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

Revision as of 07:07, 18 April 2014 editArkatakor (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users583 editsm →Questionable Statements← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 10:07, 27 December 2024 edit undoPhil Bridger (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers48,788 edits →Disruptive editing and ongoing vandalism by User:Caabdirisaq1
Line 1:		Line 1:
			{{Short description|Noticeboard for reporting incidents to administrators}}<noinclude><!-- Inside the noinclude, because this page is transcluded.-->{{/Header}}</noinclude>{{clear}}
	<noinclude>{{Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentsHeader}}</noinclude>__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 = 836		|counter = 1174
	|algo = old(36h)		|algo = old(72h)
			|key = 740a8315fa94aa42eb96fbc48a163504d444ec0297a671adeb246c17b137931c
	|key = 95f2c40e2e81e8b5dbf1fc65d4152915
	|archive = Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive%(counter)d		|archive = Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive%(counter)d
			|headerlevel=2
	}}		}}
			{{stack end}}
	<!--		<!--
			NEW ENTRIES GO AT THE BOTTOM OF THE PAGE NOT HERE
	{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveThis
			NEW ENTRIES GO AT THE BOTTOM OF THE PAGE NOT HERE
	|header={{Administrators' noticeboard navbox all}}
			NEW ENTRIES GO AT THE BOTTOM OF THE PAGE NOT HERE-->
	|archiveprefix=Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive
			== Disruptive editing and WP:TALKNO by ] ==
	|format=%%i
	|age=36
	|index=no
	|numberstart=826
	|archivenow={{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow}}
	|minarchthreads= 1
	|minkeepthreads= 4
	|maxarchsize= 700000
	|key=d85a96a0151d501b0ad3ba6060505c0c
	}} -->
	<!--
	-----------------------------------------------------------
	New entries go down at the *BOTTOM* of the page, not here.
	----------------------------------------------------------
	As this page concerns INCIDENTS:
	Place the PAGENAME of the incident in the header.
			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.
	---------------------------------------------------------- -->
			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 .
	==History page vandalism?==
	{{archivetop|1=Seeming solved/non-admin issue. User can hopefully seek additional discussion at ] if needed. --] (]) 17:42, 17 April 2014 (UTC)}}		<!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 15:20, 17 December 2024 (UTC)</small>
	I can't say who did this, since the history page has been altered, but in the Estes Kefauver talk page I pointed out that the map was inaccurate and the map was altered (still inaccurate, but that's not really germane) and the history was then altered to make it appear that the map alteration occurred several months before I complained, not several months after. This is easily confirmed by a look at the internet way-back machine.
	This makes me look like an idiot who can't read. Who even has the power to do this and isn't this a violation of some rule? I assume whoever did this must be abusing a position of trust here and probably has continued to do so. Is this an accepted practice here? My initial post is under the name ezra c v mildew desire Jr. ] (]) 04:30, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
	:The article uses templates and images. Those are edited separately. Perhaps someone edited the image in question. ]<sup>]</sup> 05:08, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
	::I think the OP is referring to ]. The map was changed on February 2013 which amongst other things, added DC. So the history is indeed there, the OP was simply confused about where. ] (]) 15:29, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
	:::I was going to link to the history of the image in question, but there was more than one image and I didn't want to spend the time figuring out which one he was referring to. Heh. ]<sup>]</sup> 19:59, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
	::::The DC info was NOT added in 2013! Check the page for may 2012 and you'll see that it already lists DC and other changes which were responses to my Dec 2012 talk page entry. This is a falsified history, and the proof of this can be found via the way-back machine. I STILL would like to know if this is an accepted practice here or if it is against the rules, And how it can be determined who is messing up the history.
	And Enigmaman, the image history shows the image I referred to being replaced BEFORE I mentioned it (again, the way-back shows the truth). The first image was the one there when I complained, the second was the one added after that, although the relevant wikipedia histories show it being added before my complaint(that is, unless the page histories have been altered again!)
	And learn some damn manners, enigmaman, if you have a question try asking it instead of laughing at me while you discuss me in the third person. Or do you feel that all the grandiose talk here about civility is somehow beneath you?] (]) 17:03, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
	:I am always civil. I was not "laughing" at you. If you don't understand how Misplaced Pages works, try asking a question rather than being rude to the people trying to help you. I was trying to help and this is what I get. ]<sup>]</sup> 21:08, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
			:The other user in this case is ]? This looks like a content dispute over whether the article is on the English version of a German-Arabic dictionary or the dictionary itself. ] (]) 15:47, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
	{{tracked|851}}
			::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)
	:::::When you view an old revision of an article, it always displays the current version of the used images and templates. That's just how the software works. The wiki source of the revision is rendered as it would look today. If you want to see the history of an image or template then you must view its file page or template page. ] (]) 15:32, 13 April 2014 (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)
	::::::But that won't always be the case.... — ] <span style="color:#900">•</span> ] 19:10, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
			::::It's a conduct issue. ] (]) 19:58, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
	{{archivebottom}}
			:::::But what conduct issue? TALKNO doesn't forbid changing headings. In fact the wider guideline makes it clear it's perfectly acceptable "{{tqi|Because threads are shared by multiple editors (regardless of how many have posted so far), no one, including the original poster, "owns" a talk page discussion or its heading. It is generally acceptable to change headings when a better heading is appropriate, e.g., one more accurately describing the content of the discussion or the issue discussed, less one-sided, more appropriate for accessibility reasons, etc. Whenever a change is likely to be controversial, avoid disputes by discussing a heading change with the editor who started the thread, if possible. It can also sometimes be appropriate to merge entire sections under one heading (often preserving the later one as a subheading) if their discussions are redundant.}}" To be blunt, if you don't want editors changing the headings of sections you start, don't use such terrible headings. I definitely recommend you stay away from ANI since changing headings is quite common here. ] (]) 06:25, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::Actually I missed the signature issue. That's far more concerning unfortunately lost IMO partly because you concentrated on silly stuff. ] (]) 06:29, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::&lrm;إيان: I suggest you stop messing around with the section heading since it's a distraction which could easily lead to you being blocked. But if AnonMoos changes your signature again, report it and only that without silliness about section headings, mentioning that they've been warned about it before if needed. ] (]) 06:50, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
			I wrote a long and detailed explanation on his user talk page as to why the date-only header is basically useless in that context, but he's still for some peculiar reason fanatically determined to keep changing it back. Frankly, I've basically run out of good-faith reasons that make any sense -- except of course, his apparently unshakable belief that he has certain talk-page "rights", which according to Misplaced Pages guidelines he does '''not''' in fact have (outside of his own personal user talk page)... ] (]) 23:10, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
	==The Koenraad Elst machine==
	It seems to me (and to other editors) that the work of {{User|Calypsomusic}} amounts to little more than writing up articles on non-notable books by ]. Their contributions to the many AfDs started by {{U|Darkness Shines}} (DS, you are hereby pinged) indicated that they lack much wherewithal in the areas of ] and ]--now that's no crime, nor no sin either, but given that they are basically an SPA, one wonders if this warrants administrative action or at least wider discussion. So far any disruption seems limited to copying and pasting "keep" rationales in AfDs and then flooding said AfDs with walls of text and links to blogs and supposedly important testimony, and I'm in the process of closing some of those AfDs, but I think this is worth being looked at by others. ] (]) 17:54, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
	:Relevant AfDs: ], ], ], ], ], and there may be more. Note: I have closed a few of those as "keep", on admittedly on the basis of less-than-ideal evidence. I just closed ] as "redirect" on the suggestion of {{U|Tokyogirl79}}; I have no objection whatsoever to the ones I decided as "keep" becoming redirects as well. In a nutshell, I found the "mentions" brought up in those AfDs to be relevant enough, but there is no way they are going to help in article writing. ] (]) 17:54, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
	::Weird, I never got a notification that you had pinged me? ] (]) 10:46, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
	:I gave up participating in those AfD discussions due to the walls of text, incessant comments and potshots being taken by Calypsomusic. '''<font color="blue">]</font>'''&nbsp;'''''<span class="smallcaps" style="font-variant:small-caps;color:red">]</span>''''' 10:51, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
	::What Flat Out mentioned is flat out important. When AfDs get hit by walls of text like that - and I've unfortunately seen it happen a lot on AfDs related to South Asian politics and religion - people lose interest in participating. That's bad, because such discussions are enhanced when more editors participate and share thoughts. Additionally, it becomes a hassle for the closer as they have to sift through a lot of text, much of which is often irrelevant. It just messes it up for everybody. ] (]) 03:30, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
	:::The account seems dormant now. It made its first edits on March 11, and its last edits on April 11. Exactly one month of activity, and now that the AfDs have been closed the activity has stopped for now.<br>
	:::Shall the problem areas simply be noted and we move on? The editor is a noob; if they come back, there is a chance they could be guided toward more productive editing. Most of us made large blunders when we were new. ] (]) 03:36, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
	::::Well, they're back, with ], some book with an afterword by you-know-who. ] (]) 00:14, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
	:::::The user is now engaging in the same problematic behavior. In addition to another bunk article created on the same grounds, there is now a measure of battleground mentality on the talk pages of some related articles. Interestingly enough, while the user is engaging in such behavior at those locations, they have not participated in this discussion so far.
	:::::For most users reading this, I don't need to go over what we all know could happen. We have all seen intelligent editors who either don't get Misplaced Pages policies or don't care gradually waste more and more of the community's time; when nothing is done, they get bold. I see that starting here. So the question is, can some sort of community intervention be performed? ] (]) 03:47, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
	::::::Personally I figure this is a sock, given the way he has followed just about all my edits. ] (]) 20:36, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
	:::::::You do have a lot of enemies, but who do you think this could be a sock of and why? How can you be sure that isn't just paranoia? ] (]) 03:17, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
	::::::::The first edits by this account were to deprod four articles I had prodded, chances of a newbie finding all four of these NN book articles one after the other? It then restored content added by a sock at another article, content which I had removed, the account just smells socky. The wallotext approach reminds me of Mrt, but there are a similarity with another editor and I have filed an SPI. ] (]) 07:21, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
	::::::::Just because you're paranoid, doesn't mean they aren't out to get you ;) '''<font color="blue">]</font>'''&nbsp;'''''<span class="smallcaps" style="font-variant:small-caps;color:red">]</span>''''' 11:53, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
	:::::::::], can you link to the SPI? ] (]) 03:35, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
	::::::::::Why? You have already commented over there. ] (]) 08:25, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
	:::::::::::That was after I asked for it here, Mr. Light Opaqufies. ] (]) 09:16, 17 April 2014 (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)
	== Please Temp-Block Dicklyon for Disruptive Reversions ==
			::], 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)
	Dear Admins,
			*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)
	Please block {Dicklyon} from editing articles because he deems that my editing generally is bad and evidently that he will save Misplaced Pages from it by reverting whatever past edits of mine he disagrees with--sometimes without my knowledge.
			: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)
	He began on my talk page, calling me incompetent and telling me to stop copy-editing. Sixteen minutes and another talk page message (I only discovered it now) later, he reverted an edit of mine; three minutes later, another; one minute later, yet another! I had already faced this problem before, driven into a month's anxious silence and failed dispute-resolution efforts by another editor's threat to call AN/I: I sought arbitration for this longstanding problem of accusations and threats, with Dick's deeds being the straw breaking the camel's back.
			::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)
			::It is safe to assume there more than a few of the editors taking part in this discussion have years and decades of technological experience under their belts, myself included. I do not think The Accused is straight-up lying about the technical hurdle, but clinging to the "I refuse to change my system of operation, therefore it's Misplaced Pages's fault for (6 years ago) making the change!" excuse is the real problem here - this is at the heart a ''behavioral'' discussion, not a technical one. Consistently violating the norms of the community is indeed a real disruption to the creation of encyclopedic content. ] (]) 16:29, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
	I told Dick I sought arbitration, which would have sufficed had Dick not made this problem urgent by openly reverting three more of my edits and, I discovered, reverting three more without telling me. Some of his edit summaries were just "Please stop that," or "Removed more of Duxwing's odd editing," evincing that his problem is not with the articles but me. Most egregious were his secretly reverting my Hardy-Weinberg Equilibrium and Manual of Style edits, which were already consensus. I cannot understand why his disliking my editing has not driven him to instead call administrators to block me: any reasonable person would know that seven reversions and two talk page threads cannot be simultaneously discussed and that however many secret reversions cannot be discussed at all. Dick has thus neglected the "Discuss" of Bold-Revert-Discuss, whereby articles are edited throughout Misplaced Pages, and circumvented editorial conduct dispute resolution to effectively block me. I therefore want him blocked from editing articles until he and I can resolve this dispute.
			::It's not inherently about the signatures. It's that he's stubbornly insisting on using an outdated system that introduces errors into ''other content''. — <b>]:<sup>]</sup></b> 17:40, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::agree on this. Incidental changing of signayures due to the tech issue is not a small problem itself but that clearly has potential to impact a much wider range of mainspace content. I have a hard time believing that there is not a browser that supports https and can run on a decade old computer (something like Opera even). Claiming inability to switch or upgrade needs to be explained in detail or otherwise this has potential to be a bigger problem. ] (]) 17:55, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
			== Disruptive editing by ] ==
	Open Reversions
			{{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)}}
	# {{Diff|diff|603563351| Zombie}}
			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.
	# {{Diff|diff|603563509| M-1 Rocket}}
	# {{Diff|diff|603563567| Specific Impulse}}
	# {{Diff|diff|603707326| Gravity Turn}}
	# {{Diff|diff|603708556| Gustave (Crocodile)}}
	# {{Diff|diff|603708674| Information Awareness Office}}
			] (]) 20:52, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
	Secret Reversions
	# {{Diff|diff|603705522| Hardy-Weinberg Principle}} (consensus)
	# {{Diff|diff|603561202| Manual of Style}} (consensus)
	# {{Diff|diff|603561597| Underground Music}}
			:@]: 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)
	Note: This request for administrative help is my first and therefore may contain unintentional errors.
			::MJL why and how did you pick out that one article over the many this IP has made recent changes to? The IP has been making disputed edits for months and has been reverted by a number of editors, not just Moroike. ] (]) 01:10, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::@]: I am not suggesting that the IP editor isn't being disruptive, but my point is that {{u|Moroike}} isn't making the situation better (using the example of that one article). You can see this by looking at <span class="plainlinks"></span> where {{gender:Moroike|he has|she has|they have}} mostly just reverted this editor without using a summary. &#8211;<span style="font-family:CG Times, times">]&thinsp;]<sup>]</sup></span> 18:02, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			::The IP's edits were removed a total of 13 times on the page regarding the capital city of ], ]. You can't let him continue engaging in further edit wars with other users besides Moroike, can you? ] (]) 17:24, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			Since this IP user won't stop and is stonewalling, either he/should be temporarily blocked, or all the pages he is POV pushing without sources, should be semi-protected, so that only registered users can edit them. ] (]) 21:37, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			:After he/she was blocked for 24 hours, this IP created an account as ] in order to evade the block and has resumed his/her POV pushing. ] (]) 16:51, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			{{abot}}
			== Creating the need to make 400,000 unnecessary edits ==
	] (]) 22:02, 11 April 2014 (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.
	*Well, on the Hardy-Weinberg article makes sense to me--esp. the last tweak ("are in real populations") is an improvement. More importantly, how is this a '''secret''' edit? ] (]) 22:07, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
			I tried to get him to stop at ], to no avail. This isn't the first time, as you can see from that discussion. ] (]) 14:57, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
	::By "secret" I don't know have any idea what he means; perhaps whether he received a revert notification. Please see discussion at his talk page. And please do let me know if you think any of my reverts were less appropriate than the one you said makes sense. ] (]) 22:12, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
			:If you want to discuss {{tl|WikiProject banner shell}}, you should do so at ].
			:As for the size of the category, I have no plans to empty it, and was only going to update a few hundred more categories and templates. &nbsp;&nbsp;<b>~</b>&nbsp;<span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:16px;">] (] ⋅])</span>&nbsp; 15:02, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
			::You made nearly 2000 of such edits in the last few hours, and when asked to stop pointed me to a category with 400,000 entries. I have no way to know how many more you planned now or in future runs. Starting a discussion at the module would hardly stop you. ] (]) 15:10, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::"{{tq|when asked to stop pointed me to a category with 400,000 entries}}": incorrect. Since you wrongly thought I was making cosmetic edits, i.e. "{{tq|no change in output or categories}}", the category was to inform you that they are not cosmetic.
			:::Regarding a BRFA for the bulk of the category, that's looking more likely since the category appears to be neglected. &nbsp;&nbsp;<b>~</b>&nbsp;<span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:16px;">] (] ⋅])</span>&nbsp; 15:29, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::Unnecessary removing a synonym and then making thousands of edits to remove the hidden cat created by that unnecessary change is not really any better than making cosmetic edits, the end result is that nothing has changed for the affected pages at all. ] (]) 15:33, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::Not unnecessary. The Lua code is very complex and removing the need the support various settings makes the code both easier to read and maintain. As always, editors that don't want to see these edits can hide these by hiding the tag "talk banner shell conversion". ] (]) 12:32, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::It doesn´t look as if the specific code to have these synonyms was very complicated though, the argument that in some cases two synonyms were used on one page with conflicting values was more convincing. And the edits I complained about did ''not'' have that tag, so no, even if people knew about hiding that tag, it wouldn't have helped here at all. ] (]) 16:04, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
			:This was discussed in detail on ]. Ideally these edits would be done by an approved bot so they do not appear on people's watchlists. The main benefit is to merge the {{para|blp}} and {{para|living}} parameters. When both are in use, we find they often get conflicting values because one gets updated and the other does not. &mdash;&nbsp;Martin <small>(]&nbsp;·&nbsp;])</small> 17:25, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
			::Isn't it more logical to first have a bot cleanup the unwanted parameter, then remove it from the template, and only then start populating the cat with the somehow remaining or since added instances? In any case, this is a typical bot task and shouldn't be done with massive AWB runs. ] (]) 17:39, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::Yes, probably. But we have this mechanism already set up and I assumed {{ul|Cewbot}} would deal with these as part of its normal activities. Happy to look at other options - maybe discuss on template talk? &mdash;&nbsp;Martin <small>(]&nbsp;·&nbsp;])</small> 18:23, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::I don't know what this is about, but if the OP is correct, it is totally absurd to edit 400,000 talk pages for a tweak. Discussing at a template talk page monitored by those focused on the template would simply hide the issue. ] (]) 03:53, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::Edits like these should ''always'' be bots, so they can be filtered from watchlists. There are numerous other editors who have recently engaged in the mass additional of categories to articles which I had to ask them to stop as my watchlist was flooded. ]] 13:02, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
			::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)
	:::I'm pretty sure you're right. The "secret" reverts were reverts that undid Duxwing's changes but not directly after Duxwing made them (there were intervening edits), so Duxwing wouldn't have gotten a notification about them. I feel like pulling the old man's "back in my day" rant... The whole automatic notification thing still feels new to me. :) -- ''']'''] 22:51, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
			*{{ping|Fram|Tom.Reding|Kanashimi|Primefac}} I got AWB working again. If cewbot would take time for making the changes, and if this needs attention soon, then should I file a request for that particular bot task? —usernamekiran ] 06:20, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:The robot is in operation... ] (]) 09:09, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			*::yay! —usernamekiran ] 16:04, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			:Meanwhile, the category has grown to over 800,000 pages. Perhaps next time an RfC to determine whether creating such a large cleanup task is warranted, would be better? ] (]) 16:34, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
	:I did not use the word "incompetent", but yes I was less gentle or patient than I could have been, because I saw in ] that quite a few editors before me (<small>{{User|Tony1}}, {{User|Joel B. Lewis}}, {{User|Cyclopia}}, {{User|U3964057}}, {{User|Darkness Shines}}, {{User|McGeddon}}, {{User|Supasheep}}, {{User|Velella}}, {{User|Jim1138}}, {{User|Theroadislong}}, {{User|AddWittyNameHere}}, {{User|David Eppstein}}</small>) had tried to get him to improve, modify, curtail, or stop his "copy edits" that were doing so much to make articles worse; his edit on the ] is what drew my attention in the first place (see ] where 3 other editors explain to him that his edits were a big problem). On reviewing his recent edits, I found quite a few doing more harm than good, and felt that a revert would be most effective; if he then wants to go the next step and discuss one or more of those, I could do that. But instead he jumped straight to trying to get some higher power to remove me as an obstacle; see our brief interaction of yesterday at ]. If anyone sees portions of these reverted copy edits that would be worth salvaging, by all means go for it. ] (]) 22:25, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
			:{{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)
			== User:ZanderAlbatraz1145 Civility and Content #2 ==
	:Duxwing's complaint has no merit. The user has failed to improve despite the many suggestions from more experienced editors, leaving Dicklyon to conclude that Duxwing is a net drag on Misplaced Pages's resources. I agree. ] (]) 22:39, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
			*{{userlinks|ZanderAlbatraz1145}}
			This user has engaged in a lengthy display of disruption. Namely through incessant incivility I have noticed .
			Instances such as , , on , etc. Users such as {{Ping|Waxworker}} and {{Ping|Jon698}} can speak to their experiences, I'll outline mine.
	:{{ec}}Oh dear, I remember this user. I urge administrators to look at ] and to his contributions. There is something... weird. He seems to be bent on doing "copyediting" edits which regularly make the articles ''worse'', since he has poor command of English language and grammar (this is evident even to me, not a native English speaker). See where for example he changed "callus" to "callous", with a totally absurd reason. I think we are in definite ] territory.--]] 22:41, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
			On December 10, I noticed on the article ] page several additions were made that didn't adhere to the article's purpose. Zander restored these with an introductory summary rife with . For the most part there was an attempt to discuss the issue we had, but ultimately did not see eye to eye. I asserted I'd be escalating the issue to garner more substantive dialogue around it, Zander's response includes a needless . I made some attempts at engaging the topic at the article's talk page, in addition to WikiProject Film, it was over a week that saw no input. I would go on to state that (at the time) in two days, I would restore the page to it's status quo. I would do so, . Zander , and after another terse interaction, I moved to nominate the article for deletion, finding with the conflicting views of what Unrealized meant, it was too open ended and led to these lists being essentially trivia. Since then, Zander has elected to take an antagonistic approach towards me, making swipes they openly admit , and now that I am putting said comments , Zander is now doing the editing equivalent of mockingly repeating me, with edits such as and .
	::cyclopia, I think you are speaking in jest: are you? ] (]) 23:25, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
			This editor displays no interest in conducting themselves cordially or cooperatively on this website. ] 23:20, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
	::@Dick You are woefully misrepresenting what you said, which was: “Duxwing…back off on the ... you should not be doing them.”
			: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)
			== User:Glenn103 ==
	:::I'd like to add that Dicklyon's behavior seems justified per ]: "{{tq|Correct use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing unambiguous errors or violations of Misplaced Pages policy, or correcting related problems on multiple articles.}}" -- ''']'''] 22:55, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
			{{atop|1=Glenn103 is now . - ] <sub>]</sub> 23:47, 26 December 2024 (UTC)}}
			{{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?
	::::@Binksternet I have already covered your point: if Dick believed that I were a net drag, then he should have called for my blocking instead of so reverting my recent consented edits as to prevent my knowing that he did. I had to root through his edit history--which never explained the consented secret reversions--just to find what happened. ] (]) 23:25, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
			: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)
			{{abot}}
			== North Korean involvement in Russian-Ukraine war discussion ==
	:::::Per ], it is conventional to try to talk things out first, not go straight to asking admins for sanctions. And there's no firm rule against being a net drag on the project, as far as I know. It's a thought, though. ] (]) 23:13, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
			The inclusion of North Korea as a belligerent in the infobox for the "Russian invasion of Ukraine" article has been a point of extensive and protracted discussion since September. A formal Request for Comment (RfC) on this matter ran for several weeks and was closed with a clear consensus to include North Korea as a combatant based on reliable sources and expert analysis. However, despite the closure, the discussion has continued unabated across multiple threads, with certain editors repeatedly rehashing resolved points and questioning the validity of reliable sources, leading to significant disruption.
	:::::Also, take a look at ]; you'll find it a lot easier to notice when someone edits an article that you have edited, making it easier for you to be aware of "secret" reverts. ] (]) 23:16, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
			'''Key Points:'''
	::::@Dicky, I find your claim that I could talk about the reversions disingenuous considering how many and what kind you did. ] (]) 23:25, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
			# '''Prolonged Discussions and RfC Closure:'''
	:::::Feel free to use cute names for me. The various article talk pages are a good place to talk about your edits. Or your talk page, where you told me to get lost. ] (]) 23:13, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
			#* The RfC on North Korea's inclusion was conducted thoroughly, with a wide range of arguments presented by both sides.
			#* The closing administrator, S Marshall, determined there was a clear consensus to include North Korea as a belligerent based on reliable sources and the strength of arguments.
			#* The close explicitly allowed for reevaluation if new battlefield events or sources emerged, but no substantial new evidence has invalidated the prior consensus.
			# '''Ongoing Disruption:'''
			#* Despite the RfC's resolution, the same arguments are being repeated across multiple threads, often by the same editors.
			#* This behavior includes undermining reliable sources, misrepresenting their content, and insisting on a higher standard of verification (e.g., requiring firsthand evidence of North Korean combat, which is unreasonable given the context).
			# '''Reliable Sources Confirming North Korean Involvement:'''
			#* Multiple reputable outlets, including the BBC, Reuters, and Pentagon statements, confirm North Korean military involvement and casualties in the conflict.
			#* Experts from institutions like Chatham House and RUSI have explicitly stated North Korea's role in combat, aligning with the community's decision.
			# '''Impact on the Community:'''
			#* The continued disruption consumes editor time and resources, detracting from the article's improvement.
			#* These actions disregard Misplaced Pages's consensus-building principles and guidelines for resolving disputes. This dispute has been ongoing for months, with multiple threads being opened and closed on the same topic.
			'''Request for Administrative Action:'''
	::::::I did not tell you to "get lost". I told you I would not talk to you because I sought arbitration because you would not stop reverting my edits even when I tried talking to you--you seemed not to care what I had to say. You ignored the very dispute-resolution process you claim I broke, and claiming that I was in the wrong because I should have put those articles on my watchlist to accommodate your preferences is victim-blaming.
			I respectfully request that administrators address the following issues:
	::::@Atama Hounding continues to describe how these reversions can be used, indicating an intention for this allowance. ] (]) 23:25, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
			# Enforce the consensus reached in the closed RfC, as no new evidence significantly alters the previous conclusions.
	::::] (]) 23:05, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
			# Discourage editors from rehashing resolved discussions, particularly when arguments have been repeatedly addressed and dismissed.
			# Consider imposing a topic ban or other appropriate measures on editors who persist in disrupting the article with repetitive or bad-faith arguments.
			This matter has been discussed exhaustively, and it is essential to prioritize Misplaced Pages's goals of maintaining a high-quality, well-sourced, and consensus-driven encyclopedia.
	is one of his edits that I haven't reverted yet, but will, unless someone beats me to it or pipes up to question whether reverting it would be the best thing here. ] (]) 23:10, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
			Thank you for your attention to this matter.
			UPDATE: I just noticed that North Korea was removed as a belligerent and added to the 'supported by' section, completely violating the consensus.
			] (]) 08:48, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			:Since this report isn't really about an incident and your request is directed towards admins, I think this complaint would be better placed at ] rather than ANI. It will also need more specifics, which articles, which edits, which editors. You'll need to provide that. I also question whether or not these are content standards that the community can't handle on their own. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 09:50, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			::I was going to post it at ] but it said: "'''This noticeboard is for issues affecting administrators generally – announcements, notifications, information, and other matters of''' ''general administrator interest.''
			::If your post is about a '''specific problem you have''' (a '''dispute''', user, help request, or other narrow issue needing an administrator), you should post it at the ''']''' (ANI) instead. Thank you."
			::I posted it on ANI beecause my specific problem was this dispute ] (]) 12:07, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::The original post in this thread appears to resemble LLM output. GPTzero confirms this impression, rating text as "99% probability AI generated". Using AI to generate ANI submissions is highly inappropriate. ] (]) 18:01, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::Even when a message appears to be AI-generated, I think it is worth considering whether or not it is pointing out an actual problem. I think editors might be ignoring the results of an RFC, I just don't think asking for administrators to monitor a subject area, without identifying specific articles, is a feasible solution. It does seem like, possibly, a point that could come up in a complaint at AE regarding the Ukraine CTOP area. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 19:55, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::I had a peek and it's a messy RfC and, as is generally the case with a messy RfC had a very involved closure message which seems to reflect that the closer felt constrained by the framing of the RfC. I didn't see any immediate indication in the edit history that anyone had tried to implement the RfC result and been rebuffed (although I might have missed it). So there's some smoke here but, I think, not a ton of fire. ] (]) 20:21, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::Liz, I don't disagree but I'm not at all convinced that use of AI is a positive contribution to CTOP areas. ] (]) 20:27, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::It was written with AI assistance. Not all AI. ai detectors aren’t considered reliable, because you can put the U.S. constitution through one and it says 100% AI generated. Regardless, whether it’s AI or not has nothing to do with the topic. It’s just that there’a been so many discussions and when I checked the info box it said ‘supported by”, violating the consensus of the RFC ] (]) 12:45, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::::{{tq|you can put the U.S. constitution through one and it says 100% AI generated}}{{snd}}Well, I just put it through GPTzero and got ''97% human''. Might be best if you don't just make up random "evidence". ]] 17:25, 25 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)
			{{external media|video1=}}
			::::::::::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 ==
	:This sort of reversion is exactly what I am talking about. The only difference between this discussion and our last is that in this one he warns me. Do you understand that I cannot carry on a multithreaded AN/I discussion and dispute your reversions? ] (]) 23:25, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
			{{atop|Suspected editor was indeed a sock. Unnecessary drama created by all-too zealous reporting--let this be the end of it. ] (]) 21:19, 24 December 2024 (UTC)}}
			{{userlinks|Kriji Sehamati}}
			Dear Wikipedians,
	::So sorry I dragged you into this AN/I discussion, so you don't have time to discuss anything more useful. ] (]) 23:30, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
			I hope you’re doing well. I wanted to inform you about a new contributor @], despite lacking experience, has repeatedly attempted to vandalize multiple articles. These articles were properly aligned with Misplaced Pages’s guidelines and reviewed by experienced contributors, but he/she seemed unwilling to understand or respect their adherence to the policies.
	:The SSME edit just got reverted by an IP Address. Quite a coincidence, eh, Dick? ] (]) 23:25, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
			I believe your experience could help address this situation effectively.
	::Indeed it is. ] (]) 23:28, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
			Looking forward to your advice on how to proceed.
	:::The same IP is reverting my edits one after another--literally seconds apart. I think you are sock-puppeting. ] (]) 23:32, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
			Thankyou! ]] 15:21, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
	::::Given the open discussion of your edits here, and since Dicklyon is active on his account, that's pretty weak evidence for sockpuppetry. —''']''' (]) 23:34, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
			:"Vandalize" is a very loaded word here with a specific meaning. As far as I can tell, what they've done is nominate 4 articles for deletion, and your has been to accuse them of vandalism, ignoring dispute resolution procedures and making personal attacks – none of which I can see at a glance through their contributions.
	:::::Someone is working hard to make one or both of us look bad. It happens. ] (]) 23:37, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
			:Perhaps if you supplied ] of this behaviour, someone would be able to help? If your issue is that they've nominated 4 articles of which you are a major contributor ''and'' are doing so by going through your contributions in order to find articles to nominate for deletion with specious reasons, then this board would be the place to come. If not, then making your arguments for keeping the articles on the AfDs in question would be your best bet.
			:By the way is forum shopping. Stop that. ] (]) 16:06, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			:(ec) This is an odd one. As S-Aura failed to provide diffs, I looked at Kriji Sehamati's contribution history. New account (9 Dec) began editing today, created two drafts and made a bunch of edits to those. Then began adding COI tags to articles S-Aura wrote, nominated those articles for deletion, and then left a template on S-Aura's talk page. Really seems to be something weird going on here between those two. (In addition to opening this ANI thread, S-Aura asked for help with basically the same message on the talk pages of Ipigott, Ryan shell, CFA, and BusterD, and S-Aura opened same complaint at AN.) ]&nbsp;] 16:06, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			::I am concerned that ]’s actions, including unjustified deletion nominations and spamming, are disruptive and violate Misplaced Pages’s guidelines.
			::She seems to lack understanding of basic Misplaced Pages guidelines, particularly those related ] and ]. ]] 16:40, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::You were asked to provide diffs. You did, almost, but then reverted yourself. Those diffs (well, the ones before those diffs) are just the other user nominating articles for deletion (which is allowed) or tagging them for what they believe to be conflict of interest edits (which is also allowed).
			:::Please provide some actual evidence that the other user is engaging in chronic, intractable behaviour, rather than just not editing how you would like them to. ] (]) 17:21, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::Here are some diffs highlighting her problematic edits. However, I believe that many of her contributions may be in violation of Misplaced Pages’s guidelines. It appears she has specifically targeted me and added the COI tag multiple times to the same page. I would appreciate it if you could review her actions more thoroughly:
			:::: •
			:::: •
			:::: •
			:::: •
			::::and many more
			::::Thankyou! ]] 17:33, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::We wouldn't generally treat an AfD as vandalism. ] (]) 17:39, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::I understand your point about AfDs not generally being treated as vandalism. However, I noticed that the major contribution history of the user seems suspicious. ]] 17:42, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::Not from where anybody else is standing so far. I get that you're upset to have four articles of yours nominated for deletion, and if you have any evidence ''at all'' that you are being deliberately targeted by the other editor, then people will very much act on that. Please provide it. ] (]) 17:58, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::::I am here to contribute and edit articles in accordance with Misplaced Pages’s guidelines. However, today a new user targeted me and falsely blamed me for actions that are not accurate. I believe this is unfair and not in line with the collaborative nature of the platform. ]] 18:04, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::::Please provide evidence of this. ] (]) 18:06, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::::::Please check! ]] 18:07, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::::::The articles that have been nominated for deletion discussion have been reviewed by experienced contributors. These discussions involve articles about judges and lawyers, under ], a valid criterion according to Misplaced Pages’s guidelines. Therefore, the deletion decision was made after carefully reviewing these articles. ]] 18:11, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::::::Honestly it looks like this user, rightly or wrongly, believes you have a conflict of interest and are acting on the basis of that assumption. I would suggest, if you don't have a CoI, talking to them about this and maybe asking why they've come to this conclusion. ] (]) 18:10, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::::::They have just started targeting my contributions, and I tried to inform her about the situation. However, she is acting as if she knows everything about Misplaced Pages and is dismissing my concerns. ]] 18:15, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			{{od}}
			:{{ping|Kriji Sehamati}} hasn't edited since their AfD spree earlier today, let's wait and see what their response here is when they return to editing. ]&nbsp;] 18:16, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			*We need to stop focusing on the OP's calling this vandalism; it is not. I've changed the header to reflect that. That said, the new user's edits ''are'' problematic and merit scrutiny. As for the UPE stuff, I've removed that post from the OP's Talk page; it's nonsensical coming from a new user and does not merit a response.--] (]) 18:42, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			*It is, of course, not vandalism to nominate articles for AFD discussions as long as a legitimate deletion rationale is provided and the article hasn't just been discussed at a recent AFD. However, I don't think it's a good sign when a brand new editor claims to understand all of Misplaced Pages policies and whose first actions are to nominate articles at AFDs. They are almost never an actual new editor, especially when they know how to even set up an AFD or are familiar with using Twinkle on their first day of editing. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 19:34, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:It seems that she is not new to Misplaced Pages and might be operating multiple accounts. It appears she has an issue with one of my contributions, as she created her account just 15 days ago, yet she already has a good understanding of tools like Twinkle and AfD procedures. This level of familiarity suggests prior experience on the platform. I am now requesting her account to be blocked as I am completely disturbed by her repeated allegations and disruptive behavior. ]] 11:32, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			*::I am now genuinely confused—if all my contributions are not good, then why am I even here? Were the experienced editors who reviewed and approved these pages also mistaken? A newcomer, who joined just recently, is now disrupting and questioning the validity of all the work that has been carefully reviewed and maintained by experienced contributors. This situation is deeply discouraging. ]] 11:58, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:::Please resolve this situation—either block her for her disruptive behavior. How can i continue working under such constant targeting and stress ? ]] 12:00, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			*::::User:S-Aura, you seem to be making unsupported personal attacks against ]. You should provide specific evidence of wrongdoing, including diffs, or your arguments here will fall on deaf ears (and bring consequences for you). Meanwhile, as a filer on ANI, you have brought all your own edits to close scrutiny by the community. You may have to face that smart people disagree, and this is how we sort disagreements out on English Misplaced Pages. You are not required to edit, but we encourage you to do so. Nobody is going to block Kriji Sehamati at this point, because you've given us no reason to do so. ] (]) 12:01, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:::::Meanwhile, in the last few minutes S-Aura has disruptively about this exact issue on this same board, which by another editor. This is intentional disruption. ] (]) 12:07, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			*::::::As to the question "Why am I here?", poets and artists have been trying to answer this question for eons. Epistemology is outside the scope of this board, but there are articles about it. Show up to edit if you want to, but expect disagreement from time to time. (That's actually a sound answer to any epistemology question as well.) ] (]) 12:16, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:::::Dear @],
			*:::::It means I have been proven wrong, and that user’s contributions have been more focused on me, which is quite insufficient to catch someone’s lie that she is pretending to be new, when in fact she is old.
			*:::::Also, I am not against AfD; I am simply expressing my opinion. ]] 13:12, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			*::::::Could you please rephrase your point here? I don't understand. While it's okay to be suspicious that this editor is somehow socking or doing something else deceptive due to the familiarity, it seems unacceptable to deliberately accuse them of such repeatedly without firmer evidence. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>]</span> 13:19, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:::::::Dear @],
			*:::::::I am not engaged in paid activities on Misplaced Pages, and she claimed that I am connected with the subject, who is a judge, lawyer, etc. You all should understand that this is not a trivial matter; justice is a very respected position. Making such allegations can escalate court cases. I would like to remind you of the Misplaced Pages vs. ANI case. ]] 13:24, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			*::::::::One thing you need to understand immediately is you should never make another post that sounds vaguely like a legal threat, as you've just done above. ] That intonation is seriously not helping us decide who's right or wrong here. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>]</span> 13:27, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:::::::::Okay! ]] 13:35, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			*::::::::I will caution you that this is tiptoeing right up to the edge of ] and you'd be advised to avoid making legal threats. ] (]) 13:28, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:::::::::Dear @],
			*:::::::::I am merely showing that she can potentially do something inappropriate. I am following the guidelines and not making any legal threats. ]] 13:31, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			*::::::::::Accusing another editor of potentially making legal threats is not much better, when there is no concrete evidence that they would do so. Being interested in articles about judges does not suffice. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>]</span> 13:32, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			*::::::::The page of Justice ], who had conducted over the Misplaced Pages vs. ANI court hearing, was also created by me. ]] 13:28, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:::::::::<del>State plainly what the implication you are making here is, because what I'm hearing is "I'm familiar with people who have hit Misplaced Pages with a mallet in court before, and I can make sure it happens again".</del> <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>]</span> 13:30, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			*::::::::::This is becoming a rabbit hole. I urge you not to pursue the rabbit further. ] (]) 13:33, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:::::::::::Good call, I'll retract the above. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>]</span> 13:34, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			*::::::::::No, that is not what I am implying. ]] 13:33, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:::No one has said your contributions are not good. However, it should be noted that a draft being accepted at AfC or a new page having been ] does not guarantee greater scrutiny would not result in a valid AfD nomination. That said, echoing others here it's clear something problematic is up with this user's behavior. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>]</span> 12:02, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			*::You can't both criticize someone for {{tq|lack understanding of basic Misplaced Pages guidelines, particularly those related ] and ]}}, and then argue that she is too familiar with the platform to be a newcomer for knowing how to file an AfD. I wouldn't be surprised if most people here knew how to file an AfD before knowing all 14 notability guidelines by heart. ] (] · ]) 12:59, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:::There are detailed instructions on filing an AfD that can be found by googling "how can I get a Misplaced Pages page deleted" - if somebody had some personal reason for wanting to have pages removed it doesn't strain credibility to think that's why they created a WP account and that they just followed the very clear instructions on the appropriate pages.
			*:::In fact that might explain why some of the AfD filings were reasonable and some were, on their face, incorrectly filed. If you looked up the AfD ''process'' but not ''criteria'' that is the likely outcome. That's why I find the "new user files AfDs must be a sock" idea here somewhat uncompelling. ] (]) 13:04, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			*I believe we're entering boomerang territory at this point. Opinions? ] (]) 13:35, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:I think OP is upset that a cluster of their articles were put up at AfD. This in itself is understandable, but while there's reason to think there might be mischief by Kriji Sehamati, we don't have any real evidence of it. We either need the OP to make it clearer what misconduct, if any, has occurred, or they need to ]. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>]</span> 13:37, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			*::The OP has been intentionally disruptive (by creating a new ANI thread which was reverted), and this thread is going nowhere. IMHO, there's nothing ANI can do here. Everything I'm reading about should be resolved at the page talk and user talk level, in my opinion. The AfDs are underway. If dispute resolution is needed, fine. Nobody is harming S-Aura. S-Aura can't come crying to ANI (or four random user talk pages like mine) anytime someone merely disagrees with them. ] (]) 14:08, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:::I'd have said close with trout for all if not for creating the second thread at AN/I. Based on that I'd say the OP should be formally cautioned against such antics in the future. ] (]) 14:10, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			*::I should have added that I largely hold with Remsense in their position. ] (]) 14:15, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:::] is definitely a sock puppet on Misplaced Pages, but we don’t have any evidence because understanding Misplaced Pages’s AfD process so quickly can be a bit challenging. I have no problem with AfD regarding my contributions, and it’s a good thing that experienced contributors are giving their feedback. If you believe that the kriji is 100% correct and her activity is not suspicious, then this discussion should be closed. ]] 14:27, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			*::::You need to stop insisting this is definitely the case if you don't have any evidence for it, period. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>]</span> 14:28, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			*::::S-Aura, how did you make the determination {{tq|User:Kriji Sehamati‬ is definitely a sock puppet on Misplaced Pages}}? Please share your process. That's a personal attack, and requires proof to prevent you from being in violation of ]. I've looked at the AfDs and they seem reasonable to me. When you've provided strong sources the article is being kept. So far the jury is out on the others. Both of you seem to be writing articles about obscure living persons who wouldn't normally (by my cursory reading) have a Misplaced Pages article about them because reliable sourcing is not readily found. When I see that, I must suspect COI or undeclared unpaid editing here, but nobody's admitting to it. ] (]) 15:05, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			*::::S-Aura's continuing to issue personal attacks makes it more difficult for us to just close this (without some form of consequence for the editor making unproven personal attacks after they've been warned repeatedly). ] (]) 15:08, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:::::I have made a level-four user talk page warning for the personal attack. FYI. We've been very nice about this up 'til now, but we need to stop being so kind. Doing foolish things has real world consequences. ] (]) 15:17, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			* Both editors' apparent use of AI is certainly disruptive. If it continues, it should lead to blocks. <span style="padding:2px 5px;border-radius:5px;font-family:Arial black;white-space:nowrap;vertical-align:-1px">] <span style=color:red>F</span> ]</span> 15:10, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:No personal hate intended, but I just found this and thought it would be worth checking. ]] 16:49, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			*::It would be nice if you could explain the significance for those who do not speak Hausa. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>]</span> 16:51, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:::She had made contributions to pages in other languages a few months ago. I am attaching her contributions link. ]] 16:59, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			*::::How does this constitute evidence of sockpuppetry if we aren't to know what exactly happened? There's a reason we don't just automatically block anybody who is blocked on another language wiki, and I looked through the edits some and didn't find anything outrageous that made it past the language barrier. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>]</span> 17:01, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:::::I agree that it’s important to ensure we have solid evidence before making conclusions. I appreciate your perspective on not automatically blocking users based on blocks from other language wikis. ]] 17:17, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			*::::::Please don't reply to me or others using ChatGPT. It is flat-out rude. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>]</span> 17:18, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			* '''Support BOOMERANG''' - I've been uninvoled and have mainly just been watching the back-and-forths, but the personal attacks and ] mindset, such as "questioning the validity of all the work that has been carefully reviewed and maintained by experienced contributors", concerns me. Not sure for how long, but I don't think anything longer than a months is appropriate given the circumstances. ]<sub>]</sub><sup>]</sup> 15:47, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			*This whole thread, but especially the 16:49, 24 December 2024 (UTC) comment, feels like the OP is just throwing literally everything at the wall to see what sticks. But, worse, what is being thrown at the wall lacks any significant body of evidence to support. I note that a personal attack warning has been given for the continued unfounded accusations being presented, which I think is a good move. I don't support a block at this point, although if I was the OP I would withdraw this complaint and/or drop the stick and walk away from this topic as a matter of urgency to avoid continuing to make the situation worse. ] (]) 17:41, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			{{abot}}
			== Darkwarriorblake making aspersions ==
	::::::I have no friends, Dick, and to my knowledge you have no enemies. You already have shown that you don't care for discussion. Why should you care about AN/I? ] (]) 23:39, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
			{{atop|result=The OP says they don't care any more which I'm reading as a withdrawal and the other party says they won't be responding again so I'm closing this discussion. My only comment is that both editors in this dispute should have brought this to the article talk page to talk this disagreement out. I don't know if the differences would be resolved but this is what we advise editors to do when their edits are reverted. Now I just have to get that scene in the movie out of my mind. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 05:54, 24 December 2024 (UTC)}}
			Postscript: Ah, someone just close this, I don't care any more. &nbsp;— ] <span style="color:#900">•</span> ] 22:56, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			----
			I'm posting here after a particularly underwhelming interaction with an editor in the form of edit summaries. I'll need to provide the context of a brief content dispute which hopefully won't take too long and then get to the point. I'm not asking for anyone to take my side in the dispute.
			'']'' is a widely acclaimed comedy film from 1983, which is also widely acknowledged to have problematic elements by modern standards, including a scene in which the villain of the piece, stuck in a gorilla costume, is locked in a cage with a real gorilla, which is implied to sexually penetrate him without his consent.
	:::::::I reviewed your edits as the discussion here was of interest. I reverted your edits as you have much to learn about copy editing. ] (]) 23:41, 11 April 2014 (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
	:::::::Furthermore, Dick, you clearly cannot take responsibility for your actions or understand how others function: "So sorry I dragged you into this AN/I discussion, so you don't have time to discuss anything more useful". You have thus already decided this issue yourself--just like you decided that I needed to be stopped without telling me why--and railroad anyone standing between you and your goal. I, not you, am the obstacle. ] (]) 23:46, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
			: ''Reportedly, Liddy was on board until he got to the part where Beeks .''
			Reportedly ''by whom'' is not mentioned, let alone is there a direct quotation from Liddy. Plus as can be seen the words "becomes a gorilla's mate" are linked to a very poor quality, hand-held video of the scene in question playing on a television. This alone should be enough to raise serious questions about the use of this "source" in a featured article.
			The content dispute began when I changed it like this () with the comment ''Don't mince words; the interaction between Beeks and the gorilla is rape played for laughs'':
	::::::::Agreed. ] (]) 00:02, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
			{{text diff|Liddy was interested in the offer until he learned that Beeks becomes the romantic partner of a gorilla.|Liddy was interested in the offer until he learned that Beeks is raped by a gorilla.}}
			This was reverted () by {{u|Darkwarriorblake}} with the comment ''not what the source says''.
	:::::::::We therefore can conclude that "if he then wants to go the next step and discuss one or more of those, I could do that" is a lie because you have just agreed that "I ... am the obstacle" to your goals and therefore not someone with whom you would discuss any edits: why should we believe that you have good faith--or anything you have to say that isn't nailed-down with diffs? If you are willing to lie before this Administrative Board, then we must doubt whether you even thought my edits were bad--you very well may just be "working hard to make look bad". And even if you are not, lying to the board is wrong in itself; furthermore, declaring it too a mere object that you must "railroad" and admitting that you cannot take responsibility or understand others also evinces your contempt of its decisions and our Wikipedian community, thus further evincing that the IP is a sockpuppet.
			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.()
	:::::::::Most condemningly, the IP's edit history begins with exactly the edit that you proposed to make--reverting my edit to the Space Shuttle Main Engine--and beyond the other rapid-fire reversions has only one edit, which it made after its post here. Coincidentally, this edit was also a reversion. Whatever I accusations I have previously made are trivial to the ones that your agreement has evinced.
			{{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;...}}
	:::::::::] (]) 00:26, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
			My accompanying comment was ''(a) That was the source's voice, not Liddy's. It's called a euphemism. Demonstrable by how it links to a clip of the scene in which a man is raped by a gorilla. (b) Source says "reportedly" for this claim, without evidence. Poor quality source. Removing claim''
	::::::I say the above not to assassinate your character before the mods but explain why you would be controlling the IP: you have already done unto me like it has. ] (]) 23:57, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
			That was reverted by Darkwarriorblake () with the comment ''Nothing wrong with Indiewire as a source, if there is I'd raise it at ]. Until then, there's a talk page for you to use per ]. Your comments sound agenda driven and therefore not Neutral.''
	::::::::Awful convenient of you to do exactly what I was complaining about to exactly what Dick was talking about, eh, IP? ] (]) 23:46, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
			This is where the reason for me to raise this at this board begins, because that's solidly an example of ]. It came on top of a revert which reintroduced a claim cited to a rumor in a blog post into a featured article, but that's really not my concern, because if the champions of the featured article process have decided that it's somehow acceptable for our "best" content then I'm just going to move on to something else rather than argue.
	Duxwing, when you started this thread I understood what you were saying. Parts of it made sense and the logical gaps were, well, clearly logical gaps, so OK. I can't claim to have read the threat in its entirety, but toward the end I don't know what you're talking about.
			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''.
	Many WP articles need copyediting. A quick look at your copyediting suggests that you get some things right and some things wrong. , you change "A large number of" to "Many". Excellent. "Many" is what "a large number of" means. (If it didn't mean "many", it would be misphrased.) Perhaps you should concentrate on some kinds of edits rather than others. Famously, there's a (to my mind) unfortunate page titled ]; one of these days I should write a superior replacement, "Be timid". -- ] (]) 01:43, 12 April 2014 (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 ]''
	:Hoary, would you please move this concern to my Talk page if you think moving it is appropriate? I want to keep this discussion focused on Dicklyon's conduct. ] (]) 01:46, 12 April 2014 (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 .
	:@Hoary Thanks for your first paragraph, which I missed. :) I recommend reading the entire thread to understand what happened.
			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)
	@Mods, can we continue this discussion? Dick has admitted to my claims and even bad faith (not caring what anyone, and therefore AN/I, has to say about his behavior) and lacking empathetic competence (not understanding how people work). I think these problems exceed my original complaint and therefore warrant more discussion about whether and how Dick should be among us: good faith and competence are required here. ] (]) 03:02, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
			:Hrrm, this seems a bit excessive.
			:*I've added a second source for the claim. Really this should've been the first option rather than removing the content.
			:*The first summary was, as stated, "Don't mince words; the interaction between Beeks and the gorilla is rape played for laughs". "Rape played for laughs" is a loaded comment and not something said in the article or the source text, so it's a personal opinion, it's not neutral, it's agenda-driven.
			:*When this was reverted, the editor just removed the content entirely claiming IndieWire was unreliable. There is, as far as I'm aware, nothing wrong with Indiewire. I've since found a second source, the Telegraph, which is reliable per ].
			:*The editor ignored WP: BRD when raised, and as an admin they should adhere to policy.
			:*The editor states that they are an admin on their page. Assuming this is true, the aggressiveness of their edits, hyper focus on the single area, and use of words like "crap listicle" seemed out of line with what I, personally, would expect from an admin on Misplaced Pages, certainly someone who has been so for nearly two decades. Perhaps the edit summary wasn't the place to have that discussion but, as stated, they weren't adhering to WP: BRD to start a discussion, and in the interim the article needed putting back to the status quo.
			:*I find accusations of OWNERSHIP often tend to come when people don't get their way. Which is fine. I have plenty of reversions on the page for people adding unsourced content and there are plenty of changes as well. I find someone removing sourced content and me putting the sourced content back to not ''really'' be something you can fling ownership at.
			:*Within the context of the film, Beeks does become the romantic partner of the gorilla, it seemed more appropriate and encylcopedic text than just saying 'rape', and neither source I've added says that either.
			:*Anyways, my edit history shows I'm a massive contributor and helper and it's nearly Xmas, and I don't feel like engaging with this any further, good luck Hex. ] (]) 20:27, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			::Of course you don't, having ignored the actual matter of your conduct that I'm raising here. Your comments about the content of the article are irrelevant. &nbsp;— ] <span style="color:#900">•</span> ] 20:43, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			*Hex's position is not wholly supported, although in the entire issue, their toolset is irrelevant. There was no incivility on either part, and an all-out edit war seems to have been averted.{{pb}}Fundamentally the change Hex wanted to make was pure OR; rape may have been intimated—or, as Hex themself admits, implied—but its never overtly stated and is a wholly loaded term. This is the interpretation of an editor, not of secondary sources. If there is a pron=blem with Indywire as a source—currently used in —take it to WP:RSN. If it's disputed that it's a high quality source per WP:FA?, then take it to WT:FAC. Accusations of OWNership are as unhelpful—and as much an aspersion—as accusations of agenda-led editing. In fact, for OWNership, Hex should read the relevant policy: here, it is WP:FAOWN, which not only allows for careful stewardship of featured material, but requires significant changes to the consensus version to be discussed on talk; I don't suppose there's any suggestion that introducing rape—particularly "played for laughs"—wouldn't be a significant addition.{{pb}}Really though, this is an overblown content dispute which should have started with ''one revert'' each, and ended on the talk page. --]'']''] 21:10, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:"Never overtly stated... 'played for laughs' be a significant addition" - with John Landis, the director. {{talk quote|One of the executives was deeply appalled by a man being sexually molested by a gorilla. And I said you know, it's a joke and it goes by very quickly. But the first preview was very successful and it all went away. ''''}}
			*:Feel free to amend the article on that basis. I'm certainly not interested in spending any more time on it. &nbsp;— ] <span style="color:#900">•</span> ] 22:48, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			===Followup===
	::Nonsense. Dicklyon is of immense value to the encyclopedia while you are a net negative. You have no leverage against him. This whole discussion should result in a ] effect. ] (]) 03:14, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
			I just want to say that, now that we've had an ANI thread on the subjeect of Gordon Liddy's feelings about portraying the romantic partner of a gorilla, I can die happy.
			While we're on the subject, recites that {{tq|Prior to his departure from the FBI in 1962, Liddy sought admission to various bars.}} I'm curious to know whether this is meant to imply that Liddy had a , and whether this could have had any bearing on the whole gorilla romantic partner situation. ]]
	:::Being of "immense value" does not excuse bad behavior, and being "a net negative" does not prevent me from reporting it. ] (]) 13:24, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
			{{abot}}
			== User Stationmanagerskidrow removing information on ] page ==
	Noting ] it seems this is a new user who needs useful feedback. Someone should point them to ], and maybe ], and maybe a place where they can do something useful (patrolling?) as they figure out how things work. Reverting a good edit with the edit summary of "vandalism" is not good practice. —] (]) 03:56, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
	:I already know about BRD, and I was specifically trying to get Dick to participate in it when he evidently refused. ] (]) 13:24, 12 April 2014 (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)
	:Yes. As I pointed out, about a dozen editors tried patiently to counsel him before me. My multiple reverts were partly to get him to understand that he needs to take input. If you'd like to volunteer to mentor him, maybe he can be helped. ] (]) 05:23, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
	::That's disrupting Misplaced Pages to make a point. ] (]) 13:24, 12 April 2014 (UTC)		:User is now editing using ] ] (]) 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. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 04:37, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
	::The only advice anyone asks me for these days is about leaving Misplaced Pages. If he wants adoption there is ], or failing that, the ] or ]. Otherwise I have restored one of your edits that he reverted, that's all I have time for. Someone should check the rest of his edits, a lot of articles don't have page watchers.—] (]) 06:41, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
			That article probably should be speedied as an A7 for not containing any assertions of notability; which obscures that Stationmanagerskidrow appears to have been edit warring on it with an undisclosed COI, and presumably was ]ing as , and if so violated 3RR as well. It's probably best for me not to take administrative action here tonight as I won't be around later/tomorrow to deal with any followups, but something should be done here beyond just saying "take it to the talk page." ]] <small><sup>Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!</sup></small> 06:22, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
	:::What do you suggest doing?
			: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)
	::::The issue here is skill. Your editing skill is being questioned, but you do not have enough skill to understand the issues other editors have with it. The choir analogy is a good one here. IMHO you need to take a break from doing the kind of editing you have been doing, and either do something else that will develop your skill in that area, or find a different area where you have better skills. Instead of working style issues across a broad range of topics, it might work out better to pick one or two topics you are passionate about, or want to read up on, and work on articles in those areas. The style issues that are such a stumbling block for you now would come more naturally if you were trying to find a way to express something you found important about that topic. Or if it is style issues that really interest you, there is a huge internet world of grammar and lingua-blogs out there, not to mention community resources, that can help fine-tune your understanding, for instance, of the difference between descriptive and prescriptive grammar.
			::] and ] message added . I'm just about to make myself thoroughly ] by seeing what I can do about the ] article. ] (]) 🦘 09:11, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			== Insults ==
	::::The Misplaced Pages is really an interesting phenomenon. It is a place where you can learn things about human nature, and about yourself, that you would never be able to find out in real life. But in the end it is also about building an encyclopedia, and when it gets to the point where you are actually causing other people more work than you are doing, it's time to change direction. —] (]) 18:06, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
	:::::If I am so unskilled as to not understand their complaints, then would you please dumb them down enough for me to understand? :)
			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)
	:::::Style issues are what interest me here, and if you would please show me the way to improving on them, then I will take it. ] (]) 18:18, 12 April 2014 (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)
			:::Normally this starts with warnings on the user's Talk page, but it seems you two have already hashed that out. So unless this account does it again, there's no further action to be taken. — <b>]:<sup>]</sup></b> 18:25, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::FYI, following , I have made ]. ] (]) 13:48, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::Of note, Hazar Sam has now accused Psychloppos of {{tq|engaging in defamatory edits}}, which smacks of a ] violation. — <b>]:<sup>]</sup></b> 18:09, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::And their response to being warned about that ]. - ] <sub>]</sub> 23:46, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::So apparently he was indeed the person insulting me under IP (which he calls having ""). ] (]) 08:21, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
			=== Request for Review of Neutrality and Repeated Actions ===
			{{Atop|This complaint has no merit and does not require administrative intervention.--] (]) 18:08, 24 December 2024 (UTC)}}
			Dear admin,
	::::::You will have to take their complaints up with them directly, if they have the time to engage on the issue. But this is a little bit like walking into a car mechanic shop, not knowing what a carburetor is, and expecting to have it explained. For linguistics you might start with ], or maybe David Crystal's "Cambridge Encyclopedia of the English Language"--it used to be readily available online for download, or just start googling to see what interests you. If you can't access your local university or community college's writing courses, you might try . —] (]) 19:00, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
			I hope this message finds you well. I am writing to express my concern regarding Psycholoppos, who has repeatedly applied the neutrality dispute tag to content related to Randa Kassis. Despite previous clarifications, these actions suggest a potential bias, which could undermine the objectivity and integrity of the platform.
			I kindly request that you review this matter and take appropriate steps to ensure that all users adhere to neutrality standards. If possible, I would also appreciate guidance on how to address such situations constructively in the future.
	:::::::Neotarf, it's not really productive to tell newby editors "Go back to school and don't edit until you're good at it." What's needed here is simply a change of behavior and attitude. Many editors have taken the time to explain to Duxwing exactly what's wrong with any edit that he cared to inquire about; as I would have, if he had asked. He can easily fix the problem by putting more time into asking and listening, rather than just complaining that his campaign of editing is being impeded by those who revert him. ] (]) 19:42, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
			Thank you for your attention to this issue. Please feel free to reach out if further clarification is needed.
	::::::::My "campaign of edits" is not what I'm complaining about. I was complaining about my talk page and not being able to keep up with the pace of reversions. ] (]) 20:46, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
			Hazar ] (]) 17:45, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			:@], whether the NPOV tag is needed or not should first be discussed on the article's talk page. Also, see the large notice at the top of this page: you are required to notify the editor you are reporting. ]&nbsp;] 17:53, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			::The editor is also called Psychloppos, not Psycholoppos. I have notified them for the OP. &ndash; ] (]) (]) 17:59, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			:I wouldn't give a chatbot-written thread the time of day. HS, ]. —] ] <sup><small>] ]</small></sup> 18:05, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			{{Abot}}
			* Note: I moved this retaliatory post to be a sub-heading of the original issue. — <b>]:<sup>]</sup></b> 18:34, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
	::::::::Dicklyon, the more I look at this, the more it looks like a WP:COMPETENCE issue. Multiple explanations have been given here, by many many editors who have issues with his editing, and Duxwing has not shown that he even understands them. In fact, he has asked for simpler explanations. If Duxwing can't keep pace with the reversions, he is the one who needs to slow down, and understand just one edit at a time. —] (]) 03:47, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
			==Nlkyair012 and LLM chatbots ==
	* I disagree with Duxwing's description of his MOS edits as "Manual of Style edits, which were already consensus". If he is referring to his edits to ], then three editors at ] have disagreed with them and no others have supported — those edits were definitely not consensus. It was also disturbing that Duxwing should edit the MOS while in the middle of a discussion at ], in order to support his minority opinion in that discussion. ] (]) 07:02, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
			*{{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)
	:Another editor had removed only the parts of my edit with which he disagreed, and Dick, ignoring the Talk page, carefully reverted everything else. Thus, Dick removed my consented edits. And I did not change it to support my opinion; I changed it because I happened upon some errors, just like I do any other article. ] (]) 13:24, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
	::In at the ] lead, I changed your #1 to #2 because your version used the unnecessarily awkward plural possessive, the "like" where "such as" was correct, and other non-useful differences. There's a certain idiomatic parallelism to "certain X ... and others", which was lost in your version where "others'" seems ambiguous, as if it might be referring to input from other people. You could have asked me for further info on this one or any other one, but I don't think you did:
	# (yours): fully covering various topics (like punctuation) and presenting others' key points.
	# (longstanding): covering certain topics (such as punctuation) in full, and presenting the key points of others.
	::The fact that you had not yet been fully reverted does not mean you should claim you had consensus for this part of your change. ] (]) 16:49, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
			:Hello @Ratnahastin,
	*I came upon Duxwing after their edits to the Maths MOS. I also had a look at their user page where they described themselves as a grammar hammer. It was pretty much immediately obvious to me that they had a highly inflated opinion of their own competence and were determined to fight to stick in their changes. From the discussion here it seems to me they have been fighting for quite a while. this puts me in mind of something I read recently in which I think is an interesting read on a similar type problem in another setting, and the last section on 'the biggest problem of all' is particularly relevant here. ] (]) 10:34, 12 April 2014 (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. ==
	::I wrote "The Grammar Hammer" as a joke about my edit summaries when I helped a Netherlander write Spore fanfiction when I was twelve; I liked how "grammar" and "hammer" rhymed and had tired of writing "spelling, grammar, and style". I don't think I'm some magical grammar guru, just that I can fix bad grammar like anyone else. And I am not determined to "stick in my changes" because they are mine: I think some wordings are good and others bad, and when I think of a good wording to replace a bad--often after having considered many also-bad options in quick succession--I pursue it to better Misplaced Pages. Hence my seeming narcissism: I would not knowingly and purposefully make an edit I thought worsened the article. ] (]) 13:24, 12 April 2014 (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)
	:::I am not saying you put in edits that you think would worsen articles. What I'm saying is that in my opinion and that of a number of other people as shown here your edits often worsen articles. That is why they are reverted. You are fighting to put in your edits; you have raised a complaint here trying to block a person who reverted some of your edits. In terms of the blog I pointed at you are a choir member who sings loudly out of tune but says yes when the choirmaster asks them if they think they are pitching correctly. ] (]) 14:24, 12 April 2014 (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 ==
	::::I am not saying you accused me of bad faith but trying to explain why I do what I do. How often is too often? I am only human, having about five hundred edits and only thirty-five ever contested, giving a 93% success rate. What is the requisite? 95? 99? A perfect record? I asked for the block to prevent his vendetta against me--one whereto he has admitted--from ending with my entire history's being reshaped to his satisfaction. Your comparison of me to the choir member is inaccurate because less than one in ten of my edits have been reverted; I am at worst a choir member whose voice cracks every once in a while. {{unsigned|Duxwing}}
	::::: Ok, you can't have it both ways here. If you've only had 35 of your edits complained about (which I doubt it's that low), then you have no need to be bringing ANYONE to ANI - you should back away, and learn. Nothing worth complaining about with 35 - and I'd bet that they weren't all complained about by Dick, were they? Now ... in reality, it's actually more like only about 35 of your edits have been ''good'' (maybe 35% on a good day) ... that's a number I can get behind. <span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]]</span> 17:15, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
			All but 2 of user's edit summaries are "Fixed Typo" when they are in fact partially updating statistical information on the page. Have left multiple messages/warnings on TP, with no response. ] (]) 16:03, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
	:::::: I counted in February (25) and added the ten from this dispute (35). Even if I missed another ten (45) I'm still over 90% success. I got AN/I wanted to pre-empt the problem from occurring, like it almost did when the aforementioned IP editor reverted four of my edits faster than I could refresh this page. Can we separate this discussion into two parts: one about Dick, and the other about me? My head is swimming with the effort of keeping this stuff straight. ] (]) 17:51, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
			== Lil Dicky Semi-Protection ==
	* I am confused why ] is being singled out in this way. I too have had very significant differences of opinion with ] and I now chose not to respond to his comments on my talk page because it just leads to endless time wasting. The whole editing pattern by Duxwing seems to be set upon entangling editors in endlessly arcane discussions about the minutiae of English grammar and its meaning which is a grave waste of everyone's time and energy. I have not yet seen an edit by ] that adds anything of any merit (although I certainly don't go looking for his/her edits - there are much better ways to spend my time) but I have encountered several that have had a seriously deleterious effect on the articles and which I have had to revert. There are many other editors who expressed serious concerns about the editing style, the bizarre use of often archaic English and about grammatical constructions that are most awkward and unnecessary. I shall try and refrain from any further significant inputs to this debate, but it seems very clear to me that the complainant has no case, and that the many reputable and established editors who have properly raised concerns on the complainants talk page have raised very real concerns that cannot be allowed to continue unabated. <span style="background-color:lightblue">'''''&nbsp;]&nbsp;'''''</span><span style="background-color:lightblue">&nbsp;<sup>''] Talk ''</sup>&nbsp;</span> 14:21, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
			{{atop|1=] is thataway →. - ] <sub>]</sub> 22:34, 24 December 2024 (UTC)}}
			] was semi-protected back in 2019. Now that five years have passed, could the semi-protection be lifted? ] (]) 16:25, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			:Ask at ] ] ] 16:28, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
	:Dick is not being "singled out". I wanted to slow his reversions to a pace I could discuss. I am disturbed that you would doubt my good faith. If you have read only a few of my edits, then why should we believe your categorical condemnation of my editing is anything but a hasty generalization? I have gone to great lengths to address those concerns, stopped only by people like you, who simply refuse to tell me whether my editing has improved. ] (]) 14:33, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
			{{abot}}
			== Disruptive behavior from IP ==
	::Nobody simply refuses to tell you if your editing has improved; it has not. If you think that I reverted something that was actually worth keeping, point it out and let's see if others agree. The input will do us both good. ] (]) 16:26, 12 April 2014 (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)
			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)
	:::First, I said "whether" not "if," including the possibility of its not having improved; don't twist my words. And people can and have refused; e.g., you by admitting you see me as an "obstacle" and Velella by saying he "chose not to respond to comments on talk page". The falsehood of your assertion that they do not is so obvious that I question your good faith. The question I've brought here is not about the reversions or the edits; it's about your having made them so quickly that I never could dispute them all. Finally, stop disingenuously pretending you care about this input: you already have said the AN/I and I are only "an obstacle" to you. ] (]) 16:55, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
			:"777-200LRF" is not misleading, some cargo airlines do use that designation. Today I reverted to a previous version that ] was okay with . I feel that ] is going overboard with charges of misinformation and disruptive editing. ] (]) 19:59, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
	::::My point was that you could start by disputing any one of my reverts; what you learn might apply to others, and then you wouldn't need to dispute them all. Can you pick one to ask me about? Have you ever asked me about one? If so, I don't find it (checking back, I find your very first words to me were on your talk page, where you wrote "I will request arbitration on this issue because I have already discussed my copy-editing with other editors and want to permanently resolve this issue."). Since you referred specifically to the MOS edit above, I provided details reasons there for why I reverted. If this process is slowing you down, we seem to have agreement that that's a good thing. If it's slowing down a half dozen others, such as me, that's less good. ] (]) 17:22, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
			::It is misleading to remove any mentions of it being unofficial. Boeing has never made a "777-200LRF", no aftermarket conversion has ever been offered under that name, nor has the FAA or any other regulatory agency ever certified such an aircraft. To pass such a designation off as official is by definition misleading and misinformation. Likewise, to continuously do so after you have been told to stop by multiple people and falsely claiming that others support your arguments is by definition disruptive. - ] <sub>]</sub><span style="color:#6B8E23">\</span><sup>]</sup> 20:06, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			::Of note is the fact that this is not the first time the IP has claimed to have Fnlayson's support. ] not to assume support without a specific statement, yet it seems they've also ignored that. - ] <sub>]</sub><span style="color:#6B8E23">\</span><sup>]</sup> 20:23, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::Its not misinformation as here are the sources which use "777-200LRF", including GE Capital Aviation (the engine supplier for most Boeing 777) and Leeham News (to avoid confusion with the upcoming 777-8F). ] (]) 21:06, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::I have asked you for sources from either Boeing or the FAA, yet you still either refuse to do so or (more likely) cannot because they don't exist. Only Boeing and the FAA can designate factory-built Boeing aircraft. Airlines and misinformed news websites have no authority to do so, and any alternative names they use are purely unofficial and should not have anything more than a single brief mention in the appropriate article section. Your ] to get that after numerous people have told you is disruptive. - ] <sub>]</sub><span style="color:#6B8E23">\</span><sup>]</sup> 22:14, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::None of those are ] suitable for sustaining the edit you want to make. #1 would only support that airline claiming to have that kind of plane. #2 is a model manufacturer, and #3 is a blog. — <b>]:<sup>]</sup></b> 18:37, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
			:Relevant range is {{rangevandal|24.206.64.0/20}}, in case somebody needs it. ] &#124; ] 21:02, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			*Semiprotected ] for two days. - ] <sub>]</sub> 22:33, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			== Rude and unfestive language in my talk page ==
	:::::Dick, you are misrepresenting the truth again. Your very first words to me were, "Duxwing, I seriously think you should back off on the copy-editing" followed by three reversions. I then correctly reasoned that you only saw me as "an obstacle"--why has no one commented on your admitting that you do?--and one never talks to obstacles unless necessary to remove them. ] (]) 17:40, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
	====The boomerang has to hit====
	It seems there is a consensus that {{user|Duxwing}} edits are overall disruptive, and that he ] when they are called into question. I fear some edit restriction would be in order. --]] 17:02, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
	:Cyclopia, whether my edits are overall disruptive or not (remember that my editing changed after the February conflagration on my Talk Page) I so do not refuse to hear other's complaints that I have spent this entire AN/I discussion trying to get Dick to tell me why he reverted my edits and to slow my discussion with him to a reasonable pace. Moreover, any restriction would be pointless because my only edits were to the IP's sudden reversion of my most recent edits. ] (]) 17:09, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
			My esteemed editor collegue ] just left on my talk page, on Christmas Day no less. Not really in the spirit of the season, I'd say. Considering that he was sagaciously advising me on the importance of tact and etiquette in the very same thread, he should be held to the same standard. ] (]) 17:54, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
	::If you had really changed in February then you would not be here now at ANI. ] (]) 17:17, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
			:{{u|Vector legacy (2010)}} and {{u|Marcus Markup}}, you both should stop that childish behavior and disengage from one another. ] (]) 18:10, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
			::Uh, “suck a bag of dicks” seems a cut above anything childish in VL2010’s conduct. <span style="position: relative; top: -0.5em;">꧁</span>]<span style="position: relative; top: -0.5em;">꧂</span> 08:05, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::True, and given a warning accordingly - but Vector legacy's user page is also...''interesting''. - ] <sub>]</sub> 09:31, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::Vector Legacy's comments in that discussion are clearly poking the bear, both should be warned. On top of that, Vector has broken the 3RR rule with these 4 reverts: , , , . They acknowledge in the edit summary of the 4th that they know of the 3RR rule and that their first edit was a revert. The last revert in particular, effectively saying "haha, you can't make any more reverts because you've already made 3" when the user themselves has made 4, is really not smart nor constructive/collaborative. ] (]) 10:12, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::I'm normally a stickler for civility, but frankly in this case I actually think Vector legacy (2010) is the bigger problem. Marcus's Markup comment is something they can hopefully easily learn not to do and could have been an extremely unfortunate one-off in a bad situation. By comparison it seems that Vector legacy (2010) is treating editing here as a game where they win edit wars rather than collaborate constructively. I have little hope this is an attitude easily changed so a ] block might be justified soon. ] (]) ] (]) 12:25, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::{{ec}} Yes. The idea of ] is that the protagonists should discuss things on the article talk page before that point is reached, not to use it as a stick to beat other editors with. I note that {{u|Vector legacy (2010)}}'s user page admits to a lot of edit warring, and it discloses a ] attitude. ] (]) 12:31, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::I think that it is safe to say that both these editors are skating on thin ice. ] (]) 17:02, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::To that point, Vector legacy (2010)'s userpage consists of a tally of "EDIT WARS WON". I doubt this is serious, but the optics of it, combined with the above 3RR vio + bragging about the other party being on the line, is not good. &#8213;] <sub>]</sub> 18:01, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::I've nominated that userpage at MFD as it's purely disruptive. - ] <sub>]</sub> 23:42, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
			== User:Ryancasey93 ==
	::: Exactly - a quick review of Duxwing's talkpage - and my sincere attempts to assist being ignored and questioned as to "why" shows that Duxwing hasn't learned anything. I'd never heard of Duxwing until yesterday <span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]]</span> 17:22, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
			{{atop|1=31-hour block. - ] <sub>]</sub> 01:06, 26 December 2024 (UTC)}}
			*{{userlinks|Ryancasey93}}
			Over at ], a user by the name of {{u|Ryancasey93}} requested that their YouTube channel be cited in a passage about them () that was added by {{u|TheLennyGriffinFan1994}} (). The talk page discussion was removed by {{u|AntiDionysius}} as being promotional in nature. Ryancasey93 then decided to ] to cite their channel, which was declined by {{u|LizardJr8}}, who then proceeded to remove the passage as being unsourced.
			I then brought up concerns with ] and ] with Ryancasey93, who then proceeded to respond in a needlessly confrontational and hostile manner, and pinging me and LizardJr8. Ryancasey93 then proceeded to where they said we were "very rude and belittling" to them, told us they sent an email complaint against us, called us "the most cynical, dismissive, greedy, narcissistic, and ungrateful people I ever met in my entire life", accused us of discriminating against Autistic people (I am autistic myself, for the record), and called us "assholes".
	:::: DP, I am sorry for not having replied to you sooner--your huge message necessitated a huge, considered reply--and I really was only curious about "why". :) You have not been ignored, and I greatly appreciate your help. ] (]) 17:27, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
			Simply put, I feel as if Ryancasey93 does not have the emotional stability required to contribute to Misplaced Pages, having violated ], ], and ], and a block may be needed. ]<sup>(])</sup> 19:47, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
	Let's start with a warning, by an admin with the power and intent to enforce it if the advice to behave better is ignored. Something like "Duxwing is advised to follow the "D" part of ]; when edits are reverted, they should be discussed, preferably on the article talk page, and the reverted edits or others like them should not be repeated unless the problem is resolved; he is warned that further disruption such as repeating contested edits or seeking adminstrative sanctions for simple editing disputes will lead to a block." Or whatever some admin sees as more appropriate. ] (]) 17:13, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
			:I just logged on while digesting turkey, and was alerted of the pings and this report. I don't really appreciate the messages from the user (I'm on the spectrum too, FWIW) but I think @] gave a good response, highlighting the need for secondary reliable sources. I should have done that better when I removed the unsourced information. I would like to see if there is any further activity from the user before getting into a block discussion. ] (]) 21:10, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
	:That wording works for me. ] (]) 17:17, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
			::Looks like they've been blocked for 31 hours by {{u|Cullen328}}. ]<sup>(])</sup> 23:15, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::Yes, that last comment was unacceptable in several ways. ] (]) 00:57, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
			{{abot}}
			== User:24.187.28.171 ==
	:Why are you talking about BRD? You stated and admitted you were never open to it in the first place. And if you look on any talk page of any article wherein I have recently had contested edits--e.g., Manual of Style or Hardy-Weinberg--then you will find that I have always followed BRD. You are the one who broke it. ] (]) 17:22, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
			{{atop
			| result = Blocked for 3 months for edit warring. ] (]/]) 23:32, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
			}}
			*{{userlinks|24.187.28.171}}
			IP has been blocked before for previous infractions. Now, they continue to perform persistent disruptive edits contradicting the Manual of Style, either by deliberately introducing contradictions or undoing edits that resolve the issue. The user has also violated ] at ], though that remains unresolved for some reason. The IP has done all of this despite a backlog of warnings dating back to 2023. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 22:48, 25 December 2024 (UTC)</small>
			:@]: could you please provide specific diffs? ] (]/]) 23:23, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
			{{abot}}
			== Incivility, aspersions, ] from ] ==
	::I have no wish to be unhelpful, but there are times when attention to the ] can be helpful. <span style="background-color:lightblue">'''''&nbsp;]&nbsp;'''''</span><span style="background-color:lightblue">&nbsp;<sup>''] Talk ''</sup>&nbsp;</span> 17:27, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
			{{atop|I revoked TPA, applied 3 weeks semi to the article + AfD, indef for the SPI, and tagged ] (what a name!). Thank you. ] 11:44, 26 December 2024 (UTC)}}
			{{userlinks|Cokeandbread}}
			] is a few-month-old account whose area of greatest focus has been creating (and defending) two promotional pages for social media influencer-types: ] and ]. Cokeandbread has refused () to answer good-faith questions (, ) about whether they are operating as a paid editor ( to one of them with {{tq|Don't threaten me}}) and posted a copyvio to Commons (). Despite warnings (), the editor has been engaging in bludgeoning/disruptive behavior at the Jimmy Rex AfD (bludgeoning and attempting to !vote multiple times (, ) and has made uncivil remarks to other editors (, , ), while {{tq|respect}} in the other direction. Recently, Cokeandbread posted the following on their user page: {{tq|The way some people in AfD discussions move, you just know some people commenting are under demonic influence. Stay away from me and mine.}} (). Despite another warning (), which Cokeandbread removed when blanking their talk page (), this aspersion is still up. If we're at the point where an editor is accusing other editors of being demonically influenced, I think we're well into ] territory. Given the lack of response to non-admin warnings and requests, I'd ask for admin intervention here. ] (]) 23:34, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
	:::Do you want me to drop the request? ] (]) 17:40, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
			*You're absolutely right. Editors should not be accusing other editors of being demonically influenced. They should ]. ]] 00:04, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
			*I concur, and have accordingly blocked. - ] <sub>]</sub> 01:14, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
			*Do have to wonder what's going on with that AfD given several accounts with only few contributions, contributions which themselves seem questionable, have somehow found it. But that's probably a question for ] or something. ] (]) 02:28, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:Suspicious indeed. There's ], although CheckUser did not confirm connections on the first batch of reported accounts. ] (]) 02:35, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:{{ec}} Actually see it's already been partly dealt with at ]. The geolocation point there is interesting, while I don't know what CUs are seeing it does seem likely given the other accounts wider interest these are editors from Nigeria which is another weird thing since there's nothing to suggest the subject is particularly known in Nigeria. ] (]) 02:37, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
			*::...after posting as the end of a series of "I won" edits, they blanked their user talk page. Appears to have been a troll from the start. - ] <sub>]</sub> 09:30, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:::Should have locked their TPA. ] (]) 09:49, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:::On another note, I would like to flag ] with some COI-related tag in light of this but I couldn't remember the exact template. ] (]) 09:52, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
			{{abot}}
			== Disruptive editing by ] ==
	:I don't think it's enough to ask Duxwing to do more discussion after his edits are reverted as he is already doing that and his edits have not substantially improved. The issue as I see it is that he persists in what he calls "copyediting" and does not understand - even after receiving detailed feedback - that these edits change the meaning of articles and/or make articles more difficult to read. Therefore it seems that there may be a ] issue that I don't think talking or explaining more will alleviate. Perhaps direct oversight of his edits to articles by a mentor will eventually help, if such a mentor can be found. Failing that, a restriction on "copyediting" might help, if such a thing is possible. ] (]) 19:59, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
			*{{userlinks|Dngmin}}
			The main issue with this editor at the moment is disruptive editing based on continuous abuse of ]. Issues began when this editor . He did it and and for past few days, thus creating a lot of work for others to undo.
			Since october the user received warning for ]. Please help to block the user.
	::Again, not practical. WP has a policy of tolerating semi-competent writers by getting them to behave sensibly. Where you say "he is already doing that and his edits have not substantially improved", that's half true. The problem is that he stopped discussing and went for administrative interference. I don't mind reverting every incompetent edit he makes, if he'll then take the time to go the talk page of the article in question and discuss what improvement he thinks he is making; sure I might get impatient with him, but more likely he'll eventually learn that there are ways to move forward and ways to be stuck, and that everything he has tried so far has left him stuck. ] (]) 20:17, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
			] (]) 04:19, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
			:<small>I'm assuming the mention of diffs and {{ping|PhilKnight}} was a cut and paste failure? - ] <sub>]</sub> 07:00, 26 December 2024 (UTC)</small>
			::Yes it is. ] (]) 16:14, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
			== New user creating a lot of new pages ==
	::Discussion at ] has Duxwing explaining (perhaps for the first time) that one of his goals at Misplaced Pages, even his main one, is to rewrite articles to use "less ink", based on what seems to be his misunderstanding of "the Wikipedian Copy Editing Guide I read years ago". It may be the case that this goal was so obvious to him that he never brought it up when his edits were challenged, assuming that every other editor was operating under the same imaginary policy. I'm not quite sure what to make of this, but skimming his edit history, very nearly every "copyedit" edit he has made since last July has a red, negative number next to it. --] (]) 08:43, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
			* {{user|4Gramtops}}
	::Competence is definitely an issue. Although Misplaced Pages generally suffers fools gladly, usually the editor must show an interest in changing the objectionable behavior. Otherwise people like Dicklyon will forever be spending their precious energies dealing with the editors' messes. That seems like disruption to me. ] (]) 11:56, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
			I am not confident I understand what 4Gramtops is up to. They in their userspace. I have not a clue what they are meant to accomplish outside of testing. It just seems strange for a user with so few edits. There was no forthcoming response to ] trying to get an explanation <small>(which I know they've seen since they )</small>
	:::Why is my competence an issue if my edits are due to a single misunderstanding, and when did I say that I would not stop trying to shorten articles if it were against policy? ] (]) 15:18, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
			<small>On a related note, they have also created ]. It's possible I'm just overthinking a simple troll here.</small> &#8211;<span style="font-family:CG Times, times">]&thinsp;]<sup>]</sup></span> 07:35, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
	:::: This is not a single misunderstanding. This is at the very least 12 competent and committed editors expressing real concern over a period of months about your editing conduct. Please do try to understand. You brought this issue here , but if you hadn't another editor would probably have done so quite soon. You may recall my advice to you some months ago that your editing conduct might lead to a block. Unless there is some real sign that you both understand that and the seriousness of the comments being made, I regret that my warning all those weeks ago, may become a reality. If you need help, then fine, we can give help, but there has to be a real sea-change in behaviour and understanding before I, for one, will wish to expend much more time on this cause.<span style="background-color:lightblue">'''''&nbsp;]&nbsp;'''''</span><span style="background-color:lightblue">&nbsp;<sup>''] Talk ''</sup>&nbsp;</span> 15:29, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
			:] for permissions? - ] <sub>]</sub> 09:28, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
			::Given ], I find it likeliest they're trying to learn ] by using their userspace as a testing environment. Harmless but technically ]. ] (]) 11:54, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::Might not even be U5 if the purpose of trying to learn Lua is to develop the expertise to work on Lua modules for Misplaced Pages. —] (]) 19:39, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::I already suggested they use Test 2 Misplaced Pages for that purpose. It'd lead to a lot less clutter. I do find that either way they should probably say what they're trying to do. No one can help them if they don't communicate. &#8211;<span style="font-family:CG Times, times">]&thinsp;]<sup>]</sup></span> 20:55, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
			== Undoing my blocks due to collateral damage ==
	:::: With respect I ask: would you please elaborate? I think you mean to say that I should have from the complaints' number intuited that I needed a general review of my editing, and that I should have therefore sought someone to help me. I did both back in February with Jim1138, AddWittyNameHere, and seraphimblade and stopped getting help from them only because they would or could not reply. I concealed my deeds, concerns, and hurt feelings as much as possible because, knowing almost nothing about Misplaced Pages, I assumed one false move would cause my doom and that the less anyone knew, the less they could hurt me for or with; e.g., when you told me my editing might get me blocked, I stopped for thirty-one days despite Wiki-withdrawal and quivering every time I saw the site.
			{{atop|1=Unblocked. - ] <sub>]</sub> 23:37, 26 December 2024 (UTC)}}
			Hello, could an admin undo ? Blocks like these seem to have caused way more collateral damage than they're worth, per ] (about a block I undid in October when I still had adminship) and ]. Thanks! ] (]) 10:31, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
			Ah, I've just done some checking, and it seems like, as ever, there's a template with unblock links. So here goes::
	:::: I recognized the concerns' seriousness again today when I asked for adoption, which seems necessary to help me with my confusion about copy-editing and this AN/I discussion. Again, with respect: is this behavior the sea-change you described?
			*{{IPunblock|178.220.0.0/16}}
			*{{IPunblock|79.101.0.0/16}}
			*{{IPunblock|178.221.0.0/16}} ] (]) 12:24, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
			*{{done}} ] (]) 13:29, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
			{{abot}}
			== Persistent unsourced changes by IP ==
	:::: P.S. The misunderstanding I mentioned was of Wikipedian Copy-Editing policy. The twelve-editor pile-up is a fiasco wherefore I apologize. ] (]) 16:04, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
	====Proposed Resolution====
			{{Vandal|2001:999:500:8D52:753A:9BD7:9D61:823B}}
	Seeing that I cannot seem to resolve my dispute with Dick, I want to get some help understanding what happened and various other concerns. Anyone know how to get adopted? ] (]) 18:56, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
	:That could be a great step. See ]. ] (]) 20:21, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
			, , , , , etc.
	Moreover, I feel like all my complaints about Dick's behavior have been ignored. Why? ] (]) 20:48, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
	:Ignored? You've got hundreds of kilobytes of reactions to your complaint right here. Read it. ] (]) 21:48, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
			Note that another IP in the same /64 range ({{Vandal|2001:999:500:8D52:8065:5651:5389:18E}}) was blocked for the same reasons less than a week ago. ]] 19:16, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
	:Dicklyon's behavior is a lot like mine would have been had I taken an interest in your edits like he did. ] (]) 15:47, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
			== 197-Countryballs-World ==
	::I am not wholly convinced that off wiki posts like are actually very helpful to your cause, being neither true nor mature. <span style="background-color:lightblue">'''''&nbsp;]&nbsp;'''''</span><span style="background-color:lightblue">&nbsp;<sup>''] Talk ''</sup>&nbsp;</span> 23:12, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
			{{atop|1=Countryballs cannot into Misplaced Pages. - ] <sub>]</sub> 23:36, 26 December 2024 (UTC)}}
			So far, {{User|197-Countryballs-World}} has made categories, started drafts, and attempted edits to articles, all of which make it clear they presently view Misplaced Pages a bit like their personal playground where they can build some sort of confused, redundant atlas. They have not responded whatsoever to talk messages, their categories at CfD, or their unsourced additions to live articles being reverted. If they can hear us, it seems they need to be gotten a hold of if they want to be a positive contributor—but it seems likely that they can't hear us. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>]</span> 19:19, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
			:(NAC) Based on their username, I can reasonably confer that their edits likely pertain to the ]. Just a note, as I know we've historically had issues with Fandom editors crossing into Misplaced Pages. Feel free to remove if this message is innapropriate for ANI. :) ]<sub>]</sub><sup>]</sup> 20:23, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
			::Aye. Mostly, they seem young. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>]</span> 20:27, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
			*I've indeffed them for disruption and incompetence.--] (]) 21:52, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
			**Haha balls. ] (]) 21:53, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
			{{abot}}
			== Disruptive editing and ongoing vandalism by User:Caabdirisaq1 ==
	: The problem with the above is that Dick ''hasn't really done anything wrong''. He's ''protected'' articles from issues that have been approved by the community as a whole. So, you actually don't have compaints about Dick, you have complaints about the ''decisions of the community'', and Dick's your target by substitution. Oddly enough, the community has tried to bend over backwards to get you to see things in one way, but you merely attack and argue otherwise. ''You'' are the one showing poor behaviour against Dick and the rest of the community, not the other way around. <span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]]</span> 11:09, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
			I have warned @] multiple times in his talk page with no avail. He consistently vandalises articles by adding images unrelated to them such as ] , ] and ] . I have been trying to revert the changes made and explained that they were of orientalist paintings of Arab bedouins. ] (]) 21:28, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
	====Lots more to clean up====
			*], you may disagree with these, as you say, orientalist depictions, but that doesn't make ]'s edits "vandalism". You also haven't actually discussed the matter with them--you merely placed two standard warnings and threatened to have the editor blocked. You reverted them a few times on ] but you never explained why. I am not going to take administrative action on a content matter where the complainant (you) have done so little to make clear why those edits were problematic. ] (]) 21:57, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:] produced the paintings in the late 19th century mainly depicting Arabs and they have nothing to do with the ] and those Somali soldiers which fought for it. They have been doing image vandalism on these articles and they're all related to each other.
			*:This image has nothing to do with Ahmed Girri Bin Hussein Al Somali
			*:https://commons.wikimedia.org/File:Adolf_Schreyer_Reitende_Araber_mit_Gefolge.jpg
			*:I have spoken to him on the article but he had constantly reverted the talk page and prevented a discussion from taking place as evident here. ] (]) 22:13, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::These edits adding these images may not rise to the level of vandalism but they seem pretty disruptive to me. ] was a 19th century painter well known for portraying horses and horsemen, and he traveled to to Turkey, Egypt, Syria, and what is now Algeria. He also painted horses and horsemen in a European context. I know nothing about his work other than what the Misplaced Pages article says or the file pages for the various public domain images on Commons say. If the image file says something like "two Arab horsemen" and the painting was created 150 years ago, then adding that image to the biography of someone who lived 500 years ago with zero evidence connecting that specific painting to that specific individual 350 years earlier is disruptive and unacceptable. So, maybe I am missing something and maybe there is a ] for this artist that identifies these paintings as representing figures of the ]. But lacking that sort of solid evidence (which should be reflected in the Commons file pages), then adding these images is a violation of the ] policy, in my opinion. ] (]) 04:09, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::Regardless of the content dispute, Replayerr opened a discussion on an ] three times; the first two times Caabdirisaq1 simply deleted Replayerr's talk page post rather than replying to it. That alone seems pretty inappropriate behavior. ] (]) 06:34, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::He hasn't spoken to me once and I've tried to hold discussions explaining it to him but he ignores them and reverts the changes done. I opened this incident so something could be done regarding this. ] (]) 10:00, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
			:I've left another comment asking them to come to this discussion and participate in this conversation about images added to articles. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 06:37, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
			::He hasn't listened and is still editing those articles with the unrelated images. He has reverted all my changes. ] (]) 09:58, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
			:This editor does not seem to want to discuss things. Maybe a partial block from mainspace would help? ] (]) 10:07, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
			== Please revoke TPA from ] ==
	Whatever the resolution here, it would be useful to have more eyes reviewing Duxwing's contribs, and repairing the widespread damage. I just found one that remained current since Feb. 1 (that is, on a thinly editted article), and reverted it becaused it mangled the meaning and grammar of the lead: . There are lots more needing repair. ] (]) 20:12, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
			{{atop|result=There is no reason for TPA to be removed. I suggest ''talking'' to editors before opening a case on them on ANI. They have had a very bumpy introduction to Misplaced Pages so I left them a message. I doubt they will file an unblock request (and have even more doubt that it would be granted) but let's not try to silence every blocked editor who is frustrated when they find themselves blocked. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 06:25, 27 December 2024 (UTC)}}
			* {{vandal|MarkDiBelloBiographer}}
	I'm cleaning up another I just found, per my detailed explanation at ], where I make the point that each of the 8 sentences he touched was made worse, not better, by his copy edits. If anyone disagrees with any of these points, this would be a good time to say. ] (]) 20:50, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
			Misuse of talk page after being blocked. Still promotion the same person. ] 03:40, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
			: What exactly is the problem? She said that she wants to create a Misplaced Pages page for her friend as a Christmas gift. She got blocked, and now she's complaining that she doesn't understand how Misplaced Pages works. If you don't want to explain how Misplaced Pages works, why not just stop looking at the page? ] (]) 03:52, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
	Actually, not so many. As I scan his edits, it is very hard to find any that have not already been reverted by someone previous to me. You would think this would be a clue ... ] (]) 22:49, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
			::{{quote|I offered to write about him and did for 3 long days as a gift and you guys disbelieved everything, none of which I put was false! It's all on the web, in papers, or other media, or pictures and on his websites}}{{quote| Anyways Mark and I were both fans of and he thinks it's a valuable resource for people I'm just sorry you're so negative and inaccurate about me and him}}I believe this is not the good try after getting block. ] 03:58, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::This person clearly appears to be a good faith editor, they just don’t understand notability requirements. Now they’re blocked and being reported? Nobody could take the time to be kind and explain how this place works? Wow. ] (]) 04:49, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
	:Dick, I have plenty of non-reverted edits:
			::::This ''does'' seem to be, if not a wrong block, one for the wrong reasons - it's certainly not an "Advertising only" account. And absolutely no need for TPA to be revoked, no. - ] <sub>]</sub> 05:02, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
	*{{Diff|diff|587042065}} (actually )
	*{{Diff|diff|587298734}}
	*{{Diff|diff|583931326}}
	*{{Diff|diff|572539972}} (actually )
	*{{Diff|diff|572901276}}
	:If you want more, then I can provide them. Do more research before making a huge allegation like that one. ] (]) 15:30, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
	::Be careful what you brag on. In the first one (including your edit before it that the one you linked was patching), the copy edit that was most obviously needed, to fix number disagreement in the lead sentence, was just worked around to churn other things (the article is so thinly edited that the mistake inserted in 2008 by {{User|Michael Hardy}} had gone unnoticed all these years). And you did several of the "there exists" manglements that you have discussed extensively with another editor. See if you have learned anything: try to fix it yourself before someone just reverts it. Are any of the others net wins? Not clear. ] (]) 17:26, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
	:::Too late, most of them have now been reverted and/or otherwise fixed. Did you make any edits that survived review? ] (]) 04:58, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
	:It would be better if Duxwing would agree to discuss any changes on the talk page *first*. And considering the way he has misinterpreted the lack of consensus for his proposals in the past, going to far as to change the MOS to support his proposals, it would be better if someone else made the changes. Perhaps Duxwing would agree to limit his edits to talk pages. —] (]) 03:31, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
	::I did not change the MOS to support my proposals: you are presuming bad faith not even reading my edits, which changed only the article's form. For how long would I limit my edits to talk pages, and are you essentially seeking my indefinite blocking? ] (]) 15:30, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
	:::This is not true. Duxwing made this edit to ] replacing "The lead should as far as possible be accessible to a general reader, so specialized terminology and symbols should be avoided as much as possible" by "The lead should be accessible to general readers: avoid special terminology and symbols", signficantly changing its meaning on a point directly related to a debate at relating to that very topic, in which Duxwing was arguing for his own wording on the grounds that the article lead was too technical . ] (]) 16:32, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
	::::I blush at that edit when I regard it in retrospect, and I apologize for having accidentally muddied the waters. It was part of a larger one I made because I noticed tons of word cruft in the article, and removed the qualifiers because the article already had a general "common-sense" qualifier in its heading. ] (]) 16:46, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
	:Yes, simply. Duxwing has a good eye for what seems to be expressible in fewer syllables. And thus for example, yes, a passive clause with "by" plus noun phrase can be reexpressed as an active clause. But reexpressing it so doesn't necessarily improve it. English doesn't have passives merely in order to give twits like Strunk and White something to write about; on the contrary, the passive is a handy information packaging device (as are "''it''-clefts" and more besides) and is a good tool for certain expository purposes. People who don't realize this should reserve their BOLDness for areas other than copyediting. -- ] (]) 05:02, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
	::Where can I learn about these subjects? ] (]) 15:30, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
	===Request immediate admin attention===
	Is taking the dispute public off-wiki tolerable within WP policy? If not, I request an admin take appropriate action against Duxwing. ] (]) 05:04, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
	:Not only is it tolerable within our policies for a user to take a dispute off-wiki, half the admins here currently are (or have been) members of sites devoted to "watchdogging" this place. See ]. ] ] 05:15, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
	::And tolerable to tell such vicious lies about a fellow editor? ] (]) 05:31, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
	:From what I understand, only the most egregious offenses on off-wiki forums are actionable here. Like posting your home address and threatening your life. We have no jurisdiction over what people say about us in off-wiki forums. ] ] 05:35, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
	::Thanks. I see ] says
	:::''Misplaced Pages cannot regulate behavior in media not under the control of the Wikimedia Foundation, but personal attacks made elsewhere create doubt about the good faith of an editor's on-wiki actions. Posting personal attacks or defamation off-Misplaced Pages is harmful to the community and to an editor's relationship with it, especially when such attacks take the form of violating an editor's privacy. '''Such attacks can be regarded as aggravating factors by administrators''' and are admissible evidence in the dispute-resolution process, including Arbitration cases.''
	::So, I hope some admin will take this aggravating factor into account and do the right thing here. ] (]) 05:41, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
	:You're requesting "immediate" action here (a block?), for a personal attack that occurred off-wiki. Request denied. The link you provided lays out how off-wiki attacks can be cited as evidence in a future case. ] ] 05:47, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
	::I was requesting immediate attention. Thank you for that. If the right thing is nothing, so be it. ] (]) 06:21, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
	:::Sorry as well if I was terse. The first time I went to Misplaced Pages Review I was shocked how many active admins were there. Cheers :) ] ] 06:27, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
	::::And don't demand justice with Dirty Hands, Dick. You see me like I said I saw you: "Furthermore, Dick, you clearly cannot take responsibility for your actions or understand how others function: "So sorry I dragged you into this AN/I discussion, so you don't have time to discuss anything more useful". You have thus already decided this issue yourself--just like you decided that I needed to be stopped without telling me why--and railroad anyone standing between you and your goal. I, not you, am the obstacle. Duxwing (talk) 23:46, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
	::::Agreed. Dicklyon (talk) 00:02, 12 April 2014 (UTC)" ] (]) 06:46, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
	::::::Minus the chimpanzee and substituting a common username for a real name, WP:DOX states, "The fact that a person either has posted personal information or edits under their own name, making them easily identifiable through online searches, is not an excuse for "opposition research". I want this attempted outing removed. I think I may have accidentally removed a comment. How can I replace it? ] (]) 07:18, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
	:::::::There's no "outing" here. Google "Duxwing Misplaced Pages". And in reading your own quote above, note the "under your own name" part. Lots of editors here edit under their actual names. Even if your name is legally "Duxwing", you have no outing case here. ] ] 07:41, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
	::::::::I agree it was not outing; it was also not me. The off-wiki link was posted up-thread by another editor, but nobody reacted there. ] (]) 15:19, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
	:: Although taking things "off-wiki" in that specific fashion is not against policy, it's indicative that a) Duxwing 100% fails to recognize his own errors, b) Duxwing is under the immature/naïve belief that such an off-wiki post was a "good idea", and c) Duxwing has COMPLETELY missed the point: nobody is "kicking him off Misplaced Pages", and such ridiculous rhetoric is astronomically bad <span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]]</span> 11:18, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
	:::I have recognized several of my errors. I have been adopted, learned (for example) that "like" cannot replace "such as," and am learning what I did not before. ] (])
	::: Oh, and I love this response to Dux's thread there: ''"How can we know he is lying about your competence as an editor if we have no evidence of your competence?"'' <--- this is pure gold, AND is the crux of the matter! <span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]]</span> 11:19, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
	:::: This and ] really does seem to be an ] by Duxwing, wholly against the tide of opinion. Regrettably this whole saga seems to smell of trolls. <span style="background-color:lightblue">'''''&nbsp;]&nbsp;'''''</span><span style="background-color:lightblue">&nbsp;<sup>''] Talk ''</sup>&nbsp;</span> 14:46, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
	:::::I did overreact, and I apologized to Dick. I meant no trolling. 15:37, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
	:::::I posted there because I felt and feel that enough of my objections to Dick's behavior were ignored to necessitate external review of the AN/I discussion. ] (]) 16:13, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
	: Dicklyon, that may not be a recommended practice, but I found it a very good example of the problem with Duxwing. He posted at that forum that his edits were being unfairly reverted at Misplaced Pages. When asked to provide an example or two, his response was, in essense: "Are you saying that I'm lying?" More than ] is involved here: I'd also recommend Duxwing understand & apply ] in dealing with others, both on & off Misplaced Pages. -- ] (]) 19:28, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
	I will take a look at the overall situation in the morning (US ET) and try to bring this thread nearer to a conclusion. ] (]) 06:33, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
	===Analysis and proposal===
	I have carefully reviewed this thread and many of Duxwing's contributions linked in it, as well as some of his other contributions.
	Duxwing appears to lack the skills necessary to add value as a copyeditor, at least of technical articles. Dicklyon is correct that Duxwing's copyedits introduce more errors and infelicities than they remove. The discussions at locations such as ] and ] speak for themselves. Duxwing is unfamiliar with basic usage of terms in mathematics and perhaps science, and his "copyediting" of articles in these areas is counterproductive. Duxwing's lashing out at the several editors who have pointed this out to him does not change the fact.
	Duxwing has done some more acceptable copyediting on less technical articles, typically in situations where he has changed a particular verbose phrase to a less wordy one (e.g. "a large number of" to "many" as was noted above). My impression is that Duxwing's copyediting may be largely based on applying a series of simplifying rules to sentence structures&mdash;the sort of thing that the Wordrake software does for lawyers. But successful copyediting can't merely employ a "find and substitute" model; a good idiomatic ear is needed to test whether the revised, shortened version of a sentence or paragraph communicates the same information as the original and in at least as straightforward a way. Too often in the case of Duxwing's copyedits it does not.
	With regard to Duxwing's raising the dispute off-wiki, it is permissible to discuss a Misplaced Pages-related dispute in another forum, and no one will be sanctioned merely for doing so. However, in his off-wiki post about Dicklyon, Duxwing asks members of another forum for advice on how to get another editor who is a "sociopathic engineer" "perma-site-banned for great justice and vengeance." If I see much more of this sort of thing I will certainly suspect intentional trolling.
	I believe Duxwing should be restricted for some period of time further copyediting efforts, particularly in the fields of mathematics and science. He also needs to refrain from personal attacks who make good-faith criticisms of his edits. ] (]) 16:20, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
	:::As one of the editors who reverted the edit changing "a large number of" to "many", I am going to take issue with the assumption that this is an example of "acceptable copyediting on less technical articles". The context for this edit is human rights, a particularly somber subject, and one that I have edited in a number of times. While a better edit than simply reverting could probably be found after going through the source documents, the edit as done takes no account of syntax and register. At best, it is an unnecessary edit, but in my opinion, the changed wording has less gravitas than the language it replaced, which has the effect of downplaying the importance of the number of nations that have enacted legislation in this area.
	:::I most emphatically do not agree that the purpose of editing is to decrease the number of words used in the text. Maybe on the simple English Misplaced Pages, but not on en.WP. While the text should be written in non-technical language, there is nothing to prevent prose that uses all the nuance and linguistic complexity available to the English language. This is not Orwell's ], and the goal of editing Misplaced Pages is not to render it in some sort of ]. —] (]) 04:51, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
	::Dick refused to engage in BRD and then accused me of not engaging him. I have no complaints about the community's decisions, and I visited AN/I partly to seek one about my editing because I knew that AN/I reviews and passes binding judgments on everyone's behavior--hence the "settling" I mentioned in my first message to Dick, whose post was merely the straw that broke the camel's back of long-term confusion and pent-up frustration. Perhaps telling my story over the long term would help explain why I have acted how I have.
	::I joined Misplaced Pages about two years ago, noticing some bad grammar and correcting it. I eventually signed up and continued lonely copy-editing. Until about February I knew almost nothing about Misplaced Pages's back end, encountering only rare reversions. In February I noticed that many of my edits had been reverted and that many editors were complaining, and I had no idea of what to do about either. Ignorant, I did everything wrong: I let my ego get involved, assumed bad faith, and said a few uncivil things. I meanwhile felt very scared, insulted, and frustrated because I knew almost nothing of Misplaced Pages's conduct policy, and I per Wikipedian policy I told as few people as possible because I eventually became paranoid.
	::A few editors offered help, and I accepted. The help was brief or non-existent. I therefore was paranoid, frustrated, insulted, ignorant, lost, and alone. I figuratively bumbled around in the dark, trying to conclude this fiasco with what I learned was called "consensus" (see the eponymous heading in my Talk) about what my editing problems were and how to solve them. I received few, if any, replies. After visiting the IRC, I regained my courage and resumed editing, starting to enjoy it again with my collaboration of Sex Differences in Human Psychology; when editing alone, I made my best guess about what the editors wanted and tried to apply it.
	::Then came Dick with his harsh talk page message and rapid reversions. I could not stand this months' long uncertainty any longer: I went to AN/I to figure out what Dick was on about and get some closure on what was wrong with my posting, my peers, or my mind because this problem was keeping me up at night and making me shake. I was willing to take this extreme measure because I would feel lost without Misplaced Pages and wanted to improve it either by resolving the dispute or fixing my editing.
	::Figuring out exactly what I must do was foremost among my worries, which learning about and entering User Adoption has alleviated. It has the structure I need to objectively determine my knowledge and skill, and my adopter is kind and often-available. I hope never to encounter problems like this one in the future, and if I do, I hope not to need AN/I again.
	With sincere apologies for my misconduct, which I am only beginning to understand ] (]) 17:50, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
	PS If I am to be restricted from copy-editing, then how will we know when I will be able to resume copy-editing? An indefinite block from editing articles unrelated to my adoption until my competence can be determined would seem more appropriate. ] (]) 17:54, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
	: Duxwing, can you explain what you mean by "he refused to engage in BRD"?? What BRD means is that if you make an edit, and someone reverts it, YOU the originator of the edit are '''required''' to then go to the article talkpage to start a discussion about the proposed edit in order to try and gain ] for it. BRD isn't a policy - it's a guideline on prventing people from edit-warring. It does not mean that he's required to come to your talkpage to discuss it. It does not even mean that ''he'' is required to start a discussion about why he reverted - the onus is on the person who made the first edit <span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]]</span> 18:28, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
	:: I think you mean "... instead of re-reverting, YOU the originator...". Correct? I was complaining that he was already unwilling to Discuss. ] (]) 19:56, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
	::: I think I said exactly what I meant. I ''know'' that you complained that he was unwilling to discuss - but you fail to show a single article takpage where you opened a discussion for '''all editors of that page''' to discuss and come to consensus about your proposed changes. All you said is "he was unwilling to discuss" ... but where did you try: his talkpage? Your talkpage? Someone else's talkpage? Some off-wiki Forum? The washroom where you work? The confessional in your basilica? (Hint: all of those are the wrong place) <span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]]</span> 20:04, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
	. ] (]) 21:34, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
	Still, ] reverted his edits for no good reason, they were completely legit edits...... ] (]) 23:33, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
	: Um, no ... consensus is quite the opposite. "Good faith", yes we think so, "legit", no. <span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]]</span> 23:36, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
	::Indeed, I don't think I ever suggested that the edits were not "legit". Just that wikipedia was improved by reverting them. I don't even claim that I couldn't have done better than reverting them; I could have, but my patience was short already, after reading his reactions on his talk page up to that time. The point that needed to driven home, that he had been rejecting already from others, was that his edits, though legit and done in good faith, were making things worse, not better. Still nobody has disagreed with this assessment, and still Duxwing has not seemed to accept that this is what the community has been telling him, sincerely and with good reason, without doubting his good faith (until recently). ] (]) 23:58, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
	Since Duxwing says he is now in an adoption program, at this point would it be appropriate to hear from the adopter? —] (]) 01:33, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
	:There's no particular need to prejudice his adopter by calling his attention to his mess if he hasn't already looked at it. If he has, maybe he'll advise Duxwing that an actual apology, not accompanied by excuses, but accompanied by an apology at the off-wiki forum as well, might go a long way to showing an intention to do better, and showing that he can take input. ] (]) 03:16, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
	::Apologizing ''at'' the off-wiki forum is certainly not necessary here. Even it that were somehow needed (and I can't imagine why), Duxwing is still unwilling to understand that linking that forum here is not "outing" him to begin with. If you tell an editor to ask ''any admin on the site'' if what you're advising them is incorrect, and they not only don't bother to ask anyone else but ''insist'' they are right, you have issues with competency, IMHO.{{diff|User talk:Duxwing|604250846}} ] ] 07:28, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
	:::Doc, if, (and that is a big If) Duxwing has now understood how wrong his edits were, then he will also have realised how right Dicklyon and many others have been in their often patient comments. He should also conclude that the off-wiki post was totally wrong in so many ways that it would be endlessly boring to list them all. If the off-wiki posts were retracted and apologised for, then that would, at least, give some sense that the penny had dropped. I see no activity in this adoption process other than a single request and one edit, and edits contesting this very process are continuing, even earlier this morning . This is all bluff and bluster but no commitment and no action. Good faith ? - sorry , for Duxwing it's blown out of the window and can only be regained by some real tangible evidence and not weasely apologies. <span style="background-color:lightblue">'''''&nbsp;]&nbsp;'''''</span><span style="background-color:lightblue">&nbsp;<sup>''] Talk ''</sup>&nbsp;</span> 09:14, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
	::It may not even be possible for him to remove his posts from that external site even if he wanted to. He could post some apology over there, but what's the point? Extra humiliation? He thought he was in a "safe zone" where he could say what he wanted without fear of it getting back to him. He was wrong. The next move is his, and it will hopefully be a well-considered one. ] ] 10:18, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
	:::And what would be the point of him leaving his vicious accusations hanging out there, instead of admitting he was in error? ] (]) 21:19, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
	::::Not much and it is wrong but you can't afford to worry too much about what somebody on the web says. If they don't change then they'll just continue as they are and be banned eventually after causing more trouble and that will be the end of them. If the process was a bit faster then less editors would get pissed off in the meantime. ] (]) 22:26, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
	:::Again, it's likely impossible for him to remove his comments ''there'' even if he wanted to. He'd basically have to delete the entire thread, since others commented. I very seriously doubt that the admins over there would allow that to happen, especially for personal attacks of Misplaced Pages editors. The comments are out there for eternity, I'm sorry to say. Apologizing ''here'' for the comments is a different story entirely. ] ] 22:47, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
	::::Look, each party has its own "Problem." Duxwing has been asking for suggestions for punishment outside of Misplaced Pages, and Dicklyon has been uncivil, I think that we should take action on BOTH editors as both have different issues. ] (]) 23:10, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
	::::: Where has Dicklyon been uncivil? Haven't seen that, or seen it proven. Now Dick, you know we cannot control what happens off-wiki. Someone with a sense of remorse might apologize and/or try to remove their posts - but they'd have to recognize that they had done wrong, and it's only a "might" - we cannot force it. Who wants a forced apology anyway. Ignore the off-wiki, ignore Dux until he's had some mentoring, and let's all waddle along! <span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]]</span> 23:14, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
	::::::Do you mean closing the thread as no consensus? Because if that is what you mean, Im all for it! We can just close this and keep an eye on it. Problem solved...... ] (]) 23:20, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
	::::::::Nobody even ''accused'' me of being uncivil. And the consensus here is quite clear. Who is this new IP shill muddying the waters with nonsense? ] (]) 00:45, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
	::::::: Closing as "no consensus" would have no basis in the reality of the discussion. <span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]]</span> 23:40, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
	:::::: I apologize for having caused a ruckus with my angry forum post. ] (]) 23:27, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
	::::::: @dicklyon, I am actually ] on vacation. I am not trying to stir up trouble or murk the waters. ] (]) 01:48, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
	==== Analysis and proposal (arbitrary break) ====
	There are a number of troubling things here. A number of accusations have been made against Dicklyon. None of them turned out to be true. There has be no acknowledgment of that here or on the other site. Duxwing's reaction to reverting his edits, a normal occurrence on Misplaced Pages, was to seek "great justice and vengeance" on an external website. Some kind of restriction is in very much order here, and can be reevaluated after Duxwing completes the adoption program. —] (]) 03:13, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
	:Indeed. This section began with a proposal from {{U|Newyorkbrad}}: ''"Duxwing should be restricted for some period of time (from) further copyediting efforts, particularly in the fields of mathematics and science. He also needs to refrain from personal attacks (on those) who make good-faith criticisms of his edits."'' I'd say that's a good starting point (although I'd prefer "copyediting" - period.), which could be reviewed as the adoption proceeds and Duxwing shows some willingness to go back and fix some of the errors he has introduced, with agreement, and building on his growing understanding during adoption. <span style="font-family:Arial;font-weight:bold;color:#000;">]&thinsp;]</span> 04:55, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
	:Neotarf, are you saying that the restriction should exist because of the "troubling things"? ] (]) 19:15, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
	::More troubling things:
	::*The offsite forum has now moved on to apparent death threats against Dicklyon.
	::*Duxwing does not seem to understand the concerns that other editors have with his edits or his actions.
	::*The adoption process is off to a rocky start. Duxwing has copied the adoption program into his user space, but has gone on to edit the original in his adopter's space, not his own copy. He has also started the program in the middle, skipping the unit on the five pillars. It would be better for Duxwing to finish all the units of the program, and have each exam graded by his adopter.
	::*The edits with math and science are the ones that have introduced the most error, but there are problems with all the edits.
	::If no restrictions are imposed, Dicklyon has said he does not mind checking Duxwing's edits and reverting them. Whoever closes this can decide if that is a good use of Dicklyon's time. —] (]) 00:41, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
	:::WRT to the adoption program, it was originally created in the Article space, not the User space, and it had to be moved. The adoption start was rocky indeed. ] (]) 02:07, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
	::Whoa: hold up. There is no death threat against Dicklyon from Duxwing on that thread. Things that others say there, especially after he seems to have abandoned the thread, have no bearing here. Anyone who has been to one of these forums should know that you are going to meet all sorts of characters there. ] ] 02:34, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
	::::So Duxwing makes false accusations against an editor, does not retract them, and the conversion then turns to "killing", complete with detail about weapon--and Duxwing bears no responsibility for that whatsoever? In fact, he now says it is "humor". Something tells me he has not yet absorbed ] and ], and that he should not have skipped over that part of the adoption program. —] (]) 05:21, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
	:::::Duxwing didn't threaten to kill anyone. Those forums are populated by a great many who hate everything about Misplaced Pages. Many of them use "dark humor" - repulsively dark. There's no death threat, especially from Duxwing. Death threats should be passed along to law enforcement agencies. If you want to report the other editor for what they said on that forum, you can. ] ] 05:35, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
	::::::You might want to review ] for what the ArbCom says about off-wiki threats of violence. Duxwing says it is "humor" that he "enjoys". I myself do not find that it contributes to a collegial editing environment. —] (]) 05:50, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
	:::::For the last time: Duxwing did not threaten off-wiki violence. If he does, we go from there. As to specifics of a weapon, that troll was pretty unimaginative; things like ] are more typical.
	:::::It's quite an interesting idea to hold an editor responsible for comments they ''did not even make'' on off-wiki forums after they have left them. If some troll responds to the thread, I guess "guilt by association" applies to the thread starter? ] ] 06:02, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
	::::::I'm not talking about Duxwing's off-wiki postings, I'm referring to where he says the off-site comments are "humor" and that he "enjoys" them, in effect, using the Misplaced Pages to encourage the comments there. I myself find it difficult to tell the difference between a "humorous", "surreal" threat of violence and a *real* threat of violence. —] (]) 07:02, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
	:::::I hear ya. But these forums exist, there's no rule that says WP editors can't use them ''and'' discuss WP issues, and plenty of administrators even do it. There's no crime in understanding "dark" humor". Death threats are a very serious thing, and should be reported if you feel they are credible. If they aren't, they aren't. ] ] 07:10, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
	:::@Neotarf To allay your worries
	:::*Like Doc said, INTPf has "all sorts of characters," and most of us there enjoy black, surreal humor. Also, if everyone on the forum ignores it, then it will quickly be forgotten and ignored.
	:::*I understand their concerns and have acknowledged them, having posted three apologies (one deleted) and joined adoption school to review my conduct and editing.
	:::*I mistakenly thought I was editing my own copy. I did the Five Pillars Section (with many Civility-related Wiki-walks) which looks skipped only because it lacks a writing section; I can write something for you if you want. {{smilie}} My adopter has said I otherwise am doing fine.
	:::*Yes, hence my seeking adoption! {{smilie}}
	:::*Well, that seems nice of Dick. ] (]) 03:02, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
	To be clear, Duxwing did not make the nastiest comments in that off-wiki site thread. While his initial post to that thread was juvenile and unimpressive, I don't think he could have anticipated that it would turn quite as bad as it did. However, I think Duxwing should promise that he will not post any more to that thread or start any similar one. ] (]) 14:38, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
	===Editing restrictions proposal===
	So, let's put the cards on the table, and use elements from NYB's commentary, which has been repeated more than once:
	''"] is prohibited from making copyedits to math and science articles for period of 6 months. They are further prohibited from making copyedits on all other Misplaced Pages pages for a period of 3 months, '''except''' where the edit has been reviewed and approved by their mentor. The latter restriction may be appealed at any time provided that the appeal has the full support of their mentor. Should the current mentoring relationship end prior to a successful completion, these timeframes will be reset, and a new mentor must be approved by the community via ANI discussion"''
	* '''Support''' as proposer <span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]]</span> 11:21, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
	*'''Support''' if mentor agrees (]). A reminder about no personal attacks would make it easier to revisit this if there were problems in the future. And it's a pity this user freaked out about Dicklyon, who is one of the few editors with the patience to explain stuff. —] (]) 16:25, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
	:<s>'''Comment''': And what about NYB's "They also need to refrain from personal attacks on editors who make good-faith criticisms of their edits." (Not sure if we're ready to assign a gender here yet.) It also seems to me a mentoring relationship is a voluntary relationship between two people and cannot be controlled by the community, but the community can consider a mentor's input to a situation. Are you going to ping the mentor? —] (]) 11:51, 17 April 2014 (UTC)</s>
	*'''Conditional support''' - we certainly need to draw this to a close but it still concerns me that there is still no understanding of the 5 pillars of wisdom and in particular the need for civility. We have had no apologies to editors. Apologies for "things" such as "....apologies for the rukus I caused" but no apology to people at all. <span style="background-color:lightblue">'''''&nbsp;]&nbsp;'''''</span><span style="background-color:lightblue">&nbsp;<sup>''] Talk ''</sup>&nbsp;</span> 13:56, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
	*It's either this or direct Duxwing to stop "copyediting" altogether. ] (]) 14:40, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
	* '''Support''' - I'd like to see something in there about civility and personal attacks too, but that can be enforced just with policy, I guess. And forced apologies are worthless. <span style="font-family:Arial;font-weight:bold;color:#000;">]&thinsp;]</span> 14:47, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
	* '''Support''' – Duxwing's aptitude and attitude have consumed much valuable time from several editors and that cannot be allowed to continue. ] (]) 15:15, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
	* '''Questions''' I have two questions to help me understand the restriction's underlying principles, which might have other applications. How should understanding of the five pillars be demonstrated if this understanding be included in the restriction? Why not simply a site-wide block ended only on mentorial approval? I intend to argue neither point. ] (]) 16:18, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
	:* '''Answer''' - None of the proposed restrictions above prevent you from asking questions or seeking help; to the contrary, this is dependent on you receiving assistance from a mentor. The goal here isn't to hinder your ability to understand Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines, but rather the opposite; to restrain you from making these disruptive mistakes until you develop that understanding. If you continue on the path you've been on and end up blocked then you lose that opportunity and Misplaced Pages loses the opportunity to benefit from your contributions. -- ''']'''] 16:51, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
	:* '''Additional answer''' If your mentor says "I do not believe he has shown me any clear understanding of the 5 pillars", then they won't support loosening restrictions when the time comes. Starting a tutorial in the middle doesn't give one great hope - some things are foundations. You need to walk before you can run ... and in this case, you need to crawl before you walk. In terms of a block right now? Well...we still have hope. Blocks are preventative, and between your ], ], ], and downright ridiculous off-wiki forum post, you're lucky that this isn't a block <span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]]</span> 17:02, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
	:* '''Question''' Ok, how do I show my clear understanding of the 5 pillars? (@Atama, I meant to ask you this question when I said "How should my understanding..." D'Oh! {{smilie}}) ] (]) 21:59, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
	::: It's part of your Mentoring program. You need to show your MENTOR that you not only can copy/paste the answers, but that you show ''understanding''. Pay attention, the question was already answered <span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]]</span> 22:21, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
	:*'''Additional questions''' Oops, we need to get the mentor more involved here. Duxwing, could you maybe have a chat with him? First, I don't see a test for the first chapter at the ]. Is that intentional? If you look at a ], there is a test for every chapter. Another question is that the adoption program as written asks the adoptee to make an edit and then post a link for the mentor to check. The editors here are asking for Duxwing to check with the mentor BEFORE making any edit. Can the adoption course be tweaked for this? Or does the restriction proposal need to be reconsidered? @], could you comment? —] (]) 01:14, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
	*'''Support'''. This proposal seems to strike the right balance. ] (]) 20:49, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
	*'''Support''' The responses at ANI alone show that something is needed. ] (]) 23:59, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
	*'''Support''' as a good way to ensure that Duxwing's edits and behavior are thoroughly checked by an experienced editor. ] (]) 01:24, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
	== ]'s personal attacks and biased editing on ] and other UNIX topics ==
	{{User|Schily}} (]) is the author of ], a collection of tools for interacting with ]. He was {{diff2|next|603154170|recently blocked}} for edit warring, POV editing, and personal attacks by {{user|Bbb23}} after {{oldid2|603873992|User:Schily_reported_by_User:Chire_.28Result:_Schily_blocked.3B_Ekkt0r_warned.29|this AN3 discussion}}. After the conclusion of his block, he returned to ] and made statements I think fall on the wrong side of BLP, such as:
	{{Talkquote|oldid=603576557|by=Schily|ts=10:09, 10 April 2014 (UTC)|text=t seems that you are just missinformed by anti-OSS people like Eduard Bloch In September 2004 Linus Torvalds introduced a fatal Linux kernel SCSI interface incompatibility while claiming to fix a security bug.}}
	{{Talkquote|oldid=603781100|by=Schily|ts=19:00, 11 April 2014 (UTC)|text=Bastardized variants are created by people that have more self-confidence than knowledge The SuSE programmer that discovered how to send file descriptory via sockets in 2001 and believed to be a security expert for this knowledge. : The Debian packetizer Eduard Bloch that discovered how to call make in 2004 and then believed to be a C and SCSI expert with more knowledge than the authors of cdrtools. He managed to add aprox. 100 <b>own</b> bugs within a year and wins a price for the best long term support in preserving bugs over 10 years.}}
	I'm not sure whether these remarks fall far enough outside ] that they need to be struck, but they most certainly seem to be a continuance of the original problematic behaviours for which the editor was originally blocked. I do not believe he is able to contribute to this topic productively. For that matter, {{contribs|Schily|his contributions}} show a history of edit warring and POV-pushing, dating back to (at least) 2010, see ], ], ], and other examples later on the talk page.
	Disclaimer: I am involved in ] as a volunteer developer (and am also involved in the ] distribution). While I am on the into Debian, I do not believe I have interacted with Schilling's software in this capacity. I also made {{diff|-|603802021|603741483|some edits}} to the article to clean it up. ''']<font color="darkgreen">]</font>''' 16:20, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
	:Per policy, BLP applies to talk pages. However, practically speaking, a little more leeway is given editors to say negative things on talk pages than they do in articles (who is Eduard Bloch?). What troubles me most about Schily is his obvious conflict. Some article subjects can simply not edit their own articles without creating problems. However, they can at least offer useful suggestions on the talk pages. Some authors, though, even if they restrict themselves to the talk page, which Schily hasn't done (although he has since his block expired), they are disruptive. I believe that Schily falls into that category. Although I know this isn't a blatant legal threat, another disturbing comment Schily made on the talk page is:
	:<blockquote>Note that soneone who likes to express his doubt on the legallity on the other side needs to present a valid legal reasoning. If he is not able to present such a reasoning, his clains must be seen as no more than libel and slander. This may look unbalanced, but sorry - this are the legal rules from law. A laywer that discloses internals from a client will go into prison for 1-2 years, depending on whether the disclosure was made in order to harm his client or not. A company that asked their lawyers and ships cdrtools verifies that there is no risk. A company that does not ship cdrtools does not verify anything. ()</blockquote>
	:Mentioning libel, slander, and prison all in the same post is inherently problematic. Schily has a total of 581 edits (284 to articles and 244 to article talk pages) since he started editing using this account in 2006. 47 edits have been to cdrtools. 69 have been to the talk page. Most of his other edits have been to related articles, e.g. ]. At a minimum, I would suggest a topic ban for cdrtools and its talk page.--] (]) 18:45, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
	::Regarding the recent block for me: I am not sure why this happened, but the pretended reason (personal attacks) was not true. I did critizise a user because he intentionally added false claims to an article. This was of course not an attack against his person but critics against his behavior. Critizising someone for what he did is something different than attacking him for his person and needed if you notice that this person is intentionally adding false claims.
	::I am not sure what you like to achive overall, but maybe you can help me to improve the cdrtools article. The article is currently full of personal attacks (false claims about me) and attacks against the cdrtools project. The people that added the attacks and unbalanced or false claims mostly have a direct connection to Debian - note that Eduard Bloch from Debian started attacks against the cdrtools project in 2004 after he has been unhappy that a patch from him against cdrtools was rejected by me because it had only bugs and no usable benefits to the project. His modifying activity on the copy of the cdrtools sources at Debian resulted in aprox. 100 Bug reports in the debian bug tracking system. The problem with the unbalanced claims in the article is that they are usually tagged with pointers to quotes that do not prove the claims, but they may look as if they did on the first view. The most problematic editor in this context was ]. Without his edits, I am sure that the other editors could agree on something that is fact based. ] seems to be on a crusade against cdrtools since 2010 as he shows similar activity against the cdrtools project at different places. In discussions, he repeats his claims many times even after his claims have been proven false. I am not sure how this is in the US, but in Germany you can get sued if you publish claims you cannot prove against a person. Please note that ] who started this thread recently started to edit the cdrtools article and introduced unbalanced claims and modified text so that the new text is less balanced than it has been before.
	::If you don't care about the correctness of Wikpedia articles or if you like to allow people to use wikipedia as a platform for propaganda against OSS projects like cdrtools, it may be the best if I stop trying to help wikipedia. If you however care about what is in the articles, I like to get help and advise on how to deal with people that are poison to discussions and advise on how to get to balanced articles even if there are editors that try to prevent balanced articles.
	::Are you interested in balanced articles and can you help me to achieve this? ] (]) 23:33, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
	:::Again, you come very close to a legal threat (Germany and lawsuits), and you attack two editors. Given your attitude and approach, your idea of no longer editing at Misplaced Pages is a good one. It will certain save us the effort of having to block and/or ban you.--] (]) 00:47, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
	:::::Please try to understand what really happed, you then will see that I am the victim and not the attacker. ] (]) 11:50, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
	::::"I will sue you!" is a legal threat. Saying "lawyer" threes time is not. <small>]</small> 02:06, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
	:::::Ah, NE Ent, wikilawyering about legal threats. How appropriate. I never said Schily made legal theats. I said he came close, and he did. How many lawyers does it take to initiate a lawsuit? None.--] (]) 15:36, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
	::::::It seems that you missinterpret the text. I did never say "I will sue you". I did however explain why a lawyer is not allowed to say anything about a specific case because Chire in former times wanted to have detailed information about three legal advises from three independend group of lawyers that happened in the past and that caused Sun, Oracle and SuSE to publish cdrtools. This proves that there are a lot of false claims in the licensing section of the cdrtools article - if the claims in that section would be correct, no distribution could risk to ship cdrtools. ] (]) 11:50, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
	:::::::I can attest that Schily is right about this point. The paragraph at hand was not a call to involve lawyers in the edit process, but an explanation of why Schily thought the section described was inaccurate and its sources unreliable - he was describing the references, not the edits. IMO his interpretation is wrong, but its intention with the paragraph that Bbb23 has copied above was in no way close to making legal threats against Misplaced Pages editors. ] (]) 12:40, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
	:::Saying "an editor inserted false information" is a comment about their behavior. Saying "an editor ''intentionally'' inserted false information" is a personal attack. See the difference? We do want, as best we can, correct information in the encyclopedia. Because we're amateurs, the way we try to do this is respectfully and collaboratively work with others to find ] to determine what to put im. Disparaging others doesn't work well in the long term, so you'll get blocked again if you keep that up. <small>]</small> 02:06, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
	::::How would you call it if someone inserted false information and after he has been proven to be false, repeatedly inserts the same false information again and again? BTW: you may like to look a bit down and will see again false claims against me, I did give away cdrecord-ProDVD for free (when it was closed source because of an NDA) and I made cdrecord-ProDVD OpenSource after that NDA did no longer apply.
	::::But the question still stands: how do we get the false claims and unbalanced wordings out off the cdrtools article when a group of people is adding more and more of them? How can we deal with unrelaiable sources that are used by this group of people, when you need to dig to verify that these sorces are just copies from one initial false source? ] (]) 11:50, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
	:::::{{u|Schily}}, I have pointed out repeatedly how you could get to balance the article, but you're not listening. It is of no use that you go on describing in the talk page why you think the claim should be removed; any information that you write at Misplaced Pages itself is useless for the article because of the ] rule. If you think some claim in the article is false or inaccurate, you need to give us a URL to an external site that explains how the claim is wrong.
	:::::If the URL points to a reliable source, this can have two different effects on the article, depending on the claim. It can show that the source used to support the first claim is not reliable, in which case we would remove it. Or it can show that there are two different and opposing views on what happened, in which case we would describe both, as a counter-balance for the original claim. There's no guarantee that all the claims that you think are false will be removed, sorry; Misplaced Pages simply isn't written that way. But you could use your knowledge about the history of the cdrtools project to points us toward places that document it, and that we could use to improve the article. ] (]) 12:53, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
	:::], your habit of personally attacking people, often for things they may or may not have done 10+ years ago is really a bad trait. You should stop this, in particular on Misplaced Pages. Also your notion of "fact" and "neutral" diverges from Wikipedias, unfortunately. Misplaced Pages tries to document reliable sources; you try to insert your personal opinion (and call this "balanced").
	:::I tried to research the whole quarrel, to find some reliable sources. None of them are worth citing in an encyclopedia, though. What I could find is actually ''E. B. openly defending'' you: "he is still the upstream and author of good software products. And he wrote code for Unix systems when some of us were in kindergarten." as well as "Pissing of the upstream by making changes without telling him is not a good way go to." . '''Stop making personal attacks.''' Your behaviour is really inappropriate. --] (]) 07:53, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
	The root of the problem is that the article isn't adequately sourced. I see only two RS, which don't mention cdrtools at all but talk about OSS licensing in general. The rest are primary sources and a few blogs/user created content sites. Almost all of this is about the internal controversy and doesn't even firmly establish the notability of the software. A lot of excessive detail about a software that is becomming increasingly obsolete (what is a CD-ROM? :) This isn't encyclopedic at all, but a playground for internal quarrels. ] (]) 12:06, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
	*Schily has gone back to editing the article with this . Note the reference he provided: "Cdrskin does not support UDF and thus cannot edit hybrid images that include an UDF filesystem". I had no idea we could reference material in that way. I again '''support a ban''', at least an article ban, but preferably a ban that includes other related articles.--] (]) 01:13, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
	:Could you please explain why you believe that it is OK when Tzafrir adds unbalanded text but it is not OK when Schily tries to correct the text to be more balanced by adding a 100% correct statement?
	:Could you please explain why it seems to be bad to name persons with their real name in WP but LFaraone does not get a warning when this user adds a real name in his text? ] (]) 10:37, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
	::Hi ], the {{Diff|cdrtools|prev|604178583|latest edit}} from ] just corrects a tiny partially false claim (see the end of {{Diff|cdrtools|prev|604177682|this diff}}). Schily's edit was the first one since his recent 72h block, and there has not been any official ban for him. Schily has already started with a more collaborative approach, as most of his recent edits are now on the Talk page. I'm sure ] would agree with an unofficial-only article ban for Schily, which would mean that any controversal edit from him, once reported, would turn the unofficial article ban into an official article ban. In other words, I don't think it would be fair to decide an article ban because of an non-controversal edit. Thanks. ] (]) 12:14, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
	* Can someone explain to me something? If Schily is the actual ''author'' of the software tools, why in <insert deity>'s name is he editing the article ''about'' those tools? This is the perfect example of why ] editing is bad, very bad. As the author of the tools, he has an obvious deep personal and professional desire to see both him and the tools protrayed in the best light possible. As such, by nature, he will take great personal offence to anything that appears negative of contrary. The results of the addition of negative/contrary material - as required to maintain an overall ] are being met with personal attacks and anger. Where the hell are '''basic ethics''' from this editor? Schily needs to a) stop editing ANY article where he has ''direct'' COI (even the talkpages, considering their abusive behaviour), and b) not edit any ''related'' articles or the articles on ''similar or competing products''. Hell, he shouldn't even '''read''' the articles. So, I suppose this means I '''support some extensive topic ban''' <span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]]</span> 11:33, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
	::*I agree with you, {{U|EatsShootsAndLeaves}}. Frankly, I wish the rule against editing when you have a conflict were more restrictive than it is. That said and in response to others who seem to see nothing wrong with his edits because he's the only one who knows everything, there's nothing to prevent him from suggesting ''all'' of his changes on the article talk page. I might also add that material here must be noteworthy and reliably sourced. If Schily knows something that either only he knows or can only be sourced to him, it probably isn't noteworthy and it certainly doesn't comply with policy.--] (]) 23:30, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
	:::*If you like to solve a problem, you need to find a solution for the cause of the problem. It does not help to have a discussion about results. Currently, the edits with the highest conflict potential are from ]. If this person would stop adding text with a high conflict potential directly to the article and if other people that have a COI would ask on the talk page first, things could be much easier. I have no problem to step away (in fact I did for more than a year already) if there would be no false claims in the article. Unfortunately, we currently have a lot of unaceptable text in the article already, so it does not help to decide on rules for the future only. ] (]) 09:51, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
	::::: Here's the problem Schily, where do these "false claims" come from? Are they "false claims" that have been reported in mainstream press or appropriate publications? If yes, then your beef if NOT with Misplaced Pages and its editors, it's with whatever press sources made those reports. So, because they meet the ] test, AND ] is that they remain in the article, then guess what...'''they remain in the article'''. If you don't like it, don't get pissed off and attack Misplaced Pages editors for following the process. Honestly, when it comes to a reliable source ''vs'' ], the RS is always going to win on Misplaced Pages. Adding sourced information to an article '''is not a personal attack on you''', so you have '''no authority''' to attack the people who add it. Are there unflattering news articles about you? Yup. Live with it (and based on your behaviour on Misplaced Pages at times, I wouldn't be surprised that such articles exist) or get it fixed ''at the source''. <span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]]</span> 10:48, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
	::::::*I have no problems with false claims that are tagged as false claims as this helps readers to understand the background. I do have a problem if someone adds a false claim, tags it with an unreliable source and tries to cause the impression this is a correct claim. Misplaced Pages is not a platform to support various people to publish their personal opinion. AFAIR, wikipedia intends to be something like an encyclopedia, so let us try to make sure this goal can be achieved. ] (]) 13:26, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
	::::::There is plenty media coverage i.e. reliable sources on licensing ''doubts'' for cdrecord. For examples the ] articles ; as well as the fedora-legal mailing list , which says: "The CDDL has been reviewed by multiple organizations, including the FSF and Red Hat Legal, and they agree in the assessment that dependent combinations of CDDL and GPL code result in an incompatible work." For us at Misplaced Pages, we have sufficient '''reliable sources''' that this is the ''official reason'' (it does ot need be true) why the major Linux distributions do not ship cdrtools. ''Stopping'' to ship a software does too proof that these organization have ''doubt'' on the licensing situation. Misplaced Pages, we only document that this opinion ''exists''. Unfortunately, this is a point that Schily still refuses to accept: we make statements about notable ''statements'' -what people ''say'', not what is "true". When necessary, we write who says so, but often we just link the sources. Because '''there is no true'''. Also mathematics is making only assumptions (axioms), we do not know anything, but only believe math is correct for reality. For wikipedia, there is no "true" or "false": There are only statements not supported by reliable sources. There can be reliable sources that show ''someone believes something is true, or believes it is false''. Schily, please provide reliable sources, not unsourced footnotes and insults. (Speaking of insults, here is a subtle one by Linus Torvalds himself: "Involving Joerg in it just makes you go crazy. Don't bother." ) --] (]) 22:19, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
	::I would like that Schily helped in crafting an accurate history of the cdrtools project, which played a significant part in the ability to play DVDs on open source OSs; he may be the only person with a comprehensive knowledge of the various disagreements and forks the software suffered during its life. ] is not a ban on editing articles by involved editors, it's a ban on ''problematic'' edits - of which I agree Schily has plenty. I have warned Schily that I will denounce any edit he makes to the article to the COI noticeboard, but I would still like to see him collaborating, provided we can make him understand that he must ] and that any edit he disagrees with is not a personal attack. ] (]) 13:36, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
	::: Such an history is outside of the scope of Misplaced Pages - detailed cdrtools history is probably not that relevant, is it? It would give undue weight to document this in detail on Misplaced Pages. IMHO, the article should only cover enough to explain why cdrtools is still not present in many distributions. But ] could publish his opinion on the cdrecord homepage, and we could easily reference it as a primary source for those readers interested in his view. This would be a clean way to avoid ] as well as ]. From a Misplaced Pages point of view, a balanced view is just mentioning all stakeholders, and referencing them; not deciding who is right or wrong. --] (]) 16:37, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
	:::: If it turns out that the boycott of cdrtools by Debian was decided for bad reasons, then the story of the conflict will not be a "detail" at all; it will need to be '''in''' the article (with references to reliable sources, of course). ] (]) 06:28, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
	::Since May 2004, a group of Debian related people is attacking cdrtools. If you check recent edits, you will notice that many of the recent edits have been done by people with a Debian background. These people have a real conflict of interest and several of the edits from these people have been made in order to harm the cdrtools project. Other edits could be at least seen as unbalanced. If these unbalanced or false claims would not happen, there was of course no need for me to correct them. So why are these people with Debian background continuing to add false or unbalanced claims to the article? Please note that I was the first to make the proposal to remove all the tainted text and to start from scratch on the talk page. I even made more than one proposal for a starter text. Unfortunately, the Debian related people with a conflict of interest continue to add new text that was not previously agreed on at the talk page. My question still stands: how to we achieve to get an unbiased article while there are several people with a conflict of interest that constantly add false or biased claims? ] (]) 14:04, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
	:::]. - ] <sub><font color="maroon">]</font></sub> 21:04, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
	::::Sorry, but I cannot see how this reply could be an answer on my question. ] (]) 09:53, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
	:* Oh fuck off with the proclamations. Every time I come here, either you or Bbb23 (or both, as it happens) will be making things worse. If putting people in their place is what you like to do, why don't you do it in the workplace or something? — ] 11:43, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
	As 80.132.79.144 correctly pointed out, the root cause of the issue is the sourcing / notability of the article itself is very thin -- the subject matter is a component of an ] and we don't have articles on every ] etc. I'm neither an inclusionist nor a deletionist (I'm a dontcareist), but the lack of significant secondary sources mean that third party editors are unlikely to be able to help resolve the disputes at hand based on sourcing. So my thought is the author(s) of the article learn to work cooperatively or we simply delete the article (through the ] process, of course). <small>]</small> 10:45, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
	== Repeated personal attacks and reverting of edits without addressing in Talk to gain consensus ==
	Coretheapple has made repeated personal attacks and denigrating comments against me and my responses throughout ], while making changes to ] that are in contradiction to previous Talk discussions.
	It was agreed at ] & ] that details of Zimmer allegations would be included in ]. This was agreed to even though it was acknowledged that the two separate scandals would be investigated by the same state and federal authorities, and other organizations.
	It was just addressed again in ] in which Coretheapple raised the issue of whether details of Zimmer allegations should be added. I reminded everyone that Zimmer allegations should be contained within the other article. Coretheapple made no further comments about a statement for inclusion in the Fort Lee article that reached consensus between JackGavin and myself with no reference to Zimmer and a link to the "Governorship of Chris Christie" section.
	Instead, Coretheapple went into the Fort Lee article and started adding detail about Zimmer allegations.
	I opened up ] to address content based on Coretheapple's addition of details about Zimmer allegations.
	Coretheapple responded with the same points they made in a variety of Talk discussions that did not accept those arguments. I addressed each and every point that Coretheapple made about adding more content about Zimmer allegations and explained why they were not needed and that it contradicted consensus reached in past Talk discussions. Coretheapple began to make personal attacks and denigrating comments against me and my responses.
	Coretheapple's latest personal attacks and denigrating comments against me in their Talk discussions included their entries of "wall-o-text", "rantings", "insane", "utterly beside the point", "wikilawyering", "boldface ranting" and "hooting and hollering", as well as "blah blah/ comment" and "blah blah/reply" in their History of edit comments.
	I repeatedly requested Coretheapple in that Talk discussion and my recent History edit comments, (i.e. and ) to address their arguments in Talk about content additions for details about Zimmer allegations. Instead, Coertheapple either ignored my Talk requests and History edit comments or made more personal attacks on the Talk discussion page, and then continued to add details about Zimmer allegations (see and ).
	Instead of complying with my requests to address content, Coretheapple has continued with personal attacks on the Fort Lee Talk discussions and History edit comments in the Fort Lee article.
	As clearly shown in ], Coretheapple is in violation of ], ], ], ], ], and ], as they did not reach any consensus and ignored and contradicted consensus reached in past discussions in ], ], and ] that I previously cited above.
	I have tried to work with Coretheapple in accordance with ] and ] based on Coretheapple's bold additions for additional Zimmer details.
	Based on evidence of Coretheapple's unacceptable and disruptive edits in contradiction to consensus reached at past Talk discussions and their objectionable personal attacks and denigrating comments against me and my responses or edits, I ask that Coretheapple be temporarily blocked since I have made every effort to try and work with Coretheapple based on content issues. Hopefully, Coretheapple will learn their lesson and work with me in the future. ] (]) 16:41, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
	* Just for the record, I have found Wondering55 to be one of the most difficult people when it comes to a) working with others and b) taking advice. Astronomically difficult. As an admin, I've just had shake my head and say "WTF" quietly to myself many times <span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]]</span> 17:08, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
	::For the record, rather than address the facts that I present for this particular case, ]] has mis-characterized my past efforts and clearly good faith efforts for this particular case, and continues to make negative assumptions about me in contradiction to ]. When a Misplaced Pages administrator has to refer to another person's good faith efforts, as demonstrated in this specific case, as "WTF", rather than address the specific facts and actions by another editor with clear evidence of personal attacks against me and my comments that appears to violate multiple Misplaced Pages guidelines that I presented, there is something seriously wrong. ] (]) 17:43, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
	::: Ohhh, you're right ... something is seriously wrong. Remember, when you file at ANI, your own behaviour will come under the microscope as well <span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]]</span> 18:33, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
	::::I welcome review of my behavior for this particular instance and these particular facts. To try and confuse the issues with a debate on other past issues would be disingenuous and very time consuming. So far, I have not seen any constructive, neutral points of view about the facts of this particular situation. ] (]) 19:23, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
	:::::Based on my Talk comment of "Let's be reasonable" and my subsequent editing to give Corethapple practically all of their requested revisions with only one brief mention of Zimmer's name, Coretheapple goes in and adds more details about the allegations and puts back Zimmer comments about the investigation into her allegations, none of which were agreed to in the Talk.
	:::::Coretheapple's changes below were removed since they were not made in accordance with ], as clearly shown in the Talk discussion. Coretheapple was requested to go back to Talk to address these issues based on .
	:::::; ;
	:::::Coretheapple ignored this request and put back details below into the article.
	:::::;
	:::::When those changes were reverted by me with another request to go Talk, Coretheapple simply reverted the changes and claimed that their revert details "are explained on the talk page" without indicating that the explanations, which were contrary to all past Talk discussions in several Talk topics, were not accepted on the Talk page.
	:::::
	:::::In essence, Coretheapple reverted previously agreed to modifications three times within a day's time without addressing or gaining any consensus, as requested in my History edit comments and Talk. This does not even include Coretheapple's other previous edits regarding the addition of details about Zimmer allegations that were not in accordance with past Talk discussions with other editors and ]. ] (]) 20:53, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
	:::::: Just from an uninvolved editor's perspective, not many people will want read through all this text and weigh the merits of your complaint. Can you boil it down to two paragraphs and 3 diffs that best illustrate the point you are making? I'm only saying this because I assume you want editors to respond to your posting here and you're demanding a lot of attention from them. <font face="Rage Italic" size="4" color="#800080">]</font> <sup><font face="Times New Roman" color="#006400">] ]</font></sup> 23:49, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
	{{od}} In ], Coretheapple's repeated personal attacks and denigrating comments against me and my responses culminated in their final inaccurate and denigrating insults of "wall-o-text", "rantings", "insane discussions", "you slapped", "utterly beside the point", "wikilawyering", "boldface ranting" and "hooting and hollering", as well as "blah blah/ comment" and "blah blah/reply" in their History of Talk edit comments, as shown below.
	](April 12 13:34 - 14:09)
	Those comments were made in response to my previous Talk discussion where I indicated "Let's be reasonable" on April 9 that was followed by my April 12 response below, which included "In a spirit of cooperation, I updated article to show the statement below, which incorporates all of Corethepple's revisions with a brief mention of Zimmer."
	April 12 4:01)
	Other examples:
	(My April 9 15:36 response to previous personal attack about my comments as "insane" and "blah/blah reply")
	(My April 9 16:54 response to previous personal attack of my comments as "blah/blah fix")
	I had repeatedly stated in that Talk that further details, which were removed, about Zimmer belong in ] as per consensus in past Talk discussions:
	* ] General consensus shown between February 12 and February 21, 2014
	* ] '''{ See (February 16 00:08) }
	* ] '''{ Starting at line 514 in (April 7 15:28 to 17:06) }''' Coretheapple was told by JackGavin and me that details about Zimmer allegations belong in ]. Coretheapple made no objections.
	Coretheapple continued to make changes to the article in contradiction to those Talk discussions.
	Coretheapple's changes for adding more Zimmer details were reverted in accordance with Bold Revert and Discuss with a request to address their proposal in Talk to see if they could gain any consensus for adding details. Instead, Coretheapple simply reverted these changes on three separate occasions within a days time between April 11 & 12 (if needed, see my previous response at 20:53, 12 April 2014 for diff examples) and put back all of the Zimmer details without any further Talk discussion.
	I responded in Talk that Coretheapple's actions were in contradiction to Misplaced Pages guidelines for ], ], and ] and that Coretheapple's final retort contained so many personal attacks against me and my comments. They violated ], ] and ].
	The changes made by Coretheapple for adding details about Zimmer allegations in contradiction to past Talk discussion and no consensus for including them based on the latest Talk should be revised.
	I ask that Coretheapple be temporarily blocked since I have made every effort to try and work with Coretheapple based on content issues rather than any personal attacks or denigrating comments like Coretheapple has made. Hopefully, Coretheapple will learn their lesson and work with me in the future. ] (]) 06:38, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
	: Well done. Asked to "boil it down to 2 paragraphs and 3 diff's" and we get a ]. Helpful indeed, and indicative of behaviour so far <span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]]</span> 10:18, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
	::More denigrating comments and personal attacks by ]] rather than focusing on the facts. ]] continues to question my good faith efforts and behavior in contradiction to ] and ]. For some reason, ]] has a very biased view of me. That is not right, particular by a Misplaced Pages administrator.
	::It should be clearly seen that my updated presentation makes it much easier to focus on the facts. ]]'s unnecessary claims of ] is clearly contradicted by that guideline that addresses "overly long unformatted statements". My clearly outlined and focused presentation with very short paragraphs is in accordance with the guideline's recommendation to "distill one's thoughts into bite size pieces."
	::'''As per the very constructive request, the first 2 paragraphs clearly highlighted the overwhelming amount of personal attacks and denigrating comments by Coretheapple and my efforts for conciliation and compromise that were rejected by Coretheapple, along with 4 diffs that clearly support my position. That is all the administrators need to focus on regarding my request to block Coretheapple based on their personal attacks.'''
	::As requested, I provided the diff's for 3 long past Talk discussions, so that administrators could quickly see past consensus that contradicted Coretheapple's proposal to add details about Zimmer's allegations into ] rather than include those details in ]. Coretheapple was previously requested to comply with this consensus in one of these referenced Talk discussions, without any objections by Coretheapple.
	::I also referenced 3 Fort Lee article diffs to show how Coretheapple repeatedly added details about Zimmer allegations without discussing or gaining consensus in Talk in violation of ], ], and ].
	::The facts are clear and my updated presentation focuses on the key information with very clear diffs that should make it much easier for a constructive and fair review by Misplaced Pages administrators.
	::While not as blatant, Coretheapple is continuing to make condescending remarks about my behavior and editing, rather than neutral constructive comments. ] (]) 15:51, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
	*The above Mt. Everest of text concerns approx. 15 words in the article, and my efforts to lure this editor into a discussion of the merits have been met by the kind of tactics that we see here. Wondering55 is especially emotive on this because he was blocked for edit warring based on a complaint I brought a few days ago, during the course of which his access to his own talk page was blocked. I am almost literally out the door for a few days and cannot respond further, but I am sure that Wondering55 will have plenty more to say on the "consensus" that did not exist and the terrible "personal attacks" to which I have subjected him, most recently concerning some comments concerning overuse of the word "indicate" in the article which didn't involve him at all and were not directed to him or any editor. I am not the first editor who has had this kind of encounter with Wondering55, and I am sure that I won't be the last. ] (]) 16:37, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
	::Once again, rather than focus on the facts of this particular situation, Coretheapple continues with their inaccurate denigrating comments of "Mt. Everest of text", my supposed "tactics", which incorrectly implies bad faith on my part, and "especially emotive", and brings up totally unrelated incidents to this particular situation, which stands on its own merits. The diffs for the 3 past Talk discussions that I provided clearly show the "consensus" of editors that Coretheapple has repeatedly ignored. Coretheapple's personal attacks are very clear in the first diff that I provided in my updated presentation (06:38, 13 April 2014). I am not even sure why Coretheapple even raised the issue of the overuse of the word "indicated" in the article since I '''never''' thought or indicated anywhere in this Talk or the Fort Lee article Talk that Coretheapple's comments were personally directed at me. I have not brought up any other past questionable behavior by Coretheapple since I wanted to focus on the clear facts of this situation where Coretheapple has made personal attacks and inaccurate/inappropriate denigrating comments against me and my editing.
	::There have been close to 200 editors in the Fort Lee article. Coretheapple has been the only editor to continually ask for additional details about Zimmer's allegations about Hurricane Sandy relief for Hoboken that is separate from the Fort Lee lane closure scandal. All other editors agreed that those details, with a link to that other article, belong in ], along with many other scandals that have been publicized as people have looked into other aspects of the Christie administration. ] (]) 18:20, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
	:::It should also be noted that Coretheapple had added around '''55 words (fifty-five)''' about Zimmer and her allegations in the article in their past edits in contradiction to consensus and Talk discussions. Coretheapple's final edit has added '''41 words''' to the article. All other editors were satisfied with no additional words about Zimmer and her allegations beyond a link to ]. ] (]) 20:48, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
	*Hmmm. Am I the only one thinking that the WMF server and bandwidth bill doesn't need this user? <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 7:03 pm, Today (UTC−4)
	**No, Guy, I'm another. Of course the most precious commodity the user is squandering isn't server space but the attention and energy of other volunteers. ] &#124; ] 07:12, 14 April 2014 (UTC).
	:::: My updated request at 06:38, 13 April 2014 has 440 words, not including links to the diffs or Talk pages. It is in line with requests below that were answered without discussions about their length.
	::::Disruption and malicious editing – 502 words
	::::Brews_ohare, Snowded and others – 490 words
	::::Disruption and malicious editing – 401 words
	::::User:Ohconfucius – 781 words
	::::First 2 paragraphs, which only have '''160 words''', highlighted personal attacks and denigrating comments by Coretheapple and my efforts for conciliation and compromise that were rejected by Coretheapple, along with 4 diffs that support my position. That is not time consuming in order to focus on my request to block Coretheapple based on their attacks and comments.
	::::Remainder of request addresses Coretheapple's violations of ], ], and ] that led to these attacks and denigrating comments, instead of focusing on content, as I requested. I suggested that Coretheapple's edits, which added between 41 to 55 words to the Fort Lee scandal article should be undone since there was no consensus and their revisions contradicted agreements and consensus in 3 past Talk discussions in which there were to be '''no''' words about these allegations, beyond a link to ].
	::::I would appreciate the courtesy of a review based on the facts that I have presented in my request at 06:38, 13 April 2014 that is within the length of other requests that were addressed. Thanks for your consideration. ] (]) 18:30, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
	As an uninvolved Admin, I took a look not only at the section of the ] indicated, but at a random selection of other edits on the article page, & exchanges on the talk page. I could find no explicitly stated "consensus" there. My opinion, however, is that Wondering55 '''does''' respond to comments by others with impenetrable slabs of text. Stating an obvious fact is not a personal attack; truth is always a defense against libel. I also would like to point out Coretheapple's last response to Wondering55 included the passage: "If you want to engage in a discussion of the merits of adding 15 words to the text I'll talk about it with you. But if it's more personal attacks on me, more wall-o-text wikilawyering and boldface ranting and hooting and hollering, then I'm not going to waste my time." I interpret these sentences to mean Coretheapple is about to stop editing the article entirely. Seeing how that user made only 3 edits after that, I think I'm right about that.
	And even if Coretheapple was rude, then gave up editing the article? What more does Wondering55 want done? I'm thinking the best solution here instead might focus on Wondering55. -- ] (]) 20:14, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
	:Coretheapple has not given up on editing the article.
	:I want to know if Coretheapple can be blocked for personal attacks and denigrating comments (like those quoted and shown in the diffs below) that are simply opinions, and not facts, in the one cited Fort Lee discussion. I continually asked Coretheapple to focus on content without this derogatory language, and yet Coretheapple persisted. Coretheapple even edited one of their saved responses, which already had derogatory language, just to add more derogatory language. If Coretheapple cannot be blocked, will this type of language and behavior be allowed, or are there other alternatives to prevent or address this situation? Misplaced Pages and professional environments frown on denigrating opinions among colleagues.
	:* "wall-o-text rantings", "insane discussions", "you slapped at the top of this insane discussion", "wikilawyering", "boldface ranting", "hooting and hollering", and "this discussion is insane, and that's a statement of fact, not a personal attack", as well as "blah/blah/fix", "blah blah/comment", and "blah blah/reply" in their Talk History edit comments when responding to me.
	:* ] (April 12 diff with multiple revisions by Corethepaple with the most significant derogatory comments)
	:* (My April 9 15:36 response to Coretheapple's derogatory comments)
	:* (My April 9 16:54 response to Coretheapple's derogatory comments)
	:This situation occurred while I addressed content and suggested that a significant portion of Coretheapple's revisions could be included. I used words like "compromise", "let's be reasonable", and "in a spirit of cooperation" to try and work with Coretheapple. When Coretheapple could not gain consensus for their entire proposal, Coretheapple started with their derogatory comments and repeatedly added details (with up to 55 extra words in various revisions, and ending up with 41 extra words in final revision) about Zimmer allegations about Hoboken issues to the Fort Lee article rather than just refer readers to ], in contradiction to past agreements among editors (as shown below) for the Fort Lee article.
	:* ] General consensus shown between February 12 and February 21, 2014
	:* (February 16 diff)
	:* Starting at line 514 in (April 7 diff) Coretheapple was told by JackGavin and me that details about Zimmer allegations belong in ]. Coretheapple made no objections. ] (]) 23:17, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
	Yikes! Mudslinging galore! Too many Wall-o-Text accusations and Attacks... Lets tone this down please. ] (]) 05:12, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
	Reading through the links that he provides, I come away with the conclusion that A) Wondering55 does not understand how article forks work; B) He does not understand the meaning of consensus, C) He does not understand ], and D) He just doesn't get that "wall of text" is both accurate and apt in describing his tactics. I know Coretheapple from other articles, not this one, and have always found him to be civil, and he shows no evidence of being anything but in this instance. I agree with other editors that the issue here is Wondering55 and his aggressive, attacking, generally clueless and ] behavior. ] <small>(] • ])</small> 13:59, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
	:I simply pointed out denigrating comments made by Coretheapple based on the facts. There are no personal attacks by me. Coretheapple's personal attacks in the referenced talk discussion and in their response above are covered by ]:
	::* "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence. Evidence often takes the form of diffs and links presented on wiki. Criticisms of, or references to, personal behavior in an inappropriate context, like on a policy or article talk page, or in an edit summary, rather than on a user page or conflict resolution page. '''Remember: Comment on content, not on the contributor.'''"
	:Consensus and agreements were clear in the cited Talk diffs above. Previous editors, except for Coretheapple who was told by more than one editor, knew that it was agreed that details about Zimmer allegations would be shown in ].
	:Coretheapple was unable to get anyone to support their proposal to add details about Zimmer allegations into the Fort Lee article, so there was no consensus for their proposal. Yet, Corethapple went ahead and added these details in contradiction to Bold Revert and Discuss.
	:There is no evidence or facts in the cited Fort Lee discussion that I had the claimed wall-o-text based on Wikiepedia's ].
	:There is no evidence or facts to support that there was any "agressive, attacking, or generally clueless ] behavior", which are clearly denigrating comments without any substance.
	:When I used words like "compromise", "let's be reasonable", and "in a spirit of cooperation" to try and work with Coretheapple, it clearly contradicts those baseless charges.
	:Clearly, some people do not understand what it means to be civil, when shown comments about me and my responses that included "wall-o-text rantings", "insane discussions", "you slapped at the top of this insane discussion", "wikilawyering", "boldface ranting", "hooting and hollering", and "this discussion is insane, and that's a statement of fact, not a personal attack", as well as "blah/blah/fix", "blah blah/comment", and "blah blah/reply"
	:Whether Coretheapple was civil in any other Talk discussions, has absolutely no bearing on the presented facts for the cited Fort Lee talk discussion where they were not civil. ] (]) 16:34, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
	::Apparently you are not happy with the responses you have received here, and have commenced a discussion on the same issues at the Teahouse. You were , which you deny doing. You were also advised to "take to heart the excellent advice that a wide range of experienced editors have offered you in recent days," to which you responded in the negative. Would you like to continue the discussion here, or would you like to pursue it there, or is it your intent to discuss your grievances simultaneously in this forum and at the Teahouse? ] <small>(] • ])</small> 17:04, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
	::: Figureofnine, you are being very kind to Wondering55. A less kind person -- like me -- would at this point make the following points: (1) speaking as an Admin, I'm not going to penalize Coretheapple for anything he posted so far in this case; (2) speaking as a third party, I seriously doubt any other Admin is about to penalize Coretheapple; & (3) speaking as both, if anyone is to be penalized here, I expect it will most likely be Wondering55. I strongly advise Wondering55 to accept the fact that not only he/she will not be getting any satisfaction here, but that he/she has dug himself into a very deep hole & should stop digging -- if nothing else. -- ] (]) 21:59, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
	::::I'm struck by the absence of understanding. He just hasn't a clue. If you go to the archive of his talk page, where he appears to deposit old and new posts that don't make him look very good, he lectures an administrator who blocked him a week or so ago. "Hopefully, you will find lessons learned here for your next administrator review." ] <small>(] • ])</small> 22:30, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
	:::::So far I have seen too many clues from too many editors that seem to be engaged in unsubstantiated opinions and very misleading and complete distortions of my actions. They have not focused on my original request based on the facts, which I have presented that contradict their claims, and the issues of whether repeated denigrating comments made by another editor violate Misplaced Pages guidelines for civility, etiquette, and no personal attacks. Rather than address those facts and the very guidelines that tell users not to engage in that type of behavior, all of this is being ignored and additional inaccurate claims and denigrating comments are being made that contradict and ignore the facts.
	:::::I do not have the time to waste to respond to these further inaccurate claims and denigrating comments.
	:::::I seriously doubt if any editor on this topic was faced with repeated comments about them and their responses that included "wall-o-text rantings", "insane discussions", "you slapped at the top of this insane discussion", "wikilawyering", "boldface ranting", "hooting and hollering", and "this discussion is insane, and that's a statement of fact, not a personal attack", as well as "blah/blah/fix", "blah blah/comment", and "blah blah/reply" (none of which are accurate based on the facts), as Coretheapple responded to me, that they would say that is acceptable language and behavior and do nothing about it.
	:::::I have been very civil in my editing and Talk discussions where I address content issues, including any contradictions with the facts from reliable sources, and not personalities. If needed, I point out actions and responses by editors that do not seem to comport with acceptable behavior and general etiquette, all of which are further supported by various Misplaced Pages guidelines. ] (]) 05:14, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
	Would an experienced Wikipedian who has used ] -- & related templates -- take a look at the edits Wondering55 has made to them in the last few days? I may be prejudiced here, but I doubt that his/her edits have improved the text in that template. -- ] (]) 05:53, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
	== User:79.97.64.240 ==
	To put it simple, ] needs a good hard block. I have tried to reach them via dialogue, tried to be civil as of late in the face of snide, taunting abuse, but now I give up entirely. They have repeatedly inserted a comment on the ] article which violates the ] rule in a blatant way. They have repeatedly made offensive comments against British people, they have acted in a ] manner etc etc etc. I'm bored of this. Done. FYI it's a shame because this user can make good comments such as the one they left on ]. --] (]) 10:56, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
	:: It would be instructive if anybody looking at this also looked at the abuse and threats instigated by the above editor and left on my page history. The extremity of her language and persistent harassment of me is disturbing, to put it mildly. I refuse to engage with her because of that. ] (]) 11:18, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
	:::Stop playing the victim, because you aren't. I'm following Misplaced Pages procedure. I am not stalking you, the British Isles article is on my watch list. You have absolutely no defense. Abuse? Threats? Rubbish. I lost my temper last month and got told off for it and stopped it. And I am a ''he'' and make that perfectly clear, please use correct gender pronouns. --] (]) 11:25, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
	::::Article needs a semi-protect, we get this pattern of editing from IPs on a mission from time to time ----] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 11:27, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
	:::::There isn't a problem with the article as the shows. It's the talk page where the IP is active. ], ], <small>]</small> 12:05, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
	:The IP editor is clearly ]. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 12:12, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
	::On articles related to the British isles? No he isn't. He is however clearly capable of making constructive edits on various other pages. --] (]) 12:26, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
	:::So User talk:79.97.64.240 '''does not''' need a good hard block? ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 07:46, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
	:::Talk Page ban maybe? If it exists of course... <span style="border:1px solid #000;padding:1px;">]]</span><sup>]</sup> 10:29, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
	::::I'll just continue to remove any inflammatory comments I come across, and won't let this guy troll me. --] (]) 17:08, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
	:::::Just Remember, this is how edit wars can start. <span style="border:1px solid #000;padding:1px;">]]</span><sup>]</sup> 10:57, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
	==Can the whole Naghmehetaati family be preemptively blocked?==
	] was indeffed for doing nothing but posting long irrelevant screeds in Persian on some high-traffic talkpages. Since then, guess what, Naghmehetaati 1, 12, 13, 14 and 15 have been blocked in turn, for doing the exact same thing. (No, I don't know what happened to 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11. Maybe they're sleepers.) Anyway. It seems likely that the individual will realize some time that it would be smarter to invent a whole new name, but since they haven't so far, could coming siblings be pre-emptively blocked by name alone? I believe there are clever filters, but the information about them isn't written in my language, I tend to stop reading when I come to words like "regex". (No, please don't explain it do me, it's been tried.) ] &#124; ] 12:42, 14 April 2014 (UTC).
	*Wanting to nuke the whole family? Once they have edited once, in Persian, then "sock" is obvious. You might get a CU in the loop if you think this has spread beyond the one "family". Otherwise, if the name is an obvious continuation by simply incrementing to the next number (and not a different type of use of the name), then it would seem sockblocking is appropriate before they edit. ]&nbsp;&#124;&nbsp;]&nbsp;&#124;&nbsp;] 12:47, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
	**Yes, but I'd like to abort them. To block (filter?) them before they're even born. ] &#124; ] 12:53, 14 April 2014 (UTC).
	***I too would like to comment on this issue: IT'S ANNOYING! So I wouldn't say no to your plan Bishonen. --] (]) 13:57, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
	****I'm not smart enough to create filters yet, although it is on my list of things to do. Can we at least name the filter #]? ]&nbsp;&#124;&nbsp;]&nbsp;&#124;&nbsp;] 14:34, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
	:::::She seems to be a student who thinks she can talk directly to world leaders by posting on their article's talk pages. Wikimedia should make that happen, WikiSpeakTruthToPower or such like. She's probably using her real name so perhaps she'll stick with that. Maybe pointing her towards twitter.com/HassanRouhani and um...the place you go to talk to Obama might help (Between Two Ferns with Zach Galifianakis?). <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - ''']'''</small> 15:47, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
	::::::I just reverted a leftover contact attempt (February 2014) by the sockmaster at ]. ] (]) 16:14, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
	:::::::The place you go to talk to Obama? http://www.reddit.com/r/politics/
	:::::::Related: http://www.reddit.com/r/ThanksObama/
	:::::::I hope this helps... :) --] (]) 18:02, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
	{{out}} I just wanted to point out that I asked about the possibility of creating a filter and was poo-pooed in pretty much the same way Bishonen's post here has been. Anyone who gives this issue a teensy bit of thought would realize that sooner or later the editor is going to ], which is why I thought a filter of some sort would be worthwhile. It's not a major issue but, as Somchai Sun says, it's annoying. ] (]) 18:05, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
	:I think a pre-emptive filter would be wonderful. I will gently disagree that this is not a major issue...*anything* that takes our time away from actually writing and editing content and improving this encyclopedia is a major issue to me. Think of all the time conscientious editors have to spend to keep the tide of vandalism at bay...think of if at least *some* of that time could instead be spent creating and/or contributing useful content... Yeah. ] (]) 18:15, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
	{{out}} N16 just blocked. ] (]) 00:28, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
	:Semi-protecting ] for two weeks and possibly ] for one week might be enough to break the habit. ] (]) 09:35, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
	::], after checking the history of ], I think that might be OK, since the Naggy sockfarm is pretty much the only non-autoconfirmed contributor there. But, while I'm aware that most IP edits on ] are less than helpful, I still think it would be a bad thing to shut out non-autoconfirmed editors from even commenting on the article. They don't get to edit it, which is obviously right with such a high-risk BLP — but that's all the more reason to let them comment, and make edit requests, on talk. Personally, I wouldn't like to semi it even for a week. Er, and John, I'm sure ''you'' are smart enough to create filters. In your sleep, probably. ] &#124; ] 11:39, 17 April 2014 (UTC).
	:::Yeah, it would be a bit crude to lock the Obama talk, but the other page appears to be the favorite and semiprotection might work on just that. Re the edit filter: ] could be adapted by someone more familiar with the system than me. It's likely that blocking such comments for a month would be enough, although semiprotection of just the one page might be simpler and could be effective. <small>]: I'm not smart enough to think of a rejoinder, so this will have to do.</small> ] (]) 12:12, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
	::::Yeah, I'll send ], he has nerdy pretensions. What good are your ] coding frenzies, then? I've semi'd ] for two weeks, good idea. ] &#124; ] 13:46, 17 April 2014 (UTC).
	== ] ==
	In 7+ years of my time on Misplaced Pages, I think I've only ever opened a case once on this board. I just prefer to settle issues through discussion. But I have a situation that I believe is in urgent need of administrator attention.
	The article ] has had a problem in the past with editors who have ]. I actually became involved with the article through a COI noticeboard discussion (see ]) where an editor whose username matched the Twitter handle of Barry's charity organization (Gogvc) was removing all negative information about the article subject, and inserting fluff (including unverifiable claims to various awards). That particular editor was eventually blocked (though not by me). After that, I started editing the article in the attempt to bring balance (which didn't just mean removing unverifiable promotion, I've actually tried to de-emphasize his legal troubles which I don't feel are due that much coverage, see discussions on the ]).
	There have been other editors besides Gogvc who have shown similar promotional behavior. The three other editors that I know of are:
	*{{user|Accurateinfo973}}
	*{{user|Megavox}}
	*{{user|Theprincessmom1}}
	The editor "Megavox" hasn't edited Misplaced Pages for years (almost 5 years to the day, exactly). Their entire editing history has consisted of creating Barry's biography on their user page (which you can still see). About a year after Megavox stopped editing, Accurateinfo973 was created and immediately began editing Megavox's user page (my personal belief is that Megavox stopped editing under that user account for whatever reason and created Accurateinfo973, which itself isn't a policy violation). Accurateinfo973 then created the article by copying the info from Megavox's old page into article space. The majority of Accurateinfo973's editing history (not all of it, but most of it) has been related to Barry.
	After I became involved at the article, things seemed to be proceeding pretty well. I collaborated with ], ], <s>], and ]</s> <small>(Nat Gertler and Grayfell didn't get involved until after the disruption began again, see below)</small> to try to balance and expand the article and clean up what the Gogvc account had done, working together through article talk page discussion. Then a new account appeared named "Theprincessmom1", removing large chunks of sourced information (just about anything that wasn't flattering toward Barry) and reinserting the information about Nobel Prize nominations (unsourced and unverifiable information, and also against previous talk page consensus). I'll note that ClueBot {{diff|Yank Barry|603632202|603632197|reverted one of the edits}}, believing it was vandalism. I reverted Theprincessmom1's edits as being against consensus. Then Accurateinfo973 reappeared to revert me and further whitewash the article, claiming in the process that the negative information was a {{diff|Yank Barry|603781521|603781001|"smear attempt"}}. I did not revert Accurateinfo973 immediately, not wanting to edit war, instead I ] to please join the conversation at the article talk page, explaining that we have been working to create a balanced article and that their edits were disrupting that effort. I waited a day for them to join the article talk page, but they didn't, so I reverted them with {{diff|Yank Barry|603901735|603781521|another request}} to join the talk page discussion. They did not do so, instead reverting me again and accusing me of {{diff|Yank Barry|604075193|603901735|having a negative COI}} (which is ridiculous). At that point I gave up on trying to get through to the editor, and have not reverted their edits (again, I stay out of edit wars) but the other editors working on the article have reverted Accurateinfo973 (twice since I stopped editing the page directly).
	All of this prompted John Nagle to create ] asking for assistance. Unfortunately, COIN does not get a great deal of administrator attention. That is one of the reasons why I volunteer a lot of time there, but since I'm involved I can't use my tools in this situation. Were I uninvolved I would probably block Accurateinfo973 for edit-warring, NPOV edits, and refusing to discuss issues despite multiple requests, but I can't. I'm not sure if there is sockpuppetry going on but that is a possibility. I'd just like it if an uninvolved admin can lend some help, this is far beyond a content dispute. -- ''']'''] 16:08, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
	:As an aside, Accurateinfo973 is sitting at 3 reverts in the past 24 hours on the article (their most recent revert happened while I was typing up this report). They haven't quite broken 3RR but they've made 5 reverts total in the last few days. -- ''']'''] 16:16, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
	:In the interest of clarity, let me note that at least two of the editors cited above (myself and ], were not cleaning the article before ] was involved. At least in my case, my attention was drawn to the matter by the COIN postings. None of that should be seen to contradict the basic gist of the above; the article has been subject to heavy editing by folks deleting negative, sourced information and installing unsourced and improperly sourced positive information. --] (]) 16:25, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
	::Sorry Nat, you are correct, the two of you didn't get involved until the disruption started up again. I apologize for confusing that, I'll adjust the report above. -- ''']'''] 16:27, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
	:::Accurateinfo973 has violated 3RR now. I left a 3RR warning on their user talk page, which I should probably have done when they were at 3RR, but hindsight, etc. -- ''']'''] 18:23, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
	::::I came to the Yank Barry article because it was mentioned on ] and seemed to need some work. Most of the content issues have been discussed on the talk page, so I won't repeat them. The editors mentioned above (Accurateinfo973, Megavox, and Theprincessmom1) all have rather narrow editing interests. "Theprincessmom1" has edited only the Yank Berry article, and has a one-day editing history. "Megavox" is an inactive account, but back in 2009 was devoted to Yank Berry articles only. "Accurateinfo973", the currently active editor here, has an editing history back to 2010, but it's almost all about Yank Berry. The editing pattern is to inflate the achievements of the article subject, and to remove sourced negative information. (For an amusing example, see this diff: ) ] (]) 19:27, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
	:::::Accurateinfo973 has finally made a comment on the article talk page, seen {{diff|Talk:Yank Barry|604207798|604206627|here}}, but unfortunately it was mainly just an attack on Richfife. I tried to respond encouragingly to the editor, but with the caution to keep things civil. -- ''']'''] 20:58, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
	=== TLDR: An editor violates ], ], ], you name it ===
	I'm afraid I over-explained myself above, which probably dissuaded anyone from helping. You can read the above for the whole story, but the bottom line is that we have an editor who ''may'' be a sockpuppet, ''probably'' has a COI, but is ''definitely'' edit-warring (though that has temporarily ceased) and is lashing out at every other editor there, basically accusing everyone else of having a biased COI and not being "legitimate editors" conducting a "smear attempt" (their words). They're rejecting such core concepts as verifiability and consensus, and insisting that "the truth" must be reflected in the article regardless of what can be verified. I'm trying to give the editor respect (probably more than is warranted) and offering to help them but since I'm included as part of the "smear" it's probably futile. I can't act as an administrator here so I'd really appreciate help from an uninvolved admin. :( -- ''']'''] 16:07, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
	:Another update... ] has been participating constructively of late, I have hope that they're coming around now. I hope that there is no need for administrative action from this point forward. I'd at least appreciate an uninvolved admin checking things out at some point (because this article has had a very problematic history, including recent history) but I have hope for this particular editor. -- ''']'''] 17:59, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
	== Large backlog at ] ==
	There is a large backlog at ] of discussions waiting for a formal close. It is concerning that many of the entries have been there for multiple weeks without any kind of assessment and are still untouched. Some of the shorter requests are being fulfilled, but it appears as if the larger discussions are being neglected. How can we encourage progress here? ] (]) 20:27, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
	*Good question. Pay admins to close them! Or let's have a culture where a closing admin doesn't get bitched out--happened to me a few times and it quickly takes the fun out of it. ] (]) 21:11, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
	*When closings aren't celebrated with ], pitchforks and torches, then it will be easier to get admin to jump on them. What few I do, I do begrudgingly because it always turns into massive personal attacks against the admin by one side or the other, which gets old after a week or so. ]&nbsp;&#124;&nbsp;]&nbsp;&#124;&nbsp;] 00:44, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
	**I've largely had pretty positive experiences with closes and I've closed some ugly ones. I think the key to getting this done is to get some uninvolved experienced non-admins involved. As long as you explain things clearly, people are generally willing to accept things. And there is generally no need for the bit. ] (]) 01:31, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
	**Wait a second! We don't get paid?! (I jest.) It does get very old very quickly closing discussions that aren't simple or obvious. I'll close one at ANRFC once in a blue moon, but nothing too contentious. I closed many as a non-admin, but that was even less fun. Cheers, ''''']'''''</span> (]) 02:06, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
	*Yeah, I wish there was an answer to getting more people to close these as well. The thing is, closing some of these discussions can be a serious investment of time, like several hours. And like as was said above, you have to be motivated, prepared for the backlash, and more fundamentally, you have to have the time for some of them. That said, I'll try to close some tonight. ]] 02:11, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
	I am the same IP who posted the message originally. Would administrators be interested in barnstars? I have just given one to ], who has closed a contentious discussion since this message was posted. As others have predicted, he was targeted by an aggrieved user who sent it to move review, but all except this user are endorsing the close. Could something similar to the feedback request service be used, where groups of volunteering administrators are randomly allocated discussions to close? The next ones seem to be at ] (there is apparently consensus except for a vocal user who is insisting on a formal close) and ]. ] (]) 20:56, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
	:Its always nice to be appreciated for doing something, but I don't think barnstars would be enough to get editors interested. Sometimes its just not worth the hassle as we can see today. Cheers, ''''']'''''</span> (]) 21:01, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
	::I'll settle for some expensive Belgian beers. The WMF has my address so you can have it delivered. {{U|I JethroBT}}, the RfC/U I closed last night (Arzel's) took 45 minutes or more so yeah, it's a lot of time to invest. TLSuda, if you've been an admin as long as I have you get $2 per deleted article and $3 per block; $5 for an indef block and $10 for an indef block that requires ArbCom to get involved. RfCs are freebies. ] (]) 01:41, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
	:::Man! I gotta get outta the filespace and away from RFCs. Unless deleted files count as articles... I can second the RFCs in exchange for alcohol. Although I prefer some of that ] "''distillers''" beverage. I'd even trade a jar for every RFC. :) Cheers, ''''']'''''</span> (]) 21:30, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
	== IP Hopping editor ==
	There's a problem that I can't find a specific solution to and I felt this was the only place I could take my suspicions and that's here. I've been watching a number of pages that are visited quite often by an IP hopper. This hopper uses the range 59.101.*.*. The biggest issue seems to be not knowing WP procedure, and constantly adding non notable material. A few times he's been caught removing AfD templates. The issue that brought me here was his attempt to run five pages that are not notable - ], ], ], ] and ]. The first four I have tried to maintain a redirect to ] but he just doesn't get the message. I left the season one alone and notability tagged it, but I have just sent it to AfD after four months of no action to rectify it. The suspicion that brought me here is that I think it could be ] not logging in making these edits. I ask for a checkuser on that one if possible, and if it is him he needs to be warned. There are many issues (too many to link here) but if you were to check the history of the pages I have given you may get the idea. As an aside for...I can't think of the word as I type this, it may appear that I'm a hopper as well, but that's forced by an inevitable reboot of my modem - and I don't hold an account here and never have (and never will). The hopper has been hopping far more frequently. ] (]) 23:08, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
	:FYI, you are an IP hopper by definition. "IP hopping" doesn't imply an intent to avoid scrutiny or some sort of maliciousness; it just means you're on a dynamic IP. Given WMF policy's preference for privacy ahead of the good of the encyclopedia, there's no way a checkuser would tell you whether there's a connection between Pidzz and the IP address. I'm going to guess that the only practical solution here is a ]. However, I absolutely refuse to implement one — I can never remember even the theory behind them, so I'm almost certain to make a big mess. I would welcome help from anyone familiar with rangeblocking. ] (]) 03:01, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
	:: I agree that a range ban would not be appropriate. I think - and I'm guessing - that the only time a range block would be appropriate would be for a clear range of proxies. But I would point out that the IP hopper that I'm reporting here hops way more frequently that is natural for a dynamic IP (like mine for example). I think I've seen it happen more than once in a 24 hour period, which suggests to me malicious use. It's a shame that there isn't enough for a check user on Pidzz, because for myself I am certain that it's him. However my opinion isn't enough, and that's partly why I came here to begin with - to find any other way to get this sorted. ] (]) 05:55, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
	:::It seems like the bigger issue here is the need for a Sockpuppet Investigation of 124.180.170.151. If the instructions on how to initiate such an investigation were clear, I would be happy to do this myself. However, given the editing history of banned ], 124.180.170.151's "grudge against Australian professional wrestlers" (as noted at and demonstrated through such statements as an insistence that an article "never will" meet GNG) matches Justa Punk's editing style perfectly. If anyone can provide clear instructions on how to launch such an investigation, start an investigation himself or herself, or simply block this IP due to the ] test, it would be greatly appreciated. ] (]) 05:29, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
	An update on the matter in hand. The IP's latest vandalism attempt - removing the AfD tag from ]. No other edits though - at least recently (There are a couple of old ones there). ] (]) 12:53, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
	:If an IP is being disruptive they can be blocked. If the IP is dynamic and quickly changes then a block is ineffective. The best course of action is to request semi-protection, to prevent any and all IPs from editing the page(s) affected. Of course, that would also affect you, but if that becomes a problem you can always register. Unfortunately there isn't much else that can be done, range-blocks are an option but we have to be very careful how they're done (and you're correct that they are rare unless we are blocking proxies, though that's not the only time that we block IP ranges). -- ''']'''] 23:16, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
	:: In general I agree with that, but there is another problem. Generally IIRC semi protection is only done to prevent frequent vandalism. Under those conditions alone it couldn't be done the generic way. This editor is harder to control because he doesn't react quickly like a normal trouble maker does. He spaces it out. I did consider semi protection initially, but that's another reason I brought the issue here for discussion. Not much seems to fit, but something does need to be done - especially if I'm right and it is ] behind this. Perhaps an admin could put a special note on the request for semi protection with all the details? I'm not comfortable doing it myself as an IP, and at the same time I rabidly prefer not to register as I've never needed to in all the time I've edited Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 04:12, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
	== User:77.101.41.108 ==
	This IP user has been quite disruptive over at ITN lately. This user has towards other users. The user also does not appear to understand the purpose of ITN. For example, the user got when another user nominated an attack similar to one the IP nominated, despite the two attacks being unrelated overall. This is just a little bit of the IP user. They have been writing some walls of text in nominations, contradicting themselves in their comments, and generally not understanding the whole point of ITN. When confronted about their behavior, they just the comments left on their talk page. I understand this may not be enough diffs to do anything but this IP user has been more disruptive than what I have linked. I honestly believe this IP user is acting in ], but does not have a fully clear understanding of what ITN actually is. If what I have posted is not enough, you can look at his user contributions and see more. Other ITN regulars (those who are active in the whole ITN process) have been dealing with this IP user for a few days and some have shown dislike towards this IP, so I am not the only one here who has an issue.
	Again, sorry if what I have linked is not enough. I don't post at ANI often and I am not the best at typing out reports like this. If you want more proof or evidence you can look at the IP user's contributions. ] (]) 01:24, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
	:Anise1 summed things up pretty well. Since this user arrived on ITNC the page has become roiled with discussions flowing from their comments and repeated nominations. ] (]) 01:55, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
	77 here-
	Firstly I want to say thank you for providing such a wonderful resource and awesome well of information. In the short time I have been posting here, I have had many interesting stories to think about and have met many kind and interesting posters. The great majority are of course a credit to this site, and have been both accessible and informative, much like this site.
	Unfortunately, some of the ITN users have displayed hive mind characteristics, and have decided its their duty to repeatedly attack and harass me, whilst I struggled to understand the format we are using. Furthermore they have often misrepresented the aims and goals of wikipedia and ITN as stated in wikipedias own wording, and have acted as little tzars of one of its lesser moderated sub sections. I have at all times refrained from instigating ad hominem and insults, as its a personal rule, but have responded in kind when people have made repeated personal attacks and sniping comments, because i did not have easy recourse to moderation, or to redress.
	I do enjoy the site, and I am happy to contribute. In the last 24 hours, 2 of the stories I worked on have been put into the ITN header on the main page. I personally believe that sadly there is a lot of jealousy and resentment in some of the more pedestrian and challenged editorial members, as they see this as some kind of home forum, and not a format for making articles available for stories of widespread interest, and indeed making wikipedia a great encyclopaedia.
	I am used to dealing with hive mind mentality online, and it is an ugly thing. However it is always the vocal few who act as trolls, who treat a format or forum like a bridge and chase away anyone that doesn't validate their own insecurities. I am not so easily scared away, by petty and irrational vindictiveness.
	In the last couple of day I have been misquoted by someone who is complaining here, in what was an unprovoked attack. I've seen two members display unwarranted and unsolicited hostility to me and to others, which has actually been rebuked by other members on sight. I've seen a member ignore a story that I nominated only to later duplicate the nomination later one. Ive also seen the posters who are complaining here, act in a petty and vindictive way, posting notes on walls and making personal comments behind my back, as if we were in high school. Some of this is process, and thats fine, but when the same people are misquoting me explicitly in front of me, on the boards, in attacks, and colluding with hateful messages to each other, I drew the line and told them to go to admin if they had an issue.
	I am not in charge of wikipedia's attitude and manners towards new posters, as reflected by its poorer members.
	I've done my best to work to understand the format and to contribute positively, and indeed in the last few days ive learned how to do everything up to and including making articles, making ITN nominations, making the blurbs and making titles that correspond to Misplaced Pages traditions. I do come from a journalistic background, despite my typos, and I already understand and appreciate the importance of things like sourcing, quoting, and lay out.
	I am here to contribute and if you don't appreciate or want my contributions, as much as I've enjoyed helping out, I am happy to leave. Most of your posters are good eggs, and I am grateful to the ones who have been kind enough to help out and to encourage. I could name right now who the best guys are in that room, but fortunately the majority are great. Unfortunately, I've also ran into bad posters too, who have acted as poor people as well as poor editors and whose reputation writ large is the reason women dont post here and many people dont want to help.
	I've done my best and learned a lot. I thoroughly enjoyed debating these things and helping out. Thank you, and that is all.
	Cheers. ] (]) 01:56, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
	:Calling my paraphrasing a personal attack is just wrong. Nowhere did I call you names and I challenge you to show that I did. ] (]) 01:58, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
	:You came into ITN and demanded we do things your way. The best advice is to sit back and watch and learn for a few days/weeks before contributing to understand various naunces with WP's policies. --] (]) 01:59, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
	::No, Masem. I demand only to have the right to have an opinion, and to politely express that opinion without personal harassment and a little hive mentality, of 4 or 5 posters who are ruining it for everybody and keeping well meaning new comers off this site. My opinion is my own. You opinion is your own. We should all have the right to express our opinions and not to be forced into a false consensus on things. I am not campaigning for ron paul here. I had to deal with a wall of angst just for putting up a picture of Snowden, on a nomination about the pulitzers. you are saying people should sit back and see how you and a few others chose to do things. But you are not wikipedia or indeed any kind of majority even in this subsection of wikipedia. When I am working off a template fashioned by every major news net work on the planet, minus MSNBC, I do not expect a wall of angst and personal remarks, simply because I chose to use a snowden picture like they all did. Its unwarranted and its unlikely to make much sense to anyone who has ever worked in the media or professional journalism.. ] (]) 03:10, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
	*I have to concur there's an issue here. My gut feeling is that this apparently new user, editing ITN at full steam from his initial appearance, is a sock or a blocked user. There's no hamfisted article editting to indicate the user doesn't know exactly what he's doing. Regardless of whether that's the case, his contentious and insulting walls of text on every thread he engages in are disrupting to the point he's got experienced admins flummoxed.
	:A search for his name on the page gets over 100 hits (my browser gives up over that number) and many of the threads he posts on consist of say six comments, one each by six editors, and six comments by the IP user in response to each of these editors. The most recent discussion, has 10 comments by him, six uses of the word irrational to describe other editors, and at most 2-3 comments in response to him by any other single editor. The user should be warned, and I think an SPI is warranted, given his behavior quacks like a previously blocked editor. ] (]) 02:05, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
	*μηδείς - I can honestly say, you are a consistent and unremitting source of negativity, sniping, shit stirring and unwarranted, unsolicited hostility bordering on harassment. I have little surprise that wikipedia find it difficult to attract female editors with poster like you around to target and attempt to prey on people who are new, that you happen to have disdain or negative interest toward. You have made no effort to be friendly. No effort even to meet the most customary tenets of wikipedias expressed policy toward new posters, or any posters for that matter. In the last few days I have learned the format here top to bottom, and you are still posting irrational, objectively ignorant, irrelevant things in an adult discussion and taking every opportunity to hate on people without just cause or reason. I have worked out an alien format in a matter of days, and you still find it impossible to even understand the concept of good faith or being polite and cordial to people you dont know online. ] (]) 03:27, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
	::The editor's comments above are a ''perfect'' example of his reaction to any disagreement he has, challenge he imagines, or any comment made in regard to his action; snide insulting comments about his perfect innocence, the conspiracy (hive mind) against him, and his ability to determine who at the page is good, and who evil. I apologize for not providing diffs, but a simple reading of any nomination he's commented on at ITN will bear out the complaint. ] (]) 02:12, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
	:::77 does somewhat remind me of {{user|Gruesome Foursome}}, although I am fairly confident 77 is a new user, not the reincarnation of a previous one. --] (]) 02:51, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
	:::You continually attack the poster and not the post, and hide behind a few friends to validate your poor form and behavior. I dont hide behind anyone and I maintain the right to have an opinion and to express that opinion. I dont instigate personal attacks, ad hom or insults, but absolutely reserve the right not to falsely attest to a false consensus. I am not perfect, but my intentions are clear, because I am a morally cogent person. I can not judge you, but I do find your attitude, behaviour and actions to be quite deplorable and impossible to justify if I was the one doing it. I dont jump into nominations and attack people I dont know, unwarranted. I dont talk about others behind their backs, with little hate notes. I dont approach objective adult conversations, carrying resentments and grudges against people I dont know. I dont talk childishly and ignorantly, in objective debates. So no, I dont judge you, because I dont know you, but I find very little about you to defend, to like, to trust, or to recommend to admin as anything other than a deterrent to new posters and to female posters in particular. ] (]) 03:01, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
	::::FYI, μηδείς is female. --] (]) 03:14, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
	* μηδείς - just now in the ITN nomination on the Pulitzer prize- I posted the ITN, and also penned the framework of an article. For some reason you proceeded to post - "Nothing against Snowden actually, but if I never see his or Miley Cyrus's mugs again... If you weren't so beligernet, 77, I'd already have posted this before your nannying."
	I have no idea why you are calling people belligerent or indeed misspelling belligerent. I have no idea why you are calling people nannys or why you are talking about snowdens mug, or bringing up miley cyrus in an ITN nomination. I have no idea why you are communication visceral disdain for snowden, the guy in the headlines of CNN, Fox news, BBC, AJZ and Reuters news casts on this story. I have no idea why the first two times you posted anything toward me it was hostile and insulting, or why you were leaving little hate messages on another posters wall about me, and your disdain for me. It makes no sense to me. I am an adult and work around adults. Its completely incredulous behavior to me. But each time I treat you with equanimity and you come back with open hostility and childish behaviour. ] (]) 02:26, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
	::Note that in response to the collapsed "discussion" at this nomination I the irrelevance of 77's anti-American arguments and suggested he not argue back, as 77 was trolling him. This is what 77 refers to as a "hate" message above, but without giving a diff, since of course there was no "hate" message and the comments are perfectly justified by the ITN/nom section that was collapsed (albeit not by myself, but another editor who saw its futility).
	::Likewise, the fact of 77's belligerence is born out by almost half of his 140 current comments at ITN/nom. And his nannying by such things as his worrying above about a typo not worth correcting. Here he edit conflicts while to tell me with his immediate knee-jerk objection to absolutely everything, in a . But even then he has to lie about the matter, saying in his post above, without diff, that I have a "visceral disdain" for Snowden, mentioned in the nomination. I happen to think Snowden did the world a service, and certainly said nothing about disdian, but why not lie about my statements and accuse me of "hate messages" further to push a point? I stand behind beligernet and my other expressed opinions. I'll be unwatching now, so if anyone has questions, please talk page me. ] (]) 03:02, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
	*331 dot, you openly attacked me, in the main section, with a false quote that added to my original quote to misrepresent my position on something, in an attempt to mock me. It wasnt insulting. It was silly. I posted you a copy of the reuters journalists handbook, pertaining to properly quoting a subject, and that led to your friend calling me combative and confrontational. What did you want me to do? You were literally lying about me, in front of me, and I was laughing at this cultish hive mind sillyness. I would ordinarily say "grow up" but I didn't want to be personally insulting. ] (]) 02:31, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
	* μηδείς - "10 comments by him, six uses of the word irrational to describe other editors, and at most 2-3 comments in response to him by any other single editor. The user should be warned, and I think an SPI is warranted, given his behavior quacks like a previously blocked editor." Another characteristic baseless and categorically incorrect personal attack. I said that a guy revulsion of snowden, seemed to be an irrational consensus, given his picture is on the story in the CNN, BBC, Reuters, AJZ, Fox news, ABC, accounts of the Pulitzer prize awards. I didnt call individuals irrational, but the revulsion of snowden, in the context of a story relplete with his image, potentially an irrational consensus. I think sought an admin opinion. And again you are accusing me of being a previously banned troll in essence, and making nasty comments about me. None of this is warranted by anything I've done or said to you. You simply chose to hate on the new comer. I read this trash, and its baseless and incorrect, and I remain calm about it, and you just get further upset. ] (]) 02:42, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
	::*Not only did you call people irrational, but you compared opponents of your position to "3 men and a dog" . ] (]) 02:48, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
	::::When Medeis posts unhelpful nonsense in that thread like ''"Nothing against Snowden actually, but if I never see his or Miley Cyrus's mugs again...''", we can't complain about someone calling it irrational. To me, it seemed there was also pretty strong evidence that some editors' posts WERE influenced by a dislike of Snowden. That too is irrational, by the literal definition of that word. 77.'s behaviour has certainly not been ideal, but several other editors were behaving less than ideally too. "Let he who is without sin", etc. ] (]) 03:18, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
	:*That isn't what I did at all, but it is clearly useless to press that point. But go ahead and keep demonstrating the qualities that everyone else is ascribing to you. ] (]) 02:38, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
	*331dot, both of us have legitimate right to contend things that are said about us, that we dont like. Only one of us is assuming to talk for "everyone else" and only one of us is misquoting people and then making personal attacks. Do you not see how that could be construed as arrogant, and misplaced? <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 02:45, 15 April 2014 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
	:::*No, I don't, because it wasn't. I know what I did; you are not inside my mind. I also do not claim to speak for others. I still have yet to see evidence of the "personal attack" that I made against you. I have never called you a name, and if I did, I will gladly and sincerely apologize. ] (]) 02:51, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
	*My opinion is that 77's contributions are in good faith, but mostly unproductive. Whenever someone tries to explain to him that X is not the way we do things, he insists his way is right and just throws up wall of text after wall of text until the other user moves on. His behavior is annoying most of the ITN regulars and doing himself absolutely no favors in getting what he wants. I suggest he voluntarily start listening the the abundance of advice he has received. --] (]) 02:34, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
	*I have no personal issue with you thaddeus, but I do feel you are trying to force consensus sometimes and are using some of your less than savoury friends as a handle to do so. I took no great joy in seeing you and μηδείς passing little hate messages on your wall about me, after we had a good debate about the NCAA thing and were working together on something. The main issue here is that you cant have 4 or 5 people defining what wikipedia deems notable and functioning as a bloc of regulars to chase away any dissension from your POV. Thats not how this site is designed. I dont think its how this site is meant to function, and it speaks ill to hear that you have a mentality that will attack or disrupt others efforts on the grounds of personal distaste, rather than being able to work on objective dispassionate merits. This is not my social group or my friendship group. I am helping you guys out here, at no cost and no end of personal patience. I am not invading your territory. ] (]) 02:53, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
	:*Please show what "hate messages" are being posted about you. We want more people on ITN, but we want them to work in the right way, which you are not. ] (]) 03:00, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
	::Believe it or not, I've been trying to help you. What you call me trying to enforce my view, I call trying to inform you of the existing ] based norms. And yes, two people did post on my talk page to urge me to calm down and "stop feeding the trolls" to which I agreed. If you want to call that a hate note, OK, but let me remind you that it was you who repeatedly called me a bigot w/o knowing anything about me (before I went out of my way to show it is not true.) --] (]) 03:04, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
	::Also, since those notes I have tried very hard to be nice to you by writing an article at your request, and not commenting on your behavior other than to try to give you some pointers. I have not said one thing the least bit personal on ITN after that initial confrontation. --] (]) 03:08, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
	:::This whole exchange is 4 or 5 disgruntled posters making personal attacks, and them complaining when I defend myself. Thats basically been their MO since I first decided to take some time out to contribute to wikipedia. I do not want you to try hard to be nice to me. I havent sought your friendship, or in any way harassed you to that end. I simply would ask to act like a professional, and an adult and not to team up in a little hive attacking people who disagree with you. ] (]) 03:18, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
	::::I have been nothing but courteous and professional to you since the initial exchange where you repeatedly called me a bigot and I got upset. Offering you advice on how things work does not mean I am "teaming up in a little hive attacking people who disagree with me". --] (]) 03:28, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
	:::::It was you who started the personal talk in that initial exchange, and I responded poorly. However you have for the most part been fine. You do seem to think I should defer my own opinion to you somewhat, and I have no idea why.
	Like I said before, I have no issue with you though and we have indeed worked together at times. I quite enjoyed working with you and found you to be conscientious and someone who had a good eye for detail. I understood why you were so into the NCAA thing when I read your bio out of curiosity, and I found it quite adorable really. Unfortunately, μηδείς is absolutely abhorrent in his or her actions and attitude, 331 dot is acting like a hive mind king of narnia, and the other two seem to be tagging along for the right. I have little to do with them, and it seems they are literally phone a friend guys.
	Its not personal, but we all have opinions and the right to express them. I think its cute when people try to form little logic bloc and harass others for disagreeing with them, but unfortunately it logic simply doesnt work that way. Only mad people use the universal We when talking about themselves and a couple of friends, in allusion to the internet, or wikipedia.
	I understand that you expect me to defer to your friendship group in debates on things and to falsely attest to a consensus on things that I do not share. But unfortunately I cant do that.
	As to the format, Ive pretty much learned it. As to the rules, I would say that I already follow the basic wikipedia rules as it says on its advertising. I do not instigate personal abuse and comments and do my best to avoid them.
	You simply can not ask me to agree with you, when I do not agree with you on things, and I can not apologise if that upsets you or hurts your feelings. Its not personal. I dont know any of you, and I honestly think you should probably find healthier pursuits than trying to own a website section on wikipedia. Like I said, im not here to feed into your friendship group, or to hatefully snipe on people I dont know.
	My bad if Ive upset you by not agreeing with you at times, but the personal comments and personal abuse that created this complaint, has been categorically initiated by you guys.
	Have a good one. ] (]) 03:43, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
	::::::I don't expect you to defer to my opinion. I have given you advice on the community accepted norms of behavior at ITN, none of which are "my opinion". I don't understand why you are so bothered by me giving you advice. Again, I was trying to help you. Even in this very thread I said I think you are acting in good faith, need to learn our behavioral norms (i.e take the advice you've been given.) You are annoying people - not because of your opinions - but because of the need to debate every tiny point ad nausem. Like someone above said, roughly half the comments on ITN are yours. Writing so much does not help your cause(s) - for the most part it hurts your chances as people stop reading what you write. Make your point, maybe reply briefly to point out errors in other arguments a couple times, then let it go. --] (]) 03:55, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
	*Blocked for 31 hours. The personal attacks here and elsewhere are enough, but the disruption at ITN is clearly getting in the way of getting work done. IP 77 is put on notice: when this block runs out, they need to be more reticent in their posts on ITN. ] (]) 03:48, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
	As I suspected above, the user is not new, but a sock puppet, given the priority of this . ] (]) 04:19, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
	Came here to start a discussion and found one well under way. As with others, I'm ready to believe that this editor is editing in good faith, just needs to learn some ]. Much of his contributions are constructive, so long as no-one disagrees or questions what he has done. As soon as anyone does, the discussion quickly turns to self-justification, obscenity, obstruction, nit-picking and rank abuse. I have tried to point this out gently, but got nowhere, eg interaction; after an abusive, sarcastic taunting of another editor, I gently directed him to the civility policy; the response was self-justification, further abuse of the other editor, obscenity and a request that I "learn some manners." Other examples in ITN/C:
	* "You need to work on your table manners and being able to adequately articulate a sentence, before talking s--- in my ear, about your petty little issues. ... Be polite next time, and type in proper English and then I might actually take you seriously, son." - responding to a fairly civil comment.
	* "would appreciate if you followed the basic directives of assuming good faith and not being a rude POS" - again, in response to simple disagreement, not incivility.
	* "I,feel,like im conversing with,a man city fan or...perhaps william shatner." - bordering on racism (if you count Mancunians)
	* "Purveyor of snideness."
	* "331dot - I pointed out from the b--- start how important this story was, and ran into a transatlantic firewall of ignorance, thank you very much. A f--- city burned down and BBC and Reuters were leading with it." - obscenity is obscenity, even when largely blanked out.
	* "One can only guess at what the BBC and Reuters were doing, by calling this news...Set them straight "Jayron". Your comedy will be much appreciated at Canary wharf."
	* "I linked a BBC and Reuters article that all mentioned sanctions and all call it news, and someone edits this out of the header, keeps the sources (as its BBC and Reuters)and white washes the story. What is this s---."
	* Not to mention the wall of text on the NCAA nomination.
	Sorry, the diffs are too many and to difficult to ferret out on such a busy page to link them all. The above quotes are on the current ITN/C page as I post this. To give some idea of the difficulty, this user has 120 edits just to ITN/C in the past 24 hours, even having been blocked for 9 of those hours. ] (]) 11:25, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
	* I'd just like to add that I also believe this IP user started out in good faith in what they believe is an attempt to improve decision making and promote more variation in stories posted to ITN but the battleground mentality is just completely the wrong way to go about it and it is disruptive to me personally. My understanding of the process is that each editor should offer a support/oppose on the original nomination and provide their reasons. It's not a debate between participants, it's up to the closing administrator to decide on consensus based on the strength of the arguments. I often read what other editors have said before I make my own mind up but the constant walls of text and off-topic discussion recently posted by this user make it very difficult to follow. To IP 77.101.41.108 - just dial it back a bit, keep things simple and make a single post with your view about a nomination. Leave other user's opinions to themselves, it's not a debate. I congratulate you on getting at least 1 story onto the main page, that's the kind of user that will be much more accepted. ] (]) 12:19, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
	* Watching the discussion over the past few days, I've been seeing ''ad hominem'' attacks on both sides. Experienced editors should remember that IP users and newbies are '''not''' second-class citizens, are entitled to their views; are '''welcome''' and '''encouraged''' to edit Misplaced Pages, and should not be made to feel unwelcome or ] (especially since the biggest problem facing WP right now is editor recruitment and retention); 77.101.41.108 needs to realise they're acting defensively, take a chill pill and come back in a few days when the adrenaline has died down. Sometimes the easiest way to deal with unfair criticism is to ignore it. Just my $0.02. ] (]) 12:33, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
	::It is true that other editors have not been as restrained as they ought, but I don't think you can paint this as equal offense on both sides. ] (]) 09:28, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
	:::] I can't speak for others, but I had no problem with the user giving their views(nor did I personally attack them, unlike them calling me a ''"hive mind king of narnia"'' above), but the manner in which they were given and the attitude displayed by the user(who is not a newcomer as shown above). They were given advice and assistance several times (mostly by ThaddeusB) and that failed to change their behavior. ] (]) 09:56, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
	:::* If you don't want to be "hive mind king of narnia" then can I claim that title? Or is it something you have to be nominated for? {{P}} ] (]) 11:40, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
	::::*I think ] would be the right place to start with this. Or possibly ]. ] (]) 14:44, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
	== Misplaced Pages user contacts press to discuss controversial move request. ==
	After looking at the updated progress at ] (I mentioned a large backlog in a message above), I read through the contentious debate at ]. The user ] is not satisfied with the outcome and she has begun a move review (is it any wonder that administrators are reluctant to close these requests?). After reading through the evidence, I placed my opinion on the page. I also noticed a link on Misplaced Pages to an online article, where ] has contacted the press to give her opinions about the discussion. There is ominous language here, including threats to continue the discussion indefinitely. I have provided the link at ] and copied the relevant details. Since I am concerned about this matter, I thought it would be best to inform administrators here. ] (]) 16:11, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
	<br>
	:I would just like to make it clear that I am not requesting any kinds of sanctions. I am just concerned about the approach taken and felt, for reasons of openness and clarity, that it should be reported in case any actions are necessary. I have no personal involvement in the discussion other than the judgement I posted on the move request page and I do not have any strong opinions, other than general concerns, about what should be done. ] (]) 17:08, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
	:: 3 words: absolutely; fricking; unacceptable. ] has now raised its ugly head <span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]]</span> 16:36, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
	:: (ec) Hmm, it does look like somebody whose sense of priorities is a bit off, but I don't really think it's any kind of sanctionable misbehaviour. It's not like she publicly denigrated any of her opponents or attempted to create real-life problems for them, or even just to canvass outside voters, nor does it seem as if it had any significant effect on the course of the further debate, did it? ] ] 16:38, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
	:: (ecx2) I appreciate your intention in bringing this here, but it's not that big of a deal. The worst fallout from that action would be for a number of anonymous editors or newly-created ] to try to sway the discussion. That hasn't happened, and even if it did, since such discussions aren't "votes" they would be unlikely to alter the course of the debate anyway. I don't see any direct ] going on and editors are free to do whatever they want outside of Misplaced Pages. I prefer to keep my on-wiki and off-wiki lives separate (and definitely don't like what I do here ending up in the press in any form) but other people aren't so inclined, and I don't fault people for it. -- ''']'''] 16:40, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
	:* Msnicki agreed to the policies and processes of Misplaced Pages when she signed up. "Going to the press to bitch about it" is not one of those processes <span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]]</span> 16:48, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
	::*I'm not aware of a "don't go to the press" policy. Really, it's not uncommon for editors to discuss on-wiki issues with the press, sometimes with ]. It's not exactly canvassing either, I don't see anything in the article that encourages people to come to the discussion to intervene (nor did I see that the story even suggested that people could). Editors often discuss on-wiki things on their own blogs, is it any more harmful to do it through a journalist's blog? (That's what this was, this wasn't an actual newspaper story or anything, not that it would be much worse if it was.) I don't really see what is all that objectionable about it. Maybe it's a bit self-promotional, but so what? -- ''']'''] 17:20, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
	:I dont see a problem - would even be good if it had generated new interest in the topic and thus new editors (does not look like it has). Perhaps the results of the poll will help resolve any concerns Msnicki has about our process getting it wrong. -- ] (]) 18:34, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
	::I think "don't go to the press" is a given. Misplaced Pages is not the 'fairness encyclopedia'. Our policies are designed to attempt to gain neutrality and facts. Ironically, the modern mainstream media no longer works under the same principal and we rarely, if ever, receive fair coverage. They don't understand our policies and our goals and they arn't interested in understanding either. It's more important that we do what's fair or 'right'. Msnicki specifically choose a pot related column to express her angst at. According to ], she choose her audience and that's called 'votestacking'. That's against guidelines.--v/r - ]] 19:02, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
	:::I would agree it was not the best course of action, but I dont see how we can expect our editors not to vent freely. There are whole sites dedicated to this fact (wikipediocracy). We will have to expect that frustrated editors will look for validation in other places. In this case it may even provided a third party prospective from the "pot" community of Seattle. I see no behaviour that would warrant any sanctions by the community - at most there is just a loss of confidence in the editors ability to have an amicable resolution and respect the community processes. -- ] (]) 19:25, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
	::::It's only canvassing if you're asking people to intervene. Any canvassing would have been indirect, I see nothing from Msnicki asking people to participate in the discussion (even in a neutral tone). It's also difficult to figure out how much of what's in the blog post was her idea, and how much was the blog author's idea. In any event, if Msnicki was attempting to get support for the discussion it backfired. No new support showed up and the poll in the blog was overwhelmingly against her. In any case, I don't see how our canvassing policy was violated, you need to show that it was "done with the intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion in a particular way" and that's probably impossible to prove here. -- ''']'''] 19:59, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
	* Just remember that even if the user mentions their real name in the press in order to promote their POV, to then mention on Misplaced Pages the name the user has freely given in the press, is "oouting" and will get you desysopped and possibly banned altogether. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 23:26, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
	**No, linking the user's real name to their Misplaced Pages name where they have not already done so in public would be outing. Doing it after they have already linked it in public and on Misplaced Pages is not outing. And everything in between is a grey area that we've never been able to develop a consensus on and Arbcom hasn't settled either so chill your silly threats. <s>You continue to be one of the least policy-informed administrators I've ever met and I continue to laugh at you when you make black-and-white threats. We don't operate on a zero-tolerance policy on Misplaced Pages, we treat each case individually and based on it's own merits. And for what? No one here has linked to that article. What has your threat done at all here?</s>--v/r - ]] 23:29, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
	***It's definitely a grey area. Msnicki volunteered her real life identity, connected to her Misplaced Pages identity, as she {{diff|Misplaced Pages:Move review/Log/2014 April|604326256|604323226|freely admits}}: "{{tq|I gave him my real name and contact information but did not identify which of the comments were mine. I heard nothing from him until 27 February, when he sent mail asking if he could interview me on the phone and if I would be willing to be identified.}}" The reason why this is a grey area is because our harassment policy allows us to mention personal information volunteered on the project. But she has said on Misplaced Pages (as I just quoted) that she allowed herself to be identified there, so is that equivalent? I honestly don't know. Frankly, I wouldn't want to be the person to bravely step forward and test the theory, and I would advise against anyone else doing it; I think doing so ''could'' be controversial and would at the very least lead to some kind of drama-filled argument at the Village Pump or the Harassment Policy talk page or here at ANI or someplace. So I wouldn't be the person to do it. -- ''']'''] 23:40, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
	***Also, I read Guy's comment here as a bit tongue-in-cheek, an allusion to people overreacting on ANI (which is unfortunately all too common). An instant de-sysop and site ban for a borderline outing situation is unlikely at the least and I'm sure he knows that. :) -- ''']'''] 23:44, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
	****My comment was a response to on Jimbo's talk page. I mistakenly thought it was Guy I was arguing with there but it was actually Guy Macon. I was channeling anger meant for someone else. {{reply to|JzG}} I'm sorry, my comments were because I thought you were the same 'Guy' who argued with me about policy just a couple weeks ago. That wasn't meant for you and I regret my hostility.--v/r - ]] 03:22, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
	::::: No problem. It is however not a hypothetical or hyperbolic thing: someone I always considered an awesome Wikipedian was summarily banned for mentioning a real-world identity that had been openly admitted by a Misplaced Pages user off-site - and indeed that user had made the link while using media contacts to try to further their on-wiki agenda. So my advice to anyone is not to name a real world identity unless it's openly admitted on Misplaced Pages itself, even where the user is blatantly using external websites and contacts to try to further an agenda antithetical to Misplaced Pages's policies. Now, I'm sure the case I have in mind was slightly more nuanced than it seems to an outsider, but that is how it appeared to me. If in doubt, email ArbCom and seek counsel from them. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 09:25, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
	* <s>'''Recommend blocking''' of Msnicki. This is absolutely unacceptable. An admin wades into a severely backlogged area, makes a good-faith closure, and we have this editor verbally abusing them and threatening further disruption? This is the kind of thing that is responsible for the direct decline in editorship and active adminship, and should be nipped in the bud.</s> ] at 12:28, 16 April 2014 (UTC)]
	:*Where did the editor verbally abuse the closing admin, or threaten further disruption? Stating that you still want to get an article moved is no more threatening further disruption than it would be to take an article to AfD after someone contested a proposed deletion. And asking to review an RfC closure isn't disruption in the first place, otherwise we wouldn't have that process. -- ''']'''] 13:26, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
	::* <s> and in the move review, Msnicki refers to the closing admin as "non-serious", impugns his motives, and suggests that he's taken admin actions without proper research. This is verbal abuse and bullying of a volunteer. In the she indicated her intention to keep dragging this through our processes since she doesn't like the results she's gotten.</s> --] (]) 13:37, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
	::Related to what ] has said, we have this problem at ]: there are huge delays on even less controversial discussions because administrators are reluctant to close them. I mentioned this above at ]. The user who closed this discussion, ], responded there that it is not pleasant to close these discussions and another user also predicted the backlash we have seen from ] here. The question is how we can get these discussions closed promptly. Three administrators volunteered readily to close the (extremely long) discussion at ], yet we now have ] and ] waiting at ] for many weeks without any kind of assessment. The best I can think of is having a system like the feedback review service, where administrators volunteer to close discussions and these discussions are randomly assigned. The more controversial discussions could be assigned to multiple administrators to reduce the chances of move reviews. ] (]) 13:18, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
	*'''Cup of tea''' time. Msnicki appears to have done nothing egregious, and a block would appear to be punitive as I doubt she will iterate any attacks, if they were attacks. ] (]) 13:37, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
	:* <s>Have you been here long? Msnicki has publicly declared that she intends to continue this battle. She has attacked at least the last two administrators that dared closed something against her wishes. After Dpmuk closed a move review, she told him he and that reversing his decision was the "only sensible choice". The next admin was TLSuda, who was told he didn't and asked to step aside for, seemingly, a better admin. So she has an established pattern of disruption and personal attacks against people she disagrees with, and has stated the intention to continue. What exactly instills doubt in your case?</s> --] (]) 13:47, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
	::*I'm not unsympathetic to TLSuda, I defended him in the move review, and I know how rough it is to close RfCs (you almost always have someone who dislikes how you closed it no matter how you do it). I wouldn't mind some changes to the process that make it easier on admins, not to make decisions unimpeachable or to quash criticisms (because admins definitely screw them up sometimes) but we should be able to do ''something''. They take a lot of time and effort and when it's done it can feel like nobody appreciates it. But having said all that, I see no personal attacks (questioning a person's actions isn't an attack, if you think otherwise, look at ] where it states that comments "should be directed at content and actions rather than people"). As I said, administrator actions aren't above reproach (although I do defend the actions of both TLSuda and Dpmuk who I think did a commendable job). If we start blocking people for criticizing administrators without actually breaking policies, then Misplaced Pages really is as bad as the most rabid detractors claim it is. -- ''']'''] 17:17, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
	:::* I don't know. It's not that fine of a line between constructive criticism and just calling into question the competency of every admin who performs an action you disagree with. If we accommodate this behavior and editors and admins start avoiding this editor, this topic area, or this project, what have we really won? The peanut gallery is silent, and everyone is cowed? --] (]) 17:48, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
	::::*I agree that, in theory, if an editor questioned every single action made by administrators that would be tendentious, and could eventually lead to a block. But in my experience a person need to take it to the extreme, making a huge stink and turning it into a disruptive campaign, and then they aren't even blocked until a community ban is implemented at AN. I won't name names, but I've experienced it (I even implemented such a ban personally earlier this year, based on an overwhelming consensus at AN). I don't see that Msnicki has come close to that yet. She's being tenacious about this issue (not ''tendentious'') but I think the proper response for now is to simply support how Dpmuk and TLSuda did the closures (which is what I see happening at the move review). If she escalates the issue, a note about keeping things civil and a request to not abuse equines might be warranted. But I'll note that Msnicki responded calmly to my opinion {{diff|Misplaced Pages:Move review/Log/2014 April|604341112|604337973|here}}, indicating that she's accepting of the result now. She did repeat that she was dissatisfied with TLSuda's language in the closure, but she's entitled to her opinion about that. Again, I do sympathize with the closers in this case and it guilts me a little into trying to help with the ANRFC backlog myself (though I've been stretched thin as it is, trying to help with the SPI backlog in addition to the other areas I normally handle). -- ''']'''] 19:42, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
	'''Update: user attacks ] editors.''' The below is taken from ]:
	::I appreciate your remarks in my defense at ANI, especially as I have no stomach for it. If you'd like to find people quick to personal attack because they confuse attacks on behavior or arguments as attacks on the person, look no further than ANI. It is as if they think they have some diplomatic immunity there to behave in exactly the ways they insist are simply intolerable and must be dealt with (severely!) at once. Any non-admin unlucky enough to be hauled to ANI for any reason whatsoever can always bet on having their motives impugned (for allegedly impugning others') on evidence best described as mind-reading and to face calls to ban the person rather than focus on the behavior, especially where the behavior is merely a different opinion they don't like. It's a place where there's endless concern that someone has wasted time by pursuing whatever they consider a frivolous issue but always lots of time to pick through someone's edit history to see if there's anything else to complain about. It's simply crawling with the most angry, judgmental and thoroughly hypocritical people to be found anywhere. Anyway, thank you for your comments, especially as I really had no interest in going there.
	<s>Given this further behaviour, I suggest that a '''temporary block''' might be suitable for Msnicki to calm down and to come back with a calmer approach.</s>] (]) 21:53, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
	:LOL, Msnicki was making a general statement about the noticeboard, and I think you somewhat proved her point here. :) She said people "confuse attacks on behavior or arguments as attacks on the person", and you took that general statement as a personal attack. Am I the only one finding humor in this? (By the way, I'm not meaning this to be snide in any way, I'm honestly amused at the irony.) If we are to assume that she is accusing everyone who participates at ANI as being "angry, judgmental and thoroughly hypocritical people" then she would have meant me as well (I comment here regularly) which seems odd if she's also thanking me. Her opinions about ANI are fairly widely-held, and even I who don't hate this noticeboard (otherwise I'd never post here) see some truth in it (though I'm much less pessimistic, and I've also seen improvement over the years). -- ''']'''] 22:17, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
	::I'm not a fan of Msnicki in this thread, but that quotation is a pretty good description of what ANI is.--v/r - ]] 23:18, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
	:::Let's see: thread's been almost a day, there are over ANI watchers, maybe 3 - 4 folks had something negative to say about this non-issue and 2 were quite supportive of her... I'd say Msnicki has done fairly well here, all in all. <small>]</small> 04:42, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
	:::: Also, I had a beer and a good night's sleep and realized my response was utterly ridiculous. --] (]) 12:33, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
	::::::I never knew that ] is held with such contempt. I have consequently striked through my above recommendation, although I still have concerns about ] conduct. Perhaps it might be best if we can move on, let the move review take its natural conclusion and, instead of fighting further for a decision against consensus, ] could focus on working towards improving the ] article.
	::::::On a related note, there has been decent progress at ] in the past few days, so thank you! The list has approximately halved in size. There are still large discussions at ] (although there is apparently a 'broad consensus in that all but a very small number of users agree', the users involved think that a formal close is preferable), ] and ]. Would anyone like to take these? ] (]) 13:35, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
	== Bundy standoff ==
	] needs some supervision by experienced editors. It is attracting editors with strong political beliefs which are becoming evident in the article. &mdash; ] 16:21, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
	:I'd suggest we consider including this article under the Tea Party movement Arbcom sanctions. However, at this time I don't see a strong enough connection. There was participation by the Tea Party movement but I think we'd need a source tying Clive Bundy to the tea party to wrap this under those sanctions. That or Arbcom finishes up on the Gun Control case.--v/r - ]] 17:54, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
	::It looks like the Tea Party has been involving itself in the case, whether Bundy's involved with them or not, so the sanctions would apply. --] 18:02, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
	:::Yeah, that's a good point. This is clearly a Tea Party golden egg and is going to attract the proponents and opponents that were involved in the Tea Party case.--v/r - ]] 18:15, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
	::<s>Okay...sorry for making a comment on your territory? &mdash; ] 18:09, 15 April 2014 (UTC)</s>
	:::Take it easy, goethean, please. ] (]) 19:29, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
	::::I'm not even sure who that's directed at. Goethean, are you responding to me or Sarek and what specifically are you responding to?--v/r - ]] 19:33, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
	: Whoever is watching over this, please also keep an eye on ]. I am generally not around these days, and the article seems to have drawn some attention related to this Bundy matter. ] ] 01:02, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
	== Eyes needed at Christopher Ferrara AfD, puppetry & SPAs ==
	* ]
	I fear we're about to be set upon by outside interests intent on propping up the bio of one of their own, as several "new" accounts have shown up, an IP posting on behalf of an outside person, and so on. This is connected to the recently-recreated ] article, and the push to keep that in article-space. ] (]) 23:01, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
	*About to be? Yeah, ] and I are on different sides of the discussion itself (only just) but I agree entirely that the sudden influx of non-policy contributions is unhelpful. Suggest that the debate perhaps be semi-protected. It has already been re-listed once so a brave admin may simply elect to close the discussion one way or the other (without presuming to suggest which way). I'm also concerned about the entirely unjustified attacks on Tarc as the nominator. I might not agree entirely with his rationale but suggestions of bias are unfounded. Secondary issue but it seems to be something the "new" contributors have latched onto. ]] 05:42, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
	* I do think a semi is appropriate here. The discussion is getting off track due to the <s>SPIs</s> SPAs. ] (]) 11:15, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
	== Dorje Shugden Controversy ==
	{{archive top|1=]. - ] <sub><font color="maroon">]</font></sub> 02:09, 17 April 2014 (UTC)}}
	Hi, I'm having problems with an editor on the ] page. I have tried to improve the introduction of the article which is at the moment very one sided and certainly not ] but although I've proposed my change on the talk page and it contains ] I've had my changes reverted repeatedly by ] who refuses to offer constructive comments or engage in a collaborative effort to improve the article. He's stopping me from editing. What can be done please? ] (]) 08:58, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
	:Why haven't you taken up my suggestion to go to ]? ] (]) 10:42, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
	:: Because ] has been particularly obstructive and objects to me trying to edit the article in any way even with ]. I have tried to collaborate but he refuses. Misplaced Pages is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit and such freedom is important. ] (]) 13:49, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
	:::The manipulation of Misplaced Pages by New Kadampa cult editors is explained on the ] page and the ]. While '''3''' users (], ] and myself) were patiently the article in a careful manner, ] in the article. Also note the of other New Kadampa editors. Now on the ] talk page, he just creates new threads to obscure previous discussion while completely lying about the nature of his edits. If this user has his own way (]), we will see the deletion of academic references and the use of as references. ] (]) 14:24, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
	::::I rest my case. ] is uncooperative. He clearly doesn't want to improve the article. The other editors he mentions are sympathetic to his view of the controversy so of course they are going to agree. How is it possible to improve the article with alternative reliably sourced view points when one editor guards the article and refuses to allow the inclusion of material that he doesn't agree with?] (]) 18:21, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
	::::: Misplaced Pages editing decisions operate by consensus. If the discussion is between you (1 person) and those of a different opinion (more than 1), at best, it will be a stalemate. The best thing you can do is go to the article talk page and persuasively argue why your edits are an improvement. Win other editors over with your logical argument and reliable sources. Consensus rules and if, should you gain consensus, an editor still is obstinate, the next step is dispute resolution ], not AN/I. This isn't a forum to come to get editors you disagree to change their minds or get blocked. Content disputes get resolved on article talk pages and, should that fail, dispute resolution forums. <font face="Rage Italic" size="4" color="#800080">]</font> <sup><font face="Times New Roman" color="#006400">] ]</font></sup> 20:44, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
	::::::Liz, does it seem right that one person on one side of a controversy should aggressively protect an article from the inclusion of ] that would improve the article and make it more balanced, fair and accurate? I'm not being protectionist, my edit is fair and includes both sides of the controversy, stating views that I myself do not accept. If it takes days and days of effort to make one change to a Misplaced Pages article because of one editor's intransigence, people will stop taking an interest in Misplaced Pages and the quality of the articles will suffer as a result. For one person to block change cannot be fair and to be lone voice of one side of the controversy makes getting consensus extremely difficult. The article remains biased and inaccurate while one person protects that inaccuracy. Heicth is insulting and refuses to collaborate or change the article. ] (]) 19:11, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
	::::::: ], for better or worse, Misplaced Pages admins do not make conduct decisions on what you or I (or anyone) thinks is "right" but what WP policy and guidelines support or forbid. I agree that editors shouldn't '']'' articles and prevent other editors from contributing but unless there is disruptive editing going on (like edit warring or personal attacks), gaining consensus for your proposed changes on the article talk page is best way to go because you'll have that support backing your change. That advice goes for any editor. If you want to push the issue further, you can launch an ] but those only tend to resolve disputes if there is a fair amount of editors participating (say, a dozen) and I'm not sure how many people are working on this article. <font face="Rage Italic" size="4" color="#800080">]</font> <sup><font face="Times New Roman" color="#006400">] ]</font></sup> 20:10, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
	:::::::: Thanks Liz, I understand. At the moment there are only really three other editors on the article, all go whom share a particular view of this controversy. What is the procedure if an individual or even a group of people are attached to their views and actively oppose changes to an article? What if consensus cannot be gained or edits are blocked? Does that mean that the article has to remain one sided? ] (]) 15:18, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
	::Thanks once again Liz. By the way, Truthsayer62 is again lying. It is not just me opposing him. ] just addressed him on the article's talk page.] (]) 20:20, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
	After Liz's comment, Truthsayer62 is now pretending to be a new user, ], (same specific argument about introduction, making a big deal of how to sign, providing an edit summary for talk page comments) or brought in this fellow NKT editor. Come on Misplaced Pages, ban these guys like the Scientologists were banned. Even Truthsayer62 . ] (]) 22:10, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
	:Heicth - If you have good reason to believe ] is a ] of ] and that these two accounts are being are being abusively operated by the same person - then you can report it to ] - but so far the new user March22nd has only made one edit - and that on an article talk page. ] (]) 08:31, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
	::This is a false accusation. I am not ]. ] (]) 19:01, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
	=== Topic Ban Proposal ===
	The manipulation of Misplaced Pages by the New Kadampa cult is explained on the ] (a great editor on Misplaced Pages). Many other editors have struggled for years with cultists like ] (for example see the ] page). I documented my struggles on this ANI page. If ] continues with his strategy of tiring out his opponents, despite Misplaced Pages policies on reliable sources, consensus etc., we will continue to see the deletion of academic references and the use of nonsense material. While most people view Misplaced Pages as an encyclopedic resource, Truthsayer62 views Misplaced Pages as just another NKT blog. I propose that ] be banned from any topic related to Dorje Shugden and the New Kadampa Tradition, which sadly seems to be his life's work according to both his user page and edit history. ] (]) 05:43, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
	::if you are really in favour of reliably sourced material and neutral edits, why did you block my reliably sourced and neutral edit? There's nothing in the introduction of the ] article that explains what the controversy is because it's full of one sided information on why Dorje Shugden is a spirit. It doesn't explain the other point of view that is the other side of the controversy. ] (]) 15:39, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
	:Yes there are numerous problems, and have been for years, with the articles on ], the ], and the ]. There are now quite a number of very reputable academic sources on these subjects available, and I think good balanced articles could be written relying only on such sources. However it seems these articles will inevitably be edited by zealous devotees of Dorje Shugden amd/or the NKT to bring these articles as close as they can to their own POV.
	: ] (]) 08:04, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
	:: I haven't analyzed the article edit history, ], but it seems like ] is saying that he can't make edits that "stick", without being reverted, so I question how much influence he has had on the articles in question. I think a topic ban at this stage is not warranted if you are reverting most of his edits. JMHO. <font face="Rage Italic" size="4" color="#800080">]</font> <sup><font face="Times New Roman" color="#006400">] ]</font></sup> 20:14, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
	:::Well I agree with Chris Fynn obviously. And the comments of Kt66 elsewhere. ] (]) 20:18, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
	:I've been watching these articles for years and edit warring, sockpuppetry and so on have been going on all that time on the ], ], ] and several other related articles — carried on by apparent ] and ] members on one side, and their detractors (some probably ex-members of those organisations) on the other ~ with the occasional uninvolved but interested editor thrown in. Each side in these edit wars has their own partisan agenda and seemingly nearly infinite zeal and time to spend. Frankly to me it looks unlikely that NPOV will ever be achieved. ] (]) 21:41, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
	::That's pretty pessimistic. So are you for this topic ban or not?] (]) 22:19, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
	:::These are all false accusations making clear that ] is aggressive and non-cooperative. He won't accept any edit I propose as he is simply trying to ban a neutral point of view, now by trying to ban me. He has reverted every edit, including the ones I proposed on the talk page and asked for comments on. This is unreasonable. ] (]) 15:26, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
	Chris Fynn already addressed your claims of "neutral point of view" on the ]. And you are a ], by your own admission on your user page. Neither of the "two" users, ] or ] (who are obviously linked) seem to understand Chris Fynn's post on the talk page. ] for example keeps pushing a primary source written by Kelsang Gyatso. And ] on this ANI page falsely keeps harping about "neutral". Truthsayer62's view of "neutral" is deleting academic information from Kapstein, Dreyfus and Thurman. What other behavior is necessary before someone is topic banned? ] (]) 16:59, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
	*'''Support''' topic ban. Whether or not Truthsayer62's use of the word "libel" is actually a legal threat, it is sufficiently disruptive to be grounds for a topic ban in and of itself. If the user is not indeffed for legal threats, he should at least be topic-banned. ] (]) 23:35, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
	==== Legal mumbo jumbo, sockpuppeting and deleting academic quotes (again)====
	], a ] by his own admission on his user page, is now making , when we are simply using secondary academic sources from Bultrini and ]. This article is not a ]. And the Bultrini book with Thurman's foreward clearly documents Chinese involvement. Despite Chris Fynn's recent explanation on the talk page, and previous deleted warninings on his user page, ] once again deleted direct quotes from Dr. Thurman from 2 different pages, ] and ]. ] confirmed that Truthsayer62 and 3 other accounts were and was blocked for sockpuppeting. The manipulation of Misplaced Pages by the New Kadampa cult (]) is explained on the ] (a great editor on Misplaced Pages). Many other editors have struggled for years with ] (for example see the ] page). If ] continues with his strategy of fallacious arguments about libel, neutrality etc., despite Misplaced Pages policies on reliable sources, we will continue to see the deletion of academic references and the use of nonsense material. While most people view Misplaced Pages as an encyclopedic resource, Truthsayer62 views Misplaced Pages as just another NKT blog. ] (]) 14:59, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
	:I {{diff|Talk:Dorje Shugden controversy|prev|601668575|warned Truthsayer62}} to try to avoid words like "libel" or "slander" because accusations like that could be perceived as ] and we usually block people who make or strongly imply a legal threat until they clarify that no litigation is planned, or threat is intended. I don't think the word "libel" was meant to be a threat, so I haven't taken any action, but I'd rather head off that kind of escalation now before it happens. -- ''']'''] 15:56, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
	::Thanks, I didn't mean anything by the use of that word and I didn't realise that it was serious. The truth is that Heicth doesn't like me contributing a view from the other side of the Dorje Shugden controversy and so he is doing everything he can to get me banned when it is he who is being obstructive. ] (]) 22:08, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
	Truthsayer62 is not even remotely pretending to adhere to Misplaced Pages policies anymore at the ] page, such as sourcing and consensus. Not even remotely. He is replacing whole swaths of secondary academic references with non-RS junk websites and his own writings. ] (]) 03:36, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
	=== Blocked, now what next? ===
	I have blocked {{userlinks|Truthsayer62}} for the disruptive editing behaviour shown here. My personal view is that accounts with names like "truthsayer" are rarely here for Misplaced Pages's benefit, and almost always here for the benefit of their own POV, but that's just me.
	I think there are several ways we could proceed now:
	# Others clean up the mess, then Truthsayer62 is unblocked.
	# Truthsayer62 is unblocked but topic banned.
	# Truthsayer62 is unblocked but paroled.
	# Truthsayer62 is unblocked with binding mediation between the parties.
	# Truthsayer62 is unblocked with no further action.
	# Truthsayer62 is considered banned.
	I favour parole or topic ban, but I would value input from independent reviewers of the articles in question. The great gobs of ] and blatant ] he's been inserting are clearly going to take time to clean up, but it's far from clear to me that there is any substantial body of truly neutral editors on this topic. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 11:49, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
	*Good block of disruptive ]. After looking at the history of ] plus last month's input on the talkpage and in this ANI thread, I can't see much reason to unblock. In other words, I favour option 6. If somebody does unblock, it should definitely be with a topic ban in place. (But what's the use of topic banning SPAs, really? Just admin busywork.) ] &#124; ] 17:12, 16 April 2014 (UTC).
	:*LOL, agreed, if you ban a "single purpose account" from its "single purpose" then it's an account without a purpose at all. -- ''']'''] 17:42, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
	{{archive bottom}}
	== Request for permanent deletion of user contact details ==
	An IP editor has posted contact details (not of me) here: . I'm not sure whether this is details of a service or just a person who's been uploaded by a vandal. I request that an administrator permanently delete this revision, so that this person's details are not displayed on this public venue in the future. --] (]) 09:38, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
	:I've deleted those revisions, pending oversighter involvement. You can use this link: ] to report this to the oversighters. -- ] (]) 09:58, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
	::Thanks. --] (]) 03:39, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
	== User:Thecharisp ==
	{{archive top|1=Making ] is a bad idea. Making them in an AN/I thread is just a ''really'' bad idea. - ] <sub><font color="maroon">]</font></sub> 02:03, 17 April 2014 (UTC)}}
	{{userlinks|Thecharisp}} has no significant history on Misplaced Pages other than boosting a fraudulent medical device, {{la|Pap-Ion Magnetic Inductor}}. I believe the user should be shown the door. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 12:54, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
	: Just for the heck of it, I had a look at this and I agree with you. It was great to see the ArbCom decision about pseudoscience. There are a lot of conspiracy theorists about trying to ply their views in a number of different ways. I'm not saying this user is one of them - it looks more like an advertiser with a probable ] issue. Just my two cents. ] (]) 13:01, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
	::Also look at ] - seems to be the same device. <b><font color="darkred">]</font></b> <font color="black">(])</font> 14:04, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
	Mr Guy, who are you to decide if anything is fraudulent? Any device or method not approved by the FDA is fraudulent?
	I have been trying to be as objective as possible by adding new information and doubtless facts(ie clinical studies from pubmed and certificates of conformity to the European standards and regulations) without deleting any previous information. Just adding new ones that are missing. I do not understand why you are removing it. Is there any doubt that any of what I wrote is untrue? ] (]) 14:20, 16 April 2014 (UTC)Thecharisp
	:See ]. The studies were not on your specific device. --] <sup>'']''</sup> 14:26, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
	You are so wrong and go ahead and look at the official website papimi.com under studies to read the full publication. Maybe the device used is not in the abstract but it is mentioned in the full paper! <small><span class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 14:38, 16 April 2014 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
	:My apologies, the device was not mentioned in the text I had access to. I do have to question how Papini is hosting copyrighted papers, though. Nevertheless, I will post to ] and ask them to have a look. --] <sup>'']''</sup> 14:58, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
	I'm with Guy on this one. There is no real science and no quality sources that would give any credence to the device that he's pushing. The best it has to offer is a single randomised controlled trial on 10 individuals. Any medical claim on Misplaced Pages has to meet ], which guides us to rely only on the best quality, recent secondary sources. Anything that makes medical claims based on a single small primary study has no place in an encyclopedia. --] (]) 15:46, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
	Alright you do not consider a small scale study to be of any importance. There are more though as well for other cases. In this article as it is now, it is only stated that the device is not approved by the FDA and that is illegal to be imported and used in the US. Good I agree. Don't you find it fair then and objective to also mention in which other countries it is approved and legal to be used? If someone makes an article should fully cover the matter and present the total-whole truth and not parts of it.] (]) 15:57, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
	:: Start here: ] <span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]]</span> 16:07, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
	:What is your connection to the company that produces this device? It seems the only edits you've made over the last 3 and a half years have been to promote this device. ] ] 16:06, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
	Good question! I am the owner and general manager. And as I have mentioned in some of the changes I have made, my intention was not to promote it but to protect it from presenting only part of the truth. And that is what I have been doing by adding information and not deleting any previous ones added by others. Additionally I never made any medical claims, I just posted links to clinical studies that have been made to inform people about everything. Now I need an answer from an authorized person or administrator on whether the article is going to be filled with all facts and information or it will have to be removed completely. I would not want to proceed in legal actions but I am afraid I will have to in order to protect myself and business.] (]) 16:13, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
	: Note that Tide rolls has blocked Thecharisp per WP:LEGAL -- ]'''ᚠ'''] 16:27, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
	::This place is a joke. ] 16:30, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
	::: Not really, we have very clear polciies on legal threats, and on ]. I had a fair idea that Thecharisp was connected to the manufacturer, due to the cynicism born of long experience here. "Energy medicine" devices are all fraudulent (see for example). No valid device needs to portray a CE mark as a legal endorsement of their medical claims in the EU. I would have blocked him for promotional editing, but I have a history on the article. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 16:53, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
	While I agree it is unbalanced to focus entirely on the device's legal status in the US and Canada, it may be a wasted effort to fill out info about legal status in other countries. Should establish if the device is notable for the encyclopedia first. AfD? ] 16:24, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
	: IMO the sources establish its notability as a quack device, but a merge to an article on quack "energy medicine" machines is quite possible and requires no admin intervention. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 16:59, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
	{{archive bottom}}
	== User Bbbigben70 ==
	I stumbled across ] today, which contains a huge list of email addresses and seemingly promotional content. The editor has an edit history consisting of only three edits to this talk page. Not sure what to make of it, but it may be worthy of admin attention. ] (]) 15:33, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
	: The page had the copyvio text of two articles taken from androidauthority.com and the list of email addresses. The email addresses fail CSD:U5 and the copyvios CSD:G12. I've deleted the page. The user has no other contributions, deleted or not, and hasn't been active in over a year - so I don't think there's anything left to be done. -- ]'''ᚠ'''] 15:56, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
	{{Resolved}}
	== Admin intervention needed ==
	{{archivetop|OP blocked as a sockpuppet. -- ''']'''] 21:19, 16 April 2014 (UTC)}}
	Admin intervention concerning two articles and needed. A user/users have rightly been trying to remove the mention of King Charles IX (1550-1611) from the aforementioned articles. Edits are constantly reverted. Charles IX wasn't a king of Kvenland or linked to the land by any historian
	. The land no longer existed when the king was born so mentioning him is absurd to say the least. Instead of dealing with it, solving the matter by blocking multiple users is childish. Even discussion isn't allowed at the moment apparently because a moderator is afraid of losing her face.] (]) 16:58, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
	*And I've blocked this editor whose only edit is above as a sock of ]. ]&nbsp;&#124;&nbsp;]&nbsp;&#124;&nbsp;] 17:07, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
	{{archivebottom}}
	== Personal attack ==
	started personal attacks against me since yesterday. For example see this . A trollish activity on several pages (articles and talk pages). --] (]) 17:34, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
	*Looking around, particularly at the diffs , the attacks, warring, battleground, etc. appear to be all he does. {{U|Tiptoety}} gave him a final warning for battleground behavior, and it looks like this is more of the same. He hasn't edited much, but it is starting to look like he is more interested in his own POV only, and ] to build an encyclopedia. ]&nbsp;&#124;&nbsp;]&nbsp;&#124;&nbsp;] 17:41, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
	::I can't deal with him anymore. He doesn't attend to my comments and edit summaries. Even after started to talk on article talk page to solve issues (]), he just writes meaningless comments about me (I guess he uses Google Translator, poor skill of English language). Maybe my edits are incorrect (I reviewed his edits and they are unreliable), but why he doesn't act like a normal editor/contributor? Why he writes such comments and disruptive edit summaries? I started a ] topic and requested other editors' help, but I think it won't be helpful, because this user just does what he wants/likes. --] (]) 18:02, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
	:::He's not here to contribute. See (Improper usage of tag/template). --] (]) 20:25, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
	::::I agree, this user should be blocked, perhaps indefinitely. ] (]) 22:47, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
	: Don't you stopped yet? Why are you always reporting me? Cause of my edits turn you mad? First of all, you attacked me and blamed an "older vandalist user." You're a clearly sided and I will not permission that. ] (]) 20:46, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
	*By the way the "google translate" issue it's not an argument and even not funny :) You're such a desperate seriously. Ps: Stop fallowing my edits obsessively. ] (]) 21:00, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
	::I came here to mention the attack on Zyma that Zyma links above - he needs to drop the personal attacks but my main concern is competence in English and pov editing. ] (]) 20:56, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
	:Poor English + POV edits + disruptive edit summaries + using Misplaced Pages like a forum. Am I wrong about this user? If I did wrong edits, please block me. I accept my faults and mistakes. As you see, he's here to stop me and make me mad (his above comment)! --] (]) 21:07, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
	:I'am an able to intermediate level of english. If this is a create big "problem" sorry for that but I'm sure Zyma, you're clearly understand me. So please... Don't be an ad hominem. ] (]) 21:15, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
	::Your edits (both articles and talk pages) are problematic and you don't attend to the others. Even your comments on this report are just personal attacks against me! You use Misplaced Pages like a forum. Obvious battleground behavior and ]. --] (]) 21:31, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
	:::NOTE: I've blocked Yagmurlukorfez 24 hours for continuing to edit-war at ] after being given a final warning by Tiptoety that the next act of edit-warring would result in a block. This block does not take into account any of the other problematic editing mentioned here, including the personal attacks, POV edits, and questions of competency (related to use of the English language). I'm hoping that this reinforces the admonition that conflicts like this should be settled in discussion (and Yagmurlukorfez did indeed post to ], but still reverted shortly after doing so). -- ''']'''] 21:32, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
	::::{{replyto|Zyma}} I was remiss in not saying this before... It takes at least two people to engage in an edit war. On ] and ] both you and Yagmurlukorfez were reverting each other. Unless the edits you're reverting fall under one or more of ] (and none of them did) you're just as culpable in the edit war. The only reason I blocked Yagmurlukorfez and not you is because Yagmurlukorfez continued to edit war after a final warning, and because I see them recently battling with an IP in addition to yourself. But your behavior is also not acceptable here; in the future if you run into conflict with someone in this way you should engage in discussion, otherwise you can be blocked and it obfuscates the misbehavior of the person you're conflicting with because your own actions have to also be taken into account. If you make sure to keep your own actions clean then it strengthens any case you have against the other person, otherwise people may dismiss your concerns as "two people bickering". -- ''']'''] 15:53, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
	:::::Okay, I always use detailed edit summaries and I discuss my edits, but I agree that I should choose a better and more clear approach in the future to avoid such conflicts. As I wrote in the above comments, Maybe I didn't choose a right way to deal with this user, but it's obvious that his edits are problematic. Even he did same behavior in this ANI report. If I behaved wrong and I didn't choose the right way, I'm sorry and I apologize. --] (]) 17:07, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
	== Problematic editing ==
	{{User|Tiptoethrutheminefield}} joined Misplaced Pages a couple of weeks ago. Yesterday, he made a problematic edit by re-adding "Great Calamity" as a translation of the Armenian name of the ] This issue has been discussed extensively in the talk page and there was a consensus that "Great Calamity" should not stay in the lead.
	In the past few days, he has been ]ing me and the articles I edit. He suddenly became interested in ] (which is a Good Article) and has been reviewed by a couple of users (for DYK and GAN). He adds a ridiculous tag to article, claiming a statement directly supported by a highly reliable source (''Oxford History of Christian Worship'') is "dubious".
	He also makes major content alterations on POV grounds:
	*removes twice a sourced! example of a church that has been influenced by Etchmidzin claiming it is "completely different"
	*adds "dubious" tag to a claim sourced by an encyclopedic article and adds a different church without providing any sources
	*adds the false transcription (ɛtʃmi.ədˈziːn) of "ech-mee-uh-dzeen", which is supported by a reliable source
	--] ] 18:23, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
	:Mr Yerevantsi seems to be erroniously assuming that he owns the articles he has edited, and that any content or edits he has made are perfect and untouchable. If he has genuine issues about any particular edits I have made (rather than just ownership issues) he should raise those issues on the talk pages of the articles. But, as a general comment in response to his above comments, he has been using very general works like encyclopedias or travel literature to write an article about an extremely specialist subject (an early medieval Armenian church), I have been citing from books that are actually monographs about Armenian architecture written by academics specialising in that field. A specialist source always trumps a third-party non-specialist source. If he has an issue about the quality of sources, there are other notice boards to use, though again the talk page of the article is the proper initial starting point. ] (]) 18:49, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
	*{{reply to|Yerevantsi}} DYK is not the epitome of quality. Likewise, GAN does not mean an article is finished. FAN doesn't even mean an article is concrete and unchangeable. If Tiptoe has credible sources to enhance the article, by all means you two should be cooperating.--v/r - ]] 19:06, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
	::: Where did I claim that? All I'm saying is this user is hard to work with as he doesn't understand the basic rules of Misplaced Pages. He dismisses reliable sources and prefers to push his POV. The Oxford source clearly states that Etchmiadzin was the first church in Armenia, while Tiptoe asks me "Are you actually saying that for the 200 or so years before the founding of this church there were no churches in Armenia?" This is ridiculous and irrational. --] ] 19:23, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
	::::It is not "my pov" - they are the opinions of sources, from sources that are actually about the building, not just general works like an encyclopedia. And why else did you mention its DYN and Good Article status if not to imply that having that honour meant the article was now perfect and unalterable. ] (]) 19:32, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
	::::: It is your personal opinion. The article is from an encyclopedia on Christianity and the statement is directly taken from an article about the city of Ani. --] ] 19:38, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
	::::::Then find a proper source, a specialist work on Armenian architecture that states something as specific as "Etchmiadzin was the first church built in Armenia". ] (]) 19:44, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
	::::::: I've already given a ] that says it. --] ] 19:45, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
	* I can't comment on any of the rest, but /ɛtʃmi.ədˈziːn/ seems to me to be the correct representation of ech-mee-uh-dzeen in IPA. — ] 19:30, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
	::: ədˈziːn = uh-dzeen ? --] ] 19:31, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
	:::: Syllables in English don't begin with /dz/, so /d/ would belong to the previous one. — ] 19:36, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
	::::My assumption was the same as lfdder: that ɛtʃmi.ədˈziːn is just the IPA representation of ECH-mee-UH-dzeen, so that is why I put it back and why I don't know why Yerevantsi removed it. ] (]) 19:39, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
	::::: Chaining "uh" (g'''u'''y) to ə (p'''o'''lice) is, at best, source falsification. --] ] 19:43, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
	:::::: 'uh' usually stands for the schwa. Also, guy is a diphthong, /aj/, not the 'cup' vowel (which I assume is what you had in mind). — ] 19:47, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
	::::::: Yes, that's what I had in mind. "usually stands for the schwa" source please? --] ] 20:15, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
	:::::::: I'm not gonna go digging a source that it ''usually'' is the case 'cause, frankly, it doesn't matter. What does matter is that it's not 'at best, source falsification' -- 'uh' is used to represent the schwa in ]. Groiler use 'uh' for what is definitely the schwa. — ] 20:47, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
	:::::::::Yerevantsi, I think you may be confusing orthography with phonology again. The distinction between the "cup" vowel (/ʌ/) and the p<u>o</u>lice/butt<u>e</u>r/etc "]" vowel (/ə/) is pretty basic English phonology. It's kind of like confusing Beryllium and Boron: sure, they are pretty close to each other on the periodic table and the IPA charts, but...
	:::::::::
	::::::::: nb: people who can do proper phonemic transcriptions, that was my best shot at the speech of an Australian ] - ] etc, etc. --] (]) 14:56, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
	== User talk page harassment and wikistalking by ] ==
	{{archive top|result=The problem is over: Epicgenius, who (now) knows the score, promises hand on heart to prevent such future events. We don't block retroactively, of course. With apologies to the IP editor for their treatment, and a brief note to say that playing nice is a two-way street--and with thanks to Dennis Brown for his usual good sense. ] (]) 04:54, 17 April 2014 (UTC)}}
	{{userlinks|Epicgenius}}<br><br>
	After ] that he should not post to my talk page, he has continued to repeatedly post harassing messages there: , , , , , , , , , , , .
	This has included refactoring my comments () and labeling my edits as vandalism (, ). He has also begun wikistalking my article edits:: , , , , .
	] clearly states that I have a right to remove comments from my talk page, so this is harassment. This puerile behavior has got to stop. ] (]) 20:40, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
	:It would be useful if you would help us sort the wheat from the chaff here. Running reflinks and the like, after you edited an article, is not quite "wikistalking".
	:Epicgenius, you're headed down a very unwise path here. In particular, continuing like (diff repeated from IP's long list above) on someone else's talk page, will end up getting you blocked. I suggest you knock it off. --] (]) 20:47, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
	:: I vouch for this IP user. Even though it's just an IP, IPs are users as well, and he has appeared to have edited constructively on Misplaced Pages so far, and does not need to be indulged in such ] by a senior editor, one with over 60k edits yet somehow for some benign reasons harasses IPs. Knock it off. ] (]) 20:53, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
	:::Nonsense. I suspect this IP is an editor hiding behind anonymity and their edits haven't been all that helpful, anyway. Per ] this IP needs some time off to reconsider what they've been doing. <font face="copperplate gothic light">] (])</font> 21:09, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
	::::What is your justification or evidence for this? This isn't an easy WP:DUCK case, and you should pause before making such allegations. <span style="text-shadow:0em 0em 1em #003399;">]</span><span style="text-shadow:0em 0em 1em #FF8C00;">]</span> 21:11, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
	::::Hi ]. Would you like to take some time off to understand the difference between a ], ], and a ]? --] (]) 21:23, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
	::::There is absolutely ''nothing'' that justifies this: , , , , , , , , , , , .
	:::::There is also absolutely nothing that justifies this: . Calling other editors "asswipes" is a big no-no, according to WP:NPA. ] (]) 22:36, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
	*I'd favor a huge trout and a warning that IP editor talk pages should be treated like any other talk pages. I'd also warn that avoiding the IP is highly encouraged. 21:33, 16 April 2014 (UTC) <small>(message left by ])</small>
	*This user, who has never made a '''''single edit before today''''', manages to find ANI. This editor is clearly not new. Oh and by the way, the user isn't exactly clean himself. In this day alone, he has and , , and just '''''minutes''''' after I have edited them. Fishy, huh? ] (]) 22:28, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
	*I have also requested that the IP user unlink my username from his talk page, and even tried to do it myself, but to no avail. His wikistalking claims are false, BTW; I have only done minor edits on these pages per the Manual of Style. ] (]) 22:28, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
	:: I edited for years as an IP editor and for some folks, depending on their set-up, the IP is different every time they come online. This user could have months or years of experience. Unless this IP hopping is used disruptively (like multiple votes at an AfD discussion), there is no penalty for being an anonymous editor (except how one is often treated by registered editors). <font face="Rage Italic" size="4" color="#800080">]</font> <sup><font face="Times New Roman" color="#006400">] ]</font></sup> 22:34, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
	::: It's not the IP's article edits that are disruptive. It is their liberal use of personal attacks in edit summaries and talk page posts, plus completely false allegations, their failure to drop their stick, their own puerile behavior (wherein they find it more important to revert my edits than to edit articles constructively), and inexplicably disallowing me from their talk page (for no wrongdoing of mine). This user should be warned of personal attacks. ] (]) 22:40, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
	::::'''My''' "failure to drop the stick"? I don't think so. My last contribution to a page that you edited was . You continued on with your stick, edit after edit after edit, <s>for three more hours, until .</s> to this . My injudicious comment on your editing was only in exasperation at your incessant ]. And my contributions to the pages you edited were . ] (]) 23:05, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
	::::: So, could this problem be solved by an informal interaction ban? Can you two agree to stay away from each other, stop posting on each other's talk page and not scrutinize contributions and visit articles to edit right after the other editor has done so? Then you are both free to continue editing, without any sanctions or blocks. <font face="Rage Italic" size="4" color="#800080">]</font> <sup><font face="Times New Roman" color="#006400">] ]</font></sup> 23:47, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
	:::::: I'm fine with that. ] (]) 00:04, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
	:::::@71.139.142.249: Let's agree to stop arguing, pointing fingers, and wikihounding, okay? This doesn't seem worthwhile. ] (]) 00:04, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
	*Epic, jeez. I will be the first to say that an unregistered account isn't the same as a registered account (see ]) but behind each account OR ip address is a human, and I don't see the need to taunt and antagonize, and you do seem to be doing just that. It doesn't excuse any personal attacks they have made, but it does make it a draw. There isn't a need to correct their ban proclamations or use their talk page except for standard templates, then only as needed. If there is a problem with the IP, it will pretty much be guaranteed to be overlooked because you are busy poking them with a stick. I've delinked the name on the IP talk page. WP:UP is about namespace, and IP talk pages are not exactly name space, ie: it isn't reserved for a person, but for an IP. The IP needs to stop poking as well, including this link. Hopefully now the two will just go separate ways, as I'm not at all willing to entertain any interaction ban, and I'm hoping to not have to block anyone. ]&nbsp;&#124;&nbsp;]&nbsp;&#124;&nbsp;] 23:58, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
	:*All right. I'll agree to stop harassing the other user. ] (]) 00:04, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
	:*I stopped editing Epicgenius's pages 8 hours ago, and will continue to refrain from doing so. But I don't think the problem of a can be solved in such a simplistic way. Even after EG was warned on his talk page by editors, he continued to obsessively stalk my . Something further needs to be done here. It doesn't help when administrators blatantly proclaim that IPs are second class citizens. ]. ] (]) 00:20, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
	::*Two things:
	:::* I am not a "serial IP harasser" as you say; the victim of said harassment was a well-respected editor who has been editing for 9 years and 140,000 edits. I had had a dispute with that user from March 2013 up to that point; the argument had lasted for '''''months''''', not hours in your case. You need more diffs or your "serial harasser" claim doesn't count. BTW, that editor is registered, so your point is moot. ] (]) 00:32, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
	:::*At least that editor ], so props to him for that. You didn't provide a reason, so this is absurd. ] (]) 00:32, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
	::*It isn't a simplistic solution. It is a solution whereby everyone understands what is and isn't acceptable, and that they are likely to get blocked if it continues. I just don't like big fat warning templates. Sometimes, two people just need to go to different rooms, and this is one of those cases. I strongly suggest everyone just walk away (including from here), give each other a little space, and not antagonize or even talk to each other. No one "needs" the last word. ]&nbsp;&#124;&nbsp;]&nbsp;&#124;&nbsp;] 00:37, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
	*Well. If the IP had made the first time around this might have been avoided (since that's unquestionably better), but more importantly, Epicgenius should have explained their edit the first time they reverted, with an edit summary, not with some automated note that says nothing. What's more, the edit-warring on the IP's talk page is unseemly, unproductive, and unwarranted--I'm a bit disappointed that an experienced editor got carried away like that. So while I suppose it's nice to know that you won't further harass this IP editor, it is much more important that you take a step back and assess how you could have avoided this in the first place. The answer has something to do with respect, with taking the extra step of providing a valid and meaningful edit summary, with accepting that not all IP editors are vandals or trolls, etc. I'm quite serious, Epicgenius: this was not OK. Please either prevent this before it happens, or walk away earlier, much earlier. ] (]) 01:43, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
	**Okay, I will keep that in mind. I won't do it again, as it's causing more problems than I need. (As if the incident with BMK, which Drmies may remember, wasn't quite enough... {{=(}}) ] (]) 01:52, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
	***To be honest, I had totally forgotten. My advanced old age makes me forget easily, which in turn makes it easy for me to get along with lots of people. Drop me or Dennis or anyone else a line next time, and we'll either support you or scold you. Thanks, ] (]) 02:03, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
	****All right, I'll do that if I have problems like this again. Thanks. {{=)}} ] (]) 02:10, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
	{{archive bottom}}
	== ] and ] ==
	Hi there. I was creating the page ] - a first class cricketer which passes the notability criteria at ] and {{User:Elblanco123}} tagged it for CSD as an attack page and dropped the relevant notice on my talk. Obviously this is a nonsensical action but the user has not replied to my talk page message requesting an explanation and has carried on editing using page curator, which suggests they may not respond to my message.
	I'm happy to wait for them to reply to me, but in the mean time I would like to continue editing the article and I am obviously not permitted to remove the CSD tag myself. Can someone please review it for me so I can carry on? Regards, ] <sub>]</sub> 20:57, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
	:::PS - I did accidentally remove the tag myself, but I've reinstated it for someone who did make the article to deal with! Sorry. ] <sub>]</sub> 20:57, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
	::::I was going to decline the speedy earlier when I saw it in the attack page queue, but since you removed the tag, I went on with other tasks. Now I have gone ahead and declined it properly. I am also interested in seeing Elblanco123's response. ​—] (])​ 21:03, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
	I wonder if it is just a competency thing, new to using page curator. I see some messages on his talk that suggests users are pointing out that he is using tags inappropriately, like the comment about bare urls by the user before me. No harm done in the end. Thanks DoRD. ] <sub>]</sub> 21:04, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
	:The user has tagged two state legislator articles I created, in different states, as autobiographical. & . ] (]) 21:17, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
	::I've tried to leave a more attention grabbing message, seems a competency thing. ] <sub>]</sub> 21:21, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
	:::If this continues, we may have to block per ]. It's one thing if an editor is new and trying to figure out the project, but if they're (A) being disruptive and (B) not communicating, they need to be stopped, regardless of their intentions. -- ''']'''] 21:37, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
	:Concur, it's not like the software makes it hard to see new messages. ] <sub>]</sub> 21:41, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
	:: I had a look and there are indeed quite a lot of inappropriate tags. I reverted one that claimed there were no secondary sources when in fact there was one (out of two - the other was a primary source). Dru has done a good job with some of the more recent edits. FWIW as an IP I agree that a block may be the way to go here. (''Hanging around this page waiting for any action on my issue above''). ] (]) 22:27, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
	:::I was thinking for applying ], after going through two recent technical vandalism by two unexperienced page curators. When Admins are not spared, I think Autopatrolled rights will not solve my problem. IMHO it will be good if only Autopatrolled users are given permission to use the page curator tool. {{User:Elblanco123}} also wrong-tagged one article I started, and not responding....--] (]) 03:55, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
	I'd treat the latest notice on his talk as a final warning. Next bad tagging gets an indef. until he responds and agrees to stop tagging improperly. —/]/<sup><small>]</small></sup>/<sub><small>]</small></sub>/ 04:33, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
	:Just a note, this editor has nearly 70 edits in the two days that they've been active (the account was created on January 10, but the only edits or other actions made were on January 11 and April 16). In all of that time, they have not made any original communication. There have been no edit summaries that weren't auto-generated, and no talk page discussion beyond those left by templates. Even the one AfD they created, seen ], had no deletion rationale and only repeated the article name where the deletion argument would normally go. I suspect that this may be an editor that has some kind of social impairment that inhibits such interactions (I couldn't even begin to guess at the particular cause, but ] gives at least one explanation). -- ''']'''] 21:03, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
	== Long argument unrelated to article on ] ==
	Two weeks ago {{user2|SafwanZabalawi}}, who primarily makes edits to ], proposed adding a section that would dub critics of the religious sect as, quote, ''"Japanese nationalists, WW II crimes deniers, opponents to humanism and global citizenship, Holocaust deniers, traditional priesthood, and so forth"''. Earlier last month (now archived) he used the talk page as a soapbox to accuse Soka Gakkai's critics of vandalizing a bunch of Anne Frank books in Tokyo. Last year, SafwanZabalawi messed up the article quite a bit, adding lots of unreliable citations to Soka Gakkai websites and writing in an unencyclopedic style, and a team of four of us repaired it -- it is looking pretty good right now, but Safwan has been continually threatening to revert it to what it looked like before. I have been looking on perplexed as Safwan continues to insult other editors from his talk page soapbox, inciting the wrath of one {{user2|Catflap08}}. The two of them are now engaged in a lengthy argument about Soka Gakkai that is basically tangential to the article.
	Safwan has been given far too many chances and I would like to consider some administrative action. I am involved, so I am biased here, but IMO he has never edited in a productive way and has shown himself incapable of having a civil discussion. Catflap should also be warned not to fall for stuff like this. ] ] 21:26, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
	:Clarification:
	:This sudden accusation above (naming Safwan)occurred only after I, Safwan, posted yesterday on SGI Talk Page an input that "Religious sarcasm should be banned in Misplaced Pages", in which both editors who are now complaining (Shii and Catflap) were involved. Shii is aware of an action of religious insult to the Object of Worship in Nichiren Buddhism, an insult to millions of people around the world and which took place in Misplaced Pages's article on SGI last year. An aggressive and fanatic editor inverted the image of SGI Object of respect and devotion, the Gohonzon, upside-down to show deliberate insult. I did not wait one year - as the two collaborating editors here did - to demand on Talkpage Misplaced Pages editors intervention to disable such immature actions of religious insult and hatred. Now this attitude of using Misplaced Pages to voice an aggressive disrespect to the religious beliefs of millions of people is repeated by Catflap, sarcastically with Shii laughing about a Lotus Sutra's expression. This has been clearly explained on the Talkpage yesterday, offering the opportunity for Catflap to apologise, but he chose not to.
	:Now: what is the subject of Shii and Catflap's above complaint? If there was a complaint about what I wrote one year ago (as it is mentioned above) - then by any reasonable approach - that complaint should have dealt with - not now, but - one year ago. Waiting a whole year to complain, well: this in itself shows that Shii-Catflap have nothing substantial to state, no argument and no logic and just inventing a problem.
	:I'm not sure whether Shii is an Administrative editor or not, but his description of a book - an RS - (which criticized Japanese right wing media) as being a "FISHY" book, was an unprofessional and obviously biased categorization. This kind of emotive and uneducated description about a RS, introducing to Misplaced Pages a new "Fishy category" of reliable sources - this has something to do with his complaint above:
	:That Fishy Book according to Shii revealed the truth about the Japanese rightwing media's disrespect to the Holocaust and the denial of mass murder and mass rape (which occurred during the war led by the Japanese military)and which is still active, targeting now the SGI.
	:SGI advocates the concept of World Citizenship - the very opposite to Japanese nationalism - and hence hatred and aggression against SGI. This is related to Misplaced Pages article here because opponents to SGI vandalized a previously balanced and neutral article in which common activities with Human Rights Institutes were mentioned (Gandhi Smirti Institute, Martin Luther King Jr Moorehouse Chapel, Simon Weisentahl Center, The United Nations Commissioner on Refugees, and others valid and neutral sources were mentioned as part of Facts about SGI involvement.
	:Shii complains about my input that SGI cooperates with Simon Weisenthal Center (and has held an exhibition about the life of Anne Franks)-while the Japanese fascists in their antiemetic tendencies aggressively destroyed books on Anne Franks, which SGI deeply respect.
	:I suggest writing or asking Simon Weisenthal Centre on whether its cooperation with SGI can be mentioned in Misplaced Pages article. (In fact all of the other institutions which were removed from the article can be also asked about their approval to mention their name in SGI article).
	:Shii-Catflap complain to this Board that I "threaten" to share in editing the article (to make it neutral and balanced as was before):
	:"Safwan has been continually threatening to revert it to what it looked like before. I have been looking on perplexed".
	:Perplexed? for what? What is the cause of confusion? Is invitation to abide by Misplaced Pages rules of neutrality and scholastic honesty a "Threat"? Such a statement from Shii speaks for itself. What Shii-Catflap perceived as a "threat" to their bias is probably the intention to engage Universities and Human Rights Institutions in contributing (in the future) to the article - as well as referring the issues of their biased editing to Jimmy Wales, and his view of describing a RS as Fishy by Shii, his views on lack of scholastic honesty through fearing mention of Human Rights Institutions and the UN (in SGI contribution to Peace Culture and Education) - and his views on using the Misplaced Pages for religious sarcasm and insults to the beliefs of millions of people.] (]) 01:15, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
	::Safwan, you are reviving a long-dead content dispute. This is ANI and content disputes are not relevant here, and your opinions about Japanese society vs. life inside Soka Gakkai are not relevant to an encyclopedia at all. However, I will clear up a point of fact:
	::''"I did not wait one year - as the two collaborating editors here did - to demand on Talkpage Misplaced Pages editors intervention to disable such immature actions of religious insult and hatred."''
	::The file under discussion is ]. As can be seen from the file history, I, not Safwan, fixed the error two weeks after it appeared. I then the vandalism on Commons. I'm not sure why Safwan considers this relevant to the current dispute. ] ] 03:18, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
	:::Well the “dispute” has been going on for a while luckily not on the article itself, but too long I agree. BTW it wasn't me either who included an upside down picture in the text. During the time Safwan was actively editing the article he had a problem with critics of SGI or those with alternative views. By all means the way SGI sees itself should be part of the article – but also alternative views. Calling authors of those sources critical of SGI fascists goes to far. As a solution to the problem I would suggest that I do not respond to Sawafans posts full stop. What this dispute has shown however is that if Safwan will decide to edit the article, especially issues critical on SGI, one will know with what intention he will do so. So ignoring the named editor just might be the best solution. --] (]) 04:47, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
	Now with some more time at hand I would like to elaborate on a few things keeping in mind that the safwan-conflict went on far too long and it would have been best to ignore some of the posts full stop – being a German national with a bi-national family background (British-German with Czech and also Jewish ancestry) I do admit to react extremely sensitive to label sources ( may it be references, authors or editors) as fascists. I would however like to underline the fact that any attempts by a certain editor to portray SGI as anti-facist are to say the least absurd. True is that ist's early leaders did suffer from the former nationalistic regime in Japan, but that was due to religious grounds when being in conflict to the then ordered ] not due to the fact that SG was in conflict with the Japanese expansion policy – that is just for the record. What SGI then stated after the war is in somewhat irrelevant as the chronological order of events should be kept in mind. While some may decide to beat a dead horse and label others in the named talk page as shallow, fascist, unable to understand and whatsoever and then in turn bring up some UN-engagement (which by the way some other Nichiren Buddhist groups have been practising for years without making a big fuss about it) or Medals that by fact neither SGI nor his chief have been honoured with are also irrelevant.
	I in spent a lot of time (also with the help of other editors) to research the ongoing debate why SGI and Nichiren Buddhism in general are always being mentioned in connection to Japanese nationalism which lead to the creation of articles such as ], ] and ] the later article does show some historic facts that in turn connect it to SG's founder ]. I am well aware that some do not like these issues being brought up. In the end of the day the article should by all means state what SGI sees itself like but there are many “buts” that by all means have to be mentioned as well in the article. I am sorry that I waffled on in so much detail. Yes I am an ex-member of the named organisation and I did in turn spent much time to research information that I was formerly not aware of. Given the language and cultural barriers some info is hard to find (yet again other editors helped in to fill that gap). Again I did what I could to bring in neutral and academic facts . The ongoing debate with Safwan has in the end resulted to intensify my research (which I do in my spare time just as any other editor) and bring in more information that was not present in Misplaced Pages before. For now though I will refrain from any debate with a certain editor – its much more useful to keep the big picture of the small issue on Nichiren Buddhism in a factual frame.--] (]) 19:07, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
	::: Shii; The reason for long arguments on SGI page is caused by the unreasonable attitude of distrtion of the truth and attacks and disrespect to Misplaced Pages policy on SGI page and talk: /1/ I mentioned last years' insult to SGI by deliberately inverting the image of Gohonzon by an immature fanatic - to show an example of troublemaking attitude against SGI and SGI teachings. Whoever did this insult to millions of sincere people - is beyond the issue. The attitude and motivation of that SGI opponent - is not welcome in an Encyclopedia. You said you corrected the problem (after i alerted on that editor's aggression) - but I am giving here this example of the "attitude of troublemaking - of some editors opponents to SGI. /2/ Another act of immaturity and trouble-causing is sarcasm from a phrase from the Lotus Sutra - and this is clear on Talkpage. /3/ As for violating Misplaced Pages policy; this was done by deleting a whole section which included facts about SGi cooperation with Human rights instutution and deforming the Introduction and other sections. Misplaced Pages is about neutrality and accepting facts and RS. This was violated and for this reason I am seriously suggesting contact with these Human Rights Institutions inviting them to edit from their own RS. Now SGI has held an international exhibition on the Life of Anne Franks (The Little Artist of Terezin" and such activities in which millions of members and guests shared - are part of the truth about SGI and should be included in the article, this is very relevant, and it is also relevant and true that some of SGI opponents are fascists, antisemitic, and this is also an undeniable fact. You find some misled individuals who are addicted to tabloids digested sensations, and who get emotional about SGI - but in the article in which a huge interest was on politics, facts pertaining to politics, race, nationalism, fascism, antisemitism - are equally important to mention.
	::: Catflap; I did not enjoy your lecture about your POV in history, nor it is necessary here. You decided to refrain from facing the facts that I present, Ok, but I am open to discuss and debate and cooperate.] (]) 02:09, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
	== Protect of ] ==
	Please remove protect from this article and please revert nonconstructive edits by JamesBWatson.--] (]) 22:29, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
	: Have you edited under any other usernames, ]? You mention in one of your three edits that you have an account that is blocked. <font face="Rage Italic" size="4" color="#800080">]</font> <sup><font face="Times New Roman" color="#006400">] ]</font></sup> 22:38, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
	Yes acounts are my.--] (]) 22:48, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
	::This is obviously a sockpuppet of ] who was blocked for having an offensive username (prdel translates to "farted" in Czech from what my machine translation says). The page was also edited by another sockpuppet, ] which in Czech references to "hacking". The user page of Okurka v prdeli translates to "If you got to this page, it means that you moron". I'm blocking this editor as an admitted sockpuppet, and I'm pretty sure this is a sockpuppet of ]. -- ''']'''] 22:58, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
	::Just to be clear, I'm pretty sure that Polibte mi prdel is also a sockpuppet of Toma646; it doesn't take a genius, since Toma646's sockpuppet {{diff|User:Polibte mi prdel|604357740|604141117|admitted it}}. -- ''']'''] 23:04, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
	::And the editor called me a "douchebag" and said something about stuffing me in a meat-grinder on their user talk page (according to a machine translation) so they've lost talk page access too. (Not because I'm offended, I think it's pretty funny, but clearly they're abusing their talk page.) -- ''']'''] 23:08, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
	:::Well, at least they spelled "douchebag" correctly, no? That's better than that one student of mine on an evaluation. Dobry! ] (]) 04:56, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
	:::: "Dr Mies is a doucebag"? That turns you from a shower to a softie, doesn't it? Hell, if people cannot even insult you correctly, that says lots about things ... maybe it was a Freudian Slip? <span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]]</span> 11:47, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
	] added an image of a gully emptier. "Your shit - our joy", you can read on the car.]]
	:::::"Polibte mi prdel" is "Kiss My Ass" in Czech, "Okurka v prdeli" means "Cucumber in Ass". This editor has made some good work on cs-wiki, however, here on en-wiki he wastes time of others, see ] for incomplete list of his previous accounts. --] (] / ]) 05:23, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
	:::::Oh, and "Naboural jsem s hownocucem" means "I crashed with a ]", for those who are interested. Using profanity and fecal humor is a big fun for this editor. ] (] / ]) 05:45, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
	== I have a complaint ==
	{{archivetop|status=Trouting warranted|result=Quit trolling. ] ] 03:25, 17 April 2014 (UTC)}}
	It's getting on for six months now since I last appeared before this august assembly, yet I haven't changed. I used to enjoy the temporary adrenal charge of being notified of yet another ANI report, even though I ignored most of them; have you all gone soft? Or perhaps come to your senses? ] ] 03:00, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
	:Isn't it a good thing if you aren't up here a lot? ] (]) 03:14, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
	::What a ridiculous thread. Close it, someone. ] ] 03:17, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
	{{archivebottom}}
	== Edit war on ] ==
	I'm not sure if this is the right place for this, or if there is exactly a right place. I realise this is something of a last resort, but the people I talked to on irc didn't know of a better place, so I'm here. If you know of a better place, feel free to remove this.
	;Description
	{{u|Spike-from-NH}} insists on labelling me as a connected contributor on ], but I have only made two fairly small edits to the article (see {{querylink|Uncyclopedia|qs=action=history|history}}) and do not believe I am sufficiently of a contributor to be labelled as such. Spike is also listed as a connected contributor. Spike and I are both admins on uncyclopedia.wikia.com and en.uncyclopedia.co respectively and I donated $100 to help pay uncyclopedia.co's server fees once but am not otherwise financially connected (I do not receive any money from them), and he is not financially connected at all. I believe we are both sufficiently psychologically connected to our uncyclopedias that it makes sense to list us as connected contributors except that I've barely edited the article so I don't think I'm a contributor. I don't really know though so I'd like someone to try to help with this.
	;Attempts to resolve the issue
	I have explained most of this on the talk page but Spike does not accept my reasoning and continues to revert me citing his explanation, which is basically that I am somehow getting other people to make changes for me. The discussion may be found . I think of a connected contributor as someone who has significantly edited the article himself rather than someone supposed to be getting others to edit the article; the former is based on evidence, while the latter is based on opinion. If I am in fact wrong about this please say so.
	;Diffs
	*Spike's insertions of the template (the first of which was not a revert):
	*My reverts:
	We have each made 4 reverts though as they were not within 24 hours I do not think it is blockable. Correct me if I am wrong. I regret the edit summary of my initial revert where I said Spike was 'full of it' and the one where I said simply 'bye'; that was uncivil, unnecessary and unclear, and I do not intend to use such summaries again.
	;Suggested resolution
	I do not think it is necessary to block either of us, despite what the venue I have chosen might suggest, unless it turns out that the edit warring and incivility are too much. I think it would be enough for an uninvolved editor, administrator or not, to express an opinion on-wiki about whether the template should remain or not, and then acting on that opinion if need be. I would also like another opinion on whether it is appropriate to tag Spike as a connected contributor, as I am not sure if being an Uncyclopedia administrator (as Spike is) is quite enough to be connected, per what some people have said on irc, and I also suspect there was no real need to investigate and single out his edits because I don't see that he introduced a great deal of bias. The template tagging Spike also appears to have been placed by someone who is somehow connected to Uncyclopedia as well.
	Thank you for your time. ] (]) 03:08, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
	:I don't think it matters unless you all are being disruptive. I'm removing both templates for now. The presence or absence of those templates should not be considered a judgment as to whether either of you have a ]. I suggest not worrying so much about precisely what "connected contributor" means: that's just the name of the template. Misplaced Pages is not a court of law. —/]/<sup><small>]</small></sup>/<sub><small>]</small></sub>/ 03:27, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
	:: I agree with Mendaliv, but it should be pointed out that the fact that both Cathfolant and Spike are admins over there is an automatic COI issue - whether the edits here on Misplaced Pages are within the rules or not. Just pointing that out for the benefit of Cathlofant, as the interpretation that person used for "connected contributor" is not right. Spike's is right. But again, I agree with Mendaliv. There is no need for the templates unless a problem has arisen here. And it hasn't in the article itself. ] (]) 04:24, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
	:::I don't even know if I'd call it a COI issue if someone happens to be an admin at another wiki. Sure it means they have some connection, but it really irks me when any little connection is seen as imputing an appearance of impropriety on the part of the editor. Becoming an admin on many wikia projects is just a matter of asking. Anyway that's just me ranting. I'm totally on board with the trend against paid editing (which I would rather see termed "editing for benefit"), but at the same time people need to stop using accusations of COI as a tool to win arguments (I'm not saying either party is doing that in this case). —/]/<sup><small>]</small></sup>/<sub><small>]</small></sub>/ 05:00, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
	== Please block Strfornawuks for disruptive edits ==
	Dear Admins,
	Please block {{lu|Strfornawuks}} for his disruptive edits in the ] page. He began his disruptive edits by moving Israel to the "partially recognized states" category (along the likes of Abhkazia and South Ossetia). I reverted his edit, stating that Israel did not belong in that category. He promptly counter-reverted my edit, and then put a warning on my talk page to block me. Another user reverted his edit, and he did the same thing to that user. Once again, I undid Strfornawuks's revision, again stated why it was wrong (and that if he were to include Israel, then he technically should include North Korea as well, although neither should belong) and put a warning on his talk page (which he has since removed). Given that his edits are politically motivated and diverge from the common standards in Misplaced Pages, that he has made these revisions against multiple users without proper dialogue, and that he subsequently threatened them with blocks, this amounts to vandalism that should at least result in a block. ] (]) 03:23, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
	:I've warned Strfornawuks about the definition of vandalism for now. Since ] probably covers how Israel is treated I'm not even going to touch it. I would also note that Strfornawuks from the Albanian reaction; I have no clue if that removal is proper, however. —/]/<sup><small>]</small></sup>/<sub><small>]</small></sub>/ 03:47, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
	::Thank you. However, he continues to threaten to block me on my user page and counter-reverting the Crimean article... ] (]) 17:09, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
	:::As I noted on his user talk, he's mislabling your edit as vandalism. However you need to tread very lightly. That article is under ], and I'm sure the topic of whether Israel is a recognized vs. partially recognized state is under ], therefore discretionary sanctions can apply. Do not edit war with Strfornawuks, it will not end well for either of you. To any administrator: could someone check into this and levy sanctions if necessary? They're not at 3RR yet, but they do have some 7 reverts each since 27 Mar. —/]/<sup><small>]</small></sup>/<sub><small>]</small></sub>/ 18:52, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
	==For your information==
	You need to check out ] and ], revert all their edits and put them in the ]. In addition, ], an entirely satisfactory article created by AA three months ago has been attacked no less than '''eleven times''' now. Semi-protection? ] (]) 10:43, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
	: Can you provide some examples (diffs) of the behavior you are complaining about? <font face="Rage Italic" size="4" color="#800080">]</font> <sup><font face="Times New Roman" color="#006400">] ]</font></sup> 11:14, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
	::Just look at *any* of their edits - there are only five between them. -- ] (]) 11:27, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
	*I've reverted all of ]'s edits and left a ] on both users' talk pages. Based on the similarities between their editing patterns (however limited they may be), it would seem that these two accounts are operated by the same individual. ] ] 11:41, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
	::Nice try but it hasn't had the desired effect. You need to block both these accounts and add them to the Daft SPI. And the Bentley article has now been attacked twelve times. The perpetrator is subject to ]. If the admins will not take full ] action against this individual he will continue to disrupt the site. He is obsessed and the only solution is a concerted effort by admins in compliance with ]. I am only an IP so I can only advise. ] (]) 18:21, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
	:::I see the accounts have been added to the SPI so thanks for that. I've put the Bentley article into the page protection request process. ] (]) 19:23, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
	== Dispute between IP editors ==
	{{archive top|Guys, please just get a room. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 22:41, 17 April 2014 (UTC)}}
	I have come across some sort of dispute between editors; upon I performed I was informed about policies against anti-Misplaced Pages rants or other similar posts against users in general. There has been a few posts on my talk page about this and I don't wish the discussion to continue on my page, so I have started this page to hopefully resolve the matter. Thank you. ] (]) 13:14, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
	:Yesterday User:Epicgenius to stop harassing ]. The ''very first'' thing he did today was to 71's (my) talk page using a sockpuppet IP. 'nuff said.] (]) 13:23, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
	::@71.139.148.192: I told you that it is a '''''shared''''' IP and these edits aren't mine. I also told you to stop mentioning my name, yet he still does it. You may want to read up on ] because apparently you have none, and read ] because you obviously do not know what that is. I agree that the material in the talk page is ]. ] (]) 13:27, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
	::71 has a dynamic IP, which, of course, is not a sockpuppet.] (]) 13:33, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
	:::Well, a shared IP is no less a sockpuppet than a dynamic IP is. This argument, on my part, will cease until such time as another user may join in. ] (]) 13:38, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
	:::: Not sure whether it is true, but looking at the talk page history, it's not the first time ] was accused of being an Epicgenius sockpuppet. Maybe an SPI is appropriate to clear this up? I know that an IP can't be matched to a registered account but a behavioral analysis would be useful. If these editors are the same person, this seems like a blockworthy offense. <font face="Rage Italic" size="4" color="#800080">]</font> <sup><font face="Times New Roman" color="#006400">] ]</font></sup> 13:58, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
	::::: I used the IP up until November 2013, when I was blocked. Most edits afterward aren't mine, though some of the NYC Subway edits may have come from me due to accidentally not logging in. I will not be using this IP after this month, anyway, due to my change of location. ] (]) 14:12, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
	::: I won't edit 71's talk page anymore, if it makes things better. ] (]) 14:05, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
	:(Multiple EC) A few comments. 1) The sort of polemic rant on the IP's user page is the sort of thing we seem to get on occassion. I think they are rarely helpful, but I don't see any reason to delete it when it's on a talk page of an editor who welcomes it, even if it's the talk page of an IP editor. Nor do I think such removals are justified by policy or normal practice, it's a bit polemic but not enough to justify all the hassle if the editor refuses to remove it. (And I definitely don't see anything that can be considered a personal attack, the editor is referring to a way too broad class of editors for it to count as a personal attack.) Rememeber we generally give as much discretion to IP editors as we give to accounts for managing their talk pages baring stuff needed to avoid confusion to others who may use the IP.
	:2) Unless 71 can present conclusive evidence (i.e. enough for a successful SPI which they open) Epicgenius is responsible for those comments they need to stop making such unsupported accusations. That's grounds for a block. I don't see anyway they can show Epicgenius made those edits since it appears to be a shared IP and there's no way a CU is going to link the IP to Epicgenius considering our privacy policy and how minor the issue is. In fact, if it's a uni computer, the user agents may be the same anyway.
	:3) Generally speaking, having asked Epicgenius to stay away from their talk page, the IP also needs to stop mentioning Epicgenius unless they have a very good reason.
	:4) Whoever is behind that 67 IP needs to stop fooling around. If their behaviour continues, it may be worth considering a softblock.
	:] (]) 14:13, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
	:: ], Epicgenius admits to having previously used this IP account (above) although he says he no longer does. <font face="Rage Italic" size="4" color="#800080">]</font> <sup><font face="Times New Roman" color="#006400">] ]</font></sup> 14:23, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
	:::Yes I gathered that may be the case from the comments. That's why I suggested that only a CU looking at user agents etc has any chance of guessing if it's really Epicgenius but there are reasons why it may not work and in any case, there's no way a CU is going to do that. ] (]) 16:08, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
	::Well, I already mentioned a ''very good'' reason: Yesterday User:Epicgenius to stop harassing ]. The ''very first'' thing ] did today was to 71's (my) talk page.
	::*Reason #2: In the past, other editors have identified 67.220.154.178 as a sockpuppet of ]. See: , , , ;
	::*Reason #3: 67.220.154.178 has even admitted as much: ;
	::*Reason #4: Epicgenius was warned yesterday about his obsessive reverts and refactoring (, , , , , , , , , , , ) to 71's talk page. Today 67.220.154.178 engaged in the ''very same'' behavior: , , , , , , , , , , , ;
	::*Reason #5: Today Epicgenius asked for an interaction ban on me because I was stalking '''him''', yet today my edits were to my own talk page (yes, dynamic IP), and one edit to 67.220.154.178's talk page. How could that be stalking of Epicgenius unless 67.220.154.178 and Epicgenius were one and the same? ] anyone? ] (]) 14:52, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
	:::*You are making a mountain out of a molehill here. First you prohibit me from your userpage for no reason, then claim that ''I'' am doing the disruption? All of your edits today, plus half of your edits yesterday, were spent on this fruitless matter.
	:::*That was a shared IP, again, and if you keep pinging me against my wishes I'll request for an admin to block you. I've already said that twice.
	:::*I needed to be separated from you because it is obvious that such a conflict would extend indefinitely. I ''know'' that you and 71.139.142.249 are the same editor because it's by your own admission, and since 71.139.142.249 is disturbing me from making constructive edits, I requested for an interaction ban—'''''after''''' your admission. Your admission was at 13:23, and my request came . There's more than one way that I can know of things.
	:::* Finally, 67 was ''removing'' content from your page, while I was ''adding'' content. It's not the same content. If it were, you'd have a stronger argument, but it isn't.
	:::* Something does not add up here. ] (]) 15:10, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
	:::I read your comment the first time. If you think alone is a good reason, you have serious problems with ] etc. The fact that Epicgenius promised to stop messaging you doesn't in any way prove that the IP who showed up is Epicgenius, particularly since you clearly attracted a lot of attention with your behaviour. The fact that Epicgenius has used the IP in the past does make it fairly suspicious. However you both attracted a lot of attention and as an apparent uni IP, it's easily possible multiple people watching were using it. Whether the person is trolling you or Epicgenius or both or whatever they are doing, I don't much care. As I said, the IP needs to stop or expect to be blocked. But as I also said, I see little chance that a CU will look in to this, so you need to present behavioural evidence.
	:::As for the rest of your evidence, I didn't look into it that well, but it doesn't see much better. I think we've all seen the other ANI thread, I don't see how repeating the stuff that's there in any way demonstrates that the IP is Epicgenius. We all know you two have had problems with each other in the past, no one disputes it. (Similarly from what I can tell, no one even Epicgenius disputes that they've used the IP in the past. In fact if I understand the above comments, Epicgenius uses this IP at the moment but usually while logged in.)
	:::Ultimately what it comes down to as it always does in sock allegations cases, when the person you are claiming is a sock disputes it, particularly when you have problems with this editor, you need to put up or shut up. All your comments here are pretty pointless. Either make a SPI based on the evidence you have (even ask for a CU if you really think that's going to happen) or stop making the accusations. Emphasising what I hinted at before, until and unless there is a successful or at least marginal SPI, the accusations can be considered unsufficiently supported and so should not be repeated.
	:::] (]) 16:16, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
	::::This will be my last reply since I don't want to get drawn more in to this than I already have but wanted to make a few more observations. One is that I mentioned above it was a uni IP. I think this may have been a mistake. The IP is called United States Princeton WBS Connect on the IP page and I one or more people mention it being a shared and a school IP several times so I mostly ignored everything except the Princeton and Connect bits and made the assumption it was a IP used by Princeton University and shared by many there and perhaps even used by library and other multi access computers.
	::::But WHOIS and other details simply show it being assigned to WBS Connect who evidentally deal with stuff like internet connections for large organisations. And it seems the claim is always "school" so I guess it must be claimed to be a secondary or high school IP. But I don't know if this has ever been firmly established or simply what those editing from the IP such as Epicgenius say. In any case I apologise for any confusion
	::::My second comment is that looking more at the history, it seems ] has frequently expressed concern about Epicgenius using that IP to evade scrutiny including fairly recently (11 April). This is actually a good example of what I said above. The coincidence of an IP (67 here) suddenly bugging 71 after the kerfuffle with Epicgenius is in itself fairly useless. If you apply the same standard, you could just as well say 71 is BMK. And to be clear I'm not saying that, simply emphasising the coincidence is too minor of itself to mean anything.
	::::My third comment is that perhaps I was a bit too dismissive of there being any merit to an SPI as it does look like there has been repeated concerns of Epicgenius continuing to use the IP inappropriately and I'm not sure if it's shared by as many people as I originally thought. Also it seems Epicgenius was caught using other accounts inappropriately fairly recently. So perhaps it's worth looking further in to filing an SPI if anyone is sure there is enough evidence (I still believe it will have to be behavioural).
	::::OTOH I still stick with my main point. Ultimately someone, be it BMK, 71, or whoever else is going to need to file an SPI. And in the absence of that SPI, continually accusing Epicgenius of editing from that IP inappropriately is simply not on. I would note BMK has, from what I saw, handled the situation much better than 71. They warned whoever is behind the IP that they should not use it inappropriately but they were generally careful to avoid specifically linking it to Epicgenius.
	::::Alternatively, I wonder if it's worth just exploring a long term softblock of the IP more. Considering the coincidences here, I find it hard to believe the connection between the IP 67, Epicgenius and 71 happened by chance. So someone behind the IP is trolling Epicgenius or 71 or both. And it seems there have been problems with the IP in the recent past, leading to blocks. Regardless of who this person is or these people are, it sounds like at least one can't be trusted to edit using the IP and it's a long term problem.
	::::Oh and one more thing. While I'm not recommending anyone rush out to delete it, deleting the comment which effectively started this thread in the future may have merit. The reason is because I just noticed the IP page is 71.139.142.249 and it seems the IP is now using 71.139.148.192 so I'm assuming they won't be back to 142.249. Clearing ot the talk page of an IP of stuff which is likely irrelevant to any future editors using that IP is AFAIK well accepted. Of course 71 would be able to repost it on any future talk page if they really feel it's necessary but they should also remember as they don't have a definite talk page, their ability to keep stuff on a talk page is naturally limited even more than normally implied by the fact the ].
	::::] (]) 19:54, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
	:::::Please get your facts straight. This IP has never '''ever''' been blocked, under the current IP or any other. Unless you can provide concrete evidence of your assertion, an apology is in order. ] (]) 20:10, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
	::::::It would be most prudent if this thread was closed, because we're currently just running around in circles here. What is the point of this thread? It seems as though 71.139.148.192/71.139.142.249 is trying to ] their user talk page despite their own assertion that it is a dynamic IP. It would not matter what happened to their old talk page from yesterday, because it's not '''''their''''' talk page to keep; if anything, the "Please don't edit my talk page" and the "IP users get shafted" notes apply to the ''person'', not the IP.
	::::::Oh, and one more thing, 71: If you want to post that stuff to your user talk page, it would be appreciated to move all that stuff to your new talk page every time you change IPs. It isn't "your" IP address because it's dynamic, so you can't claim ownership of that talk page, as you did yesterday and today. You should delete all the content on the old user talk page that you were using, out of courtesy.<br>By contrast, BMK is a long-term respected editor who permanently uses one talk page and one talk page only. He is allowed to remove anything he wants, anytime. from his userspace at his own discretion, because he uses a static account. These two situations cannot be compared. I apologize for what happened yesterday and today, but you can only use the WP:REMOVED/WP:NOBAN argument if the IP is static, or if you are going to remove all that stuff from your user talk page once you cease using that IP. ] (]) 20:21, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
	{{archive bottom}}
	==]==
	I'm a bit concerned about what's happening here. The article has four '''Keeps''' from
	#the creator of this version of the article ]
	#the creator of the first version, deleted at the first AfD, ]. Probably the same person as above, admins can compare the previously deleted version with the current, they are almost identical
	#a new account, ], for which this is their first edit
	#another new account, ], for which is this also their first edit
	I don't like the look of this but my comments at AfD mean I'm involved now. I think all the accounts should be blocked as socks. I'll notify them now <font face="chiller"><font color="red"><b>] - </b></font></font><font face="arial"><font color="green">]</font></font> 14:56, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
	:No, I'm not a sock. Feel free to visit me if you won't believe me. ] (]) 15:52, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
	{{outdent|:}} Hang tight {{U|Jimfbleak}}, I'll take ] at this.--]<sup>]</sup> 16:04, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
	:Well, those last two are fishy, but that's all... new accounts really can just come out of the woodwork because a reader sees the AfD banner as a call to action. Unless there's some other evidence of socking that I'm not seeing... —/]/<sup><small>]</small></sup>/<sub><small>]</small></sub>/ 16:03, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
	::There's likely off-wiki canvassing involved resulting in some ]-type votes; however {{U|Nsendetzky}} and {{U|Kekstod}} are particularly concerning as they are representing themselves as discrete editors yet have (at times) used the same IP contemporaneously to edit the same article and have subsequently !voted in its corresponding RfA. This would appear to be a violation of ].--]<sup>]</sup> 16:28, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
	:::Yes, and those two submitted near-identical versions of the article at its first and second creations. Thanks for checking this. Would an uninvolved admin (ie anyone but me) propose a way forward? <font face="chiller"><font color="red"><b>] - </b></font></font><font face="arial"><font color="green">]</font></font> 16:40, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
	== Unblock 188.67.0.0/16 for a few hours ==
	{{atop|Under discussion ]. ​—] (])​ 17:36, 17 April 2014 (UTC)}}
	Please allow account creation or unblock the range 188.67.0.0/16 <s>for a few hours</s>. --] (]) 15:14, 17 April 2014 (UTC) The reason is ]. --] (]) 15:16, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
	You could just allow account creation permanently from the range. --] (]) 15:39, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
	:That would render the block useless as it is intended to prevent a very disruptive serial ] from creating accounts. Please wait for the blocking admin to respond to your messages on his page. Thanks. ​—] (])​ 15:44, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
	::Well the block is causing collateral damage to one particular user and possibly affects dozens of good users as all range blocks eventually do. If the block is not lifted, the user in question will be unable to create an account here for a whole month because the automatic creation of user accounts is blocked as well. I wonder what the blocking admin can do about this if the block stays the same. --] (]) 15:51, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
	{{abot}}		{{abot}}
	== Harassment ==		== User:KairosJames ==
	I figure that this is most likely my fault, as I quickly reported this user to ] in a brusque fashion, which may have initiated conflict. However, ] has been repeatedly uncivil, and has started making personal attacks against me and other editors that are not warranted. I'd merely like for these interactions to cease, as they are annoying and have no place on this project.
	*See, for example,
	*See
	*See
	*See
	In the first instance, ArmijaDonetsk was contesting an AFD, that is ]. In the second instance, he was questioning my reversion of a different editor, but as one can see in the edit history, that was quickly resolved through editorial compromise. In the third instance, he commented on an already closed deletion discussion and accused me of furthering some kind of agenda, along with other editors who had voted for deletion. The fourth instance is an inappropriate aggressive edit summary. As this editor has shown no sign of ceasing this hostile behaviour, I thought that I'd start a discussion here. I am not seeking any particular sanctions, but I'd like for other editors to review his conduct, and perhaps explain to him to stop making personal attacks. ] — ] 16:31, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
	:Here's the advice many well-meaning admins and editors have given me: Quit complaining, just suck it up and get on with your life. ANI is not a psychiatrist's couch and can't be bothered with monitoring or moderating editors' behavior. Hope that helps.] (]) 16:38, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
	*I don't disagree. However, disruptive editing isn't productive for anyone. ] — ] 16:42, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
	::"disruptive editing isn't productive for anyone" - I agree entirely.] (]) 16:48, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
	:RGloucester, are you accusing people of having conflicts of interest? That's what those diffs seem to say. I also take note of and . Lip service to seeing both sides but in practice, slamming the Russian side much harder and without much in the way of diffs that I can see. RGloucester, I can't speak for my fellow admins, but my advice to you is to stop making veiled or unveiled accusations and then running "AN/I! He ''hit'' me!" If you are going to dish out that sort of accusation, you should be prepared to take heat. You might be better off reporting suspected whatevers to the appropriate noticeboard, with diffs. Or run for admin.--] (]) 16:45, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
	:I am neither pro-Ukrainian or pro-Russian. I have no personal investment in the matter, nor any connection to Ukraine or Russia, other than an interest in Central and Eastern European history. And yes, I was concerned about ArmijaDonetsk having a conflict of interest, as his username means 'Donetsk Army', which is why I reported it to UAA. He also started an article ], seeming to harken to his username. He was cleared in that regard, and have no concern about that. If you'd like me to defend myself, I can do so. As I said, I have no interest in a prolonged conflict of any sort. I can take the heat. I merely figure that such behaviour is unwarranted. If it is warranted, then so be it. My apologies to all involved parties. ] — ] 16:50, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
	::I think both sides should tone it down, and I construe "sides" broadly. This is going to end at arbitration, and everyone may not get what they hoped. Find a way of getting along. It looks like from your talk page, that this has happened for brief intervals. Expand them. And for the love of Pete, would you say that someone in the US Army should be barred similarly? Focus on the content, not the contributor.—] (]) 16:53, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
	:::We allow individual editors. We do not allow usernames that make one think that the username is representative of organisation editing, that is, that the organisation is editing rather than an individual. ] — ] 19:12, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
	::::This is true. Going by Wehwalt's analogy above, if someone registered an account called "US Army" that would technically be a violation of ] and ]. If the editing patterns further suggested that the person could represent that organization, it makes it even worse. The issue isn't a matter of conflicts of interest, in that a name like "US Army Fred" clearly represents someone named Fred and not the organization and is permissible even if it implies a COI. So the UAA report does not seem to be out of line at all, regardless of the result. -- ''']'''] 21:16, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
	*"In the first instance, ArmijaDonetsk was contesting an AFD" - no, were I not. Can't you even properly read your own diffs?
	*"In the second instance, he was questioning my reversion " - no I was not questioning the reversion, I wanted you to stop content removal. As explained to you . That it had been "solved" does not mean your behavior has been solved. That is what needs fixing.
	*"In the third instance" - "he commented on an already closed deletion discussion and accused me of furthering some kind of agenda" - well, all I see is that you seem to have an agenda of removing certain content and links. The first I noticed was removal of a wiki link, and I asked the user to obey WP process
	*"The fourth instance is an inappropriate aggressive edit summary." - It is not aggressive. You may perceive it as such. But stick to NPOV. You go around and ask "don't attack a user" but it is the very first think you did on my talk page. A person that does this is commonly called "]". So, naming you so, is not an attack at all, but a NPOV statement. I just wrote it in caps so you get the message clear. Just to reduce chance of mis-parsing on your side.
	RGloucester is harassing users that want to fairly and in a NPOV-way contribute to Misplaced Pages, by removing/undoing their contributions out of process. "Red link to an anti-Yatsenyuk government item" removed. "Articles about secession declarations" (], ]) - voted for deletion. "content of copy of Odessa hoax" - removed.
	"Neither pro-Russian, nor pro-Ukrainian." - Well, I myself am pro-Russian and pro-Ukrainian and pro-European. And pro-Knowledge and pro-NPOV. ] (]) 17:05, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
	::Such language though tends to chill debate, which is why it is frowned on here. Everyone needs to cool it down, not only in words, but in terms of reverts and provoking others. Discuss instead. That's what the talk page is for. The world will not end if you discuss rather than revert.—] (]) 17:13, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
	*If my editing is truly disruptive, and harmful to the project, then I request that I be blocked indefinitely for disruptive editing. I have no desire to harm the project, and no desire to push any point of view. If I am doing so, I deserve to be blocked. Therefore, please do as one sees fit. ] — ] 19:12, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
	:: Very few people "deserve to be blocked". Blocks are ''preventative''. We believe you're ], just please follow the policies/processes you agreed to when you arrived <span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]]</span> 19:49, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
	<s>:I am doing so. I believe that my editing has been found to be disruptive per the discussion above, and I do not wish to be disruptive. Hence, I am requesting to be blocked indefinitely. ] — ] 19:55, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
	::I suppose that is impossible, hence, I will self-block myself. I apologise for all disruption that has occurred, and will cease all editing forthwith. Farewell, and thank you for your assistance. ] — ] 20:13, 17 April 2014 (UTC)—</s>
			{{user links|KairosJames}}
	*Disregard my previous statements. I was merely cannot handle the questioning of my integrity. Regardless, I will refrain from editing in contentious areas, as it clearly isn't to my benefit to do so. I do apologise for my previous behaviour, however, it really is very much to handle. The sheer amount of nonsense that has been piling up in the 'Ukraine crisis' quadrant of Misplaced Pages is astounding, and it can get to one's head if one doesn't keep a vigilant eye. ] — ] 01:36, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
			This user's additions of unsourced content to biographical articles (not any ''living'' persons that I've seen, or I'd have gone to BLP) have been reverted many times, with several warnings. They've made no response on any talk page. Assuming they actually are getting these facts from some kind of source, I would think they could be a constructive editor, but they at the very least need to become aware of our citing standards in my opinion.] (]) 04:36, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
	==Donetsk People's Republic==
			:Actually in one of their recent edits () they added content that was patently false, so for all I know they've made up all the other unsourced info.] (]) 05:18, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
	{{archive top|1=Protection applied. - ] <sub><font color="maroon">]</font></sub> 21:37, 17 April 2014 (UTC)}}
	Please can the article on ] be given protection from non-autoconfirmed editors. Blocked editor Cmoibenlepro keeps editing it using sockpuppets - see ]. He/she has access to multiple IPs, and when the current crop of IP socks that he/she is using get blocked, will no doubt reappear with other ones.--] (]) 21:10, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
	{{archive bottom}}
			== Suspected sockpuppet ==
	== Editor unwilling/unable to follow copyright policies ==
	Despite numerous posts of advice/warnings (), ] seems unwilling or unable to follow our image copyright policies (latest tagged for CSD). I've tried to explain but it doesn't seem she's getting it. Can someone else give a final warning or block until she agrees to abide by our image use policies. Thank you. --] <sup>'']''</sup> 04:56, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
			I've come across a user who I believe is a sockpuppet of a user who has been indefinitely block on Misplaced Pages. This is the user I suspect: https://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Contributions/Coop4883368638
	:{{NAO}} First, an apology that I unexpectedly had to step away while I was writing a personalized message to the uploader, to add to the standard notification template. I've added both now at ]. Feel free to add warning or action as necessary, but please take into account what I just wrote. Thanks. &ndash;&nbsp;]&nbsp;(]) 05:38, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
			I'm not sure if what I suspect is true, however I've found other accounts with the same editing habits as the user above. These are the users: https://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Contributions/Coop443535454, https://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Contributions/Coop40493, https://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Contributions/Coop2017
	== ] : Multiple violations of ], promoting views of a particular critic and ignoring ] ==
			That's all the information I have to hopefully support my suspicions. ] (]) 05:16, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
	I would like to report user {{User|Binksternet }} for several ] violations, duplication of negative content, promoting the views of a particular critic and otherwise for taking a very one sided approach to editing the ] article.
			:I'll ping ] since they blocked the other accounts. They probably have a better sense of whether or not this is the same editor. Right now, it seems like a username similarity at least. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 05:29, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
			:] ] (]) 10:05, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
			== Wikihounding by Awshort ==
	===WP:ASF Violations ===
			user Awshort has been selectively invoking rules on the article for ]. It has taken me some time to really see how it was happenening, but finally today wrote on the talk page with examples of how they have been selectively and hypocritically enforcing rules on me (a new user).
			Additionally, as I mentioned in that post, at one point they accused me of asking another editor for help...which doesn't make any sense? It seems like they were trying to imply to me that I had done something wrong, but I read over some rules first to make sure I was allowed to ask for help. I'm still pretty sure I am! If not...let me know?
	====Example 1:====
			After my post today, Awshort started ]me.
	# Binksternet originally created a paragraph speaking about Dermine that disregarded WP:ASF back in 2012.
	# Administrator LFaroene made an attempt to bring the aforementioned paragraph more inline with WP:ASF beginning 2013.
	# Binksternet immediately reverted the above edit calling it the "consensus version". There was no such consensus.
	#A few days ago, I re-modified it to a more encyclopedic tone citing WP:ASF in my edit.
	#A couple of hours later Binksternet subtly re-inserted his original version of the of text citing other changes made in the edit. Note that he omitted making any mention of reverting his paragraph to his original WP:ASF version. after line 56
			Here are diffs where they follow me around to pages it doesn't appear they have had any interest in prior:
	====Example 2:====
			°
	In the same edit as mentioned above () Binksternet inserted a sentence claiming that ''"Ryden has never published the first ten months' worth of received messages, explaining that she burned them because there were too many"''. The entire sentence, be it that she burned the messages, that they were too many or that she even made such an explanation in the first place is a claim made by Dermine, who strongly opposes Ryden and has no credible publishing track record to speak of. Theologians who have a much greater track record have provided a completely different account regarding the missing messages. However Dermine's text is being presented as "a matter of fact" with "Ryden claiming that the reason behind it was etc". Also the text ''"Father Rene Laurentin contradicted Ryden"'' is also a claim made by Dermine. That too however, is being presented as a matter of fact. This seems to be another breach of WP:ASF.
			°
	=== Other possible WP:NPOV issues ===
	#Insertion of ] text () which already appears twice in the article in two other sections, both in the lead and the "Reception". He extended it to the "writings" section as well (see Line 38). The Holy See notification now appears 3 times in the article, in 3 different sections, the lead, the "Reception" section and now the "Writings" section. See ] article and search for "Holy See".
	#] of wikipedia rulebook in removal of Ryden receiving Peace Gold Medal verifiable not least by photograph (). In his edit comment he referred to it as 'non-notable' even though Venerable Suddhananda, the issuer of the medal is the top ranking Buddhist monk of Bangladesh and the Prime Minister of Bangladesh was present (in photograph). Its true that this was uncited (newspapers from Bangladesh can be a bit difficult to acquire) but was deleting this content really necessary when Ryden receiving of this medal is verifiable by photograph and not debated even by Ryden's fiercest opponents? To view the photograph that was removed, see previous subsection version of article .
	#In his edit comment for this edit (), Binksternet made the comment ''"The quote is from the back cover, page 142, not from the author."'' This book, written by theologian and ] , an author with an extensive publishing record, contains a lot of informative and supportive material regarding Ryden. Being that Rene Laurentin's written track record is far greater than that of Dermine, and that Binksternet had the book in in his possession, why did he not attribute ''any'' material from that book by adding it into the article? Why only insert text attributed to Dermine, who has a much smaller track record and is also a staunch opposer to Ryden? Isn't it the goal of wikipedia to promote multiple views from multiple sources in a balanced manner? It seems in this case, that he has made it a point to acquire Rene Laurentin's book for no other purpose than to scrutinize the references attributed to it.
	#In this edit () Binksternet added a link to a self published website dedicated to criticizing Vassula Ryden (http://www.pseudomystica.info) ''within the article itself''. This website is hosted by François-Marie Dermine, who is also the author of the book that Binksternet was quoting in his WP:ASF violations (see previous section example 1). This edit, in my view seems to be indicative of an attempt at promoting the website by inserting it directly within the article. Further to this, the edit is also attributed to a ] (http://www.pseudomystica.info).
	=== Questionable Statements ===
			°
	In a discussion regarding Grech's article (]) Binksternet made the following comments:
			Now, I will of course acknowledge that on the third example, I did make a mistake. I thought I had only removed the text of the sentence, but looks as though I accidentally deleted part of the template too. I am unsure how that happened, so I will try to figure that out.
	*''"No. Simply no. There is no way to game this book review to make the Ryden story a positive one."'' 18:36, 16 March 2014 (UTC). This comment speaks for itself. ()
	*''"There is no hopeful note to this story"''. 5:48, 16 March 2014 (UTC). This comment pretty much brings it home. ()
	I would recommend reading the above discussion in its entirety to acquire context of it. I have been involved in multiple talk discussion's, RFC's, DRN's where Binksternet downplayed / made misleading statements with regard to positive developments in Ryden's church relations. For the sake of brevity I will exclude them from this post.
			Either way, Awshort's edit summary was not the language I hope experienced editors would use with newer editors like myself. I have mentioned multiple times in conversations that user Awshort is part of that I am a newer user, so they likely know that.
	=== In closing ===
			____
			I'll end by saying that this user's behavior is making me reconsider whether I want to devote any time to improving wikipedia. Truly. I've never made a report like this before, anywhere in my life, just to give you a sense of how frustrating and upsetting its been.
	Considering how {{User|Binksternet }} inserted and consolidated material attributed to François-Marie Dermine's book in violation to ] in multiple locations, asserting Dermine's views from the book in the article as fact, and that he inserted a reference to http://www.pseudomystica.info, a website hosted by Dermine directly into the article itself, attributing said insertion to the website itself (]), it seems that Binksternet has taken it upon himself to promote Dermine's views in the article. While this is speculative, given his approach to editing the article and his tone in the talk pages, I would not be surprised if Binksternet had a connection with Dermine which would constitute a ]. I do realize however, that this cannot be proven with the information presented here alone.
			I hope that this is the right forum for this. If not, my apologies, and please let me know where to redirect this to.
	Upon reviewing Binksternet's edit history one can take note how this editor has taken a very one sided approach to the article. His edit history starts mid 2012. Upon reviewing my edit history you will note that my contributions to the Vassula Ryden article have also been relatively one sided. The differences between me and Binksternet is:
	*I respect and follow wikipedia guidelines when they are presented to me, particularly WP:RS and WP:ASF.
	*I do not try edit text claimed by authors and present them as facts.
	*I do not attempt to trim or remove content that I do not agree with even when the sources attributed to said content are often non notetable.
	*I am not a high caliber edtitor like Binksternet, thus I expect much more knowledge / adherence to WP rules than what I have witnessed from his part.
			Thanks for taking a look.] (]) 08:49, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
	A full explanation of why I have mainly edited the Vassula Ryden article (technically making me an SPA) can be viewed . (see TLIG section).
			:Hello, Delectopierre, if you have had any discussions where you actually tried to talk out your differences with this editor, please provide a link to them. They might be on User talk pages or article talk pages or noticeboards. But it's typically advised that you communicate directly with an editor before opening a case on ANI or AN and don't rely on communication like edit summaries. Also, if you haven't, you need to notify any editors you mention about this discussion. They should be invited to participate here. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 09:12, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
	I would appreciate some input as to the approach taken by editor {{User|Binksternet }} based on what I have reported above. I feel this issue could really use some administrative intervention. Thanks. ] (]) 06:38, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
			::There isn't. I don't feel comfortable discussing wikihounding with them. It is, after all, harassment. ] (]) 09:20, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::Although I did link to my post today where I confronted them with their behavior (except the wikihounding, as it hadn't happened yet). So that is an attempt to discuss the other part.
			:::But after I tried to discuss it, instead of responding to it, they started wikhounding me. ] (]) 09:22, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

---

Latest revision as of 10:07, 27 December 2024

Noticeboard for reporting incidents to administrators

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

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents Shortcuts

• WP:ANI
• WP:AN/I

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

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

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

---

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

Start a new discussion Centralized discussion

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

Noticeboard archives

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

Disruptive editing and WP:TALKNO by User:AnonMoos

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

None of this matters

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• 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)

It is safe to assume there more than a few of the editors taking part in this discussion have years and decades of technological experience under their belts, myself included. I do not think The Accused is straight-up lying about the technical hurdle, but clinging to the "I refuse to change my system of operation, therefore it's Misplaced Pages's fault for (6 years ago) making the change!" excuse is the real problem here - this is at the heart a behavioral discussion, not a technical one. Consistently violating the norms of the community is indeed a real disruption to the creation of encyclopedic content. Zaathras (talk) 16:29, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

It's not inherently about the signatures. It's that he's stubbornly insisting on using an outdated system that introduces errors into other content. — The Hand That Feeds You: 17:40, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

agree on this. Incidental changing of signayures due to the tech issue is not a small problem itself but that clearly has potential to impact a much wider range of mainspace content. I have a hard time believing that there is not a browser that supports https and can run on a decade old computer (something like Opera even). Claiming inability to switch or upgrade needs to be explained in detail or otherwise this has potential to be a bigger problem. Masem (t) 17:55, 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.

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)

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

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

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

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

@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:ZanderAlbatraz1145 Civility and Content #2

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

User:Glenn103

Glenn103 is now globally locked. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:47, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

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

---

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)

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

North Korean involvement in Russian-Ukraine war discussion

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

Key Points:

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

Request for Administrative Action:

I respectfully request that administrators address the following issues:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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)

you can put the U.S. constitution through one and it says 100% AI generated – Well, I just put it through GPTzero and got 97% human. Might be best if you don't just make up random "evidence". EEng 17:25, 25 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)

External videos
Rc2barrington's appearance on Jeopardy

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. E_F 15:47, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
• This whole thread, but especially the 16:49, 24 December 2024 (UTC) comment, feels like the OP is just throwing literally everything at the wall to see what sticks. But, worse, what is being thrown at the wall lacks any significant body of evidence to support. I note that a personal attack warning has been given for the continued unfounded accusations being presented, which I think is a good move. I don't support a block at this point, although if I was the OP I would withdraw this complaint and/or drop the stick and walk away from this topic as a matter of urgency to avoid continuing to make the situation worse. Daniel (talk) 17:41, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

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

Darkwarriorblake making aspersions

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

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

---

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

−

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

+

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

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

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

−

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

+

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hrrm, this seems a bit excessive.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Followup

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

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

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

User Stationmanagerskidrow removing information on Radio Skid Row page

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

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

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

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

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

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

Insults

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

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

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

Normally this starts with warnings on the user's Talk page, but it seems you two have already hashed that out. So unless this account does it again, there's no further action to be taken. — The Hand That Feeds You: 18:25, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

FYI, following this, I have made this sockpuppet investigation request. Psychloppos (talk) 13:48, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Of note, Hazar Sam has now accused Psychloppos of engaging in defamatory edits, which smacks of a WP:LEGAL violation. — The Hand That Feeds You: 18:09, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

And their response to being warned about that was to flounce. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:46, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

So apparently he was indeed the person insulting me under IP (which he calls having "a little anonymous fun"). Psychloppos (talk) 08:21, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

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.

• Note: I moved this retaliatory post to be a sub-heading of the original issue. — The Hand That Feeds You: 18:34, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Nlkyair012 and LLM chatbots

• Nlkyair012

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

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

Hello @Ratnahastin,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

User:Nadeem asghar khan inaccurate edit summaries

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

Lil Dicky Semi-Protection

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

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

---

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

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

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

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)

None of those are reliable sources suitable for sustaining the edit you want to make. #1 would only support that airline claiming to have that kind of plane. #2 is a model manufacturer, and #3 is a blog. — The Hand That Feeds You: 18:37, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

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

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

Rude and unfestive language in my talk page

My esteemed editor collegue Marcus Markup just left this rude message on my talk page, on Christmas Day no less. Not really in the spirit of the season, I'd say. Considering that he was sagaciously advising me on the importance of tact and etiquette in the very same thread, he should be held to the same standard. Vector legacy (2010) (talk) 17:54, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Vector legacy (2010) and Marcus Markup, you both should stop that childish behavior and disengage from one another. Cullen328 (talk) 18:10, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Uh, “suck a bag of dicks” seems a cut above anything childish in VL2010’s conduct. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 08:05, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

True, and given a warning accordingly - but Vector legacy's user page is also...interesting. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:31, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Vector Legacy's comments in that discussion are clearly poking the bear, both should be warned. On top of that, Vector has broken the 3RR rule with these 4 reverts: , , , . They acknowledge in the edit summary of the 4th that they know of the 3RR rule and that their first edit was a revert. The last revert in particular, effectively saying "haha, you can't make any more reverts because you've already made 3" when the user themselves has made 4, is really not smart nor constructive/collaborative. Valenciano (talk) 10:12, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm normally a stickler for civility, but frankly in this case I actually think Vector legacy (2010) is the bigger problem. Marcus's Markup comment is something they can hopefully easily learn not to do and could have been an extremely unfortunate one-off in a bad situation. By comparison it seems that Vector legacy (2010) is treating editing here as a game where they win edit wars rather than collaborate constructively. I have little hope this is an attitude easily changed so a WP:NOTHERE block might be justified soon. Nil Einne (talk) Nil Einne (talk) 12:25, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Yes. The idea of WP:3RR is that the protagonists should discuss things on the article talk page before that point is reached, not to use it as a stick to beat other editors with. I note that Vector legacy (2010)'s user page admits to a lot of edit warring, and it discloses a WP:BATTLEGROUND attitude. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:31, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

I think that it is safe to say that both these editors are skating on thin ice. Cullen328 (talk) 17:02, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

To that point, Vector legacy (2010)'s userpage consists of a tally of "EDIT WARS WON". I doubt this is serious, but the optics of it, combined with the above 3RR vio + bragging about the other party being on the line, is not good. ―"Ghost of Dan Gurney" _(hihi) 18:01, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

I've nominated that userpage at MFD as it's purely disruptive. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:42, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

User:Ryancasey93

31-hour block. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:06, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

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

---

• Ryancasey93 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Over at Talk:Anti-Barney humor, a user by the name of Ryancasey93 requested that their YouTube channel be cited in a passage about them () that was added by TheLennyGriffinFan1994 (). The talk page discussion was removed by AntiDionysius as being promotional in nature. Ryancasey93 then decided to make an edit request to cite their channel, which was declined by LizardJr8, who then proceeded to remove the passage as being unsourced.

I then brought up concerns with WP:GNG and WP:COI with Ryancasey93, who then proceeded to respond in a needlessly confrontational and hostile manner, creating a chain of replies and pinging me and LizardJr8. Ryancasey93 then proceeded to go off on a tangent where they said we were "very rude and belittling" to them, told us they sent an email complaint against us, called us "the most cynical, dismissive, greedy, narcissistic, and ungrateful people I ever met in my entire life", accused us of discriminating against Autistic people (I am autistic myself, for the record), and called us "assholes".

Simply put, I feel as if Ryancasey93 does not have the emotional stability required to contribute to Misplaced Pages, having violated WP:NPA, WP:ASPERSIONS, and WP:PROMOTION, and a block may be needed. The Grand Delusion 19:47, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

I just logged on while digesting turkey, and was alerted of the pings and this report. I don't really appreciate the messages from the user (I'm on the spectrum too, FWIW) but I think @Tamzin gave a good response, highlighting the need for secondary reliable sources. I should have done that better when I removed the unsourced information. I would like to see if there is any further activity from the user before getting into a block discussion. LizardJr8 (talk) 21:10, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Looks like they've been blocked for 31 hours by Cullen328. The Grand Delusion 23:15, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes, that last comment was unacceptable in several ways. Cullen328 (talk) 00:57, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

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

User:24.187.28.171

Blocked for 3 months for edit warring. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:32, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

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

---

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

IP has been blocked before for previous infractions. Now, they continue to perform persistent disruptive edits contradicting the Manual of Style, either by deliberately introducing contradictions or undoing edits that resolve the issue. The user has also violated WP:DOB at Huntley (singer), though that remains unresolved for some reason. The IP has done all of this despite a backlog of warnings dating back to 2023. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EdrianJustine (talk • contribs) 22:48, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

@EdrianJustine: could you please provide specific diffs? voorts (talk/contributions) 23:23, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

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

Incivility, aspersions, WP:NOTHERE from Cokeandbread

I revoked TPA, applied 3 weeks semi to the article + AfD, indef for the SPI, and tagged Hammy TV (what a name!). Thank you. El_C 11:44, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

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

---

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

Cokeandbread is a few-month-old account whose area of greatest focus has been creating (and defending) two promotional pages for social media influencer-types: Jimmy Rex and Hammy TV. Cokeandbread has refused (diff) to answer good-faith questions (diff, diff) about whether they are operating as a paid editor (responding to one of them with Don't threaten me) and posted a copyvio to Commons (diff). Despite warnings (diff), the editor has been engaging in bludgeoning/disruptive behavior at the Jimmy Rex AfD (bludgeoning and attempting to !vote multiple times (diff, ) and has made uncivil remarks to other editors (diff, diff, diff), while demanding respect in the other direction. Recently, Cokeandbread posted the following on their user page: The way some people in AfD discussions move, you just know some people commenting are under demonic influence. Stay away from me and mine. (diff). Despite another warning (diff), which Cokeandbread removed when blanking their talk page (diff), this aspersion is still up. If we're at the point where an editor is accusing other editors of being demonically influenced, I think we're well into WP:NOTHERE territory. Given the lack of response to non-admin warnings and requests, I'd ask for admin intervention here. Dclemens1971 (talk) 23:34, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

• You're absolutely right. Editors should not be accusing other editors of being demonically influenced. They should WP:ASSUMEGODFAITH. EEng 00:04, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
• I concur, and have accordingly blocked. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:14, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
• Do have to wonder what's going on with that AfD given several accounts with only few contributions, contributions which themselves seem questionable, have somehow found it. But that's probably a question for WP:COIN or something. Nil Einne (talk) 02:28, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

  Suspicious indeed. There's an open case at SPI, although CheckUser did not confirm connections on the first batch of reported accounts. Dclemens1971 (talk) 02:35, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) Actually see it's already been partly dealt with at Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Amaekuma. The geolocation point there is interesting, while I don't know what CUs are seeing it does seem likely given the other accounts wider interest these are editors from Nigeria which is another weird thing since there's nothing to suggest the subject is particularly known in Nigeria. Nil Einne (talk) 02:37, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

  ...after posting this as the end of a series of "I won" edits, they blanked their user talk page. Appears to have been a troll from the start. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:30, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

  Should have locked their TPA. Borgenland (talk) 09:49, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

  On another note, I would like to flag Hammy TV with some COI-related tag in light of this but I couldn't remember the exact template. Borgenland (talk) 09:52, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

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

Disruptive editing by Dngmin

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

The main issue with this editor at the moment is disruptive editing based on continuous abuse of Byeon Woo-seok. Issues began when this editor 1500+ bytes of sourced material. He did it again and again and again for past few days, thus creating a lot of work for others to undo.

Since october the user received warning for blocked from editing. Please help to block the user. Puchicatos (talk) 04:19, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm assuming the mention of diffs and @PhilKnight: was a cut and paste failure? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:00, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes it is. Puchicatos (talk) 16:14, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

New user creating a lot of new pages

• 4Gramtops (talk · contribs)

I am not confident I understand what 4Gramtops is up to. They created 50+ new pages in their userspace. I have not a clue what they are meant to accomplish outside of testing. It just seems strange for a user with so few edits. There was no forthcoming response to my talk page messages trying to get an explanation (which I know they've seen since they used my heading as a new subpage title)

On a related note, they have also created this epilepsy nightmare. It's possible I'm just overthinking a simple troll here. –MJL ‐Talk‐ 07:35, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Gaming the system for permissions? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:28, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Given Special:PrefixIndex/User:4Gramtops/, I find it likeliest they're trying to learn Lua by using their userspace as a testing environment. Harmless but technically U5. Folly Mox (talk) 11:54, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Might not even be U5 if the purpose of trying to learn Lua is to develop the expertise to work on Lua modules for Misplaced Pages. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:39, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

I already suggested they use Test 2 Misplaced Pages for that purpose. It'd lead to a lot less clutter. I do find that either way they should probably say what they're trying to do. No one can help them if they don't communicate. –MJL ‐Talk‐ 20:55, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Undoing my blocks due to collateral damage

Unblocked. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:37, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

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

---

Hello, could an admin undo these blocks that I made? Blocks like these seem to have caused way more collateral damage than they're worth, per this message on an IP talk page (about a block I undid in October when I still had adminship) and this message on my talk page. Thanks! Graham87 (talk) 10:31, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Ah, I've just done some checking, and it seems like, as ever, there's a template with unblock links. So here goes::

• 178.220.0.0/16 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • trace • RBLs • block log • unblock)
• 79.101.0.0/16 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • trace • RBLs • block log • unblock)
• 178.221.0.0/16 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • trace • RBLs • block log • unblock) Graham87 (talk) 12:24, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
•  Done BusterD (talk) 13:29, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

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

Persistent unsourced changes by IP

2001:999:500:8D52:753A:9BD7:9D61:823B (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

, , , , , etc.

Note that another IP in the same /64 range (2001:999:500:8D52:8065:5651:5389:18E (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)) was blocked for the same reasons less than a week ago. BilletsMauves 19:16, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

197-Countryballs-World

Countryballs cannot into Misplaced Pages. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:36, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

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

---

So far, 197-Countryballs-World (talk · contribs) has made categories, started drafts, and attempted edits to articles, all of which make it clear they presently view Misplaced Pages a bit like their personal playground where they can build some sort of confused, redundant atlas. They have not responded whatsoever to talk messages, their categories at CfD, or their unsourced additions to live articles being reverted. If they can hear us, it seems they need to be gotten a hold of if they want to be a positive contributor—but it seems likely that they can't hear us. Remsense ‥ 论 19:19, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

(NAC) Based on their username, I can reasonably confer that their edits likely pertain to the Countryball Fandom. Just a note, as I know we've historically had issues with Fandom editors crossing into Misplaced Pages. Feel free to remove if this message is innapropriate for ANI. :) E_F 20:23, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Aye. Mostly, they seem young. Remsense ‥ 论 20:27, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

• I've indeffed them for disruption and incompetence.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:52, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Haha balls. Drmies (talk) 21:53, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

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

Disruptive editing and ongoing vandalism by User:Caabdirisaq1

I have warned @Caabdirisaq1 multiple times in his talk page with no avail. He consistently vandalises articles by adding images unrelated to them such as Ahmed Girri Bin Hussein Al Somali , Matan ibn Uthman Al Somali and Garad Hirabu Goita Tedros Al Somali . I have been trying to revert the changes made and explained that they were of orientalist paintings of Arab bedouins. Replayerr (talk) 21:28, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

• User:Replayerr, you may disagree with these, as you say, orientalist depictions, but that doesn't make Caabdirisaq1's edits "vandalism". You also haven't actually discussed the matter with them--you merely placed two standard warnings and threatened to have the editor blocked. You reverted them a few times on Ahmed Girri Bin Hussein Al Somali but you never explained why. I am not going to take administrative action on a content matter where the complainant (you) have done so little to make clear why those edits were problematic. Drmies (talk) 21:57, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

  Adolf Schreyer produced the paintings in the late 19th century mainly depicting Arabs and they have nothing to do with the Adal Sultanate and those Somali soldiers which fought for it. They have been doing image vandalism on these articles and they're all related to each other.

  This image has nothing to do with Ahmed Girri Bin Hussein Al Somali

  https://commons.wikimedia.org/File:Adolf_Schreyer_Reitende_Araber_mit_Gefolge.jpg

  I have spoken to him on the article but he had constantly reverted the talk page and prevented a discussion from taking place as evident here. Replayerr (talk) 22:13, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

These edits adding these images may not rise to the level of vandalism but they seem pretty disruptive to me. Adolf Schreyer was a 19th century painter well known for portraying horses and horsemen, and he traveled to to Turkey, Egypt, Syria, and what is now Algeria. He also painted horses and horsemen in a European context. I know nothing about his work other than what the Misplaced Pages article says or the file pages for the various public domain images on Commons say. If the image file says something like "two Arab horsemen" and the painting was created 150 years ago, then adding that image to the biography of someone who lived 500 years ago with zero evidence connecting that specific painting to that specific individual 350 years earlier is disruptive and unacceptable. So, maybe I am missing something and maybe there is a Catalogue raisonné for this artist that identifies these paintings as representing figures of the Adal Sultanate. But lacking that sort of solid evidence (which should be reflected in the Commons file pages), then adding these images is a violation of the No original research policy, in my opinion. Cullen328 (talk) 04:09, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Regardless of the content dispute, Replayerr opened a discussion on an article's talk page three times; the first two times Caabdirisaq1 simply deleted Replayerr's talk page post rather than replying to it. That alone seems pretty inappropriate behavior. CodeTalker (talk) 06:34, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

He hasn't spoken to me once and I've tried to hold discussions explaining it to him but he ignores them and reverts the changes done. I opened this incident so something could be done regarding this. Replayerr (talk) 10:00, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

I've left another comment asking them to come to this discussion and participate in this conversation about images added to articles. Liz 06:37, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

He hasn't listened and is still editing those articles with the unrelated images. He has reverted all my changes. Replayerr (talk) 09:58, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

This editor does not seem to want to discuss things. Maybe a partial block from mainspace would help? Phil Bridger (talk) 10:07, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Please revoke TPA from MarkDiBelloBiographer

There is no reason for TPA to be removed. I suggest talking to editors before opening a case on them on ANI. They have had a very bumpy introduction to Misplaced Pages so I left them a message. I doubt they will file an unblock request (and have even more doubt that it would be granted) but let's not try to silence every blocked editor who is frustrated when they find themselves blocked. Liz 06:25, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

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

---

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

Misuse of talk page after being blocked. Still promotion the same person. -Lemonaka 03:40, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

What exactly is the problem? She said that she wants to create a Misplaced Pages page for her friend as a Christmas gift. She got blocked, and now she's complaining that she doesn't understand how Misplaced Pages works. If you don't want to explain how Misplaced Pages works, why not just stop looking at the page? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:52, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

I offered to write about him and did for 3 long days as a gift and you guys disbelieved everything, none of which I put was false! It's all on the web, in papers, or other media, or pictures and on his websites

Anyways Mark and I were both fans of and he thinks it's a valuable resource for people I'm just sorry you're so negative and inaccurate about me and him

I believe this is not the good try after getting block. -Lemonaka 03:58, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

This person clearly appears to be a good faith editor, they just don’t understand notability requirements. Now they’re blocked and being reported? Nobody could take the time to be kind and explain how this place works? Wow. 173.22.12.194 (talk) 04:49, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

This does seem to be, if not a wrong block, one for the wrong reasons - it's certainly not an "Advertising only" account. And absolutely no need for TPA to be revoked, no. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:02, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

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

User:KairosJames

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

This user's additions of unsourced content to biographical articles (not any living persons that I've seen, or I'd have gone to BLP) have been reverted many times, with several warnings. They've made no response on any talk page. Assuming they actually are getting these facts from some kind of source, I would think they could be a constructive editor, but they at the very least need to become aware of our citing standards in my opinion. -- Fyrael (talk) 04:36, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Actually in one of their recent edits (here) they added content that was patently false, so for all I know they've made up all the other unsourced info. -- Fyrael (talk) 05:18, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppet

I've come across a user who I believe is a sockpuppet of a user who has been indefinitely block on Misplaced Pages. This is the user I suspect: https://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Contributions/Coop4883368638

I'm not sure if what I suspect is true, however I've found other accounts with the same editing habits as the user above. These are the users: https://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Contributions/Coop443535454, https://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Contributions/Coop40493, https://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Contributions/Coop2017

That's all the information I have to hopefully support my suspicions. Dipper Dalmatian (talk) 05:16, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

I'll ping User:Drmies since they blocked the other accounts. They probably have a better sense of whether or not this is the same editor. Right now, it seems like a username similarity at least. Liz 05:29, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

WP:SPI 2001:8003:B16F:FE00:BCD0:5E51:7D5E:445D (talk) 10:05, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Wikihounding by Awshort

user Awshort has been selectively invoking rules on the article for Taylor Lorenz. It has taken me some time to really see how it was happenening, but finally today wrote this post on the talk page with examples of how they have been selectively and hypocritically enforcing rules on me (a new user).

Additionally, as I mentioned in that post, at one point they accused me of asking another editor for help...which doesn't make any sense? It seems like they were trying to imply to me that I had done something wrong, but I read over some rules first to make sure I was allowed to ask for help. I'm still pretty sure I am! If not...let me know?

After my post today, Awshort started Wikihoundingme.

Here are diffs where they follow me around to pages it doesn't appear they have had any interest in prior:

°1

° 2

°3 Now, I will of course acknowledge that on the third example, I did make a mistake. I thought I had only removed the text of the sentence, but looks as though I accidentally deleted part of the template too. I am unsure how that happened, so I will try to figure that out.

Either way, Awshort's edit summary was not the language I hope experienced editors would use with newer editors like myself. I have mentioned multiple times in conversations that user Awshort is part of that I am a newer user, so they likely know that. ____

I'll end by saying that this user's behavior is making me reconsider whether I want to devote any time to improving wikipedia. Truly. I've never made a report like this before, anywhere in my life, just to give you a sense of how frustrating and upsetting its been.

I hope that this is the right forum for this. If not, my apologies, and please let me know where to redirect this to.

Thanks for taking a look.Delectopierre (talk) 08:49, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Delectopierre, if you have had any discussions where you actually tried to talk out your differences with this editor, please provide a link to them. They might be on User talk pages or article talk pages or noticeboards. But it's typically advised that you communicate directly with an editor before opening a case on ANI or AN and don't rely on communication like edit summaries. Also, if you haven't, you need to notify any editors you mention about this discussion. They should be invited to participate here. Liz 09:12, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

There isn't. I don't feel comfortable discussing wikihounding with them. It is, after all, harassment. Delectopierre (talk) 09:20, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Although I did link to my post today where I confronted them with their behavior (except the wikihounding, as it hadn't happened yet). So that is an attempt to discuss the other part.

But after I tried to discuss it, instead of responding to it, they started wikhounding me. Delectopierre (talk) 09:22, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Category:

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards