I do not deserve this witch hunt. ''']''' <sup>''']'''</sup> 22:44, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
::: Look at it this way; your prior indefs were warranted and I don't see the benefit of them having been reversed. ] (]) 23:34, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
: I'd missed the whole unblock discussion in August, so I was surprised to see Fry1989 editing at all. And I see him calling DrKiernan a troll and being quite belligerent, including addling the threading on his talk. I see the separation between en:wp and Commons as pretty thin; images go there, are used here. I don't think I had much to do with whatever got Fry dinged in August; I saw it go by, but don't think I even commented. The Rwanda thing was more like February, and I don't think I've had any conflict with Fry since. FWIW, DrKiernan is probably off for the night, so best to see what he has to say tomorrow. ] (]) 23:01, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
::How many times do I have to tell you why I put my replies that way was to answer him and you separately, and that the reason I reverted you ('''once''') is because I felt like you were disrupting me by moving my replies around??? There was absolutely no malicious intent behind it, but you keep trying to assert that there was. From the beginning of that you have accused me of disruption, when I told you twice before now why I did it. Stop accusing me of malicious intent which I don't have! ''']''' <sup>''']'''</sup> 23:06, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
:::And the "Rwanda thing"? That's been over and done with for half a year, I don't even know why you would bring it up. It resolved itself ages ago, way before my unblock discussion in August even came about, and it wasn't even brought up in August, it has nothing to do with this. It feels like you're brining up past issues just to make me look worse and worse to get rid of me. Maybe not, but it sure feels that way right now. ''']''' <sup>''']'''</sup> 23:10, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
::::I have come here atleast two times over the years about Drkiernan. The second time I asked for an interaction ban, I don't remember what I wanted the first time, but both times when I tried pointing out how he pushes me, and is rude to me, and orders me to do things for him when he's capable of doing them himself, they are ignored. I never got help. But whenever he complains about me, I always end up with threats of blocks and bans and restrictions and everything else. You people ignored my cries for help, and this is what happens when you do that. I don't want anything to do with him, but we keep rubbing shoulders here and there every few months and then this kind of nonsense comes about. ''']''' <sup>''']'''</sup> 23:15, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
::: I already {{diff|User talk:Fry1989|516538332|516538252|outlined on your talk}} how your move of my post away from DrKiernan's (to whom I was replying) was inappropriate because it changed the context of things. That you don't get it goes a ways towards explaining things. You are aware that DrKiernan is well respected on this project, right? ''Right?'' Calling him a troll, anywhere, is absurd, and far from civil. ] (]) 23:27, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
::::Please read my post again. I didn't say anything on whether the way I posted my replies, or the subsequent revert of your change, was wrong or right. All I said is that you are accusing me of doing it maliciously and with the intent to disrupt when that absolutely isn't the case, I told you why I did it, please STOP accusing me of doing it maliciously! So what if it was (in your opinion) wrong? Doing something wrong doesn't always translate to deliberate malicious intent. You don't like the way I arranged my replies? Fine I'm sorry. But stop this attack on my intentions when I've made clear they were anything but what you accuse them of being. As for whether or not Drkiernan is well-respected here, that doesn't factor into how he interacts with me, or how I interact with him. That's between me and him, not how others view him. Just because someone is widely respected, doesn't mean they're above the capability of mistreating someone else. He has been rude to me for years. He's ordered me to change files and do other tasks for him which he is perfectly capable of doing himself. What right does he have to order me around to do things? And yet people like you seem to think that it ok, but that when I get tired of being pushed around, I'm the one with all the blame. Protect the bully, punish the victim, it's an old story I'm very aquainted with. ''']''' <sup>''']'''</sup> 23:34, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
::::: I'm pretty sure I've not used the word "malicious", but you have, repeatedly. And calling DrKiernan a "bully" is just silly; especially coming from a bully in victim's clothing ;) ] (]) 23:42, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
::::::I'm so glad this is humourous to you. You have continuously accused me to doing my replies (and the single subsequent revert) with the intent to disrupt. That means you think I did it maliciously, whether you said the word or not. I've also made no attempts to shy away from the fact that I've been very rude to him, but you have to acknowledge that he has done the same and more. This website is littered with him commanding me to do things for him so he'll "accept them" and "allow them" on articles. Those Greek monograms for example, many times he ordered me to change them to blue so he would "allow them" on articles. Why do I have to do that for him? He showed in the past he was capable of doing it himself, he had no other problem with the files except their colour, so why couldn't he change them himself? Instead it was a further attempt to bully me into submission, "change these files or I won't allow you to add them to their rightful articles" like I'm some worker to be stepped on. Yes I've been rude as hell to him at times, but you completely ignore that it has been in response to '''TWO YEARS''' of unsolicited pushing around by him. He followed my edits to pages he had nothing to do with, and then passed judgement. He told me to change files for him. He has called me names. He has done so much to me, but somehow because I can't take it anymore, I'm the bully, I'm the one that needs to be blocked. I CAME HERE TWICE asking for help and you people ignored it. You don't think I'm not aware that he and I don't get along??? It takes two to tango and you make excuses for his steps in the dance. Disgusting. ''']''' <sup>''']'''</sup> 23:50, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
{{od}} The background seems to be this - ] :
* "Civility requirements (in effect for 6 months after the current block expires): ... <u>All communications must refrain from commenting on individual editors,</u> except on appropriate behavioral noticeboard pages ... Fry1989 agrees that the requirements listed above constitute best practices that should be followed at all times, and that the durations above refer to the period in which a violation will result in the resumption of an indefinite block." (my emphasis)
Unblock conditions were agreed in August 2012. --] (]) 01:06, 8 October 2012 (UTC)


Title is pretty self explanatory. Rather than engage in the consensus building process to determine if the disputed content discussed ] is problematic, ] editor has instead immediately reverted the disputed content. They have been informed of the relevant policies prohibiting this behavior and how it should normally be handled (tagging the content as disputed while the discussion is ongoing) but have elected to instead engage in edit warring to keep the disputed content removed prior to any consensus on the matter. Also important to note that they wish to have the content removed entirely, but have stated that they no longer intend to participate in the consensus building discussion. So this appears to be a ] tactic to accomplish their goal of removing the content immediately without a consensus. Seeking admin help to halt this behavior and restore the content with the correct tagging.<!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 23:36, 18 December 2024 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Xsign -->
=== Break ===
:It would help if you named the editor and signed your name to figure out what you are talking about; a noticeboard only works if you give us notice about the subject and what is happening. <span style="font-family: Roboto;">''']''' <span style="color:#00008B">•</span> <small>''(])''</small></span> 23:39, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
::The editor appears to be {{u|PerfectSoundWhatever}}, based on the under the word "this" as well as . — ]&nbsp;<sub>]</sub> 23:51, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
::My apology, this is my very first time making such a post. The other pages o have spoken on seemed to have signed themselves automatically. Will remember this going forward. And yes, that was the user, posted this using my phone so I didn't want to mis-spell their name, just linked instead. ] (]) 17:01, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
:{{non-admin comment}} IMO the best practice is that in the event of a content dispute, the article should be reverted to the status quo of how the article's content appeared before the dispute started, until such a time that consensus is established to re-add it (see: ]). It seems like the beginning of the content that is in dispute was added on 18 August 2024, the dispute began a few weeks later on 23 September 2024 and has been ongoing ever since.{{pb}}In this case, since the article existed in a relatively steady state for several months (or even years?) previous to the disputed material being added, I think it'd be wise to leave the disputed content out of the article until the discussion comes to a close. ] (]) 00:07, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
::I have been seeing this opinion from a few editors and even one admin on how to interpret this article. However, the first few sentences in that section do outright state to avoid reverting the disputed content prior to a consensus. And prior to opening this report, I asked several admins on the topic and got a response that reverting the disputed content immediately is incorrect per WP:STATUSQUO as it bypasses the consensus building process. I was advised that the content should instead be tagged as disputed rather than be outright removed. The offending user was made aware of the relevant policies but has nonetheless engaging in edit warring to keep it reverted, hence this report. ] (]) 17:13, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
:::The status quo of an article constitutes implicit consensus (]). The person trying to include disputed content in an article despite it not being status quo is the one that could be construed as attempting to bypass the consensus building process, not the person trying to maintain status quo until discussion takes place. ] (]) 17:20, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
::::Correct, and at no point was the definition of what constitutes the status quo ever in contention. In fact, if you review the edit history of the article you can see that the disputed content was the status quo via implicit consensus at the time PSW chose to first outright revert the content, and then continued to revert it as others tried to restore it (both before and after the consensus discussion began). ] (]) 23:38, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::{{tq|1=the disputed content was the status quo via implicit consensus at the time PSW chose to first outright revert the content}}<br>Not really, I personally wouldn't define "been there a few weeks" as status quo.{{pb}}I think maybe the other replies to this thread provide pretty good reasoning to take a step back and say "hey maybe I'm the one in the wrong here" instead of talking in circles ] (]) 00:30, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::Personally I think the number of contributions since the edit where it has gone unchanged is a more useful metric, especially on low traffic pages such as this one. Regardless, per the policy you cite, there seems to be no official Misplaced Pages stance on what exact criteria are needed for a contribution to be considered the current status quo, beyond it having been unchallenged in subsequent contributions (which is the case here).
::::::As for the rest of your comment, there seems to be a high amount of band wagoning and "]" going on in the rest of this. Or people trying to use this report as an extension of the dispute discussion on the article's talk page. Hopefully more actual admins to chime in on the topic as I don't actually want to waste my time talking in circles.
::::::On that note thanks for actually taking the time and baseline minimal effort to engage in a discussion where you actually support your point and don't just devolve into repeating the same talking points over and over. It's a nice change of pace. ] (]) 02:48, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
:I am the editor being discussed here. I'll provide a summary of events since the initial statement by Sxbbetyy is misleading.
:Myself and the editor had a content dispute at ] (]) and following circular discussion, I stopped engaging since I felt I had laid out my points. Per ], I maintained the state of the article to before the dispute. I requested for a ], which was answered by {{ping|BerryForPerpetuity}}, who agreed the statement should be removed, albeit for a different reason than mine. I took this 2-1 as rough consensus. I also posted the dispute on two WikiProjects, and have received no response so far. Sxbbetyy reached out to three admins about the matter, {{ping|Sergecross73|Oshwah|Pbsouthwood}}. The ] can be summarized as Sergecross believing that I haven't engaged in misconduct, and that I have presented a "plausible, good-faith interpretation of ]". Sxbbetyy then accused Sergecross73 of not acting in good faith. Oshwah did not respond to the post on ], but {{ping|BusterD}} did, essentially agreeing that the sourcing does not back up the claim in the content dispute. Sxbbetyy received help on ] about responding to a content dispute. And now we're here.
:Throughout these interactions, Sxbbetyy has demonstrated a failure to assume good faith, refuses to accept ], and ]s talk pages, refusing to let the other editor have the last word. Frankly, this is a massive waste of editor time: it should have been a brief talk page discussion then an RfC. Apologies for all the pings. — ] (]; ]) 00:23, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
::This summarization in itself leaves out critical context, (such as berry's concern being alleviated and them no longer expressing a desire to remove the content), the specifics of why that conversation with Serge ended the way it did despite my repeated attempts to engage with them in good faith, and the entire discussion with pbsouthwood (who quite definitively explained that the behavior PSW was engaged in was not correct). So I urge all involved to go read those topics to get the correct context through your own eyes and then discuss any concerns from what you see here. That being the case, it seems pretty clear cut imo. ] (]) 17:20, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Just to be clear, in no way did I express that I didn't want the content to be removed. I did not receive a notification for your reply, and I wouldn't have engaged either way. —&nbsp;] ] 17:24, 19 December 2024 (UTC)


: Yes, I would leave that material out of the article. Whilst it may not exactly be synthesis ''per se'', it is certainly editorialising ("the removal of that amount of marine debris is of negligible consequence...") ''unless'' there is an actual source that says this by making a link between between the two statistics (the amount of waste removed by Team Seas and the rate at which waste is entering the ecosystem). And even then, I would say that such an edit would need to say something like "However, ARandomNewspaper pointed out that ...". ] 00:34, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
*I want Br'er Rabbit and Fry to stop arguing with each other. If DrKiernan does not come here and tell us what ''he'' wants to do, this topic should be closed. This is not the right forum to have Fry's unblock and the conditions of his unblock reviewed (see Br'er Rabbit saying "your prior indefs were warranted and I don't see the benefit of them having been reversed"). As for whether Fry has violated the conditions, neither I nor Amatulic believes he has, or if he has (I haven't read every one of Fry's remarks on his talk page or here), it's only because he's been goaded into it. So, Br'er Rabbit and Fry - '''stop posting here'''. Fry, if Br'er Rabbit won't stop, '''ignore him'''. That's my advice and my position at this juncture.--] (]) 01:02, 8 October 2012 (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)
:: Then what is the right forum to report breaches of Fry's unblock agreement? --] (]) 01:08, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
:::This ''is'' the right forum to report a breach. I'm saying this is ''not'' the right forum to have the unblock and agreement reviewed. I'm also saying that that is what I think Br'er Rabbit really wants. Finally, I'm saying that if someone believes that Fry should be sanctioned for breaching the agreement, someone other than Br'er Rabbit needs to step up and say so, but the bickering between Br'er Rabbit and Fry should stop. And another finally, I'm going off-wiki now, so I won't be able to respond to anything until tomorrow.--] (]) 01:13, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
:::: ''I'' should stop posting here? When Fry's got about six times the verbiage going as I do? And note that I ''didn't'' bother replying to his last above the {{t|od}}. And another note; I already suggested awaiting DrKienan's commenting. ] (]) 01:29, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
:::::Yes. You've raised the issue to the community, the back and fort just clouds the issue. <small>]</small> 01:40, 8 October 2012 (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)
Let's just make sure a couple of things are clear here. First, from what I've read above, I'm not seeing many allegations that Fry1989 has violated his unblock conditions, or has been disruptive in any other way, in his edits over the past few weeks on English Misplaced Pages. If I am wrong about that then would someone please post specific diffs.
*:At no point was he "attacked". I defended myself after he became hostile with me (as anyone can read in our convo, I stated multiple times that I would leave and did not want to be a burden if they didn't want to engage with this, but he made no such objections and continued). Eventually he just became outright hostile and refused to explain their points any further, devolving the conversation into them repeating themselves over and over, its all there to read on his talk page. As for why I contacted him, I wanted to ensure I chose impartially so I just randomly looked at the currently active admins at the time and he was the first one I found. ] (]) 18:23, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
*::The discussion is , if anyone wants to look. The "attack" I'm referring to you is your accusation that I responded to you in bad faith. I was not involved in the dispute, have no stance on it, and had no pre-conceived notions about either of you - what in the world would my motivations be for "bad faith responses"? It doesn't make any sense. You simply didn't get the response you wanted, and proceeded to badger me on it. Did I get vaguely irritated when I volunteered my time to review and comment on a dispute I had no stance or interest in, only to get all sorts of ] responses on it? Yeah, sure, but who wouldn't? ] ] 18:44, 19 December 2024 (UTC)


*I'm here from my input at the 3rd opinion request. This is nothing more than a trivial content dispute, I see no reason for this to be at ANI. I somewhat agree with the claim of ], it becomes more susceptible to incorrect information, and from my analysis it seemed like the claim in the disputed content was completely wrong. Two different sources, from two different time periods. My $0.02: The claim of stonewalling is ridiculous, there was ample good-faith discussion based on existing policy and guidelines. This editor does not ], it appears that he claims that editors disagreeing are acting in bad faith. From him to administrator Sergecross73: {{tq|"I'm not wasting time engaging with you if you aren't going to speak with me in good faith."}} It seems that he roots his argument based on the editor who removed it rather than the content itself. Very unfortunate waste of time. —&nbsp;] ] 15:31, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
I gather the main (alleged) problems are on Commons. In general, we don't sanction an editor on English Misplaced Pages for misconduct on another project. That is not, however, an absolute rule; in extreme cases of harassment and the like, editors have been banned from En-WP for misconduct on another project, on another non-wiki website, via e-mail, or offline. The key words there, however, are "extreme cases." What's been described above doesn't sound yet like an extreme case.
*:Exactly. It's not "stonewalling" that's happening here. PerfectSoundWhatever has discussed at-length at the talk page. They're simply not willing to ''talk circles indefinitely''. And we don't require that of editors. I've urged Sxbbetyy to, rather that spin their wheels arguing with the same person endlessly in a stalemate, to try to get other participants to take part. But they've refused, and instead decided to move their arguing to ANI instead. As I noted to them in one of my last comments to them, if they spent half as much effort in consensus-building as they did complaining and arguing, they could have built a consensus by now... ] ] 17:30, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
*:Reading any of what I wrote in this dispute shows clearly that is not the case. Also, the quoted sentence is completely taken out of context.
*:Here is what was said in the mesaage before that they left out, "Not really the logical conclusion one draws from reading any of what I wrote here, where I asked multiple times for you to explain your reasoning in your replies (instead your response was to repeat yourself without offering further explanation), but if that is what you want to take away from this that's fine by me. I'm not wasting time engaging with you if you aren't going to speak with me in good faith."
*:The message as a whole was replying to was a passive aggressive insult that didn't progress that conversation, hence the response as it was clearly not an example of engagement in good faith.] (]) 18:34, 19 December 2024 (UTC)


:Also, it looks like the participants in the dispute on the Team Seas article are acting as if this report is an extension of that dispute discussion.
That being said, if the situation is as it's been described, then Fry1989 should clean up his act on Commons, rather than risk sanctions there, or here, or anywhere. I have no role or participation on Commons and don't plan to read through the edits there, but if Fry1989 called DrKiernan a "troll" on Commons, he should apologize and not do it again. DrKiernan is the farthest thing from a troll on English Misplaced Pages, and unless he has a personality transplant each time he logs off of English WP and onto Commons, he isn't a troll there either. An attitude of "I can call you what I want there and you can't do anything about it here and neener neener neener" isn't going to impress anyone on either project.
:This is a report of edit warring to revert disputed content prior to a consensus being reached (there was no consensus prior to the reversion and there still is no consensus, as admitted by PSW themselves in that very dispute and In their latest revert message, no idea why now in this report they are trying to claim that there is suddenly consensus for removal).
:This is not a report on the dispute itself, just to make that very clear since those involved are responding as if it is. ] (]) 18:41, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
::You've still got this backward. You need to show a consensus to keep your content in the article, as everyone else has been telling you. ] is directly on point, and I'll quote it here: {{Tq|The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content.}} ] (]) 18:53, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Thank you. I have tried to inform them of this many times and many ways. I do not know why they cannot wrap their head around the concept. Conceptually, it would be very problematic if we were required to retain every disputed content until consensus ruled it out. It wouldn't be workable. ] ] 19:02, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Nobody is arguing WP:ONUS here...not in the dispute and not here in this report. The point is that the content is being removed prior to there being a consensus on if it should be removed.
:::I was directly advised by admin Pbsouthwood that the removal of disputed content BEFORE any consensus has been reached is not allowed (save for specific situations, none of which apply to the disputed content) as this bypasses the consensus building process. ] is the talk page where I was advised this. This is echoed with the wording in WP:STONEWALLING and ]. Here is the direct quote from the latter, "To eliminate the risk of an edit war, do not revert away from the status quo ante bellum during a dispute discussion. Instead, add an appropriate tag indicating the text is disputed. For an article, many of the inline dispute tags are appropriate. For other pages, {{under discussion inline}} is good. Leave the status quo and the tag in place until the discussion concludes." ] (]) 19:58, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
::::{{tq|The point is that the content is being removed prior to there being a consensus on if it should be removed.}} <--- No. This is your problem. What you are saying here is incorrect. Policies say the opposite of this. You are not going to get support at ANI. In fact, the longer you keep going with this ] insistence that community practice is actually the opposite of what policies plainly say it is, the more likely it is you're going to find yourself blocked for disruption. Pbsouthwood didn't tell you this either (what he wrote doesn't match what you've been doing), and your initial question did not properly represent the situation at hand. But we can invite him here to see if he actually supports what you're doing here: {{ping|Pbsouthwood}}, what say you? ] (]) 20:06, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::This entire comment serves absolutely zero purpose whatsoever. You're parroting what others have already said with no supporting evidence. Along with throwing in an oddly included threat that is completely nonsensical and wholly unwarranted.
:::::And while I could point out the myriad of ways your claim about what Pbsouthwood said was inaccurate, that would pretty much involve reposting his reply, which is a waste since anyone can already go to his talk page and read it themselves.
:::::So at this point, if you need that admin to come here and tell you what they already said themselves, more power to you. Would save us all a ton of time to get an authoritative answer on this, especially with another admin holding the opposite view point, in spite of the specific policy wording. ] (]) 23:08, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::], there does not need to be an established consensus for the removal of content. ]. - ] <sub>]</sub> 01:28, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::I'm not the one insisting otherwise...this report only exists because an ]. And as I've posted in my previous replies, the wording in the policies clearly support that. Makes me question how many have actually bothered to really read these policies... ] (]) 02:22, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::The other admin told you ''nothing'' about the removal of ], which is always appropriate. ]. - ] <sub>]</sub> 03:19, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::# This report is not an extension of the dispute discussion for that article, if you want to involve yourself in that discussion, do so there, do not hijack this report.
:::::::::# The disputed content is plainly not WP:SYNTH as I explain on the talk page in great length, with nobody thus far having provided valid examples as to how it is.
:::::::::# If you are going to make the claim that any WP:SYNTH concerns warrant immediate reversion without consensus, please feel free to share the quote in the relevant policy that says this. I have not found any such wording and instead found that what is present matches up with what PBsouthwood informed me.
:::::::::] (]) 17:17, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::] ] ] 02:05, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::At this point I say that my advice was given without a specific context, and without prejudice. I maintain that it is more collegial and polite to discuss a removal of unsourced but ''plausible'' content ''before'' removing it, as it can often avoid disputes of this kind, but it is not forbidden to arbitrarily delete content that an editor ''plausibly considers inappropriate provided the relevant reason is given''. It is always the responsibility of the person advocating inclusion to provide a reference when challenged, regardless of the process of challenge.
:::::Some forms of synthesis are acceptable. If a conclusion is logically inevitable based on undisputed factual premises, or is a simple mathematical calculation, we routinely accept claims that may not be specifically stated in a source, but we may require the logic to be explained, as it may not be obvious to the reader.
:::::At the risk of being ], I also refer readers to <s>]</s> <u>(looks like that essay has been expunged, try ])</u>. &middot; &middot; &middot; ] ]: 06:59, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::I think many of us used to the mess editors adding unsourced content can create would strongly oppose leaving in unsourced content just because it's plausible. The standard should instead be at a minimum that you believe the claim made is most likely correct and sourceable not simply that it's plausible. Although ultimately such discussions are a little silly anyway. If editors would just add sources rather than leaving it for someone else because they're claiming it's unlikely to be challenged or whatever, there would be a need for others to decide whether to query or remove unsourced content. ] (]) 09:56, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::I was suggesting tagging with citation needed while you wait a reasonable time for a response, but as we know some of us do not have the patience and just revert. It in not unheard of to know something, but not have a source handy at the time. What is obvious to one may be totally obscure to others. This is acceptable within policy and guidelines. You could start a RfC to have the guidelines changed, but I suspect it would not get through as being a bit bitey. Cheers, &middot; &middot; &middot; ] ]: 12:47, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::Yes, what you say is true, that's absolutely an acceptable approach. But that's not really the problem at hand here. The bigger issue is that Sxbbetyy appears to be believe that the alternative approach - reverting per STATUSQUO or NOCONSENSUS - is somehow misconduct, and that's simply not true. They're not arguing about if your approach is valid, they're arguing that its ''compulsory'', and they're attempting to report a user for not following your possible approach, which is completely meritless. ] ] 17:31, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::Please do not put words in my mouth. The only reason this report exists is because Peter Southwood advised that this was how I should proceed if the editor participating in this no-consensus reverting continued to do so and was unreceptive to further discussion. (Both are true by admission of PSW themselves). ] (]) 18:22, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::Yes, I've seen , but you presented the situation to them entirely in hypotheticals that lacks crucial context. You frame PSW as unwilling to engage in discussion but omit the fact that You accuse PSW of edit warring to keep their information in the article, but omit the fact that . I would think the near-unanimous rejection of this ANI report would indicate that this was not, in fact, a good thing to report. Best case scenario, this is archived with no action, but I'd be shocked if it didn't result in a ]. ] ] 18:44, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::I don't know why you are attempting to present the entire discussion on that talk page as some sort of proof that PSW was willing to engage in further discussion to halt the behavior this report is about. At no point whatsoever did PSW ever indicate anything like that; if they did this report wouldn't exist as the discussions on your talk page or Peter Southwood's page would have never needed to happen. Not to mention if you take the time to actually read the discussion, you see that most of it is on the specifics of the validity of the WP:SYNTH claim made by PSW, eventually culminating in PSW actually asserting that they will not stop change their position on this and then outright refusing to engage any further.
:::::::::::And now you accuse me of edit warring by citing the entire recent edit history of the page...this isn't fooling anyone who actually bothers to read any of the revert messages and examine the timeline of when they occurred (talk about omitting "crucial context").
:::::::::::Beyond just slandering my character, I don't really see what these kind of spurious claims accomplish. It wastes everyone's time, makes yourself look biased and hostile, and adds nothing to the conversation. Keep things civil please, I really shouldn't have to tell you of all people that basic expectation. ] (]) 02:38, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::Wait...are you seriously trying to suggest that, even though you were the only one who reverted him every single time, he was edit warring and you weren't? ] ] 02:50, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::If you are going to continue to twist words and make false claims immediately after being asked to keep things civil, maybe it would be best for all involved if you just moved on from this conversation. Sad that even has to be stated at this point, it should be a given. ] (]) 17:25, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::::Yet another IDHT response where you try to baselessly chastize me rather than address anything anyone is saying to you. ] ] 18:14, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::What a choice to post this exact type reply to my last message... not to mention the sheer absurdity of it. To claim that I've never addressed anyone's points in my replies is so easily and visibly wrong (literally this entire topic is full of my detailed replies to people's concerns, including this very reply) that it's almost insulting to the rest of the people participating in this or to anyone who even chooses to read that message. It's as if you think nobody can see the rest of this discussion (or even the comments directly above it). ] (]) 11:52, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::Thank you for taking the time to respond and my apology for any inconvenience it may have caused. Ive tried to keep it as civil as possible, but there seems to be a very hostile air in this discussion by those with the dissenting opinion. As for how this situation is to be resolved, would it be appropriate to restore the currently disputed content with the appropriate tags (as it is sourced and was the statusquo on the page at the time of reversion)? Or is there something further that must be done here? I'm generally unfamiliar with how ANIs actually function. ] (]) 17:52, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
:Have you considered starting an ]? The fact is that you made a ] addition to the article; someone else objected to it, which means you now ought to seek consensus ''for your addition''. As numerous people have told you, none of the relevant policies and guidelines (], ], ], etc) would allow you to make a recent addition the "default" the way you want, but more generally - the problem is that you're trying to dig through policy for something that will make your preferred version the default, allowing you to have it in the article without having to demonstrate consensus for it even in the face of challenges. Even if the policies and guidelines I listed ''were'' on your side this would still be a bad way to approach it. You have a conflict, your goal should be to resolve it by making consensus as clear as possible - figuring out what the crux of the dispute is and then, if you can't reach a compromise, holding an RFC to see where consensus lies. Also, I have to point out that just by a quick nose count of people who have weighed in on talk, I'm seeing a dispute that is now three-to-one against you. That ''is'' a consensus - not a massive one, maybe an RFC will pull in a bunch of people that say something else, but it doesn't make sense for you to keep demanding a consensus to remove something you added when there actually ''is'' such a consensus on talk. You've disagreed with their arguments but they're not obliged to ] you; ultimately if you think your arguments are so strong and theirs are so weak, the only real option for you at this point is to start an RFC and hope that you can demonstrate that there. --] (]) 04:10, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
::As mentioned earlier in the discussion, this report is not an extension of the dispute on that article, nor is that what this report is about. Also, a RFC was already started for the topic about a week or so ago by PSW, but that occurred after he reverted the status quo, disputed content with discussion (repeatedly). As for the rest of your comment, Peter Southwood, an admin, has addressed what is the actual expectation. ] (]) 18:00, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
:::What? I never started an RfC. — ] (]; ]) 19:07, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
::::I just checked and on 12/9/24 at ] you said the following, "Thanks – just wanted to mention I requested comments from ] and ] about 2 weeks ago."
::::Did that not actually happen? ] (]) 02:11, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::] is a specific process. Asking questions on a couple of Wikiprojects is not an RFC. ] (]) 02:22, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::That's fundamentally not what an RFC is. This is getting ridiculous... ] ] 03:03, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::It's almost like this is the very first time I've ever been involved in this kind of issue on Misplaced Pages before...seriously these kind of replies come off as rude and don't actually say anything meaningful or helpful. Ever since our conversation on your talk page you have made next to no real effort to engage in good faith and I find that highly disappointing to be coming from an admin. And my apology if I offended you at all at some point or if you have just "lost your patience" with me, but I don't see how that gives you the green flag to suddenly disregard ]. I certainly haven't, in spite of being on the receiving end of this. ] (]) 17:44, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::I haven't said anything uncivil, I just keep calling you out when you say something incorrect. ] ] 18:08, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::], is a powerful force, I find it difficult to resist myself. ] (]) 18:10, 21 December 2024 (UTC)


===Request for closure===
And I agree that at this point we can see if DrKiernan wants to take this further. ] (]) 01:43, 8 October 2012 (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 ==
:I have absolutely no objection to an interaction ban between myself and Drkiernan (something I've already asked for before and it was ignored) or myself and Br'er Rabbit. I don't even understand why my talkpage was in his watchlist anyways, going through the entire history from 2009 to present, this is the first time he's '''ever''' posted there (unless he had a previous account or previous account name). ''']''' <sup>''']'''</sup> 01:45, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
::To include commons? <small>]</small> 01:51, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
:::The issue on Commons is cloudy. The files in question were not Drkiernan's, and the files' uploader asked me personally to give my input on the DR for his files that Drkiernan initiated. Drkiernan does not often comes to Commons (from my observation anyways), but I would be open to that extending to Commons if people feel it's necessary. I already try and avoid him here, the only real issue on Commons was that today I self-admittedly called him a troll. Was it nice? No. Was it out of line? Of course. But again you have to understand that I have over 2 years of interaction with this user and it has almost always been unpleasant. ''']''' <sup>''']'''</sup> 01:59, 8 October 2012 (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.
I'd seen these before coming here; now collected and per Brad's request.
* "Fry1989 shall abide by WP:1RR, one revert per article per 24 hour period, with exception allowed for reverting obvious, unambiguous vandalism and spam."
* "Fry1989 must explain each revert (excepting reverts of vandalism and spam) on the associated article talk page."
* These are all reverts that went undiscussed on talk; many are not even clearly revert if you just go by edit summary:
** {{diff|Coat of arms of Luxembourg|515381291|515126069|diff of Coat of arms of Luxembourg}}
** {{diff|Coat of arms of Luxembourg|515381379|515381291|diff of Coat of arms of Luxembourg}}
** {{diff|Coat of arms of Luxembourg|515381479|515381379|diff of Coat of arms of Luxembourg}}
** {{diff|Coat of arms of Luxembourg|515381527|515381479|diff of Coat of arms of Luxembourg}}
** {{diff|Coat of arms of Luxembourg|516177050|515381527|diff of Coat of arms of Luxembourg}}


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)
net revert:
:If you want to discuss {{tl|WikiProject banner shell}}, you should do so at ].
* {{diff|Coat of arms of Luxembourg|516177050|501476709|diff of Coat of arms of Luxembourg}}
:As for the size of the category, I have no plans to empty it, and was only going to update a few hundred more categories and templates. &nbsp;&nbsp;<b>~</b>&nbsp;<span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:16px;">] (] ⋅])</span>&nbsp; 15:02, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
actually a full revert back to Fry in May other than bot edits to interwiki links:
::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)
* {{diff|Coat of arms of Luxembourg|516177050|492651390|diff of Coat of arms of Luxembourg}}
:::"{{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.
And no posts to the talk page since June.
:::Regarding a BRFA for the bulk of the category, that's looking more likely since the category appears to be neglected. &nbsp;&nbsp;<b>~</b>&nbsp;<span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:16px;">] (] ⋅])</span>&nbsp; 15:29, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
::::Unnecessary removing a synonym and then making thousands of edits to remove the hidden cat created by that unnecessary change is not really any better than making cosmetic edits, the end result is that nothing has changed for the affected pages at all. ] (]) 15:33, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::Not unnecessary. The Lua code is very complex and removing the need the support various settings makes the code both easier to read and maintain. As always, editors that don't want to see these edits can hide these by hiding the tag "talk banner shell conversion". ] (]) 12:32, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::It doesn´t look as if the specific code to have these synonyms was very complicated though, the argument that in some cases two synonyms were used on one page with conflicting values was more convincing. And the edits I complained about did ''not'' have that tag, so no, even if people knew about hiding that tag, it wouldn't have helped here at all. ] (]) 16:04, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
:This was discussed in detail on ]. Ideally these edits would be done by an approved bot so they do not appear on people's watchlists. The main benefit is to merge the {{para|blp}} and {{para|living}} parameters. When both are in use, we find they often get conflicting values because one gets updated and the other does not. &mdash;&nbsp;Martin <small>(]&nbsp;·&nbsp;])</small> 17:25, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
::Isn't it more logical to first have a bot cleanup the unwanted parameter, then remove it from the template, and only then start populating the cat with the somehow remaining or since added instances? In any case, this is a typical bot task and shouldn't be done with massive AWB runs. ] (]) 17:39, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Yes, probably. But we have this mechanism already set up and I assumed {{ul|Cewbot}} would deal with these as part of its normal activities. Happy to look at other options - maybe discuss on template talk? &mdash;&nbsp;Martin <small>(]&nbsp;·&nbsp;])</small> 18:23, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
::::I don't know what this is about, but if the OP is correct, it is totally absurd to edit 400,000 talk pages for a tweak. Discussing at a template talk page monitored by those focused on the template would simply hide the issue. ] (]) 03:53, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::Edits like these should ''always'' be bots, so they can be filtered from watchlists. There are numerous other editors who have recently engaged in the mass additional of categories to articles which I had to ask them to stop as my watchlist was flooded. ]] 13:02, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
::Hiding bot edits from watchlists is not a viable option for many editors, since it also hides any non-bot edits that predate the bot edit (], 2007, unassigned). Users ], ], ], ], {{lang|la|et al}} edit with such high frequency that hiding their edits leads to an unacceptable proportion of watchlist items not appearing. {{Small|(Also, Citation bot's edits should usually be reviewed, since it has a non-negligible error rate and its activators typically don't review its output, exceptions noted.)}}{{pb}}The code for maintaining two aliases for one parameter cannot possibly be so complex as to warrant a half million edits. If one of the two "''must''" undergo deprecation, bundle it into Cewbot's task. If the values don't match, have the banner shell template populate a mismatch category.{{pb}}In general, if a decision is made to start treating as an error some phenomenon that has previously not been a problem, and that decision generates a maintenance category with tens or hundreds of thousands of members, it is a bad decision and the characterisation of the phenomenon as "erroneous" should be reversed.{{pb}}At minimum, any newly instanced maintenance task scoped to over a hundred thousand pages should come before the community for approval at a central venue. ] (]) 15:19, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
:::{{Small|Also, like, if only one of {{para|blp}} and {{para|living}} {{tqq|gets updated}}, shouldn't the net result be pretty obvious? Valid updates should really only go one direction. ] (]) 15:24, 25 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)
* {{diff|Flag of Cambodia|prev|516048906|diff of Flag of Cambodia}}
*{{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)
No posts to the talk page in a year.
*:The robot is in operation... ] (]) 09:09, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
*::yay! —usernamekiran ] 16:04, 24 December 2024 (UTC)


:Meanwhile, the category has grown to over 800,000 pages. Perhaps next time an RfC to determine whether creating such a large cleanup task is warranted, would be better? ] (]) 16:34, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
Seems ] is "my article":
:{{re|Fram}} this is logical. We should also make it a policy (or at least a guideline), something along the lines "if change would lead to edits/updating more than XYZ pages, a consensus should be achieved on a venue with a lot of visibility". Like {{u|Silver seren}} mentioned above, sometimes a formal consensus/discussion takes place, but it happens on obscure talk pages. —usernamekiran ] 14:01, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
* {{diff|Road signs in New Zealand|512537887|510457934|diff of Road signs in New Zealand}}


== ] ==
No actual talk on the talk page ''ever''.


I didn't goad him into any of this; I only found it by looking, which is the purpose of having brought this to ANI. ] (]) 02:05, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
:Concur violations of unblock conditions linked by RexxS have been violated. <small>]</small> 02:15, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
Well first of all the New Zealand Road Signs article is not literally "mine" (though I called it that because I worked VERY VERY hard on uploading all those signs and making the article), but if Br'er Rabbit would pay deeper attention, he would find that the article has been under by a user called Jermboy (that's what I know him by anyways) and that Pharaoh of the Wizards also reverted this user several times on my behalf for the vandalism. He is a known sockpuppet who has access to dozens of IPs and creates fake accounts all the time too. He repeatedly added duplicate signs, removed ones, or added onces from other countries, I wasn't the only one reverting him on there, and I believe my restrictions exclude obvious vandalism. So let's cross off the New Zealand one right off the bat. As for Luxembourg, that's a complicated issue but to put it simply, there was already a discussion about what arms to use on the page, and it was only recently (in the past week) changed several times by an anonymous IP address. I still gave clear edit summaries instead of blank ones. Now for Cambodia, my edit summary was clear there too, I said the file that JamVT added is up for (not by myself) on Commons, this was true. It's because it has no source for it's copyright status and it will probably go. It was appropriate to revert back to the long-standing SVG file of the Cambodian flag. I'm sorry, I didn't explain my reverts on the talk pages of these articles, I messed up on that, but when you look at the purpose behind those reverts, it's clear they were in good faith and valid. Now yes, not explaining them on the talk pages is a breach, but it was a mind-slip and certainly not worthy of an indeff block and review of restrictions. ''']''' <sup>''']'''</sup> 02:22, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
:Nobody Ent, can you please quote me where you feel I broke the civility restriction? I have not called anybody anything (on Misplaced Pages), the only place and time I have done so was once, today on Commons. Again that would make it a Commons issue. Any language I have used here on Misplaced Pages regarding other users has been under a qualifier of choice, the action they choose to take over another which directly affects me. For example, when I said today on my talk page that if Drkiernan was to choose to continue believing that I'm following him around (something he accused me of which is not true), when I gave a clear and reasonable explanation of how I came across the files on Commons, that '' would be'' out of his own insecurity. I didn't call him insecure, I didn't call him anything. ''']''' <sup>''']'''</sup> 02:37, 8 October 2012 (UTC)


] is making wholesale reverts of my edits in contravention to guidelines. ] (]) 19:17, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
: "Vandalism" is ''not'' a {{diff|Road signs in New Zealand|512537887|512505653|content dispute over the order that two images appear in a gallery}} (an incredibly <big>large</big> gallery;) ] (]) 02:38, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
:You're removing demographic categories and templates by blanking them out; irreligion still deals with religion no matter your argument. That's definitely not compliant with ] and clearly vandalism. There's no action to take here except that you need to stop removing these categories and templates. <span style="font-family: Roboto;">''']''' <span style="color:#00008B">•</span> <small>''(])''</small></span> 19:42, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
::It's not about the order of the images! Look at the actual changes that user made, he duplicated images. New Zealand requires all their pedestrian-related signs to be fluroescent green. They used to be yellow. I have the fluoro green ones in the current gallery, and the old yellow ones under . In he duplicated them so that the fluoro green ones were in BOTH the and the , removing the old yellow ones from the article all together. That was beyond obvious vandalism. Or what about where he duplicated the "cyclists take care on tracks" sign. There is a yellow one and a fluoro one, in that edit he made them both fluoro removing the yellow one from the article all together. None of these changes were constructive, they were vandalism! ''']''' <sup>''']'''</sup> 02:45, 8 October 2012 (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)
::: Those are old; August.
::::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.
:::* {{diff|Road signs in New Zealand|512328644|511491408|anon changes the order of two images}}
::::After looking at the persistent removal, and communicating, I restored the well-drawn categories.
:::* {{diff|Road signs in New Zealand|512537887|512505653|you revert it, calling it vandalism}}
::::Hopefully, this is easily resolved.
::: That's not obvious vandalism, and it wasn't discussed on talk. ] (]) 02:53, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
:::] (]) 20:40, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
::::If you look at the history of that article and go through all the changes that user made, 99% of them are vandalism. Is moving two signs around in their order vandalism? No. But that article had been vandalized by that IP so many times I reverted that change blindly without looking at it's substance because of everything else that was done. It should be noted, the IP's now blocked for a year because of this, so clearly others felt I was right, cause I'm the one who asked for it to be blocked and I posted everything it did as evidence. ''']''' <sup>''']'''</sup> 02:56, 8 October 2012 (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.


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.
:In any case, I won't be replying to Br'er Rabbit anymore. He's splitting hairs instead of looking at the bigger picture, and is on a crusade to get me indeffed, he made that clear when he said he'll support such a penalty on my talk page, and in . He wants me gone and that's all he cares about. I don't understand it, I don't even remember the last time he and I interacted on anything, certainly not my talk page as he hasn't posted there since I created my account in 2009. He's taking the place of judge, jury and executioner and trying to get you all to go along with it. If he posts something and others want me to explain it, ask me and I'll reply to you, but my replies to him are done with. ''']''' <sup>''']'''</sup> 02:59, 8 October 2012 (UTC)


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


WP could be sooo much better. ] (]) 02:02, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
Based on the diffs provided by Br'er Rabbit and the admissions by Fry, I see no choice but to block Fry indefinitely for breaching his unblock conditions. The conditions, which were crafted by Amatulic, Fry, and me, were extraordinarily clear. Other than leaving a little wiggle room for what constitutes "vandalism" or "spam", no interpretation is required. And the consequence of a breach is just as clear: a violation results in an indefinite block. Fry can request an unblock if he wishes and it may be considered, but I don't see that he's entitled not to be blocked in the first instance. And the duration is not flexible. I am prepared to block him, or another admin may do so. I won't take any action until others respond, but that's my view.


:I'm sorry, but "I don't remember what policy says but I'm right so leave me alone" is an indication you should be trying to do better instead of telling us we should do the same. If you're not willing to actually explain why guidelines vindicate your changes, then being right sometimes isn't enough if you want to make things better. Communication is the process, not something ancillary to it. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>]</span> 02:10, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
One thing to add. Br'er Rabbit's comment that finding these violations was his "purpose" in bringing this here is preposterous on its face. He stated his purpose when he first posted. He said that Fry's "unblock needs reconsidering", and his other comments concerned the troll comment at Commons. However, my disapproval of Br'er Rabbit's conduct doesn't change my conclusion that an indefinite block should be imposed.--] (]) 05:07, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
::GO and read the guidelines. It does not need discussion. ] (]) 02:15, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
:Can't there please be any other option? What about a self-imposed period away, I can go away and come back. I screwed by by not posting my reasonings on the talk page, but that was a minor mess up. Half the things Br'er Rabbit brings up are misconstrued by him. I don't do very much here, I've made a minor slip up but I haven't actually done anything bad here or in bad faith. I haven't had any revert wars, I haven't gotten in fights, and I haven't attacked people. These are the issues I had which got me in trouble and I've stayed away from these actions. Please. ''']''' <sup>''']'''</sup> 05:15, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
:::Discussion is required when other editors ask you questions in good faith in order to resolve present disputes and prevent future ones. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>]</span> 02:18, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
::How can you block me when I haven't done anything bad here???? I didn't break my civility restrictions or my edit/revert restrictions, all I did wa mess up by forgetting to post a reasoning on a talk page, but when you look at the actual reverts they were 100% reasonable and right so there's not even an issue with their validity. This is insane that you would grant the desire of someone whose only purpose is to get rid of a good user who he's never even talked to in three years (three years I've had an account here and today is the first day he has ever posted on it! check the history). I've created articles, I've given hundred of hours of my life to this project and uploaded thousands of files to better this project. I did NOTHING wrong! ''']''' <sup>''']'''</sup> 05:25, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
::Bear in mind this is WP and not social media. ] (]) 02:16, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
:::I'm sorry, Fry, I'm not happy about recommending an indefinite block. I suggest you back away from saying you did "nothing wrong" as that's not correct. Your best course is to apologize for the breaches, explain that you failed to monitor your edits in light of your unblock conditions, and that you will try very hard in the future not to let it happen again. That kind of statement may get you unblocked later, even though it's unlikely to prevent you from being blocked now. You appear to be willing to stay away for a while, so why not do that, return after a reasonable period (not too short in my view) and make your request. An indefinite block is not necessarily a permanent block, although I can't predict what will happen if you make an unblock request in the future. In any event, others besides me need to weigh in at this point, and I need to go to bed. Take a deep breath and try not to post anything here that you may later regret.--] (]) 05:34, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
::How do you get the impression that "I don't remember what policy says but I'm right so leave me alone". ] (]) 02:18, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
:::No. You brought this here. The ] is on ''you'' to explain how the guidelines justify your edits, not to say "go look it up". Also {{tqq|How do you get the impression that "I don't remember what policy says but I'm right so leave me alone"}} - because that's exactly what you said. - ] <sub>]</sub> 02:19, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
::::It's not unreasonable in many cases to link to a very specific passage of a guideline and expect an editor to understand its meaning as regards a pertinent dispute, but you can't just fail to clearly articulate your argument while also insisting it's vindicated somewhere within the full text of a guideline. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>]</span> 02:21, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
:Content dispute. Bold edits were reverted; next step is discussion, probably at ]. If there is dispute over interpretation of the guideline you can consider leaving a pointer at ]. If there are any categories that shouldn't be used at all that can be discussed at ]. ] (]) 03:31, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
::The content dispute could have been discussed on any of the talk pages. Yet it was brought here first. ] (]) 06:16, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
:::When a content dispute involves several pages it is often <small>though not always</small> best to centralize discussion. Misunderstanding ANIs purpose and bringing content disputes here is a common and understandable error; best just to point people at appropriate ] when that happens. ] (]) 06:53, 21 December 2024 (UTC)


Not overly impressed by 43's comments above. But do wish to note that their ] of ] from at least one BLP appears to have been correct. The subsequent reversion of that removal is misfortune. ] <sup>]</sup> 08:06, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
: I did say in my initial post that "Fry's unblock needs reconsidering", which re-blocking amounts to. I then said a bit later that "the purpose of having brought this to ANI" was looking for diff; my meaning in the second was that the purpose of such threads is to get more eyes looking at the record, which few seem to have done. So I dredged up what I'd been glossing over with popups and had the diffs together before seeing Brad's request for diff. Fry as been at DrKiernan's page both apologising and offering a deal; help kill this thread in return for a promise to stop attacking him. {{diff|User talk:DrKiernan|516572332|516540219|diff of User talk:DrKiernan}}, {{diff|User talk:DrKiernan|516573500|516572332|diff of User talk:DrKiernan}}. Let's see what DrKiernan has to say, especially about Fry's ]. Fry makes flags and COA up and that's pretty dodgy. ] (]) 05:35, 8 October 2012 (UTC)


== User:ZanderAlbatraz1145 Civility and Content #2 ==
I've not fully examined the discussion above, but all I've done is to ask Fry to avoid me from his own choice. I've not asked anyone else (administrators included) for anything else.
*{{userlinks|ZanderAlbatraz1145}}
This user has engaged in a lengthy display of disruption. Namely through incessant incivility I have noticed .


Instances such as , , on , etc. Users such as {{Ping|Waxworker}} and {{Ping|Jon698}} can speak to their experiences, I'll outline mine.
This wouldn't have blown up at all if Fry had avoided 3 insignificant files that were not in use anywhere on any article page on any project and were never in danger of being deleted at all until he popped up to randomly undo my categorization of them. I really don't think that it is too much to ask him to refrain from undoing harmless actions on relatively trivial issues.


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 .
I would, however, like someone to remind him not to talk about editors outside of the noticeboards. ] (]) 08:01, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
:Just to make it easier for anyone else reading this topic, DrKiernan is referring to two posts Fry made to DrKiernan's talk page in September, which DrKiernan complained of on Fry's talk page in October (the exchange that led to ANI): (1) {{diff|User talk:DrKiernan|514187557|514186423|"no faith" in "due process" & "incredibly childish"}}; and (2) {{diff|User talk:DrKiernan|514191688|514188442|"stop being lazy telling me I have to do your job for you"}}.


This editor displays no interest in conducting themselves cordially or cooperatively on this website. ] 23:20, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
:If I understand DrKiernan properly, he is not asking for Fry to be blocked for violating any unblock condition. Instead, he'd like Fry to leave him alone and he'd like Fry to be reminded of the two civility bullets in Fry's unblock conditions, which include the requirement that Fry be civil on talk pages and that Fry not comment on individual editors except on some noticeboards. As for the civility issues, I'd personally like to avoid a discussion as to whether Fry's comments on DrKiernan's talk page were uncivil as I think what DrKiernan is asking for is far less than the block that could be rightfully imposed on Fry. As alluded to earlier, Fry has apologized for calling DrKiernan a troll on Commons and had promised to "never attack again". However, in my view, that's less than what DrKiernan wants. He essentially wants a one-way interaction ban so that Fry will just leave him alone. I'm not sure if DrKiernan is asking for that ban to apply to Commons as well, nor do I know how that would work. But what I'm geting to, in my usual long-winded way, is an '''alternative proposal''' that does not include a block. I'm just struggling with the terms of the proposal. Perhaps DrKiernan could help in crafting one that the community could then discuss/vote on.--] (]) 14:33, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
:I've given them a warning for canvassing: - ] <sub>]</sub> 04:08, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
: - ] <sub>]</sub> 05:36, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
::And they appear to be continuing editing while ignoring here. - ] <sub>]</sub> 05:39, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
:::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 ] ==
:: As I said, DrKiernan is ''mild''. You've already agreed that violations of the unblock terms have occurred and that restoration of the indef is appropriate. That DrKiernan is willing to overlook the violations does not change the fact that right off the 30 day block, Fry returned to form. That, too, is why I brought this here. Look at the block log, again; this is a pattern that is not changing. Look at ]; Fry stuck that OR flag back in there after consensus on the talk went against it. ''Even if that is a fair representation of a flag the President of Rwanda uses, the article is not about the president's personal flag, it's about the country's flag (which is quite different). ] (]) 14:53, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
:::As you already know, I'm not happy with the role you played in this. However, I don't dispute your right to request a block. I'm just exploring an alternative based on DrKiernan's post. I'd like to hear more from DrKiernan on this issue. I'd also like to hear more from Amatulic. And of course others may weigh in.--] (]) 15:15, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
:::: I'm not missing your hostility, I've been ignoring it as not relevant. I noted a recurrent issue that you and Amatulic are responsible for and brought it here for review, so I too am looking for others to opine. I believe you and I have bumped somewhere before but am not recalling what it was about; you remember? ] (]) 15:41, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
:::::I'm going to be away for a day or two, will reply more fully later. For now, my original comment will have to stand as it is. ~] <small>(])</small> 17:31, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
::::I'm sorry if I was unclear above, but I haven't asked for a formal ban or any extra community sanctions, and (I hope this doesn't come across as rude, it isn't meant as such) I'm not that interested in helping to determine any. I would like Fry to adhere to the current restrictions, which means not talking about editors on user talk pages, and to wikipedia policies and guidelines, which means not attacking anyone anywhere. I'm asking him as a personal favor to avoid me voluntarily. The only community discussion I've started is at commons . ] (]) 17:55, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
:::::I know I said what I posted below was my final statement, but I realllly feel I need to say this. Drkiernan, I am sorry I attacked you on Commons. I am also sorry you feel I attacked you earlier on your Misplaced Pages page. You haven't answered my apology on your page, and I don't know whether you believe it or not, but I really was not trying to find or follow you there. You may not believe my explanation for coming across the files, but it's the truth, it could have been any other user and I still would have come across them cause they were new uploads. I ''am'' trying to follow my restrictions, I've admitted that I slipped up on not posting reasonings, and I admit I have a bit of a grudge against you for past issues, but not one that's strong enough to stalk you for trouble. The evidence below however is very strong that another person here IS holding grudge for over 6 months and won't let go it it, against me. That is what a real "issue" with another user looks like. Anyhow, this is my last post here until I am contacted with a decision and outcome of this. Goodbye everyone. ''']''' <sup>''']'''</sup> 18:59, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
::::::Thank you. I do believe your explanation of how you came across the files. ] (]) 19:08, 8 October 2012 (UTC)


Hi, all, I'd like some assistance with the SPA ], who's been POV pushing on the ] article since . A quick view of their extremely short edit history shows that their sole focus is on pushing a vaccine-denialist POV on that and similar COVID-related topics. Started out on the talk page and BLPN, but now they've graduated to edit-warring on the article itself; they were active in June, made a single related edit in October, but now they appear to be . They've already , and have received an warning--to which they were . Would appreciate a more permanent resolution, either a COVID-19 topic ban or just an indef considering their SPA status, so they don't just go back into hibernation and then turn up again like a bad penny. (And yeah, given this context, I don't love the implications of the username "Tikitorch2", either.) Thanks, ]&nbsp;]] 05:13, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
==== Actual proposal ====
I prefer to wait for Amatulic's return before closing this discussion, with or without action, but I thought I'd start the ball rolling:


:]? ] (]) 06:25, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
#Fry1989 is reminded that he must pay closer attention to the conditions of his August 2012 unblock agreement whenever editing.
::{{duck}}. I'm sending this ]. - ] <sub>]</sub> 11:16, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
#Fry1989 is advised that compliance with the civility conditions of his unblock agreement may be construed broadly.
:::, so might just be generic disruption. - ] <sub>]</sub> 22:47, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
#The following is added as a bullet point at the bottom of the August 2012 unblock agreement: "Fry1989 is indefinitely banned from interacting with ] on Misplaced Pages or on Commons except on appropriate behavioral noticeboard pages. This ban was added in October 2012 based on ]].
:What are you implying with regard to my username? My edit history has been limited to trying to correct two red flags that stood out so much that I followed the citations when I was searching these scientists who were in the news for censorship. It has been enlightening learning how wikipedia selectively chooses secondary sources but discourages the use of primary sources to help discriminate which secondary sources are credible.
:For my two attempted contributions to Misplaced Pages, the two red flags were pretty dramatic to prompt me to check out the citations--Sunetra Gupta's article implied more than 1 in 1000 people in England died from Covid in spring 2020 in an effort to discredit her, which was trivially easy to google as untrue. I corrected that without really changing the overall narrative. The article for Martin Kulldorff...I would probably not have spent time looking at the sources or realized how unscientific Kulldorff's critics were had there not been such superfluous "Wikivoice" editorializing and synthesizing suggesting Kulldorff lied in an essay to the public. ] (]) 06:30, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
::] are not to be used for anything but simple facts about a subject. They absolutely are not to be used {{tqq|to help discriminate which secondary sources are credible}} because that is ]. - ] <sub>]</sub> 08:57, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Not sure why you felt the need to repeat what I said. Maybe I am the sock puppeteer! ] (]) 03:33, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
::What I am implying is that such a username in the context of an account pushing COVID-denialist rhetoric that flies in the face of the sources and Misplaced Pages policy is . Anyway, this editor continues to be a drain of editor time and attention. ]&nbsp;]] 14:58, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Ah an absurd, convoluted, and contrived personal attack. Assuming anyone but you knew tiki torches were present at a political event where someone was killed, why would I choose my username based on that? Tikitorches provide light, warmth, and keep the mosquitos away. I guess its not surprising an editor named writ keeper attacks the editor rather than effectively debating the subject of the edit. ] (]) 03:28, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
::::Even if it was a personal attack, making one ''back'' isn't going to fly here. Knock it off. - ] <sub>]</sub> 04:04, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::], your edits are being examined at ANI. This is not a pleasant experience, I'll admit. So, it's best for you not to dig yourself into a hole. I know the instinct is to defend yourself but it doesn't help your situation to come out swinging. It's probably to your benefit to address any concerns that have been raised and say no more than that. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 04:30, 23 December 2024 (UTC)


== ] ==
The link to this discussion can be added once it has been archived and has a permanent home.--] (]) 19:43, 8 October 2012 (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)}}
:A couple of comments about my own proposal. First, Amatulic proposed an interaction ban between Fry and DrKiernan. I've proposed a 1-way ban, partly because DrKiernan didn't say he was amenable to a 2-way ban. I don't know if 1-way bans are ever imposed, and it seems problematic to me. Example: DrKiernan (not banned) goes to Fry's talk page and says x and asks Fry to explain himself. Fry can't do that without violating the ban. Maybe DrKiernan would care to comment on this issue. Second, regardless of what kind of ban it is, I wasn't sure about the duration, so I wrote indefinite, thinking (a) why would they ever want to talk to each again anyway and (b) Fry could always request a change if for some reason they became more friendly.--] (]) 21:25, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
This user made 500 edits to their user page which were all completely useless (] to inflate their edit count) and then once receiving extended-confirmed permissions vandalized ] by copypasting another article. Their user page shows them editing and counting to 500. ]] 04:52, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
:: I think that given the profuse apology made by Fry1989 above at 18:59, 8 October 2012, these additional sanctions are unnecessary at this time. ] (]) 02:19, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
::: you're merely here to undermine me due. shoo ;> ] (]) 02:37, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
:::: Thank you for proving this is just another ] for you. ] (]) 14:04, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
:::::{{small|The game is called rabbit shoos. ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 04:11, 10 October 2012 (UTC)}}
:: I don't think point 3 will fly, partly because of what Newyorkbrad said above and partly because it would have to be hedged about with caveats to cover issues like the one you raised. I don't think it's worth our time and effort at this point to determine what all those caveats might be. ] (]) 16:44, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
:::Thanks, DrKiernan. I'm waiting for Amatulic's comments.--] (]) 16:38, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
:::: I think you and Amatulic need to recuse from closing this (comment, sure). You two unblocked Fry w/terms and are now seeking to give him a pass on having broken them. Better someone uninvolved review the breach. ] (]) 20:30, 10 October 2012 (UTC)


:It's a ], and I just reported to AIV. ] (]) 04:58, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
=== My final statement ===
First a reply to Bbb23. What I meant when I said I did nothing wrong is that I did nothing harmful to wikipedia. Yes, I did wrong by not explaining my revisions on the articles' talk pages, that was a slip and I'm sorry. I agreed to do it and I haven't done it. But everything else on my restrictions list I did obey.


::Would it be possible to put up some kind of filter to alert for this? Something that…say…catches when more than 25 edits are made in a single space (user space for example) or something that would trip if the edits added less than 5 characters consistently? <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 05:15, 22 December 2024 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
Secondly however, I want to point out that I now know who Br'er Rabbit is and why he is so dead-set on having me blocked. He used to be Alarbus (some of you may already know this so sorry if it's old news, but I just realized it). He and I had a bitter disagreement on about the inclusion of the presidential flag of Rwanda. I was blocked for uncivility, but Alarbus was later blocked for socking. When I my block expired, I posted on his talk page (unaware that he had also been blocked during my time away), because I had over 10 new sources. That comment was removed by Diannaa under Alarbus' request through email with a rather colourful metaphor as Diannaa put it in their edit summary. After that issue however, I continued with my sources on the article's talk page, and eventually got an email from the Rwandan Embassy to the US confirming it being the President's flag, and it's been left on the article from May to now October, 6 months. Alarbus (or should I now say "Br'er Rabbit") obviously7 hasn't let go of this spat because today he just saying the article isn't about the President's flag (despite plenty of other national flag articles including their presidential variants), and because in his on my talk page yesterday he already had decided that I need to be indeffed. He obviously is not just trying to get rid of me for any reason, but because he still holds a grudge over the Rwanda issue. '''He doesn't even care about the facts''', for example above he says that '''I''' the "dodgy coats of arms and flags] and that the DR was mine. It's already been made extremely clear here those files were made by Trajan, and that my only involvement in the DR is after he asked me to give my opinion.
:::There is a filter for this. Look at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Special:AbuseLog&wpSearchUser=International+Space+Station0&offset=20241222044736, "New account unusual activity" covers exactly this. ] (]) 05:22, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
*This account has been globally blocked as an LTA so it shouldn't be an issue. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 05:25, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
*:At what point is it appropriate to selectively delete their hundreds of edits of nonsense from the page history?
*:Or is that just something that isn't done? &ndash; ] (]) (]) 05:28, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
*::If you are talking ], there is rarely a good reason for it's use at present. If instead you mean ] see ] and ]. ] (]) 05:33, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::I've gone ahead and revdel'd the lot of them, as cut-and-pasting from other articles without proper attribution is copyvio and thus RD1able. Selective deletion (making the edits go away from the history) is probably not going to happen, if it's even technically possible for an article with almost *9500* revisions (I know ]!). - ] <sub>]</sub> 08:55, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
{{abot}}


== Disruptive editor on ] ==
I ask the admins here to look into this because it's plainly obvious that Alarbus/Br'er Rabbit hasn't let go, he even brought up the Rwanda flag dispute ! He instantly said I need to be indeffed on my page, coming there looking for the slightest sign of trouble, because he had it in his watchlist (self-admittedly) under his new user name, and Drkiernan never asked him to come to my page. He was LOOKING for trouble, any excuse to bring this here. ''']''' <sup>''']'''</sup> 16:14, 8 October 2012 (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 word of advice: do not try to play the victim here, it will not win you any favours. I very strongly recommend that you strike the entirety of the second and third paragraphs in your post above, otherwise you risk giving the impression that you have a battleground mentality which is not a good look and won't help your case. - ] ] 21:25, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
:: Huh? It's not like Br'er hasn't hounded others before. He has a history of that. Check with ArbCom. I don't know if Fry1989's timeline is accurate, but it's not out of left field that he is being hounded/goaded in this case. ] (]) 23:27, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
:::Interestingly, I at least partly agree with both of you. I think many people know about Jack's history, although it is hard to follow (so many different accounts). Assuming Fry is right about the history concerning Fry and Jack, Fry's comments may be relevant to Jack's motives. However, they are not particularly relevant to any action that might be taken here. Generally, it's not a good idea to jump on one's accuser unless one is ''contradicting'' an allegation. Casting aspersions, even if valid, isn't usually productive.--] (]) 01:51, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
:::: "I had some dispute with him about a made-up image of a coat of arms some six months ago" in Br'er opening argument brings that issue into the discussion, doesn't it? ] (]) 02:00, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
::: I kick small children, too :/ ] (]) 01:55, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
:::(Edit conflict) ], all the more reason why Fry should not respond like this. It only pours fuel onto the fire, a lesson I personally learned in this place not all that long ago. If Fry has a grievance, the correct way to raise it is not in an AN/I case about his own behaviour, it makes him look defensive and unwilling to admit his own weaknesses, neither of which are likely to impress any passing admin that might feel inclined to impose a block. IMO he would be best advised to cop it on the chin, admit his own breach of his unblock conditions, promise to do better in the future and drop the stick about the real or imagined misbehaviour of others. With his history he should not be raising such issues any time soon, if the things he complains about are real then the alleged perpetrator will undoubtedly cross swords with some other editor and may well end up here on the receiving end of his or her own AN/I case. Anyway, I believe Fry would be best advised to avoid the editor(s) with whom he is having trouble, even if that is hard for him, at least that way he may be able to remain here - if he gets blocked then he won't be able to edit here at all. - ] ] 02:05, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
:::: I disagree. I've seen plenty of cases on ANI where both the editor who started the thread and the one reported were sanctioned. ], ], and all that. ] (]) 02:13, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
::::: run along; you've a history with me. you're just trolling. ] (]) 02:37, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
:::::: Care to share our history here? ] (]) 14:02, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
::Perhaps there should be a halt (ideally voluntary) to interaction between Rabbit and Fry? Seems like a good idea given the above. --]]] 05:08, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
::: Given some recent posts in this thread and the one above it, it's unlikely such measure to work out on purely voluntary basis, at least from one side. A formal ] should be enacted between Br'er and Fry. ] (]) 14:09, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
::::I agree with you. In an ideal world, that wouldn't be necessary, but neither would this board (as there would only be kittens, rainbows, and happiness to report). --]]] 16:27, 9 October 2012 (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.
::If independent people think I should retract my statement about Br'er Rabbit, I will. It wasn't my intent to change the focus from me or else I wouldn't have apologized for and acknowledged my actions as well (twice). But I do think Br'er Rabbit's motives are fishy, considering he had me in his watchlist under his new user name that I've never interacted with, instantly decided I needed to be indeffed (edit summary and first reply on my talk page he said so), he brought up a six month old and long forgotten dispute about Rwanda here all by himself (per the link), and then later went to the article to remove the image again after it's been there for 6 months uncontested and sourced (since reverted by Anonmoos, another user I don't usually "get along with", but we have a decent "working relationship"). Just my opinion. I did what I did, but I don't think that excuses others from scrutiny. '''Anyhow, I'll move on.''' Still awaiting a conclusion and outcome. When that has arrived, I'll come back to face it. I will look at this page periodically so nobody has to come get me. ''']''' <sup>''']'''</sup> 18:09, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
:Allmusic and pitchfork are far better sources. I have added both as sources. I didn't change the genre list, I simply changed it back to the genre list that had stood there the longest before user:Pillowdelight changed it a few months ago for the first time, having never touched this page before yet complaining about other editors. ] (]) 18:52, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
:::BTW, I already said above way before this I have no objection to an interaction ban between Br'er Rabbit and myself (and actually would welcome it). ''']''' <sup>''']'''</sup> 18:25, 9 October 2012 (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)
::::but '''we haven't been interacting''' since February other than my noticing you calling DrKiernan a troll and violating your unblock terms, which is why we're here. ] (]) 19:24, 9 October 2012 (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)
:::::Yes, that's exactly true, and that was under your previous account, which is why I find it so odd that you are here now. I've never had anything to do with your Br'er Rabbit account, it's talk page, articles you've edited under it, anything. Did I do what I did? Absolutely, but it doesn't explain to me why you're the one here. In any case, your claims that I "create" (emphasis on create, as in "I am in the current practice of doing) fake coats of arms and flags is patently false. if you look at my on Commons, the last fictional flag I uploaded was back in '''2009''' (every other flag on there is either a proposal, or sourced), and I've already marked them as fictional and have never tried to put them on any pages/articles. For my , everything there is sourced, there's not a single fictional ''or'' proposed coat of arms. So I would be very thankful if you would not only lower your (which are completely unfounded), but stop claiming I'm doing something I haven't. ''']''' <sup>''']'''</sup> 19:55, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
::::Here's the page for what is considered acceptable sources {{lw|Acceptable sources}}.
=== Wrap up proposal ===
::::''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.''
I don't know the backstory, but for whatever reason Fy1989 was unblocked with ] ]. They're in at least technical violation with reverts such as in which they failed to post to the talk page as required. A few days have passed and no admin has felt the breach egregious enough to impose an additional sanction. Fry has attempted to deflect attention from their behavior by bringing up the Rabbit's history, but that's not news to many of us, and not really on point. The question is raised above if there can be a one way interaction ban -- there absolutely can be -- I've been operating with self-imposed ] interaction bans with multiple editors for years. If you don't wish to interact with someone, ''don't interact with them.''
::::A large group of people, the editors of When the Pawn...'s page throughout the years, thousands of people on music reviewing sites and numerous music journalists from legitimate publications do not agree with what this one article you cherrypicked states.
::::''Note that this policy is the minimum standard for inclusion as a reference in Misplaced Pages. Sources may meet this standard and still not be authoritative, reliable, accurate, free from bias, or undisputed. Sources which meet this minimum standard but which fail to meet stricter standards may be used, but should be used with caution. In particular, such sources should be explicitly attributed to their author(s) or publisher(s) in an article's prose (rather than being presented as fact with the author only given in the notes), and disputes considering the source's veracity should be described.''
::::Meaning you can't just add any genre because some random source says it when it goes against larger and more reliable sources as well as it is controversial.
::::Thank you and please stop vandalizing pages on topics of music you do not understand. ] (]) 21:04, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::]. Note that accusing editors of vandalism when they are not, in fact, vandalising can be considered a ], so I'd suggest you strike that comment. - ] <sub>]</sub> 21:14, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::Okay, I strike. ] (]) 21:17, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::You didn't actually strike any comments. To do so, do this <nowiki><s>Comment</s></nowiki> which will make it look like this <s>Comment</s>. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 22:17, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::<s> please stop vandalizing pages on topics of music you do not understand.</s> ] (]) 22:26, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
::::{{ping|Longislandtea}} How is the source considered not relevant and where was this dispute? AllMusic ''does not'' call the album alternative rock at all within its article. Rate Your Music is also not a source it's user generated which is against Misplaced Pages. I really wish an admin would comment on this because this is getting absolutely nowhere. ] (]) 21:05, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::Here's another source describing it as an alternative rock and jazz fusion album
:::::https://www.the-solute.com/the-solute-record-club-fiona-apple-when-the-pawn/
:::::Alt pop is not accurate. If you're so adamant about alt pop, please argue why. It is completely inaccurate and you have one singular source over music journalists and music sites. Allmusic does categorize it as alternative rock, Pitchfork has categorized it as rock since 1999 of its release. There was NO Alt-pop at the time. It still isn't. These are different genres. Art pop is not Alt pop. You edited the page one time in October 2024 only to get rid of the genre list that editors agreed upon to add Alt pop which makes no sense whatsoever. ] (]) 21:17, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::I have now added a new source to the genre list. If you have any problems with the new source, tell me. But it's much more accurate this way. It's still sad to see the whole genre list that was originally there, so much more descriptive and fitting, hacked away but oh well. ] (]) 21:31, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::Pitchfork's categorizations mean basically nothing. They have ten categories, one of which is "Pop/R&B", and another of which is "Global". By the way, you should just stop caring about this, because sources misclassify genres of music chronically and everywhere you look. Take your passion to RateYourMusic. <span style="position: relative; top: -0.5em;">꧁</span>]<span style="position: relative; top: -0.5em;">꧂</span> 18:16, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
:All of this discussion should be taking place on the article's talk page (which neither editor has used). ]&nbsp;] 21:36, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
::{{ping|Schazjmd}} I'm awaiting for an admin to respond. This conversation is getting nowhere hence the reason why I brought it here in the first place. I've tried to explain to the user on their talk page along with this entire thread and it's getting nowhere. {{ping|The Bushranger}} you left a comment but could you please share your opinion on the dispute? Or possibly ping an admin who's familiar with music if this isn't your area of familiarity? ] (]) 21:49, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
:::There was no reason to bring this conversation here. I talked to you directly but go no real reply or any arguments despite adding sources and explaining why it's not an Alt pop album. I've explained to you well enough. Please stop trying to get admins to ban me simply because I (and other editors) recognize that the genre list that you got rid of was far more fitting. There's a new genre list now with sources but it is not Alt-pop. The album was already added to the wikipedia album pages for Alternative rock and art pop. I'm familiar with these genres and Fiona Apple specifically to know that it's accurate hence why the genre list has been that way for years. If you're adamant about sources, there is a source. Accusing me of not sourcing should be considered a false accusation at this point. Not all sources are equal either and I've tried explaining that to you. ] (]) 21:55, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
:::], you were given good advice which is to have this discussion on the article talk page which neither editor has posted at yet. This is a content dispute. If no action has been taken yet by an administrator, it's likely because they don't agree with your statement that action needs to be taken. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 22:22, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
::::Okay, will do. Thank you Liz. ] (]) 22:24, 22 December 2024 (UTC)


=== Irrelevant sources and unnecessary changes to genre list on {{pagelinks|When the Pawn...}} ===
I recommend we just close this with no formal changes to the current conditions or sanctions other than a warning to Fry that they need ''scrupulously'' follow both the spirit and letter of their unblock conditions going forward. <small>]</small> 09:53, 11 October 2012 (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.
== Belchfire ==
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
On 25 September, ] started a discussion thread about {{User|Belchfire}} on ] (see "]"). At the time, major concerns about Belchfire's behavior were raised with administrator ]. In the discussion, it was shown that Belchfire had received at least three major warnings from administrators about his battlefield behavior and edit warring. TParis said he was on vacation playing the new WoW expansion and couldn't be bothered to deal with the problem. Shortly after the thread ended on the 26th of September, Belchfire disappeared two days later, on the 28th. Today, Belchfire returned, engaging in the same exact behavior that has not yet been dealt with as requested by Binksternet back in September. To make matters worse, Belchfire appears to be gaming the system, reverting to the edits of a SPA IP (]) on ] and violating the spirit of general sanctions by engaging in edit warring, and coincidentally, doing the same thing on the same day on ], reverting to a version created by another SPA, this time a registered account (]). This is very odd behavior and needs to be scrutinized closely. Is Belchfire here to build an encyclopedia or to play games? ] (]) 23:45, 7 October 2012 (UTC)


Thank you. ] (]) 19:32, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
:This complaint is nonsensical:
: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 single edit is ''never'' "edit-warring". Ever.
::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)
:*When I edit an article, I'm not responsible for the contribution history of previous editors. Ever.
:::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.
:*Even if I ''was'' responsible for those contribution histories, neither of the editors cited by Viriditas meet the criteria of ].
:::Please, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, or my information is incomplete. ] (]) 22:28, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
:*Supposing just for the sake of the argument that they were SPAs, that doesn't mean it's against policy to revert to their version of an article, because there's no policy against being an SPA.
::::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)
:*All that remains is (supposedly) "odd behavior", which isn't much of a complaint. And there is no policy against "odd behavior".
:::::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 ==
:I humbly suggest that Viriditas stop wasting everybody's time unless/until he has a real issue for admins to deal with. The only battlefield behavior here is this trumped up, fictitious ANI thread that he's started. G'day. ]-] 00:03, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
::"Edit warring is a behavior, typically exemplified by the use of confrontational edits to win a content dispute." I maintain, using the above examples, that you are deliberately engaging in disruptive behavior. An ] has been collected by other editors/admins, so there is no need for me to repeat it here. You are basically who seems to be gaming general sanctions and tag teaming on controversial articles by reverting to single-use IP's and throwaway accounts which effectively increases the 3RR count by adding additional reverts into the mix. I'm asking for action to be taken based on Binksternet's original request from 25 September. ] (]) 00:27, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
*Viriditas is hardly "wasting everybody's time." After looking into the links provided, I see that Belchfire has been warned numerous times and appears to me to have serious issues, starting with systemic vios of ], and ''I call for remedial action to hereby come into consideration including a full topic ban for any political subjects. Clearly this has gone on far too long.'' And for the record I am utterly uninvolved with any of this. ]]] 00:48, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
:Is someone accusing BF of sockpuppettry?&nbsp;&nbsp;]{{SubSup||]|]}} 02:08, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
::Disruption is more like it. ] (]) 02:10, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
:::Precisely. For clarity, I do not accuse Belchfire of socking. ]]] 02:27, 8 October 2012 (UTC)


*This is an ongoing problem that needs to be stopped, but Belchfire has given every indication that he is unwilling to stop his behavior. Far too often he has been reverting other editors on a drive-by basis on multiple articles—not engaging the other editors on the talk page to build toward consensus. He just throws a wrench in the works as he drives by. At ] we see that Belchfire's pattern is identified under "Signs of disruptive editing". ] (]) 02:10, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
:*It's a content dispute that has no place at ANI. Also, the originator of the complaint did not make a good faith effort to resolve the issue elsewhere, which is required per the bolded verbiage at the top of this page (only 22 minutes passed between a message on my Talk page that the initiation of this section). This entire thing is motivated solely by partisan politics. Cheers. ]-] 02:15, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
::*There is no "content" under dispute in this report, only your continuing bad behavior. As for attempting to resolve it, the diffs show that you've been warned many, many times. At this point, we need administrator action. We are far past the point of trying to resolve it. Been there, done that, now we need action. ] (]) 02:44, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
:BF has had issues inte past, mostly with civility, but since being warned he has been much more civil. Where is he refusing to discuss? &nbsp;&nbsp;]{{SubSup||]|]}} 02:18, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
::I'm happy to have a discussion when there is something to discuss. There is nothing to discuss here; this is simply a politically-motivated content dispute - not an ANI-worthy complaint. Viriditas knows better. ]-] 02:23, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
:::There is no content under discussion in this thread, only your behavior. ] (]) 02:44, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
::::Agree. The links Veriditas posted above, highlighted "enormous amount of evidence indicating this continuing problem," indicate there is plenty to discuss, as I see it. In my view to deny that is just ]. I respectfully suggest Belchfire take this matter a bit more seriously, because up to this point they are doing themself a disservice. Binksternet and Veriditas raise troubling points that arguably merit community oversight and sanctions. This is the place to discuss that. Calling their complaints "partisan politics" reveals a battleground mentality on Belchfire's part. ]]] 02:49, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
:::::Maybe. But the initial complaint by OP makes it seem like they are accusing BF of puppettry. This needs clarification.&nbsp;&nbsp;]{{SubSup||]|]}} 03:08, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
::::::''"A single edit is never "edit-warring". Ever."'' LOL! Someone needs to review what is considered edit warring.--] (]) 03:36, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
:::::::Yes, that was sticking in my craw as well.&nbsp;&nbsp;]{{SubSup||]|]}} 12:36, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
::::::::How so? Care to explain how both Belchfire and Collect are wrong on this point? ] (]) 13:16, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
:The purpose of warnings is to change behavior and if that is not effective then the next logical step is sanctions. I believe we have reached that point and would support a topic ban on political articles. Also, I find his comment on edit warring disturbing, since he has been blocked twice recently for edit-warring. It shows an unwillingness to follow the spirit of policy, and avoid sanctions by following the letter. ] (]) 10:37, 8 October 2012 (UTC)


I see no editorial misbehaviour warranting this section - it is clearly a matter of disputes between ed\itors on content matters, and this is not the place to rule on content matters. Further, it is dictum that "edit war" does, indeed, require more than a single edit. I would further note that the editors who seem most aggreieved have been involved in ''precisely analogous behaviour''. Cheers. ] (]) 10:47, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
:There is no content dispute under discussion here, nor have I been involved. In fact, I have made a total of ''zero'' edits to the articles named in this dispute: This discussion is about Belchfire's edit warring (which does ''not'' require more than a single edit) and battlefield behavior which has resulted in multiple warnings, all of which have been ignored. At this point, we're calling for action, preferably a topic ban or sanction. ] (]) 11:26, 8 October 2012 (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
Also note SPI is --> thataway. Making accusations here is not proper. ] (]) 10:48, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
, , .
:Nobody has made any such accusations. ] (]) 11:26, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
::Really? Here you say that BF is ''...basically who seems to be gaming general sanctions and tag teaming on controversial articles '''by reverting to single-use IP's and throwaway accounts''' '' (emphasis added). This is tantamount to making the claim that BF is socking, which is a serious accusation. If you have evidence or even a strong suspicion, take it to SPI.&nbsp;&nbsp;]{{SubSup||]|]}} 12:49, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
:::Actually, it doesn't imply that Belchfire is socking in any way, but it does imply that he is reverting to versions edited by other throwaway accounts to game the general sanctions and 3RR. I hope you understand that this statement does not in any way imply that ''he'' is the operator behind those accounts, but rather that he conveniently seems to show up at coincidental and opportune times to revert to their versions. There are any number of explanations for this coincidental behavior. For example, they could be meatpuppets, not socks, and no SPI would ever prove anything. Now, please stop distracting from his behavior under discussion. This isn't a dispute about content or a request for an SPI. It's a discussion about Belchfire's continuing battlefield behavior. ] (]) 13:19, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
::::Have you ever heard of something called a '''watchlist'''? These edits you present as "evidence" of disruption of BF appear to be a coat-rack to bring up a discussion of sanctions against BF. Don't accuse me of making distractions, I'm not the one making insinuations.&nbsp;&nbsp;]{{SubSup||]|]}} 14:19, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
:::::According to Belchfire's contribution pattern, there appears to be a gaming of the 1RR of general sanctions and the 3RR coordinated with the coincidental appearance of single-use IPs and throwaway SPA's. You can dismiss this as a coincidence when it happens once, but twice within the same day on two different articles right when Belchfire "returns" from a week-long vacation? Sorry, this does have the look and feel of odd behavior. I monitor editorial patterns all the time, and this is very strange behavior. ] (]) 01:29, 9 October 2012 (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.
:Red herring. No one has accused anyone of sockpuppeting. Saying an editor has a revert only account does not imply there is another account. You inferred it, but it wasn't implied. ] (]) 13:40, 8 October 2012 (UTC)


] (])
Belchfire is the poster child for votestacking. He finds a controversial article and reverts to restore the position of his friends, but he does not engage in discussion. More than any other, Belchfire is the type of editor that Lionelt hoped to recruit (and ) for the ] to further conservative causes. The ] that Swatjester warned him about includes many exemplary votestacking instances such as removing well-cited but negative information at ], without a single peep on the talk page, and at ] to revert to a fabricated image photoshopped by Lionelt, , one which was soon deleted. Anybody who wishes to investigate further into Belchfire's editing pattern will find too many disruptive reversions, the same things Swatjester already noted. ] (]) 13:25, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
*E/C applied. ] ] 19:51, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
: I found most disruptive: he involved himself in the article for precisely one edit, reverting my changes to the lead section of ] and the addition of text cited to the ''New York Times'', the US Department of Justice, the ''Washington Post'', CBS News and ABC News. Belchfire used the edit summary, "''removing unsourced material and obvious original research''". Such a summary was purely spiteful, considering the sources and carefully crafted text. Belchfire never once engaged in discussion on the article's talkpage. ] (]) 13:38, 8 October 2012 (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 ==
Belchfire's involvement with the project has improved since they received a final warning on September 9, but it seems to be mostly due to reducing the level of activity, as opposed to altering undesirable editing behavior.


] 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.
The drive-by reverting started about a week after Swatjester's final warning.
* about .


diffs: </nowiki>] </nowiki>] </nowiki>] </nowiki>]
* with an edit summary of "removing unsourced and poorly sourced material". Notably, one of the sources removed is an ] article. The content needed improvement but a complete removal was not constructive.


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


:{{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)
* with an edit summary of "removing excessive detail, undue weight and non-neutral language. there, now it's explained". Notably, this edit restored ]'s same reversion. Interestingly, a similar revert was performed on October 7 by ]. Both IP's have only edited ].
::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 ==
* with an edit summary of: "sourcing does not equal relevance"
{{userlinks|Glenn103}} has been mass creating unsourced stubs about Cyrillic letters, most of which have been draftified. They've also disruptively edited in the past, such as: <span style="white-space:nowrap"><span style="font-family:monospace">'''<nowiki>''']<nowiki>]]'''</nowiki>'''</span> (] • ])</span> 01:41, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
:Most of these pages don't even make any sense (eg.: ]). The user also ignores any notice about his articles being moved to draftspace by simply recreating duplicates of them (eg.: ] & ]). Immediate action may be needed. ] (] <b>·</b> ]) 07:38, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
::Given a uw-create4im with directions to come here, let's see what happens. - ] <sub>]</sub> 08:00, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
:::They've continued editing, this time adding infoboxes to the articles, so I don't think the warning worked... <span style="white-space:nowrap"><span style="font-family:monospace">'''<nowiki>''']<nowiki>]]'''</nowiki>'''</span> (] • ])</span> 08:10, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
::::I have blocked them from article space and page moves, and will leave note on talk page to come here. —&nbsp;]&nbsp;] 15:33, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
Honestly, this almost feels like trolling. Their basic procedure seems to be: pick a random Cyrillic letter. Combine it with a random diacritic. Write a short stub on the combination, saying effectively "this letter combination is not used anywhere." The occasional historical mentions ("this combination was used in such-and-such obscure Siberian language") are completely unsourced, of course. (Everything is unsourced.) ] (]) 04:43, 24 December 2024 (UTC)


:Excuse me for detracting from the report, but this was your 4th edit, your last edit was in January 2016... how have you found yourself here of all places?
* with an edit summary of: "removing undue weight. the significance of these orgs needs to be better established to merit special mention"
:I mean you might have a point, but wow. &ndash; ] (]) (]) 04:57, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
Similar behavior to {{checkuser|PickleMan500}} and other socks puppeted by {{checkuser|Abrown1019}}, which also made tons of drafts on Cyrillic characters that cited few sources (and none with in-depth coverage). Most drafts have been ]'d, of course, so only those with admin perms can verify the deleted contribs. <small>Since these socks have been banned (]), I haven't notified them of this discussion.</small> ] (] '''·''' ]) 17:08, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
:Good catch, and looking at the contribution histories it {{duck}}. Changing the block to indef as a sock accordingly. - ] <sub>]</sub> 07:22, 25 December 2024 (UTC)


== North Korean involvement in Russian-Ukraine war discussion ==
* with and edit summary of: "See WP:BITE. Better rationale is needed, reason given is NEVER valid" I was concerned about possibly biting a new user, so , but did not receive a response. &ndash; ] 13:30, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
::With the exception of the Sept 20th ''bullshit'' comments, most of the edits and summaries you cite appear to be reasonable, as they can reasonable be rationalized. Perhaps ''he'' is frustrated at what he percieves to be edits that do not reflect what the sources state? When you proceed to revert ''his'' edit before discussing, do you expect him to answer your talkpage response? I'm on the bandwagaon that BF can certainly be curt and sometimes abrasive, but most of these problems can be handled within BRD. Two bad the D part is often an afterthought. And BF is not the only guilty party.&nbsp;&nbsp;]{{SubSup||]|]}} 14:10, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
:::Belchfire is not just curt and abrasive, he is purposely disruptive. That's the key point. ] (]) 14:18, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
::::Yes, I understand that's the claim being made. So far the diffs presented here haven't shown disruption, much less ''intentional'' disruption. That is unless you consider source checking and attribution to be disruptive. I would however urge BF to start opening TP sections when he removes material he believes to be unsourced and be more specific as to the chief complaint.&nbsp;&nbsp;]{{SubSup||]|]}} 14:26, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
:::::There is no such thing as ''believing'' text to be unsourced when in fact it is sourced to The chief complaint is that Belchfire piles on in edit wars, that he is disruptive in his edit pattern. ] (]) 16:06, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
::::::Just as an example, one of the cited diffs above is which is a removal of unsourced material. There are other edits, also above, where BF has reverted edits that contain unsourced ''and'' sourced material in one fell swoop. Perhaps you feel he should have been more judicious in removing only the unsourced portion. Perhaps he felt it wasn't ''his responsibility'' to clean up anothers mess. Did he see one "bad" edit and decide to revert the whole thing? Is it ok to throw out the baby with the bathwater? Let's postualate that this is a misunderstanding on both sides. If everyone were to take this up on the talk page then we wouldn't be discussing it here.&nbsp;&nbsp;]{{SubSup||]|]}} 16:24, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
:::::::It's interesting that you chose that example, because here is the passage from the Rolling Stone article:
::::::::" "Open your eyes, people," Anderson recently wrote to the local newspaper. "What if a 15-year-old is seduced into homosexual behavior and then contracts AIDS?" '''<u>Her agenda mimics that of Focus on the Family</u>''', the national evangelical Christian organization founded by James Dobson;"
:::::::Belchfire removed: "'''<u>Anderson's agenda is similar to that of Focus on the Family</u>'''" with an edit summary: "removing unsourced original research" &ndash; ] 02:15, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
::::::::And I realise we disagree on these matters, but I think Belchfire's edit was absolutely fine. The statement was in Misplaced Pages's voice. A claim like that needs to be cat in the voice of the one making it. It's the responsibility of people adding content to ensure that it is neutral. Not only wasn't the sentence cited, it wasn't neutral, and those sort of added opinions may certainly be removed on sight. ]] (]) 12:10, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
I forgot to add this series of events which occurred as the ] was being expanded:
* followed by two additional reverts
* 1st revert
* 2nd revert
*]
*


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.
At first, I was encouraged to see Belchfire, StAnselm and Insomesia joining together with me in the spirit of improving the article. But almost immediately, it became evident that there was ]. When that didn't work so well, Belchfire sent it to AfD in a ] of an eye. Belchfire's reason: "This organization fails GNG, as it is unheard-of outside the Minnesota Twin Cities area. Article is here purely as a coatrack to cover it's SPLC "hate group" listing." &ndash; ] 16:33, 8 October 2012 (UTC)


'''Key Points:'''
<s>'''Comment''' I find it interesting that in this discussion, the members of are out in full force to defend Belchfire, especially those who previously tag-teamed with him like Little Green Rosetta. Not two days ago they were out for blood, misconstruing a joke comment as a "threat" in order to get rid of an editor who stood in the way of their tendentious POV-pushing and endured a great deal of abuse from them and nasty comments or worse for doing so. I think Belchfire ought to be blocked indef on the same grounds that the WP:Conservatism crowd demanded StillStanding-247 be blocked for. And yet, they insisted his conduct shouldn't come under an RFC/U first, while they want Belchfire given free rein to run around while an RFC/U is researched and filed? I have an alternate proposal, for all members and admin members especially of WP:Conservatism: ] is ] (]) 01:17, 9 October 2012 (UTC)</s>
:Just a note, the editor mentioned above was blocked for a comment about offing an admin. He was also blocked for repeated disruption and his block was widely supported. --] (]) 01:50, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
::No, this ip is most likely indeffed user SkepticAnonymous&nbsp;&nbsp;]{{SubSup||]|]}} 02:00, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
:::I was referring to StillStanding-247 who is still defended even though he is one of the worst POV pushers to ever hit this sight, amazing. --] (]) 02:08, 9 October 2012 (UTC)


# '''Prolonged Discussions and RfC Closure:'''
<s>::::As far as I'm aware, having a lousy sense of humor tinged with a little irony isn't a blockable offense. The comments you refer to are and , which are clearly meant as him making jokes. There's no way " Even if I agreed to your dastardly plan to murder TParis" can count as a threat. The fact that it was a middle of the night pile-on by editors and admins associated with TParis is as much a matter of ] behavior as anything else, just as the rush to defend Belchfire is a function of ] levels from a certain Wikiproject. Reaper Eternal is previously on record as a WP:Conservative supporter and "supports the campaign to fire Obama", and blocked within 15 minutes, which is quite a rush to indef-ban an editor who's gotten the short end of the stick from a POV gang since day one. It's pretty obvious what is was going on was an attempt to get someone blocked/banned for political reasons because they oppose POV-pushing editors, nothing more or less, and the defense of Belchfire who has just as much a habit of tendentious editing and disruption is being treated the other way by the same people for reasons of political affiliation as well.
#* 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.
::::I don't see any reason to miss or minimize the fact that Belchfire saw StillStanding-247 gone, and figured he could get into tendentious editing again because one of the people likely to report him was now blocked.
#* 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:'''
::::Also, false accusations don't do much for me. Pull the other one while you're at it, otherwise they'll get lopsided. ] (]) 02:10, 9 October 2012 (UTC)</s>
#* Despite the RfC's resolution, the same arguments are being repeated across multiple threads, often by the same editors.
===topic ban proposal===
#* 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).
*'''<s>Strongly</s> support a topic ban''' for the areas where Belchfire is unable to contribute constructively: Politics, Christian political organizations and people, Christian right, civil rights organizations, anti-gay/hate group organizations and LGBT topics. While Belchfire can make positive contributions to Misplaced Pages, I believe that this topic ban would have a net positive effect on the project. &ndash; ] 13:30, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
# '''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:'''
*'''Support''' a topic ban on politics, religion, homosexuality and civil rights broadly construed. ] (]) 13:40, 8 October 2012 (UTC)(Added ] (]) 14:18, 8 October 2012 (UTC))


I respectfully request that administrators address the following issues:
* '''Support topic ban''' A single edit can be edit warring; particularly when you pile in a edit war with others by not getting consensus for the bold reverted change first (It's BRD, not BRRRR). Belchfire trying to force an edit through by re-inserting a bold edit is edit warring, and it seems to be something he does quite often. The account shown account shown User:BacktoWiki is ''clearly'' a SPA account. ] (]) 13:41, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' No case other than "IDONTLIKEHIM" has been presented. The implication that he is socking was improper on this page as I noted, and the fact that he has content disputes is ''insufficient'' to purge him. I would note that those seeking to ban him are specifically involved in the disputes, and that I would not support a topic ban on them either. AN/I is not the noticeboard to get folks barred from areas where the ones proposing the topic ban have ''remarkably similar attributes'' themselves. ] (]) 15:02, 8 October 2012 (UTC)


# Enforce the consensus reached in the closed RfC, as no new evidence significantly alters the previous conclusions.
::No one implied sock puppetting. You wrongly inferred it as has already been pointed out several times. Stop with the red herrings. Are we reading different ANI threads? The diffs have been presented, that you have ignored and denied the reality of the diffs, which clearly show piling in on an edit war, doesn't mean there is no case. It is self evidently not just a content dispute. ] (]) 15:42, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
# Discourage editors from rehashing resolved discussions, particularly when arguments have been repeatedly addressed and dismissed.
:::How else do you read ''This is very odd behavior and needs to be scrutinized closely'' as anything other than a veiled accusation of impropriety? Cheers -- and the "new account" below does not seem to be "new" either. ] (]) 18:59, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
# Consider imposing a topic ban or other appropriate measures on editors who persist in disrupting the article with repetitive or bad-faith arguments.
::::Both the IP and registered account linked above are new, and appeared just prior to Belchfire reverting. Why do you claim they are not new? ] (]) 01:34, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
<s>*'''Support''' Agree a topic ban on politics, religion, homosexuality and civil rights broadly construed. --] (]) 16:25, 8 October 2012 (UTC){{SPA|JimEdgers}}</s>
:{{question}}'''Point of order''' - Why was this comment ^ stricken out? &ndash; ] 13:38, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
::This !vote is by a sockpuppet. As are a few comments by a one ip address. I suspect the other ip address (supporting BF) might be a sock as well, but I have not an inkling of who the sockmaster would be. In any case I suspect a closing admin will take this into account during their closure.&nbsp;&nbsp;]{{SubSup||]|]}} 13:54, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
:::Thanks for the clarification. I didn't realize that this had become such a puppet show. &ndash; ] 18:16, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' Rabblerousing from the usual suspects. ] (]) 19:09, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
*'''Support''' I agree with IRWolfie. A look at the edit on the Romney positons article shows that this was indeed an edit war and BF's revert part of it. I also note the use of the edit summary to debate or disute the previous summary claim (See ]) is one reason to consider this single revert an edit war. With the addition of the revert on the Homosexual agenda article, it does look very much like a topic ban is appropriate for "politics, religion, homosexuality (Edit:Not just this single article but all LGBT related articles) and civil rights" broadly construed as mentioned by Binksternet.--] (]) 19:52, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' This has relied to much on verbiage and innuendo -- he reverted to the last version edited ''by an SPA'' (gasp) ... just sayin' ... ''not'' that I'm accusing anyone of sockpuppetry (but it's okay if you connect the dots on your own). More diffs, less words and less mud next time please. And single edits are warring, they're ''']''' Like a good Wikipedian is supposed to be. <small>]</small> 20:06, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
::There's lists of diffs in the discussion above. You want even more than that? ] (]) 00:12, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
:::As someone whose actually read all of the diffs above (where diffs were actually ''provided''), none of them seem to support the accusations of the submitters. To quote a recently indefed editor "What else you got?"&nbsp;&nbsp;]{{SubSup||]|]}} 00:24, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
::::Curious question: When you read all of those diffs, did you really see no examples Did you really not see that Belchfire wrote when called on it? &ndash; ] 02:28, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
<s>:::::LGR is Belchfire's tag-team partner... from the same. ] (]) 02:34, 9 October 2012 (UTC)</s>


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.
*'''Support''' topic ban on political, religious and LGBT articles as warnings appear to be ignored, as I explained above. ] (]) 20:57, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
*'''Oppose'''&nbsp; I have examined one of the edits about which this topic has been opened, and found the complaint regarding this edit to be without merit.&nbsp; The edit by Belchfire in question addressed the issue that the previous post was WP:BITE.&nbsp; Note that the link provided by the OP hides the edit comment of the previous post: .&nbsp; Belchfire's objection was sustained by the edit comment, which has removed the "WP:BITE".&nbsp; ] (]) 22:23, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
UPDATE: I just noticed that North Korea was removed as a belligerent and added to the 'supported by' section, completely violating the consensus.
**To be certain, the pattern is not established by just "one of the edits". It is the continuing pattern that is a problem. ] (]) 03:37, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
*'''Oppose'''. This does not appear to be a clear-cut case. You should start a ] instead. ] (]) 23:21, 8 October 2012 (UTC) ] (]) 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)
*'''Oppose this proposed ban''' in its broad nature. I sure as hell think it is time to act on the final warning about 2012 election editing as is so beyond inappropriate that it needs little explanation. The conduct at Parent's Action League is troubling, but over a month old. Seems to me an RfC/U is the more appropriate step at this point, even if just to sort out exactly where he should be prevented from contributing. Not gonna rule out that his contributions in some of the other areas might be constructive unless there is evidence to the contrary.--] (]) 00:08, 9 October 2012 (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.''
*'''Oppose''' - nothing of substance here. If anybody should be topic banned, it should be the person who started this thread since he has a pretty clear POV biais. --] (]) 01:56, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
::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."
<s>:: As opposed to ? "let's ban anyone who disagrees?" ] (]) 02:19, 9 October 2012 (UTC)</s>
::I posted it on ANI beecause my specific problem was this dispute ] (]) 12:07, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Support''' - Reading the Warning thread convinced me there was a problem here, thanks to admin Swatjester. It includes a substantial number of links to diffs that indicate an edit pattern I can only call tendentious per ]. I feel these links make a strong case for a topic ban with a mandatory lengthy block for even one more violation. I defy Belchfire and his band of supporters to explain this away:
:::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)
:::::::::::<p>Putting the use of LLM aside, however you compose your message you should comply with the basics of ANI. This includes not making allegations without supplying evidence. This would normally be in the form of diffs but in this case just links might be fine. But ] has provided none. </p><p>Probably because this is because their initial complaint appears to be unsupported by what's actually happening. They claimed "{{tqi|Despite the RfC's resolution, the same arguments are being repeated across multiple threads, often by the same editor}}". But where is this? I visited the talk page, and what I see is here ] there was a request for clarification from the closer, something which is perfectly reasonably and which the closer followed up on. The OP then offered an interjection which frankly seemed unnecessary. There was then a very brief forumish discussion. To be clear, AFAICT no one in the follow up discussion was suggesting any changes to the article. So while it wasn't he most helpful thing as with any forumish discussion; it's hardly causing that much disruption especially since it seems to have quickly ended and also cannot be called "the same arguments" since there was no argument. No one in that discussion was actually suggesting changing the article. </p><p>Then there is ]. There was again some forumish discussion in this thread which again isn't helpful but wasn't that long. But there was also discussion about other things like the name of the article and whether to restructure it. To be clear, this isn't something which was resolve in the RfC. In fact, the closer specifically mention possible future issues in a non close comment. </p><p>Next we see ]. Again the main focus of the discussion is in how to handle stuff which wasn't dealt with in the RfC. There is a total of 2 short comments in that thread which were disputing the RfC which is unfortunate but hardly something to worry ANI about. </p><p>Next there is ]. DPRK was briefly mentioned there but only in relation to a suggestion to change the infobox for other countries. No part of that discussion can IMO be said to be disputing the DPRK RfC. Next we have ]. Again DPRK was briefly mention but only in relation to other countries. No part of that discussion can be said to be disputing the RfC. AFAICT, the only threads or comments removed from the talk page since the closure of the RfC was by automated archival. The only threads which seem to be post close are on ] and none of them seem to deal with North Korea. </p><p>So at least on the article talk page I don't see what the OP has said is happening. The tiny amount of challenging of the RfC is definitely not something ANI needs to worry about. Even the other forumish or otherwise unproductive comments aren't at a level that IMO warrants any action IMO. If this is happening somewhere else, this is even more reason why the OP needed to provide us some evidence rather than a long comment without anything concrete, however they composed it. </p><p>] (]) 10:15, 25 December 2024 (UTC)</p>


== Concern About a New Contributor ==
{{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,
::(Start Swatjester's warning message) "Belchfire, stepping in here as an uninvolved administrator, I've noticed that your actions on Misplaced Pages have drawn quite a lot of attention recently. You're pretty much constantly on one noticeboard or another -- often times invalidly, but still. It's pretty clear to me that you're viewing Misplaced Pages as a ] to fight a war over conservative articles, and your edits are often times ], and make ] in the process of doing so. This is not a recent occurrence, there are several times you've done this. You also seem to use the phrase "coatrack" as a bludgeon to get your way in discussions.


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.
::Examples: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , .


I believe your experience could help address this situation effectively.
::And that's just in your last 50 edits. Here's more.


Looking forward to your advice on how to proceed.
::, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,


Thankyou! ]] 15:21, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
::And that's just from the next 50 edits." (Here I snip Swatjesters warning, which continues in the original.)


:"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.
::''This astonishing mass of evidence clearly indicates a problem editor.'' That he went right on with his edit pattern, as shown above, in spite of Swatjesters warning, indicates bad faith. '''I say again, indicates bad faith.''' He denies he has a problem in this very thread, calling it a "content dispute." That is absurd, in my view, and I hereby call on the community to take action for the good of the project. We have heard from his friends; now let's weigh the evidence and take action. ]]] 03:31, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
:Perhaps if you supplied ] of this behaviour, someone would be able to help? If your issue is that they've nominated 4 articles of which you are a major contributor ''and'' are doing so by going through your contributions in order to find articles to nominate for deletion with specious reasons, then this board would be the place to come. If not, then making your arguments for keeping the articles on the AfDs in question would be your best bet.
::: I really don't have time to look all those diffs. So I just sampled one . Calling bullshit StillStanding's claim "You're stonewalling by playing burden tennis" is not civil, but it's not ''blatantly'' uncivil either. And we know that it took a saint to put up with StillStanding. ] (]) 04:06, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
:By the way is forum shopping. Stop that. ] (]) 16:06, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::<small>And even then... ]] (]) 11:58, 9 October 2012 (UTC)</small>
:(ec) This is an odd one. As S-Aura failed to provide diffs, I looked at Kriji Sehamati's contribution history. New account (9 Dec) began editing today, created two drafts and made a bunch of edits to those. Then began adding COI tags to articles S-Aura wrote, nominated those articles for deletion, and then left a template on S-Aura's talk page. Really seems to be something weird going on here between those two. (In addition to opening this ANI thread, S-Aura asked for help with basically the same message on the talk pages of Ipigott, Ryan shell, CFA, and BusterD, and S-Aura opened same complaint at AN.) ]&nbsp;] 16:06, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
::::You have to look at more than one diff to see a pattern of civil POV pushing. ] (]) 09:49, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
::I am concerned that ]’s actions, including unjustified deletion nominations and spamming, are disruptive and violate Misplaced Pages’s guidelines.
:::::All I see from the above is political football like Misplaced Pages always sees before some election (in the US or elsewhere). And it takes two teams to play it ] (]) 14:22, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
::She seems to lack understanding of basic Misplaced Pages guidelines, particularly those related ] and ]. ]] 16:40, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
:::You were asked to provide diffs. You did, almost, but then reverted yourself. Those diffs (well, the ones before those diffs) are just the other user nominating articles for deletion (which is allowed) or tagging them for what they believe to be conflict of interest edits (which is also allowed).
:::Please provide some actual evidence that the other user is engaging in chronic, intractable behaviour, rather than just not editing how you would like them to. ] (]) 17:21, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
::::Here are some diffs highlighting her problematic edits. However, I believe that many of her contributions may be in violation of Misplaced Pages’s guidelines. It appears she has specifically targeted me and added the COI tag multiple times to the same page. I would appreciate it if you could review her actions more thoroughly:
:::: •
:::: •
:::: •
:::: •
::::and many more
::::Thankyou! ]] 17:33, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::We wouldn't generally treat an AfD as vandalism. ] (]) 17:39, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::I understand your point about AfDs not generally being treated as vandalism. However, I noticed that the major contribution history of the user seems suspicious. ]] 17:42, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::Not from where anybody else is standing so far. I get that you're upset to have four articles of yours nominated for deletion, and if you have any evidence ''at all'' that you are being deliberately targeted by the other editor, then people will very much act on that. Please provide it. ] (]) 17:58, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::I am here to contribute and edit articles in accordance with Misplaced Pages’s guidelines. However, today a new user targeted me and falsely blamed me for actions that are not accurate. I believe this is unfair and not in line with the collaborative nature of the platform. ]] 18:04, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::Please provide evidence of this. ] (]) 18:06, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::Please check! ]] 18:07, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::The articles that have been nominated for deletion discussion have been reviewed by experienced contributors. These discussions involve articles about judges and lawyers, under ], a valid criterion according to Misplaced Pages’s guidelines. Therefore, the deletion decision was made after carefully reviewing these articles. ]] 18:11, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::Honestly it looks like this user, rightly or wrongly, believes you have a conflict of interest and are acting on the basis of that assumption. I would suggest, if you don't have a CoI, talking to them about this and maybe asking why they've come to this conclusion. ] (]) 18:10, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::They have just started targeting my contributions, and I tried to inform her about the situation. However, she is acting as if she knows everything about Misplaced Pages and is dismissing my concerns. ]] 18:15, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
{{od}}
:{{ping|Kriji Sehamati}} hasn't edited since their AfD spree earlier today, let's wait and see what their response here is when they return to editing. ]&nbsp;] 18:16, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
*We need to stop focusing on the OP's calling this vandalism; it is not. I've changed the header to reflect that. That said, the new user's edits ''are'' problematic and merit scrutiny. As for the UPE stuff, I've removed that post from the OP's Talk page; it's nonsensical coming from a new user and does not merit a response.--] (]) 18:42, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
*It is, of course, not vandalism to nominate articles for AFD discussions as long as a legitimate deletion rationale is provided and the article hasn't just been discussed at a recent AFD. However, I don't think it's a good sign when a brand new editor claims to understand all of Misplaced Pages policies and whose first actions are to nominate articles at AFDs. They are almost never an actual new editor, especially when they know how to even set up an AFD or are familiar with using Twinkle on their first day of editing. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 19:34, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
*:It seems that she is not new to Misplaced Pages and might be operating multiple accounts. It appears she has an issue with one of my contributions, as she created her account just 15 days ago, yet she already has a good understanding of tools like Twinkle and AfD procedures. This level of familiarity suggests prior experience on the platform. I am now requesting her account to be blocked as I am completely disturbed by her repeated allegations and disruptive behavior. ]] 11:32, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
*::I am now genuinely confused—if all my contributions are not good, then why am I even here? Were the experienced editors who reviewed and approved these pages also mistaken? A newcomer, who joined just recently, is now disrupting and questioning the validity of all the work that has been carefully reviewed and maintained by experienced contributors. This situation is deeply discouraging. ]] 11:58, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::Please resolve this situation—either block her for her disruptive behavior. How can i continue working under such constant targeting and stress ? ]] 12:00, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
*::::User:S-Aura, you seem to be making unsupported personal attacks against ]. You should provide specific evidence of wrongdoing, including diffs, or your arguments here will fall on deaf ears (and bring consequences for you). Meanwhile, as a filer on ANI, you have brought all your own edits to close scrutiny by the community. You may have to face that smart people disagree, and this is how we sort disagreements out on English Misplaced Pages. You are not required to edit, but we encourage you to do so. Nobody is going to block Kriji Sehamati at this point, because you've given us no reason to do so. ] (]) 12:01, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::::Meanwhile, in the last few minutes S-Aura has disruptively about this exact issue on this same board, which by another editor. This is intentional disruption. ] (]) 12:07, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
*::::::As to the question "Why am I here?", poets and artists have been trying to answer this question for eons. Epistemology is outside the scope of this board, but there are articles about it. Show up to edit if you want to, but expect disagreement from time to time. (That's actually a sound answer to any epistemology question as well.) ] (]) 12:16, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::::Dear @],
*:::::It means I have been proven wrong, and that user’s contributions have been more focused on me, which is quite insufficient to catch someone’s lie that she is pretending to be new, when in fact she is old.
*:::::Also, I am not against AfD; I am simply expressing my opinion. ]] 13:12, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
*::::::Could you please rephrase your point here? I don't understand. While it's okay to be suspicious that this editor is somehow socking or doing something else deceptive due to the familiarity, it seems unacceptable to deliberately accuse them of such repeatedly without firmer evidence. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>]</span> 13:19, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::::::Dear @],
*:::::::I am not engaged in paid activities on Misplaced Pages, and she claimed that I am connected with the subject, who is a judge, lawyer, etc. You all should understand that this is not a trivial matter; justice is a very respected position. Making such allegations can escalate court cases. I would like to remind you of the Misplaced Pages vs. ANI case. ]] 13:24, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
*::::::::One thing you need to understand immediately is you should never make another post that sounds vaguely like a legal threat, as you've just done above. ] That intonation is seriously not helping us decide who's right or wrong here. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>]</span> 13:27, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::::::::Okay! ]] 13:35, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
*::::::::I will caution you that this is tiptoeing right up to the edge of ] and you'd be advised to avoid making legal threats. ] (]) 13:28, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::::::::Dear @],
*:::::::::I am merely showing that she can potentially do something inappropriate. I am following the guidelines and not making any legal threats. ]] 13:31, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
*::::::::::Accusing another editor of potentially making legal threats is not much better, when there is no concrete evidence that they would do so. Being interested in articles about judges does not suffice. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>]</span> 13:32, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
*::::::::The page of Justice ], who had conducted over the Misplaced Pages vs. ANI court hearing, was also created by me. ]] 13:28, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::::::::<del>State plainly what the implication you are making here is, because what I'm hearing is "I'm familiar with people who have hit Misplaced Pages with a mallet in court before, and I can make sure it happens again".</del> <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>]</span> 13:30, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
*::::::::::This is becoming a rabbit hole. I urge you not to pursue the rabbit further. ] (]) 13:33, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::::::::::Good call, I'll retract the above. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>]</span> 13:34, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
*::::::::::No, that is not what I am implying. ]] 13:33, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::No one has said your contributions are not good. However, it should be noted that a draft being accepted at AfC or a new page having been ] does not guarantee greater scrutiny would not result in a valid AfD nomination. That said, echoing others here it's clear something problematic is up with this user's behavior. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>]</span> 12:02, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
*::You can't both criticize someone for {{tq|lack understanding of basic Misplaced Pages guidelines, particularly those related ] and ]}}, and then argue that she is too familiar with the platform to be a newcomer for knowing how to file an AfD. I wouldn't be surprised if most people here knew how to file an AfD before knowing all 14 notability guidelines by heart. ] (] · ]) 12:59, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::There are detailed instructions on filing an AfD that can be found by googling "how can I get a Misplaced Pages page deleted" - if somebody had some personal reason for wanting to have pages removed it doesn't strain credibility to think that's why they created a WP account and that they just followed the very clear instructions on the appropriate pages.
*:::In fact that might explain why some of the AfD filings were reasonable and some were, on their face, incorrectly filed. If you looked up the AfD ''process'' but not ''criteria'' that is the likely outcome. That's why I find the "new user files AfDs must be a sock" idea here somewhat uncompelling. ] (]) 13:04, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
*I believe we're entering boomerang territory at this point. Opinions? ] (]) 13:35, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
*:I think OP is upset that a cluster of their articles were put up at AfD. This in itself is understandable, but while there's reason to think there might be mischief by Kriji Sehamati, we don't have any real evidence of it. We either need the OP to make it clearer what misconduct, if any, has occurred, or they need to ]. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>]</span> 13:37, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
*::The OP has been intentionally disruptive (by creating a new ANI thread which was reverted), and this thread is going nowhere. IMHO, there's nothing ANI can do here. Everything I'm reading about should be resolved at the page talk and user talk level, in my opinion. The AfDs are underway. If dispute resolution is needed, fine. Nobody is harming S-Aura. S-Aura can't come crying to ANI (or four random user talk pages like mine) anytime someone merely disagrees with them. ] (]) 14:08, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::I'd have said close with trout for all if not for creating the second thread at AN/I. Based on that I'd say the OP should be formally cautioned against such antics in the future. ] (]) 14:10, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
*::I should have added that I largely hold with Remsense in their position. ] (]) 14:15, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::] is definitely a sock puppet on Misplaced Pages, but we don’t have any evidence because understanding Misplaced Pages’s AfD process so quickly can be a bit challenging. I have no problem with AfD regarding my contributions, and it’s a good thing that experienced contributors are giving their feedback. If you believe that the kriji is 100% correct and her activity is not suspicious, then this discussion should be closed. ]] 14:27, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
*::::You need to stop insisting this is definitely the case if you don't have any evidence for it, period. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>]</span> 14:28, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
*::::S-Aura, how did you make the determination {{tq|User:Kriji Sehamati‬ is definitely a sock puppet on Misplaced Pages}}? Please share your process. That's a personal attack, and requires proof to prevent you from being in violation of ]. I've looked at the AfDs and they seem reasonable to me. When you've provided strong sources the article is being kept. So far the jury is out on the others. Both of you seem to be writing articles about obscure living persons who wouldn't normally (by my cursory reading) have a Misplaced Pages article about them because reliable sourcing is not readily found. When I see that, I must suspect COI or undeclared unpaid editing here, but nobody's admitting to it. ] (]) 15:05, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
*::::S-Aura's continuing to issue personal attacks makes it more difficult for us to just close this (without some form of consequence for the editor making unproven personal attacks after they've been warned repeatedly). ] (]) 15:08, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::::I have made a level-four user talk page warning for the personal attack. FYI. We've been very nice about this up 'til now, but we need to stop being so kind. Doing foolish things has real world consequences. ] (]) 15:17, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
* Both editors' apparent use of AI is certainly disruptive. If it continues, it should lead to blocks. <span style="padding:2px 5px;border-radius:5px;font-family:Arial black;white-space:nowrap;vertical-align:-1px">] <span style=color:red>F</span> ]</span> 15:10, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
*:No personal hate intended, but I just found this and thought it would be worth checking. ]] 16:49, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
*::It would be nice if you could explain the significance for those who do not speak Hausa. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>]</span> 16:51, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::She had made contributions to pages in other languages a few months ago. I am attaching her contributions link. ]] 16:59, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
*::::How does this constitute evidence of sockpuppetry if we aren't to know what exactly happened? There's a reason we don't just automatically block anybody who is blocked on another language wiki, and I looked through the edits some and didn't find anything outrageous that made it past the language barrier. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>]</span> 17:01, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::::I agree that it’s important to ensure we have solid evidence before making conclusions. I appreciate your perspective on not automatically blocking users based on blocks from other language wikis. ]] 17:17, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
*::::::Please don't reply to me or others using ChatGPT. It is flat-out rude. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>]</span> 17:18, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
* '''Support BOOMERANG''' - I've been uninvoled and have mainly just been watching the back-and-forths, but the personal attacks and ] mindset, such as "questioning the validity of all the work that has been carefully reviewed and maintained by experienced contributors", concerns me. Not sure for how long, but I don't think anything longer than a months is appropriate given the circumstances. ]<sub>]</sub><sup>]</sup> 15:47, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
*This whole thread, but especially the 16:49, 24 December 2024 (UTC) comment, feels like the OP is just throwing literally everything at the wall to see what sticks. But, worse, what is being thrown at the wall lacks any significant body of evidence to support. I note that a personal attack warning has been given for the continued unfounded accusations being presented, which I think is a good move. I don't support a block at this point, although if I was the OP I would withdraw this complaint and/or drop the stick and walk away from this topic as a matter of urgency to avoid continuing to make the situation worse. ] (]) 17:41, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
{{abot}}


== Darkwarriorblake making aspersions ==
*'''Oppose''' - As far as I can tell, the actual original complaint consisted of noting that a different editor (who consistently battleground edits against BF) complained on an admin's page, and was told not to bother the admin. V then posts and makes vague intimations about sockpuppetry or running sockpuppets, that neither makes much sense, nor is particularly clear. BF is a very active editor, with a take on several articles; this complaint looks very much like a WP:JUSTDONTLIKE vote on whose POV will win, not a behavior problem. --] (]) 03:46, 9 October 2012 (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)}}
<s>::It's intriguing that the "admin" in question is TParis, who has and who previously was gung-ho to create a topic ban and eventually tried to (succeeded at) get someone blocked indef for political disagreements; now that Belchfire was reported for violating the same topic area, he's mysteriously "too busy" to handle it? I can see why it was brought here. There are obvious favorites being played based on political affiliation and it casts doubt on the reliability of Misplaced Pages as a whole. The fact that we're discussing a "topic ban" for Belchfire while a less tendentious and more productive editor who was deliberately provoked and prodded over and over again is indeff'ed just makes the whole of Misplaced Pages look dodgy. Support a topic ban for Belchfire only at such time as the person he and his fellow travellers were targeting gets the same fair treatment, otherwise support treating all sides in this deplorable mess the same. Meatpuppeting is bad, ] is bad, tag-teaming is bad, tendentious editing is bad, , . That all ought to apply no matter which side it is. If they don't like it, ] is --> . ] (]) 04:13, 9 October 2012 (UTC)</s>
Postscript: Ah, someone just close this, I don't care any more. &nbsp;— ] <span style="color:#900">•</span> ] 22:56, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Why not log in? - ] (]) 04:17, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
----
*'''Support''' Belchfire is not the only POV warrior here to make Misplaced Pages safe for conservative thinking, he's merely the least subtle about it. And I see that the usual suspects are here to tell us all that we're imagining things or trying to throw up as many irrelevancies as they can to cloud the issue. --] | ] 04:32, 9 October 2012 (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.
*'''Support''': The evidence is crystal clear that ] has a serious history of tag team edit warring, and that is his primary “contribution” to Misplaced Pages. Numerous warnings and discussions have failed to persuade him to change either that or his repeated incivility. It's time to stop the disruption. —{{SubSup|]&nbsp;|]|]}} 10:55, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
::As ''no'' such evidence was given, I think your position here is ''not'' tenable. Cheers. ] (]) 11:49, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
*'''Support''' an '''indefinite''' topic ban on politics, religion, homosexuality and civil rights, very broadly construed. Belchfire has made it abundantly clear, over and over again, that he is either unable or unwilling to constructively edit in these areas. He has been given ample opportunity to improve his behavior, but has consistently failed to do so. There is no indication and no hope that he will ever change, so the topic ban should be indefinite. ] (]) 12:10, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
*'''Oppose'''. On the contrary, the evidence here shows a ''significant'' improvement after the September 9 warning. There is some incivility, but the diffs presented do not indicate any disruptive editing after the warning. ]] (]) 12:21, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
*'''Oppose'''. I stumbled upon this issue last night, and have since examined the evidence thoroughly. Belchfire had quite the laundry list of disruptive edits last month, but there isn't much evidence that he hasn't improved on this behavior. It certainly seems to me like those who brought this complaint in the first place did so largely due to a personal grudge against an editor they know has been problematic in the past. I would recommend that Belchfire take note that his disruptive edits remain unacceptable, but I don't feel the need for more decisive action at this time. If there were a marked resurgence of nonchalantly destructive edits similar to what was seen in September, then I would support an indefinite topic ban. ] (]) 20:05, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
*'''Support topic ban''' for LGBT topics and political organisations, broadly contrued. Belchfire has previously been warned by an admin and multiple other editors but behaves as if never warned. I further think that Belchfire is non-productive in this topic area because he has one of the strongest biases i have seen, in a far-right direction. Misplaced Pages will be better of without such unconstructive editors. In the past Belchfire's POV was largely balanced out by Still, but now that Still is blocked, we have Belchfire roaming free. ] ] 20:09, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
<s>*'''Support''' as noted by many, Belchfire has had many warnings over and over. The tag teaming edits, many here "oppose", show its a common trait.--] (]) 20:40, 9 October 2012 (UTC)</s> proxy user &nbsp;&nbsp;]{{SubSup||]|]}} 23:48, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
*:<s>Struck</s> Tagged the above as an SPA, possibly related to one or more above. ] (]) 21:13, 9 October 2012 (UTC)


'']'' is a widely acclaimed comedy film from 1983, which is also widely acknowledged to have problematic elements by modern standards, including a scene in which the villain of the piece, stuck in a gorilla costume, is locked in a cage with a real gorilla, which is implied to sexually penetrate him without his consent.
*'''Comment''' just wondering; is this a record for socks, proxy, and throw-away accounts contributing to an ANI? The number of such invalid contributions cast doubt on the the objectivity of the proceedings, and suggest meat-puppetry. --] (]) 03:05, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
**] much? It's supposedly one, possibly two socks. How is that a record and how could it possibly cast doubt on this report? I suggest you read ]. ] (]) 03:43, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
***Dear V; you are just not listening to the points made. Belchfire alleges that he is subjected to personal attacks, and both much of the above is personal, not edit-based, and fraudulent accounts pop up to attack BF. Part of any allegation of tendentious editing is repeated abuse of WP processes to delay proper editing. Part of BF's defense is that BF runs into more problem ediTORS that can be expected of a normal WPedian, and sure enough, on the ANI: many more problem ediTORS. Direct and specific relation between problems on this ANI and the problems BF alleges partly explain the editing; no logical fallacy here.--] (]) 15:14, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
****Belchfire runs into more problem editors? He runs into problems on purpose; he creates problems. He cannot be considered a normal Wikipedian with his disruptive behavior. ] (]) 15:50, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
****:BF edits in an area that attracts more problem editors than, for instance, Zoology. The USE of process must be measured against the prevalence of process problems in the AREA IN WHICH BF edits. --] (]) 16:48, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
****@Anonymous209.6: I think there is a misunderstanding here. Belfchfire is not 'running into problem editors'; he ''is'' the problem editor, as the many, many examples above prove. This is not about content; it is about how his editing consists of mostly deleting sourced content and the sources, under false pretenses, and then either disappearing or resorting to crass incivility when other editors try to engage him in discussion. I have seen no evidence so far that indicates he has edited these articles in a constructive manner, by conducting research, copy editing, fixing MoS issues, adding new sections, etc. His legion of supporters seem to be more concerned with losing an ally in some imagined crusade to protect the wiki from the blight of liberal untruths, than with building a great encyclopedia. There are socks and SPAs on both sides of this debate, and they can all be easily dismissed by the admin who determines the outcome of this ANI. Viriditas was exactly right about this being a (desparate) attempt at association fallacy. &ndash; ] 16:07, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
*****Speaking of association fallacy.... "legion of supporters". ] (]) 16:25, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
*****:Let's be clear; attacks on other editors are NOT a rebuttal, and that includes disparaging editors by making unsubstantiated speculations on their internal motivations, and that similarly, ], such as "on both sides" are both factually (mostly) incorrect and invalid WP arguments. Again, lack of listening makes for lack of "understanding". The point being made is that ABUSE of process is a cornerstone of tendentious behavior, and to establish ABUSE, we must consider what reasonable USE is, given the topic area and prevalence of need of USE. This ANI can be used as evidence that BF simply runs into more problem ediTORS than a usual WPdian, the evidence being that more sub-investigations and blocks/bans are handed out to participants on this ANI than appear on the average page in 5 years. This is explicitly NOT an "other people do it" argument, but an argument that the topic areas lend themselves to more process.--] (]) 17:29, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
******Belchfire creates problems when he kicks process out the window. You are concerned about process but his edits show that he is not. He jumps in and reverts disruptively without discussion. ] (]) 17:48, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
*'''Support''' -- I've finally had the chance to look at a large number of BF's recent edits, and I now believe that he does not have a net positive impact on this project. While he clearly has made some positive contributions I think there's too strong a tendency to remove sourced material just to see if it sticks, to be barely civil with other editors, and to often make misleading edit summaries. I'm afraid that while he does make some good edits, the benefits to the project are canceled out by all the time other volunteers have to spend dealing the others. ] (]) 21:43, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
*'''Support''' per Jusdafax. I've had poor interactions with Belchfire almost every time and have to decide whether I want to interact with them just to edit an article I saw problems with. The battleground mentality makes for a bad environment to respect other editors and find common ground for improving articles. ] (]) 00:14, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' -- Since BF received a warning, his civility has improved. Some of the articles in the proposed topic ban area have had problems with mischaracterization of the sources. I can only assume that BF feels that this abuse was done to push a POV, of which IMO is a fair assumption. We should not topic ban an editor who is preventing such abuse to the enyclopedia. Has he been perfect in this? No, he was even challenged on a removal of a source by MrX and BF acknolwedged his error. Displaying accountability for an error is the exact opposite of being disruptive. Several of the support !votes above are the very editors who simply have a different POV than BF and are attempting to squelch him.&nbsp;&nbsp;]{{SubSup||]|]}} 01:31, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
::LGR, you almost had me rethinking my support of the topic ban. That is until you accussed editors who support the ban of "attempting to squelch him". I would ask you to strike that out unless you have some supportive evidence you wish to present for that accusation.--] (]) 01:38, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
:::Is the possibility that those who may have different political persuasions than BF would like to seem him banned a 500lb gorilla? I precisily didn't name names because I don't care to spend time to go through the edit history. The socks above clearly have it "out" for BF.&nbsp;&nbsp;]{{SubSup||]|]}} 01:56, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
::::OK, I see what you are saying here.--] (]) 03:02, 11 October 2012 (UTC)


The article states that ] demurred being cast in the role upon finding that out. for this claim is a ] on ], which contains the sentence
== ] redirecting to IP page (yet again) ==
: ''Reportedly, Liddy was on board until he got to the part where Beeks .''
Reportedly ''by whom'' is not mentioned, let alone is there a direct quotation from Liddy. Plus as can be seen the words "becomes a gorilla's mate" are linked to a very poor quality, hand-held video of the scene in question playing on a television. This alone should be enough to raise serious questions about the use of this "source" in a featured article.


The content dispute began when I changed it like this () with the comment ''Don't mince words; the interaction between Beeks and the gorilla is rape played for laughs'':
The user continues to redirect the account user page and user talk page to the unregistered IP account. Even after notices from other editors per -- ] 15:47, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
{{text diff|Liddy was interested in the offer until he learned that Beeks becomes the romantic partner of a gorilla.|Liddy was interested in the offer until he learned that Beeks is raped by a gorilla.}}
:Yes, I'm using the IP as my main "account" and I see no policy against this. The only reason I registered (now as the "good guy") was to protect my right to edit by IP. Full reasons are at my talk, which the nonanonymous user above has studiously avoided citing policy at. I did miss one thread about this in that analysis, but it does not seem to make a difference. I also note that the user above has used some strong incivility in a recent edit summary while reverting me yet again. Policy guidance would be helpful. ] (]) 15:59, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
::IP is a shared IP. We cannot be sure all edits from that IP are from one specific editor. Given that, I am against the redirect being permitted, as it could (even accidentally) give the appearance of a shared account. --]]] 16:55, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
:You're saying people might accidentally perceive that the "good guy" is a shared account, when there is no evidence of that? Even though nobody knows the account password except me, the primary user of the IP? Even though my intent is (properly according to ]) for the account's pages to link informally to the user's main pages (the IP pages, where most of the talk addressed to me appears)? Wherever the warning of use of shared IP appears, the disclaimer also appears that states that the primary user of the IP also has a named account for maintenance purposes.
:It occurs to me I could abandon, and request userspace deletion for, the account; but then I would be giving up my personal rights e.g. to request oversight, as it appears IP editors cannot request oversight even though they may be in more need of it. If consensus is that WP's intent is that IPs have no rights to create accounts to request oversight while remaining IP editors, I will listen to it and may learn to live with it. But otherwise I believe I should exert my right to edit through shared IP as well as the right to protect myself against (community-proven) harassment through oversight. ] (]) 17:39, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
::By your own admission the IP address (which is not an ''account'', but an IP ''address'') can be shared by others, and has been in the past. Given that fact, and the fact that you have a legitimate account established, I would say in the strongest terms that the redirect is not appropriate in any way. --] &#x007C; ] 17:41, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
:In addition to the prior comments, note that the IP address in question has the appearance of a static IP, as it is not in any of the usual dynamic IP blocklists (see ). Unfortunately, this does not, by itself, mean that the IP is not "shared", per se, as the IP would normally be the gateway address, so could be shared by multiple editors at one organization, business or residence. As the IP is shown as belong to a business, the "ANSWER GROUP" (see ), the information suggests that this IP is, indeed, shared. ] (]) 17:51, 9 October 2012 (UTC)


This was reverted () by {{u|Darkwarriorblake}} with the comment ''not what the source says''.
:::Is there some reason we are here at drama central discussing a redirect when we already have ] explicitly for this purpose? (and for the record IP users can request oversight. They are of course expected to provide a reason that unambiguously meets the criteria for suppression and if they fail to do so the requests are declined.) ] (]) 17:52, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
:(ec) Please help me out Orangemike. This IP demonstrates a user's credible, continuous desire to continue editing by IP. Due to community-proven harassment, the account and IP both demonstrate a user's credible statement of believing oneself compelled to obtain and link the account to request oversight. ] says linking the accounts informally is acceptable. As an IP editor I have the right to use the talk page of a shared IP. Are you saying that as an account-based editor I lose the right that I had as an IP-based editor to use the talk page of a shared IP? Then maybe I ''have'' uncovered a benefit of IP editing that I lose when I obtain an account! ] (]) 17:56, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
::You do not want to edit by IP. You want to edit by IP AND by a registered user account. -- ] 18:01, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
:::(ec) Thank you Beeblebrox on both points. If I can initiate an RFD I'll do it myself. RedPen, yes, I do, I understand this is allowed behavior if one account is only segregated for maintenance. ] (]) 18:08, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
My interest in this is in part to ] an article currently under MfD, which is the userfied version of a page deleted by discussion ]. The page was userfied prior to the user rename to The "good guy" while the account was under the inappropriate user name ] (note this is User:'''IP'''XXX NOT IPXXX). Given this confusing history it is of great importance to keept the greatest level of transparency possible, and redirects do nothing but add levels of confusion. -- ] 18:15, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
:I affirm the desire for the greatest level of transparency, which I think is served by redirecting to the notices at ] and its talk. If readers don't notice the "redirected" message they probably won't quibble about the page title either. As for the userfied article, I have added a notice at ] that the redirected page currently in question contains a properly attributed fork of the userfied article, now moot. If there is some notice that TheRedPenOfDoom thinks is important for the article's history, it should be added to the userfied talk (although I think this was already done). I really am uncertain why this is dragging out. If I went to RFD it appears I'd need to do a "procedural nomination" and then vote "speedy keep" because default is delete and TheRedPenOfDoom doesn't want delete but wants the history to be retained. Nu? Mu? ] (]) 18:24, 9 October 2012 (UTC)


After thinking about it a moment I came to the conclusion described above about the quality of the source, and decided that it was better out than in, which is what I should have done in the first place.()
*It seems to me that this has been handled kind of dysfunctionally at many steps along the way. Far too many reverts and templates and communication thru edit summaries and misunderstandings and account switches and bad faith assumptions and outings and indef blocks and misquoting policy and such. My first thought is that we should all just back off and agree to do whatever Beeblebrox thinks is best, since he's most familiar, but since Beeb's answer to that might be "what did I do to you that you hate me so much to propose this", I think a good alternative is to follow his advice so far: close this, leave the redirect in place for now, and go to RFD if it's really important that the redirect be removed and replaced with something else. That would be my recommendation too.<br>By the way, TGG/12.*, I think Beeb's point is that if TRPoD or OM or someone want the redirect removed, they can initiate an RFD. I don't think his point was that you should do it.<br>It might be useful to gently remind all involved that in the grand scheme of things, this really doesn't matter very much. --] (]) 18:37, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
*Just as a public service announcement, let me clear up the issue of whether an account is needed to request oversight in some more detail. '''An account is not required''' to request that the oversight team act on something (in fact, you don't even need to have ever edited Misplaced Pages!). An account ''is'' required to use the Misplaced Pages email function to contact the oversight team, but even without an account you can always email {{NoSpam|oversight-en-wp|wikipedia.org}} - no account necessary! IP, what I think you might be misunderstanding is that ''as long as you're editing as an IP'', you're "displaying" that WHOIS information for public consumption. So as long as you're editing as an IP, that WHOIS information is not "private information", so it cannot be oversighted (in general terms. your mileage may vary, contact your nearest oversighter for special cases). If you edit under an account, then information about what IP you're editing from is no longer public - you're not displaying it, and if someone manages to dig it up, that's considered private information. In this particular case, IP, by editing first as an IP and then as both an account and an IP, you're giving free access to your WHOIS information. If you want to keep people from being able to see where you're editing from, you'd need to edit ''only'' as an account from now on (and in my personal judgment as an oversighter, your previous IP contributions would not be eligible for oversight, since you've personally and quite determinedly linked the IP to your account). ] (]) 19:41, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
:: Just a suggestion - if you want an alternative account ( and per SOCKLEGIT it '''can''' be done -- assuming correct steps are followed and it's used correctly) why not create another named account and use '''that''' rather than an IP ? It would give you the alternative account '''and''' negate the reason for this report ? <span style="border:1px solid blue;padding:2px;">].<font style="color:white;background:blue;">&nbsp;'''W'''e '''a'''re '''a'''ll '''K'''osh ...&nbsp;</font></span> 19:50, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
:::For transparency, I would rather link everything to the IP instead of starting fresh. I don't think that creating another account for any purpose would be very transparent nor would it be easy (given this discussion) to link the account to the IP such as by redirect. Fluffernutter, while your advice is very good and generally applicable, more than one user has been judged as having misposted additional speculative information beyond that available by IP search, so yes that's another layer because this is not about ordinary oversight of Whois data but about speculations related to Whois data. Ah well. ] (]) 19:58, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
:::: '''That''' person would be me. I don't believe it was all that extrodinary, but , consensus states otherwise, so, no problem. Creating a non-ip under socklegit is possble, look at "eatshootsandleaves", that's a socklegit account, so it
Bishonen and Bishzilla. It can be done, and, in that fashion, you no longer have to worry about anyone from Tag logging in under that IP, and you bear no further burden if someone did and decided to vandalize wikipedia. <span style="border:1px solid blue;padding:2px;">].<font style="color:white;background:blue;">&nbsp;'''W'''e '''a'''re '''a'''ll '''K'''osh ...&nbsp;</font></span> 20:06, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
:The user just above has just reverted my redirects again (first time for that user today) prior to posting on this thread. I don't know whether fixing it again, or not fixing it for now, is the better course. I have accepted the burden of the occasional vandalism edits that have arisen from this IP. The burden I was ''not'' prepared for was constant reverting against userpages, without policy basis and without discussion, which some admins have found rather pointless yet nobody has succeeded in stopping. ] (]) 20:24, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
::If a lot of people are telling you not to do something, it's probably a good idea not to do it, at least until the discussion about it is over. Or would you rather continue ] over this during the discussion until somebody protects the userpage? - ] <sub><font color="maroon">]</font></sub> 20:38, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
:: You've been advised by two users and 1 admin not to do that. If nothing else, you '''will''' want to follow the admin's direction. <span style="border:1px solid blue;padding:2px;">].<font style="color:white;background:blue;">&nbsp;'''W'''e '''a'''re '''a'''ll '''K'''osh ...&nbsp;</font></span> 20:42, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
:::IIRC the two users have now both used obscenity in edit summaries and the admin did not present any reasons or indication of familiarizing himself with the case either, so I do have a habit of discounting advice that tends not to be grounded in anything other than preference, even when it's teamed up against me. As I just said, I appear to be in another double bind, as fixing it again now didn't seem to work, and waiting to fix it later (whether by my reverting later or by my waiting for someone else to see the light) doesn't seem to work either. Several editors have agreed this behavior ''isn't'' against any policy; it appears it's just not something anyone besides me has had the effrontery to request. I still agree that RFD is perhaps the best place to discuss this but it has been hinted to me above that I should not go initiate there myself.
:::The policy is that an alternate account should be linked to the user's main page. I think the question is whether a shared IP page can be used for this purpose as the main page of an editor who exerts the right to prefer to use the shared IP to edit. Very few (perhaps also excluding myself) have addressed the question from a policy basis. ] (]) 20:58, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
::::I honestly don't know the right forum for this discussion; perhaps (gulp) it really is here at ANI? My suggestion that you not file a pro forma RFD yourself was just, that: advice, not a demand. If you think it makes sense to file one, do it. Anyway, I have no problem with the redirects, and don't think those reverting you have any real policy basis on their side. But were I you, I would settle for a short message explaining the situation in text, with links to the IP talk page, rather than the redirects that seem to be driving everyone to distraction. --] (]) 21:13, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
:::::Suggested compromise: . --] (]) 21:19, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
::::::I have no objections to soft direct (for both the user and talk pages, right?) -- ] 21:28, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
::::::That seems like kind of a no-brainer.... ~~ ] (]) 21:29, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
::::::That seems like a logical solution that has the potential to satisfy all parties. --]''''']''''' 21:42, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
::::I'm wondering at what point you figured I was obscene in telling you that, based on policy, the redirect should not be there. It would seem that we have different definitions of obscene. --]]] 05:14, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
*I have cut the ] by deleting ] and its accompanying talk page as U2 - userpages belonging to a non-existant user. It's way too confusing to keep it around for people to edit war over. ] (]) 00:10, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
:While we are all here. Is it appropriate for someone who "wants to edit as an IP", to have the privilege that comes with having a registered account of having userfied an article that was deleted as part of an AfD? -- ] 03:22, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
::I'm not particularly troubled by that. I have zero problems extending to IP editors the same courtesies as we extend to registered editors. It doesn't make anything better to "force" him to use an account to userfy an article. Insofar as the only point of userfication is to allow development to proceed to a point where it can be moved back to the mainspace at some point in the future, there shouldn't be any hindrance to IP editors doing that sort of work. None at all. --]''''']''''' 06:27, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
::: Whoa there ... but isn't one of the "Advertised benefits" of having a registered account the ability to create userspace drafts and subpages? Let's not enable things here. <span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]]</span> 10:01, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
::::Enable what? You don't want to enable the improvement of the encyclopedia?!? --]''''']''''' 12:13, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
:::::Do you see preservation of an article ] that was deleted per discussion ] and has ] as an "improvement of the encyclopedia"? -- ] 15:43, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
::::::Now, hold on a second. You're conflating two seperate issues in this. First is "Should IP users be allowed to userfy articles", which is a broad site-wide practice issue. I posit that there is ultimately no problem with IP users having the same mechanisms to improve Misplaced Pages that registered users do. So, speaking from the point of view of sitewide practice, there shouldn't be any problem with IPs userfying articles, broadly speaking. There's nothing in a sitewide practice like this that needs to be considered as "enabling" this one point of contention. Either we allow the practice or not, but either way, it that decision isn't made for all of Misplaced Pages based on the peculiarities of this one case. That being said, the second issue, entirely and wholly unrelated to that, is whether this one userfied article belongs at Misplaced Pages. We have a mechanism for dealing with that, and it is currently underway at ]. We're not going to simultaneously decide here a different conclusion from what the MFD determines. So, if you want to weigh in on the appropriateness of the userfied article, do so at the MFD. If you want to start a discussion over the broad site-wide policy issue of IPs having access to userfied articles in general, do so at ]. There's really no point in belaboring either issue in this thread. --]''''']''''' 16:51, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
:::::::" no problem with IP users having the same mechanisms to improve Misplaced Pages that registered users do" - we dont allow IPs to create pages, we dont allow IPs to edit protected articles, we dont allow IPs to move pages etc. There are LOTS of mechanisms that could potentially improve the encyclopedia that IPs do not get to do.
:::::::We have policies about legitimate SOCK accounts. Is userfying an AfD's page appropriate use of SOCK account? -- ] 17:45, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
::::::::WP:SOCK only disallows the use of multiple accounts to deceive. The account is publicly linked to the established identity of the user here, and isn't trying to deceive anyone or mask any identity. In fact, the IP user in question has tried repeatedly to comply with the spirit and letter of ] by linking his allowed alternate account to his preferred IP address he uses to edit, only to be repeatedly squashed in doing so. I mean, you tell him he has to comply with policy, he does, and then you tell him he can't do that either. If a registered user is allowed to create an alternate account for certain purposes, uses it only sparingly, and publicly and conspicuously links it to his main account, that is allowed 100% of the time. How is that different from what happened here? Look, I'm not going to come out and say that the IP in question is not misbehaving in some way. They may be. But when you bring a hundred and one spurious accusations against them, many of which aren't even violations, it looks more like your just throwing as much shit on him to see what's gonna stick. Confine your discussion to only those salient issues regarding his behavior that is an actual violation of established Misplaced Pages practice and is actually disruptive, and not any of this silliness about IP editors not being allowed to also maintain an account for legitimate purposes. And again, if you want to explicitly ban all IP users from userfying articles, that's a just and proper and right and good discussion for us to have as a community, '''just not in this thread'''. I am awaiting your thread at ] on that issue. --]''''']''''' 18:45, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
:::::::::"Improper purposes include attempts to deceive or mislead other editors, disrupt discussions, distort consensus, avoid sanctions, or '''otherwise violate community standards and policies.''' " Is it standard policy to allow a SOCK account for the purpose of allowing an IP to have a userfied copy of an article that was deleted per AfD? And your position is that there is no standard policy about that yet and so that question cannot be asked here. Is that right?-- ] 19:52, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
:::::::::::Let's break this down into two parts. Part one: Is it a violation of community standards to userfy a deleted article so it can be improved? ] says not. Part two: Is it a violation of community standards to set up an secondary account which is publicly linked to one's primary account? ] says not. So, what I ask you is if WP:USERFY is accepted practice, and above-the-table, clearly identified secondary accounts are legal under accepted practice, then what is the disruption between the two? but just on the central issue of the policy, I can't find anything in the policy that says "People may not establish a publicly declared secondary account to allow them to userfy an article". I see nothing that says that that is not allowed. At all. If you'd like it to be explicitly not allowed, ] awaits you to start that discussion. I also note that you continue to do your position a giant disservice. It may very well be true that 12.153 could be in the wrong here. I'm not really sure. But if he is, it isn't for any of the reasons you have noted. Maybe he's not making a proper use of ] in the sense that the article shouldn't have been preserved at all. However, if that were the case, by introducing patently off-topic issues '''which aren't violations of any sort anyways''' all you've done is clouded the issue. As I've stated above, there may be something worth discussing here, but you've picked the wrong battle to fight, and it does your stance no service to continue to press forward on that front in this thread. If this is a misapplication of ] and NO copy of the article should have been userfied, that's an unrelated issue to what you're bringing up repeatedly here. It's also an issue which is being discussed at the above noted MFD, and so doesn't bear discussing here seperately. --]''''']''''' 01:49, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
::::::::::I have no problem with someone performing yet another confusing move to ]. Though an experienced editor spoke to the contrary, it appears that I cannot create such a page in my IP space as an IP, and it would be too confusing for me to log in and move or create myself. So if there is truly no mechanism for IPs to create subpages in IP userspace, yes, there is a valid and interesting question whether an IP has a right to a userfied article. ] (]) 21:21, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
:::::::::::You ''can'' create ]. IPs can create user ''talk'' subpages to their heart's content, but you cannot perform a page move, so you'd have to cut&paste with ]. --] (]) 03:07, 11 October 2012 (UTC)


{{text diff|...was offered the role of corrupt official Clarence Beeks. Liddy was interested in the offer until he learned that Beeks becomes the romantic partner of a gorilla. Paul Gleason took the role;...|...was offered the role of corrupt official Clarence Beeks with Paul Gleason eventually taking the role;...}}
== Suspension of article movepage rights of ] ==


My accompanying comment was ''(a) That was the source's voice, not Liddy's. It's called a euphemism. Demonstrable by how it links to a clip of the scene in which a man is raped by a gorilla. (b) Source says "reportedly" for this claim, without evidence. Poor quality source. Removing claim''
I am requesting that Kauffner’s pagemove rights be temporarily suspended for failing to cease moving articles that are controversial. This editor has been heavily involved in the requested moves (there are a number of ongoing requested moves on the subject) and discussions concerning the use of Vietnamese diacritics in article titles.


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.''
*On 12 September, during a the requested move discussion at ], I informed ] and ] that both needed to cease moving articles for the purpose of inserting and deleting diacritics from Vietnamese articles without discussion, as the issue was controversial.. This seemed neither odd nor unreasonable because requested moves of that subject rarely showed a clear consensus.
*On 21 September Kauffner moved ] to ] without employing ]
*On 24 September, after putting that move up for discussion, I reemphasized that actioning moves that either inserted or removed diacritics was controversial and needed to be discussed.. I also made clear that I was checking their logs of every couple of days to ensure that neither was inserting or removing Vietnamese diacritics in/from names without discussion.
*On 5 October, Kauffner moved ] to ] (removing the diacritics) , without discussion.


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.
Given I had made two rather clear warnings on this exact subject I don’t believe a temporary rights withdrawal is either unreasonable nor excessive, but nonetheless leave the issue with you. --] (]) 17:46, 9 October 2012 (UTC)


There's one final back and forth which was enough to motivate me to post here. First, I reverted that revert (, my only time using the actual "Undo" button today), with this comment: ''a good source doesn't say "reportedly" (ie, spread a rumor), it specifies the origin of a fact. My only "agenda" is with a crap listicle being used as a reference, regardless of who published it. Take it to talk if you want to argue for the continued inclusion of a trash ref in a featured article, or source the claim properly yourself''.
:*Hey, I am always happy to be on ANI. I want to emphasize that I have never received, or even requested, a privileged status with regard to moving articles, or anything else for that matter. It's not true that I moved Thuy Nga without discussion. I wrote a little explanation . As for Bac Kan, it's a town, not a city. Even if it was a city, there is no reason for it to have a pre-disambiguator. I was reversing a move made in bad faith. If you are interested in diacritics, I give an exhaustive explanation . Labattblueboy seems to think that Vietnamese diacritics is a hot subject and that this leads to controversy. No! IIO has a grudge against me, follows me around where ever I edit, has a beef with everything, and complains everywhere. ] (]) 19:10, 9 October 2012 (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 ]''
* '''Good Idea''', although I don't believe “move” is a right that can be unchecked, so it would be a formal restriction. Kauffner has been hugely disruptive regarding diacritics for years and this is overdue. cf GoodDay's AC-imposed ] re diacritics for much the same long term disruption. ] (]) 19:32, 9 October 2012 (UTC)


At this point it's gone firmly into the realm of knee-jerk reversions, because if Darkwarriorblake took the time to read the article which they've (is this ]? Kind of feels that way), they would get down to the ] section. Which says "some critics have praised the film while highlighting elements that they believe aged poorly, including racial language, the use of blackface, and the implied rape of Beeks by a gorilla", cited to articles in four major publications. Or, you know, even .
* '''Comment:''' As long as Kauffner is willing to see a controversial move reversed, and as long as there is no evidence that a particular move will be controversial, I don't see any need for restrictions here. Clearly there are two opposing diacritic factions and equally clearly neither of them has a claim on exactitude, so we shouldn't be restricting anyone here unless an editor is move warring or obviously moving against consensus. Moving articles is one way of testing consensus. ] <small>(])</small> 19:39, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' No statement one way or the other on restrictions, per se, but two notes on either side of this: 1) ] still has Bold as a part of it, if a move he makes is contested, you're allowed to revert it, and then he should discuss it. If you want to contest one of the three moves above, revert and start a discussion. I don't see that that has been done yet (I see lots of admonishments to stop, but that does not amount to a discussion). 2) On the other hand, acting in a '']'' manner isn't productive: that is, through sheer volume of action establishing a convention which isn't strictly decided is usually a bad idea. I don't see this at that level ''yet'' (three moves is hardly a "fait accompli" maneuver). Lastly, I am troubled by the statements by Kauffner that dodge the issue being put bluntly before him. Two of his moves changed diacritics ''and something else'', and his responses are defending his moves based on the "something else", without addressing the point of contention. That should be corrected going forward. If someone is raising the issue of moving articles and changing diacritics in the process, that specific point needs to be discussed without distraction of unrelated issues. --]''''']''''' 20:14, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' - I don't really have much opinion on the core situation, but just to toss in that at least a small part of this saga played out on a ] of my talk page over the last couple of days. This should be added into the mix by anyone examining the recent history of this kerfuffle. - ] (]) 20:39, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
**It can seen in . ] (]) 07:16, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
*:Interesting. Looks like we do have a diacritic war of sorts in progress. There is also ] on RM. I don't like the idea of forcing everyone to assume a move is controversial so perhaps all parties need to be reminded that ] is an acceptable process and that, since we don't actually have a diacritics or no-diacritics policy in place, each page move needs to be considered on its own merits. I don't see enough evidence to conclude that Kauffner was disingenuously moving articles to non-diacritic titles but that is also something worth watching out for. ] <small>(])</small> 20:56, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
*::You make it sound like this is something new and shocking. IIO has been doing dozens and dozens of these mass move requests and also 1000's of non-requests to diacritics across this and every other wikipedia and topic all this year. This is the norm and he and several friends rarely consider each article on it's own merit or whether a rm has recently failed or not. It's not just Vietnamese diacritics, it's all diacritics. I won't get into merits on this one particular incident but it seems silly to talk of the flyswatter and not the fly. I think Kauffner is just reaching a breaking point with this editor. ] (]) 21:17, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
*:::Like I say above, I don't see any need for action against Kauffner. Rather, it is the other editor who needs to be reminded about BRD and about proposing page moves individually. If you believe that IIO needs to be sanctioned somehow then that's a different matter and, since I don't follow the diacritic battles, I can't really comment on that without further evidence. ] <small>(])</small> 22:33, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
*:::: No, the root of this mess is years of disruption by Kauffner. I've not been following this closely, but there are various archived threads about this. He's made a great many controversial moves and there was an issue with many IPs being used to mess with talk pages to hide old RM discussions so that new ones could be falsely proposed as uncontroversial (somethin' like that, at least;) ] (]) 22:40, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
*:::::It's not possible to revert moves wherein the article is first moved then a G6 is employed to salt the route back. The edit history of ] shows this was conduced it this case. The better question would be is an action still considered bold if you are aware that the action is controversial bordering on disruptive. BRD itself states "Bold editing is not a justification for imposing one's own view or for tendentious editing without consensus". The only consensus appears to be that editors are generally tired of Vietnamese diacritic moves of any kind, the requested moved at ] seems to be the clearest indication of that. Given the entire topic is controversial (you need not look further than the half dozen at ] to see that) is the request that such moved be addressed at a central venue that unreasonable?--] (]) 02:03, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
*:::::::Unreasonable, no. But definitely avoidable unless necessary. If ] is the tip of the iceberg (and, scanning RM/C I see quite a few others), then we're going to get bogged down by these move discussions. The problem with diacritics is that each article needs to be evaluated in isolation (what do English language sources say), so group moves are generally not possible. It might actually be more practical to just ban both of these guys from making or proposing any move from a diacritic title to a non-diacritic title or vice versa and be done with it. It might not be fair but may turn out to be the only way to deal with this without a load of overhead. Just a thought. ] <small>(])</small> 02:56, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
*::::::::RegentsPark, with respect I hope you are agreed that there is a difference between:
:::::::::(A) 1600x undiscussed moves - 800x of them counter the ] RMs, and 1600x BRD-locks on one hand, and
:::::::::(B) putting in a democratic RM to give the community opportunity apply the majority view of both RfCs on the subject.
:::::::::There is a difference, yes? ] (]) 03:26, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
::::::::::Just a thought In ictu oculi. Not something I necessarily support. I'd rather not see anyone banned from anything. ] <small>(])</small> 13:33, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
* '''Support''', plus he seems to have the habit of adding irrelevant tags in his undiscussed moves to prevent everyone to revert then without a good amount of work, as , , , , , , , and .] (]) 23:07, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
::You know what I like about you? Your sense of humor. ] (]) 07:16, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
*'''Support''' - but a hefty caveat: I am not neutral here; although I only became aware of this issue in March 2012 I have been creating Polish bios with Polish names for years and do not have much sympathy with en.wp's English-names-for-Poles lobby. I also was in Hanoi in the early 90s, speak Vietnamese, and believe that Vietnamese people deserve the same lexical respect from en.wp as Polish people. But I am able to detach, and when standing back do recognise that even Slavophile editors may not share my view on the second point.
:As I see it there are 2 separate issues: (1) User Kauffner, (2) diacritics.
:(2) - Let's discuss (2) diacritics first. I wasn't aware of the "diacritics war" on en.wikipedia till March ]. During that RfC I also became aware of . WP:TENNISNAMES and WP:DIACRITICS share the same characteristic of a minority of editors sincerely convinced that foreigners have "English names" - hence Lech Wałęsa's "English name" is "Lech Walesa" minus crossed-L and nasal-e, or sincerely convinced that en.wp should follow the MOS of USA Today/Daily Express etc and not Britannica/Chicago MOS. In terms of a "diacritics war" there evidently has been one on en.wp, as far as I can judge going back to 2010, centred particularly on WP:HOCKEYNAMES, but civily and democratically '''resolved''' in terms of articles ]. Though '''unresolved''' in terms of is still at odds with en.wp's 4 million articles (or rather 4 million articles minus 9 hold out foreign tennis players). With one exception; Vietnamese. For some reason Mỹ Linh (Asian, no consensus) is more challenging than Lech Wałęsa (European, where de facto consensus exists on 100,000s of articles). Admin JoyShallot characterizes the "English name" thing against Serbian tennis players as "xenophobic" (technically it is only "xeno'''nymo'''phobic") but I note that the editors who turn out in force for Serbian/Czech/Romanian/Polish/French/Spanish/German names are less sure about for example ]. This despite the fact that the Vietnamese roman-alphabet is older and more established than the Croatian/Slovenian/Serbian one. But whatever, it is legitimate to note that the consensus that exists for Lech Wałęsa does not exist for Mỹ Linh.
:(1) - Then issue (1), User Kauffner.
:This is much wider than whether the accent on Mỹ Linh should be treated as Lech Wałęsa. The issues with Kauffner are largely behavioural, and cover much wider ground than undiscussed diacritics moves.
:(a) '''IP puppet activity'''
:The scope of move interests can be seen at ] (this has not previously been at ANI). This is logged out set up of archiving - minutes after the puppeted Misza archive bot clicks in - launching second or third attempts when the archive is invisible. Although the opinion of those who discussed the Saigon IP cluster's activity concluded the tampering with archives prior to launching RMs from ] was User Kauffner, User Kauffner did not admit to it in the SPI and a User check was not done to link user to IPs. Kauffner did (not on the investigation page) admit on Good Day's Talk page that the edits were his, and there is a "smoking gun" in the history of the IP's activity on one of the RMs which shows Kauffner, inadvertently logged back in, finishing the IP's archive reset.
:(b) '''Undiscussed move then redirect lock'''
:Up to a point undiscussed moves are reasonable, as regents park says as long as the ] cycle is not disrupted. (this issue has not been at ANI before). The problem is with Kauffner, as banned-user Dolovis, is redirect edits. If you look at Kauffner's activity in June 2012 you will see 100s of redirect edits, effectively locking the 1600x undiscussed moves made July 2011 to June 2012. This includes 1000x under UserKauffner name, + 600x using G6 involving at least a dozen G6 admins in performing "uncontroversial moves" on Kauffner's behalf. An example of WP:BRD cycle blocking is . After a Dolovis-style redirect edit June 30 2012 the only way to restore a locked move is an RM - and even then a 3-1 support of restoring a title may be overturned by a closing admin.
:(c) '''Deletion of failed RM notifications prior to G6 requests'''
:One of the particularly unpleasant aspects of the G6 moves counter the 2010 2011 2012 ] geo article RMs was the deletion (logged in) of notification of failed RMs before proxying G6 admins to move counter RM with a G6 request. (this issue has not been at ANI before). Obviously no G6 admin will move an article if there is a notification of a contrary RM result on the talk page - hence the deletions have to be deliberate intent to deceive admins making (in good faith) article moves as uncontroversial.
:(d) '''IP archiving prior to G6 requests'''
:This is distinct from (a) above. In this case the IP archives the failed RM not before launching a second RM, but before/after bypassing RM with a G6.
:(e) '''Canvassing'''
:Kauffner has been warned about ] on several RMs. Similar is targeted canvassing for example to (this is just a particularly desperate example of a longstanding pattern).
:(f) '''Deleting Talk page requests to stop'''
:Deleting Talk page requests to stop (these go back to July 2011, long before I was aware, AjaxSmack, Gimmetoo, Prolog, Vietnamese editors, who knows how many more), and carrying on regardless.
:(g).......or alternatively,
:If you agree with User Kauffner's views - on Hauptbahnhof or Vietnamese - then a good cause justifies the methods. ] (]) 23:43, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
::I may stand above as the one who began this discussion but in due fairness to Kauffner, In ictu oculi comments are ]. In ictu oculi has an equal sordid history of moving articles when he/she should have known them to be controversial. If I remember correctly, my warning of 12 September at ] was initially because In ictu oculi moved approximately 100 articles while a requested moved concerning geographic Vietnamese names was taking place. Further In ictu oculi was entirely unrepentant. The only reason In ictu oculi is not equally mentioned is because he/she as not moved an Vietnamese scope article to insert diacritics since my initial warning of 12 Sept.--] (]) 02:38, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
:::Hi Labattblueboy,
:::Sure, in part fair, but I'm not sure about "entirely unrepentant" because as you say, I did '''not''' continue to restore articles which had been among those moved counter ] (among the 1600x total moves). What I did explain was that restoring 80x of the 800x was after RMs restoring several of the moves, after RfC majority, and after admins MalikShabazz, Edgar181, GraemeBartlett (and one more whom I forget) had already reverted approx 40 of the 300 of the 800 geo articles which had been done by using G6. If anyone considers reverting those 80x of 800x undiscussed moves (moves counter to RM) "disruptive" then does that apply to the other 40x reverted by the proxied G6 admins admins MalikShabazz, Edgar181, GraemeBartlett as well? However I was asked to stop restoring the articles and did. In practice it was hard work to restore the articles anyway, since finding any among Kauffner's undiscussed moves which have not been given Dolovis-style redirect-edits to prevent BRD is almost impossible. I estimate that I already found most if not all of the 80x of 800x geo stubs he omitted to lock. There is less of a clear mandate to restore the 800x bios. And there has been more locking activity since. (If anyone doesn't believe me, try and find one that isn't locked... then call the pot equally black).
:::As regards the pot calling the kettle black, I am not perfect but, as above:
:::(a) I have never used IP activity of any kind.
:::(b) I have never followed a move with a redirect lock
:::(c) I have never deleted a failed RM notification prior to a G6 request. (In fact I am reasonably certain I have never used a G6 request template at all)
:::(d) I have never used Miszabot to hide a previous RM (never even thought of it)
:::(e) I have never made the sort of ] notifications during an RM or RfC we are seeing here.
:::Unfortunately if you wade into mud you will get your hands a little dirty. This is a filthy area. But is a filthy area which is being enabled by winking at (a)(b)(c)(d) in particular. ] (]) 04:09, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
::::I feel my previous comment was both accurate and fair. You have not at any point accepted during this or any other discussion, to my knowledge, that your own actions were sometimes inappropriate. Your comments above that it’s necessary to sometimes get “dirty” are in the very least unhelpful. Simply ceasing to move articles in a controversial topic area does not, by any means, equate repentance. Equally, simply because you may not have engaged in actions (a)-(d) does not mean your behaviour has necessarily been appropriate in the topic area. If this post concerned actions over the past year or further, and not simply approx. 12 September onwards, then I would be entirely supportive of PBS’s suggestion below that any remedies apply to both yourself and Kauffner. Please see this as an opportunity to turn a new leaf.--] (]) 14:04, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
:::::Hi there Labattblueboy,
:::::Thanks for your comment. We probably are nearer on this than you think. I already said, before you arrived, two days before your first comment, that I have '''no intention''' to restore any more than the 80x of 800x undiscussed moves counter RM that have already been restored.
:::::As to "repent", most editors would not, under normal circumstances, view reverting a move made counter an RM a sin to be "repented" of, at least in a case like this where it was carefully preceded by (a.) 40x restores by admins MalikShabazz, Edgar181, GraemeBartlett, (b). confirmation by RfC, (c.) confirmation by a series of RMs: ] RM, ] RM, Talk ] RM3, ], ], that these undiscussed moves counter RM were not uncontroversial. But again I had already, before you appeared, said, I have '''no intention''' to restore any undiscussed moves made contrary to RM.
:::::I'm really not sure what more you want of me here. (and btw I didn't say it was ''necessary'' to get dirty, I only said ''you will.. this is a filthy area'', so that was intended as the opposite, that we should try not to). Are we good now? I'd hope we can be. ] (]) 15:57, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
::::::I am good with whatever solution sees an increased level of civility in this subject area. Move waring in this family of articles doesn't do anyone any good. I'd frankly be happy with an affirmation by parties involoved that any Vietnamese diacritic article moves be first discussed or handled through ] (likely on a case-by-case basis) until such time that a community solution on the Vietnamese diacritics issue is developed. Like RegentsPark, I'd rather not see anyone banned from anything.--] (]) 17:47, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
:::::::Labattblueboy, thanks. I'm 100% fine with everything you say here. I couldn't agree more, since if there's no undiscussed moves, no G6 use, no IP edits, no redirect locks, then there's nothing to revert, no need to put in RMs to restore ], ], ], ], ], ] etc. in the first place. We can get back to creating/building articles. Then we're good, very good. ] (]) 17:57, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
*IIO is claiming to "speak Vietnamese"??? ''Trời ơi!'' I'm sorry, I just can't sit still for this one. We've discussed various language issues. IIO can't get even very simple stuff straight. I live in Saigon, so I edit about Vietnam. I read the local English-language press, so I quite familiar with the fact that the professionals don't use Vietnamese diacritics. Nor is Vietnam promoting their use in English, as you can see . No published encyclopedia or major media organization uses these marks. Local publications that once used them, like and , have dropped them. They make the copy look amateurish. I spend many hours telling Vietnamese not to use Viet-lish. The editors of Lech Walesa's article can worry about his diacritics. ] (]) 03:46, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
::::Kauffner, I wouldn't doubt that your familiarity of street Vietnamese is better than mine, now, 20 years later. But we aren't here to discuss this.
::::(a) Do you now want to give a yes/no answer to the SPI?
::::(b) How many articles have you followed an undiscussed move with a redirect lock? The records show 1600x from July2011-June2012, with redirect locks continuing even this week. I estimate 1500x redirect locks. Is that about right?
::::(c) Did you (while logged in) delete failed RM notifications from Talk pages prior to G6 "uncontroversial move" requests?
::::(d) Did you (while logged out) manipulate Miszabot to hide previous RMs some of them not yet launched from ]. yes/no?
::::] (]) 04:09, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
* '''Support''' WP:BRD does not work when articles are locked on purpose. Kauffner has continued to lock articles even after being asked not to do so. ] (]) 06:29, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
**Um, how is he locking pages down. He's not an administrator, and doesn't have the ability to protect pages. I'm confused to this rationale. I don't care one way or another, but this makes no sense to support sanctioning him for using an administrator tool he has no access to... --]''''']''''' 06:38, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
***By double-editing redirects he makes it impossible for rank-and-file editors to revert his moves, requiring admin rights to undo the move. The issue is tricky as redirects have to be categorised but a) he does that even when he could create the redirect and categorisation in one edit and b) in controversial cases like this it is better to leve the categorisation until the matter is settled or to ''the other side'' iE I can without causing any controvery lock ''redirects from diacritics'' wheras Kauffner could without any controversy lock ''redirects to diacritics''. Maybe some noticeboard could be established just for that issue. c) There is past precedent for even banning of editors involved in exactly that behaviour. ] (]) 06:48, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
****I believe there is another method of gaming the system to achieve this "lock", which would keep an editor's hands "clean" at first glance; but it's probably ]. If we were drawing up stricter rules on redirect-mischief I'd be happy to add it to those rules. ] (]) 10:02, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
*Whether or not to use diacritics in titles is the subject of much disagreement between editors, so such moves should go through ]. In the last year, we've made a lot of progress on that front. Still, some people persist in making undiscussed moves to diacritic-free titles and sometimes sneakily edit the redirect to prevent somebody else moving it back; that is gaming the system. A previous combatant in the diacritics wars was banned for it. Kauffner knows this. ] (]) 08:15, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
*'''Support move ban''' Käuffner has been caught many times on this, and knows better. <span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]]</span> 09:58, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
*I am placing the following bullet points here and my views are based on what I have seen both editors doing over a number of months.
**'''Comment''' Iio wrote "note that the consensus that exists for Lech Wałęsa does not exist for Mỹ Linh" yet the ] was closed with the statement "The result of the move request was: page not moved: no consensus in 46 days" support/oppose about 10/11. -- ] (]) 12:45, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
**I suggest that '''] and ] are banned from moving any article that alters the article title to include or delete diacritics for a period of twelve months'''. This ban will include initiating ] request that alters the article title to include or delete diacritics for a period of twelve months. This ban will not include reverting bold moves (as described in ]) and both can still voice their opinions in requested moves initiated by other editors.
**I suggest that all the editors who have edits that have been diffed in this section for editing redirects after a move has been made (which prevents an non-administrator moving the article back to the previous name) should take this as a warning that such edits are disruptive and in future any such edits by these editors will result in administrative action. Likewise moving an article through an intermediate page name (so that the bots automatically change the original page name's redirect) will be seen disruptive (the correct process if a mistake has been made is to move the article back to the original name and then move it to the new correct name--so that double redirects are not created). -- ] (]) 12:45, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
:::PBS,
:::I'd like to assume good faith, but you see Kauffner making 1600x undiscussed moves, 800x of them counter the ], IP puppeting, G6 and basically '''NOT''' using RM, and your solution is........... to ban RMs like ] and ]????
:::Your personal view (, ], ) was characterized as during your 1-8 opposition to É in the ], ].
:::Sorry, but no. RMs like ] and ] express the consensus of the vast majority, and the reality of where en.wp's 4,000,000 articles are (minus those 9 tennis players). You know this. ] (]) 14:52, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
::::The whole point of this is to force controversial moves to go through RM not to avoid the use of RM. ] (]) 17:07, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
:::::In ictu oculi that you would object to a restriction on yourself is not surprising. Iio your argument is disingenuous most articles that go through the RM process that are not at descriptive titles are at their common name as used in reliable sources. Agathoclea in the case of these two editors I think that they can be just as disruptive using the RM process, I think it is better for Misplaced Pages if both take a back seat over such moves for a time and follow rather than lead in this area. -- ] (]) 13:45, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
::::::Hi PBS,
::::::First, can I ask a question. Have you ever restored an undiscussed move to an article made contrary to a RM result?
::::::Second, another question. Have you ever made an undiscussed move and then locked it with a redirect edit?
::::::These are questions I have answered here ("yes" to first, "no" to the second) it's reasonable for me to ask others the same question I think, yes?
::::::<small>As regards taking a quid-pro-quo with Kauffner, that wouldn't be appropriate, as I'm not making new moves, I've only restored some. But I'd be willing to consider a quid-pro-quo with yourself, if you would take a back seat from editing MOS pages and guidelines on diacritics/sourcing for 12 months, then I'd be quite happy to not submit any more RMs like ] for 12 months. Would you consider taking a back seat in this area? I would be (not least since it's getting very difficult to even find mispelled foreigner bios).</small> ] (]) 16:29, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
*'''Support''' The community ] Dolovis from moving diacritic related titles because of the exact same methods that Kauffner has been using to lock the pages so that regular editors can't revert his moves. I see no reason why he shouldn't be given the same restriction that Dolovis was given. -] (]) 12:50, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
*'''Support''' - I was going to mention Dolovis as well. This comes down to a very simple issue for me: There is no possible way Kauffner is not aware that moves to or from diacritical versions in this area are controversial. ], like ] is not a poison pill. There comes a point where the bold move simply becomes disruptive. I would !vote the same for any editor on either side of this coin who makes a similar pattern of moves. ]] 13:54, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
*With everyone ridding their own hobby horse like this, I obviously can't deal with every concern, so yours may be overlooked. IIO brings up the issue of the page moves I made last year. This was already dealt with ]. But while we are on this trip down memory lane, I would like to review a few items. As you may or may not recall, there was an ] with wide participation in July-August 2011. A proposal was made to increase the use of diacritics, but Vietnamese was specifically excluded. So despite divided opinion concerning other languages, there appeared to be a consensus in this regard. I rewrote the naming conventions for Vietnamese to conform to this understanding of the RfC. So when IIO got involved in this issue in late June 2012, pretty much every Vietnam-related article of any notability was at a non-diacritic title. ] isn't the first time IIO has tried to hold an article hostage at a misspelling. He did before with ]. IIO and I have a long and complex history. In happier times, we translated Latin and Hebrew titles together. More recently, Vietnam and other countries have been caught in the crossfire. I can only hope that common ground will reemerge when appropriate matters arise. ] (]) 16:52, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
::<small>Part of that is true, I am actually in favour of English exonyms where they exist (i.e. "John Calvin" for "Jean Calvin", not simply stripping ç to make "FranCois Mitterrand,") and did award Kauffner a barnstar for one of his English names moves. However, that is before any of us were aware of (i) IP puppeting, (ii) G6 proxies, (iii) deletion of the ] RM results from talk pages, (iv) the 1600x Dolovis-style move-locks, and none of these items have been at ANI before. As to this latest two-step-G6, move to a self-admitted mispelling and then G6, certainly creative, but that only makes one wonder whether the G6 loophole should be shut down for everyone. ] (]) 01:29, 11 October 2012 (UTC) </small>
*"The ultimate goal of the guide is to have every redirect categorised in a standard format," per ]. So the act of putting a redirect in a category is not in itself problematic. In Dolovis' case, he was accused of going against the consensus of the hockey project. The technical means he used to do this are a secondary issue. There is certainly a lot of advise to "take it to an RM." As far as RMs go, IIO abuses these to fulminate at length against me, in the same manner that you see above. I don't know how many editors follow these rants, but they do seem to head off reasoned discussion and editor participation. ] (]) 08:57, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
::<small>Per (b), (e) above. ] (]) 09:21, 11 October 2012 (UTC)</small>
*'''Oppose''' Since the issue of diacritics is undecided, I don't like the idea of a move ban on either editor. My inclination is to warn Kauffner not to lock moves through redirects and to warn iii not to propose multiple page moves in the same move request. Placing bans is not a good way to deal with things for which there is no existing consensus. If bans are the way to go, then we should ban both per PBS, but I don't really like that option. Banning Kauffner alone is a terrible idea. --] <small>(])</small> 15:56, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
::RegentsPark, multiple RMs of similar pages have frequently been '''encouraged''', particularly in this area, and are common practice. Please look at the WP:RM archive. If you want to ban anyone posting an RM for multiple page moves you need to propose changes to WP:RM. There is one in there right now at ] by PBS himself. ] (]) 16:52, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
:::I meant only in reference to diacritics. For figuring out whether we should have diacritics in titles, we need to look at common usage in English language sources. That would mean looking at each article separately rather than listing them all together. For example, per ], each listing in your ] needs separate verification. Listing them together is equivalent to asking for a stylistic norm to be codified (which is better handled by an RfC). --] <small>(])</small> 17:14, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' RegentsPark's thought process makes good sense here. I don't like the idea of bans either. Those two warnings should be sufficient for now, with a quick revisit should circumstances change. ] (]) 18:57, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
*'''Support'''. About time that something is done top bring home some points to Kauffner, who has for much too long been able to talk his way out of sanctions. {{diff2|517161885|This recent comment of his}} is an example of his disingenuous refusal to acknowledge that his behavior is disruptive. It's not like he hasn't been told before, e.g. {{diff2|505280687|here}}. ] (]) 19:23, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' per RegentsPark. Closing admin should issue a strong warning on both editor's talk pages. If either continues to move such articles without going through RM, or continues to "lock out" moves, or continues to bunch several diacritic-related move proposals together in multi-move requests when each should be considered separately, then a ban should be expected. --] (]) 19:35, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
::Born2cycle, as above to RegentsPark multiple RMs of similar pages have frequently been '''encouraged''', particularly in this area. Multiple RMs allow the community the opportunity of undoing by democratic process of multiple undiscussed moves and edit redirect locks; Dolovis' edit redirects were what necessitated ] RM for example. Although this cluster was very large it was still tiny compared with the 4,000,000 en.wp articles where use of non-"English names" for non-English people is universal. Would anyone seriously require every RM in Dominik Halmosi to be given a separate template? ] (]) 23:52, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' Agree with regentspark comment's as well as Born2cycle's remark that both editors (Kauffner & IIO) should be warned for their disruptive and obsessive behavior regarding the diacritics issue. I think it would would be helpful to 'request' both editors to take a step back from their diacritics crusade and allow a cooling down period of at least 6 months or so. --] (]) 23:06, 11 October 2012 (UTC)


So anyhow regardless of whether the Indiewire source is deemed suitable or not, I'm just wondering what the feeling here is about someone making goofy assertions on the record that another editor has "an agenda" (what agenda could it be?) and may not be emotionally stable, which really doesn't feel like ] at all. &nbsp;— ] <span style="color:#900">•</span> ] 20:03, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
== Accusations of bias ==
:Hrrm, this seems a bit excessive.
:*I've added a second source for the claim. Really this should've been the first option rather than removing the content.
:*The first summary was, as stated, "Don't mince words; the interaction between Beeks and the gorilla is rape played for laughs". "Rape played for laughs" is a loaded comment and not something said in the article or the source text, so it's a personal opinion, it's not neutral, it's agenda-driven.
:*When this was reverted, the editor just removed the content entirely claiming IndieWire was unreliable. There is, as far as I'm aware, nothing wrong with Indiewire. I've since found a second source, the Telegraph, which is reliable per ].
:*The editor ignored WP: BRD when raised, and as an admin they should adhere to policy.
:*The editor states that they are an admin on their page. Assuming this is true, the aggressiveness of their edits, hyper focus on the single area, and use of words like "crap listicle" seemed out of line with what I, personally, would expect from an admin on Misplaced Pages, certainly someone who has been so for nearly two decades. Perhaps the edit summary wasn't the place to have that discussion but, as stated, they weren't adhering to WP: BRD to start a discussion, and in the interim the article needed putting back to the status quo.
:*I find accusations of OWNERSHIP often tend to come when people don't get their way. Which is fine. I have plenty of reversions on the page for people adding unsourced content and there are plenty of changes as well. I find someone removing sourced content and me putting the sourced content back to not ''really'' be something you can fling ownership at.
:*Within the context of the film, Beeks does become the romantic partner of the gorilla, it seemed more appropriate and encylcopedic text than just saying 'rape', and neither source I've added says that either.
:*Anyways, my edit history shows I'm a massive contributor and helper and it's nearly Xmas, and I don't feel like engaging with this any further, good luck Hex. ] (]) 20:27, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
::Of course you don't, having ignored the actual matter of your conduct that I'm raising here. Your comments about the content of the article are irrelevant. &nbsp;— ] <span style="color:#900">•</span> ] 20:43, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
*Hex's position is not wholly supported, although in the entire issue, their toolset is irrelevant. There was no incivility on either part, and an all-out edit war seems to have been averted.{{pb}}Fundamentally the change Hex wanted to make was pure OR; rape may have been intimated—or, as Hex themself admits, implied—but its never overtly stated and is a wholly loaded term. This is the interpretation of an editor, not of secondary sources. If there is a pron=blem with Indywire as a source—currently used in —take it to WP:RSN. If it's disputed that it's a high quality source per WP:FA?, then take it to WT:FAC. Accusations of OWNership are as unhelpful—and as much an aspersion—as accusations of agenda-led editing. In fact, for OWNership, Hex should read the relevant policy: here, it is WP:FAOWN, which not only allows for careful stewardship of featured material, but requires significant changes to the consensus version to be discussed on talk; I don't suppose there's any suggestion that introducing rape—particularly "played for laughs"—wouldn't be a significant addition.{{pb}}Really though, this is an overblown content dispute which should have started with ''one revert'' each, and ended on the talk page. --]'']''] 21:10, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
*:"Never overtly stated... 'played for laughs' be a significant addition" - with John Landis, the director. {{talk quote|One of the executives was deeply appalled by a man being sexually molested by a gorilla. And I said you know, it's a joke and it goes by very quickly. But the first preview was very successful and it all went away. ''''}}
*:Feel free to amend the article on that basis. I'm certainly not interested in spending any more time on it. &nbsp;— ] <span style="color:#900">•</span> ] 22:48, 23 December 2024 (UTC)


===Followup===
I've come across a big of an issue with articles concerning ], which includes ]. I'd edited the article to where it was up to date and was sourced by multiple reliable sources. Now I've had my edits reverted to the previous version, which not only has copyvio from the author's website () but is also out of date. The same thing has happened with the novel article, which has a complete lack of sourcing to it. I've reverted to my edits, which were to redirect the novel to the author's page and to keep my updated version of the author's page, but I've noticed that there's been a few accounts that have been either reverting my edits or selectively removing parts of the article that they personally don't like, such as the controversy section. I've also been accused of having a personal bias against the author, and since there's not only multiple accounts reverting the pages but I'm being accused of having an agenda, I'm bringing it up here. Here are the specific edits in question: , , .
I just want to say that, now that we've had an ANI thread on the subjeect of Gordon Liddy's feelings about portraying the romantic partner of a gorilla, I can die happy.


While we're on the subject, recites that {{tq|Prior to his departure from the FBI in 1962, Liddy sought admission to various bars.}} I'm curious to know whether this is meant to imply that Liddy had a , and whether this could have had any bearing on the whole gorilla romantic partner situation. ]]
I'd left a notice on the user's page that accused me of having a grudge against the author (]) and I notice that both of the editors (]) that have been reverting my edits only edit the Hughes themed articles (not that there's specifically anything wrong with that), but I'm bringing it here before it escalates any further.] (]) 02:46, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
{{abot}}


== User Stationmanagerskidrow removing information on ] page ==
:Your edits are not displaying a NPOV and read like a publicist blurb. Besides that, this is a content dispute and no admin action needed.&nbsp;&nbsp;]{{SubSup||]|]}} 02:56, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
::*Where in specific do my edits read like a publicity blurb? I was rather careful when it came to editing the author's page. As far as the edits on the book page, I want to stress that the previous revision with the various praise reviews was not written by me, but rather by the other user. This is the edit I made before realizing that it was only sourced by two reviews and lacked enough to pass ]: The previous version by Ohioana is fairly promotional in content, especially since it takes the PW review somewhat out of context, making it sound more praising than it actually was. I was the one who redirected the article to the author's page because all that existed were various unsourced vanity reviews. Also, what about the accusations that I'm supposedly vandalizing the author's page because of a bias against the author? I'm getting incredibly tired of SPAs coming onto pages that I've edited and reverting edits back to previous versions or going onto AfDs, accusing me of having a bias because I'm removing content from articles that is unsourced, non-NPOV, and/or is outright promotional in content. ] (]) 03:40, 10 October 2012 (UTC)


:::* does not appear to be promotional. It's hard to see redirecting the book article as reading "like a publicist blurb". :) I've left a note at ] pointing out civility policies and also linking to "dispute resolution". Please try to engage them in conversation at the talk page of the article; if dispute resolution doesn't work out, additional steps may be necessary, but I think at this point more direct administrator intervention would be premature. (Although it does look like there might be a ] somewhere.) --] <sup>]</sup> 12:09, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
::::*Problem is, I've asked them and they've never actually stated their reasoning beyond anything along the lines of ] and other arguments that don't show notability or justification. As far as content removal goes, they haven't said or showed me anything to show why the information shouldn't be in the article for Hughes or how exactly it's incorrect. At no point do I ever state outright that Hughes said one thing or another about the contract, just that multiple news outlets reported on the separation of the writing team and that it had been rumored that contract issues had been a part of the ongoing issues between the two of them. It might not have lead to the split exactly, but considering that more than one news source had commented on this and ESPECIALLY considering that this is really the only time that Hughes is mentioned specifically, I find it puzzling that this is removed. Almost every mention of Hughes has been in relation to the contract with Frey, with much of the coverage going over the contract (and the papers' reactions to the contract stipulations). There's actually not that much coverage of Hughes outside of this, which is why I'm also not sure as to why the user is so particularly sure that these things are incorrect. Even if they are, if enough news sources reported on it and this was ultimately one of the things he was known for in relation to his ghost writing the Lorien Legacy series, then it should be included in some format. We do a disservice by not including all of it.] (]) 02:07, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
*See at ].--] (]) 01:35, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
*Can someone '''''please''''' step in here? The user is constantly editwarring without any reason as to why they view the information as incorrect. I'm just being ignored by the user and they've consistently reverted to a version that not only includes copyvio, but removes all but the most glowing praise of Hughes.] (])
:*It's now up to five reversions without any administration intervention.] (]) 04:49, 11 October 2012 (UTC)


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


:User is now editing using ] ] (]) 03:34, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
In the article ] at least two editors, ] and ], continually express their POVs, thus distorting the historical image of the person to whom the article is dedicated. They have openly disclosed their bias and even enmity to Edward de Vere on the Talk page to this article. On this Talk page, there were also massive personal attacks on my address, which are not acceptable, including using of expressions like "you are making yourself ridiculous" and indirectly calling me "peanut gallery".


::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)
In my view, Edward de Vere as a historical person is to be described fairly and not with massive personal bias, disregarding the outcome of the solution to the William Shakespeare authorship question. And there was one very outrageous expression by ] on 9 October 2012 on this same Talk page to ], which probably everybody would call blasphemy. This expression was used by Tom Reedy in connection with Jesus Christ. The use of only this one expression, in my view, disqualifies ] as an editor on Misplaced Pages. --] (]) 06:43, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
*The above message has been posted at ] (where I have replied), and at ]. The issue (did Shakespeare write the works that standard scholarship attributes to him?) was the subject of an Arbcom case (]). ] (]) 06:54, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
:ANI readers can look at the thread to which the complainant refers ]. It is difficult to respond to an editor who makes such astounding comments as Zbrnajsem does, and this encourages satirical replies. Good faith and patience has already been supplied in spades. 'Bricknall', btw, for the uninitiated, is a servant who was stabbed to death by the noble earl. ] (]) 08:05, 10 October 2012 (UTC) <small>Link fixed.--] (]) 08:26, 10 October 2012 (UTC)</small>


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)
:Yep - while I have considerable sympathy with the suggestion that Tom Reedy could have chosen his words better (as indeed so could I on occasion, before anyone else points it out...), there are limits to how much pomposity an ordinary human being should be expected to bear. It seems to me that Zbrnajsem provoked the comments directed at him by starting a thread with allegations that Tom reedy had a "personal bias" driven by a dislike of de Vere "as a person, a historical person". Given that de Vere has been dead for four-hundred-odd years, this seems an odd suggestion to make, and one hardly conducive to fruitful dialogue. The thread was basically a provocation from the start, as I see it. Regardless of what action (if any) needs to be taken against Tom Reedy, Zbrnajsem needs to be told that goading people into inappropriate responses is itself entirely inappropriate talk-page behaviour, and that issues regarding NPOV are unlikely to be settled by making ridiculous allegations concerning the motivations of editors. I'd also point out that there is no requirement whatsoever that contributors have to ''like'' the subjects of biographical articles anyway - were it so, I fear to think what consequences such a requirement would have for say our article on ]... ] (]) 09:20, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
:The page was longer, but sourced (all but?) soley to the station's site and it's been trimmed down to what it is now. Given the repeated edit-warring by IPs I've semi-protected the page for two days for now. - ] <sub>]</sub> 07:59, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Andy, I was the one who to separate it from the original section that . The ridiculousness was overwhelming the serious editorial section, which I wanted to preserve. So technically he didn't start the thread, just the ridiculous discussion, hence my naming it "Complaints from the ]" (first definition). ] (]) 12:43, 10 October 2012 (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)
::Zbrnajsem: I find it distasteful that you have been ridiculed, and in no way condone what is - in my opinion - Tom and Pauls' stepping over the line from robust debate to ]. However, it also - and again, in my opinion - appears you have brought this unpleasantness upon yourself, by advancing untenable positions. While I think the form of Tom and Pauls' responses was unacceptable, I fully support the substance of what they were trying to explain to you.--] (]) 09:58, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
::::Please show where I made any personal attacks. ] (]) 12:43, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
:::::For starters, the description of Zbrnajsem's contributions as ] responses. I make no apology whatsoever for my personal opinion that ] POV pushers should be treated gently. They have their deeply-set beliefs. Those beliefs should respected, but gently rejected. When push comes to shove, as has occurred here, I still think ] should still apply.--] (]) 14:50, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
::::::You might want to waste a few hours of your life and review , as well as , with whom he often interacts on talkpages. They both waste time on trivialities while making minimum constibutions to the project, hence the section retitle, based on the first definition from the article: ] I can't think of any better description, except possibly ], but I was trying to keep the mood light and--to knowledgeable WP editors anyway--entertaining. Both of them have been repeatedly (and gently) directed to WP help pages, policies, and procedures, but evidently they believe their time is better spent sniping at the heels of those who are trying to build an encyclopedia. This whole thing is just one more example of their disruptive strategies. ] (]) 15:53, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
:::I repeat: Edward de Vere as a historical person is to be described fairly and not with massive personal bias, disregarding the problem of the William ]. I am ready to point out concrete editings by Tom Reedy and Paul Barlow which manifested, in my opinion, their personal POVs without serious historical background. I need only a short additional time for this evidence. I am sorry, but the whole article on Edward de Vere is problematic, and certain passages have the capacity to ridicule him and to make him almost a villain who he, in my eyes, was not. On the other hand, everybody with serious interest in this matter knows that there is a substantial community of very respectable persons, gathered since 1920, who believe Edward de Vere to be the true author of the Shakespeare canon. It is not appropriate to have an attitude to this dispute which leads to personal dislike of Edward de Vere. And there is no right for anyone to suspect me of deliberate actions to get certain responses from Tom Reedy and Paul Barlow. --] (]) 11:24, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
::::Rubbish. Look at the contribs record. Nina Green made very detailed additions to the page, and virtually rewrote it from top to bottom, accepting as a key source the very work Tom Reedy and several others are using, i.e. the standard academic bio of de Vere. The page has technical and organizational problems, nothing new here. --] (]) 12:01, 10 October 2012 (UTC)


== Insults ==
::::This is getting sillier. I have made no "personal attacks" on anyone at all. My comment about the Earl's "smirk" and "poncy doublet" was an ''obvious joke'', and in any case it cannot be construed as a personal attrack since the guy is long dead. For the record, I have no opinions about his smirk or his doublet, never having seen either of them in real life. Yes, I said that Zbrnajsem was making himself look ridiculous, but that referred to his ''actions''. If Zbrnajsem believes that passages in the article make de Vere seem to be a "villain" he should say which passages they are, and why they are problematic. Many articles on Misplaced Pages make their subjects look like "villains", that's usually because they record actions that readers will disapprove of. If that's what RS say then that's what we include. ] (]) 12:07, 10 October 2012 (UTC)


* Well, since Misplaced Pages is ], I'm unmoved by the so-called "blasphemy," and find the notion that the use of "blasphemy" disqualifies someone from being a Misplaced Pages editor well to the left of farcical. Quite aside from that such hyperbole is unbecoming a Misplaced Pages editor in ''my'' POV, I'm quite interested in what basis Zbrnajsem has for declaring that anyone has a "personal dislike" of the subject ... other than, apparently, that Messires Reedy and Barlow disagree with his own position. ] 12:03, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
::I checked with Jesus this morning and he said he forgives me for it and won't file a ] violation report, so it's a moot point. ] (]) 12:48, 10 October 2012 (UTC)


I'd like to report an incident related to ]. A person under IP already accused me of being "obsessed". Now someone (possibly the same person) . Please also see . I guess we can always agree to disagree with other people, but this is going a bit too far. Thank you. ] (]) 09:30, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Really very witty, ]. ], please read the Talk page on Edward de Vere, you will see that my points concerning the "personal dislike of the subject" on the part of Tom Reedy and Paul B. are simply true. This is, of course, a Talk page. Theoretically, they can say there what they want, if they don´t use unproper language, but their attitude towards Edward de Vere is obvious. I am the only one on this Talk page who criticizes such an attitude, but other persons who would probably like to do so are banned from this topic. Why actually, if they would edit only on Edward de Vere and not on the authorship question? I have the full right to do so, and on all Talk pages concerning directly or indirectly Edward de Vere. There is a lot of pages of this quality, and everywhere it is the same: E. de V. is something like a "minor mole in his molehill" and things like this, sometimes worse. Any person with a sense for historical writing should be critical to this kind of attitude to the subject. --] (]) 13:17, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
:Hello, Psychloppos. What action are you seeking to happen here? <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 09:42, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
::I have no idea which actions are warranted here. Maybe an admin could leave a message to this IP and this registered user and remind them that they should ] ? It would also be nice to remind them about ] and ]. Saying that I am "fuelled by an unhealthy obsession" or questioning my sanity do not seem to respect those guidelines. ] (]) 09:52, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
==Nlkyair012 and LLM chatbots ==
*{{Noping|Nlkyair012}}
This editor has been constantly using AI chatbots to respond and write messages. They are a single purpose account for glorifying the ] caste using unreliable ] era sources, I and several other experienced editors have taken time and effort to respond to their endless queries and ] generated using ChatGPT. They have posted AI generated walls of text on multiple noticeboards such as ] and ] and including here , accusing me of vandalism.


Despite my repeated requests and even a final warning to them (including a request by {{ping|ActivelyDisinterested}}) they are still continuing to do it. Their messages are repeating the same argument again and again and are frankly just ] that bring up fictitious guidelines or misrepresent the existing ones. Several editors have told them that Raj era sources are not reliable yet they continue to ask for more evidence on why that is the case based on AI generated claims of supposed academic value or neutrality. This is getting very disruptive and taking up valuable contributor time to respond to their endless AI responses which take a few seconds to generate. I have alerted them about ] and ], I would appreciate it if someone could enforce a restriction on this user from at minimum caste area. - ] (]) 13:07, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
::::I don't think God needs you to defend him, Zbrnajsem, either with half-baked sarcasm or self-righteous indignation. Your confrontation with Tom Reedy, and your absurd ''ad hominem'' attack on him, culminating in an attempt to get him banned, carry no weight with the majority of users, except perhaps to make them think poorly of you. Could you, perhaps, rephrase your central concerns about the Earl of Oxford (rather than about Tom Reedy) in such a way that previously uninvolved editors can make something like sense of them, please? ] (]) 13:08, 10 October 2012 (UTC)


:Hello @Ratnahastin,
::::PS: Nice work there, adding a huge extra block to your comment after I had replied to it, and doctoring the time-stamp. And yet, despite having presumably seen my reply to you, you haven't answered the question I asked. ] (]) 13:58, 10 October 2012 (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.
: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. ==
::::This was a simultaneous editing, ], nothing else. What was then my "absurd ''ad hominem'' attack on Tom Reedy, culminating in an attempt to get him banned"?? Where, what? Have I used the words "please ban him"? --] (]) 14:46, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
{{atop|1=Page protected, and now this admin is flashing back to his youth going to Frisch's Big Boy in ]. - ] <sub>]</sub> 22:37, 24 December 2024 (UTC)}}
This user keeps using IP addresses in order to revert creditable information about who makes their tartar sauce. Please look into this user. IP Addresses used were 67.80.16.30, 66.117.211.82, and 216.24.107.180. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 15:17, 24 December 2024 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->


:Courtesy link ]. ] (]) 17:02, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::In your own words, from the talk page: "And there was one very outrageous expression by Tom Reedy, which people probably would call blasphemy. The use of only this one expression, which should not be deleted by anyone because it is a corpus delicti, disqualifies Tom Reedy as an editor on Misplaced Pages." You repeated the same suggestion at the beginning of this thread. And you've repeatedly accused him of personally disliking the late Earl so strongly as to make him incapable of writing impartially on the subject. I consider this as an ''ad hominem'' attack, particularly as he has explicitly denied your claim, and you have gone on repeating it. ] (]) 14:54, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
:<del>This sounds a '''lot''' like the same edit warrer I dealt with on ], down to the false accusations of vandalism, removal of sourced information, and apparent use of proxies (all the IPs geolocate to different places). I wouldn't be surprised if this is the same person.</del> I've asked RFPP to intervene. ] &#124; ] 21:05, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
::NVM, checked MaxMind for geolocation and they all are in the same general area. ] &#124; ] 21:08, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
{{abot}}


== ] inaccurate edit summaries ==
Okay, Zbrnajsem, you've been told by several people now that you need to let this drop. Please let this drop now, or else we'll have to make you let it drop. ] ] 13:29, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
:That's a little harsh, I don't see any clear requests in the prior discussion. However, I'd find it helpful if Zbrnajsem could clarify whether this is an issue about POV (which makes it a content dispute, and belongs elsewhere) or a conduct dispute about Tom's post. --]] 14:02, 10 October 2012 (UTC)


::Here it is primarily a conduct dispute, User ]. Thank you for your attempt to clarify. In order to simplify the case, I would then like to limit it on the attacks on my person already recognized by at least one of the participants (different from my person) on this section. On the Talk page to the Edward de Vere article, there were, in my view, personal attacks on my address, which are not acceptable, including using of expressions like "you are making yourself ridiculous" by Paul Barlow and indirectly calling me "peanut gallery" by Tom Reedy. I deleted the word "peanut" from the heading of the section "Complaints from peanut gallery", but Tom Reedy reedited it, adding that he would like it better so. I don´t want to reach anything else but an excuse on my address from the two gentlemen. Then we can cooperate on the related "Shakespeare matters" as we did before, I am prepared to do so. The POV matter is then a separate one, and it is being already discussed on WP:NPOV (I do think this is the name). It is, of course, a serious question, but what is not serious in the world of Misplaced Pages? --] (]) 14:46, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
:Zbrnajsem: again, you appear to be either unwilling or unable to see how you have brought this situation upon yourself. ].--] (]) 15:06, 10 October 2012 (UTC)


All but 2 of user's edit summaries are "Fixed Typo" when they are in fact partially updating statistical information on the page. Have left multiple messages/warnings on TP, with no response. ] (]) 16:03, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
*This is what used to be ] type stuff. Thread needs to closed and Zbrnajsem told that his grievance is a mixture of the trivial (the "peanut gallery incident"), the strange (calling the earl's death "kicking it" is "disrespectful") and the plain wrong (blasphemy disqualifies a user from Misplaced Pages). ] (]) 15:52, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
:: I don't view being labeled as "peanut galley" as trivial. It won't make the top 100 of the all-time greatest insults, but it is directed at the ], so I've changed it. Tom has toned down the expression of frustration. (Thank-you Tom), and yes, the notion that an expression of blasphemy disqualifies one as an editor is nonsense. If my count is correct, two marginal complaints have been rectified, and the remaining complaint is not valid, so I hope we are done here.--]] 16:30, 10 October 2012 (UTC)


== Lil Dicky Semi-Protection ==
:::Meanwhile, there was a good advice to me by User Sphilbrick, which I have appreciated very much. I have followed the advice. User Tom Reedy may have a look at the Talk page of "Edward de Vere". I don´t state anymore that a certain sentence written by Tom Reedy disqualifies him to be an editor. (But there should be a discussion on sentences like this one on Misplaced Pages, as everybody knows about religiously motivated fervour in the world and its consequences.) However, there is something, about which I would like to complain now. What is it that gives you the right for your following sentences, User Tom Reedy, as put down by you in this very section today (just part of what you have written), and directed to my person and to User Knitwitted: "...evidently they believe their time is better spent sniping at the heels of those who are trying to build an encyclopedia. This whole thing is just one more example of their '''disruptive strategies'''. Tom Reedy (talk) 15:53, 10 October 2012 (UTC)". First, what disruptive strategies, where? In the article itself? This would be simply not correct. My editings there are really rather minor, because of the difficulty to add something to the numerous editings e.g. by Tom Reedy, and then - what is important - they have never been disruptive. On the Talk page? - I beg your pardon, User Tom Reedy, but there can´t be disruptive strategies on a Talk page. You would probably be happy without my contributions to the discussion, but you have no right to deny me an access to the Talk pages and to contribute. Altogether, you have no reason for accusations like the above ones. --] (]) 20:12, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
{{atop|1=] is thataway →. - ] <sub>]</sub> 22:34, 24 December 2024 (UTC)}}
::::Ask somebody else to explain it to you. I have no intention of spending one more minute on this. ] (]) 20:29, 10 October 2012 (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)
:::: Quite alright, I'll spend a few minutes. As it happens, Zbrnajsem, I've read the talk page in question. That on the talk page Tom and Paul had a jocular tone only could conflate, IMHO, to a "personal dislike" of the subject only to those with overdeveloped imaginations or personal axes of their own to grind. I am far readier to credit you - with your paean to Shakespeare on your user page, your insistence that people discuss these subjects in reverent tones, and that your relative handful of articlespace edits is dominated by the authorship issue - with an obvious personal agenda than I am them. Indeed, there can be disruptive behavior on a talk page ... where editors haul out spurious side issues, rather than discuss article building, is one example. ] 04:05, 11 October 2012 (UTC)


:Ask at ] ] ] 16:28, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
To my immediate predecessor in this discussion. Would you please explain to me what you mean with my alleged "'''handful of articlespace edits''' (being dominated by the authorship issue)"? Have you spent time for '''adding my edits''' to a total? It should be obvious that nobody has the right to prescribe me a certain amount of edits in articles on Misplaced Pages, especially in articles which are so heavily under control as the authorship issue is. You certainly know that a number of editors were banned for a longer time because their editings - as it was believed - supported a so-called fringe theory. And if I say that I also support this theory, and in the same time I perfectly know that any editing in favour of this theory would be reverted and I immediately made responsible for this "misdemeanour" - so what can I do? (I ask: Is such a conduct really fully compatible with the freedom of speech? - I do not think so.) Then I mostly can make only small edits like putting a capital letter at the beginning of a sentence where there was none. Exactly this has been my last editing in the article on Edward de Vere, you can have a look. And this is perfectly OK, or isn´t it??? However, there is no rule on Misplaced Pages that a supporter of a so-called fringe theory (which has been and still is '''supported by a number of Assistant Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States''') is excluded from any Talk Page on this subject. If you don´t know this fact, please ask someone who knows. And besides this, you have certainly no exact information on the amount of my other editings on English-language and other national Misplaced Pages pages which have nothing to do with the Shakespeare canon. So what is your point, can you explain it to me? I hope you will do so, because otherwise it would be a little bit strange, given the fact that you addressed me. --] (]) 17:56, 11 October 2012 (UTC) ] (]) 19:08, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
{{abot}}


== Request for Review of Neutrality and Repeated Actions ==
== ] and ] (Sir Jimmy Savile) ("]" and ] issues) ==
{{Atop|This complaint has no merit and does not require administrative intervention.--] (]) 18:08, 24 December 2024 (UTC)}}


Dear admin,
Would an uninvolved administrator, especially a ] or a ]-based one, say that there are ] or ] going on in the article for ] and in ]? I would also suggest that at least one (unnamed) over-enthusiastic user might in fact be using the ] as if it were a ] of some sort, on ]. I thank you. -- ] 17:57, 10 October 2012 (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.
* You might want to tag it with {{tl|current}}. I'm not an admin but I'll give you my 2p as someone uninvolved - the abuse claims should go to the end of the lead, the picture should be reverted to the one I saw a few days back and the section relating to the abuse allegations, while cited to BBC News and The Telegraph amongst others (so it should stay) doesn't necessary have due weight. I'm reminded of a similar media circus around ] some time back, except he was still alive to defend himself. --] ] ] 18:06, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
** Good idea on the current event tag. -- ] &lt;]&gt; 20:33, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
*** I am personally somewhat uncomfortable with this particular tag/template, and I did not agree to be the one who actually put it up, as I am not certain that all this actually meet the strict definition of "current events", bearing in mind that the ''primary'' events of the allegations were supposed to have taken place at least, if not more than 30 years ago (or at least this is what ''some'' might say). I am however otherwise content with this. -- ] 21:10, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
* Are you really "temporarily inactive" as your Talk Page states? Thanks. ] (]) 18:45, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
*Perhaps the {{tl|current event}} template could be tweaked, or a similar template created for this kind of editing issue? The allegations may be about things Savile did years ago, but the media storm is ''now''. This kind of "belated" controversy is a regular occurrence - for instance when a politician's opponents find something dubious the politician did in the past and turn it into a media storm. Or when the police restart a big old investigation. Or when somebody makes controversial revisionist remarks about 20th-century history. And so on. So, I think it may be helpful to have a tag for "''Right now there are lots of people talking about something that happened in the past; the article may be subject to change; take your finger off the revert button...''" ] (]) 10:11, 11 October 2012 (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.
I'm being harrassed by the above user. Serious lack of ]. They are leaving discouraging and inflammatory notes on my talk page which I've tried responding to but to no avail. Is it any wonder people get fed up and leave if this is what continues to happen. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 18:34, 10 October 2012 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
Hazar ] (]) 17:45, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
:I see a:
:@], whether the NPOV tag is needed or not should first be discussed on the article's talk page. Also, see the large notice at the top of this page: you are required to notify the editor you are reporting. ]&nbsp;] 17:53, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
:* Welcome
::The editor is also called Psychloppos, not Psycholoppos. I have notified them for the OP. &ndash; ] (]) (]) 17:59, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
:* A polite note that assessments should be done by project members
:I wouldn't give a chatbot-written thread the time of day. HS, ]. —] ] <sup><small>] ]</small></sup> 18:05, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
:* A polite explanation of a reversion
{{Abot}}


== Disruptive behavior from IP ==
:You are seriously calling this harassment?--]] 18:44, 10 October 2012 (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)
* At the most severe, it looks like a mild content dispute to me. As a regular admin once said, ] is thataway.... --] ] ] 18:45, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
*What Sphilbrick says. It's not harassment: they're actually trying to help you. On the other hand, you should stop assigning quality ranks to those articles unless you are a member of the specific project or have an otherwise proven experience in quality evaluation. Please listen to Dcshank's advice, or you might indeed be blocked, and no-one wants that. (And no, I don't think this is a matter yet for DRN.) ] (]) 18:47, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
* has now reported me as a vandal. Yes, I would call that harrassment. And you've just assumed the exact same thing, that I have no experience in "quality evaluation", that I have no idea what I'm doing. Why is this? What makes you think that? I don't think I've even evaluated them by quality. Is it a crime to rate Dante or Cervantes alongside Joyce? It doesn't require a genius, a child could work that one out. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 18:53, 10 October 2012 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
*You're blocked for three hours since you continued behavior judged to be disruptive instead of talking this out. (That's besides the fact that this ANI thread was specious to begin with.) I'm not quite sure that more explaining needs to be done; I'll leave it to Dcshank to do so, but I note that your rebuttal ("a child can do this") doesn't require an answer. Your block is short, since I think (I hope) you have the project's interest at heart, but you cannot pursue a course that's not OK with other editors. ] (]) 19:02, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
:* I'm suspicious that this IP doesn't know how to sign edits, yet knew where ANI was and how to do an unblock request pretty much straight off the bat. Coincidence, or sounding a bit ]? --] ] ] 19:13, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
::*Please don't jump to conclusions, Ritchie. ] (]) 19:59, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
:::* Apologies, I wasn't suggesting it was, other than just things struck me as a bit odd. --] ] ] 20:07, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
:Just letting you guys know that I notified ] about this discussion. I know I'm not involved, but I figured someone should let him know it was happening. ] (]) 20:40, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
::Good point. I kind of assumed they'd know from the IP's talk page. Thanks. ] (]) 21:51, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
:::NP. Thanks Runner and Drmies. I had some real world work errands to do. I thought I would let the drama unfold and check in later to see who got muddy. Not the low profile behavior of a sock, but definitely the behavior of someone not unfamiliar with the inner workings here. -- ] 21:59, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
::::Oh man, I should have just stayed silent on this issue. What a lot of drama! --] ] ] 22:30, 10 October 2012 (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)
:::::Wow, you really are a bunch of sneaking no good doers, aren't you? Working away behind the scenes like this, defending wikipedia from any outsiders who get in the way. If its any use at all, I'm noting for the record that Doctor Mies is now behaving menacingly around my talk page, suggesting I could be blocked again. I didn't even make that edit they accused me of making. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 23:08, 10 October 2012 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->


Noting that User:Dcshank has resumed their personal vendetta against me. I have signed up for the project and this is now becoming very annoying. They have given me a "final warning" and I have done absolutely no wrong. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 00:56, 11 October 2012 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> :"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)
::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)
*I guess this isn't over. The IP's snarky comments and insinuations seem to continue; sounds like someone is being oppressed. I have no vendetta here, needless to say, and I don't think Dcshank has one either. Anyway, I don't have that much of a problem with their edits, it's the whining that is somewhat bothersome ("behaving menacingly"--I don't even know how I would do that). I'm hoping that someone from the literature project has a look at this IP's edits. This thread is of course going nowhere, unless it boomerangs someplace. ] (]) 01:37, 11 October 2012 (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)
::Yeap, I tried. We tried. It's up to Literature people now. I can't keep him/her busy all night, I have real work. Fortunately it is about 3 am there now. -- ] 01:44, 11 October 2012 (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)
:::Excuse me? I have done nothing wrong. Nothing. Absolutely nothing. Point me to a policy I have violated. And I am not whining. I was happily going about my business when Dcshank started with their vendetta again. Drmies "behaved menacingly" in that they lurked on my talk page insinuating that I would be blocked if I misbehaved as if I were a naughty child, then accused me being responsible for an edit I did not even make. That was what it was about. I have done nothing wrong. I am being painted as some sort of outsider - an outsider who, if the above is to be credited, is not a "literature person"? Not a literature person? Who gives anyone the right to decide if I am or am not a literature person? I think I could be forgiven for losing my temper on several occasions over the course of the last several hours. But I haven't. How do you do that across a computer screen? I have been accused, among other things, of not being "calm" - and now I am "whining"? I am not. The only thing I can do is say that I am not. I don't know how you prove such a thing in these circumstances. But I am not. I insist I am not. And "somewhat bothersome" does not do justice to what I've been through with you unreasonable people. "Somewhat bothersome" to read what I have to say? More like "somewhat bothersome" to be blocked for hours over nothing, not to mention "somewhat bothersome" to be hounded and harassed in the way that I've been and am continuing to be. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 01:57, 11 October 2012 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
::::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)
::::I've reviewed this entire case and it's a lot of nothing, just another instance of ]. Let's just close it out. ] (]) 02:47, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
:Relevant range is {{rangevandal|24.206.64.0/20}}, in case somebody needs it. ] &#124; ] 21:02, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::Well, feel free to close, but just note that I've reblocked the editor for 48 more hours. Misplaced Pages requires collaboration. One person cannot simply declare him or herself an expert who knows exactly what importance various literary works, authors, and subjects have, and tell eveyone else to let him/her be. Now that the IP has been asked to discuss the matter at the Wikiproject page, s/he needs to do so. If s/he is unwilling to do so (i.e., to have a civil conversation without continuous attacks on other editors), then s/he can't edit here. I don't know if we'll see a change of heart in 48 hours, but if we don't, then the block will have to be extended.
*Semiprotected ] for two days. - ] <sub>]</sub> 22:33, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::As a side note, the IP editor claims his/her keyboard doesn't have a tilde key. Is that even possible? ] (]) 03:02, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
::::::The course you propose seems more than sensible. While I doubt that the 48-hour block will lead to 18 years of maturity, it's worth an AFG shot. Blocking may have to be permanent after that. We simply cannot allow one emotionally disturbed individual to monopolize so much time and energy. As for the tilde--he either does not know what one is, does not know how to copy and paste four of them, is using a keyboard that lacks one, or some combination of all three. In any case, I don't understand how he can proclaim himself to be the world's greatest expert in, among other things, Spanish Literature without knowing what a tilde is. ] (]) 03:26, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
:::::::I give up. I was ready to unblock, but they proved that they are either incompetent or playing dumb. At least they now have a defender with a registered account--someone else to hate us and cry admin abuse. Ah well. At least I get a bonus from Jimbo for every block I make. ] (]) 05:03, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

== Closing a CfD discussion ==

I notice ] has quite a backlog, and ] has helped out be closing ], disclosing that this is a ]. Now, that link refers to closing deletion discussions, but it says "Close calls and controversial decisions are better left to an administrator." The "better left" bit means that the user did nothing wrong, but this is undoubtedly a close call (I count 8 keep !votes and 8 delete/rename !votes) and undoubtedly controversial (which is perhaps why no-one had got around to closing it). ] also says ''Decisions are subject to review and may be reopened by any administrator. If this happens, take it only as a sign that the decision was not as obvious as you thought.'' However, ] doesn't seem to include categories, so I thought I'd post it here. Would an uninvolved admin please read over the discussion (and it is a long one, I know) and see if he or she can endorse the closure? ]] (]) 20:11, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
:The reason I closed this is as unfortunately given the lack of admins who are willing to close such discussions we are going to need non-admin closures as well to make things happen.
:I do respect how you've handled your issue with my closure. -- ] &lt;]&gt; 20:31, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

:I counted 7 keeps, 6 deletes, 3 renames, 1 neutral and a great many tangential comments. I appreciate that Eraserhead1 was willing to look at the weight of the arguments to make a decision to bring the CfD to closure. &ndash; ] 20:47, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
::To be clear I didn't count the votes. We are weighing up the arguments - ]. -- ] &lt;]&gt; 21:12, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
::It was a good close, no matter who made it. Perhaps the closer would be interested in joining the admins in the usual way? ` ''']''' (]) 23:22, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
:::DGG, "]" appears to be lately less a "community discussion" and more a ].--] (]) 11:09, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
::Anyone willing to help out in one of our weakest areas and can do so with a level head, is just fine with me as well. If you are interested, I would be happy to do an admin ]. Likely, others would be willing if you asked as well. Or if you would rather not, that is fine, too. Just know your efforts are appreciated. ] - ] ] <small><b>]</b></small> 02:21, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
::I was going to close the discussion the same way as Eraserhead1, xe just beat me to it. The whole 'discussions need to be closed by an admin' is a red herring thrown about by those who don't like the way the discussion was closed. Being an admin has no bearing on whether you can read a discussion and properly weigh the arguments against policy. The are admins that do that well. There are admins that do it poorly. There are non-admins that do it well and poorly as well. Quite frankly, the reason there are so few people that close these discussions is that no matter what, they are never closed right. -] (]) 04:15, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
::: I think the phrasing of the OP left a lot to be desired too. For example, if ''in reality'' we had 8 keep !votes and 6 rename !votes, that's really 14 "keep in some manner" !votes (at which point you have to really weight the strength of the rename arguments) - don't lump delete and rename !votes into the same category! <span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]]</span> 11:27, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
::::No, the original issue was with the (perceived POV) name of the category. "Keep" and "rename" have a different relationship to each other in category discussions than they do in article discussions. ]] (]) 20:27, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

== ] ==

Highly suspicious single-purpose account. The username is an obvious reference to "silly season" and has only edited articles related to Republican-affiliated interest groups, mostly to subtly push positions opposed to Republicans. My encounter with this account has been in the ] where Sally keeps reverting attempts to have claims about OPSEC being a Republican swift boat effort attributed to the Obama Campaign, which is supported by the sources. When I noted this on user talk, Sally's response included the claim "The campaign doesn't accuse the group of being Republican, they only refer to the group as Republican." The account's user page also appears to be getting used to list editors with whom the account has had negative interactions. It smells like trolling, and it could also be a sock.--] (]) 21:16, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
:I don't understand what the incident is that you are asking about, or what intervention you feel is needed at this time. Could you elaborate please.--] (]) 21:23, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
::See the account's contributions. Basically just making tendentious edits and then edit-warring over them, as well as some other issues. I am not sure what the most appropriate action to take would be, but the conduct speaks for itself.--] (]) 21:43, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
:::No it doesn't, not at all. The SPI went nowhere, and so there's a different tack tried now? It may well be that this account/editor is up to no good, but you'll have to do better than say "smells like trolling" without providing any evidence at all. Come up with diffs and an explanation for them, and maybe we'll talk. If you don't, this should be closed ''pronto''. ] (]) 22:00, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
:::I only looked at the oldest half, because I got bored at that point, but they appear to me to mostly be legitimate content disputes. And per ], this smells like ], and should be closed immediately, with the reporter sternly warned for such actions. —{{SubSup|]&nbsp;|]|]}} 22:03, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
:::::Per both Drmies and Kerfuffler - close as possible forum shopping and no legitimate issue raised.--] (]) 22:17, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
::::I wasn't the one who filed the SPI so how can I be forum-shopping? The actions of this account elsewhere are what drew my attentions, not the SPI. Contributions from this account are minimal and the issue can be clearly understood from looking over the revision history of the OPSEC article.--] (]) 23:49, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
:::::This really does seem to be an effort at stifling an editor whose opinions do not match your own. ] (]) 00:08, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
Here you go, again this was really simple as the conduct essentially dominates the minimal contributions of this account:
* - Removes material noting claims of OPSEC being Republican came from Obama campaign, as the source clearly supports, to simply say it has been "described as" Republican.
* - Reverts RightCow.
* - Reverts Belchfire.
* - Reverts me.
* - Reverts me again.
* - Fifth revert overall.
Three editors oppose this change, but Sally keeps reverting it. Before the last revert I had on Sally's talk page that the source explicitly supported what Sally claimed was not supported. The response included the above quote that "The campaign doesn't accuse the group of being Republican, they only refer to the group as Republican." Plainly obvious that such a distinction has no meaning in this context.

Aside from this incident, the account has been edit-warring in a tendentious manner on various other articles within a very narrow focus:

]
*
*
*

]
*
*

]
*
*
*
*

Does that suffice? This does not include the conspicuous act of listing editors on the account's user page. Note the following discussion page as well: . BTW, it has nothing to do with my opinion on the issue and everything to do with my opinion on the edits and conduct evident with this account.--] (]) 00:10, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
:Discussion here is also illuminating: .--] (]) 00:16, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
*What Sally Season has done on ] in no way even approaches edit-warring. I note that AdventurousSquirrel reverted their edits, after which by a seasoned editor. It always takes two to tango, and from what I can tell, in that particular case Sally Season was not warring and had the sources on her side. I've looked at ] as well, where we had an edit-war brewing and consensus did not seem to be on Sally's side. There was talk page discussion (humorous to read, since no one seemed to understand Sally's joke) and then it was over. So where's the beef in those two? With those two, you've established that Sally and Squirrel got into it and then it was over. Was a report filed at ANEW? What other avenues were pursued? (I may look at a few more--I do thank you for providing these diffs.) ] (]) 00:32, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
*OK, I've looked at the diffs you gave for ], and you are correct: Sally Season is edit-warring there with way too many people (and they're absolutely wrong in and others like it. I've given them a warning for edit-warring on that article, and I personally think their edits should be undone--but it should be looked at by someone who is not you or a squirrel, or me. Mind you, I'm sort of wearing two hats here (editor and admin), but that edit-warring took place is clear (admin) and that their version is incorrect is clear to me also (editor).<p>So, I'll grant you the charge of edit-warring on that article, but I won't block right now, since I just gave a warning. Your larger issue is, of course, tendentious editing--but that's something that should probably not be handled in this forum, and it will take more evidence. ] (]) 00:53, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
::I notice I've been mentioned a lot here but I was never notified about this thread. The reason I started the SPI is because Sally had edited a lot of articles that StillStanding-247 had been editing right before he was blocked, and some of the edits Sally made on the pages were the same edits or reverts that Still had been working on, so it looked pretty suspicious. But it looks like based on the IP's that it's unlikely they are the same user. Sally does seem to have a bit of a ] mentality but I wasn't about to bring him/her up here at ANI for any reason. We resolved or are resolving our differences on article talk pages. ] (]) 01:26, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
:::Well, you're not here on any charges. ;) I saw the SPI as it was happening, and I thought also, for a moment, that there was something going on. Now, I won't deny that there is some battlegrounding going on here, but I think it kind of comes with the territory (dumb politics), and I don't think it's gotten out of hand yet. Again, if there is a larger issue it should be dealt with somewhere else; issues like edit-warring should be dealt with at ANEW and I don't see enough (evidence) yet to block. ] (]) 01:49, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
::::The problem I have is that, all of it put together is rather suspicious. "Sally Season" is obviously a reference to "silly season" and the conduct has been almost purely disruptive. I have a hard time believing that this is just another partisan editor.--] (]) 02:23, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
Cool story, bro! The real story:
We were discussing changes to an article when your arguments began to fall apart, sources were shown to disagree with you, and questions were asked that you couldn't answer. So you fled the discussion to come here to disparage me with innuendo instead. "Sally Season" is a reference to "silly season"! OMG, really?? Can I play, too? "Devil's Advocate" has "Advocacy" built right into it, which is prohibited on this website, and nothing good ever comes from the deceptive Devil! There, now we both sound stupid. You linked all my edits above, and called them disruptive when they are not, unless by disruptive you mean they side with the sources that go against your perspective. If you can't make a reasoned argument to support your position, then attack the editor as a puppet or partisan or "rather suspicious". This website is just a barrel of fun. Not.] (]) 20:48, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

== On and off edit warring at ] ==

has waged a slow-moving edit war on this page, claiming that the descriptions are "made up" and did not come from Schmidt. Several users have provided reliable sources on the talk page that indicate that such is not the case (and though this won't count as a reliable source, an entomologist friend of mine who happens to personally know Schmidt confirmed that the descriptions did indeed come from Schmidt). I should not hand out blocks personally as I am involved. <b>] ]</b> 21:25, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
:I must be overlooking the sources on the talk page ... can you point me to the right threads on that talk page? Is there a reason they haven't been added to the disputed section of the table? --- ] <small>(] • ])</small> - 21:39, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
:: Immediately preceding the table is an explanation of the origin of the descriptions in which the source is ]. I'd found a journal article before that mentioned the same thing, but I'm having trouble finding it at the moment. <b>] ]</b> 21:53, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
:::The descriptions do not come from any papers published by Schmidt. Only one source is reliable enough to back the claim that these descriptions appear in an article by Schmidt, and that would be an article by Schmidt that contains them. If you can't produce such an article, your "my friend says" or "this journalist says" are totally irrelevant. ] (]) 23:09, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
:::I don't see any reference to Snopes on ] or ], nor do I see a reference to any other article which is claimed to give the source of the descriptions. Could you please reproduce ''here'' the bibliographic details of the publication in which the descriptions appear? In the absence of such a citation, it appears that ] is correct to remove the information as unreferenced and unverifiable. —] (]) 08:35, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
::::] does not require that we get claims from the horse's mouth. We just have to get them from a reliable source. Just as an example, I'd like to point out ] - we have well over 100k of content about that dude, but not a single word of it was written by Charlemagne himself. Instead we rely on how scholar A reported the work of scribe B who described the life of king C. As long as scholar A is reliable, we're happy. However, we do need ''a'' reliable source - specifically, ] and check that it supports the content. ] (]) 09:54, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
:::::Of course. I was only asking for a citation to the "publication in which the descriptions appear", not to where they ''originally'' appeared, though as the article wants to quote the descriptions verbatim, the latter would clearly be preferable. The descriptions in the table which were removed by ] had no cited source, primary or otherwise. —] (]) 10:02, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
:::::If Schmidt said what it is claimed that he said, it would be easy - incredibly easy - to find the source. Scientific articles are hardly kept hidden away, are they? Comparisons of contemporary scholars to historical figures who died 1200 years ago are not realistic. Seeing as no-one has yet managed to find the paper in which these "descriptions" allegedly appeared, I think we can safely say it doesn't exist. The question relevant to this discussion is why ] has been edit warring to keep unsourced and unverifiable claims in the article? Why did he not discuss it on the article talk page? Why did he not discuss it with me? Why did he go straight to AN? ] (]) 11:41, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
::::::I'm confused. The link has the text of the descriptions used in the article, and the piece was from "Summer 2003", two full years before the Misplaced Pages article was created. Seems like pretty solid and straightforward sourcing to me. And to be clear, that article specifically cites Schmidt's work in its references. —<B>]</B> <sup>]</sup><sub style="margin-left:-3ex;">]</sub> 17:55, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
:::::::Unlike apparently anyone else, I actually read the Schmidt articles cited by that article, and the descriptions, unless I somehow managed to overlook them, do not appear. This apparent belief that somehow "reliable sources" can change what is actually in an original text is really mystifying. As is "Ohnoitsjamie"'s failure to even attempt a normal discussion before lodging a complaint, and as is the use of this page now as a forum to discuss the article content. ] (]) 18:51, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
::::::::I made this same comment at the talk page and invite you to respond there. —<B>]</B> <sup>]</sup><sub style="margin-left:-3ex;">]</sub> 19:05, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
:::::::That article does reproduce the descriptions, but does not attribute them to Schmidt. In fact, it quite specifically notes that they are ''not'' part of Schmidt's index but rather "colourful" media descriptions, leaving their authorship unspecified. So this article could be used as a source for the descriptions, but not to support the claims that they are Schmidt's or are part of the index (which were the very claims the IP editor removed from the article). —] (]) 21:11, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
::Sorry, I meant ], not Snopes. The writer of TSD interviewed Schmidt; while Schmidt did not publish those descriptions in an academic work, he did provide them to a magazine. <b>] ]</b> 15:51, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
::: also doesn't specifically identify any published source for the descriptions. It says the descriptions were provided for a magazine article in 1996, but it doesn't mention whether this article was ever published, nor does it specify a title or issue number, nor does it reproduce all the descriptions themselves, so it can't be used as a reliable source for them. Again, can you provide bibliographic details of the publication in which the descriptions appear? If not, then I suggest that this ANI thread be closed. The editor was only following policy in removing unsourced (and possibly copyright-infringing, as another poster below theorizes) material. —] (]) 21:03, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
:As Schmidt's list is obviously subjective and represents a creative effort, reproducing the entire list here with or without the very creative descriptions and even with attribution may be a violation of copyright. I think the best way to deal with this is as a general description of the index without reproducing it entirely. Reproducing the "wheedled out" version from Outside magazine is even more problematic in regards to copyright. Please see ] for a broader and more informed view on the subject of copyright in lists. ] (]) 12:42, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

== ] ==

After removing a speedy template a number of times from ] a number of times and having it returned, ] subsided. A SPA, ], then came into being apparently for the purpose of removing those speedy templates and justifying it (speciously, in my opinion) to the editors who had placed them. I therefore took the article to AfD and ] began removing those templates, material, etc. I can't keep up with reverting this and think some administrator attention is warranted. ] <sub><font color="#0f0">]</font></sub><sup> <font color="#0000FF">]</font></sup> 23:16, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
:I'm unable to say with 100% accuracy, but it may also be that ] has falsified an Articles for creation notice. I cannot locate any track of ] having actually been created through AfC. ] <sub><font color="#0f0">]</font></sub><sup> <font color="#0000FF">]</font></sup> 23:18, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
::Thanks to ] who has dealt with this by deleting and salting the article in question. I'll keep an eye on the creator(s). ] <sub><font color="#0f0">]</font></sub><sup> <font color="#0000FF">]</font></sup> 23:45, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
*Blgiles23 is a {{confirmed}} sock of Terrigentry. I have indef'd the sock and blocked Terrigentry for a week. Please drop by my userpage if you see similar pages come up. -- ]]</font></font> 00:42, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
:*...and I must be going blind, also {{confirmed}} {{User|ByronLGiles}}. -- ]]</font></font> 00:55, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

== Block review: User:Andycjp blocked indefinitely by User:Tznkai ==

{{archivetop|status=Good block|result=Overwhelming consensus block was good <small>]</small> 09:58, 11 October 2012 (UTC)}}
*''Previous thread at ]''
*{{userlinks|tznkai}}
*{{userlinks|andycjp}}

I am requesting a review of my own block of Andycjp. By way of background I closed the above thread by topic banning (after reading a rough consensus to do so) Andycjp from evolution, creation, and the origin of species. I Andycjp of the topic ban, and tried to secure him a mentor who shared, or at least understood his religious idiom. In my independent review of Andycjp's edits, I believed he may have been suffering from some combination of language and cultural barriers, and might become a productive editor, even though he had gotten quite confrontational of late. ] agreed to try to mentor him, but quickly reported back on my talk page (see ]) that there were serious problems. I left a message for Andycjp to be cooperative, treat Jasonasosa with respect, and to tell me if he wanted to be an editor. ] even took down a strongly worded, but quite accurate message to try to help out. In response Andycjp simply said and when I asked again if he wanted to be an editor,

At this point, I blocked him. Not because I am offended that he wants to know whether I want to go to heaven (I do, for certain values of heaven), but because I have reached the same conclusion that others have upon talking with Andycjp: he has a mindset incompatible with Misplaced Pages. He seems to be here, at least now, to wage some sort of cultural or spiritual war, or use Misplaced Pages as a platform for proselytizing. He is uncooperative and uncommunicative. That all having been said, this is a sensitive issue, and deserves close review.--] (]) 04:28, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

*Good block. He was given the opportunity to show that he was here for the improvement of Misplaced Pages, and not for other motives. The topic ban discussion should have been a call to him to change his ways. He shows no sign that he has. Though he hasn't actually violated the exact letter of the ban, as far as I can tell, he only narrowly avoided an indef block through the topic ban discussion, and his hostile passive-aggressive behavior you highlight above has convinced me that he's reached the end of his ] as far as I can see. No need to suffer this any further. --]''''']''''' 04:37, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
* Good block. I don't see how it could have been solved any other way, per ]. ] (]) 04:41, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
*Good block, IMO. While I at first agreed that a topic ban in lieu of a indefinite block could work, almost every reply by the editor since has convinced me it will not. to ], where Andy linked ], a disamb page whose first sentence states "based upon presupposition without preponderance of the facts", seemed an indication that he intended to push the limits of his topic ban as much as he could, and while not centered on evolution or creationism, it was a spurious addition to a science article that seemed like it could be connected to the behavior that got him topic banned. Almost every single remark on his talk page since then has been a religious quote or platitude, seemingly aimed at inflaming other editors and making a "martyr" of Andy in his cause. We really do have enough drama around here without someone using Misplaced Pages for self immolation. ]] 04:44, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
** He's done a few more like that, like ]linking "]" in non-math contexts, etc. I'm not assuming bad faith, but he's got a clear ] problem. Enough time was wasted cleaning up after him. ] (]) 05:00, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
*Good block. ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 04:52, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
*'''Endorse block until user agrees to cooperate.''' I'm a Christian, as displayed on my userpage, and I still agree with the block; Misplaced Pages (an encyclopedia) isn't the place for pushing your opinion. FWIW, I've always believed it more beneficial to the faith to actually be a good Wikipedian and be cooperative and courteous towards others rather than edit warring and trying to proselytize all over the place. --''']]]''' 05:03, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
*Good block. Unfortunate, but necessary. Tznkai's approach of trying to engage Andycjp was commendable, but it has to go two ways, and Andycjp's complete failure to engage but instead to carry on proselytizing really left no alternative. -- ] (]) 05:06, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
*Necessary block. I don't know if andy was capable of constructive edits, but he seemed to think the spirit of collaboration didn't apply to him. Editors who refuse to honestly discuss issues simply don't belong here. ] (]) 05:32, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
*First, let me start off by saying that I was wholly impressed by ] post on his talk page delineating why it is not permitted to alter existing sources for the purposes of pushing his own religious POV. It was very tactful, reasonable, and demonstrated respect for ] perspective. I'm also pleased with the efforts of ] and ] to try and bring him into the mold despite having a ]. It did not work, which is oftentimes the case when dealing with editors who have demonstrated an inability to separate their views from their editing habits. If we were to allow Andy to continue editing, there is hardly any doubt that he would remain unwilling to acquiesce to community norms and abide by the ]. As such, he is fundamentally unsuited for contributing to this website, as our aspirations for Misplaced Pages are far detached from his own. Tznkai's block was the inevitable conclusion of this schism. ] (]) 05:44, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
*Good block. This user had plenty of chances to change their attitude during the last AN/I, and instead starting quoting the Bible at anyone who tried to help him. Afterwards, he was graciously given a mentor, but remained as stubborn as ever. What it comes down to is simple: this editor does not wish to change and is not here to edit constructively. I endorse this block. – '''''] ]''''' 06:48, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
*Good block. There's no reasonable prospect of the user editing within Misplaced Pages's policies and the user has effectively made it clear he doesn't want to try. ] (]) 08:54, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
*'''Support block''', unfortunately. Appreciate ]'s attempts, but in order to change, the subject has to ''want'' to change, and this subject was unwilling to adapt to Misplaced Pages norms. <span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]]</span> 09:41, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
{{archivebottom}}

== External link in article body ==

* {{LinkSummary|motherstrust.org}}

* Site: www.motherstrust.org
An IP editor (his IP address changes every now and then) is adding an external link centric portion in 1) ] 2) ] article. Their addition is completely unosurced other than only that external link, which I think is not ]. The worse thing is they are continuously writing in article body "More photos can be seen here ., more information can be found here: . This article ] is still affected where you'll find the link www.motherstrust.org multiple times in article body! --<span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#ED791A 0em 0em 0.8em,#F55220 -0.8em -0.8em 0.9em,#1D6B00 0.7em 0.7em 0.8em;color:#000000">] <span style="font-size: 16px;">]</span></span> 06:14, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
:I have posted notice in two of his IP address talk pages– 1) ] 2) ] --<span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#ED791A 0em 0em 0.8em,#F55220 -0.8em -0.8em 0.9em,#1D6B00 0.7em 0.7em 0.8em;color:#000000">] <span style="font-size: 16px;">]</span></span> 06:18, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

There are more:

* {{UserSummary|Atmalokan}}
* {{IPSummary|75.241.110.108}}
* {{IPSummary|75.219.181.57}}
* {{IPSummary|75.219.127.249}}
* {{IPSummary|75.241.83.220}}
* {{IPSummary|75.198.11.140}}

Added to XLinkBot, will have a further look. --] <sup>] ]</sup> 06:33, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
*Thanks Dirk; I'm glad there's smart people around. ] (]) 13:58, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

== Disruptive editing again - MatthiasHuehr ==

] is removing external links from articles again, without good reason and ignoring my ] to discuss them, despite being warned about his disruptive editing and invited to use the talk page to achieve consensus. Instead he is edit-warring after I revert his changes (I have not reverted his latest edits in order not to provoke this further). This is a repeat of his behaviour in July which is reported ]. Since then his user contributions show he has continued disruption on a small scale, but not reacted to any reversions until the last couple of days - see ] and ]. In my own view, the external links are not spam and do provide references or additional useful information to the articles. However, I am quite prepared to accept a consensus that reaches a different view after sensible discussion. My recommendation is that Matthias is given a final warning not to delete external links without first proposing and discussing them on talk pages or face an immediate ban of a length felt by the admin to be appropriate. --] (]) 07:06, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
:There seem to be the same problems with him in the German Misplaced Pages, with ]. I am just supposing it is the same user, and he gives himself an en-3, so should be able to understand what we try to tell him. Ping me if you want me to message him in German. ] (]) 09:50, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
::Sorry, I just saw you could do this yourself, messaging him in German I mean. ] (]) 09:51, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
:I have restored the links, and left a message on his talk-page. ] (]) 11:28, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
*I got involved in a previous bout of EL removals, in response to a 3O request - but didn't make much progress as MatthiasHuehr didn't discuss at all. Don't be fooled by the peaceful-looking user talkpage - several other editors have attempted to discuss the issue with MatthiasHuehr but it just gets removed... ] (]) 11:43, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
Vitt is a part of Putgarten and the official homepage of Puttgarten is kap-arkona.de! The other links are commercial hotel booking pages or satelite page for them. Misplaced Pages is not a link farm for commercial use ...--] (]) 15:43, 11 October 2012 (UTC)PS The deleting of THE OFFICIAL PAGE by you is the only abuse i can see!--] (]) 15:47, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

@Bermicourt. Could you clarify. Are you talking about the and the changing of the other? Or are you talking about the removal of the references? ] (]) 17:06, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

:No, in each case Matthias has repeatedly deleted several links, which in my view are perfectly acceptable, but won't discuss them in order to reach consensus. I think his point above is that, in reverting his latest round of editing at ], I inadvertently deleted his correction of the link to Vitt's official page. If it is legit, then I am of course entirely happy for such a link to be inserted. Hope that helps. --] (]) 19:44, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

== Legal threat at ] ==

Saw ] at AFC, passed the quick sniff-test so published, but noted this apparent (confusingly-phrased) legal threat in the lede:

{{quote|'''Arattupuzha Velayudha Panicker''' was an ] warrior who lived in the 19th century in ], ] and fought against caste oppression by the upper castes.{{Citation needed|date=November 2011}} His original name was '']'.The present Chekavar who are rooted to the blood of Arattupuzha Velayudha Panicker are grouped here- https://www.facebook.com/groups/144351819022209/.
'''If anybody intend to undo the edits on the latest would violate the copyrights from the family and would be filed a case against the same. Copyright has been registered and is strictly prohibited.'''--] (]) 11:26, 9 October 2012 (UTC)}}

Not quite sure what to do with this, so leaving it for the moment just as evidence. ] (]) 13:42, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

:Seems to be a misguided attempt to force the Facebook link into the article. As legal threats go it is remarkably clueless, but a legal threat nevertheless. I'd assume the usual block per ] would be a formality? ] (]) 13:55, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
*Matthew, it is so idiotic that it's hardly credible. The user just came off a block for edit-warring; they seem to have more blood than clue. Then again, not everyone may realize that the threat is idiotic, and what counts here is the perception of a threat, so I will block per LEGAL. Thanks. ] (]) 14:06, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

::Oh yeah, seemed awfully goofy, but reporting on general principle as it's really not an adult way to deal with edit disputes, and sets bad precedent. Turns out to that the article is a dupe of a 2010 article ], so not much lost there. ] (]) 18:31, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

== User:Brainbug666 -- Post-Finasteride Syndrome ==

{{userlinks|Brainbug666}} is a single purpose editor who is devoted to trying to publicizing the side effects of a drug called ]. His behavior, I believe, has become tendentious--basically what ] & ] describe. I got involved in this when closing ], an article he created. Creating a non-notable article is not sanctionable, but he's displayed a clear ] mentality there, as well as ] and ]. He seems very interested in promoting a group called the The Post-Finasteride Syndrome Foundation. After a flood of single purpose accounts on the Afd, an ] was opened on him, and he retaliated by opening one on another contributor (]). I'm convinced that he is ] to build an encyclopedia, and I suggest a topic ban from Finasteride-related topics, at minimum. ] (]) 14:00, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
*What would have been nice was the SPI concluding that there was indeed sock puppetry going on. Unfortunately for you and other I suppose, that was not the case. Still, there's enough troubling behavior on Finasteride-related articles to warrant at least such a topic ban, broadly construed to cover the topic and not just the one article, and any next offense (including retaliatory action, etc) should be followed by an indefinite block. And maybe some nice clerk can close that bogus SPI quickly? ] (]) 14:16, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

What is going on here is realy breathtaking, but ok, everbody can read, what is going on here. You can also see what I wrote about this on my ] --] (]) 14:53, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
*For the sake of clarity, on your talk page is precisely the kind of thing that I was referring to with "any next offense" and "personal attacks". Do you understand? (I guess I'm letting this one slide...) ] (]) 14:58, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
I'm a little confused here. I see 10 article edits by this account, 3 or 4 of which (depending on your POV) add technical information that, although I'm in no position to evaluate it, looks plausible and uncontroversial. Yes, there is some attempt to add references to PFS, a couple of which seem to have POV issues, but this hardly warrants an ANI case. And lastly, with no evidence of sockpuppetry, it's inappropriate to keep repeating it. He should be warned for inappropriate use of the “minor” flag, though. —{{SubSup|]&nbsp;|]|]}} 15:05, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
:::There are a lot more article edits to the article that was deleted per ] and then recreated as a redirect. Take a look at the AfD itself for a taste of the editor. -- ] 15:18, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
::::I've now read the AfD, and frankly it did not give me a good impression of any of the major players, including yourself. Way too much ad hominem. The only editor who seems to have actually made a substantiated argument on the “delete” side is ]. —{{SubSup|]&nbsp;|]|]}} 16:30, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
*Meat was a valid concern for that AfD, but the problem that's appropriate for discussion ''here'' is the battleground mentality, prompted by what seems to be a personal interest in having specific issues included in Misplaced Pages articles. Whether there's a lack of appropriate manners on the other side (and I don't mean Mark Arsten, but Grouse) may well become part of this thread. ] (]) 15:13, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
*I´m also very confused here and shocked, what is going on on the english wikipedia. I just came here to make an entry, while I normaly work on another wiki and not the english one. When I came here I wasn´t baised, nothing, just made the entry, but less than 2 hours the article was for deletion, how can someone check all sources in less than two hours? Well, ok but what me realy starts to wonder, was the case that someone started a ] what is still not removed. I another case where I started to do the same with some arguments for that, some of the admins here were very very quick. This is not the only example, where I and other can see that some strange things are going one here. Some users, are treated in a diff. way than others, entrys are treated in a diff. way than others. I mention this in the ] Sadly this gives me a very bad picture of the english wiki. Ohter users can do some things other not? Wiki is not a dictature, please treat everbody the same. If you dont do that you harm wikipedia. You can see this ] and ].
So can one of the admins here please explain me, why my sockpuppetry case is still running since many days and other are done in only a few hours? --] (]) 15:30, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
*Re: sock puppetry: your case was obviously bogus, for reasons explained on your talk page, so that's an easy close. The other had some behavioral evidence from the AfD to back it up. Beyond that, I don't know: I don't set the calendar, but I think there was a conclusion of sorts reached at yours, last time I looked. ] (]) 15:37, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
**Users who attack other users are treated differently than users who dont attack other users.
**Article entries / content edits that follow policies of ] / ] / ] / ] are treated differently that article edits that dont. -- ] 15:43, 11 October 2012 (UTC)


*User redpenofdoom, you deleted a link in the article, by claiming they are spam and self promotin. I asked you, whay you did that, there was and this lil part about that foundation not a medical part, what you called a activist group, the only answer you gave me that it is spam. So, what I dont understand is, why there are links on the merk entry to their side and a non-profit-organisation is called spam, if there were nothing about this Foundation in the media, ok. I would understand that, but in the case that there is a article about it. I thought realy this belongs to the whole entry. As it is done even for company sites. Even calling this a activist group gives the whole thing a very bad taste, cause it is not a acticist group, it a foundation for patients who suffer badly. Would you call also a activist group? The lack of compassion and
humanity here is breathtaking. The way some users here are treated and other not also. Everybody, who likes can read everthing, even what I wrote and make his owen picture. I dont have the time and willing to answer all the time, but when I read such things I must give a comment. Who would not? --] (]) 15:57, 11 October 2012 (UTC)


*user redpenofdoom, this is exactly, what I mean. You wrote this. Users who attack other users are treated differently than users who dont attack other users.

I am talking about the user dangerGrouse. look ] please. Sorry I still dont get this argument. He attaked me, so when we both are attacking, why he is still treated differently than me? I exactly talked about this.

Than you say, Article entries / content edits that follow policies of ] / ] / ] / ] are treated differently that article edits that dont. That is true, but since when is not a valid source, keep in mind the source is not for a medical part. --] (]) 16:06, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

: Just because a startup "organization" exists, does not make it notable. There are millions of existing, useful, and valid organizations that do not meet the criteria to be included in Misplaced Pages.
: A quick glance at ] shows that you personally do not quite get the purpose of ] and ] ... it's quite appalling the number of uncivil accusations you have levelled there - an adult, if "attacked" takes the noble high-road, and does not stoop to attacks of their own.
: ], which is the cornerstone of Misplaced Pages, has said that the article does not belong on Misplaced Pages, but that a redirect should. That's more than sufficient considering the "coverage". <span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]]</span> 16:32, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
:Yes, just because a organization exists, does not make it notable. This is totaly true. But this organization was in in a article of the What you are saying totaly misses the point. Sadly I see this here very often. I said and asked, when we both attaked each other, and people who attak other are treated differently, why he is not treated in the same way. Your statement does not answer that and what you are doing is also attaking me personal. User dangerouspanda and dangerGrous. funny coincidences.--] (]) 16:47, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
::::] has been relentlessly posting on my talk page and slinging allegations which inlude: single purpose account, sockpuppetry, meatpuppetry, holding a sleeper account, and most recently, allegations that I am a pharmaceutical employee. A ] was for some reason opened against me, but the editor didn't name any other suspected accounts. I have been extremely patient with this person, and politely asked (as can be seen on the user's ]) that this stops. I have declared myself as a junior editor and asked for specific, constructive advice from Brainbug666. Apparently this plea did not sit well with this user, because I have only been met with more allegations. This morning, I found a remarkable '''10,750''' character from Brainbug666. I consider this, along with the false ] as being ]. As I mentioned, I am a new editor and still learning the ropes. I honestly don't know how else to deal with this person, so if anyone could offer some advice it would be appreciated. ] (]) 17:21, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
::: If you're suggesting I'm a ] of ], I would love to encourage you to file an ]. You might also click to my userpage and find that I am indeed an ] of a completely different user. Your call. <span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]]</span> 16:57, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
::1) In your repeated attempts to insert the information about the advocacy organization into the deleted article you were simply using the organizations own website as your sourcing. 2) even with this third party mention, there is no evidence that organization deserved the full section about it that you kept inserting. 3) the article has been deleted and so quibling about content in a non existant article is not something that I am willing to engage with you any more. -- ] 16:52, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
::I´m suggesting nothing I just said funny coincidences. The only thing I see here all the time, that some users here fully ignore things that other wrote. I wrote something about the treatment of users and you totaly ignore that.
:Redpenofdoom, 1) the source for the organization, that I also posted many times. 2)This is realy crasy, why some users totaly ignore, what others write? I realy dont want to repat myself the whole time, but igonoring things foces me to do that. You gave one again the best example for that. As we can the this whole things turns about me, where is the user DangerGrouse here? I wrote about that he attaked, but no one is talking about him, I asked, why he is treated in a different, ignored again. I ased for a quote, where I attaked I´m personaly? Ignored. Sorry, but do some users here forget that everbody can read this? This gives such a bad picture of wikipedia and it is a shame. I wrote many times my points. Ignored.
1) please, look at he finasteide entry check the sources and add that its also inhibits the 5AR type III. Ignored, Why? Misplaced Pages should be neutral and at the moment it is not. All those endless discusions are totaly useless, when some useres ignores what other write. I look what the user wrote and try to answer to every point. Short example.... Why did you delet this link....''spam and selfpromotion''........can you prove this, there is a source ).....''simply using the organizations own website as your sourcing.'' .....Source.....''no evidence that organization deserved the full section about it''. If it does in your oppinion, why haven´t you been constructiv and said, this can be done under public attention? This whould haven been constructiv. Deleting it is destructiv. ITs unbelievable what is going one here. So please, try to be neutral. There are many many other entrys here, who nobody cares about, but about this entry many users pops up and make statements, some users fight against this as their life depending on it and uses everything to downplay everthing other said. sockpuppetry has been used and many more, while they still dont care about other entrys. Even when I haven mention that. They will not change the finasteride entry, they will not work on other entrys. They just fight against one entry. I have to shut up, when someone makes a statement, like this is spam and selfpromotion and the only source is...the owen website, (source AFR) No, but I dont shut up, when people use things like that and if some here believes that I am wrong and just fighting for one simple entry, do what you want. I came on the english wiki, to make only this entry with no baise. But what was showen me here is the worst. This is not wikipedia and it is a shame, what kind of user here can become a admin. This is my statement. --] (]) 17:59, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
:: nice methodes you got here now the user Dangergrouse changed the entry, where I showed what --] (]) 18:12, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
::: As per ], I consider your latest edit a harmful post since it is ]. If any other editors feel this action was wrong, please let me know. ] (]) 18:25, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
: Ah, ] is no ] Where are here the admins? Do you think, all people are stupid?--] (]) 19:00, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

*'''BLOCKED''' - Combination of socking as an IP, WP:DE violation, battleground and WP:HERE. I just spent two hours on this before I saw this discussion, so the only thing that has changed was the duration, which is now indef. ] - ] ] <small><b>]</b></small> 20:24, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
**I agree that a block was unfortunately needed here. ] (]) 22:00, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
***First of all, I'm obviously not uninvolved, having raised the original SPI against the editor in question after some very silly meat-puppetry-style SPA contributions. Second, I would have contributed more substantially but the Australian time-zone ruled me out. I, and others, have tried to tread lightly on this one (with, perhaps, occasional frustrated lapses) given the editor's obvious broken English and seemingly limitless passion for this one particular topic. As the topic in question involves suggested pharmaceutical side-effects and ongoing medical concerns, there is an obvious need for editors to understand that those impacted by these issues will be passionate in pushing their opinion. But pushing a legal, medical or commercial opinion by promoting the view of a particular activist group is still ]. Refusing to accept decisions made by consensus and responding by editing tendentiously is still ] and is disruptive. Raising a bogus SPI to "get someone" for opposing your opinion at AFD is still ]Y. I had hoped it wouldn't come to this and actually took steps to close-out my original SPI so that everyone could just drop the ] and move on. Unfortunately, the editor in question has maintained a ] mentality and for all the reasons outlined by others above, this block was (unfortunately) necessary. ] ] 23:06, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

== ] ==

I happened to notice somebody report {{user|Rangams13}} to ], who is already blocked as a sockpuppet. This user is using his talkpage to keep deleted material in there, which was deleted as a result of ]. Can somebody revoke his talk page access? Also there are some IP editors editing the page as well. <span style="font-family:'Courier new',monospace">]+]</span> 16:31, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
*{{done}} I have revoked talk page access for the account and semi-protected the page. I've also watchlisted the user talk pages of the involved socks. ] (]) 18:34, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

== Apparent competence issue ==

I’ve encountered an apparent ] problem that in my view has reached the point at which it requires admin attention. The editor, ], makes occasional sound edits but most are poorly considered or executed and many require additional attention or outright reversion. Attempts to engage the editor on his Talk page have been completely unavailing.

Here is a well-abridged sampling of troublesome edits, in generally ascending order of concern:

:* Idiosyncratic addition of information to articles which is generally plausible but unsourced and possibly incorrect. E.g. declaring that because one company involved in the production of a program is in Canada – a fact not in evidence in the article – the program is properly described as “Canadian-American” (see ); adding “Emmy-winning” to an article when the company appears only to have been nominated ();

:* Very infrequent use of edit summaries;

:* Creating a category with a typo, ;

:* Creating superfluous redirect pages (“Mrio” to “Mario”; “Mini mARIO” to “Mini Mario” – itself a redirect to “Mario”) (both since deleted);

:* Removing a proposed merger template (albeit stale) without discussion, ;

:* Undoing, without comment, other editors’ efforts to clean up articles and remove cruft, ;

:* Placing articles into non-existent categories then doing it again – twice – after other editors undid him, and ;

:* Low-grade apparent vandalism – ;

:* Page blanking, and ;

:* Unilaterally moving “Nick.com” to “Nick.co.uk” without discussion and inconsistent with the content of the article, which is about “Nick.com” – followed, a couple of weeks later and after a Talk page reminder about the need to discuss most moves beforehand, by another unilateral move (“Viacom (1971-2005)” to “Viacom (1971-2006)”);

:* Adding a “Good Article” designation to article that is not, in fact, a “Good Article”, (defending the edit by saying that “it’s not a bad article”);

:* Not once discussing any edit, before or after making it, on any article Talk page.

I estimate that about ¾ of this editor’s edits are reverted by one or another editor. He’s been accumulating Talk page warnings and comments for several weeks; they’re all generally friendly (because the edits rarely seem malicious or completely over the top) but they do not seem to be having the necessary salutary effect, and this editor’s poorly considered edits continue pretty much unabated. I can’t seem to get his attention and thus have concluded that the matter requires consideration here. Thanks for any and all help. ] (]) 18:03, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

== Tendentious and uninformed editing by ] ==

Farwah_khan is an SPA who submitted ] (a Pakistani talk show) to ] for review on 5 October. Vexed by the backlog, FK that same day asked the Teahouse how to expedite the AFC process, ] from the mentors, and on 7 October went ahead and just pulled the article from AFC and published it solo (see ]).

The article isn't horrendous, but rather crufty. Subject ''does'' appear to be notable, mentioned in a few published academic books on Feminism and also presumably in a lot of Pakistani media. FK, however, has ignored suggestions to improve the sourcing, follow WP:TV guidelines, and has persisted in repeatedly uploading improperly licensed images, getting them taken down, and putting them right back up again. I've communicated with FK over three days (during which time FK has been actively editing), giving detailed suggestions, and just asking FK for some communication with the editors trying to help FK. No avail, article still greatly lacking, and FK is still wasting volunteers' time by repeatedly uploading copyvio images.

Can I suggest some kind of short block, or block whose end is predicated on FK demonstrating active listening and willingness to follow guidelines? ] (])

== Guy who got banned for vandalizing Armenian related pages is back ==

He got banned with the name KunoxTxa and more recently with Vagharshapat. Now he is back and using the name ]. Can you permanently ban this guy? ] (]) 18:58, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
*{{done}} and nuked 2 new articles and the AFD. Feel free to clean up the other edits as needed. ] - ] ] <small><b>]</b></small> 20:15, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
*Community Ban discussions are at ] ] (]) 20:52, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
**Ban isn't needed, I just assumed he meant block, so I did since I was familiar from blocking another sock of the same editor. ] - ] ] <small><b>]</b></small> 22:40, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

== ] ==

I happen to have this talk page on my watchlist, and I see that for quite some time this user gets templates informing them on speedy deletion nominations of their articles. I am not an admin, and I have no access to the deleted edits, but my understanding is that the articles get deleted, and then user just recreates them in the same state, without bothering to reply. On one hand, we do not have so many users writing about Laotian footbal clubs, on the other hand recreation of the same articles more than five times in my opinion goes over the top. Could some admin please check the deleted edits, and if the articles were indeed recreated multiple times give the user the final warning, and possibly next time block them from editing.--] (]) 19:11, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

== IP self admitting block evasion ==

{{archive top|result=Reaped. ] - ] ] <small><b>]</b></small> 20:16, 11 October 2012 (UTC)}}
I am not at all familiar with the history, but here we have an IP self admitting that they are editing while under a block. -- ] 19:43, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

{{done}} the user has been blocked by Reaper Eternal. -- ] 19:46, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
{{archive bottom}}

== User:45abc123 repeatedly creating unsourced articles concerning apparently non-existent events. ==

As a quick glance at ] will show, this 'contributor' has a history of producing entirely unsourced articles regarding 'tours' by bands etc that either don't exist, or aren't actually touring. 45abc123 has just recreated ] which was speedily deleted earlier as a blatant hoax, while ] by a band that nobody has heard of called 'Coldplayers' is under AfD - though how it survived that long is rather beyond me. It has footnotes for future events that use the past tense. Google search turns up no results for this tour - ''which the article claims has already started''. And most ridiculous of all, we are supposed to believe that 'Coldplayers' (who?) played alongside Coldplay at the closing ceremony of the 2012 Olympics and nobody noticed the coincidence in names? Coldplay certainly played at the Olympic closing ceremony - but the 'World Tour' described in the article isn't theirs, as our ] article makes clear, they are currently touring, but appearing at entirely different venues and times - 'Coldplayers' cannot possibly be a misprint of 'Coldplay'. I left a note on 45abc123's talk page to the effect that unless sources were provided, I would report the matter here - the only response has been the recreation of the deleted hoax.

Note that IP's have also edited these articles - it seems self-evident that this is the same person. ] (]) 21:32, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
*Very likely same editor as {{checkip|94.171.180.179}}
* ] - ] ] <small><b>]</b></small> 21:39, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
***Ah, I nailed it I see. ], so he is a previous sockmaster of, you guessed it: ]. I do see a lot of problematic edits and wonder if this is all hoax to be cleaned up. ] - ] ] <small><b>]</b></small> 21:48, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
{{od}}I have blocked the user indefinitely and deleted a couple of hoax articles; the account was previously blocked for a short period for the same pattern of creating hoax pages. I have blocked the underlying ip briefly. Some of the edits appear OK, but hard to tell for someone unfamiliar with the field. ] ] 22:35, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
::Good call, I stepped out to cook dinner, and was reviewing one last time to block when you beat me to it. Making a few worthwhile edits doesn't make him any less a troll in this instance. ] - ] ] <small><b>]</b></small> 22:38, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

== Request topic ban for User: Agadant at ] article ==

I would like to request that ] be topic banned from the article ]. Since March 2010 Agadant has obstructed NPOV changes to the article’s content and all talk page discussion and has driven away many editors including those like myself who were invited to the article via 3rd Opinion, noticeboards etc. because of POV and promotional issues that persist until today. I have no personal issues with Agadant and have not edited the article or talk page for more than a year. Though I have never met Agadant on any other articles, I believe him/her to be a skilled and useful Misplaced Pages contributor. However, on this ] article their presence has been a strong disruptive and obstructive influence over a period of years and now it needs to be addressed.

Items from talk page :
*8/18/10 ] “this article reads like Web Sheriff propaganda and really needs some POV work”
*3/4/11 ] “Propaganda”
*5/15/11 ] “I find this article very biased”
*3/27/11 ] “Clients section being a total mess”
*6/2/11 ] Agadant, your most recent edits aren't really doing much good……Phrasing like that is really just puffery and doesn't belong in the article.
*6/2/11 ] as an IP: “I think you will find that trying to edit this article without an admin's intervention is quite pointless. Agadant will not allow it.”
*7/12/11 ] “This article is still really biased”
*7/29/11 ] “It may be time for you to just walk away and focus on a new project”
*8/2/11] “The clients section contains far too much detail that is of no encyclopedic interest”
*8/3/11 ] “This article reads like a press release”

Items from the NPOV noticeboard where Agadant opposed every editor for 4 weeks despite overwhelming consensus:
*8/3/11 ] “The article is still written as is if it were an WP:ADVERT for Web Sheriff. “
*8/3/11 ] “I agree that it is promotional in tone.”
*8/3/11 ] “it could come straight out of a glossy brochure."
*8/3/11 ] “A "documented" ad is still an ad.”
*8/3/11 ] “My problem is Agadant isn't allowing anyone to tag the article as POV, even though most people agree it is.”
*8/10/11 ] “There are numerous examples of opinion presented as fact,
*8/26/11 ] “Editor still has WP:OWNERSHIP issues and seems now to have transformed into a SPA in his attempts to control this article”
*9/7/11 ] “This us/them mentality is a recurring theme I have seen in your approach to editing the article, and combined with significant WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT is probably why some of the editors attempting to work with you on the article have become frustrated."

The items below are from talk page
:
*8/12/11 ] “Please stop making ever tiny issue with this page into some gargantuan war of epic, hysterical proportions.”
*8/16/11 ] “The problem is more that the amount of PR material in the article makes it non-utile as an encyclopedia article IMHO”
*8/17/11 ] “ your frankly odd behaviour and statements are not conductive to good editing. Your constant IDIDNTHEARTHAT….”
*9/4/11 ] “the tone and presentation in the article is repeatedly changed to have a less encyclopedic tone and to less accurately represent the sources.”
*8/13/11 ] “When you fight even the most trivial issues like this, it gives me concern that you are too emotionally invested in this article to work in a collaborative environment."

Agadant’s visits the user talk pages of editors who disagree with him on the ] article to argue and express outrage:
*Aug 2011 @Keithbob’s talk page
*8/30/11 ] “Dear Agadant…..A number of editors (including myself) have asserted on that article talk page and various noticeboards that you have been behaving in a disruptive manner, as if you own that article. Your post above which criticizes me, my user page and my editing history, is a response to my participation in content discussions on the Web Sheriff talk page. Your post above, smacks of stalking and personal attack and appears to be an attempt at intimidation. Further, you have approached other Editors on their talk page in response to their edits or comments on the Web Sheriff article in an effort to influence their editing there. I suggest to you, as I have before, that you re-consider your actions, as you may be digging a deeper and deeper hole for yourself. “
*Sept 2011 @ Ronz’ talk page
*9/5/11 ] “I think the only solution is for other editors to work on the article, and for others' to let them. ….. Take a break from the article.”
*Aug 2011 @ aprock’s talk page
*Aug 2011 @ VQuakr’s talk page

Recent items from talk page :
*9/8/11 ] “Honestly, your combative and downright nasty attitude regarding this topic is getting to be quite tiring...it may be wise if you either focus on other areas for awhile or work towards less aggression here."
*1/24/12 ] “seems to be some issues related to WP:OWN and allowing other contributers to clean up the article
*1/24/12 ] “As far as I can tell, all you seem to be saying here is that you are the only one qualified to evaluate and edit the article. Most of your objections do not conform to policy, and appear to indicate problems with WP:OWN.”
*1/25/12 ] “In my opinion we have seen a long history of examples #1 and #2 from User:Agadant on this article very clearly violating WP:OWN, that has resulted in driving away other editors and stagnating attempts at improving this article.”
*1/25/12 ] “With respect to your editing behavior , there is a clear consensus that you've been exhibiting problematic editing on this article.”
*2/6/12 ] “But this is not relevant, as you know since it was discussed here and in the previous section. WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT.”
*4/1/12 ] “Your repeated defense of blogs and sources whose content is entirely based on Web Sheriff PR speaks for itself. That I have no interest in wiki-lawyering with you over the reliability of blogspot sources is more an indication that your argumentum ad nauseam is sufficiently effective."

This week on the :
*10/11/12 ] “I've left this article alone for some time now. Looking through it now, it continues to have the same problems: promotion, undue detail, use of poor or unreliable sources, improper use of primary sources, peacock terms and general puffery.”
*--<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans -serif"> — ] • ] • </span> 22:28, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

:The article has been stable for months and I have not edited there. Then an anon IP with only 3 edits in 5 years showed up today with charges of NPOV and then Ronz appeared out of nowhere after a year away and now Keithbob who said a year ago he was done when an admin showed up to help balance the article. ] (]) 23:27, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

The article was, and remains, a horrid example on Misplaced Pages. Topic bans for a single article, however, rarely accomplish much. I would suggest, then, that the article be presented at DRN to discuss the amount of detail which is overtly promotional therein, with the goal of persuading Agadant that any further such promotional edits will ''not'' be viewed favourably by the community at large. If Agadant is not amenable to substantially reducing the amount of such material, ''then'' the issue of a topic ban would be ripe. ] (]) 23:12, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

:No one gives any valid or specific reasons that would hold up why this article has to be treated so differently than others that are not on so controversial a topic. From the start it's only been about delete material - never improve or help write anything better on the article. Only mostly nonspecific charges with massive deletions. This seems odd. Isn't an encyclopedia about giving information to readers not censoring it of keeping it very short and uninteresting. ] (]) 23:27, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

== Legal threat ==

Please see ] regarding possible legal action. ] (]) 23:33, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 15:24, 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
    Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents Shortcuts

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

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

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

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

    Disruptive editing and WP:TALKNO by User:AnonMoos

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

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

    The other user in this case is User:AnonMoos? This looks like a content dispute over whether the article is on the English version of a German-Arabic dictionary or the dictionary itself. Secretlondon (talk) 15:47, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
    Yes the is indeed about User:AnonMoos. I see the content dispute as stemming from the fundamental conduct issue, which has manifested itself most egregiously with insisting on violating WP:TALKNO repeatedly even after I explained that I had sought a third opinion and that they should refrain from changing the heading again in order to preserve the integrity of the link, after which they went ahead and changed it again anyway. إيان (talk) 16:00, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
    The heading dispute is between a date heading, and a descriptive heading? that's not really reformulating your entry. Secretlondon (talk) 17:44, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
    It's a conduct issue. إيان (talk) 19:58, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
    But what conduct issue? TALKNO doesn't forbid changing headings. In fact the wider guideline makes it clear it's perfectly acceptable "Because threads are shared by multiple editors (regardless of how many have posted so far), no one, including the original poster, "owns" a talk page discussion or its heading. It is generally acceptable to change headings when a better heading is appropriate, e.g., one more accurately describing the content of the discussion or the issue discussed, less one-sided, more appropriate for accessibility reasons, etc. Whenever a change is likely to be controversial, avoid disputes by discussing a heading change with the editor who started the thread, if possible. It can also sometimes be appropriate to merge entire sections under one heading (often preserving the later one as a subheading) if their discussions are redundant." To be blunt, if you don't want editors changing the headings of sections you start, don't use such terrible headings. I definitely recommend you stay away from ANI since changing headings is quite common here. Nil Einne (talk) 06:25, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
    Actually I missed the signature issue. That's far more concerning unfortunately lost IMO partly because you concentrated on silly stuff. Nil Einne (talk) 06:29, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
    ‎إيان: I suggest you stop messing around with the section heading since it's a distraction which could easily lead to you being blocked. But if AnonMoos changes your signature again, report it and only that without silliness about section headings, mentioning that they've been warned about it before if needed. Nil Einne (talk) 06:50, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

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

    @AnonMoos: I don't see a problem with changing the heading but why on earth did you change their signature multiple times ? That is indeed a clear violation of WP:TPOC since the signature was perfectly valid per WP:NLS. In fact your change was far worse since it changed a perfectly valid signature which would take other editors to the contributor's talk page and user page into an invalid one which lead no where. If you're using some sort of plugin which does that, it's your responsibility to manage it better so it doesn't do that ever again especially if you're going to edit talk pages where it might be common. If you're doing that intentionally, I suggest you cut it out or expect to be indeffed. Nil Einne (talk) 06:48, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
    User:AnonMoos, this is not good to see. Don't rewrite or reformat other editor's signatures. There is no reason to be doing this unless you are trying to provoke the other editor. Liz 07:51, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
    For what it's worth, AnonMoos stated earlier that the changing of the signature was a unintentional technical issue, due to his use of some "non-standard tool" in accessing the internet . This seems plausible, as similar apparently unintentional changes to non-Ascii character data have happened in edits of his before (e.g. ). But if he knew of this issue, it's rather disappointing he let it happen again some days later . Equally disappointing is the extremely aggressive rhetoric and acerbic tone with which he has been escalating this essentially harmless, good-faith content dispute from the beginning. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:25, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
    I just can't fathom what tool they're using to get around the HTTPS requirement to edit Misplaced Pages securely. — The Hand That Feeds You: 17:42, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
    Should be impossible as it's required to even access the site in the first place according to WP:SECLakesideMiners 16:41, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
    Looking at his talk page it's been going back to at least 2011LakesideMiners 16:17, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
    Guys, I do not deliberately set out to modify signatures, and when it happens, I am not usually aware of doing so. As I've already explained before in several places, since the December 2019 encryption protocol upgrade (NOT 2011!), the only way I can edit (or view) Misplaced Pages at all from home is by an indirect method which is not fully Unicode-compliant. To change this, I would have to get a completely different type of Internet connection, which would permanently disconnect my older computer, which I still use almost every day.
    Meanwhile, this thread has been set up so I can't add a comment to it from home without affecting Unicode characters, so I was unable to reply here for 36 hours or so. If I'm silent in the future, it will be for the same reason. AnonMoos (talk) 01:14, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
    Misplaced Pages uses Unicode characters (UTF-8 encoding). Anyone who cannot edit without corrupting such characters should not edit. Johnuniq (talk) 03:47, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
    Whatever, -- I was using them perfectly fine until December 2019, and still use them perfectly fine on public WiFi, but in December 2019 a requirement was imposed that you can't access Misplaced Pages at all unless you can handle encryption algorithms and protocols that weren't introduced until the mid-2010s. I have a 2012 web browser on my home computer that handles UTF-8 just fine, but 2012 simply wasn't good enough for the Misplaced Pages developers -- you had to have software that was almost up to date as of 2019, or you would be abruptly totally cut off. If you can drag up the relevant archive of Village Pump Technical, I and others complained at the time, but our concerns were not listened to or considered in any way. The basic attitude of the developers was that if you weren't running almost up-to-date software, then screw you, and if your computer is not capable of running almost up-to-date software, then double screw you! The change was announced for January 2020, but was actually implemented in mid-December 2019, apparently because they were so eager and anxious to start excluding people. It wasn't one of Misplaced Pages's finer moments. Since that time, I have had to use an indirect method to access Misplaced Pages from my home computer, and I don't feel particularly guilty about it (other people's obnoxious behaviors in 2019 have done away with most of the guilt I might feel)... AnonMoos (talk) 20:59, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
    ...HTTPS was created in 1994, and became an official specification in 2000, not "mid-2010s". I'm not sure what 2012 web browser you're using, but if it's not able to handle HTTPS not being able to access Misplaced Pages with it is the least of your browsing concerns, given that 85-95% of the World Wide Web defaults to it now. Also I hate to think of how many security holes your ancient computer has. I'm going to be honest: with a brower setup that old it isn't safe for you to be on the web at all, and the security hole that lets you access Misplaced Pages without using a secure connection should be fixed, because that is not working as intended and is - as mentioned - a security hole. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:18, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
    You unfortunately don't know what you're talking about. New ENCRYPTION ALGORITHM AND PROTOCOL METHODS have been introduced within HTTPS from time to time. I was using HTTPS perfectly happily until December 2019, when the developers arbitrarily ENCRYPTION ALGORITHM AND PROTOCOL REQUIREMENTS. AnonMoos (talk) 00:57, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
    And even leaving that aside, as Johnuniq mentions - if you can't edit without corrupting Unicode characters, and by your own admission you don't know when it happens, you shouldn't be editing. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:20, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
    This is probably a reference to when Misplaced Pages started requiring TLS 1.2 (because earlier versions were deprecated). Anyone who was/is still on Windows XP at that point couldn't connect any more. MrOllie (talk) 01:29, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
    I'm not talking about when the update happening, I'm talking about how you have known about this issue, and have been getting complainants about it since 2011and are still not taking any steps to do anything about it. What kind of internet connection would not support your PC? What on earth are you even using? Dial-Up? Because that still is supported by even Windows 10. LakesideMiners 02:59, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

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

    The problem didn't start in 2011, and I have no idea what you're referring to when you mention 2011. The problem started in December 2019 when the developers arbitrarily imposed new ENCRYPTION ALGORITHM AND PROTOCOL REQUIREMENTS... AnonMoos (talk) 00:57, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
    Apologies. I was extremely tired when I wrote both above. I have striken the date parts. Rest of my comments still stand. LakesideMiners 01:06, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

    None of this matters

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

    That's nice -- and also totally inaccurate. I was in the 21st century, and using 2012 tools, up until December 2019, when the developers pitchforked me backwards by arbitrarily imposing HTTPS ENCRYPTION ALGORITHM AND PROTOCOL REQUIREMENTS which my home computer hardware is not able to run. Notice that I had no problem complying with character-set handling -- the problem is with arbitrary ENCRYPTION ALGORITHM AND PROTOCOL REQUIREMENTS. AnonMoos (talk) 00:48, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
    The century imagery is irrelevant. You have been warned. EEng 03:14, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
    That was six years ago, which is IMO about 3-4 years too long to keep using it as an excuse. Technology changes over time, so whatever this non-standard thing you think you need to do to edit here, it may be time to make a choice. Zaathras (talk) 00:56, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
    As I said, to fix the problem, I would have to get a completely different type of Internet connection which would permanently disconnect my old computer, which I still use almost every single day. I would basically have to change my workflow and overall habits/methods of working because of an arbitrary decision by Misplaced Pages developers about encryption protocol updates. Anyway, when editing through public WiFi, I'm 100% Unicode compliant, and by exercising a little prudence, I can also avoid most problems when working from home. If I was constantly mangling Unicode right and left, there would have been a chorus of complaints long before now. But occasionally I can't anticipate a problem... AnonMoos (talk) 01:06, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
    And just to say for the third time: you're out of chances. "Occassionally" is too often. Once more is too often. And if and when that happens, your attitude of entitlement displayed here will pretty much ensure an indefinite block. EEng 03:14, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
    Think it's time to draft up a formal proposal at this point? LakesideMiners 18:29, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
    I don't think that's necessary. The key isn't formally deciding the criterion for blocking (because that's obvious to everyone) but rather detecting the next incident. Best way to do that for everyone gathered here to watchlist User talk:AnonMoos. Sooner or later, futher trouble will show up there. EEng 21:31, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
    If you have DSL or even DialUp. That still works with modern machines. LakesideMiners 01:08, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
    Heck, I am on DSL (and have been since, if I recall right, 2008). I have no idea what sort of ancient Internet connection AnonMoos is claiming to be using, but it's clearly one that was already obsolete before this change he's still up in arms about six years later was made. - The Bushranger One ping only 05:44, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
    Not to mention it would STILL be supported these days. It's literally right there when you click wifi/network settings in Windows 10. LakesideMiners 18:20, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
    • The response by AnonMoos to feedback about this problem is bizarre. I don't really care what the excuse or the history behind it. If you are unwilling to edit Misplaced Pages using tools that work in 2024 then you should stop editing. The behavior is completely unnecessary and it seems like you don't understand the disruption. Nemov (talk) 14:45, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
    • AnonMoos hasn't really explained in any detail what their technical limitations are. They don't have to, but we can't really give advice otherwise. If as others have suggested their computer can't negotiate TLS 1.2, I'm surprised that they're able to use any websites at all from that computer. Requiring TLS 1.2 is not controversial; Misplaced Pages wasn't doing anything unusual in dropping TLS 1.0/1.1 around that time. Mackensen (talk) 15:02, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
    • If it's that much of a problem for his computer, go and buy a new computer. It would certainly be better than whining about how Misplaced Pages broke his ability to edit without screwing things up for other users.Insanityclown1 (talk) 07:06, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
    Meh. None of this matters. Signatures sometimes get accidentally fucked up. This is an encyclopedia, not a forum, and this signature thing is not a real disruption to the creation of encyclopedic content. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 07:21, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
    While true, it's still a violation of WP:TPO, and if it's accidentally changing characters in signatures, who knows what else it might be doing that isn't getting caught or reported? - The Bushranger One ping only 07:27, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

    Disruptive editing by User talk:185.146.112.192

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

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

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

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

    @Moroike: It looks like you both are edit warring on Kichik Bazar Mosque. That's not particularly helpful, so you should try to have a discussion on the article talk page as to whether you should include the Talysh language name for the article in the lead/infobox. –MJL ‐Talk‐ 20:33, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
    MJL why and how did you pick out that one article over the many this IP has made recent changes to? The IP has been making disputed edits for months and has been reverted by a number of editors, not just Moroike. CMD (talk) 01:10, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
    @CMD: I am not suggesting that the IP editor isn't being disruptive, but my point is that Moroike isn't making the situation better (using the example of that one article). You can see this by looking at their last 50 contributions where they have mostly just reverted this editor without using a summary. –MJL ‐Talk‐ 18:02, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
    The IP's edits were removed a total of 13 times on the page regarding the capital city of Azerbaijan, Baku. You can't let him continue engaging in further edit wars with other users besides Moroike, can you? Nuritae331 (talk) 17:24, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

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

    After he/she was blocked for 24 hours, this IP created an account as User talk:Ibish Agayev in order to evade the block and has resumed his/her POV pushing. Moroike (talk) 16:51, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

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

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

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

    It would help if you named the editor and signed your name to figure out what you are talking about; a noticeboard only works if you give us notice about the subject and what is happening. Nate • (chatter) 23:39, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
    The editor appears to be PerfectSoundWhatever, based on the link under the word "this" as well as this notification. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 23:51, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
    My apology, this is my very first time making such a post. The other pages o have spoken on seemed to have signed themselves automatically. Will remember this going forward. And yes, that was the user, posted this using my phone so I didn't want to mis-spell their name, just linked instead. Sxbbetyy (talk) 17:01, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
    (Non-administrator comment) IMO the best practice is that in the event of a content dispute, the article should be reverted to the status quo of how the article's content appeared before the dispute started, until such a time that consensus is established to re-add it (see: WP:STATUSQUO). It seems like the beginning of the content that is in dispute was added on 18 August 2024, the dispute began a few weeks later on 23 September 2024 and has been ongoing ever since.In this case, since the article existed in a relatively steady state for several months (or even years?) previous to the disputed material being added, I think it'd be wise to leave the disputed content out of the article until the discussion comes to a close. RachelTensions (talk) 00:07, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
    I have been seeing this opinion from a few editors and even one admin on how to interpret this article. However, the first few sentences in that section do outright state to avoid reverting the disputed content prior to a consensus. And prior to opening this report, I asked several admins on the topic and got a response that reverting the disputed content immediately is incorrect per WP:STATUSQUO as it bypasses the consensus building process. I was advised that the content should instead be tagged as disputed rather than be outright removed. The offending user was made aware of the relevant policies but has nonetheless engaging in edit warring to keep it reverted, hence this report. Sxbbetyy (talk) 17:13, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
    The status quo of an article constitutes implicit consensus (WP:IMPLICITCONSENSUS). The person trying to include disputed content in an article despite it not being status quo is the one that could be construed as attempting to bypass the consensus building process, not the person trying to maintain status quo until discussion takes place. RachelTensions (talk) 17:20, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
    Correct, and at no point was the definition of what constitutes the status quo ever in contention. In fact, if you review the edit history of the article you can see that the disputed content was the status quo via implicit consensus at the time PSW chose to first outright revert the content, and then continued to revert it as others tried to restore it (both before and after the consensus discussion began). Sxbbetyy (talk) 23:38, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
    the disputed content was the status quo via implicit consensus at the time PSW chose to first outright revert the content
    Not really, I personally wouldn't define "been there a few weeks" as status quo.I think maybe the other replies to this thread provide pretty good reasoning to take a step back and say "hey maybe I'm the one in the wrong here" instead of talking in circles RachelTensions (talk) 00:30, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
    Personally I think the number of contributions since the edit where it has gone unchanged is a more useful metric, especially on low traffic pages such as this one. Regardless, per the policy you cite, there seems to be no official Misplaced Pages stance on what exact criteria are needed for a contribution to be considered the current status quo, beyond it having been unchallenged in subsequent contributions (which is the case here).
    As for the rest of your comment, there seems to be a high amount of band wagoning and "Proof by assertion" going on in the rest of this. Or people trying to use this report as an extension of the dispute discussion on the article's talk page. Hopefully more actual admins to chime in on the topic as I don't actually want to waste my time talking in circles.
    On that note thanks for actually taking the time and baseline minimal effort to engage in a discussion where you actually support your point and don't just devolve into repeating the same talking points over and over. It's a nice change of pace. Sxbbetyy (talk) 02:48, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
    I am the editor being discussed here. I'll provide a summary of events since the initial statement by Sxbbetyy is misleading.
    Myself and the editor had a content dispute at Team Seas (1) and following circular discussion, I stopped engaging since I felt I had laid out my points. Per WP:STATUSQUO, I maintained the state of the article to before the dispute. I requested for a third opinion, which was answered by @BerryForPerpetuity:, who agreed the statement should be removed, albeit for a different reason than mine. I took this 2-1 as rough consensus. I also posted the dispute on two WikiProjects, and have received no response so far. Sxbbetyy reached out to three admins about the matter, @Sergecross73, Oshwah, and Pbsouthwood:. The Sergecross73 discussion can be summarized as Sergecross believing that I haven't engaged in misconduct, and that I have presented a "plausible, good-faith interpretation of SYNTH". Sxbbetyy then accused Sergecross73 of not acting in good faith. Oshwah did not respond to the post on their talk page, but @BusterD: did, essentially agreeing that the sourcing does not back up the claim in the content dispute. Sxbbetyy received help on Pbsouthwood's talk page about responding to a content dispute. And now we're here.
    Throughout these interactions, Sxbbetyy has demonstrated a failure to assume good faith, refuses to accept that they may be wrong, and WP:BLUDGEONs talk pages, refusing to let the other editor have the last word. Frankly, this is a massive waste of editor time: it should have been a brief talk page discussion then an RfC. Apologies for all the pings. — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 00:23, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
    This summarization in itself leaves out critical context, (such as berry's concern being alleviated and them no longer expressing a desire to remove the content), the specifics of why that conversation with Serge ended the way it did despite my repeated attempts to engage with them in good faith, and the entire discussion with pbsouthwood (who quite definitively explained that the behavior PSW was engaged in was not correct). So I urge all involved to go read those topics to get the correct context through your own eyes and then discuss any concerns from what you see here. That being the case, it seems pretty clear cut imo. Sxbbetyy (talk) 17:20, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
    Just to be clear, in no way did I express that I didn't want the content to be removed. I did not receive a notification for your reply, and I wouldn't have engaged either way. — BerryForPerpetuity (talk) 17:24, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
    Yes, I would leave that material out of the article. Whilst it may not exactly be synthesis per se, it is certainly editorialising ("the removal of that amount of marine debris is of negligible consequence...") unless there is an actual source that says this by making a link between between the two statistics (the amount of waste removed by Team Seas and the rate at which waste is entering the ecosystem). And even then, I would say that such an edit would need to say something like "However, ARandomNewspaper pointed out that ...". Black Kite (talk) 00:34, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
    That is actually no longer the content that is being disputed. If you look at the latest version that got reverted on the article you can see the current version. I had made edits to it precisely because of valid WP:NPOV concerns brought to my attention by PSW. However, their dispute with the content remains with the claim that is is synthesis rather than any other concern. Which they have been thus far unable to obtain a consensus on. Sxbbetyy (talk) 17:27, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
    • I have some pretty serious WP:IDHT concerns about the topic starter here. They came to me for help (no idea how/why me, I have no connection to this dispute) and I repeatedly told them I didn't see any misconduct, and then they started attacking me when I refused to agree with them. And now this. This is a very simple content dispute, with a very simple no consensus means no change outcome. I've told them this. It's a disappointing time sink on a rather trivial content dispute. Sergecross73 msg me 00:52, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
      At no point was he "attacked". I defended myself after he became hostile with me (as anyone can read in our convo, I stated multiple times that I would leave and did not want to be a burden if they didn't want to engage with this, but he made no such objections and continued). Eventually he just became outright hostile and refused to explain their points any further, devolving the conversation into them repeating themselves over and over, its all there to read on his talk page. As for why I contacted him, I wanted to ensure I chose impartially so I just randomly looked at the currently active admins at the time and he was the first one I found. Sxbbetyy (talk) 18:23, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
      The discussion is right here, if anyone wants to look. The "attack" I'm referring to you is your accusation that I responded to you in bad faith. I was not involved in the dispute, have no stance on it, and had no pre-conceived notions about either of you - what in the world would my motivations be for "bad faith responses"? It doesn't make any sense. You simply didn't get the response you wanted, and proceeded to badger me on it. Did I get vaguely irritated when I volunteered my time to review and comment on a dispute I had no stance or interest in, only to get all sorts of sour grapes responses on it? Yeah, sure, but who wouldn't? Sergecross73 msg me 18:44, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
    • I'm here from my input at the 3rd opinion request. This is nothing more than a trivial content dispute, I see no reason for this to be at ANI. I somewhat agree with the claim of synthesis, it becomes more susceptible to incorrect information, and from my analysis it seemed like the claim in the disputed content was completely wrong. Two different sources, from two different time periods. My $0.02: The claim of stonewalling is ridiculous, there was ample good-faith discussion based on existing policy and guidelines. This editor does not assume good faith, it appears that he claims that editors disagreeing are acting in bad faith. From him to administrator Sergecross73: "I'm not wasting time engaging with you if you aren't going to speak with me in good faith." It seems that he roots his argument based on the editor who removed it rather than the content itself. Very unfortunate waste of time. — BerryForPerpetuity (talk) 15:31, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
      Exactly. It's not "stonewalling" that's happening here. PerfectSoundWhatever has discussed at-length at the talk page. They're simply not willing to talk circles indefinitely. And we don't require that of editors. I've urged Sxbbetyy to, rather that spin their wheels arguing with the same person endlessly in a stalemate, to try to get other participants to take part. But they've refused, and instead decided to move their arguing to ANI instead. As I noted to them in one of my last comments to them, if they spent half as much effort in consensus-building as they did complaining and arguing, they could have built a consensus by now... Sergecross73 msg me 17:30, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
      Reading any of what I wrote in this dispute shows clearly that is not the case. Also, the quoted sentence is completely taken out of context.
      Here is what was said in the mesaage before that they left out, "Not really the logical conclusion one draws from reading any of what I wrote here, where I asked multiple times for you to explain your reasoning in your replies (instead your response was to repeat yourself without offering further explanation), but if that is what you want to take away from this that's fine by me. I'm not wasting time engaging with you if you aren't going to speak with me in good faith."
      The message as a whole was replying to was a passive aggressive insult that didn't progress that conversation, hence the response as it was clearly not an example of engagement in good faith.Sxbbetyy (talk) 18:34, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
    Also, it looks like the participants in the dispute on the Team Seas article are acting as if this report is an extension of that dispute discussion.
    This is a report of edit warring to revert disputed content prior to a consensus being reached (there was no consensus prior to the reversion and there still is no consensus, as admitted by PSW themselves in that very dispute and In their latest revert message, no idea why now in this report they are trying to claim that there is suddenly consensus for removal).
    This is not a report on the dispute itself, just to make that very clear since those involved are responding as if it is. Sxbbetyy (talk) 18:41, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
    You've still got this backward. You need to show a consensus to keep your content in the article, as everyone else has been telling you. WP:ONUS is directly on point, and I'll quote it here: The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content. MrOllie (talk) 18:53, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
    Thank you. I have tried to inform them of this many times and many ways. I do not know why they cannot wrap their head around the concept. Conceptually, it would be very problematic if we were required to retain every disputed content until consensus ruled it out. It wouldn't be workable. Sergecross73 msg me 19:02, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
    Nobody is arguing WP:ONUS here...not in the dispute and not here in this report. The point is that the content is being removed prior to there being a consensus on if it should be removed.
    I was directly advised by admin Pbsouthwood that the removal of disputed content BEFORE any consensus has been reached is not allowed (save for specific situations, none of which apply to the disputed content) as this bypasses the consensus building process. Here is the talk page where I was advised this. This is echoed with the wording in WP:STONEWALLING and WP:STATUSQUO. Here is the direct quote from the latter, "To eliminate the risk of an edit war, do not revert away from the status quo ante bellum during a dispute discussion. Instead, add an appropriate tag indicating the text is disputed. For an article, many of the inline dispute tags are appropriate. For other pages, is good. Leave the status quo and the tag in place until the discussion concludes." Sxbbetyy (talk) 19:58, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
    The point is that the content is being removed prior to there being a consensus on if it should be removed. <--- No. This is your problem. What you are saying here is incorrect. Policies say the opposite of this. You are not going to get support at ANI. In fact, the longer you keep going with this WP:IDHT insistence that community practice is actually the opposite of what policies plainly say it is, the more likely it is you're going to find yourself blocked for disruption. Pbsouthwood didn't tell you this either (what he wrote doesn't match what you've been doing), and your initial question did not properly represent the situation at hand. But we can invite him here to see if he actually supports what you're doing here: @Pbsouthwood:, what say you? MrOllie (talk) 20:06, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
    This entire comment serves absolutely zero purpose whatsoever. You're parroting what others have already said with no supporting evidence. Along with throwing in an oddly included threat that is completely nonsensical and wholly unwarranted.
    And while I could point out the myriad of ways your claim about what Pbsouthwood said was inaccurate, that would pretty much involve reposting his reply, which is a waste since anyone can already go to his talk page and read it themselves.
    So at this point, if you need that admin to come here and tell you what they already said themselves, more power to you. Would save us all a ton of time to get an authoritative answer on this, especially with another admin holding the opposite view point, in spite of the specific policy wording. Sxbbetyy (talk) 23:08, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
    No matter how much you insist otherwise, there does not need to be an established consensus for the removal of content. Drop the stick. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:28, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
    I'm not the one insisting otherwise...this report only exists because an admin told me otherwise. And as I've posted in my previous replies, the wording in the policies clearly support that. Makes me question how many have actually bothered to really read these policies... Sxbbetyy (talk) 02:22, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
    The other admin told you nothing about the removal of WP:SYNTH, which is always appropriate. Back away from the dead horse. - The Bushranger One ping only 03:19, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
    1. This report is not an extension of the dispute discussion for that article, if you want to involve yourself in that discussion, do so there, do not hijack this report.
    2. The disputed content is plainly not WP:SYNTH as I explain on the talk page in great length, with nobody thus far having provided valid examples as to how it is.
    3. If you are going to make the claim that any WP:SYNTH concerns warrant immediate reversion without consensus, please feel free to share the quote in the relevant policy that says this. I have not found any such wording and instead found that what is present matches up with what PBsouthwood informed me.
    Sxbbetyy (talk) 17:17, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
    Come on, how many people need to tell you you're wrong? Sergecross73 msg me 02:05, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
    At this point I say that my advice was given without a specific context, and without prejudice. I maintain that it is more collegial and polite to discuss a removal of unsourced but plausible content before removing it, as it can often avoid disputes of this kind, but it is not forbidden to arbitrarily delete content that an editor plausibly considers inappropriate provided the relevant reason is given. It is always the responsibility of the person advocating inclusion to provide a reference when challenged, regardless of the process of challenge.
    Some forms of synthesis are acceptable. If a conclusion is logically inevitable based on undisputed factual premises, or is a simple mathematical calculation, we routinely accept claims that may not be specifically stated in a source, but we may require the logic to be explained, as it may not be obvious to the reader.
    At the risk of being hoist with my own petard, I also refer readers to WP:Don't be a dick (looks like that essay has been expunged, try Meta:Don't be a jerk). · · · Peter Southwood : 06:59, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
    I think many of us used to the mess editors adding unsourced content can create would strongly oppose leaving in unsourced content just because it's plausible. The standard should instead be at a minimum that you believe the claim made is most likely correct and sourceable not simply that it's plausible. Although ultimately such discussions are a little silly anyway. If editors would just add sources rather than leaving it for someone else because they're claiming it's unlikely to be challenged or whatever, there would be a need for others to decide whether to query or remove unsourced content. Nil Einne (talk) 09:56, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
    I was suggesting tagging with citation needed while you wait a reasonable time for a response, but as we know some of us do not have the patience and just revert. It in not unheard of to know something, but not have a source handy at the time. What is obvious to one may be totally obscure to others. This is acceptable within policy and guidelines. You could start a RfC to have the guidelines changed, but I suspect it would not get through as being a bit bitey. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood : 12:47, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
    Yes, what you say is true, that's absolutely an acceptable approach. But that's not really the problem at hand here. The bigger issue is that Sxbbetyy appears to be believe that the alternative approach - reverting per STATUSQUO or NOCONSENSUS - is somehow misconduct, and that's simply not true. They're not arguing about if your approach is valid, they're arguing that its compulsory, and they're attempting to report a user for not following your possible approach, which is completely meritless. Sergecross73 msg me 17:31, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
    Please do not put words in my mouth. The only reason this report exists is because Peter Southwood advised that this was how I should proceed if the editor participating in this no-consensus reverting continued to do so and was unreceptive to further discussion. (Both are true by admission of PSW themselves). Sxbbetyy (talk) 18:22, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
    Yes, I've seen that discussion, but you presented the situation to them entirely in hypotheticals that lacks crucial context. You frame PSW as unwilling to engage in discussion but omit the fact that PSW did engage in extensive discussion already. You accuse PSW of edit warring to keep their information in the article, but omit the fact that you're equally guilty of edit warring, as you're responsible for every single counter-revert in the situation. I would think the near-unanimous rejection of this ANI report would indicate that this was not, in fact, a good thing to report. Best case scenario, this is archived with no action, but I'd be shocked if it didn't result in a WP:BOOMERANG. Sergecross73 msg me 18:44, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
    I don't know why you are attempting to present the entire discussion on that talk page as some sort of proof that PSW was willing to engage in further discussion to halt the behavior this report is about. At no point whatsoever did PSW ever indicate anything like that; if they did this report wouldn't exist as the discussions on your talk page or Peter Southwood's page would have never needed to happen. Not to mention if you take the time to actually read the discussion, you see that most of it is on the specifics of the validity of the WP:SYNTH claim made by PSW, eventually culminating in PSW actually asserting that they will not stop change their position on this and then outright refusing to engage any further.
    And now you accuse me of edit warring by citing the entire recent edit history of the page...this isn't fooling anyone who actually bothers to read any of the revert messages and examine the timeline of when they occurred (talk about omitting "crucial context").
    Beyond just slandering my character, I don't really see what these kind of spurious claims accomplish. It wastes everyone's time, makes yourself look biased and hostile, and adds nothing to the conversation. Keep things civil please, I really shouldn't have to tell you of all people that basic expectation. Sxbbetyy (talk) 02:38, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
    Wait...are you seriously trying to suggest that, even though you were the only one who reverted him every single time, he was edit warring and you weren't? Sergecross73 msg me 02:50, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
    If you are going to continue to twist words and make false claims immediately after being asked to keep things civil, maybe it would be best for all involved if you just moved on from this conversation. Sad that even has to be stated at this point, it should be a given. Sxbbetyy (talk) 17:25, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
    Yet another IDHT response where you try to baselessly chastize me rather than address anything anyone is saying to you. Sergecross73 msg me 18:14, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
    What a choice to post this exact type reply to my last message... not to mention the sheer absurdity of it. To claim that I've never addressed anyone's points in my replies is so easily and visibly wrong (literally this entire topic is full of my detailed replies to people's concerns, including this very reply) that it's almost insulting to the rest of the people participating in this or to anyone who even chooses to read that message. It's as if you think nobody can see the rest of this discussion (or even the comments directly above it). Sxbbetyy (talk) 11:52, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
    Thank you for taking the time to respond and my apology for any inconvenience it may have caused. Ive tried to keep it as civil as possible, but there seems to be a very hostile air in this discussion by those with the dissenting opinion. As for how this situation is to be resolved, would it be appropriate to restore the currently disputed content with the appropriate tags (as it is sourced and was the statusquo on the page at the time of reversion)? Or is there something further that must be done here? I'm generally unfamiliar with how ANIs actually function. Sxbbetyy (talk) 17:52, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
    Have you considered starting an WP:RFC? The fact is that you made a WP:BOLD addition to the article; someone else objected to it, which means you now ought to seek consensus for your addition. As numerous people have told you, none of the relevant policies and guidelines (WP:ONUS, WP:BRD, WP:QUO, etc) would allow you to make a recent addition the "default" the way you want, but more generally - the problem is that you're trying to dig through policy for something that will make your preferred version the default, allowing you to have it in the article without having to demonstrate consensus for it even in the face of challenges. Even if the policies and guidelines I listed were on your side this would still be a bad way to approach it. You have a conflict, your goal should be to resolve it by making consensus as clear as possible - figuring out what the crux of the dispute is and then, if you can't reach a compromise, holding an RFC to see where consensus lies. Also, I have to point out that just by a quick nose count of people who have weighed in on talk, I'm seeing a dispute that is now three-to-one against you. That is a consensus - not a massive one, maybe an RFC will pull in a bunch of people that say something else, but it doesn't make sense for you to keep demanding a consensus to remove something you added when there actually is such a consensus on talk. You've disagreed with their arguments but they're not obliged to WP:SATISFY you; ultimately if you think your arguments are so strong and theirs are so weak, the only real option for you at this point is to start an RFC and hope that you can demonstrate that there. --Aquillion (talk) 04:10, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
    As mentioned earlier in the discussion, this report is not an extension of the dispute on that article, nor is that what this report is about. Also, a RFC was already started for the topic about a week or so ago by PSW, but that occurred after he reverted the status quo, disputed content with discussion (repeatedly). As for the rest of your comment, Peter Southwood, an admin, has addressed what is the actual expectation. Sxbbetyy (talk) 18:00, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
    What? I never started an RfC. — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 19:07, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
    I just checked and on 12/9/24 at Serge's talk page you said the following, "Thanks – just wanted to mention I requested comments from WP Internet Culture and WP YouTube about 2 weeks ago."
    Did that not actually happen? Sxbbetyy (talk) 02:11, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
    WP:RFC is a specific process. Asking questions on a couple of Wikiprojects is not an RFC. MrOllie (talk) 02:22, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
    That's fundamentally not what an RFC is. This is getting ridiculous... Sergecross73 msg me 03:03, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
    It's almost like this is the very first time I've ever been involved in this kind of issue on Misplaced Pages before...seriously these kind of replies come off as rude and don't actually say anything meaningful or helpful. Ever since our conversation on your talk page you have made next to no real effort to engage in good faith and I find that highly disappointing to be coming from an admin. And my apology if I offended you at all at some point or if you have just "lost your patience" with me, but I don't see how that gives you the green flag to suddenly disregard WP:Civility. I certainly haven't, in spite of being on the receiving end of this. Sxbbetyy (talk) 17:44, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
    I haven't said anything uncivil, I just keep calling you out when you say something incorrect. Sergecross73 msg me 18:08, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
    Cunningham's Law, is a powerful force, I find it difficult to resist myself. MrOllie (talk) 18:10, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

    Request for closure

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

    I second that. If there has been any edit-warring by any party that should be dealt with in the normal way. PerfectSoundWhatever has certainly done nothing wrong, and the OP will get blocked if they don't start listening to people pretty quickly. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:24, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
    Exactly. And even that's probably unlikely, as most of the "edit warring" was singular reverts with days or weeks in between. It's far from a 3RR situation at least. Sergecross73 msg me 15:26, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
    (Non-administrator comment) I don't think this conversation is going anywhere fast, other than seemingly coming to the conclusion that @PerfectSoundWhatever has done nothing wrong, which seems to be the opposite of what this ANI post was about. There's no edit warring here, and even if there was, it wouldn't be dealt with at this venue. Shut it down! RachelTensions (talk) 16:48, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
    In what way whatsoever is this editor's decision to revert the disputed content during the discussion "standard following of procedures of WP:STATUSQUO"? The literal first words that appear at that link are in bold and say, "Avoid reverting during discussion", followed by a detailed explanation of the actual proper procedure. And to make it very clear what it says, here is the literal first paragraph verbatim: "To eliminate the risk of an edit war, do not revert away from the status quo ante bellum during a dispute discussion. Instead, add an appropriate tag indicating the text is disputed. For an article, many of the inline dispute tags are appropriate. For other pages, {{under discussion inline}} is good. Leave the status quo and the tag in place until the discussion concludes." Sxbbetyy (talk) 02:31, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
    In what way is that your read of the consensus in the discussion above? Sergecross73 msg me 02:49, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
    In what world do you logically come to that conclusion from a message that consist of almost entirely the word for word quote of the procedures described in WP:STATUSQUO, that directly counters the claim you just made? Are you saying it is "against consensus" simply because it presents a viewpoint you don't like and don't want to address? I don't see another reason why you would again twist my words, to the point of lunacy. And this is, once again, despite the fact that all of what has been said is literally within view.
    Also, regarding the consensus. Out of everyone that has actually joined the discussion and all the messages sent (~90% of which are either from myself or you Serge), there have been only three people who have actually said anything in support of your interpretation of this. The rest either did not discuss the topic, did not express an opinion, or were Peter Southwood who supported the interpretation of WP:STATUSQUO as stated on its page. Seems like you're just trying to rush a end to the conversation to get the conclusion you want. Sxbbetyy (talk) 15:02, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
    I'm saying there has been no consensus for anything you're arguing here. Not a single person has supported action against PSW. Sergecross73 msg me 15:15, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
    The status quo ante bellum that shouldn't be reverted from is the version without the new content. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:16, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Creating the need to make 400,000 unnecessary edits

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

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

    If you want to discuss {{WikiProject banner shell}}, you should do so at Template talk:WikiProject banner shell.
    As for the size of the category, I have no plans to empty it, and was only going to update a few hundred more categories and templates.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  15:02, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
    You made nearly 2000 of such edits in the last few hours, and when asked to stop pointed me to a category with 400,000 entries. I have no way to know how many more you planned now or in future runs. Starting a discussion at the module would hardly stop you. Fram (talk) 15:10, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
    "when asked to stop pointed me to a category with 400,000 entries": incorrect. Since you wrongly thought I was making cosmetic edits, i.e. "no change in output or categories", the category was to inform you that they are not cosmetic.
    Regarding a BRFA for the bulk of the category, that's looking more likely since the category appears to be neglected.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  15:29, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
    Unnecessary removing a synonym and then making thousands of edits to remove the hidden cat created by that unnecessary change is not really any better than making cosmetic edits, the end result is that nothing has changed for the affected pages at all. Fram (talk) 15:33, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
    Not unnecessary. The Lua code is very complex and removing the need the support various settings makes the code both easier to read and maintain. As always, editors that don't want to see these edits can hide these by hiding the tag "talk banner shell conversion". Gonnym (talk) 12:32, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
    It doesn´t look as if the specific code to have these synonyms was very complicated though, the argument that in some cases two synonyms were used on one page with conflicting values was more convincing. And the edits I complained about did not have that tag, so no, even if people knew about hiding that tag, it wouldn't have helped here at all. Fram (talk) 16:04, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
    This was discussed in detail on Template talk:WikiProject banner shell. Ideally these edits would be done by an approved bot so they do not appear on people's watchlists. The main benefit is to merge the |blp= and |living= parameters. When both are in use, we find they often get conflicting values because one gets updated and the other does not. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:25, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
    Isn't it more logical to first have a bot cleanup the unwanted parameter, then remove it from the template, and only then start populating the cat with the somehow remaining or since added instances? In any case, this is a typical bot task and shouldn't be done with massive AWB runs. Fram (talk) 17:39, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
    Yes, probably. But we have this mechanism already set up and I assumed Cewbot would deal with these as part of its normal activities. Happy to look at other options - maybe discuss on template talk? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:23, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
    I don't know what this is about, but if the OP is correct, it is totally absurd to edit 400,000 talk pages for a tweak. Discussing at a template talk page monitored by those focused on the template would simply hide the issue. Johnuniq (talk) 03:53, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
    Edits like these should always be bots, so they can be filtered from watchlists. There are numerous other editors who have recently engaged in the mass additional of categories to articles which I had to ask them to stop as my watchlist was flooded. GiantSnowman 13:02, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
    Hiding bot edits from watchlists is not a viable option for many editors, since it also hides any non-bot edits that predate the bot edit (phab:T11790, 2007, unassigned). Users AnomieBOT, Cluebot III, Lowercase sigmabot III, Citation bot, et al edit with such high frequency that hiding their edits leads to an unacceptable proportion of watchlist items not appearing. (Also, Citation bot's edits should usually be reviewed, since it has a non-negligible error rate and its activators typically don't review its output, exceptions noted.)The code for maintaining two aliases for one parameter cannot possibly be so complex as to warrant a half million edits. If one of the two "must" undergo deprecation, bundle it into Cewbot's task. If the values don't match, have the banner shell template populate a mismatch category.In general, if a decision is made to start treating as an error some phenomenon that has previously not been a problem, and that decision generates a maintenance category with tens or hundreds of thousands of members, it is a bad decision and the characterisation of the phenomenon as "erroneous" should be reversed.At minimum, any newly instanced maintenance task scoped to over a hundred thousand pages should come before the community for approval at a central venue. Folly Mox (talk) 15:19, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
    Also, like, if only one of |blp= and |living= gets updated, shouldn't the net result be pretty obvious? Valid updates should really only go one direction. Folly Mox (talk) 15:24, 25 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)
    @Fram: this is logical. We should also make it a policy (or at least a guideline), something along the lines "if change would lead to edits/updating more than XYZ pages, a consensus should be achieved on a venue with a lot of visibility". Like Silver seren mentioned above, sometimes a formal consensus/discussion takes place, but it happens on obscure talk pages. —usernamekiran (talk) 14:01, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

    User:Augmented Seventh

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

    You're removing demographic categories and templates by blanking them out; irreligion still deals with religion no matter your argument. That's definitely not compliant with WP:CAT and clearly vandalism. There's no action to take here except that you need to stop removing these categories and templates. Nate • (chatter) 19:42, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
    And you are now required to cite how your edits meet WP:CAT; spamming it in edit summaries is not discussion. Nate • (chatter) 19:47, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
    While doing routine vandal patrol, I came across what seemed to be a hasty and massive removal of content, being done in a very directed and personal manner.
    After looking at the persistent removal, and communicating, I restored the well-drawn categories.
    Hopefully, this is easily resolved.
    Augmented Seventh (talk) 20:40, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
    43*, do not continue to revert these category removals without discussing them first. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:48, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
    THere is nothing to discuss. The guidelines are clear. What needs to be done is editors need to be familiar with the cat guidelines. We don't discuss whether the sky is blue do we? 43.249.196.179 (talk) 02:05, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
    THey are not well drawn, it was not hasty, it was not massive, and it was not "personal". It was directed because they all had the same issue. 43.249.196.179 (talk) 02:07, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
    Editors should not blindly revert. They should be required to understand the guideleines. 43.249.196.179 (talk) 02:08, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

    I'm sorry, but "I don't remember what policy says but I'm right so leave me alone" is an indication you should be trying to do better instead of telling us we should do the same. If you're not willing to actually explain why guidelines vindicate your changes, then being right sometimes isn't enough if you want to make things better. Communication is the process, not something ancillary to it. Remsense ‥ 论 02:10, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
    GO and read the guidelines. It does not need discussion. 43.249.196.179 (talk) 02:15, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
    Discussion is required when other editors ask you questions in good faith in order to resolve present disputes and prevent future ones. Remsense ‥ 论 02:18, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
    Bear in mind this is WP and not social media. 43.249.196.179 (talk) 02:16, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
    How do you get the impression that "I don't remember what policy says but I'm right so leave me alone". 43.249.196.179 (talk) 02:18, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
    No. You brought this here. The WP:ONUS is on you to explain how the guidelines justify your edits, not to say "go look it up". Also How do you get the impression that "I don't remember what policy says but I'm right so leave me alone" - because that's exactly what you said. - The Bushranger One ping only 02:19, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
    It's not unreasonable in many cases to link to a very specific passage of a guideline and expect an editor to understand its meaning as regards a pertinent dispute, but you can't just fail to clearly articulate your argument while also insisting it's vindicated somewhere within the full text of a guideline. Remsense ‥ 论 02:21, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
    Content dispute. Bold edits were reverted; next step is discussion, probably at WT:CAT. If there is dispute over interpretation of the guideline you can consider leaving a pointer at WP:VPP. If there are any categories that shouldn't be used at all that can be discussed at WP:CFD. 184.152.68.190 (talk) 03:31, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
    The content dispute could have been discussed on any of the talk pages. Yet it was brought here first. Conyo14 (talk) 06:16, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
    When a content dispute involves several pages it is often though not always best to centralize discussion. Misunderstanding ANIs purpose and bringing content disputes here is a common and understandable error; best just to point people at appropriate WP:DR when that happens. 184.152.68.190 (talk) 06:53, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

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

    User:ZanderAlbatraz1145 Civility and Content #2

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

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

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

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

    I've given them a warning for canvassing: - The Bushranger One ping only 04:08, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
    And more personal attacks here - The Bushranger One ping only 05:36, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
    And they appear to be continuing editing while ignoring here. - The Bushranger One ping only 05:39, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
    This feels par for the course for Zander frankly. As noted with the bit about Zander reverting after an explicit edit summary saying not to and there being two days worth of me saying that edit would be made and they made no objections until the move was made. They disengaged from discussion but only re-engaged when the situation changed to their disliking. Rusted AutoParts 02:07, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

    SPA User:Tikitorch2 back at it on Martin Kulldorff

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

    User:Michael.C.Wright? 173.22.12.194 (talk) 06:25, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
     Looks like a duck to me. I'm sending this to SPI. - The Bushranger One ping only 11:16, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
    SPI says unrelated, so might just be generic disruption. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:47, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
    What are you implying with regard to my username? My edit history has been limited to trying to correct two red flags that stood out so much that I followed the citations when I was searching these scientists who were in the news for censorship. It has been enlightening learning how wikipedia selectively chooses secondary sources but discourages the use of primary sources to help discriminate which secondary sources are credible.
    For my two attempted contributions to Misplaced Pages, the two red flags were pretty dramatic to prompt me to check out the citations--Sunetra Gupta's article implied more than 1 in 1000 people in England died from Covid in spring 2020 in an effort to discredit her, which was trivially easy to google as untrue. I corrected that without really changing the overall narrative. The article for Martin Kulldorff...I would probably not have spent time looking at the sources or realized how unscientific Kulldorff's critics were had there not been such superfluous "Wikivoice" editorializing and synthesizing suggesting Kulldorff lied in an essay to the public. Tikitorch2 (talk) 06:30, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
    Primary sources are not to be used for anything but simple facts about a subject. They absolutely are not to be used to help discriminate which secondary sources are credible because that is original research. - The Bushranger One ping only 08:57, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
    Not sure why you felt the need to repeat what I said. Maybe I am the sock puppeteer! Tikitorch2 (talk) 03:33, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
    What I am implying is that such a username in the context of an account pushing COVID-denialist rhetoric that flies in the face of the sources and Misplaced Pages policy is not an accident. Anyway, this editor continues to be a drain of editor time and attention. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 14:58, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
    Ah an absurd, convoluted, and contrived personal attack. Assuming anyone but you knew tiki torches were present at a political event where someone was killed, why would I choose my username based on that? Tikitorches provide light, warmth, and keep the mosquitos away. I guess its not surprising an editor named writ keeper attacks the editor rather than effectively debating the subject of the edit. Tikitorch2 (talk) 03:28, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
    Even if it was a personal attack, making one back isn't going to fly here. Knock it off. - The Bushranger One ping only 04:04, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
    User:Tikitorch2, your edits are being examined at ANI. This is not a pleasant experience, I'll admit. So, it's best for you not to dig yourself into a hole. I know the instinct is to defend yourself but it doesn't help your situation to come out swinging. It's probably to your benefit to address any concerns that have been raised and say no more than that. Liz 04:30, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

    User talk:International Space Station0

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

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

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

    It's a WP:DUCK, and I just reported to AIV. 184.152.68.190 (talk) 04:58, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
    Would it be possible to put up some kind of filter to alert for this? Something that…say…catches when more than 25 edits are made in a single space (user space for example) or something that would trip if the edits added less than 5 characters consistently? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1011:B32F:11B9:7980:86CC:720C:8B57 (talk) 05:15, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
    There is a filter for this. Look at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Special:AbuseLog&wpSearchUser=International+Space+Station0&offset=20241222044736, "New account unusual activity" covers exactly this. win8x (talk) 05:22, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Disruptive editor on When the Pawn...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Multiple users breaking 3RR on Gilman School article

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

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

    Awshort (talk)

    Counterfeit Purses, please be aware that the Luigi Mangione article was kept in a recent Articles for Deletion debate, so the consensus of the community is that he is notable. Edit warring to keep his name off the alumni list is a really bad idea. Cullen328 (talk) 20:14, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
    @Cullen328 No problem, I've already given up. I would argue that WP:NOTNEWS applies here, but there's no sense in pushing against the tide. If you're content to have the lede section of Gilman School include "prominent graduates including "alleged murderer Luigi Mangione", I guess that's fine. It seems to be an unusual thing to include and an obvious case of undue weight given to something that is in the news at the moment. Perhaps someone should start a Wikiproject to add famous murderers to the ledes of other schools? Counterfeit Purses (talk) 22:00, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
    Counterfeit Purses, in my view, WP:NOTNEWS is among our most misunderstood policy documents. It begins In principle, all Misplaced Pages articles should contain up-to-date information. Editors are also encouraged to develop stand-alone articles on significant current events. I believe that Mangione is notable, the evolving article is acceptable, and his name belongs in the alumni list. Many, many "bad people" are listed as alumni in countless school articles, and it is not at all unusual. The only unusual thing here is that the lead of this particular school article lists alumni, and so I have removed them from the lead. Cullen328 (talk) 01:07, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
    I'm glad that misunderstanding WP:NOTNEWS is so common because I am going to continue to misunderstand it. I see that Liz removed Luigi Mangione from the lede before you removed the rest of the list. Acknowledging again that I have given up hope that Mangione will be removed from this article, let me ask you what you think the purpose of these alumni lists is? Including Mangione is an editorial decision. We don't include all notable alumni in these lists, so why should we include Mangione, and why now? It's too soon to know if he will have lasting relevance. Counterfeit Purses (talk) 04:22, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
    We don't include all notable alumni in these lists Why not? If someone is Wikinotable and went to a Wikinotable school, then they belong in the "Notable alumni" section of that school's page, Q.E.D. - The Bushranger One ping only 04:28, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
    @The Bushranger I'm not saying "we shouldn't", I'm saying "we don't". We don't include every notable alumnus in these lists, nor should we because it would lead to long, unhelpful lists stuck in the middle of articles about the schools. Counterfeit Purses (talk) 04:49, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
    If an alumni list bloats an article, it can be split out. See Category:Lists of people by school affiliation. 11:29, 23 December 2024 (UTC) (Oops, signing) Narky Blert (talk) 16:01, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
    Of course that's always an option, but what I am saying is that it isn't desirable to have every alumnus listed in an article for a school. Ideally, it would be a selection of alumni who have made significant achievements in their field. Otherwise, it's just trivia. Am I wrong? Counterfeit Purses (talk) 17:21, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
    Yes. You're making a value judgment that some alumni (with articles, else they most definitely should not be included) are more notable than others. That is WP:OR. Narky Blert (talk) 20:05, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
    Yes, that's called editorial judgment. Just like deciding not to include every known fact about something in an article. At some point, it is just trivia. Misplaced Pages is not a database. That info would probably be welcome over on Wikidata, which is a database. Alternatively, someone could just add Category:Gilman School alumni (in this case). Counterfeit Purses (talk) 20:52, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
    And a new user, who doesn't understand categories and has no idea Wikidata exists, is relying on the list on the page. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:35, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

    Vandal encounter

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

    diffs:

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

     Not done - Not an admin - I hate to be that person but unfortunately you've not sufficiently warned them, They've only received one warning and their edits aren't gross vandalism so this would only be declined by an admin anyway, If they continue I'll report them to AIV, Thanks, –Davey2010 23:47, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
    Ah, I see. Thank you! This has been noted for the future. Thank you, again! Shovel Shenanigans (talk) 23:48, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
    You're welcome, Happy editing, Thanks, –Davey2010 23:51, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

    User:Glenn103

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

    Most of these pages don't even make any sense (eg.: Draft:Yery with tilde). The user also ignores any notice about his articles being moved to draftspace by simply recreating duplicates of them (eg.: Draft:Tse with caron & Tse with caron). Immediate action may be needed. Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 07:38, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
    Given a uw-create4im with directions to come here, let's see what happens. - The Bushranger One ping only 08:00, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
    They've continued editing, this time adding infoboxes to the articles, so I don't think the warning worked... ''']''' (talk • contribs) 08:10, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
    I have blocked them from article space and page moves, and will leave note on talk page to come here. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 15:33, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

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

    Excuse me for detracting from the report, but this was your 4th edit, your last edit was in January 2016... how have you found yourself here of all places?
    I mean you might have a point, but wow. – 2804:F1...57:88CF (::/32) (talk) 04:57, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

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

    Good catch, and looking at the contribution histories it  Looks like a duck to me. Changing the block to indef as a sock accordingly. - The Bushranger One ping only 07:22, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

    North Korean involvement in Russian-Ukraine war discussion

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

    Key Points:

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

    Request for Administrative Action:

    I respectfully request that administrators address the following issues:

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

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

    Since this report isn't really about an incident and your request is directed towards admins, I think this complaint would be better placed at WP:AN rather than ANI. It will also need more specifics, which articles, which edits, which editors. You'll need to provide that. I also question whether or not these are content standards that the community can't handle on their own. Liz 09:50, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
    I was going to post it at WP:AN but it said: "This noticeboard is for issues affecting administrators generally – announcements, notifications, information, and other matters of general administrator interest.
    If your post is about a specific problem you have (a dispute, user, help request, or other narrow issue needing an administrator), you should post it at the Administrators' noticeboard for incidents (ANI) instead. Thank you."
    I posted it on ANI beecause my specific problem was this dispute Rc2barrington (talk) 12:07, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
    The original post in this thread appears to resemble LLM output. GPTzero confirms this impression, rating text as "99% probability AI generated". Using AI to generate ANI submissions is highly inappropriate. Axad12 (talk) 18:01, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
    Even when a message appears to be AI-generated, I think it is worth considering whether or not it is pointing out an actual problem. I think editors might be ignoring the results of an RFC, I just don't think asking for administrators to monitor a subject area, without identifying specific articles, is a feasible solution. It does seem like, possibly, a point that could come up in a complaint at AE regarding the Ukraine CTOP area. Liz 19:55, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
    I had a peek and it's a messy RfC and, as is generally the case with a messy RfC had a very involved closure message which seems to reflect that the closer felt constrained by the framing of the RfC. I didn't see any immediate indication in the edit history that anyone had tried to implement the RfC result and been rebuffed (although I might have missed it). So there's some smoke here but, I think, not a ton of fire. Simonm223 (talk) 20:21, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
    Liz, I don't disagree but I'm not at all convinced that use of AI is a positive contribution to CTOP areas. Axad12 (talk) 20:27, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
    It was written with AI assistance. Not all AI. ai detectors aren’t considered reliable, because you can put the U.S. constitution through one and it says 100% AI generated. Regardless, whether it’s AI or not has nothing to do with the topic. It’s just that there’a been so many discussions and when I checked the info box it said ‘supported by”, violating the consensus of the RFC Rc2barrington (talk) 12:45, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
    I think the underlying issue here is that if you use AI to generate text which looks like obvious AI output then readers will wonder "does the end user even have sufficient English to understand what the AI has generated for them?" and "did the end user understand the material prior to deciding to employ AI?". Thus if a user is fluent in English, as you obviously are, it will always be better to communicate in your own voice.
    At the end of the day, a user making a valid point in their own voice is generally speaking going to be taken more seriously than a user employing LLM output.
    There are plenty of other reasons for users not to employ AI (see the recent thread here for extensive coverage) but the argument above seems like a good practical reason for fluent English speakers to always prefer using their own voice.
    You will see from the recent thread that many users here are vehemently against AI use. Axad12 (talk) 15:46, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
    I understood the material very well, its not like I just used 100% AI out of nowhere. I know the context. I have been involved in this discussion since September. Rc2barrington (talk) 16:43, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
    It's a respect thing. It's disrespectful of other editors to make them read chatbot output rather than your words. Simonm223 (talk) 16:49, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
    Rc2barrington's user page says This user believes in the bright future AI and robotics will bring, so there's probably no point in arguing here. However, I simply observe that in any kind of discussion where you're trying to convince other people, don't use a method that aggravates a significant number of readers (probably a significant majority of readers). It really is that simple. Axad12 (talk) 19:11, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

    Putting the use of LLM aside, however you compose your message you should comply with the basics of ANI. This includes not making allegations without supplying evidence. This would normally be in the form of diffs but in this case just links might be fine. But User:Rc2barrington has provided none.

    Probably because this is because their initial complaint appears to be unsupported by what's actually happening. They claimed "Despite the RfC's resolution, the same arguments are being repeated across multiple threads, often by the same editor". But where is this? I visited the talk page, and what I see is here Talk:Russian invasion of Ukraine#Post RFC discussion there was a request for clarification from the closer, something which is perfectly reasonably and which the closer followed up on. The OP then offered an interjection which frankly seemed unnecessary. There was then a very brief forumish discussion. To be clear, AFAICT no one in the follow up discussion was suggesting any changes to the article. So while it wasn't he most helpful thing as with any forumish discussion; it's hardly causing that much disruption especially since it seems to have quickly ended and also cannot be called "the same arguments" since there was no argument. No one in that discussion was actually suggesting changing the article.

    Then there is Talk:Russian invasion of Ukraine#North Korea RFC aftermath discussion. There was again some forumish discussion in this thread which again isn't helpful but wasn't that long. But there was also discussion about other things like the name of the article and whether to restructure it. To be clear, this isn't something which was resolve in the RfC. In fact, the closer specifically mention possible future issues in a non close comment.

    Next we see Talk:Russian invasion of Ukraine#Follow up to the previous discussion (Request for comment, can we add North Korea as a belligerent?). Again the main focus of the discussion is in how to handle stuff which wasn't dealt with in the RfC. There is a total of 2 short comments in that thread which were disputing the RfC which is unfortunate but hardly something to worry ANI about.

    Next there is Talk:Russian invasion of Ukraine#Can we add a Supported by section for Ukraine in the infobox?. DPRK was briefly mentioned there but only in relation to a suggestion to change the infobox for other countries. No part of that discussion can IMO be said to be disputing the DPRK RfC. Next we have Talk:Russian invasion of Ukraine#Remove Belarus from the infobox. Again DPRK was briefly mention but only in relation to other countries. No part of that discussion can be said to be disputing the RfC. AFAICT, the only threads or comments removed from the talk page since the closure of the RfC was by automated archival. The only threads which seem to be post close are on Talk:Russian invasion of Ukraine/Archive 20 and none of them seem to deal with North Korea.

    So at least on the article talk page I don't see what the OP has said is happening. The tiny amount of challenging of the RfC is definitely not something ANI needs to worry about. Even the other forumish or otherwise unproductive comments aren't at a level that IMO warrants any action IMO. If this is happening somewhere else, this is even more reason why the OP needed to provide us some evidence rather than a long comment without anything concrete, however they composed it.

    Nil Einne (talk) 10:15, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

    Concern About a New Contributor

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

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

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

    Dear Wikipedians,

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

    I believe your experience could help address this situation effectively.

    Looking forward to your advice on how to proceed.

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

    "Vandalize" is a very loaded word here with a specific meaning. As far as I can tell, what they've done is nominate 4 articles for deletion, and your response has been to accuse them of vandalism, ignoring dispute resolution procedures and making personal attacks – none of which I can see at a glance through their contributions.
    Perhaps if you supplied evidence of this behaviour, someone would be able to help? If your issue is that they've nominated 4 articles of which you are a major contributor and are doing so by going through your contributions in order to find articles to nominate for deletion with specious reasons, then this board would be the place to come. If not, then making your arguments for keeping the articles on the AfDs in question would be your best bet.
    By the way is forum shopping. Stop that. 81.2.123.64 (talk) 16:06, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
    (ec) This is an odd one. As S-Aura failed to provide diffs, I looked at Kriji Sehamati's contribution history. New account (9 Dec) began editing today, created two drafts and made a bunch of edits to those. Then began adding COI tags to articles S-Aura wrote, nominated those articles for deletion, and then left a possible UPE template on S-Aura's talk page. Really seems to be something weird going on here between those two. (In addition to opening this ANI thread, S-Aura asked for help with basically the same message on the talk pages of Ipigott, Ryan shell, CFA, and BusterD, and S-Aura opened same complaint at AN.) Schazjmd (talk) 16:06, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
    I am concerned that User:Kriji_Sehamati’s actions, including unjustified deletion nominations and spamming, are disruptive and violate Misplaced Pages’s guidelines.
    She seems to lack understanding of basic Misplaced Pages guidelines, particularly those related WP:GNG and WP:NPOL. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 16:40, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
    You were asked to provide diffs. You did, almost, here but then reverted yourself. Those diffs (well, the ones before those diffs) are just the other user nominating articles for deletion (which is allowed) or tagging them for what they believe to be conflict of interest edits (which is also allowed).
    Please provide some actual evidence that the other user is engaging in chronic, intractable behaviour, rather than just not editing how you would like them to. 81.2.123.64 (talk) 17:21, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
    Here are some diffs highlighting her problematic edits. However, I believe that many of her contributions may be in violation of Misplaced Pages’s guidelines. It appears she has specifically targeted me and added the COI tag multiple times to the same page. I would appreciate it if you could review her actions more thoroughly:
    •
    •
    •
    •
    and many more
    Thankyou! 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 17:33, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
    We wouldn't generally treat an AfD as vandalism. Simonm223 (talk) 17:39, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
    I understand your point about AfDs not generally being treated as vandalism. However, I noticed that the major contribution history of the user seems suspicious. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 17:42, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
    Not from where anybody else is standing so far. I get that you're upset to have four articles of yours nominated for deletion, and if you have any evidence at all that you are being deliberately targeted by the other editor, then people will very much act on that. Please provide it. 81.2.123.64 (talk) 17:58, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
    I am here to contribute and edit articles in accordance with Misplaced Pages’s guidelines. However, today a new user targeted me and falsely blamed me for actions that are not accurate. I believe this is unfair and not in line with the collaborative nature of the platform. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 18:04, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
    Please provide evidence of this. 81.2.123.64 (talk) 18:06, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
    Please check! 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 18:07, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
    The articles that have been nominated for deletion discussion have been reviewed by experienced contributors. These discussions involve articles about judges and lawyers, under WP:NPOL, a valid criterion according to Misplaced Pages’s guidelines. Therefore, the deletion decision was made after carefully reviewing these articles. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 18:11, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
    Honestly it looks like this user, rightly or wrongly, believes you have a conflict of interest and are acting on the basis of that assumption. I would suggest, if you don't have a CoI, talking to them about this and maybe asking why they've come to this conclusion. Simonm223 (talk) 18:10, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
    They have just started targeting my contributions, and I tried to inform her about the situation. However, she is acting as if she knows everything about Misplaced Pages and is dismissing my concerns. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 18:15, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
    @Kriji Sehamati: hasn't edited since their AfD spree earlier today, let's wait and see what their response here is when they return to editing. Schazjmd (talk) 18:16, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
    • We need to stop focusing on the OP's calling this vandalism; it is not. I've changed the header to reflect that. That said, the new user's edits are problematic and merit scrutiny. As for the UPE stuff, I've removed that post from the OP's Talk page; it's nonsensical coming from a new user and does not merit a response.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:42, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
    • It is, of course, not vandalism to nominate articles for AFD discussions as long as a legitimate deletion rationale is provided and the article hasn't just been discussed at a recent AFD. However, I don't think it's a good sign when a brand new editor claims to understand all of Misplaced Pages policies and whose first actions are to nominate articles at AFDs. They are almost never an actual new editor, especially when they know how to even set up an AFD or are familiar with using Twinkle on their first day of editing. Liz 19:34, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
      It seems that she is not new to Misplaced Pages and might be operating multiple accounts. It appears she has an issue with one of my contributions, as she created her account just 15 days ago, yet she already has a good understanding of tools like Twinkle and AfD procedures. This level of familiarity suggests prior experience on the platform. I am now requesting her account to be blocked as I am completely disturbed by her repeated allegations and disruptive behavior. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 11:32, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
      I am now genuinely confused—if all my contributions are not good, then why am I even here? Were the experienced editors who reviewed and approved these pages also mistaken? A newcomer, who joined just recently, is now disrupting and questioning the validity of all the work that has been carefully reviewed and maintained by experienced contributors. This situation is deeply discouraging. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 11:58, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
      Please resolve this situation—either block her for her disruptive behavior. How can i continue working under such constant targeting and stress ? 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 12:00, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
      User:S-Aura, you seem to be making unsupported personal attacks against User:Kriji Sehamati. You should provide specific evidence of wrongdoing, including diffs, or your arguments here will fall on deaf ears (and bring consequences for you). Meanwhile, as a filer on ANI, you have brought all your own edits to close scrutiny by the community. You may have to face that smart people disagree, and this is how we sort disagreements out on English Misplaced Pages. You are not required to edit, but we encourage you to do so. Nobody is going to block Kriji Sehamati at this point, because you've given us no reason to do so. BusterD (talk) 12:01, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
      Meanwhile, in the last few minutes S-Aura has disruptively created a second thread about this exact issue on this same board, which was reverted by another editor. This is intentional disruption. BusterD (talk) 12:07, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
      As to the question "Why am I here?", poets and artists have been trying to answer this question for eons. Epistemology is outside the scope of this board, but there are articles about it. Show up to edit if you want to, but expect disagreement from time to time. (That's actually a sound answer to any epistemology question as well.) BusterD (talk) 12:16, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
      Dear @BusterD,
      It means I have been proven wrong, and that user’s contributions have been more focused on me, which is quite insufficient to catch someone’s lie that she is pretending to be new, when in fact she is old.
      Also, I am not against AfD; I am simply expressing my opinion. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 13:12, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
      Could you please rephrase your point here? I don't understand. While it's okay to be suspicious that this editor is somehow socking or doing something else deceptive due to the familiarity, it seems unacceptable to deliberately accuse them of such repeatedly without firmer evidence. Remsense ‥ 论 13:19, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
      Dear @Remsense,
      I am not engaged in paid activities on Misplaced Pages, and she claimed that I am connected with the subject, who is a judge, lawyer, etc. You all should understand that this is not a trivial matter; justice is a very respected position. Making such allegations can escalate court cases. I would like to remind you of the Misplaced Pages vs. ANI case. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 13:24, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
      One thing you need to understand immediately is you should never make another post that sounds vaguely like a legal threat, as you've just done above. Seriously. That intonation is seriously not helping us decide who's right or wrong here. Remsense ‥ 论 13:27, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
      Okay! 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 13:35, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
      I will caution you that this is tiptoeing right up to the edge of WP:NLT and you'd be advised to avoid making legal threats. Simonm223 (talk) 13:28, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
      Dear @Simonm223,
      I am merely showing that she can potentially do something inappropriate. I am following the guidelines and not making any legal threats. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 13:31, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
      Accusing another editor of potentially making legal threats is not much better, when there is no concrete evidence that they would do so. Being interested in articles about judges does not suffice. Remsense ‥ 论 13:32, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
      The page of Justice Subramonium Prasad, who had conducted over the Misplaced Pages vs. ANI court hearing, was also created by me. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 13:28, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
      State plainly what the implication you are making here is, because what I'm hearing is "I'm familiar with people who have hit Misplaced Pages with a mallet in court before, and I can make sure it happens again". Remsense ‥ 论 13:30, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
      This is becoming a rabbit hole. I urge you not to pursue the rabbit further. BusterD (talk) 13:33, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
      Good call, I'll retract the above. Remsense ‥ 论 13:34, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
      No, that is not what I am implying. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 13:33, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
      No one has said your contributions are not good. However, it should be noted that a draft being accepted at AfC or a new page having been patrolled does not guarantee greater scrutiny would not result in a valid AfD nomination. That said, echoing others here it's clear something problematic is up with this user's behavior. Remsense ‥ 论 12:02, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
      You can't both criticize someone for lack understanding of basic Misplaced Pages guidelines, particularly those related WP:GNG and WP:NPOL, and then argue that she is too familiar with the platform to be a newcomer for knowing how to file an AfD. I wouldn't be surprised if most people here knew how to file an AfD before knowing all 14 notability guidelines by heart. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 12:59, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
      There are detailed instructions on filing an AfD that can be found by googling "how can I get a Misplaced Pages page deleted" - if somebody had some personal reason for wanting to have pages removed it doesn't strain credibility to think that's why they created a WP account and that they just followed the very clear instructions on the appropriate pages.
      In fact that might explain why some of the AfD filings were reasonable and some were, on their face, incorrectly filed. If you looked up the AfD process but not criteria that is the likely outcome. That's why I find the "new user files AfDs must be a sock" idea here somewhat uncompelling. Simonm223 (talk) 13:04, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
    • I believe we're entering boomerang territory at this point. Opinions? BusterD (talk) 13:35, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
      I think OP is upset that a cluster of their articles were put up at AfD. This in itself is understandable, but while there's reason to think there might be mischief by Kriji Sehamati, we don't have any real evidence of it. We either need the OP to make it clearer what misconduct, if any, has occurred, or they need to drop the stick. Remsense ‥ 论 13:37, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
      The OP has been intentionally disruptive (by creating a new ANI thread which was reverted), and this thread is going nowhere. IMHO, there's nothing ANI can do here. Everything I'm reading about should be resolved at the page talk and user talk level, in my opinion. The AfDs are underway. If dispute resolution is needed, fine. Nobody is harming S-Aura. S-Aura can't come crying to ANI (or four random user talk pages like mine) anytime someone merely disagrees with them. BusterD (talk) 14:08, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
      I'd have said close with trout for all if not for creating the second thread at AN/I. Based on that I'd say the OP should be formally cautioned against such antics in the future. Simonm223 (talk) 14:10, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
      I should have added that I largely hold with Remsense in their position. BusterD (talk) 14:15, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
      User:Kriji Sehamati‬ is definitely a sock puppet on Misplaced Pages, but we don’t have any evidence because understanding Misplaced Pages’s AfD process so quickly can be a bit challenging. I have no problem with AfD regarding my contributions, and it’s a good thing that experienced contributors are giving their feedback. If you believe that the kriji is 100% correct and her activity is not suspicious, then this discussion should be closed. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 14:27, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
      You need to stop insisting this is definitely the case if you don't have any evidence for it, period. Remsense ‥ 论 14:28, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
      S-Aura, how did you make the determination User:Kriji Sehamati‬ is definitely a sock puppet on Misplaced Pages? Please share your process. That's a personal attack, and requires proof to prevent you from being in violation of WP:NOPERSONALATTACKS. I've looked at the AfDs and they seem reasonable to me. When you've provided strong sources the article is being kept. So far the jury is out on the others. Both of you seem to be writing articles about obscure living persons who wouldn't normally (by my cursory reading) have a Misplaced Pages article about them because reliable sourcing is not readily found. When I see that, I must suspect COI or undeclared unpaid editing here, but nobody's admitting to it. BusterD (talk) 15:05, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
      S-Aura's continuing to issue personal attacks makes it more difficult for us to just close this (without some form of consequence for the editor making unproven personal attacks after they've been warned repeatedly). BusterD (talk) 15:08, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
      I have made a level-four user talk page warning for the personal attack. FYI. We've been very nice about this up 'til now, but we need to stop being so kind. Doing foolish things has real world consequences. BusterD (talk) 15:17, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
    • Both editors' apparent use of AI is certainly disruptive. If it continues, it should lead to blocks. C F A 15:10, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
      No personal hate intended, but I just found this and thought it would be worth checking. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 16:49, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
      It would be nice if you could explain the significance for those who do not speak Hausa. Remsense ‥ 论 16:51, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
      She had made contributions to pages in other languages a few months ago. I am attaching her contributions link. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 16:59, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
      How does this constitute evidence of sockpuppetry if we aren't to know what exactly happened? There's a reason we don't just automatically block anybody who is blocked on another language wiki, and I looked through the edits some and didn't find anything outrageous that made it past the language barrier. Remsense ‥ 论 17:01, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
      I agree that it’s important to ensure we have solid evidence before making conclusions. I appreciate your perspective on not automatically blocking users based on blocks from other language wikis. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 17:17, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
      Please don't reply to me or others using ChatGPT. It is flat-out rude. Remsense ‥ 论 17:18, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
    • Support BOOMERANG - I've been uninvoled and have mainly just been watching the back-and-forths, but the personal attacks and VESTED mindset, such as "questioning the validity of all the work that has been carefully reviewed and maintained by experienced contributors", concerns me. Not sure for how long, but I don't think anything longer than a months is appropriate given the circumstances. 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)
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Darkwarriorblake making aspersions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    −Liddy was interested in the offer until he learned that Beeks becomes the romantic partner of a gorilla.+Liddy was interested in the offer until he learned that Beeks is raped by a gorilla.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Hrrm, this seems a bit excessive.
    • I've added a second source for the claim. Really this should've been the first option rather than removing the content.
    • The first summary was, as stated, "Don't mince words; the interaction between Beeks and the gorilla is rape played for laughs". "Rape played for laughs" is a loaded comment and not something said in the article or the source text, so it's a personal opinion, it's not neutral, it's agenda-driven.
    • When this was reverted, the editor just removed the content entirely claiming IndieWire was unreliable. There is, as far as I'm aware, nothing wrong with Indiewire. I've since found a second source, the Telegraph, which is reliable per Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Perennial sources.
    • The editor ignored WP: BRD when raised, and as an admin they should adhere to policy.
    • The editor states that they are an admin on their page. Assuming this is true, the aggressiveness of their edits, hyper focus on the single area, and use of words like "crap listicle" seemed out of line with what I, personally, would expect from an admin on Misplaced Pages, certainly someone who has been so for nearly two decades. Perhaps the edit summary wasn't the place to have that discussion but, as stated, they weren't adhering to WP: BRD to start a discussion, and in the interim the article needed putting back to the status quo.
    • I find accusations of OWNERSHIP often tend to come when people don't get their way. Which is fine. I have plenty of reversions on the page for people adding unsourced content and there are plenty of changes as well. I find someone removing sourced content and me putting the sourced content back to not really be something you can fling ownership at.
    • Within the context of the film, Beeks does become the romantic partner of the gorilla, it seemed more appropriate and encylcopedic text than just saying 'rape', and neither source I've added says that either.
    • Anyways, my edit history shows I'm a massive contributor and helper and it's nearly Xmas, and I don't feel like engaging with this any further, good luck Hex. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 20:27, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
    Of course you don't, having ignored the actual matter of your conduct that I'm raising here. Your comments about the content of the article are irrelevant.  — Hex • talk 20:43, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
    • Hex's position is not wholly supported, although in the entire issue, their toolset is irrelevant. There was no incivility on either part, and an all-out edit war seems to have been averted.Fundamentally the change Hex wanted to make was pure OR; rape may have been intimated—or, as Hex themself admits, implied—but its never overtly stated and is a wholly loaded term. This is the interpretation of an editor, not of secondary sources. If there is a pron=blem with Indywire as a source—currently used in 1000s of articles—take it to WP:RSN. If it's disputed that it's a high quality source per WP:FA?, then take it to WT:FAC. Accusations of OWNership are as unhelpful—and as much an aspersion—as accusations of agenda-led editing. In fact, for OWNership, Hex should read the relevant policy: here, it is WP:FAOWN, which not only allows for careful stewardship of featured material, but requires significant changes to the consensus version to be discussed on talk; I don't suppose there's any suggestion that introducing rape—particularly "played for laughs"—wouldn't be a significant addition.Really though, this is an overblown content dispute which should have started with one revert each, and ended on the talk page. --SerialNumber54129 21:10, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
      "Never overtly stated... 'played for laughs' be a significant addition" - here's an interview with John Landis, the director.

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

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

    Followup

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

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

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

    User Stationmanagerskidrow removing information on Radio Skid Row page

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

    User is now editing using User:159.196.168.116 Pyramids09 (talk) 03:34, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
    This is a content dispute and the article is being actively edited by many different editors. However, no discussion about the disagreements has occurred on the article talk page which is where this discussion should be happening. Liz 04:37, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

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

    The page was longer, but sourced (all but?) soley to the station's site and it's been trimmed down to what it is now. Given the repeated edit-warring by IPs I've semi-protected the page for two days for now. - The Bushranger One ping only 07:59, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
    WP:USERNAME and WP:COI message added here. I'm just about to make myself thoroughly WP:INVOLVED by seeing what I can do about the Radio Skid Row article. Shirt58 (talk) 🦘 09:11, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

    Insults

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

    Hello, Psychloppos. What action are you seeking to happen here? Liz 09:42, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
    I have no idea which actions are warranted here. Maybe an admin could leave a message to this IP and this registered user and remind them that they should assume good faith ? It would also be nice to remind them about Misplaced Pages:Civility and Misplaced Pages:No personal attacks. Saying that I am "fuelled by an unhealthy obsession" or questioning my sanity do not seem to respect those guidelines. Psychloppos (talk) 09:52, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

    Nlkyair012 and LLM chatbots

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

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

    Hello @Ratnahastin,
    To start with I should admit that I am sorry for all the inconvenience that I may have caused as a result of my actions. It was never my intention to take people’s time or skew the conversation in a certain way. I appreciate the core idea to contribute the thoughts to the Wiki and share it borne in mind the overall rules and policies of this program.
    I understand your fears about the AI utilities you have mentioned on your site. Even when I was using AI for the grammar check or, for instance, to elaborate on some point in the text, I saw to my mismanagement that over the process we probably confused the readers and repeated the same information and thoughts, which I would never wish to happen again. From now on I will ensure that in the future the input which I provide to wikipedia fits the Misplaced Pages standard and is more personal. I will also not write walls of text and will not make assertations that do not have substantiated evidence in sources.
    As for subjects that concern the Raj and the sources from this period and the discussions we have had it seems that I have gone too far in demanding clarification for the same thing. That being the case, with the understanding that the consensus will be acknowledged, I shall not be inclined to reopen this discussion unless new substantiated evidence is produced. I don’t want to prolong the conversation or bring any more stress.
    I will strive to learn from my experience to be more productive in my interactions going forward. If there are other limitations or additional rules to which I have to stick to, I will receive them with pleasure.
    In the same respect, let me specially apologize for the inconvenience and thank all of you for bearing with us. That was why I wanted to remind all of us that we can and should keep collectively improving Misplaced Pages as a resource. Nlkyair012 13:31, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
    This comment also has a typical LLM feel and contains meaningless statements such as "I understand your fears about the AI utilities you have mentioned on your site" and differs substantially from your usual (non-AI) writing style, although GPTzero said this is human input. - Ratnahastin (talk) 13:38, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
    It seems human in that it contains some composition and grammar errors that I don’t think an LLM would produce. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 13:56, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
    Thanks for the reply sir, I can't explain how frustrated I'm feeling from this morning which this user made me experience Nlkyair012 14:02, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
    The time when I messaged Vikram banafar I was casual not formal and second of all your saying doesn't prove anything "and differs substantially from your usual (non-AI) writing style" that's a straight up false accusation and utter nonsensical point and 3rd point being that GPTzero stated that this is a human input then that's an human input end of the question. Nlkyair012 14:01, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
    No it's really not the end of the story if GPTZero says "likely human". In fact I'd actively discourage people depending on tools like GPTZero in favour of their human senses which are better at detecting LLM outputs than yet another computer program. And, frankly, what you're hearing from people here is we'd rather your casual, human, flaws-and-all style of writing over ChatGPT output "formal" report templates. They are doing the opposite of what you're looking for and have become disruptive. Simonm223 (talk) 14:05, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
    Man you still wanna do this? @Zanahary also says this doesn't seems AI generated to him and he used his actual "Human senses" to lean that way Nlkyair012 14:10, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
    Admitting that you have used AI for writing your comments and then saying that you have not used AI is not going to help your case. - Ratnahastin (talk) 14:36, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
    You know what I think this is getting to the WP:NOTHERE point. Having to tell somebody to have the basic respect of other editors to not subject them to text-walls of chatGPT garbage over and over again is a disruptive distraction from what we should all be doing. Simonm223 (talk) 14:38, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
    This ain't getting anywhere Nlkyair012 14:59, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
    I really don't understand the problem. Cuz I literally also said many where that yes I used AI but for expanding and grammar correction Nlkyair012 14:54, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
    If this combative approach is your "casual" style, perhaps your use of AI and its over the top politeness was an attempt to mask it. In any case, I think you are not here for building an encyclopaedia but for caste glorification given your obsession with a certain sub-caste. - Ratnahastin (talk) 14:33, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
    im not obsessed with a certain subcaste but am sure is obsessed with British Raj sources. Nlkyair012 14:56, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
    I don't think that's better. Shovel Shenanigans (talk) 15:44, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
    If we just temporarily put aside the AI-generated comments, can Nlkyair012 accept the view of experienced editors on Raj era sources and not push any viewpoint on a particulary caste? Because, to be honest, editors who have done this in the past usually end up indefinitely blocked. There is a low tolderance here for "caste warriors". Liz 19:27, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

    Courtesy link Frisch's. Knitsey (talk) 17:02, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
    This sounds a lot like the same edit warrer I dealt with on Redbox, down to the false accusations of vandalism, removal of sourced information, and apparent use of proxies (all the IPs geolocate to different places). I wouldn't be surprised if this is the same person. I've asked RFPP to intervene. wizzito | say hello! 21:05, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
    NVM, checked MaxMind for geolocation and they all are in the same general area. wizzito | say hello! 21:08, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User:Nadeem asghar khan inaccurate edit summaries

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

    Lil Dicky Semi-Protection

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

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

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

    Ask at WP:RFPP EvergreenFir (talk) 16:28, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Request for Review of Neutrality and Repeated Actions

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

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

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

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

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

    @Hazar Sam, whether the NPOV tag is needed or not should first be discussed on the article's talk page. Also, see the large notice at the top of this page: you are required to notify the editor you are reporting. Schazjmd (talk) 17:53, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
    The editor is also called Psychloppos, not Psycholoppos. I have notified them for the OP. – 2804:F1...26:F77C (::/32) (talk) 17:59, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
    I wouldn't give a chatbot-written thread the time of day. HS, we have less tolerance for AI-written arguments than the American court system. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v 18:05, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Disruptive behavior from IP

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

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

    "777-200LRF" is not misleading, some cargo airlines do use that designation. Today I reverted to a previous version that User:Fnlayson was okay with . I feel that User:ZLEA is going overboard with charges of misinformation and disruptive editing. 24.206.65.142 (talk) 19:59, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
    It is misleading to remove any mentions of it being unofficial. Boeing has never made a "777-200LRF", no aftermarket conversion has ever been offered under that name, nor has the FAA or any other regulatory agency ever certified such an aircraft. To pass such a designation off as official is by definition misleading and misinformation. Likewise, to continuously do so after you have been told to stop by multiple people and falsely claiming that others support your arguments is by definition disruptive. - ZLEA T\ 20:06, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
    Of note is the fact that this is not the first time the IP has claimed to have Fnlayson's support. They have been told before by Fnlayson not to assume support without a specific statement, yet it seems they've also ignored that. - ZLEA T\ 20:23, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
    Its not misinformation as here are the sources which use "777-200LRF", including GE Capital Aviation (the engine supplier for most Boeing 777) and Leeham News (to avoid confusion with the upcoming 777-8F). 24.206.65.142 (talk) 21:06, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
    I have asked you for sources from either Boeing or the FAA, yet you still either refuse to do so or (more likely) cannot because they don't exist. Only Boeing and the FAA can designate factory-built Boeing aircraft. Airlines and misinformed news websites have no authority to do so, and any alternative names they use are purely unofficial and should not have anything more than a single brief mention in the appropriate article section. Your failure or refusal to get that after numerous people have told you is disruptive. - ZLEA T\ 22:14, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
    Relevant range is 24.206.64.0/20 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)), in case somebody needs it. wizzito | say hello! 21:02, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
    Category: