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

Revision as of 03:18, 27 June 2006 editZoe (talk | contribs)35,376 edits →[]← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 12:16, 24 December 2024 edit undoBusterD (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators44,535 edits →Concern About a New Contributor: ReplyTag: Reply
Line 1:		Line 1:
			{{Short description|Noticeboard for reporting incidents to administrators}}<noinclude><!-- Inside the noinclude, because this page is transcluded.-->{{/Header}}</noinclude>{{clear}}
	{{Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentsHeader}}
			{{stack begin|float=right|clear=false|margin=false}}
	__NEWSECTIONLINK__
			{{User:MiszaBot/config
	<!-- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ -->
			|archiveheader = {{Administrators' noticeboard navbox all}}
	<!-- New entries go down at the *BOTTOM* of the page, not here. -->
			|maxarchivesize =800K
	<!-- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ -->
			|counter = 1174
			|algo = old(72h)
			|key = 740a8315fa94aa42eb96fbc48a163504d444ec0297a671adeb246c17b137931c
			|archive = Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive%(counter)d
			|headerlevel=2
			}}
			{{stack end}}
			<!--
			NEW ENTRIES GO AT THE BOTTOM OF THE PAGE NOT HERE
			NEW ENTRIES GO AT THE BOTTOM OF THE PAGE NOT HERE
			NEW ENTRIES GO AT THE BOTTOM OF THE PAGE NOT HERE-->
			==Obvious sock threatening to take legal action==
			{{atop|1=VPN socking blocked. - ] <sub>]</sub> 01:41, 22 December 2024 (UTC)}}
			{{atop|result=IP 2409:40D6:0:0:0:0:0:0/32 range block has been blocked for 6 months. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 03:15, 18 December 2024 (UTC)}}
			] has been socking to edit a wide range of caste articles, especially those related to ]s . This range belongs to ] and has been socking using proxies and VPNs too. Many of which have been blocked. Now they are threatening to take legal action against me "{{tq|but how far we will remain silence their various optimistic reason which divert my mind to take an legal action against this two User}}" . - ] (]) 11:51, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
			:Just as ignorant as he is known longtime abnormal activation and especially on those of ] article see his latest revision on ] you will get to urge why he have atrocity to disaggregating ] but pm serious node i dont mention him not a once but ypu can also consolidate this ] who dont know him either please have a eyes on him for a while ] (]) 12:06, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
			:But wait a second as per ] i dont take his name either not even so dont even try to show your true culler midway cracker and admin can you please not i am currently ranged blocked as my network is Jio telecom which was largely user by various comers] (])
			::Please tell me there's a language issue at play here, and that the IP didn't mention ] and use a racist slur in the same sentence there... —''']''' (]) 12:26, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::I think it's both. ] (]) 12:37, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::Well, we linguists don't like anecdotal evidence, but I'll provide some: I (non-native speaker of English, with a linguistics PhD) had to look up all the potential candidates for a slur in that post, and when I did find one it's not one I'd ever heard. However, "crackers" is an insult in Hindi, so I'd say it is most likely a PA, just not the one an American English speaker might understand it as. --'']'' <small>] ]</small> 13:02, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::At least in the South, an American would recognize ] as a pejorative. '''<span style="font-family: Arial;">] <small>]</small></span>''' 13:19, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::Sure, but the IP user who used the word said they are in India, and their post contains various typical non-native speaker errors. ("culler" instead of "colour", for instance) --'']'' <small>] ]</small> 16:31, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::<small>Funny thing is you go far ''enough'' south it wraps back around again: ] - ] <sub>]</sub> 22:24, 17 December 2024 (UTC)</small>
			* Observation: the IP just on the talk page of the ] article. It's peripheral, and the IP is pretty clearly involved. Is this a bad-faith edit by the IP, or should we just take their suggestion and extended-confirmed protect the page?... —''']''' (]) 12:54, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:Is there a Dudi ]? Though I will note there is a lot of overlap between the "Indian Subcontinent" and "South Asian social strata" topic areas. —] ] <sup><small>] ]</small></sup> 21:59, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
			{{abot}}
			*Noting that this person (Truthfindervert?) has taken to using VPNs. I’ve blocked a couple today. --] (]) 22:15, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
			{{abot}}
			== Disruptive editing and WP:TALKNO by ] ==
	== {{user | Aiman abmajid}} ==
	This user uploads many images, without specifying the sources, such as ] and ]. He has been ignoring Orphanbot's image source notices, clearing them all without further action , and simply removing {{tl|no source}} templates pasted on his images' description pages . If his images are deleted, he will simply re-upload them again (AFAIK the 2 images I mentioned have been deleted due to "no source" previously).		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 .
			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 .
	He has been unresponsive to notes on his user talk so far. I've dropped another note on his user talk page, but I'm not sure what actions if any need to be taken against this type of user, so I'm bringing it up here. ] 09:00, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
			<!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 15:20, 17 December 2024 (UTC)</small>
	:I have given him a {{tl|Image no source last warning}} warning. If he reupload images afterwards, I will probably give him a short warning block. ] 19:07, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
	::All images that were not obvious self-creation or properly sourced and licensed (although i did correct a few in the process) have been deleted. 21:11, 24 June 2006 (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)
	== Sussexman and legal threats. ==
			::Yes the is indeed about ]. I see the content dispute as stemming from the fundamental conduct issue, which has manifested itself most egregiously with insisting on violating ] repeatedly even after I that I had and that they should refrain from changing the heading again in order to preserve the integrity of the link, after which they went ahead and . ] (]) 16:00, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::The heading dispute is between a date heading, and a descriptive heading? that's not really reformulating your entry. ] (]) 17:44, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::It's a conduct issue. ] (]) 19:58, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::But what conduct issue? TALKNO doesn't forbid changing headings. In fact the wider guideline makes it clear it's perfectly acceptable "{{tqi|Because threads are shared by multiple editors (regardless of how many have posted so far), no one, including the original poster, "owns" a talk page discussion or its heading. It is generally acceptable to change headings when a better heading is appropriate, e.g., one more accurately describing the content of the discussion or the issue discussed, less one-sided, more appropriate for accessibility reasons, etc. Whenever a change is likely to be controversial, avoid disputes by discussing a heading change with the editor who started the thread, if possible. It can also sometimes be appropriate to merge entire sections under one heading (often preserving the later one as a subheading) if their discussions are redundant.}}" To be blunt, if you don't want editors changing the headings of sections you start, don't use such terrible headings. I definitely recommend you stay away from ANI since changing headings is quite common here. ] (]) 06:25, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::Actually I missed the signature issue. That's far more concerning unfortunately lost IMO partly because you concentrated on silly stuff. ] (]) 06:29, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::&lrm;إيان: I suggest you stop messing around with the section heading since it's a distraction which could easily lead to you being blocked. But if AnonMoos changes your signature again, report it and only that without silliness about section headings, mentioning that they've been warned about it before if needed. ] (]) 06:50, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
			I wrote a long and detailed explanation on his user talk page as to why the date-only header is basically useless in that context, but he's still for some peculiar reason fanatically determined to keep changing it back. Frankly, I've basically run out of good-faith reasons that make any sense -- except of course, his apparently unshakable belief that he has certain talk-page "rights", which according to Misplaced Pages guidelines he does '''not''' in fact have (outside of his own personal user talk page)... ] (]) 23:10, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
	On June 8th, ] and ] had the following exchange:
	: *'''Comment''' Utter rubbish. GLF is not protected by the rehabilitation of offenders act and besides, the content of his Misplaced Pages article included a blatent falsehood in that it suggested he had been cleared of all charges on appeal. Seeing as the matter was widely reported in the national newspapers and has thus been in the public domain for some time I fail to see the harm in mentioning it as it is the truth.
	- ] + ].
			:{{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)
	:* '''Comment''': You're wrong Mr.Chilvers, as you will soon discover. ] 07:48, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
			::], this is not good to see. Don't rewrite or reformat other editor's signatures. There is no reason to be doing this unless you are trying to provoke the other editor. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 07:51, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
			::: For what it's worth, AnonMoos stated earlier that the changing of the signature was a unintentional technical issue, due to his use of some "non-standard tool" in accessing the internet . This seems plausible, as similar apparently unintentional changes to non-Ascii character data have happened in edits of his before (e.g. ). But if he knew of this issue, it's rather disappointing he let it happen again some days later . Equally disappointing is the extremely aggressive rhetoric and acerbic tone with which he has been escalating this essentially harmless, good-faith content dispute from the beginning. ] ] 10:25, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::I just can't fathom what tool they're using to get around the HTTPS requirement to edit Misplaced Pages securely. — <b>]:<sup>]</sup></b> 17:42, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::Should be impossible as it's required to even access the site in the first place according to ]]<sup>] </sup> 16:41, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::<strike>Looking at his talk page it's been going back to at least 2011]<sup>] </sup> 16:17, 19 December 2024 (UTC)</strike>
			:Guys, I do not deliberately set out to modify signatures, and when it happens, I am not usually aware of doing so. As I've already explained before in several places, since the December 2019 encryption protocol upgrade (NOT 2011!), the only way I can edit (or view) Misplaced Pages at all from home is by an indirect method which is not fully Unicode-compliant. To change this, I would have to get a completely different type of Internet connection, which would permanently disconnect my older computer, which I still use almost every day.
			:Meanwhile, this thread has been set up so I can't add a comment to it from home without affecting Unicode characters, so I was unable to reply here for 36 hours or so. If I'm silent in the future, it will be for the same reason. ] (]) 01:14, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
			::Misplaced Pages uses Unicode characters (] encoding). Anyone who cannot edit without corrupting such characters should '''not edit'''. ] (]) 03:47, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::Whatever, -- I was using them perfectly fine until December 2019, and still use them perfectly fine on public WiFi, but in December 2019 a requirement was imposed that you can't access Misplaced Pages '''at all''' unless you can handle encryption algorithms and protocols that weren't introduced until the mid-2010s. I have a 2012 web browser on my home computer that handles UTF-8 just fine, but 2012 simply wasn't good enough for the Misplaced Pages developers -- you had to have software that was almost up to date as of 2019, or you would be abruptly totally cut off. If you can drag up the relevant archive of Village Pump Technical, I and others complained at the time, but our concerns were not listened to or considered in any way. The basic attitude of the developers was that if you weren't running almost up-to-date software, then screw you, and if your computer is not capable of running almost up-to-date software, then double screw you! The change was announced for January 2020, but was actually implemented in mid-December 2019, apparently because they were so eager and anxious to start excluding people. It wasn't one of Misplaced Pages's finer moments. Since that time, I have had to use an indirect method to access Misplaced Pages from my home computer, and I don't feel particularly guilty about it (other people's obnoxious behaviors in 2019 have done away with most of the guilt I might feel)... ] (]) 20:59, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::...] was created in ''1994'', and became an official specification in '''2000''', not "mid-2010s". I'm not sure what 2012 web browser you're using, but if it's not able to handle HTTPS not being able to access Misplaced Pages with it is the least of your browsing concerns, given that 85-95% of the World Wide Web defaults to it now. Also I hate to think of how many security holes your ancient computer has. I'm going to be honest: with a brower setup that old it isn't safe for you to be on the web ''at all'', and the security hole that lets you access Misplaced Pages without using a secure connection should be fixed, because that is ''not'' working as intended and is - as mentioned - a security hole. - ] <sub>]</sub> 00:18, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::You unfortunately don't know what you're talking about. New ENCRYPTION ALGORITHM AND PROTOCOL METHODS have been introduced ''within'' HTTPS from time to time. I was using HTTPS perfectly happily until December 2019, when the developers arbitrarily ENCRYPTION ALGORITHM AND PROTOCOL REQUIREMENTS. ] (]) 00:57, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::And even leaving that aside, as Johnuniq mentions - if you can't edit without corrupting Unicode characters, and by your own admission you ''don't know when it happens'', you shouldn't be editing. - ] <sub>]</sub> 00:20, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::This is probably a reference to when Misplaced Pages started requiring TLS 1.2 (because earlier versions were deprecated). Anyone who was/is still on Windows XP at that point couldn't connect any more. ] (]) 01:29, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
			::I'm not talking about when the update happening, I'm talking about how you have known about this issue, and have been getting complainants about it since <strike>2011</strike>and are still not taking any steps to do anything about it. What kind of internet connection would not support your PC? What on earth are you even using? Dial-Up? Because that still is supported by even Windows 10. ]<sup>] </sup> 02:59, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			<strike>:::Also, how did you see me saying "this has happened since 2011" as me saying that the update happened in 2011? Can you clarify. ]<sup>] </sup> 03:07, 23 December 2024 (UTC) </strike>
			::::The problem didn't start in 2011, and I have no idea what you're referring to when you mention 2011. The problem started in December 2019 when the developers arbitrarily imposed new ENCRYPTION ALGORITHM AND PROTOCOL REQUIREMENTS... ] (]) 00:57, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::: Apologies. I was extremely tired when I wrote both above. I have striken the date parts. Rest of my comments still stand. ]<sup>] </sup> 01:06, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			===None of this matters===
			I don't care what tool this guy uses or what his excuse is. If he can't edit without screwing up people's sigs, then he must not edit. {{U|AnonMoos}} shouls consider himself on notice now that if one of his edits messes stuff up one more time, he'll be blocked until he can give assurance that he's come into the 21st century. ]] 18:05, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			:That's nice -- and also totally inaccurate. I ''was'' in the 21st century, and using 2012 tools, up until December 2019, when the developers pitchforked me backwards by arbitrarily imposing HTTPS ENCRYPTION ALGORITHM AND PROTOCOL REQUIREMENTS which my home computer hardware is not able to run. Notice that I had no problem complying with character-set handling -- the problem is with arbitrary ENCRYPTION ALGORITHM AND PROTOCOL REQUIREMENTS. ] (]) 00:48, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::The century imagery is irrelevant. You have been warned. ]] 03:14, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			::That was ''six years ago'', which is IMO about 3-4 years too long to keep using it as an excuse. Technology changes over time, so whatever this non-standard thing you think you need to do to edit here, it may be time to make a choice. ] (]) 00:56, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::As I said, to fix the problem, I would have to get a completely different type of Internet connection which would permanently disconnect my old computer, which I still use almost every single day. I would basically have to change my workflow and overall habits/methods of working because of an arbitrary decision by Misplaced Pages developers about encryption protocol updates. Anyway, when editing through public WiFi, I'm 100% Unicode compliant, and by exercising a little prudence, I can also avoid most problems when working from home. If I was constantly mangling Unicode right and left, there would have been a chorus of complaints long before now. But occasionally I can't anticipate a problem... ] (]) 01:06, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::And just to say for the third time: you're out of chances. "Occassionally" is too often. Once more is too often. And if and when that happens, your attitude of entitlement displayed here will pretty much ensure an indefinite block. ]] 03:14, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::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)
			== Disruptive editing by ] ==
	Today, Ed Chilvers received a letter from Gregory Lauder-Frost's lawyers threatening him with legal action. Sussexman's "as you will soon discover" would be a reference to this and should be taken as a legal threat. If Sussexman is not Gregory Lauder-Frost then he is intimate enough with him to be able to pass on a legal threat. He should be banned from wikipedia until the matter is resolved and until GLF either concludes or agrees to withdraw any threat of legal action. ] 18:35, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
	:How would they have gotten his mailing address? ] 18:43, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
	By googling "Ed Chilvers" or looking his name up in a British database. It seems from Ed Chilvers' web page that he has been the target of legal threats from Michael Keith Smith, a friend of Lauder-Frost's, in the past so it's possible Lauder-Frost already had Chilvers' contact info. ] 18:47, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
	:Got any proof, like a scan of the letter? -]<sup>]</sup> 19:03, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
			The ] is engaging in disrupte editing. Neither does this IP provide sources and is POV pushing. And this IP has been warned multiple times for this on his/her talk page.
	:::Ed Chilvers mentions it here - he sent me excerpts of the letter after I emailed him about it.] 19:25, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
			] (]) 20:52, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
	::This sounds pretty serious. I'd recommend blocking until this can be looked into at the very least. --] 19:22, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
			:@]: It looks like you both are ] on ].<sup class="plainlinks"></sup> That's not particularly helpful, so you should try to have a discussion on the ] as to whether you should include the ] name for the article in the lead/infobox. &#8211;<span style="font-family:CG Times, times">]&thinsp;]<sup>]</sup></span> 20:33, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
	:::I've been in a content dispute with Sussexman over ] so I'm not the person to implement a block. ] 19:27, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
			::MJL why and how did you pick out that one article over the many this IP has made recent changes to? The IP has been making disputed edits for months and has been reverted by a number of editors, not just Moroike. ] (]) 01:10, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::@]: I am not suggesting that the IP editor isn't being disruptive, but my point is that {{u|Moroike}} isn't making the situation better (using the example of that one article). You can see this by looking at <span class="plainlinks"></span> where {{gender:Moroike|he has|she has|they have}} mostly just reverted this editor without using a summary. &#8211;<span style="font-family:CG Times, times">]&thinsp;]<sup>]</sup></span> 18:02, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			::The IP's edits were removed a total of 13 times on the page regarding the capital city of ], ]. You can't let him continue engaging in further edit wars with other users besides Moroike, can you? ] (]) 17:24, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			Since this IP user won't stop and is stonewalling, either he/should be temporarily blocked, or all the pages he is POV pushing without sources, should be semi-protected, so that only registered users can edit them. ] (]) 21:37, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			== User engaged in edit warring to remove disputed content prior to consensus ==
	::::He has now been blocked indefinitely. ]]\<sup><font color="blue">]</font></sup> 19:42, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
			{{atop|There's nothing actionable in this content dispute, except perhaps trouting the original poster for failing to assume good faith and hounding friendly admins when they try to help. Longtime user ] (4.5 yrs, over 5K edits) has made several assertions based on their clear misunderstanding of social norms. In this discussion they've failed to notify the subject (they actually failed to use the subject's name in the OP), they've failed to bring any diffs, they failed to sign their post, and over and over they seem to have failed to assume good faith of their fellow editors. A number of editors including several admins have attempted to talk Sxbbetyy down. Nobody in this discussion seems to agree with Sxbbetyy on the merits, yet Sxbbetyy keeps circling back to their own personal interpretation of policy. The discussion at ], where Sxbbetyy refuses to listen to the admin they asked, gives another example of the problem. Sxbbetyy is reminded that creating a post on ANI puts all their own behaviors up for examination. ] (]) 15:46, 23 December 2024 (UTC)}}
			Title is pretty self explanatory. Rather than engage in the consensus building process to determine if the disputed content discussed ] is problematic, ] editor has instead immediately reverted the disputed content. They have been informed of the relevant policies prohibiting this behavior and how it should normally be handled (tagging the content as disputed while the discussion is ongoing) but have elected to instead engage in edit warring to keep the disputed content removed prior to any consensus on the matter. Also important to note that they wish to have the content removed entirely, but have stated that they no longer intend to participate in the consensus building discussion. So this appears to be a ] tactic to accomplish their goal of removing the content immediately without a consensus. Seeking admin help to halt this behavior and restore the content with the correct tagging.<!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 23:36, 18 December 2024 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Xsign -->
	::::I support the block. Sussexman has been consistently disruptive over any attempt to include content not flattering to Lauder-Frost. William Pietri put in some tremendous work digging up newspaper reports and showed that Lauder-Frosts's conviction for theft was the single most widely reported fact about him; Sussexman and a couple of anonymous editors were determined to remove this or at least relegate it to euphemistic references. ] 19:50, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
			:It would help if you named the editor and signed your name to figure out what you are talking about; a noticeboard only works if you give us notice about the subject and what is happening. <span style="font-family: Roboto;">''']''' <span style="color:#00008B">•</span> <small>''(])''</small></span> 23:39, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
	* Glad you said "digging up" the dirt. Bit of agive away as to the agenda here, really. ] 13:51, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
			::The editor appears to be {{u|PerfectSoundWhatever}}, based on the under the word "this" as well as . — ]&nbsp;<sub>]</sub> 23:51, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
	::::::And this post, which he intended for another user, is fairly close to a legal threat.
			::My apology, this is my very first time making such a post. The other pages o have spoken on seemed to have signed themselves automatically. Will remember this going forward. And yes, that was the user, posted this using my phone so I didn't want to mis-spell their name, just linked instead. ] (]) 17:01, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
	* That's just tripe and you know it. He is just stating a fact. ] 13:51, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
			:{{non-admin comment}} IMO the best practice is that in the event of a content dispute, the article should be reverted to the status quo of how the article's content appeared before the dispute started, until such a time that consensus is established to re-add it (see: ]). It seems like the beginning of the content that is in dispute was added on 18 August 2024, the dispute began a few weeks later on 23 September 2024 and has been ongoing ever since.{{pb}}In this case, since the article existed in a relatively steady state for several months (or even years?) previous to the disputed material being added, I think it'd be wise to leave the disputed content out of the article until the discussion comes to a close. ] (]) 00:07, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
	] 20:37, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
			::I have been seeing this opinion from a few editors and even one admin on how to interpret this article. However, the first few sentences in that section do outright state to avoid reverting the disputed content prior to a consensus. And prior to opening this report, I asked several admins on the topic and got a response that reverting the disputed content immediately is incorrect per WP:STATUSQUO as it bypasses the consensus building process. I was advised that the content should instead be tagged as disputed rather than be outright removed. The offending user was made aware of the relevant policies but has nonetheless engaging in edit warring to keep it reverted, hence this report. ] (]) 17:13, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
	::::I also strongly believe that ] ''is'' Gregory Lauder-Frost, given the similar tone found in the excepts of the letter Ed Chilvers received. ] (]:]) 21:16, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
			:::The status quo of an article constitutes implicit consensus (]). The person trying to include disputed content in an article despite it not being status quo is the one that could be construed as attempting to bypass the consensus building process, not the person trying to maintain status quo until discussion takes place. ] (]) 17:20, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
	* Strong beliefs seem to be only legitimate on your side of the fence. Pity its wrong. ] 13:51, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
			::::Correct, and at no point was the definition of what constitutes the status quo ever in contention. In fact, if you review the edit history of the article you can see that the disputed content was the status quo via implicit consensus at the time PSW chose to first outright revert the content, and then continued to revert it as others tried to restore it (both before and after the consensus discussion began). ] (]) 23:38, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
	::::Support, as the person who blocked ], probably leading Sussexman to veil his threats. Be on the look out for meatpuppets. --]<sup>]</sup> 23:11, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
			:::::{{tq|1=the disputed content was the status quo via implicit consensus at the time PSW chose to first outright revert the content}}<br>Not really, I personally wouldn't define "been there a few weeks" as status quo.{{pb}}I think maybe the other replies to this thread provide pretty good reasoning to take a step back and say "hey maybe I'm the one in the wrong here" instead of talking in circles ] (]) 00:30, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::Personally I think the number of contributions since the edit where it has gone unchanged is a more useful metric, especially on low traffic pages such as this one. Regardless, per the policy you cite, there seems to be no official Misplaced Pages stance on what exact criteria are needed for a contribution to be considered the current status quo, beyond it having been unchallenged in subsequent contributions (which is the case here).
			::::::As for the rest of your comment, there seems to be a high amount of band wagoning and "]" going on in the rest of this. Or people trying to use this report as an extension of the dispute discussion on the article's talk page. Hopefully more actual admins to chime in on the topic as I don't actually want to waste my time talking in circles.
			::::::On that note thanks for actually taking the time and baseline minimal effort to engage in a discussion where you actually support your point and don't just devolve into repeating the same talking points over and over. It's a nice change of pace. ] (]) 02:48, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
			:I am the editor being discussed here. I'll provide a summary of events since the initial statement by Sxbbetyy is misleading.
			:Myself and the editor had a content dispute at ] (]) and following circular discussion, I stopped engaging since I felt I had laid out my points. Per ], I maintained the state of the article to before the dispute. I requested for a ], which was answered by {{ping|BerryForPerpetuity}}, who agreed the statement should be removed, albeit for a different reason than mine. I took this 2-1 as rough consensus. I also posted the dispute on two WikiProjects, and have received no response so far. Sxbbetyy reached out to three admins about the matter, {{ping|Sergecross73|Oshwah|Pbsouthwood}}. The ] can be summarized as Sergecross believing that I haven't engaged in misconduct, and that I have presented a "plausible, good-faith interpretation of ]". Sxbbetyy then accused Sergecross73 of not acting in good faith. Oshwah did not respond to the post on ], but {{ping|BusterD}} did, essentially agreeing that the sourcing does not back up the claim in the content dispute. Sxbbetyy received help on ] about responding to a content dispute. And now we're here.
			:Throughout these interactions, Sxbbetyy has demonstrated a failure to assume good faith, refuses to accept ], and ]s talk pages, refusing to let the other editor have the last word. Frankly, this is a massive waste of editor time: it should have been a brief talk page discussion then an RfC. Apologies for all the pings. — ] (]; ]) 00:23, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
			::This summarization in itself leaves out critical context, (such as berry's concern being alleviated and them no longer expressing a desire to remove the content), the specifics of why that conversation with Serge ended the way it did despite my repeated attempts to engage with them in good faith, and the entire discussion with pbsouthwood (who quite definitively explained that the behavior PSW was engaged in was not correct). So I urge all involved to go read those topics to get the correct context through your own eyes and then discuss any concerns from what you see here. That being the case, it seems pretty clear cut imo. ] (]) 17:20, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::Just to be clear, in no way did I express that I didn't want the content to be removed. I did not receive a notification for your reply, and I wouldn't have engaged either way. —&nbsp;] ] 17:24, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
			: Yes, I would leave that material out of the article. Whilst it may not exactly be synthesis ''per se'', it is certainly editorialising ("the removal of that amount of marine debris is of negligible consequence...") ''unless'' there is an actual source that says this by making a link between between the two statistics (the amount of waste removed by Team Seas and the rate at which waste is entering the ecosystem). And even then, I would say that such an edit would need to say something like "However, ARandomNewspaper pointed out that ...". ] 00:34, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
	Sussexman is not Lauder-Frost. Preposterous. Sussexman has defended the vitriolic attacks made upon someone he knew years ago and liked and felt a great injustice was being done to. He was quite right to tell people crossing legal boundaries that they were doing this and quite right to tell people that by doing so they would soon find out the consequences. That '''is not''' a legal threat and banning everyone who points out simple facts is not the way forward for Misplaced Pages which should not be above the law. ] 07:29, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
			::That is actually no longer the content that is being disputed. If you look at the that got reverted on the article you can see the current version. I had made edits to it precisely because of valid WP:NPOV concerns brought to my attention by PSW. However, their dispute with the content remains with the claim that is is synthesis rather than any other concern. Which they have been thus far unable to obtain a consensus on. ] (]) 17:27, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
			*I have some pretty serious ] concerns about the topic starter here. They came to me for help (no idea how/why me, I have no connection to this dispute) and I repeatedly told them I didn't see any misconduct, and then they started attacking ''me'' when I refused to agree with them. And now this. This is a very simple content dispute, with a very simple ] outcome. I've told them this. It's a disappointing time sink on a rather trivial content dispute. ] ] 00:52, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
	:For values of vitriolic which include stating in terms of studied neutrality the fact that he was convicted of a substantial theft from the health authority where he worked. As far as I can the most of the vitriol has been directed against those who attempted to fix the inaccuracy of the article, by supporters of Lauder-Frost. ] 08:33, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
			*:At no point was he "attacked". I defended myself after he became hostile with me (as anyone can read in our convo, I stated multiple times that I would leave and did not want to be a burden if they didn't want to engage with this, but he made no such objections and continued). Eventually he just became outright hostile and refused to explain their points any further, devolving the conversation into them repeating themselves over and over, its all there to read on his talk page. As for why I contacted him, I wanted to ensure I chose impartially so I just randomly looked at the currently active admins at the time and he was the first one I found. ] (]) 18:23, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
			*::The discussion is , if anyone wants to look. The "attack" I'm referring to you is your accusation that I responded to you in bad faith. I was not involved in the dispute, have no stance on it, and had no pre-conceived notions about either of you - what in the world would my motivations be for "bad faith responses"? It doesn't make any sense. You simply didn't get the response you wanted, and proceeded to badger me on it. Did I get vaguely irritated when I volunteered my time to review and comment on a dispute I had no stance or interest in, only to get all sorts of ] responses on it? Yeah, sure, but who wouldn't? ] ] 18:44, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
			*I'm here from my input at the 3rd opinion request. This is nothing more than a trivial content dispute, I see no reason for this to be at ANI. I somewhat agree with the claim of ], it becomes more susceptible to incorrect information, and from my analysis it seemed like the claim in the disputed content was completely wrong. Two different sources, from two different time periods. My $0.02: The claim of stonewalling is ridiculous, there was ample good-faith discussion based on existing policy and guidelines. This editor does not ], it appears that he claims that editors disagreeing are acting in bad faith. From him to administrator Sergecross73: {{tq|"I'm not wasting time engaging with you if you aren't going to speak with me in good faith."}} It seems that he roots his argument based on the editor who removed it rather than the content itself. Very unfortunate waste of time. —&nbsp;] ] 15:31, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
	* Here you go raving about the pre-1992 business as though it were last week and without the full knowledge of the matter. It was '''illegal''' to post details of this. Telling people this should be taken in good faith. Instead you ban people for it. ] 13:51, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
			*:Exactly. It's not "stonewalling" that's happening here. PerfectSoundWhatever has discussed at-length at the talk page. They're simply not willing to ''talk circles indefinitely''. And we don't require that of editors. I've urged Sxbbetyy to, rather that spin their wheels arguing with the same person endlessly in a stalemate, to try to get other participants to take part. But they've refused, and instead decided to move their arguing to ANI instead. As I noted to them in one of my last comments to them, if they spent half as much effort in consensus-building as they did complaining and arguing, they could have built a consensus by now... ] ] 17:30, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:Reading any of what I wrote in this dispute shows clearly that is not the case. Also, the quoted sentence is completely taken out of context.
			*:Here is what was said in the mesaage before that they left out, "Not really the logical conclusion one draws from reading any of what I wrote here, where I asked multiple times for you to explain your reasoning in your replies (instead your response was to repeat yourself without offering further explanation), but if that is what you want to take away from this that's fine by me. I'm not wasting time engaging with you if you aren't going to speak with me in good faith."
			*:The message as a whole was replying to was a passive aggressive insult that didn't progress that conversation, hence the response as it was clearly not an example of engagement in good faith.] (]) 18:34, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
			:Also, it looks like the participants in the dispute on the Team Seas article are acting as if this report is an extension of that dispute discussion.
	I give my absolute support to Sussexman. I too posted information on how this cabal of smearers were breaking UK law. Any normal person would be pleased for the advice. But this lot knew what they were doing and were absolutely determined to smear GLF all over the world. Sussexman appears to be the third person they have blocked for "legal threats", yet none of them appear to actually be the person concerned and so were not in a position to threaten anyone! Is it Misplaced Pages policy to block out everyone whom you get sick of arguing with? ] 16:22, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
			:This is a report of edit warring to revert disputed content prior to a consensus being reached (there was no consensus prior to the reversion and there still is no consensus, as admitted by PSW themselves in that very dispute and In their latest revert message, no idea why now in this report they are trying to claim that there is suddenly consensus for removal).
			:This is not a report on the dispute itself, just to make that very clear since those involved are responding as if it is. ] (]) 18:41, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
			::You've still got this backward. You need to show a consensus to keep your content in the article, as everyone else has been telling you. ] is directly on point, and I'll quote it here: {{Tq|The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content.}} ] (]) 18:53, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::Thank you. I have tried to inform them of this many times and many ways. I do not know why they cannot wrap their head around the concept. Conceptually, it would be very problematic if we were required to retain every disputed content until consensus ruled it out. It wouldn't be workable. ] ] 19:02, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::Nobody is arguing WP:ONUS here...not in the dispute and not here in this report. The point is that the content is being removed prior to there being a consensus on if it should be removed.
			:::I was directly advised by admin Pbsouthwood that the removal of disputed content BEFORE any consensus has been reached is not allowed (save for specific situations, none of which apply to the disputed content) as this bypasses the consensus building process. ] is the talk page where I was advised this. This is echoed with the wording in WP:STONEWALLING and ]. Here is the direct quote from the latter, "To eliminate the risk of an edit war, do not revert away from the status quo ante bellum during a dispute discussion. Instead, add an appropriate tag indicating the text is disputed. For an article, many of the inline dispute tags are appropriate. For other pages, {{under discussion inline}} is good. Leave the status quo and the tag in place until the discussion concludes." ] (]) 19:58, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::{{tq|The point is that the content is being removed prior to there being a consensus on if it should be removed.}} <--- No. This is your problem. What you are saying here is incorrect. Policies say the opposite of this. You are not going to get support at ANI. In fact, the longer you keep going with this ] insistence that community practice is actually the opposite of what policies plainly say it is, the more likely it is you're going to find yourself blocked for disruption. Pbsouthwood didn't tell you this either (what he wrote doesn't match what you've been doing), and your initial question did not properly represent the situation at hand. But we can invite him here to see if he actually supports what you're doing here: {{ping|Pbsouthwood}}, what say you? ] (]) 20:06, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::This entire comment serves absolutely zero purpose whatsoever. You're parroting what others have already said with no supporting evidence. Along with throwing in an oddly included threat that is completely nonsensical and wholly unwarranted.
			:::::And while I could point out the myriad of ways your claim about what Pbsouthwood said was inaccurate, that would pretty much involve reposting his reply, which is a waste since anyone can already go to his talk page and read it themselves.
			:::::So at this point, if you need that admin to come here and tell you what they already said themselves, more power to you. Would save us all a ton of time to get an authoritative answer on this, especially with another admin holding the opposite view point, in spite of the specific policy wording. ] (]) 23:08, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::], there does not need to be an established consensus for the removal of content. ]. - ] <sub>]</sub> 01:28, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::I'm not the one insisting otherwise...this report only exists because an ]. And as I've posted in my previous replies, the wording in the policies clearly support that. Makes me question how many have actually bothered to really read these policies... ] (]) 02:22, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::::The other admin told you ''nothing'' about the removal of ], which is always appropriate. ]. - ] <sub>]</sub> 03:19, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::::# This report is not an extension of the dispute discussion for that article, if you want to involve yourself in that discussion, do so there, do not hijack this report.
			:::::::::# The disputed content is plainly not WP:SYNTH as I explain on the talk page in great length, with nobody thus far having provided valid examples as to how it is.
			:::::::::# If you are going to make the claim that any WP:SYNTH concerns warrant immediate reversion without consensus, please feel free to share the quote in the relevant policy that says this. I have not found any such wording and instead found that what is present matches up with what PBsouthwood informed me.
			:::::::::] (]) 17:17, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::] ] ] 02:05, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::At this point I say that my advice was given without a specific context, and without prejudice. I maintain that it is more collegial and polite to discuss a removal of unsourced but ''plausible'' content ''before'' removing it, as it can often avoid disputes of this kind, but it is not forbidden to arbitrarily delete content that an editor ''plausibly considers inappropriate provided the relevant reason is given''. It is always the responsibility of the person advocating inclusion to provide a reference when challenged, regardless of the process of challenge.
			:::::Some forms of synthesis are acceptable. If a conclusion is logically inevitable based on undisputed factual premises, or is a simple mathematical calculation, we routinely accept claims that may not be specifically stated in a source, but we may require the logic to be explained, as it may not be obvious to the reader.
			:::::At the risk of being ], I also refer readers to <s>]</s> <u>(looks like that essay has been expunged, try ])</u>. &middot; &middot; &middot; ] ]: 06:59, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::I think many of us used to the mess editors adding unsourced content can create would strongly oppose leaving in unsourced content just because it's plausible. The standard should instead be at a minimum that you believe the claim made is most likely correct and sourceable not simply that it's plausible. Although ultimately such discussions are a little silly anyway. If editors would just add sources rather than leaving it for someone else because they're claiming it's unlikely to be challenged or whatever, there would be a need for others to decide whether to query or remove unsourced content. ] (]) 09:56, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::I was suggesting tagging with citation needed while you wait a reasonable time for a response, but as we know some of us do not have the patience and just revert. It in not unheard of to know something, but not have a source handy at the time. What is obvious to one may be totally obscure to others. This is acceptable within policy and guidelines. You could start a RfC to have the guidelines changed, but I suspect it would not get through as being a bit bitey. Cheers, &middot; &middot; &middot; ] ]: 12:47, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::::Yes, what you say is true, that's absolutely an acceptable approach. But that's not really the problem at hand here. The bigger issue is that Sxbbetyy appears to be believe that the alternative approach - reverting per STATUSQUO or NOCONSENSUS - is somehow misconduct, and that's simply not true. They're not arguing about if your approach is valid, they're arguing that its ''compulsory'', and they're attempting to report a user for not following your possible approach, which is completely meritless. ] ] 17:31, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::::Please do not put words in my mouth. The only reason this report exists is because Peter Southwood advised that this was how I should proceed if the editor participating in this no-consensus reverting continued to do so and was unreceptive to further discussion. (Both are true by admission of PSW themselves). ] (]) 18:22, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::::::Yes, I've seen , but you presented the situation to them entirely in hypotheticals that lacks crucial context. You frame PSW as unwilling to engage in discussion but omit the fact that You accuse PSW of edit warring to keep their information in the article, but omit the fact that . I would think the near-unanimous rejection of this ANI report would indicate that this was not, in fact, a good thing to report. Best case scenario, this is archived with no action, but I'd be shocked if it didn't result in a ]. ] ] 18:44, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::::::I don't know why you are attempting to present the entire discussion on that talk page as some sort of proof that PSW was willing to engage in further discussion to halt the behavior this report is about. At no point whatsoever did PSW ever indicate anything like that; if they did this report wouldn't exist as the discussions on your talk page or Peter Southwood's page would have never needed to happen. Not to mention if you take the time to actually read the discussion, you see that most of it is on the specifics of the validity of the WP:SYNTH claim made by PSW, eventually culminating in PSW actually asserting that they will not stop change their position on this and then outright refusing to engage any further.
			:::::::::::And now you accuse me of edit warring by citing the entire recent edit history of the page...this isn't fooling anyone who actually bothers to read any of the revert messages and examine the timeline of when they occurred (talk about omitting "crucial context").
			:::::::::::Beyond just slandering my character, I don't really see what these kind of spurious claims accomplish. It wastes everyone's time, makes yourself look biased and hostile, and adds nothing to the conversation. Keep things civil please, I really shouldn't have to tell you of all people that basic expectation. ] (]) 02:38, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::::::::Wait...are you seriously trying to suggest that, even though you were the only one who reverted him every single time, he was edit warring and you weren't? ] ] 02:50, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::::::::If you are going to continue to twist words and make false claims immediately after being asked to keep things civil, maybe it would be best for all involved if you just moved on from this conversation. Sad that even has to be stated at this point, it should be a given. ] (]) 17:25, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::::::::::Yet another IDHT response where you try to baselessly chastize me rather than address anything anyone is saying to you. ] ] 18:14, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::::::::::What a choice to post this exact type reply to my last message... not to mention the sheer absurdity of it. To claim that I've never addressed anyone's points in my replies is so easily and visibly wrong (literally this entire topic is full of my detailed replies to people's concerns, including this very reply) that it's almost insulting to the rest of the people participating in this or to anyone who even chooses to read that message. It's as if you think nobody can see the rest of this discussion (or even the comments directly above it). ] (]) 11:52, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::Thank you for taking the time to respond and my apology for any inconvenience it may have caused. Ive tried to keep it as civil as possible, but there seems to be a very hostile air in this discussion by those with the dissenting opinion. As for how this situation is to be resolved, would it be appropriate to restore the currently disputed content with the appropriate tags (as it is sourced and was the statusquo on the page at the time of reversion)? Or is there something further that must be done here? I'm generally unfamiliar with how ANIs actually function. ] (]) 17:52, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
			:Have you considered starting an ]? The fact is that you made a ] addition to the article; someone else objected to it, which means you now ought to seek consensus ''for your addition''. As numerous people have told you, none of the relevant policies and guidelines (], ], ], etc) would allow you to make a recent addition the "default" the way you want, but more generally - the problem is that you're trying to dig through policy for something that will make your preferred version the default, allowing you to have it in the article without having to demonstrate consensus for it even in the face of challenges. Even if the policies and guidelines I listed ''were'' on your side this would still be a bad way to approach it. You have a conflict, your goal should be to resolve it by making consensus as clear as possible - figuring out what the crux of the dispute is and then, if you can't reach a compromise, holding an RFC to see where consensus lies. Also, I have to point out that just by a quick nose count of people who have weighed in on talk, I'm seeing a dispute that is now three-to-one against you. That ''is'' a consensus - not a massive one, maybe an RFC will pull in a bunch of people that say something else, but it doesn't make sense for you to keep demanding a consensus to remove something you added when there actually ''is'' such a consensus on talk. You've disagreed with their arguments but they're not obliged to ] you; ultimately if you think your arguments are so strong and theirs are so weak, the only real option for you at this point is to start an RFC and hope that you can demonstrate that there. --] (]) 04:10, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
			::As mentioned earlier in the discussion, this report is not an extension of the dispute on that article, nor is that what this report is about. Also, a RFC was already started for the topic about a week or so ago by PSW, but that occurred after he reverted the status quo, disputed content with discussion (repeatedly). As for the rest of your comment, Peter Southwood, an admin, has addressed what is the actual expectation. ] (]) 18:00, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::What? I never started an RfC. — ] (]; ]) 19:07, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::I just checked and on 12/9/24 at ] you said the following, "Thanks – just wanted to mention I requested comments from ] and ] about 2 weeks ago."
			::::Did that not actually happen? ] (]) 02:11, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::] is a specific process. Asking questions on a couple of Wikiprojects is not an RFC. ] (]) 02:22, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::That's fundamentally not what an RFC is. This is getting ridiculous... ] ] 03:03, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::It's almost like this is the very first time I've ever been involved in this kind of issue on Misplaced Pages before...seriously these kind of replies come off as rude and don't actually say anything meaningful or helpful. Ever since our conversation on your talk page you have made next to no real effort to engage in good faith and I find that highly disappointing to be coming from an admin. And my apology if I offended you at all at some point or if you have just "lost your patience" with me, but I don't see how that gives you the green flag to suddenly disregard ]. I certainly haven't, in spite of being on the receiving end of this. ] (]) 17:44, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::I haven't said anything uncivil, I just keep calling you out when you say something incorrect. ] ] 18:08, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::::], is a powerful force, I find it difficult to resist myself. ] (]) 18:10, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
			===Request for closure===
	:If you are acting as a proxy for someone else's legal threats, I consider it substantially identical to making them yourself. Misplaced Pages can't prove the relationship between the Misplaced Pages username ] and the real-world individual Gregory Lauder-Frost, but I believe it does not really matter. Conveying threats from another non-Misplaced Pages party when one is not merely a messenger but an associate and clearly involved in an on-Misplaced Pages effort to suppress the same information differs little in actual effect from explicitly making them yourself.
			Despite its large size, the consensus here is quite clear. There's no misconduct here, just standard following of procedures of ] and ], which is perfectly acceptable. Not a single person has suggested taking any action towards PerfectSoundWhatver. Outside of a a potential IDHT BOOMERANG, there's nothing left to be done here. Can someone close this? ] ] 14:02, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
			:I second that. If there has been any edit-warring by any party that should be dealt with in the normal way. {{u|PerfectSoundWhatever}} has certainly done nothing wrong, and the OP will get blocked if they don't start listening to people pretty quickly. ] (]) 14:24, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
			::Exactly. And even that's probably unlikely, as most of the "edit warring" was singular reverts with days or weeks in between. It's far from a 3RR situation at least. ] ] 15:26, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
			:{{non-admin comment}} I don't think this conversation is going anywhere fast, other than seemingly coming to the conclusion that @] has done nothing wrong, which seems to be the opposite of what this ANI post was about. There's no edit warring here, and even if there was, it wouldn't be dealt with at this venue. Shut it down! ] (]) 16:48, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
			:In what way whatsoever is this editor's decision to revert the disputed content during the discussion "standard following of procedures of WP:STATUSQUO"? The literal first words that appear at that link are in bold and say, "'''Avoid reverting during discussion'''", followed by a detailed explanation of the actual proper procedure. And to make it very clear what it says, here is the literal first paragraph verbatim: "To eliminate the risk of an edit war, do not revert away from the '']'' '''during a dispute discussion'''. Instead, add an appropriate tag indicating the text is disputed. For an article, many of the ] are appropriate. For other pages, <code><nowiki>{{</nowiki>]<nowiki>}}</nowiki></code> is good. Leave the status quo and the tag in place until the discussion concludes." ] (]) 02:31, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			::In what way is ''that'' your read of the consensus in the discussion above? ] ] 02:49, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::In what world do you logically come to that conclusion from a message that consist of almost entirely the word for word quote of the procedures described in WP:STATUSQUO, that directly counters the claim you just made? Are you saying it is "against consensus" simply because it presents a viewpoint you don't like and don't want to address? I don't see another reason why you would again twist my words, to the point of lunacy. And this is, once again, despite the fact that all of what has been said is literally within view.
			:::Also, regarding the consensus. Out of everyone that has actually joined the discussion and all the messages sent (~90% of which are either from myself or you Serge), there have been only three people who have actually said anything in support of your interpretation of this. The rest either did not discuss the topic, did not express an opinion, or were Peter Southwood who supported the interpretation of WP:STATUSQUO as stated on its page. Seems like you're just trying to rush a end to the conversation to get the conclusion you want. ] (]) 15:02, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::I'm saying there has been no consensus for anything you're arguing here. Not a single person has supported action against PSW. ] ] 15:15, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::The status quo ante bellum that shouldn't be reverted from is the version ''without the new content''. ] (]) 15:16, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			{{abot}}
			== Mgtow definition ==
	:I note also that GLF and/or friends and associates were quite happy to keep a lie on the page (that GLF was acquitted of theft on appeal) but are willing to sue on extremely flimsy grounds to hide the truth. ] (]:]) 19:25, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
			{{atop|1=Editor was pointed to the talk page and then stopped editing. It looks like this was a case of ]. - ] <sub>]</sub> 03:45, 22 December 2024 (UTC)}}
			There are blatant lies in the wiki definition of "mgtow".
			The goal is accuracy, not "man bashing". ] (]) 14:48, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
			:@], you should discuss this at ]. This noticeboard is for conduct issues, not content issues. ]&nbsp;] 14:54, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
			:Nothing wrong with the definition of MGTOW. Maximum Gross Takeoff Weight is an internationally accepted and used term used by every airplane and airline in the world. ] ] 16:17, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
			::The cintent is incorrect. Mvto is NOT "misogynistic". There is no "hate" towards women, only avoidance. ] (]) 20:21, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
			:@], you were directed to the talkpage, which includes an FAQ on the term you keep trying to remove, along with extensive discussion. You should start there before just removing sourced content that you don't like. We'll leave aside the absence of required notifications to Black Kite and myself who have warned you for your conduct. '''<span style="font-family: Arial;">] <small>]</small></span>''' 17:41, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
			::Where do I find the talk page? ] (]) 20:21, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::@], I linked it for you in my comment above. ]&nbsp;] 20:27, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
			* Camarogue100's removal of material unfavorable to the subject with an edit summary of indicates to me that they are here to play games, not ]. Any more disruption should result in an immediate block IMO. —] (]) 20:33, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
	* All rubbish, I'm afraid. The only person on "flimsy" ground on these issues seems to be you and the little gang of demonisers. ] 13:51, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
			{{abot}}
	** I'm sorry to have to inform you that I bear Gregory Lauder-Frost no personal ill will whatsoever. I don't know him, have never encountered him, and did not even know of his existence prior to your first postings on this page about it. I am, however, interested in keeping an honest historical record, concerned about an attempt to censor relevant truth, and opposed to those who seek to chill discussion and publication of facts by using dubious legal threats. A brief, half-sentence mention of Gregory Lauder-Frost's criminal conviction in 1992 - which could not be considered any kind of "youthful indiscretion" or to be prior to his public life - is not unfair to him. ] (]:]) 15:35, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
			== Creating the need to make 400,000 unnecessary edits ==
	Just to update people on this, there've been further significant developments today. ] has reduced the entire article to a stub based on an apparent legal complaint (accessible through OTRS ). ] is already involved, though I'm not sure what the current state of play is. Further ongoing discussion is at ].-- ] 18:43, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
	:Actually, it's not accessible through OTRS - it's been placed in a restricted queue, as is common with privacy complaints. ] (]:]) 18:55, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
	::Thanks for the correction. :-) -- ] 19:04, 23 June 2006 (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.
	Since I must drudge up old conversation; Until there is conclusive proof that this was a reference to the legal threat/action, could we unblock? The content dispute is something to be handled by ]. --] ] 22:22, 24 June 2006 (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)
	:IMO, no chance. We don't operate in a realm of absolute 'conclusive proof' here - but Sussexman is either Gregory Lauder-Frost or closely related to him and passing on threats from him. Either is blockable. ] (]:]) 21:32, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
			:If you want to discuss {{tl|WikiProject banner shell}}, you should do so at ].
			:As for the size of the category, I have no plans to empty it, and was only going to update a few hundred more categories and templates. &nbsp;&nbsp;<b>~</b>&nbsp;<span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:16px;">] (] ⋅])</span>&nbsp; 15:02, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
			::You made nearly 2000 of such edits in the last few hours, and when asked to stop pointed me to a category with 400,000 entries. I have no way to know how many more you planned now or in future runs. Starting a discussion at the module would hardly stop you. ] (]) 15:10, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::"{{tq|when asked to stop pointed me to a category with 400,000 entries}}": incorrect. Since you wrongly thought I was making cosmetic edits, i.e. "{{tq|no change in output or categories}}", the category was to inform you that they are not cosmetic.
			:::Regarding a BRFA for the bulk of the category, that's looking more likely since the category appears to be neglected. &nbsp;&nbsp;<b>~</b>&nbsp;<span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:16px;">] (] ⋅])</span>&nbsp; 15:29, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::Unnecessary removing a synonym and then making thousands of edits to remove the hidden cat created by that unnecessary change is not really any better than making cosmetic edits, the end result is that nothing has changed for the affected pages at all. ] (]) 15:33, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::Not unnecessary. The Lua code is very complex and removing the need the support various settings makes the code both easier to read and maintain. As always, editors that don't want to see these edits can hide these by hiding the tag "talk banner shell conversion". ] (]) 12:32, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::It doesn´t look as if the specific code to have these synonyms was very complicated though, the argument that in some cases two synonyms were used on one page with conflicting values was more convincing. And the edits I complained about did ''not'' have that tag, so no, even if people knew about hiding that tag, it wouldn't have helped here at all. ] (]) 16:04, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
			:This was discussed in detail on ]. Ideally these edits would be done by an approved bot so they do not appear on people's watchlists. The main benefit is to merge the {{para|blp}} and {{para|living}} parameters. When both are in use, we find they often get conflicting values because one gets updated and the other does not. &mdash;&nbsp;Martin <small>(]&nbsp;·&nbsp;])</small> 17:25, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
			::Isn't it more logical to first have a bot cleanup the unwanted parameter, then remove it from the template, and only then start populating the cat with the somehow remaining or since added instances? In any case, this is a typical bot task and shouldn't be done with massive AWB runs. ] (]) 17:39, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::Yes, probably. But we have this mechanism already set up and I assumed {{ul|Cewbot}} would deal with these as part of its normal activities. Happy to look at other options - maybe discuss on template talk? &mdash;&nbsp;Martin <small>(]&nbsp;·&nbsp;])</small> 18:23, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::I don't know what this is about, but if the OP is correct, it is totally absurd to edit 400,000 talk pages for a tweak. Discussing at a template talk page monitored by those focused on the template would simply hide the issue. ] (]) 03:53, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::Edits like these should ''always'' be bots, so they can be filtered from watchlists. There are numerous other editors who have recently engaged in the mass additional of categories to articles which I had to ask them to stop as my watchlist was flooded. ]] 13:02, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
			* Is it just me or are talk pages like ] just perpetual ] issues where a very small number of editors (frequently 5 or less) make major changes that affect thousands of articles, all without involving the broader community through, at minimum, places like ]? ]]<sup>]</sup> 04:03, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
	::] is clear that a block must be maintained until the legal dispute is resolved. It's worth pointing out also that there is essentially ''no'' content dispute - the facts are uncontested; the dispute is over whether certain of the facts (i.e. GLT's conviction) can be included in the article, under English and Scottish law. If the dispute is resolved satisfactorily then maybe we can think about unblocking Sussexman. -- ] 22:33, 25 June 2006 (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)
			== ] ==
	== AOL denial of service vandals ==
	seriously, stop giving them so much attention, half this page is covered with AOL themed warnings, there are now daily wheel wars over range blocks, templates, categories, etc.. all devoted to what is probably one or two vandals.. in the same sense that you would never give a troll this much attention, you wouldn't want to do the same for a vandal. Hell, isn't that the reason ] was deleted? The problem is that prolific vandals become like folk heros around here, with daily tall tails, and entire articles devoted to them. When you get an attention seeking vandal, this is just counter productive--] 00:21, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
	:People don't think that stopping vandalism is important enough to block and it's better to offload it to the recent changes patrol. --]] 00:23, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
	::Well, blocking AOL users at random almost never stops vandalism, but at least all the colorful block summaries let as many random AOL users know how easy it is to use AOL for vandalism--] 00:27, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
	:::Not to mention not being able to use my account for several days at a time does cut down on the amount of time that I can run VandalProof, but hey, it's only AOL--] 00:29, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
	::::We don't block random AOL users. There has been a massive attack by a skilled user exploiting how AOL works. Your block should expire soon. If you have WiFi you can leech off one of your neighbors...not sure how much they'd like that, though =D --]] 00:31, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
	(edit conflict) I agree with the opinions of both anonymous up there and mboverload. The reason we get so many AOL DoS attacks is that all AOL users are frequent victims of collateral damage and thus recognize how easy it is to get all of AOL blocked. Then the DoS vandals read our posts here and go "Wow, that's easy!" It's much like how posting Charles Manson's face on the cover of Rolling Stone and making celebrities out of every serial killer and villain makes little kids wanna grow up to be murderers. Everyone wants their fame, and it's pretty damn easy to become infamous as a vandal. Thus, I see your point that we do seem to glorify vandals, but at the same time I see mboverload's point that we can't just do nothing. Unfortunately at the moment not much can be done--until the devs come up with some clever workarounds or AOL finally does something about this, our only real solution is blocking. It's an unfortunate truth that I hope will soon change, but I'm doing my best to just not let it get to me--truth is, it's not ''that'' big of a deal, and we will find a way to deal with it. (Btw, ] was deleted because it was a cross-namespace redirect.) ] (]) 00:36, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
	:] amidaniel, nice idea, but i seriosly doubt an :05 block would stop a bot like this (pm on irc if you want to know why]]] 00:51, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
	:This particular vandal edits from IP's. Most of the collateral damage comes from vandals with accounts who are at AOL. The fact that this vandal remains only an IP is a good sign that he is intending the collateral damage. Now, our folks need to stop the vandal, but a range block of the ISP won't do much good. When you block an AOL IP, you're ''behind the vandal'' and therefore ''on top of an innocent.'' Blocking the whole range would be the solution, except that, if this is a -bot, and it seems to be, from its speed, the block of the whole range would only need to be a very short time -- probably :10 or even :05 would stop the bot, unless it has been programmed to not be bothered by the block page coming up. I'm glad to see AmiDaniel backing off from some of the more severe positions, above. If we can't stop the vandal with :10 or :15 blocks, then we sort of ''have to'' lay it off on RC Patrol, as bad as that is. Ironically, if the vandal succeeded, if he managed to make Misplaced Pages a place with "F4RT" scribbled on each page, it would be boring to him. He only wants to pee on a clean wall. ] 13:26, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
	::if I was to write a vandalbot, I would make it reconnect everytime it encountered the block page, thus walking through my ISP's IP range as quickly as people can block it. This is pointless. The only solution to this is ]. ] <small>]</small> 18:51, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
	:::That would be ''an'' answer, but the down side is that it would stop our sock puppet spotting and the times when the autoblocker catches a blocked user who simply creates a new account -- not that that was ever particularly robust. ] 15:17, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
	::&lt;smacks forehead&gt; that's the answer!!! To make the AOL vandal stop, Misplaced Pages just needs to put vandalism like 'F4RT' on every page! Someone, get a developer! '']'' 00:53, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
			] is making wholesale reverts of my edits in contravention to guidelines. ] (]) 19:17, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
	:::You mean it ''isn't'' already on every page? (My point was that vandals always attack resisting targets. It gives the scriptkiddies their warm fuzzies to "win." I think those who regard us as a challenge are particularly lame.) (If we could get them to go to harder targets, it would be nice.) ] 15:17, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
			:You're removing demographic categories and templates by blanking them out; irreligion still deals with religion no matter your argument. That's definitely not compliant with ] and clearly vandalism. There's no action to take here except that you need to stop removing these categories and templates. <span style="font-family: Roboto;">''']''' <span style="color:#00008B">•</span> <small>''(])''</small></span> 19:42, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
			::And you are now '''required''' to cite how your edits meet ]; spamming it in edit summaries is not discussion. <span style="font-family: Roboto;">''']''' <span style="color:#00008B">•</span> <small>''(])''</small></span> 19:47, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::While doing routine vandal patrol, I came across what seemed to be a hasty and massive removal of content, being done in a very directed and personal manner.
			::::After looking at the persistent removal, and communicating, I restored the well-drawn categories.
			::::Hopefully, this is easily resolved.
			:::] (]) 20:40, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::43*, do not continue to revert these category removals without discussing them first. - ] <sub>]</sub> 22:48, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::THere is nothing to discuss. The guidelines are clear. What needs to be done is editors need to be familiar with the cat guidelines. We don't discuss whether the sky is blue do we? ] (]) 02:05, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::THey are not well drawn, it was not hasty, it was not massive, and it was not "personal". It was directed because they all had the same issue. ] (]) 02:07, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::Editors should not blindly revert. They should be '''required''' to understand the guideleines. ] (]) 02:08, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
			I gave up editing because there were too many problems that the wiki communtity is not sorting out. One of them is treating anon editors as second class wikicitizens.
	== ] ==
	Can someone please block this user for a while so that he can cool off a bit? Just take a look at this unprovoked personal attack. ]&nbsp;&divide;&nbsp;] 11:19, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
			Another problem is "this is how it is so we are going to leave it like this for years and years" and this is at the expense of the quality of WP.
	: Blocked for 72 hours, personal attacks (and responses to same) removed. Provoked or not, that rant was really beyond the pale. ] 11:27, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
			I can't remember the specific category guideline for the edits I did but is the undoing editors need to look it up. Categorisation is something that a lot of editor do not understand. Go and put a notice on WikkiProoject Categorisation and you will fing that there is support for my edits.
	::It certainly was. Thanks. ]&nbsp;&divide;&nbsp;] 11:32, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
			WP could be sooo much better. ] (]) 02:02, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
	:::Wow. I don't know what I was expecting when I clicked the link, but whatever it was, that was a lot worse. Good job on the block. -]<sup>]</sup> 13:30, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
			:I'm sorry, but "I don't remember what policy says but I'm right so leave me alone" is an indication you should be trying to do better instead of telling us we should do the same. If you're not willing to actually explain why guidelines vindicate your changes, then being right sometimes isn't enough if you want to make things better. Communication is the process, not something ancillary to it. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>]</span> 02:10, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
	:::Just 72 hours for that garbage? He should have been keelhauled for 3 months. - ] 21:02, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
			::GO and read the guidelines. It does not need discussion. ] (]) 02:15, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
	::::Hmmm. Looks like Brian might have been provoked here. But even so, that's one hell of an outburst. Remember, though, that Brian is generally a decent editor and Rdos seems intent on pursuing an agenda. I can see how assertions of this nature from a ''self-diagnosed'' autioe might be seen as groossly insulting by one who has been medically diagnosed. ] 21:28, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
			:::Discussion is required when other editors ask you questions in good faith in order to resolve present disputes and prevent future ones. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>]</span> 02:18, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
	::Also, no matter how spectacularly, I don't think a single case of exploding is punishable by 3 months' block! NPA is, one more time (with feeling), not policy in its sanctions. If the user is doing anything constructive as well, then being nasty should result in mediation and arbitration, not trampling by elephants. Send him to the time-out corner for a day, maybe, but anything more than two days for a single outburst is pushing it, ''if the user does constructive things as well,'' and this one does. ] 03:17, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
			::Bear in mind this is WP and not social media. ] (]) 02:16, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
			::How do you get the impression that "I don't remember what policy says but I'm right so leave me alone". ] (]) 02:18, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::No. You brought this here. The ] is on ''you'' to explain how the guidelines justify your edits, not to say "go look it up". Also {{tqq|How do you get the impression that "I don't remember what policy says but I'm right so leave me alone"}} - because that's exactly what you said. - ] <sub>]</sub> 02:19, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::It's not unreasonable in many cases to link to a very specific passage of a guideline and expect an editor to understand its meaning as regards a pertinent dispute, but you can't just fail to clearly articulate your argument while also insisting it's vindicated somewhere within the full text of a guideline. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>]</span> 02:21, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
			:Content dispute. Bold edits were reverted; next step is discussion, probably at ]. If there is dispute over interpretation of the guideline you can consider leaving a pointer at ]. If there are any categories that shouldn't be used at all that can be discussed at ]. ] (]) 03:31, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
			::The content dispute could have been discussed on any of the talk pages. Yet it was brought here first. ] (]) 06:16, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::When a content dispute involves several pages it is often <small>though not always</small> best to centralize discussion. Misunderstanding ANIs purpose and bringing content disputes here is a common and understandable error; best just to point people at appropriate ] when that happens. ] (]) 06:53, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
			Not overly impressed by 43's comments above. But do wish to note that their ] of ] from at least one BLP appears to have been correct. The subsequent reversion of that removal is misfortune. ] <sup>]</sup> 08:06, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
	:::I had an email from Brian today. Sounds like he has some heavy shit in RL and could do with being cut a little slack, especially since his judgment on Rdos was, if rather more forthright than we'd like and couched in unacceptable language, not indefensible. ] 23:02, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
			== Unblock request of Rereiw82wi2j ==
	::I really must apologize for my unkind comments. I meant every word of it, but I really should have kept it to myself. Like Dr. Hannibal Lecter, I believe in the value of politeness and courtesy. Several factors came together to induce me to go off as I did: some wiki-stalking, nasty comments from certain users, an RfC initiated on me by a user who was deeply offended that I told him to "go away," frustration with POV pushers, and some serious side effects from some prescription medication. I actually had to go to the emergency room a couple of nights ago for treatment for side effects from the medication. The 72 hour block, unlike three months of keelhauling (Ha, ha, very droll) was quite appropriate. Guy Chapman is an absolute saint for checking on me and helping me out. That kind of behavior is all too rare around here. Did I ever mention that I was one of the most prolific and nasty flame artists on USENET about ten to twelve years ago? I guess I still have it in me. I still have some lingering problems and concerns with some users, and I wish I could get some help resolving those so that I'm not tempted to resort to verbal abuse. Have a great day, everyone! ] 00:46, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
			{{atop|1=Blocked, blocked, they're all blocked. - ] <sub>]</sub> 18:47, 21 December 2024 (UTC)}}
			The user {{u|Rereiw82wi2j}} was blocked for blanking talk page discussions. They were removing discussions they participated in with an now-vanished account, for the purpose of removing their username from the talk page(which isn't removed via a vanishing). I believe that per ] their vanishing needs to be reversed, am I correct? Do they need to be asked to resume using that account?(if they can) ] (]) 20:49, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
			:It seems to need reverting because with their previous account, they only edited one article/talk page and when asked what articles they wanted to edit with their new account, they just mention this same article. That violates the entire principle of a clean start account. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 23:00, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
			::Could we revoke TPA per ? ~ ] (]) 14:19, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
			::: I have revoked their talk page access and declined the unblock request. ] (]) 14:34, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::User has created another account {{u|Human82}}. ] (]) 15:39, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::Also now blocked. ]] 16:17, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::There's also ] now. ] (]) 16:32, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::Blocked by PhilKnight. ]] 16:36, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
			{{abot}}
			== User:ZanderAlbatraz1145 Civility and Content #2 ==
	== Abuse of power? ==
			*{{userlinks|ZanderAlbatraz1145}}
	(Moved from ])
			This user has engaged in a lengthy display of disruption. Namely through incessant incivility I have noticed .
	As a consequence of this edit ] took the decision to ] me for 24 hours. His motivation are explained ] where he says that "my POV pushing days are numbered" and conclude the discussion threating to block me for a week if I will ever dare to revert him again. Now let's fix some points:
	# ] was not an "independent observer": he was taking part to a ] on the opportunity of describing the "controlled demolition theorists" as "conspiracists";
	# the dispute involved several people in both the parties as you can see looking at and keeping pressing "newer edit";
	# ] was supporting a change to the old version of the article while I was supporting the old version;
	# In the ] you can read the following paragraph:
	::''Use of blocks to gain an advantage in a content dispute is strictly prohibited. That is, '''sysops must not block editors with whom they are currently engaged in a content dispute'''.''
	So I think it's clear that ] did violate the ] realizing an abuse of power.
	I ask you: what can I do to defend myself from this kind of abuses? Is there an authority that can prevent ] from behaving in this way?
	--] 08:25, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
			Instances such as , , on , etc. Users such as {{Ping|Waxworker}} and {{Ping|Jon698}} can speak to their experiences, I'll outline mine.
	::Regarding below; "Nonsense pov" is a personal attack, an ad hominem, and a mischaracterization. Obviously MONGO can't tell the difference between fact and reality, and between propaganda argument
	and cogent argument; Thus Mongo ought to get demoted from admin Status, at least until he picks up and reads a good logic textbook.
	] 02:09, 27 June 2006 (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 .
	:Stop pushing your nonsense POV and you won't have to worry about it. Stop reverting other editors for no reason and you won't be blocked. Two other admins came to your talk page and both left you blocked, so I suppose the concensus to keep you blocked should have been obvious.--] 08:33, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
	::Are you really suggesting that ] could be considered to be an independent observer? However: I asked for an authority to defend myself from your threats and from what I believe to be clear violations of the ], can you answer about this please?--] 08:41, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
	:::I did, Mr. Harrison did, ] did, and when you wouldn't stop posting the unblock, she even protected your talk page.... This commentary doesn't belong here anyway as it has nothing to do with this article.--] 09:07, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
	::::#Why do you keep saying the same things ignoring my questions?
	::::#Are you suggesting that if the ] disagree with ] and ] then it is the ] to be wrong?
	::::#This commentary belongs here because it speaks about a content dispute related to this article. Probably other editors would be interested to know that taking part to a content dispute against ]'s POV may result in a block, wouldn't they?
	::::#I would be grateful if you suggest a better place to discuss about abuses of powers by the admins?
	::::--] 09:17, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
			This editor displays no interest in conducting themselves cordially or cooperatively on this website. ] 23:20, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
	::::There is an ], or you can file a ]. ] <sup>]</sup> 14:21, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
			:I've given them a warning for canvassing: - ] <sub>]</sub> 04:08, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			: - ] <sub>]</sub> 05:36, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			::And they appear to be continuing editing while ignoring here. - ] <sub>]</sub> 05:39, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			== SPA ] back at it on ] ==
	This seems pretty clear-cut to me. Administrators are not permitted to use their access to advantage themselves in a content dispute, for instance by blocking the person with whom they are disputing. The block is an unauthorized use of administrator access. --] 17:50, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
			Hi, all, I'd like some assistance with the SPA ], who's been POV pushing on the ] article since . A quick view of their extremely short edit history shows that their sole focus is on pushing a vaccine-denialist POV on that and similar COVID-related topics. Started out on the talk page and BLPN, but now they've graduated to edit-warring on the article itself; they were active in June, made a single related edit in October, but now they appear to be . They've already , and have received an warning--to which they were . Would appreciate a more permanent resolution, either a COVID-19 topic ban or just an indef considering their SPA status, so they don't just go back into hibernation and then turn up again like a bad penny. (And yeah, given this context, I don't love the implications of the username "Tikitorch2", either.) Thanks, ]&nbsp;]] 05:13, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
	:But what can I do to defend myself and other users from these abuses?
			:]? ] (]) 06:25, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
	::Well, you can go to ], the arbitration committee, and file a formal complaint. Which may or may not do any good, as I've yet to see ArbCom take action against an administrator for abusing an non admin editor, whether the admin violated policy or not. I have a case right now there claiming an admin violated at the very least ] with a indefinite block, and ArbCom has so far (yawn) asked if I could come up with any other violations. So I did. Silence. Similarly, I've seen people blocked by admins for violation of ], but on this very page you will see an administrator label my comments as "assholery." A term which in the language has no purpose, AFAIK, other than incivility. Result, no action by anybody. So, good luck. ] 18:51, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
			::{{duck}}. I'm sending this ]. - ] <sub>]</sub> 11:16, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::, so might just be generic disruption. - ] <sub>]</sub> 22:47, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
			:What are you implying with regard to my username? My edit history has been limited to trying to correct two red flags that stood out so much that I followed the citations when I was searching these scientists who were in the news for censorship. It has been enlightening learning how wikipedia selectively chooses secondary sources but discourages the use of primary sources to help discriminate which secondary sources are credible.
			:For my two attempted contributions to Misplaced Pages, the two red flags were pretty dramatic to prompt me to check out the citations--Sunetra Gupta's article implied more than 1 in 1000 people in England died from Covid in spring 2020 in an effort to discredit her, which was trivially easy to google as untrue. I corrected that without really changing the overall narrative. The article for Martin Kulldorff...I would probably not have spent time looking at the sources or realized how unscientific Kulldorff's critics were had there not been such superfluous "Wikivoice" editorializing and synthesizing suggesting Kulldorff lied in an essay to the public. ] (]) 06:30, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
			::] are not to be used for anything but simple facts about a subject. They absolutely are not to be used {{tqq|to help discriminate which secondary sources are credible}} because that is ]. - ] <sub>]</sub> 08:57, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::Not sure why you felt the need to repeat what I said. Maybe I am the sock puppeteer! ] (]) 03:33, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			::What I am implying is that such a username in the context of an account pushing COVID-denialist rhetoric that flies in the face of the sources and Misplaced Pages policy is . Anyway, this editor continues to be a drain of editor time and attention. ]&nbsp;]] 14:58, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::Ah an absurd, convoluted, and contrived personal attack. Assuming anyone but you knew tiki torches were present at a political event where someone was killed, why would I choose my username based on that? Tikitorches provide light, warmth, and keep the mosquitos away. I guess its not surprising an editor named writ keeper attacks the editor rather than effectively debating the subject of the edit. ] (]) 03:28, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::Even if it was a personal attack, making one ''back'' isn't going to fly here. Knock it off. - ] <sub>]</sub> 04:04, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::], your edits are being examined at ANI. This is not a pleasant experience, I'll admit. So, it's best for you not to dig yourself into a hole. I know the instinct is to defend yourself but it doesn't help your situation to come out swinging. It's probably to your benefit to address any concerns that have been raised and say no more than that. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 04:30, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			== Persistent addition of unsourced content by 2601:243:CB00:7F10:0:0:0:0/64 ==
	:::It's like this: as soon as an admin steps in to control an edit war, they are asserted by the POV pushers to be "involved in a content dispute". If we accept that at face value, we soon run out of admins with any understanding of the issue. The loudest protests are usually fomr the most tendentious editors. Simply policing ] is not necessarily involvement. I don't know what went on here, but there is little doubt that the people asserting the "controlled demolition" theory are conspiracy theorists and not "independent researchers". ] 21:35, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
			{{Atop|Blocked for one month.--] (]) 14:52, 21 December 2024 (UTC)}}
			{{userlinks|2601:243:CB00:7F10:0:0:0:0/64}} - Keeps adding unsourced content to articles, hasn't responded to warnings, and continued after block expired. /64 has previously been blocked on December 8th for a week due to "Persistent unsourced genre changes", and 2 weeks on September 7th due to addition of unsourced content. Recent examples of addition of unsourced content: {{diff|The Iron Giant|prev|1264168891|1}}, {{diff|Joker (2019 film)|prev|1264169891|2}}, {{diff|Candyman (2021 film)|prev|1264170248|3}}, {{diff|Spirited (film)|prev|1264235847|4}}, {{diff|Sausage Party: Foodtopia|prev|1264237619|5}}. ] (]) 10:22, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
			{{Abot}}
			== Disruptive editing ] ==
	::::What evidence have you that this is the case? In the present case, we don't simply have an administrator wandering by and dealing with vandalism, then getting accused of conflict of interest. The admin in question seems to have been involved in the conflict well prior. In such a case, the accepted and respectable thing to do is to request that an uninvolved administrator investigate and take action. Nobody is claiming that a block can't result if one is appropriate. But in cases of apparent conflict of interest, admins are supposed to seek review -- ''not'' to use admin access while in conflict. --] 05:21, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
			{{atop
			| result = I've protected the page for 24 hours. @] and @] are both warned against edit warring, including during the course of this discussion. RR, HR, and .82 should follow ] processes. Further disruptive editing or edit warring after page protection expires will result in blocks. ] (]/]) 21:13, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
			}}
			] has been trying for about a month now to put across his own opinion about the party' infobox. An opinion which he cannot back up with any source whatsoever. Although it has been pointed out to him by both the user ] and me, continues the disruptive editing. Ιt is worth noting that although other users made the same "mistake", when the lack of sources to support the addition was pointed out to them, they accepted it and did not continue to try to pass on their own opinion.
	:::::How to identify a conspiracy theory in five easy stages:
	:::::#It goes against the orthodox view and proposes some sinister motive
	:::::#It is denied by all those involved; this denial is asserted as evidence supporting the theory
	:::::#There is no credible evidence to support it; this lack of evidence is asserted as a cover-up and thus evidence to support the theory
	:::::#An alternative, more prosaic explanation is available and generally accepted
	:::::#Proponents reverse the burden of proof, requiring that the theory be disproved rather than proving it themselves.
	:::::I'm guessing that the "explosives" were detonated from a grassy knoll... The same five tests appear to apply to MONGO's actions as well. ] 07:20, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
			https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Movement_for_Democracy_(Greece)#5/300
	::::::Your (not so funny) joke on conspiracy theories shows clearly the *a priori* bias of your point of view on this case.--] 07:49, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
	::::Conspiracy theories also violate ] immediately, as they call for multiplying causes beyond the necessary. ] 15:12, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
			https://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Greek_Rebel#Movement_for_Democracy
	:The best advice I can offer is to be very calm and measured. Ask, on WP:AN (not here), for other administrators to review the situation. "Administrators" disagree with each other often enough, and there shouldn't be any special divine right to the position. You can also ask (not demand, not threaten, not accuse) MONGO to get another administrator to look in. I doubt he'd had any reluctance in doing so. However, when you come in suggesting that it's Us and Them, that the persecuted truth is being hunted to extinction by the evil cabal, etc., it's fairly offputting. Most administrators are administrators because they've been pretty carefully watched and assessed before getting the position, so there is some inherent trust there and a slightly larger benefit of the doubt, but the community is pretty quick to reverse inappropriate administrative actions. ] 03:13, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
	:*No actually, MONGO pretty much blocks on sight when anyone questions him, come to think of it, he does the same thing when people agree with him--] 03:14, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
	:**Did you ask him to seek an outside point of view ''in this case?'' Again, step away from calling names. ] 15:12, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
	::Then file arbitration if you can prove that slander.--] 04:29, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
	:::] such as accusing a fellow editor of a crime. --] 05:21, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
	::::First, it's not a legal threat. Second, you appear to be applying a double standard: you feel free to insult MONGO and accuse him of abuse of power but you are unwilling for him to defend himself. ] 07:22, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
	::(following Geogre's comment) I'd also like to encourage any adminstrator whom has a claim raised against them to be "calm and measured." I know it's irritating to be villified. But when we snap back it makes it hard to sort out the ''"I'm cranky because this is silly"'' from the ''"I'm cranky because I got caught out."'' I've yet to see an accusation that could not have been well responded to with civility and tact. I might also hope that when staging a defence, the use of actual evidence be encouraged? - ]<span class="plainlinks"> </span> 05:53, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
			https://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Greek_Rebel#Disruptive_editing....again
	:I have to agree with Pokipsy76 here. MONGO, you were (and are) out of line. Calling them 'conspiracists' seems clearly derogatory and thus not 'NPOV'... which makes Pokipsy's effort to change it to 'some' or 'some independant researchers' look not unreasonable to me (despite agreeing the claims seem unlikely / far-fetched). However, let's assume for the moment that isn't the case... 'conspiracists' was a perfectly neutral, reasonable, and encyclopedic term to use and no other would do. You'd still be completely out of line. This was a content dispute between the two of you... pure and simple. Blocking someone for disagreeing with your version of what an article should say is an inexcusable violation of adminship... it shouldn't be done ''ever''. He wasn't "trolling" as you said in the block summary or being disruptive, indeed ''you'' seem to have acted considerably more incivilly. You called it "trolling" in the block summary, but elsewhere you said it was for ... you '''can't''' block for that. Ever. And you certainly shouldn't be nasty and dismissive about it. Protecting someone's talk page to prevent them from requesting unblock (I realize that wasn't you) also strikes me as ''extremely'' 'not kosher'. If the request is groundless the next admin will see that... just put in comments on why you think the block is sound. --] 14:30, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
	::The POV pushers that try to add nonsense to the articles related to the 9/11 events have been told repeatedly that the vast majority of their "contributions" to those article violated numerous policies. This doesn't seem to stop them. This editor I blocked routinely reverts those that support the concensus verison and yes, conspiracy theorists is what they are...they are not researchers. Simply put, and I won't apologize for this not being more civil, I will continue to block POV pushers that disrupt the discussion pages and the articles with nonsense. Two other admins responded to the unblock request and did not unblock this editor. I then moved the early parts of this conversation from an article talk page to here for all to see. It is ludicrus to assume that I was doing anything other than to ensure that the POV pushers of nonsense know that there is a limit to the level of disruption that needs to be tolerated.--] 15:08, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
	:::The fact that a majority of people (including myself) agree with a characterization does not make it 'neutral point of view'. Isn't that obvious? Or should we rewrite the 'Hitler' article to say that he was a 'vile murderous bastard' because most people agree with that? That the people who argue for controlled demolition are 'conspiracy theorists' (or "conspiracists" as in the article) may well be the common view... but it '''ISN'T''' "neutral" or 'encyclopedic'. It's a deliberately derogatory presentation which ''should'' be changed to something more neutral. You say above that he has repeatedly been told that his edits "violated numerous policies". What policy did he violate by changing 'Some conspiracists say...' to 'Some say...' and/or 'Some independant researchers say...'? Edit warring? Weren't you doing that too? A policy which definitely ''was'' violated is the restriction against admins blocking those with whom they are in a content dispute. Indeed, you went so far as to say, "" What is that? 'If you dare to revert me I will block you for a week'? You think admins are supposed to act that way? I understand that you may be frustrated and annoyed, but that's a reason to take several steps back... not charge forward. If dealing with the craziness is starting to get to you go work on some other topic. I haven't touched political articles in months for just that reason. You say several admins approved this... well shame on them. IMO that's worse than doing it in the first place. I'm telling you that you 'crossed the line' not to get in your face, but to let you know that I think you need to get away from this for a while and reconsider your position. In my view those saying (effectively), 'yeah, admins '''should''' block people who revert their edits... ''we'' decide what is good enough for inclusion' are doing more harm to you (and Misplaced Pages) than my criticisms. --] 16:13, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
	:::::It would appear that it is you that is being hotheaded. I am very familiar with this editor and I posted plenty below that clearly demostrates that he/she has edit warred over this phrasing, even though numerous other ediotrs have clearly reverted him. It is not a content dispute if he has no concensus for removing the terms conspiracy and theory. I think you should reconsider your position and recognize that two other admins saw the block for what it was...a block for vandalism.--] 16:27, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
	::::::C'mon. Which of us has been saying "nonsense", "trolling", "vandalism", et cetera? What do I even have to be "hotheaded" about here? I'm trying to stop a train wreck, but it really has nothing to do with me. As to this having been "a block for vandalism". You called it a block for "trolling" in the block summary... and a block for "reverting" on Tom Harrison's edit page. Now it's vandalism? is vandalism? '''Look''' at it. There is no way that, or any of the other links you gave in response to Geogre below, is anywhere even ''close'' to 'vandalism' as defined under Misplaced Pages policy. None. Please stop this. I may be alone in questioning your block, but several people have urged you to calm down / use less inflammatory wording. This wasn't vandalism. --] 17:00, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
	::::::I'm going to step in with CBDunkerson on one point: even if the edits provoked a strong emotional reaction, they were clearly ''not'' vandalism, and the creeping use of that term is worrying. ] <small>'''(''' ] '''/''' ] ''')'''</small> 20:56, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
	actually, "conspiracy theorist" is a republican talking point.
	By naming it as such, the fact is that that way of naming it is
	itself a patent invalidation. In other words "its just nonsense,
	because its a conspiracy THEORY." Which does violate npov policy.
	That this isn't simple and apparent to all concerned is rediculous,
	again pointing to the need for conversational logic to be a required
	feild of study for all admins. The whole point of calling it a "conspiracy theory" is to characterize it as a tin foil hat propaganda. The evidence regarding the 911 problems is overwhelmingly
	for the fact that the buildings were demolished with thermate. There
	is an entire panel of first rate scientists who are looking into the matter, and they are indeed independant researchers. Finding out the truth about what happened on 911 is a depth research game, and thus,
	those who are promoting the 911 truth movement are by definition researchers, not conspiracy theorists. That i would randomly run into
	this, and have to explain something as simple and as basic as predjudical charecterization to a batch of (supposely long time and thus wise in the ways of the wikipedia) admins and editors should be humiliatingly emberassing.
	] 01:49, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
			] (]) 19:15, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
			:This is a content dispute, not a conduct dispute. Since discussing the issue on article talk has not worked, please follow ] processes, such as seeking guidance at ] or ], or going to ]. ] (]/]) 19:50, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
			::@] taking a look because I've been tagged. While there may be content elements to it I think this has gone into a behavioural issue, namely due to it being a user actively edit warring without providing sources but instead endlessly insisting on edits that are entirely ]. ] (]) 20:00, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
			::It is not a problem of content but of behaviour. His claim is original research, is his own conclusion and is not verified by any source. He knows it, has admitted it, and yet he insists on adding it. ] (]) 20:02, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
			(nac) ] is a moderately stable DAB page, with which I have been involved. I assume this dispute relates to ]. ] (]) 20:59, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
	:::Was this a 3RR? Could you have just rolled them back? My point is that the block, when you're involved, gives them fuel. I don't want to advocate a revert war, of course. (And I was up on 89th E. when the towers went down. Conspiracy theorists about the tower attacks are not only inventing where plain evidence is abundant, they're also highly offensive to those of us who knew people who died.) If they're horking you off (and they are, it seems), at least hand off the blocking phase. ] 15:59, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
			{{abot}}
	::::No, it was, in my opinion, vandalism. A great many of the editors that contest terms such as ''conspiracy theorists'' may feel insulted by the wording, but they have no concensus, after many, many kb's exhausted on the discussion pages, for removing the terminology used. It was not a content dispute and Pokipsy76 seems to do some drive-by reverts., , , then spent several days arguing without concensus to alter the subheading in the same article , , , , , , , . You'll notice that he has reverted numerous other editors about this same phrasing, and done so without concensus.--] 16:21, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
			== Sugar Bear returns with personal attacks ==
	:::::::Thats classic. They demand to change the name to a new predjudicial one? And this stuff actually stands the light of day for
			{{atop|1=/24 blocked for two weeks. - ] <sub>]</sub> 01:36, 22 December 2024 (UTC)}}
	more than 3 seconds? Wheres the logician in this house? "may find it insulting?" DUH? Its a patent invalidation for a title.
			*{{rangevandal|166.181.224.0/19}}
	"no consensus" Gee, i wasn't aware that NEW consenus was needed to implement OLD policy.
			*]
	] 02:06, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
	]
			Using the IP range ], Sugar Bear has returned to Misplaced Pages to disrupt film and music articles. After I recognized this fact and began reverting him, Sugar Bear began a campaign of personal attacks at my talk page, using the IP ]. Can we get a rangeblock?
	:::::1.The original version of the article had the paragraph named "controlled demolition theories", then you and others tried repeatedly to change to "conspiracy theories", I was '''not the only one''' to oppose to this change that means that you didn't have the consensus, or if you prefer you and others "spent several days arguing without concensus to alter the subheading". Are you suggesting that you can do this while I and the other "conspiracists" can't? On what grounds? Because we are "POV pushers of nonsenses"?
	:::::2.I have been reverting just a) in cases when it was clear that there was no consensus because someone else already did a revert before or b) in cases when I did disagree with a revert of other people, so in all the cases the people that have been reverted by me didn't have the consesus.
	:::::3.There was a '''content''' (the way to call the "controlled demolition theorists") that was '''disputed''' (someone wanted to have this content in a way some other ones in another way, and me and you were between these groups), so we were involved in a ].
	:::::--] 17:18, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
			There's a decade-plus history of this vandal attacking me, for instance his creation of the username ]. I can spot his contributions quite easily by now. ] (]) 22:35, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
	This isn't a content dispute between the Mongo and Pokipsky. This is persistent tendentious editing by a few conspiracy theorists who are determined to add their speculation to every page related to 9/11, with links to videos and books. The consensus is against him, and Pokipsky's actions have long since become disruptive. Mongo's block was neccessary and appropriate. ] <sup>]</sup> 16:35, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
	:You and MONGO were trying to add text, I and the other "conspiracists" were just trying to keep the old version. By the way what you describe is just an example of ].--] 17:00, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
			.I've blocked the current IP, I may not have time to properly investigate the range right now. '''<span style="font-family: Arial;">] <small>]</small></span>''' 22:39, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
	calling these people conspiracy theorists IS an INVALIDATION and
	a PREDJUDICIAL CHARACTERIZATION. Its also an Ad hominem, and, amusingly enough, also A straw man. Also,
	this is no longer in the realm of speculation. Science and fact have proven
	beyond a shadow of a doubt that thermate explosives were present,
	and that the buildings were destroyed via demolitions. All you are
	doing is attacking these editors personally, not adressing the facts
	of the content. Where republicans can't win on logic, they engadge in demonization. Well, clap clap clap, its a great show.
	Mongo blocked somebody for changing a pov loaded predjudicial wording
	to an npov wording. So whos the pov pusher?
	] 02:06, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
			::Past disruption from nearby IPs includes the following:
	:Mongo might have been advised to get someone else to actually implement the block. The Conspiracy Theorists who are edit-warring over the insertion of small-minorty POV in all articles related to that small-minority POV, however, are not editing the encyclopedia to make it more informative, but rather to win a debate about how there is a grand conspiracy to do something. As such, Mongo is right, thought I feel he would be righter if he just asked someone else to block them indefinently for exausting the communities patience. ] - ] 20:30, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
			::*] was blocked in 2018 and 2019.
	::Block for ''what''? MONGO has claimed to be "trolling" and "vandalism". To me it looks like an attempt to insert NPOV wording. We don't block for that. At least... we aren't supposed to. 'They are wrong, so we get to use insulting and derogatory terms to describe them' also falls a little short of 'neutral' and 'encyclopedic' in my book. --] 21:18, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
			::*] was blocked in 2018 for one month.
	:::Opinion observed and no changes will be implemented by me. I continue to defend the known facts from POV pushing trolls as long as I have time. Your continued attempts to twist this into a content dispute and to misunderstand what the conspiracy theorists are up to, indicates to me that you should really get busy reading our policies. These are sensitive articles, and the tolerance threshold for nonsense pushing is naturally lower...just as our tolerance for the same is lower on our biographies.--] 22:04, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
			::*] was blocked in 2020, identifying Sugar Bear.
	::::Ditto. --] 23:38, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
			::*] was blocked twice in 2020 for personal attacks.
	::1.Yes MONGO may have been advised someone else (maybe CBD?) but he didn't and he did the block, sorry.
			::*] was rangeblocked in 2023 for three years. ] (]) 22:53, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
	::2.On what grounds can you speak about a "small minority POV", did you know about this: ?
	::3.I don't know any policy about blocking for supporting "small minority POVs" (assuming that I was supporting those) instead I know a policy about ] and about ], who violated those?
	::4.The accusation of "not editing the encyclopedia to make it more informative, but rather to win a debate" is not consistent with ] and can be redirected to people who try to push in the artcile the "official version is right" POV.
	::5.If the people supporting two POV are numerically the same it makes no sense to block half of the editors for "exausting the patience" of the other half, unless you find a policy to support one of the parrties.--] 07:43, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
			::I've blocked the current /24 for two weeks, but I see a lot of potential for collateral damage for longer or broader blocks. '''<span style="font-family: Arial;">] <small>]</small></span>''' 22:59, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
			{{abot}}
			== Comments by Locke Cole ==
	We '''block''' whackos trying to ruin our encyclopedia? What a novel concept! *chokes* --]] 23:48, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
			{{atop
	::Yes!! This is the true spirit of our '''democratic''' encyclopedia!!--] 07:43, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
			| result = No support for a block for either party, and filer is fine with closure. ] ] 16:56, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
			}}
			'''Involved''': {{userlinks|Locke Cole}}
	These guys have been trying to insert this...material...into 911 articles over and over against consensus, a consensus that has been uniform since the day it became an issue. They are tireless in their attempts to insert unfounded, non-notable and obvouisly POV assertions into our 911 articles, and the articles would be a mockery if there wasn't pushback. ] just above has it exactly right. ] 14:40, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
			So I honestly think we should both receive a (24 hr) block for our behavior, but bringing it here for that to happen. This started when I posted a list of "keep" votes with no rationale at ]. Comments made by Locke Cole in response to the list include:
			* {{tq|Sour grapes are over there, in case you're lost.}}
			::I replied to this with {{tq|What?? Voting on an AfD should be policy-based, not just "keep" or "he's too notable". I'm giving evidence to my claim that keep votes were given unnecessarily large amounts of weight when closing this. Yes, I left out the ones with evidence, because that wasn't the point of the list. Again, would you give weight to the five keep votes that just said "keep"? I believe this is the second time I've had to say this to you, but way to WP:ABF.}}
			* {{tq|Well, you're already violating WP:DRVPURPOSE #8 by casting WP:ASPERSIONS about other editors. Carry on, I look forward to seeing you blocked for being an idiot.}}
			::And I replied to this one with {{tq|Yes, I removed a comment after realizing it violated our aspersions policy. Do you have an issue with that? Feel free to take this to ANI if you want to continue, as it’s clogging up the DRV.}}
			This user has a long history of behavioral blocks, including '''six '''civility blocks over a span of nine years. Since this behavior clearly won't be getting better, bringing it here. It's up to y'all to decide if a BOOMERANG should happen, if we should both be blocked, or only one party gets the hammer. :) ]<sub>]</sub><sup>]</sup> 02:41, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
			:I'm not sure that the cited comments are in themselves enough to justify a block. I also note that LC has recently ]. Speaking from experience, I can state that when in deep mourning we are not always at our best. That said, I find LC's block log disturbing.-] (]) 02:52, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
	:Mboverload and Rx StrangeLove, you are seemingly talking about something else entirely since your comments bear no resemblance whatsoever to the topic at hand. Again, is the type of 'heinous' edit which you are ] and/or ] over. For the record, "Some conpiracy theorists disagree..." is POV while, "Some diagree..." is NPOV. It may be satisfying to use derogatory terms to describe these people. It may be widely agreed. It may even be true. But it '''isn't''' neutral point of view. Any more than saying, 'Hitler was a vile murdering bastard' is 'neutral' just because it is widely agreed. The fact that some group is unpopular is not an excuse to toss our civility, personal attacks, NPOV, and consensus editing policies out the window. That these ''obvious'' truths have escaped so many here is a travesty for Misplaced Pages. --] 16:06, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
			::While I do get that, and I do respect that and am deeply sorry that happened to them, this behavior has been going on since late 2005, and includes an arbitration request, hence why I brought it directly here. Calling me an "idiot" was 100% an NPA vio, and having a personal loss shouldn't excuse that (also speaking from experience with the loss of my mother from ] in 2014). This is a rare case where I'll say that a block log should give you an idea of whether this behavior will continue. ]<sub>]</sub><sup>]</sup> 02:56, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
	::You're so wrong about what is going on with these articles, it's laughable. Just yesterday, one of the more prolific conspiracy theorists was identified as using a strawman sockpuppet, just to make his preposterous nonsense seem more credible. The websites that some of these people have been affliated with or simply read, have issued a call to arms from time to time and called for like minded people to go and edit wikipedia to push their POV. You claim that those that support the known factual evidence are not following concensus? Ridiculous. So terrorists becomes freedom fighter? So conspiracy theorist becomes independent researcher? It is also preposterous to say that by using the term conspiracy theorists that it is somehow the same as editing that "Hitler was a vile murdering bastard". I simply cannot disagree with this more. If you find the wording so problematic, then go over to those articles and edit till your heart is content...you'll probably get reverted, but the only possible explanation would be because people like me are POV pushers of nonsense, right? Good day.--] 19:20, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
			:::{{tqq|bolding policies I've added at the end}} - I'll just note that every one of the "policies" you linked to (bar ], where I'm pretty sure you wanted ]) goes to ]. Which is very useful and well-thought-out, and by all means should be used as a tool at AfD, but is not policy. It's an essay ''on'' policy. There's a difference. - ] <sub>]</sub> 03:42, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::Okay then, per that I've removed the list. The comments still stand though. ]<sub>]</sub><sup>]</sup> 03:57, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
			*So the OP wants themselves and the other party to receive blocks for incivility? Why don't you just stop being rude to each other? Change your own behavior. Opening this discussion is just drawing attention to a few comments that otherwise would have likely been forgotten. I don't see how this post helps the situation at all. Just do better. And if Locke Cole comes to this discussion, I pray this doesn't devolve into bickering. Let's all just get back to editing productively and not taking shots at each other. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 05:23, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:I don’t know, maybe I just thought it’d continue and brought it here, likely too early. Is it possible to close this? ]<sub>]</sub><sup>]</sup> 13:19, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
			:From what I read from the DRV, it definitely seemed like it got heated, but it definitely seemed to cool down. Trouts for sure, but I don't see why blocks are necessary. As for you, given that you're asking to be punished, you seem to recognize what you did wrong, and you pledge to not continue this behavior. Just change your password for a day or a week and change it back later; I don't think admin intervention is necessarily warranted. ] (]) 11:43, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
	Actually, a pretty fair estimation. You are the one promoting a pov laden predjudicial characterization; whilst telling everybody else
			::Though as actual admins above have mentioned, their block history is indeed concerning. ] (]) 11:50, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
	thats what the other people are guilty of. Ever heard of projection?
			{{abot}}
	] 02:06, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
			== ] ==
	:::I'm pretty sure you were done talking to me. In any case, your citation of what '''other people''' did, and distortions of my position, make a less than convincing argument for why you get to block anyone who dares to revert your edits. --] 21:31, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
			{{atop|result=Just officially closing this discussion as the account involved has been globally blocked. If an editor has Spore on your Watchlist and you see this occurring again, contact your local administrator. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 06:25, 24 December 2024 (UTC)}}
			This user made 500 edits to their user page which were all completely useless (] to inflate their edit count) and then once receiving extended-confirmed permissions vandalized ] by copypasting another article. Their user page shows them editing and counting to 500. ]] 04:52, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
			:It's a ], and I just reported to AIV. ] (]) 04:58, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
	::Actually no, I know exactly what I'm talking about, thanks. I think you may be the one that has an incomplete picture of what's been going on. And while we're on that topic, please read the first 2 sentences in your note above and tell me where I've been uncivil or have been making personal attacks. It's that kind of totally baseless comment that leads me to believe that you have a very incomplete understanding of what's been going on. This is this issues 3rd (at least) appearance at either AN or AN/I and these accusations have gained very little traction. ] 19:55, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
			::Would it be possible to put up some kind of filter to alert for this? Something that…say…catches when more than 25 edits are made in a single space (user space for example) or something that would trip if the edits added less than 5 characters consistently? <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 05:15, 22 December 2024 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
	:::You keep talking about "these guys" and what 'they' have done... not ''this'' guy and what actually happened '''here'''. To me that reads like, 'they are wrong so any abuse directed at them is ok'. Tell me why it was ok to block Pokipsy76 for that edit... or how your comments are an accurate description of what >he< actually ''did''. How does ''removing'' the words "conspiracy theorists" amount to an attempt "to insert unfounded, non-notable and obvouisly POV assertions"? --] 21:31, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
			:::There is a filter for this. Look at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Special:AbuseLog&wpSearchUser=International+Space+Station0&offset=20241222044736, "New account unusual activity" covers exactly this. ] (]) 05:22, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
			*This account has been globally blocked as an LTA so it shouldn't be an issue. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 05:25, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:At what point is it appropriate to selectively delete their hundreds of edits of nonsense from the page history?
			*:Or is that just something that isn't done? &ndash; ] (]) (]) 05:28, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
			*::If you are talking ], there is rarely a good reason for it's use at present. If instead you mean ] see ] and ]. ] (]) 05:33, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:::I've gone ahead and revdel'd the lot of them, as cut-and-pasting from other articles without proper attribution is copyvio and thus RD1able. Selective deletion (making the edits go away from the history) is probably not going to happen, if it's even technically possible for an article with almost *9500* revisions (I know ]!). - ] <sub>]</sub> 08:55, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
			{{abot}}
			== POV IP editor and 2024 Kobani clashes ==
	::: I agree strongly with RX above - from my investigation, is the type of heinous edit which they are ] over. ] - ] 20:51, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
			{{atop|1=Blocked. - ] <sub>]</sub> 21:36, 23 December 2024 (UTC)}}
			This engages in BLP and POV pushing with things like this and this , and then edit warring and then makes personal attacks like this , in a source documenting casualties for all of December instead of the specific date, and then when he is reverted by another editor respond with . I believe this person is ] to build an encyclopedia, and also the ] article should potentially be given semi-protection status as it's part of the Syrian Civil War which has discretionary sanctions. Thanks. ] (]) 05:34, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
			:Oh also . ] (]) 05:55, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
			::{{an3|b|72 hours}} (]) and pages protected ] 13:15, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			{{abot}}
			== Promotional content about Elvenking (band) ==
	::::That edit was not made by the person who was blocked. The edit I linked to above ''was'' specifically linked by MONGO (the blocker) as an example of why Pokipsy76 was blocked. That edit and others like it were ''not'' blockable offenses. Indeed, they look to me like NPOV improvements, but at ''worst'' were a minor content dispute between Pokipsy76 and the person who blocked him. Are you arguing that Pokipsy76 should be blocked for things done by another user? --] 21:31, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
			{{atop
	:::::I provided links above that demostrated the MO of this editor that I blocked...he had been trying to edit war and disrupt the article, against the concensus of editors that reverted his changes...he was even reverting NPOV edits I made in which I had added correctly cited material, in format with the style in the article, which I had worked on to try and improve the article. You completely misunderstand the MO of editors such as this. If you don't know what you are talking about, then you only make yourself look foolish. You argue that the block was wrong...then file an Rfc on it! I strongly recommend you do so.--] 23:54, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
			| result = There does not appear to be an actionable COI here, just an avid fan. Content issues can be handled through the appropriate channels. {{ping|Elvenlegions}} please be mindful of musical notability and what Misplaced Pages is and isn't for. ] ] 17:03, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
	::::::1.If I was edir warring you were doing exactly the same.
			}}
	::::::2.On what grounds can I be accused of trying to disrupt the article?
	::::::3.If I acted against the consensus of the pople that reverted me that also you and the reverting people were acting against the consensus of me and the oteìher peolpe that reverted you.
	::::::4.When you say this: "he was even reverting NPOV edits I made in which I had added correctly cited material, in format with the style in the article, which I had worked on to try and improve the article" I don't know what you are referring to or what is the relation to the case under discussion.
	::::::5. What do you mean by "editor such this"? Do you mean aditor that revert without explanation? Or do you mean editors that push POV ?
	::::::--] 08:30, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
	::::::As incouraged by mongo I filed an RfC on this case, please ''certify the basis for this dispute'' ]--] 11:13, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
			I noticed a consistent addition of promotional content about an apparently unencyclopedic band, namely ], with articles being also dedicated to each band member (eg.
	:::::::I'd generally not go with RfC (which all too often has a 'punitive' focus) over one problem incident, but since the process is already underway I will comment there. --] 13:26, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
			] and ]) and their unsold discography, which also got a dedicated template ({{tl|Elvenking}}). I also noticed a weird pattern by ], which appears to be either a very big fan or in conflict of interests, as well as other accounts apparently created just to support the band (eg. ]).<span id="Est._2021:1734845816539:WikipediaFTTCLNAdministrators&apos;_noticeboard/Incidents" class="FTTCmt"> —&nbsp;] (] <b>·</b> ]) 05:36, 22 December 2024 (UTC)</span>
			:I am indeed a big fan of the band and am trying to update the band's wikipedia information to make it as accurate as possible so people can learn about the band. I hope this helps support the band and also helps wikipedia readers and users who wish to learn more about the band. ] (]) 06:14, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
	*'''Proposal:''' Since this has now strayed well past any call to action I propose it be archived or moved to Talk, to clear the noticeboard for actual incidents requiring action. ] 08:53, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
			:*If these musicians are not notable, you can always tag the articles CSD A7. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 07:42, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
			::Understood, Elvenlegions, but ]. If the band, nor its members, nor its discography qualify as notable under the ], then the band's fans will have to learn about it elsewhere. ] 07:51, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
			{{abot}}
			== Disruptive editor on ] ==
	* I agree with the proposal, I do endorse MONGO block by the way, but he should have gave a warning. Thanks ] ] 02:15, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
			User ] has repeatedly removed reliably sourced refs to the genres infobox by removing ] simply because they don't believe it to be correct as the ref is "new" and that the artist isn't that genre. I had sent them two warnings now and also explained that's not how this works, so they decided to add more genres with refs that don't even mention the genres they included. I do not believe this editor is going to cooperate. ] (]) 08:27, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
	* I am fine with archiving this section, but I find it unconscionable that ''anyone'' would claim that MONGO's block for these edits ( ) was 'proper'. Even ignoring the fact that he blocked Pokipsy76 specifically for 'reverting him'... the content of the edits just is ''not'' block-worthy by any remotely reasonable standard and I'd challenge anyone to look at them and seriously tell me they believe otherwise. If those edits were worthy of a 48 hour block then virtually every edit on Misplaced Pages is. --] 02:49, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
			:User:Pillowdelight changed the genre list of When the Pawn... which originally had been a variation of certain genres: Art pop, jazz rock, art rock, alternative rock, jazz pop, chamber pop, all of which are somewhat accurate and agreed upon by various editors of this page over many years. It was changed to just Alt pop, a genre that is used to describe the newer sounds of pop in the early 2010s with Lorde, Sky Ferreira and Lana del rey. It is not a genre that fits the album hence it has never before user:Pillowdelight been described as such beyond what her poor source says, a Fiona Apple revisit (that is not even about When the pawn.. specifically) from a new, small and virtually unheard of web magazine. Sources such as Rateyourmusic, allmusic and Pitchfork are far more accurate and robust and that's why this album has never been described as alt pop. That genre did not exist at the time of the release of the album. The source needs to be accurate, it is not. It's not an album review, it is a fluff article about Fiona Apple by a small web magazine. It's not even about When the pawn... specifically, it makes no sense. I think the other editors agree, it is inaccurate.
	* Tru, the block was a bit harsh, but I don't understand Prometheuspan involvement in this, who is currently trolling and harrassing MONGO, see his talk page. ] ] 02:52, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
			:Allmusic and pitchfork are far better sources. I have added both as sources. I didn't change the genre list, I simply changed it back to the genre list that had stood there the longest before user:Pillowdelight changed it a few months ago for the first time, having never touched this page before yet complaining about other editors. ] (]) 18:52, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
			::{{ping|Longislandtea}} I removed the genres because they're unsourced, which I stated in many edit summaries you keep reverting, as well as on your talk page. It doesn't matter that just because you believe a source another user added calling the album alternative pop is incorrect and unreliable because it's "new, small and virtually unheard of" is a ridiculously excuse. Read ] it states — {{xt|genres must be stated and referenced in the body of the article; personal opinions or original research must not be included.}} The sources you have added specifically from Pitchfork don't state the genres you've listed. ] (]) 20:12, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::Sources need to be '''legitimate''' and''' relevant'''. Your source is not relevant and it is disputed. Pitchfork is added because they describe the album as an alternative album several times in the review and the genre category is ROCK. What is alternative and rock? Alternative rock. That is how the album was marketed. You can't cherrypick a single article to make a case for a genre that the album absolutely is not in. I will remove the Pitchfork source, that's fine. There's numerous ones including from Allmusic that clearly state that it is an alternative rock album. The album was even added to Misplaced Pages's page for alt rock albums ages ago. This is very uncontroversial. Just having alternative rock is also lacking; jazz fusion, art pop (the album is already added on the wikipedia page for art pop albums) and art rock are accurate too and have been there for ages but alas! Let's get rid of it all to only serve your opinion. Numerous albums have unsourced genres might I add, but the vast of amount of editors agree to it because they know these accurately describe the album, these are the scenes that the album and artist comes from and sourcing for genres can often times be lacking. In that case, rather than trying to look for BAD sources, it's better to agree with the consensus. In our case, we do have sources. Rateyourmusic has been used as a source for adding art pop, alternative rock, jazz pop, fusion, art rock and chamber pop as genres before. ] (]) 20:54, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::Here's the page for what is considered acceptable sources {{lw|Acceptable sources}}.
			::::''Relevance. Sources must be relevant--there must be some reason for the reader to care about what the author has to say. For example, the opinion of a random individual on the presidency of George W. Bush, as published in a letter to the editor of a major newspaper, is not relevant; and thus should not be included--even though it is published, traceable to its author, and given in a reputable publication. Relevance can be imputed several ways--through explicit personal knowledge, through subject-matter authority, through general notability of the author, through demonstrable correlation with the opinion(s) of a large group of people, etc.''
			::::A large group of people, the editors of When the Pawn...'s page throughout the years, thousands of people on music reviewing sites and numerous music journalists from legitimate publications do not agree with what this one article you cherrypicked states.
			::::''Note that this policy is the minimum standard for inclusion as a reference in Misplaced Pages. Sources may meet this standard and still not be authoritative, reliable, accurate, free from bias, or undisputed. Sources which meet this minimum standard but which fail to meet stricter standards may be used, but should be used with caution. In particular, such sources should be explicitly attributed to their author(s) or publisher(s) in an article's prose (rather than being presented as fact with the author only given in the notes), and disputes considering the source's veracity should be described.''
			::::Meaning you can't just add any genre because some random source says it when it goes against larger and more reliable sources as well as it is controversial.
			::::Thank you and please stop vandalizing pages on topics of music you do not understand. ] (]) 21:04, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::]. Note that accusing editors of vandalism when they are not, in fact, vandalising can be considered a ], so I'd suggest you strike that comment. - ] <sub>]</sub> 21:14, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::Okay, I strike. ] (]) 21:17, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::You didn't actually strike any comments. To do so, do this <nowiki><s>Comment</s></nowiki> which will make it look like this <s>Comment</s>. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 22:17, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::::<s> please stop vandalizing pages on topics of music you do not understand.</s> ] (]) 22:26, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::{{ping|Longislandtea}} How is the source considered not relevant and where was this dispute? AllMusic ''does not'' call the album alternative rock at all within its article. Rate Your Music is also not a source it's user generated which is against Misplaced Pages. I really wish an admin would comment on this because this is getting absolutely nowhere. ] (]) 21:05, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::Here's another source describing it as an alternative rock and jazz fusion album
			:::::https://www.the-solute.com/the-solute-record-club-fiona-apple-when-the-pawn/
			:::::Alt pop is not accurate. If you're so adamant about alt pop, please argue why. It is completely inaccurate and you have one singular source over music journalists and music sites. Allmusic does categorize it as alternative rock, Pitchfork has categorized it as rock since 1999 of its release. There was NO Alt-pop at the time. It still isn't. These are different genres. Art pop is not Alt pop. You edited the page one time in October 2024 only to get rid of the genre list that editors agreed upon to add Alt pop which makes no sense whatsoever. ] (]) 21:17, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::I have now added a new source to the genre list. If you have any problems with the new source, tell me. But it's much more accurate this way. It's still sad to see the whole genre list that was originally there, so much more descriptive and fitting, hacked away but oh well. ] (]) 21:31, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::Pitchfork's categorizations mean basically nothing. They have ten categories, one of which is "Pop/R&B", and another of which is "Global". By the way, you should just stop caring about this, because sources misclassify genres of music chronically and everywhere you look. Take your passion to RateYourMusic. <span style="position: relative; top: -0.5em;">꧁</span>]<span style="position: relative; top: -0.5em;">꧂</span> 18:16, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			:All of this discussion should be taking place on the article's talk page (which neither editor has used). ]&nbsp;] 21:36, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
			::{{ping|Schazjmd}} I'm awaiting for an admin to respond. This conversation is getting nowhere hence the reason why I brought it here in the first place. I've tried to explain to the user on their talk page along with this entire thread and it's getting nowhere. {{ping|The Bushranger}} you left a comment but could you please share your opinion on the dispute? Or possibly ping an admin who's familiar with music if this isn't your area of familiarity? ] (]) 21:49, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::There was no reason to bring this conversation here. I talked to you directly but go no real reply or any arguments despite adding sources and explaining why it's not an Alt pop album. I've explained to you well enough. Please stop trying to get admins to ban me simply because I (and other editors) recognize that the genre list that you got rid of was far more fitting. There's a new genre list now with sources but it is not Alt-pop. The album was already added to the wikipedia album pages for Alternative rock and art pop. I'm familiar with these genres and Fiona Apple specifically to know that it's accurate hence why the genre list has been that way for years. If you're adamant about sources, there is a source. Accusing me of not sourcing should be considered a false accusation at this point. Not all sources are equal either and I've tried explaining that to you. ] (]) 21:55, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::], you were given good advice which is to have this discussion on the article talk page which neither editor has posted at yet. This is a content dispute. If no action has been taken yet by an administrator, it's likely because they don't agree with your statement that action needs to be taken. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 22:22, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::Okay, will do. Thank you Liz. ] (]) 22:24, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
			=== Irrelevant sources and unnecessary changes to genre list on {{pagelinks|When the Pawn...}} ===
	*Ok Prometheuspan is blocked indef by Tony Sidaway, which I fully endorse as his last 50 edits was mostly severe trolling. ] ] 02:58, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
	*:Block on Prometheuspan seems fine to me as well. Finally, a block in this mess '''not''' made by someone currently edit warring with the blockee. There is no question that there are 'troublemakers' of various sorts involved here, but that isn't a blank check to throw all standards out the window. --] 03:16, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
			On October 22 2024, {{lu|Pillowdelight}} changed the genre list that has stood in place for years and has been a variation of the same variety of genres: Art pop, art rock, jazz, alternative rock, jazz rock, chamber pop and jazz pop. Across the biggest music sites, this is what the album is described as. The user changed it to Alt pop using a single irrelevant and unreliable source. The album is not described as such anywhere else. The user is going against the general consensus. Sources have now been added to the genre list and I don't feel as though that would mean I'm breaking any rules. The user is threatening to get another editor banned because they're uncooperative with how us other editors feel the genre list should look like. It's an album that has been categorized as rock by Pitchfork at the time of its release and was added to rock charts when released too.
	== General Tojo ==
			Here's how the genre list has looked over a long period of time, without much controversy from editors not readers:
			https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=When_the_Pawn...&oldid=1178937091 from 2023
			https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=When_the_Pawn...&oldid=1049316366 from 2021
	I was called to assist on ]. There have been serial reverts and a possible 3RR. I left a message on the talkpage of {{User|General Tojo}}, one of the disputants, cautioning him that abrasive rhetoric and personal attacks were not contributory.
			Thank you. ] (]) 19:32, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
	In response this editor has now been performing random reverts on articles I have edited recently. Evidence on his talkpage.
			:Why do people have to argue about what genre music is rather than just listening to it, and hopefully enjoying it? ] (]) 19:58, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
			::The genre list was fine and accurate and uncontroversial until this user decided to remove the entire thing. It's important that the genre list is accurate. People find albums through genres. There's other reasons as well. ] (]) 20:38, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::This is neither here nor there, but I thought albums are generally sorted in alphabetical order by band name or the musician's last name.
			:::Please, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, or my information is incomplete. ] (]) 22:28, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::I was trying to explain the important of listing genres accurately. If you go to a record store then yes, albums are listed in alphabetical order. But they're still put in categories of genres. ] (]) 22:43, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::If we were going to list musical genres "accurately," we wouldn't bother at all. Except in very broad strokes ("rock," "punk," "Baroque," etc), so many of these horribly subjective "genres" are made up by bored media writers and bands that hate the notion of being The Same As Everyone Else. Get ten people to listen to ten different tracks of heavy metal, and you won't get as many as a third of them agreeing on any of them on the doom/grudge/dark/death/Goth/Viking/sludge/*-grind/*-core/etc etc etc spectrum. Beyond that, arguing whether any given artist is "that genre" is ''very'' highly subjective. (Hell, I've sung Baroque, classical, folk, rock, ethnic, shape note, so many genres I can't readily count.) ] 15:12, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			== Bunch of racist IPs/account ==
	A simple warning may be enough, but I suspect short blocks may be necessary if this behaviour persists. ]&nbsp;|&nbsp;] 16:52, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
			{{atop|1=Sent packing. - ] <sub>]</sub> 21:12, 22 December 2024 (UTC)}}
			Article: ]
			* {{user|GREEKMASTER7281}}
			* {{ip|112.202.57.150}}
			* {{ip|186.154.62.233}}
			] (]) 13:53, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
			:Named account indeffed, IPs blocked for 72 hours each. ]] 14:12, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
	:Left a message on the user's ]. <tt style="color:#161;">RadioKirk<small> (]|]|])</small></tt> 18:02, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
			{{abot}}
			== Urgent need for page protection on BLP ==
	Lasted for 9 minutes, now refactored. ]&nbsp;|&nbsp;] 18:14, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
			{{atop
			| result = Protection applies. Appears admin eyes are on the Talk page. ] ] 19:53, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
			}}
			There is currently a content dispute going on at ] involving allegations of a mental health crisis with mulitple IPs involved in a dispute over wether the information is reliable or not. A discussion is underway on the article's talkpage, but in the meantime there is revert warring taking place on the article. The page could really benefit from temporary semi protection. -- ] (]) 18:46, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
	:A user is entitled to blank anything that's not a legitimately issued warning, even if archiving is preferred; it's still in the history. If the user edits in a disruptive fashion, however, that's another matter. <tt style="color:#161;">RadioKirk<small> (]|]|])</small></tt> 18:35, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
			:Looks like ] got it. ] (]) 19:15, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
	::As a clarification: users in ''good standing'' are afforded the privilege of blanking stuff on their talk page. Users with, shall we say, "issues", are not afforded that same privilege. --] 19:45, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
			::{{reply to|DMacks}} Thanks! Yeah. I assume they will also need a third-party closer given the heated nature of the argument. -- ] (]) 19:27, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
	:::LOL well, let's just say the good General does not have a monopoly on ;) <tt style="color:#161;">RadioKirk<small> (]|]|])</small></tt> 20:02, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
			{{abot}}
	::::For the record, ] has offered an explanation for the above edit. <tt style="color:#161;">RadioKirk<small> (]|]|])</small></tt> 21:01, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
	::::On ], ] reveals what he believes to be RL information about Tojo.--] 21:15, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
			== Multiple users breaking 3RR on Gilman School article ==
	General Tojo simply carried on messing about, doing a "half-revert" on ] to subvert the 3RR and threatening on the talk page to finish the job tomorrow. I have blocked him for 24h for NPA, gaming the system and general ]. He seems to be a well-known troll from Braintalk. ]&nbsp;|&nbsp;] 23:41, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
	Edit-warring aside, why has he been permitted to keep this username? Tojo ''was'' a convicted war criminal and such, after all. ] 01:47, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
	*This is an utterly unacceptable username. It <u>must</u> be changed. I dropped the user a note informing him that he <u>must</u> apply for a ]. As for the people who knew of this username and said nothing, I need to calm down before I'm going to say something I'll regret. Shameful. ] 10:41, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
			Two users are actively engaged in an ongoing edit war on ], with both {{user13|Counterfeit_Purses}} breaking 3RR , , , and {{user13|Statistical_Infighting}} being right at 3 Reverts
	See ] for details. The response to El C's request has been more trolling. I sense civility burnout. ]&nbsp;|&nbsp;] 12:31, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
			, , .
			This seems to go back to December 9th, with the first editor (Counterfeit) removing it and , on the 17th, , and then being at the above today.
	:I've blocked the user indefinitely and protected the talk page. His responses were totally unacceptable. ] 19:13, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
			] (])
	Somebody has a name that nobody has ever previously objected to. They are notified that their user name must be changed. Before the warning period even expires that person is banned permanently. It is obvious from the above, that ElC personally disliked the name and banned as soon as possible based on ElC's personal dislike of the name (*This is an utterly unacceptable username. It <u>must</u> be changed). Is that actually in the Misplaced Pages rules, because it appears that ElC is abusing them based on ElC's own personal likes and dislikes rather than properly implemeted procedure. It also appears to be in breach of the requirement to give proper notice of banning and the reasons. Is it right some Administrators exceed regulations based on their own personal bias.
			*E/C applied. ] ] 19:51, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
			::{{u|Counterfeit Purses}}, please be aware that the ] article was kept in a recent Articles for Deletion debate, so the consensus of the community is that he is notable. Edit warring to keep his name off the alumni list is a ''really bad idea''. ] (]) 20:14, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::@] No problem, I've already given up. I would argue that ] applies here, but there's no sense in pushing against the tide. If you're content to have the lede section of Gilman School include "prominent graduates including "alleged murderer Luigi Mangione", I guess that's fine. It seems to be an unusual thing to include and an obvious case of undue weight given to something that is in the news at the moment. Perhaps someone should start a Wikiproject to add famous murderers to the ledes of other schools? ] (]) 22:00, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::{{u|Counterfeit Purses}}, in my view, ] is among our most misunderstood policy documents. It begins {{tpq|In principle, all Misplaced Pages articles should contain up-to-date information. Editors are also encouraged to develop stand-alone articles on significant current events.}} I believe that Mangione is notable, the evolving article is acceptable, and his name belongs in the alumni list. Many, many "bad people" are listed as alumni in countless school articles, and it is not at all unusual. The only unusual thing here is that the lead of this particular school article lists alumni, and so I have removed them from the lead. ] (]) 01:07, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::I'm glad that misunderstanding WP:NOTNEWS is so common because I am going to continue to misunderstand it. I see that Liz Luigi Mangione from the lede before you removed the rest of the list. Acknowledging again that I have given up hope that Mangione will be removed from this article, let me ask you what you think the purpose of these alumni lists is? Including Mangione is an editorial decision. We don't include all notable alumni in these lists, so why should we include Mangione, and why now? It's too soon to know if he will have lasting relevance. ] (]) 04:22, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::{{tqq|We don't include all notable alumni in these lists}} Why not? If someone is Wikinotable and went to a Wikinotable school, then they belong in the "Notable alumni" section of that school's page, ] - ] <sub>]</sub> 04:28, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::@] I'm not saying "we shouldn't", I'm saying "we don't". We don't include every notable alumnus in these lists, nor should we because it would lead to long, unhelpful lists stuck in the middle of articles about the schools. ] (]) 04:49, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::::If an alumni list bloats an article, it can be split out. See ]. 11:29, 23 December 2024 (UTC) (Oops, signing) ] (]) 16:01, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::::Of course that's always an option, but what I am saying is that it isn't desirable to have every alumnus listed in an article for a school. Ideally, it would be a selection of alumni who have made significant achievements in their field. Otherwise, it's just trivia. Am I wrong? ] (]) 17:21, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::::::Yes. You're making a value judgment that some alumni (with articles, else they most definitely should not be included) are more notable than others. That is ]. ] (]) 20:05, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::::::Yes, that's called editorial judgment. Just like deciding not to include every known fact about something in an article. At some point, it is just trivia. Misplaced Pages is not a database. That info would probably be welcome over on Wikidata, which is a database. Alternatively, someone could just add ] (in this case). ] (]) 20:52, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::::::::And a new user, who doesn't understand categories and has no idea Wikidata exists, is relying on the list on the page. - ] <sub>]</sub> 21:35, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			== Persistent addition of unsourced content by 2600:480A:4A72:6000:0:0:0:0/64, yet again ==
	Much of this discussion is based on what JFW has written. He himself was criticised by an Administrator for the excesses and inconsistencies of his actions. So why have decisions taken notice of what he has written when he himself was shown to be at fault ? Why also is he allowed to get away with personal attacks ("a well-known troll from Braintalk"), especially when discussions elsewhere of this personal attack showed that the personal attack had no factual basis ?
			{{atop|1=Genre warrior sent packing. - ] <sub>]</sub> 02:42, 23 December 2024 (UTC)}}
			{{userlinks|2600:480A:4A72:6000:0:0:0:0/64}} - Keeps adding unsourced content to articles, hasn't responded to warnings, and continued the same behaviour immediately following the end of a 3 month block. See block log and the two previous ANI threads from September (], ]) related to this /64. Recent examples of addition of unsourced content: {{diff|You Could Be Born Again|prev|1264637321|1}}, {{diff|Kites are Fun|prev|1264637435|2}}, {{diff|Heaven/Earth|prev|1264641723|3}}, {{diff|Stars/Time/Bubbles/Love|prev|1264642096|4}}, {{diff|...Sing for Very Important People|prev|1264642646|5}}. ] (]) 20:33, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
			:I see the genre warriors are out today. Don't you realise how childish you are? (Not you, ].) ] (]) 20:37, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
			::I thought I was the only one who noticed how many were running rampant today. So exhausting. . . ] (]) 20:45, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::/64 blocked for six months. '''<span style="font-family: Arial;">] <small>]</small></span>''' 22:16, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
			{{abot}}
			== User:NoahBWill2002 ==
	Are Administrators allowed to abuse or disregard the regulations as ElC and JFW have done ?
			{{atop|1=NOTHERE blocked. - ] <sub>]</sub> 02:42, 23 December 2024 (UTC)}}
	--] 21:48, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
			*{{userlinks|NoahBWill2002}}
			It looks like there's a pretty severe ] issue with this user. Virtually every one of their edits has had to be reverted either for adding copyrighted content/, (), or . Lastly and indicates that they're unlikely to learn from any of this. <br>
			(As an aside, I just blocked them on Commons for uploading non-free files after warnings (and having copyright/the issue with their uploads explained them in detail) and uploading out-of-scope files after warnings.)<br>
			I think admin action is warranted here. ] (]) 22:09, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
			:I 100% agree with ] on this. ] appears completely unable to comprehend and/or follow some of the core rules of Misplaced Pages, especially ] and ], despite multiple editors trying to help them understand. The comment that Squirrel Conspiracy , followed by a series of blatant copyright violations, makes it abundantly clear that this editor is not going to change and is not here to build an encyclopedia. ] (]) 22:47, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
			::They have only had an account for a few days. It's seems rather soon to proclaim they are "not going to change". The images they were trying to add have been deleted from the Commons, let's see if they can find other ways to contribute to the project now that they can't promote their artwork here. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 23:09, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::Given ], I'm not sanguine about their intention to contribute productively. ] (]/]) 23:11, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::They added ] grossly inappropriate religious screed to ] on their third day of editing, then they responded to a warning about it with ]. I had hoped they would get the message but just today they made ] non-NPOV edit apparently based on their religious beliefs. Apart from religious edits, apparently the only other thing they've done is add self-produced fan art to a variety of articles. I'm willing to AGF while they learn what are acceptable edits here but I'd like to see some acknowledgement from them that they understand why all their edits so far have been unacceptable. (It would also show good faith if they would clean up the now-broken links in numerous articles now that their fan art has been deleted from Commons, rather than leaving it for other editors to do.) ] (]) 00:16, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::I have indefinitely blocked NoahBWill2002 as not here to build an encyclopedia. ] (]) 01:21, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			{{abot}}
			== Vandal encounter ==
	:{{vandal|Jonee G. Ralto}} blocked indefinitely for serving as a proxy for User:General Tojo . ] 21:57, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
			] seems to be a vandal who seems to be ready to start an edit war. I have reverted their disruptive edits, and they have begun to add them back.
	::Um, didn't you tell that user to get a new name? ] 21:59, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
			diffs: </nowiki>] </nowiki>] </nowiki>] </nowiki>]
	:::Indeed I did, but that was before the "racism" and "arrogance" diatribes. ] 22:01, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
			I would have put this at AIV, but I have no clue how to edit source. ] (]) 23:43, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
	::::Ah. I see. ] 22:10, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
			:{{not done}} - Not an admin - I hate to be that person but unfortunately you've not sufficiently warned them, They've only received one warning and their edits aren't gross vandalism so this would only be declined by an admin anyway, If they continue I'll report them to AIV, Thanks, –]<sup>]</sup> 23:47, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
	:Nonsense. A quick scan of ] shows several rules which would forbid the use of username "General Tojo". The username was, as El C said, utterly unacceptable. ] 00:06, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
			::Ah, I see. Thank you! This has been noted for the future. Thank you, again! ] (]) 23:48, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::You're welcome, Happy editing, Thanks, –]<sup>]</sup> 23:51, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
			== ] mass-creating articles for non-notable or nonexistent places ==
	ElC has just proven his intolerance and inability to rebut his abuse of power. If he can't answer somebody he tries to shut them up. He has also just proven that he is a liar. Nowhere during the discussions was General Tojo racist as he has deceitfully claimed in order to try to justify his misconduct. This can be fully verified in the correspondence. So the excuses for his misconduct do not stand up to scrutiny. Also, General Tojo, who I know very very well, is actually a member of an anti racist organistation, thereby making a mockery of what constitutes libel. Is libel allowed on Misplaced Pages ? Arrogance is such a vague term - deliberately vague on his part so that it cannot be properly assessed. He himself has shown that he is remarkably arrogant. He was completely unable to rebut any of the criticisms of his abuses of power and instead rushed to a permanent banning. Do what he says - he won't and can't explain himself - or he'll ban you even if his actions are in breach of Misplaced Pages guidelines. He is an Administrator of the worst kind. --] 22:24, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
			{{atop
			| result = GDJackAttack1 has agreed to no further creation of the problematic articles. Extant ones being handled via usual channels. No further action needed here. ] ] 02:39, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			}}
			{{user|GDJackAttack1}} has been mass-creating stub articles for places such as insignificant residential subdivisions and other localities in Alabama and Maryland (]), islands in the Bahamas and Senegal (]), and other insignificant highways and airports around the world. None of these articles are sourced by anything that verifies notability, just databases and maps, which has resulted in at least one article being pointed out as a map misreading and therefore nonexistent community at ]. I can only speculate how many more of these places do not exist and if any of them are ]s.
	:Needless to say, indefinitely blocked. ] 22:34, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
			There are too many of these articles to send through AfD or PROD manually and there is really no point in draftifying them or converting the articles into redirects since we have little proof that these topics are notable or even exist at all. Their ] consists of nothing but notices of their articles being moved to the draftspace, AfD/PROD notices, and messages informing them to be more careful about article creation, yet they have seemingly ignored these messages and have persisted with spamming these stub articles for no clear reason. <span style="border-radius:9em;padding:0 5px;background:#3366cc">]&nbsp;]&nbsp;]</span> 01:13, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
	::Another "abuse of power" ] threatened me with a final warning not to revert comments that he erased on my own talk page. ] Its like a dog, ] does it cause he can. ] (]) 22:38, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
			:I will stop creating these articles. ] (]) 01:27, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
	:::I take exception to that personal attack and distrotion. I removed 's very first &mdash;stalking&mdash; edit. Travb does not bother to review the facts and is too quick to assume bad faith. ] 22:43, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
			:I tagged one as '''CSD A7''' to see if that would work. ] ] 01:36, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			::{{replyto|Bgsu98}} Thank you, I also considered PROD-ing them all but I noticed you have so already. <span style="border-radius:9em;padding:0 5px;background:#3366cc">]&nbsp;]&nbsp;]</span> 02:20, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::I think I got all of the ones that that Maryland batch, but I’m sure there are more. ] ] 02:22, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			{{abot}}
			== User:Glenn103 ==
	:::Travb, you need to tone down your language and take an ] pill. If you have a problem with another editor's actions or judgment, fine, talk it out calmly: communication and collaboration are key here on Misplaced Pages. You don't seem to be getting it. Your confrontational and accusatory tone is the exact opposite of resolving disputes. ]·] 23:32, 22 June 2006 (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?
	:::TELL THE WIKITRUTH! ] ] 01:07, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
			:I mean you might have a point, but wow. &ndash; ] (]) (]) 04:57, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			==TPA for 83.106.86.95==
	:::I gotta admitt, the fact he was allowed to keep that username for so long is really getting to me. ] 06:06, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
			{{atop|1=Done. - ] <sub>]</sub> 02:39, 23 December 2024 (UTC)}}
			{{userlinks|83.106.86.95}}
			Could someone revoke TPA for blocked IP, based on ? ] (]) 02:07, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
	'''El_C has here blatantly lied by claiming that he banned a member for racism (a member, who incidentally is a member of an anti-racist organisation). He has been completely unable to rebut that fact. He instead dispensed with all of Misplaced Pages's guidelines and procedures by banning a member solely because of his personal interests. He now admits above that it was because the name annoyed him. This is because El_C is a lecturer in Japanese history, and it was a Japanese military name that he objected to. Somebody who abuses Misplaced Pages, blatantly lies about his reasons in order to cover them up, and bases his own actions solely on his own needs and prejudices is not fit to be an administrator. As can be seen above, when faced with criticism he tries to deflect the criticism by arrogantly criticisng the critic. He himself should be banned.''' ''... added in two edits on 23 June by '']''
			:Done and revdel'ed, thanks to JJMC89. ] (]) 02:23, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
	:If you think he should be banned, then note that banning is a step beyond de-sysopping, so follow the advice conspicuously given at the top of this very page. Wherever you write your complaint, note that putting the whole thing in boldface won't make it more persuasive; it will just make you look like a blowhard and also remarkably like the late "]". But if that's the impression you want to make, fine. ] 10:56, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
			{{abot}}
			== Can you please help? ==
	::From what I've seen, User:General Tojo ''only'' writes in bold text (see his ]). ] 11:40, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
			] got moved from ] (because his middle name might not be John). But the talk page for this person is at ], and the talk page for the disambiguation page is at ]. I don't know what happened to the disambiguation page, and I don't know how to fix this. ] (]) 02:29, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			:{{done}} Couldn't be moved because the target page had to be deleted; its now fixed. As a note for the future, ] would be a better place for this, since it isn't an 'incident'. That said - ''was'' there a dab page at ] before? - ] <sub>]</sub> 02:38, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			::Thanks to everyone for resolving this. As to the place for this, at some point I was told that "if you're a new user you have no reason to post at ]" or something similar. I appreciate the help. ] (]) 05:28, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			:(edit conflict) I think that the disambiguation page's revisions were merged into the history of the moved page, if I'm reading ] correctly.
			:@], can you confirm what happened/fix this? &ndash; ] (]) (]) 02:39, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			::Actually, WAS that the intention (merging the histories)? I have no idea how this works.
			::Maybe The Bushranger already did all that needed to be done. &ndash; ] (]) (]) 02:46, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::(edited): There was a dab page with two entries. It is now a redirect from William Swainson to William John Swainson and the direction is now different. The full histories are (merged) restored and visible. PS: I have added a hat-note to the one other (far less notable) lawyer - ] - if there are many more entries to be dealt with then the (currently a redirect) page at ] could be reinstated/used. ] (]) 02:59, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::(nac) An intitle search turned up no other William Swainson, so I've tagged {{-r|William_Swainson_(disambiguation)}} (which has no significant history) for speedying under ]. ] (]) 06:52, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			== POVPushingTheTruth ==
	There is a ] ongoing on this user, who has now resurfaced under various usernames. I have blocked {{User|Emperor Hirohito}} indefinitely for violations of the username policy, and {{User|Parkinsons}} for sockpuppetry using the former. ''Modus operandi'' is identical. The ] article is now protected as a result of this troll's activities. ]&nbsp;|&nbsp;] 15:42, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
			{{atop|1=The truth may set you free, but ] will get you blocked. - ] <sub>]</sub> 05:30, 23 December 2024 (UTC)}}
			] is clearly NOTHERE. <span style="padding:2px 5px;border-radius:5px;font-family:Arial black;white-space:nowrap;vertical-align:-1px">] <span style=color:red>F</span> ]</span> 05:05, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			:Blocked. -- ] (])| <!--Template:Undated--><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added 05:09, 23 December 2024 (UTC)</small><sup>]</sup>
			{{abot}}
			== North Korean involvement in Russian-Ukraine war discussion ==
	== AOL <nowiki>]</nowiki> vandal ==
			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.
	This vandal is back on User:207.200.116.0/24 range. As reported in ] --] <sup>(])</sup> 13:30, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
	:Can someone with appropriate rights just add ] to ]? ] 13:48, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
	::Added. I don't know if that'll stop the vandalism, but I'm willing to give it a try. —] <small>(])</small> 14:26, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
	:::Bad idea. He'll just use another image, and we won't be able to track it. --] 14:40, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
	:::Good idea. Will stop. Cleaning up vandalism isn't easy, but that hsouldn't stop us from doing what is needed. Andthe image will be gone in 2 days anyway, so the point is moot. -- <small> ]</small> 14:03, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
			'''Key Points:'''
	Just caught an edit by {{vandal|207.200.116.66}}, now inserting ]. Keep an eye out for more vandalism. -] 03:26, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
			# '''Prolonged Discussions and RfC Closure:'''
	== ] ==
			#* The RfC on North Korea's inclusion was conducted thoroughly, with a wide range of arguments presented by both sides.
			#* The closing administrator, S Marshall, determined there was a clear consensus to include North Korea as a belligerent based on reliable sources and the strength of arguments.
			#* The close explicitly allowed for reevaluation if new battlefield events or sources emerged, but no substantial new evidence has invalidated the prior consensus.
			# '''Ongoing Disruption:'''
			#* Despite the RfC's resolution, the same arguments are being repeated across multiple threads, often by the same editors.
			#* This behavior includes undermining reliable sources, misrepresenting their content, and insisting on a higher standard of verification (e.g., requiring firsthand evidence of North Korean combat, which is unreasonable given the context).
			# '''Reliable Sources Confirming North Korean Involvement:'''
			#* Multiple reputable outlets, including the BBC, Reuters, and Pentagon statements, confirm North Korean military involvement and casualties in the conflict.
			#* Experts from institutions like Chatham House and RUSI have explicitly stated North Korea's role in combat, aligning with the community's decision.
			# '''Impact on the Community:'''
			#* The continued disruption consumes editor time and resources, detracting from the article's improvement.
			#* These actions disregard Misplaced Pages's consensus-building principles and guidelines for resolving disputes. This dispute has been ongoing for months, with multiple threads being opened and closed on the same topic.
			'''Request for Administrative Action:'''
	Editor has had a long history of revert warring, conflicts and attacks on other users, mostly centered around the edit summaries and talk pages of ] and re-direct ]. Seems to be campaigning to be banned now, with baiting and calling to be suspended from the site (though this is not the first time he's done so). ] 18:39, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
			I respectfully request that administrators address the following issues:
	#http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk%3AMajin_Buu&diff=59940184&oldid=59939830
	#http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Majin_Buu&diff=prev&oldid=59940646
	#http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk%3AMajin_Buu&diff=60007491&oldid=60003026
	#http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk%3AMajin_Buu&diff=60018837&oldid=60016720
			# Enforce the consensus reached in the closed RfC, as no new evidence significantly alters the previous conclusions.
	:] seems to have claimed ownership of the article as he reverts to his previous versions ignoring the comments left by other users and the consensus already formed, claiming that he cares . ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], and I have all once again made attempts to discuss this issue with him but to no avail.-] 19:07, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
			# Discourage editors from rehashing resolved discussions, particularly when arguments have been repeatedly addressed and dismissed.
	::I have added the page to my watchlist and I will monitor it for his changes. --]] 21:07, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
			# Consider imposing a topic ban or other appropriate measures on editors who persist in disrupting the article with repetitive or bad-faith arguments.
	:] has been larger than life, in a bad way, since his first edits on Misplaced Pages--take a look at his early edits to the help desk, where he made pretentious speeches about how much he was going to bring to Misplaced Pages and bridled at any suggestion he might moderate his, um, idiosyncratic posting style. Nothing wrong with confidence, but he crossed the line into brashness and all his edits since then have been of a pattern--he has an idea and our job is to help him implement it. He is impervious to suggestions on any subject and seems to never give up, as far as I can see. A frustrating user whose style makes the Misplaced Pages experience worse for anyone who encounters him. Thank god he's fixated on ], but too bad for the folks there who have had to deal with him. <b><span style="color: #f33">&middot;]&middot;</span></b> 21:43, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
	::His posting style as a new editor isn't ''that'' weird. It seems that he was writing as if he was under the impression that wikipedia was a small, workaholic community that expected him to get a move on. Many new users act that way. I gather that you are under the impression that he thought he could bug everyone about his problems and be proud about it, but in reality most people are scared about being expelled from the community and they make these promises so as not to lose others' hopes in them. It isn't fair to ] who needs help getting started. If this user has trouble navigating Misplaced Pages, perhaps you should help him instead of trying to ignore him.--] (]·]·]) 02:18, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
	:::Noone has attacked him for being new. Heck, I'm relatively new myself. People who have tried to offer him help are ignored or insulted. When people tried to help him with his format on talk pages, he responded that he could do whatever he wants. When people engage him in discussion about proposed edits he has stated that he "gives everyone two chances" to basically see his point of view. Failure to comply with his issues earns you his disrespect and he either ignores or berates you. When everyone disagrees with him, he begins his "endless reverting" as he puts it while declaring that the only way to stop him is to ban him. This isn't simple newcomer ignorance. This is flat out arrogance, and quite possibly some form of psychosis. ] 13:21, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
			This matter has been discussed exhaustively, and it is essential to prioritize Misplaced Pages's goals of maintaining a high-quality, well-sourced, and consensus-driven encyclopedia.
	:::His posting style as a new editor was ''extremely'' assertive, including edit warring, asking for help but rejecting the answers, talk page blanking () and , all in his first couple weeks on the site. But OK, newbies often take a while to settle in and adapt to a community-based style; however, Wiki-Star never did, he just grew more aggressive. I agree with Onikage725 100%. <b><span style="color: #f33">&middot;]&middot;</span></b> 15:32, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
			Thank you for your attention to this matter.
			UPDATE: I just noticed that North Korea was removed as a belligerent and added to the 'supported by' section, completely violating the consensus.
			] (]) 08:48, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			:Since this report isn't really about an incident and your request is directed towards admins, I think this complaint would be better placed at ] rather than ANI. It will also need more specifics, which articles, which edits, which editors. You'll need to provide that. I also question whether or not these are content standards that the community can't handle on their own. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 09:50, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			::I was going to post it at ] but it said: "'''This noticeboard is for issues affecting administrators generally – announcements, notifications, information, and other matters of''' ''general administrator interest.''
			::If your post is about a '''specific problem you have''' (a '''dispute''', user, help request, or other narrow issue needing an administrator), you should post it at the ''']''' (ANI) instead. Thank you."
			::I posted it on ANI beecause my specific problem was this dispute ] (]) 12:07, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::The original post in this thread appears to resemble LLM output. GPTzero confirms this impression, rating text as "99% probability AI generated". Using AI to generate ANI submissions is highly inappropriate. ] (]) 18:01, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::Even when a message appears to be AI-generated, I think it is worth considering whether or not it is pointing out an actual problem. I think editors might be ignoring the results of an RFC, I just don't think asking for administrators to monitor a subject area, without identifying specific articles, is a feasible solution. It does seem like, possibly, a point that could come up in a complaint at AE regarding the Ukraine CTOP area. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 19:55, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::I had a peek and it's a messy RfC and, as is generally the case with a messy RfC had a very involved closure message which seems to reflect that the closer felt constrained by the framing of the RfC. I didn't see any immediate indication in the edit history that anyone had tried to implement the RfC result and been rebuffed (although I might have missed it). So there's some smoke here but, I think, not a ton of fire. ] (]) 20:21, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::Liz, I don't disagree but I'm not at all convinced that use of AI is a positive contribution to CTOP areas. ] (]) 20:27, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			== Dispute Over Edits and Use of British Raj Sources ==
	::::That's a prime example in his talk page. Someone politely advises him that it's a good practice to always sign with four tildes, and he says "''Well i hate to break it to you sweet heart but thats just life.''" He further adds "''I'm not trying to seek any kind of recognition. I'm here to be the best wikipedian i can be. And i'm doing so in my original way. If thats a problem, then i guess i don't belong here!''" ] 18:51, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
			{{Atop|Content dispute.--] (]) 15:00, 23 December 2024 (UTC)}}
			Hello,
	:::Then I apologize. I obviously didn't know enough about him to make an accurate judgement.--] (]·]·]) 19:52, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
			I’m seeking administrator input regarding a dispute with @] over the content in the the "]" article. The editor removed significant content, citing ] as justification. Here are my concerns:
	::::I have had enough history with Wiki-Star to know that he's trouble. He takes command of the articles and adds an enormous amount of images (approximately 50) to each page. I previously cleaned up the Buu, Piccolo, Gotenks, Vegito, and Vegeta pages on a continuous basis, only to see him come back and revert, and promise to continue doing it with no other basis or consensus in mind except for the fact that he likes the characters. Considering the fact that even more important characters aren't even getting 7 or 8 pictures, it's only obvious that neither of the mentioned deserve 40 odd images on the page to illustrate their history. I am going to agree with everyone else who is on the lookout to find a way of stopping this Wiki-Star fellow. - ]
			'''1. Misapplication of Policy''':
	:::::Wiki has taken to , as consensus is being discussed (for the umpteenth time with him) on the ] article. ] 01:03, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
			Sitush’s essays are not official Misplaced Pages policy. Content decisions should follow ], ], and ].
	::::::Specifically, he's editing my comments. I'm trying to help him get his opinion out there, but he is doing his best to throw it back at me.--] 01:08, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
			'''2. Dismissal of Reliable Sources''':
	==Does this count as a legal threat or just a threat?==
			The removed content was based on ]-era sources, which are neutral and historically significant. The editor claims these are unreliable without specific evidence or discussion on the article’s talk page.
	In an extension of drama over questionable edits to physics articles by another user, ] (] • ]) appears to be threatening to indirectly reveal personal information, and appears to threaten a libel suit against another user. I'm not well-versed enough in the finer points of Misplaced Pages policy to tell whether this violates ] and ] or not.
			'''3. Unilateral Edits and Dismissive Behavior''':
	Threat issued:
			Despite my attempts to discuss the matter constructively, the editor dismissed my concerns as "]" and warned me about sanctions under ] and ], discouraging collaboration.]
	Threatened addition is the last paragraph of the following:
			'''Evidence''':
	--] 05:33, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
	:Accusing other users of crimes such as libel, and making insinuations about their personal information, is ''certainly'' a threat. It combines elements of a legal threat and a threat to disclose personal information or to harass. We can't afford to tolerate this kind of screwing around; it's already lost us too many good editors.
	:For the safety of Misplaced Pages editors, we need to establish a consensus that posting other users' personal information is ''always and forever'' equivalent to throwing your Misplaced Pages access away. Harassing other users by threatening to do so is simply a milder form of the same. --] 07:14, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
	::Making such strict rules is a rather bad idea in my opinion. Editors can unintentionally post or disclose personal information of others who don't want it disclosed. In many cases, it is not necessarily clear as to how much personal information someone wants on the encyclopedia. Some users have enough personal information on their user pages for anyone to find out exactly where they are in real life, others, like me, would be highly concerned if even my first name or IP address were posted. It is difficult for users to know what the wishes of other users are, and slips can certainly happen, especially with names. Threatening to do so is quite often done by people who should not be tolerated, but is also occasionally done by people who don't understand that it isn't acceptable. --] <sup>]</sup> 07:45, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
	:::In my opinion, there should be a zero tolerance policy on the posting of personal information by other parties. Certainly one event should not lead to a permanent ban, but one 'accident' should have sufficient consequences to make it absolutely clear that a second 'accident' will not be tolerated and will have lasting consequences for the editor. User:Ceyockey (<small>'']''</small>) 10:57, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
	::::It doesn't take two "accidents" to drive a valuable editor away. It takes one deliberate act of harassment ... which may be falsely portrayed in retrospect as an "accident".
			]
	::::I don't like the use of the expression "zero tolerance" for this idea. That term is associated with fascist elements in my country. What I'm interested in here is a commitment to protect editors from harassment of a particularly vicious type: harassment by those who have developed an expertise in tracking down ordinary people to harass them and "expose" them. Harassment by those who use usernames, fields of interest, and passing comments to track down a person's location, employer, family, and other associates ... and then create personal, economic, and social crises for them. --] 06:59, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
	*Sure, slips can be made, but if you consciously use it as a threat, it's no longer a mistake. Of course, you're free to use material shared on userpages, but if any piece of information requires you to search, you should leave it buried. - ]|] 11:10, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
			'''Request for Administrative Action''':
	:See and . --] 01:30, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
			1. Review the removed content and the editor’s justification.
	==]==
	Is persisting with a fork at ]. Watercool created that fork by cut-and-paste today, being unhappy with a move done by Cfvh. I have warned Watercool, but Watercool reverted yet, returning the fork. Seems to me that the user is not exactly new (that's my impression, not a verified fact), but the account is new. Anyway, Watercool displays certain persistent, obstinate character, in other articles too. Seems to me Watercool is pushing some POV in several places. Isn't a block of some week that recommendable response to cool down obstinacy in an editor's missionary attitude? Anyway, I think admins should chack now and then what Watercool is doing. ] 10:33, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
			2. Ensure that disputes are discussed on the article’s talk page.
	ObRoy, I believe you don't understand english. You asked me not to make any changes unless I participate in the debate in the talk page. I did - and EVERYBODY on the talk page disagrees with you and believes that the article should be known as Maria Vladimirnovna of Russia. Get over it. ]
			3. Address the editor’s dismissive tone to foster collaboration.
	:I just warned Watercool about being civil, and he got himself blocked for 3RR on ] shortly after that. --] 22:01, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
			4. Prevent further disruptive edits/vandalism by IP editors (which hasn't happened yet) And from Autoconfirmed users(e.g. @GrilledSeatJet , -) and even from Extended Autoconfirmed users(@]) by banning such editors and putting an extended protection on the Article which I have once put request ] for but it got denied and now the results are as follows.
	::Thanks, the worst after a fire is the water damage. --&#160;] 10:58, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
			Thank you for your time and attention. I’m happy to provide further information if needed.
	:Watercool, Misplaced Pages states that the name an individual uses for themself that is most commonly used should be used. That includes the title of grand duchess for Maria. ] 22:08, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
			----Best Regards
			--- ] (]) 10:47, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
	Here, it actually is not the question of the name of that article, but of Watercool's making and perpetuing a fork, a cut-and-paste. That alone should earn Watercool some time as blocked. However, Iobserve that other breachs have lead Watercool to be blocked. Afterwards, Watercool's account would need checking, is he continuing dispuptive behavior after these blocks. ] 12:19, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
			{{Abot}}
			== Nothing to say about me really bot ==
	== ] "<s>flys</s> storms in" to <s>enforce</s> update user page policy ==
			{{atop
			| result = Locked {{nac}}. <span style="padding:2px 5px;border-radius:5px;font-family:Arial black;white-space:nowrap;vertical-align:-1px">] <span style=color:red>F</span> ]</span> 13:34, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			}}
			*{{vandal|WilhelminaBlosse}}
	] made changes to my userpage, and´deleted much of its content for no good reason. When I reverted his edits, he responded by deleting the page and reinstalling his version and then protecting it from edits. --] 10:44, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
			Please delete the user page, block the bot and report to stewards for a global block, as per ]. Thank you! ] (]) 11:31, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
	: After reviewing the user page history, I support ]'s actions. I've deleted the same content from Rdos's user talk page, and protected it. I've asked the user to indicate that he will cease posting deleted material on his user talk page for the purpose of soapboxing, at which point I will unprotect it. ] 11:02, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
			{{abot}}
			== Concern About a New Contributor ==
	:: Fascism. I will *never* let ignorant admins judge what is appropriate for *my* user page. In that case I will delete it altogther instead. --] 11:06, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
			{{userlinks|Kriji Sehamati}}
			Dear Wikipedians,
	:For the record, I asked nicely, then I asked firmly, then I removed the content, and only after all the above failed (the content was reposted almost immediately) did I take more drastic action. ] is also relevant. ] 11:21, 23 June 2006 (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.
	:: This situation is really a lesson of power abuse. First ] protects my *talk* page, and then ] places more insulting conmments on it. It doesn't matter how you ask, the point is that this is a violation of the userpage policies. --] 11:33, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
	:::For values of insulting which may include pointing out, in pretty much so many words, that you are standing in a deep hole and still digging. ] 11:36, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
			I believe your experience could help address this situation effectively.
	::::These are not the only insults by ]. Take a look at the correspnodance on his talk page. --] 11:40, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
			Looking forward to your advice on how to proceed.
	] removes contents from my user talk page, and then protects it from edits. The policies for user talk pages clearly doesn't allow such actions. Besides, how could possibly anybody comment on the conflict (apart from admins), when they have no idea about the contents removed (no history) and cannot place comments on the talk page? --] 11:36, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
	:: The violation of ] &mdash; which, by the way, cover your user talk page &mdash; was your posting inappropriate material on it. I suggest you take a deep breath, calm down, and move on. This material will not be posted on Misplaced Pages, and you are going to need to accept that. If you are unhappy with JzG's or my actions, I encourage you to open an ] or, if that doesn't satisfy you, an arbitration case. However, continuing to heap abuse on other editors is likely to get you blocked for disruption. So instead of calling us fascists, I suggest you use more measured language, such as "I'm unhappy about your decision." ] 11:42, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
	:Deleted articles are sometimes preserved in userspace because, with work, they may be able to go back into articlespace. However, if no amount of work can make them suitable, as is the case with Rdos' theory promoting a link between autism and subhumans, proven by multiple AfDs and the current DRV, then they have no place in userspace, per ] a free webhost. JzG and Nandesuka's actions were entirely correct. --]<sup>]</sup> 13:44, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
	:Fourthed. ]<I><B>/</B>/<B>/</B></I><small>]</small> 14:04, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
			Thankyou! ]] 15:21, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
	::], your assertion that the Neanderthal theory will never be appropriate for article space is only based on your personal feelings about it. Remember, it has only been up for AfC twice. The first time it was voted "keep" and the second time "delete". The reincarnations are random actions of independent users, and if anything, only shows that some people wants it to be here. Also, Neanderthals are not "subhuman". They were perfectly human and in some respects superior to us. If you really read the theory you would know that it doesn't view autistics or Neanderthals as subhuman or inferior. It views autistics and Neanderthals as basically quite different from modern humans, and thus inforces the view of many people in the autistic community. --] 17:24, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
	:::All of this just ''screams'' "original research". Do you have any citations from the literature to back up any of this? --] 17:26, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
	::::The theory contains lots of citations to published research. If just ] can for once refrain from alterning my comments the link should follow:. If you mean if my view of autism is "original research", I can assure you it is not. It is described , , and here on ] and ]. --] 17:31, 23 June 2006 (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.
	First, it doesn't take admin tools to remove the content from the user page, so he didn't abuse any admin privileges at all. Second, there is precedent for removing deleted content that's merely being housed in userspace. Misplaced Pages is usually pretty lenient with what gets placed in userpages, but there are limits. Third, I heartily endorse this event or product. --] ] 18:29, 23 June 2006 (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.
	:Clear soapboxing. Inappropriate article on userpage. Not a single PMID citation . Provide just one and your argument stands; otherwise JzG was in the right to remove it. -- ] <small>]</small> 20:09, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
			: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)
			*:::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)
			== Darkwarriorblake making aspersions ==
	:: I agree. The important thing is not how many citations to published research a paper ''contains'', it's how many times ''it's cited in other papers'' (and being mentioned on bulletin boards doesn't count as a citation). The neanderthal stuff is so off the wall that even calling it "research" is stretching the meaning of the word. It's the sort of just-so story that cartoon sociobiologists are accused of inventing. --] (]) 20:29, 23 June 2006 (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.
	*Just a comment here, if Rdos gives an unequivocal undertaking not to reinsert the content then I have no problem with any admin unlocking his User and Talk pages. Rdos' site is currently blacklisted after being removed from inappropriate articles and three separate Wikiprojects. This will only prevent linking, not adding www.rdos.net as plain text. I don't believe it is a ] for any current articles. ] 20:21, 23 June 2006 (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
	: I won't give any such undertaking, and I wish it to stay protected. Also, blocking my site is yet another assault (from your part, I'm sure?). At least you could have some civility to notify me of this, and how to oppose this action? --] 20:48, 23 June 2006 (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'':
	: I'd do it, given that undertaking. --] (]) 20:29, 23 June 2006 (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''.
	:: I have unprotected Rdos's user talk page, and indicated to him that if he posts the material again, I will block him for disruption. ] 20:35, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
			After thinking about it a moment I came to the conclusion described above about the quality of the source, and decided that it was better out than in, which is what I should have done in the first place.()
	::: You were asked to provide the header that it was protected, and not to unloxck it! --] 20:45, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
			{{text diff|...was offered the role of corrupt official Clarence Beeks. Liddy was interested in the offer until he learned that Beeks becomes the romantic partner of a gorilla. Paul Gleason took the role;...|...was offered the role of corrupt official Clarence Beeks with Paul Gleason eventually taking the role;...}}
	*I support JZG's actions. He even asked nicely before doing it himself. Obviously there's a lot of leeway in what can go in user space, but that doesn't mean that anything goes. Misplaced Pages is not a place for original research, period. There are hundreds if not thousands of free web page providers out there, and I'm sure there's probably wiki's out there that ''do'' welcome original research. ] - <b><FONT COLOR="#FF0000">St</FONT><FONT COLOR="#FF5500">ar</FONT><FONT COLOR="#FF8000">bli</FONT><FONT COLOR="#FFC000">nd</FONT></b> 20:52, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
	* Strongly support Guy's actions, and suggest the "injured" parties post their personal stuff on a personal page. "My" user page is not "mine" at all. Neither is yours. This isn't MySpace, as has been stated repeatedly. ]<sup>]</sup> 21:38, 23 June 2006 (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''
	*JZG is obviously a prick. ] 21:48, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
	:Is it just me or wouldn't such a blatant violation of ] not merit some sort of a block (say 24hours)? ] 21:53, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
	:*] already nabbed him for 3RR... so an additional block'd be redundant at this point. ] 21:59, 23 June 2006 (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.''
	In the future, if Rdos or any other user gets their user talk page fully protected, they must be blocked for the duration of the protection. Editors should not edit as long as they cannot be directly contacted by non-admins. --]<sup>]</sup> 23:49, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
	:This sounds fair. I was trying to avoid blocking Rdos; perhaps it would have been easier if I had. Ah well. ] 08:58, 24 June 2006 (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.
	A bit late, but add me to the list of people who think JzG did the right thing. -]<sup>]</sup> 16:14, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
			There's one final back and forth which was enough to motivate me to post here. First, I reverted that revert (, my only time using the actual "Undo" button today), with this comment: ''a good source doesn't say "reportedly" (ie, spread a rumor), it specifies the origin of a fact. My only "agenda" is with a crap listicle being used as a reference, regardless of who published it. Take it to talk if you want to argue for the continued inclusion of a trash ref in a featured article, or source the claim properly yourself''.
	Late, but working anyway :). Anyway - I've fought this user for about a year - for months I had to fight to keep the OR neanderthal article off of WP (see the AFDs and DRV). The user also bases a lot of his edits off of his own "aspie-quiz" from the same site which is very frustrating :\. It didn't stop at the neandethal article either - there was a long battle to keep an unencyclopedic "self-identification" article off WP which - coincidentally I'm sure - promoted the "aspie-quiz" quite heavily - ]. The user has a few good edits but there are so many ones involving spamming and dubious combative things. I'm sure this doesn't mean much to people but I just wanted to note the long war I was involved in and the amount of time it has taken reverting the spam, explaining WP policies over and over again (which he still doesn't seem to understand...) and various other things... that is all :). EXTREME THANKS to JzG for doing this, Curps for nominating the article for deletion (AGAIN) and the others involved - and (as a former admin myself) I would suggest blocking the user until he is willing to contribute and not promote original theories. ] 20:32, 25 June 2006 (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 ]''
	:Ryan, there is just one problem with your reasoning. You are the only one that that removed my links at ] AFAIK. Before you started this, they had been there over a year. So, who is pushing an agenda when to authors disagree on which links should be present? The one that inserts them or the one that deletes them? Also, from the history, I'm pretty sure we can easily find out that you have been the most persistent one. --] 06:53, 26 June 2006 (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 .
	::"So, who is pushing an agenda when to authors disagree on which links should be present? The one that inserts them or the one that deletes them?" - I'm going to venture out on a limb and say the one that inserts them if the one who keeps on inserting them is the owner of the site and the links themselves are intended for promotion and/or original research. Of course, we've talked about this numerous times already. ] 07:39, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
			So anyhow regardless of whether the Indiewire source is deemed suitable or not, I'm just wondering what the feeling here is about someone making goofy assertions on the record that another editor has "an agenda" (what agenda could it be?) and may not be emotionally stable, which really doesn't feel like ] at all. &nbsp;— ] <span style="color:#900">•</span> ] 20:03, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
	:::You forgot to explain why only *you* have done this. If two links are on a page for more than a year, and thereafter are deleted by *one* author continously, doesn't that mean the consensus should be to keep them? A similar situation existed on the ] article as well. It was always the same user that removed them, but multiple users inserted them --] 07:48, 26 June 2006 (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===
	== Page moves against consensus ==
			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. ]]
	Would a sysop please look at ]? This is where the page was moved following a no consensus vote to move. Also, that page wasn't even the one that was voted on. I can't restore the article because the redirects are bungled. The same editor also moved ] and ]. ] (]) 14:28, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
			{{abot}}
	*Please see the discussion above, where I noted the sockpuppetry inherent in these moves. ] ] 14:37, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
	:The user who did the moves has left messages on my talk page where he says that the actions of the "Polish cabal" have put him in a position where he needs to make "brave" and "unilateral" moves. I'm all for being bold but intentionally creating history for redirect pages to prevent moves from your preferred location - that's just not cricket. I'll delete those extraneous edit histories but I won't make any moves since I have no position on the best location for those articles.
			== Extremely Annoying situation ==
	:So far we've seen the following tainted tactics in this debate:
			{{atop
			| result = Blocked for one week. ] (]/]) 01:03, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			}}
			I reverted by ]. They then times for it. One of these was for "being shovel shenanigans" which I took as a ] and informed them of it.
	:*Vote-stacking by sockpuppetry
	:*Selective canvassing for votes
	:*Creation of redirect histories
			The rest escapes words for me. See these discussions.
	:This is getting really stupid. Please try to have an honest discussion on the issue and settle for some sort of compromise. ] 14:48, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
	:Interesting. Regardless, the page was moved to a title that wasn't part of the move proposal. I would appreciate it if a sysop restored those pages. ] (]) 17:22, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
			]
	The move was towards a name that wasn't proposed, the user also made several other moves that reached the point of very "weirdness":
	where he changed a of the main administrative regions of Poland to a name that gives exactly 197 hit from a name used in CIA World Factbook. Of course no proposal for change was made by the user.
	--] 18:50, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
			] ]
	: I too would appreciate some guidance in this matter. A complex article renaming vote for the ] article was concluded as "''No consensus''". After the vote was concluded (and the sockpuppets revealed), ] unilaterally moved the page to ] (which wasn't even one of the names being voted on). A move war then resulted , though at the moment the page is still at ]. So, do we ask for an admin to move the page back to where it was at the end of the "No consensus" vote, or should we leave the page at the name that nobody except Shilkanni seems to like, and wade through yet another vote? --] 19:39, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
			they also used a ] to continue to irk me. I hesitated to bring this to ANI, since they seemed new, and I didn't want to bite, but enough is enough.
	Actually, I do not particularly like that location, as I prefer Boleslaus over Boleslav. However I feel it is no longer possible to leave it to the untenable polonized name, where it just is a victim of all sorts of disruption (and prolonged wars) to keep it there againt any sort of majority. I felt that putting it to a place supported by some English works of reference, but not my personal preference, I am not advancing my own preference. I gladly welcome a new poll to actually determine where it should be, provided it does not start in the polonized name, which just leads us all as victims of yet another situation where community rough consensus is undermined by determined minority. Perhaps, if almost everyone has a reason to have a better name, the poll would be fairer than it has this far been. ] 23:15, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
			] (]) 00:51, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
	== {{user5|Ibrahimfaisal}} making death threats ==
			{{abot}}
			== IP vandalism ==
	At ], ] made a death threat against me with . His edit was timed stamped 15:39, 23 June 2006. Because of this death threat, I feel that my personal safety is in jeopardy. Please take appropriate action. ] 16:17, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
			{{atop
	:Perhaps his rhetoric was a strawman argument in poor taste, but I doubt it was intended as a serious death threat. Interpreting it as such may open the door for accusations of religious phobias, etc. At the very most I'd suggest advising him not to jest about such "touchy" subjects. — <small>Jun. 23, '06</small><tt> ''' <<u class=plainlinks>|</u>>'''</tt>
			| result = Blocked. {{nac}} <span style="padding:2px 5px;border-radius:5px;font-family:Arial black;white-space:nowrap;vertical-align:-1px">] <span style=color:red>F</span> ]</span> 03:53, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
	::Obviously a bad faith report. Faisal even used a smiley, and his "conditional threat" was intended to point out the absurdity (and intentional provocation, I might add) of the title "Islamic decapitation". Faisal has still the potential of a problem user, and a polite warning may be in order. ] <small>]</small> 16:37, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
			}}
	:::: I do not accept any warning for the thing I have not done. --- ] 18:15, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
	:::100% concur with ] here. ] 16:58, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
	::::I hereby politely warn ] against trolling WP:ANI with such stuff. ] | ] 17:00, 23 June 2006 (UTC).
	::::: Can you recognize Simily sign. ":)" . I was making an important point that if acts of terrorist are according to Islam then each religious Muslim should be a killer. However, they are not. I said it is "anit-Islamic" and I am "Muslim". Is really your understanding so poor? Its simply amazing..... --- ] 18:12, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
	::::::Perhaps your (Faisal's) response was misindented, so you're not actually responding to Bishonen, but Bishonen was politely warning the other person, not you. FWIW, I don't think Faisal was making a death threat either, it was in jest and with the smiley face. Maybe not the best way to say it, but far, far, far from being a death threat, or any sort of threat for that matter. --] ] 18:25, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
	:::::::: Thank you Deathphoenix. However my response was for '''Dbachmann''' and not for Bishonen. --- ] 18:44, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
	:::::::::for f*ck's sake, Faisal, I even pointed out the smiley myself, stop picking on me. ] <small>]</small> 20:08, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
	:::::::::: You yourself said '''Faisal has still the potential of a problem user, and a polite warning may be in order.''' Then why should not I pick on you? --- ] 20:18, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
			This user: ] seems to be on a spree of Vandalism, which they are summarising in the edit summaries as 'reverting vandalism'. Example: ] <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 02:39, 24 December 2024 (UTC)</small><sup>]</sup>
	: The kernel of this report--a perception of a serious threat--is apparently mainly due to Ibrahimfaisal's limited knowledge of English idiom. This is the second time I've noticed that he has presented a ''reductio ad absurdum'' argument in the form of a conditional statement that may appear, to a native English speaker, to be a threat to perform the absurd act. It's an unfortunate but understandable misapprehension. --] 19:37, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
	::: Tony sideway: See ] responce to my post at . After reading his reply do you really think he would have misunderstand me? From his reply I feel he understand me very well. But still he reported me. --- ] 20:17, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
	::well, even with an intimate knowledge of both English grammar and internet idiom, I did not for one second interpret Faisal's edit as a "threat to perform the absurd act", and I am rather certain that neither did Scented Guano. ] <small>]</small> 20:08, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
	:::His personal safety is in jeopardy shmepardy. ] | ] 20:22, 23 June 2006 (UTC).
	Regarding the mocking dismissals (see above) of my report regarding this threat against me (see above): It's nice that some of you find this so humorous. I myself though, do not. As for my feelings on this: I do believe that ] did indeed threaten me and I ask that he apologize, for (as suggested above) careless use of language. As a non-Muslim, I feel very threatened when a self-professing Muslim (in this case ]) "jokes" about chopping off my head - especially while discussing '''<nowiki>]</nowiki>'''. Personally, I feel that this "joke" was at minimum, in extremely bad taste and very hostile. What's next? Should I have to listen to "jokes" about gay-bashing because I am gay? Most of all, the snide suggestion that my report was "trolling" is extremely offensive to me. Those who mocked me here were all very rude. You have mistreated me and I think that I am owed an apology - especially from ] for his so-called "joke" which I do not find in the least bit funny. ] 00:17, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
	*Please move on now ]. Thanks. ] 14:28, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
			:including racist edits summarized as reverting racist texts. Example ] (]) 03:06, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
	== ] ==
			::The IP is already blocked. To OP: Consider reporting obvious vandalism like this at ]. &ndash; ] (]) (]) 03:34, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			{{abot}}
			== User Stationmanagerskidrow removing information on ] page ==
	I wanted to bring to the attention of an administrator the fact that an anonymous user (81.174.142.153---whom I suspect is a sockpuppet for ]) has edited the AfD talk page, completely altering the argument I made for deletion, as well as altering comments made by other editors in the delete discussion. Thank you for your time and attention. ---] 17:13, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
	:Repaired and noted in the discussion. --] ] 17:24, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
	::Thank you, ]. Now, what is to be done about the one responsible for these edits? ---] 17:31, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
	:::I tagged both of their talk pages with warning messages saying further changes to other users comments would result in them being blocked. Neither of then has edited apart from those changes and they do not appear to be open proxies. --] ] 20:56, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
	::::Not to make too big a show of my ignorance, but what are "open proxies"? And, how is that relevant? I'm not being a smart aleck, either, I really do not know. ---] 03:56, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
	:::::There is an encyclopedia just around the corner from here that can answer all your questions. See ] and ]. -- ] 10:09, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
	== Image on ] ==
			] 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)
	The user ] insists in using ] on the ] article (). This image is used under a fair use claim, but there is a wonderful (imho) ] available. I feel unconfortable in ] due to his username (portuguese for "''take in the *ss''"), but I'm trying anyway.
			:User is now editing using ] ] (]) 03:34, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
	I'm still not sure if asking for help here is the right thing to do in this case. I'm sorry if I am misusing/abusing this spece. Thanks in advance, --] 22:49, 23 June 2006 (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)
	:I have reverted back and . Replacing freely-licensed images with unfree content is not okay. ] 22:54, 23 June 2006 (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)
	::If it's true that "Levanocu" means "take in the ass", he needs to be blocked for his username. I don't speak Portugese, however, and I'm not comfortable doing it on one editor's word - any other Portugese speakers here? (Already tried Babelfish, it didn't understand the word, but that means little.) --]<sup>]</sup> 23:37, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
			:The page was longer, but sourced (all but?) soley to the station's site and it's been trimmed down to what it is now. Given the repeated edit-warring by IPs I've semi-protected the page for two days for now. - ] <sub>]</sub> 07:59, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			::] 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 ==
	:::He's reverted it back. ] 23:48, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
	:Image deleted, user warned. ] 08:55, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
			I'd like to report an incident related to ]. A person under IP already accused me of being "obsessed". Now someone (possibly the same person) . Please also see . I guess we can always agree to disagree with other people, but this is going a bit too far. Thank you. ] (]) 09:30, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
	== A Man In Black and Pokemon anime page ==
			: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)
	Keeps removing cultural references section, someone needs to stop him. ] 02:23, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
	:CK#9999 is inserting the deleted content from ] into ], after the former article was ] as unsourced, subtrivial, crufty rubbish. I believe he's doing this to justify recreating ], as he's acknowledged in the past that the material doesn't fit into ]. - ] <small>(] | ])</small> 02:26, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
	::The content needs to stay. There are curious users everywhere that want to know. Please leave the section AS IT IS. I've had problems with ], and I don't need this problem with another. ] 02:30, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
	I blocked CK#9999 for repeatedly reinserting this deleted material. This isn't the first time CK has had this problem; in November, when ] was similarly ], CK revert warred over inserting the content of that equally crufty, unsourced, trivial article into ]. - ] <small>(] | ])</small> 02:37, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
	*Full support for AMIB, of course. ] 08:47, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
	:*The only reasons I got blocked were:
	:1. AMIB is afraid of me and hates me.
	:2. For AMIB to avoid getting blamed and blocked for his own vandalism.
	:Also, AMIB, you are abusing the word "cruft" -- Just because you hate cruft doesn't mean you can delete it all. And also, do not allow the use of sockpuppets to ensure an article gets deleted, or even do it yourself. Sockpuppets are the reason the article was deleted in the first place. ] 19:04, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
	== Block ==
	Could someone please block me for a week? I would like to take an enforced Wikibreak. --] <sup>]</sup> 03:44, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
	:I don't think this is allowed.... &mdash; ] | ] 04:14, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
	::We aren't supposed to block ourselves, despite the frequent temptation...] ] 04:16, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
	:No. There's something for your monobook.js that enforces a break, though. ] has it, and it's in old versions of my monobook.js too. ] 05:08, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
	Have a friend change your password for you and promise not to tell it to you for a week. --] 03:09, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
	:Yes, a good dear friend like your old pal Avillia. You remember me, right? --] ] 03:30, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
	:Requests for administrative self-punishment should be submitted at at ]... '']'' 01:34, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
	::...but please keep reports of self-abuse to yourself. '']'' 01:35, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
	== Proffitt's House ==
	Recreation of article deleted after AfD (http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Proffitt%27s_House). This user may need a severe talking to about removal of AfD tags, recreation of deleted articles, and generally not using Misplaced Pages as a vehicle of and for self-promotion and vanity. ---] 03:58, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
	:can you give us a link to the recreation? The article which was deleted as a result of the AfD is still deleted and has only been deleted once. ]|] 21:51, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
	::No, I'm afraid I cannot, it's gone. Is there anyway to search for it? ---] 03:37, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
	== ] and ] ==
	This is very confusing.
	{{ultc|WMarsh}} has a long history of vandalism fighting. He stopped editing in January. A week after, {{ultc|The Mekon}} appeared. His edits mostly consist of vandalism fighting, until May 20. At this point () he began to commit vandalism: , . From the ], one might asert there is some relationshoip between the two, but the statement is, frankly, confusing:
	:''I'm the room-mate of The Mekon vandal (yep, my name is inspired by him). Also, you mistakenly tagged WMarsh as the same vandal. He's not! We are all behind the same IP address as we access the Internet through the same router. The anonymous "The Mekon" vandal sneakily used WMarsh's computer/logged-in account in an attempt to masquerade one of his edits.''
	Since whoever was editing on June 10 also made a , I have blocked the user for a week, hoping this can be sorted in the meantime. ] 04:31, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
	== Twice-banned editor/vandal is back ==
	Just want to alert your attention to ], who appears to be the former ] and ], the previous having been banned for the inappropriate username, and the latter for repeated vandalism. In ] he admits to being Niggershvar; the actions and language style (and the fact that the userpage says many of the same things) point to him also being Marytrott. So far, it doesn't appear as though any major vandalism has been done by this newest reincarnation, except for the inappropriate use of his userpage, but I hope that some admins are keeping their eye on him just in case. Thanks, ]]] <small>]]</small> 04:38, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
	:I already got him per his now-deleted user page, in which he straight-up said his name is Matthew Paul Zazaian (the common link). Thanks to ] for the heads-up, ] was already on my watchlist. <tt style="color:#161;">RadioKirk<small> (]|]|])</small></tt> 17:36, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
	== Admin ] ==
	Please review Admin ]'s conduct at ]. For my part I regard it as sheer harassment. I have already asked that he/she review his/her own conduct, but to no avail. Thanks, ] 04:50, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
	:Please provide difflinks for the behaviour in question. --] <sup>]</sup> 09:01, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
	::Unless you have something really damning Jon, to me it looks like an admin just trying to get some answers from you that he doesn't feel is forthcoming. I'd take this through dispute resolution. --]<sup>]</sup> 09:46, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
	::I read through the last several weeks of discussion, but did not see anything which seemed improper. Has he even taken any 'admin' actions in relation to the page? It looks as if he has just been politely discussing / disagreeing with you. --] 13:32, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
	== Personal attacks ==
	I would like to note this from ]. This is part of a content dispute (I have been working for some time to ensure ] in a series of articles on a largely theoretical transport technology called ], now ] is helping as well, which is greatly appreciated). I don't want ATE to be blocked, but I have warned him that this is not on. I am getting a bit frustrated that I am being characterised as an anti-PRT zealot for insisting that we remember at all times the perspective that ''no'' PRT system currently exists, but I will try to keep my temper (despite the stress of moving house)... ] 11:20, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
	:I have warned the user again, but this time for incivilty. Disputes happen, yes, but there is no need to actually go into personally attacking people. <font color="#007FFF">]</font>''']'''<font color="#007FFF">]</font>|<sup><font color="orange">]</font></sup> 12:54, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
	::JzG has repeatedly mass-reverted good edits by at least ''three'' separate editors on these pages, in some cases leaving little or no comment, in other cases, actually accusing us of or . He's also threatened to the page () based on a ], and this threat occurred just minutes after he was to do so by a (]) who has publicly Misplaced Pages. If you would like more evidence of JzG's transgressions here, I'd be more than willing to provide them. ] 16:40, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
	We can talk about JzG's transgressions in a minute. Right now we're talking about ''your'' transgressions. Whatever JzG does, it doesn't excuse personal attacks. -] <sup>] </sup> 17:05, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
	: It's very easy for personal attacks to escalate, so it's better to stick to the discussion of article content on the article talk page where possible. ] 17:44, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
	: Also, looking a the talk page, I would recommend against an edit war as this will escalate the situation in a way which will make it harder to resolve amicably. ] 17:55, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
	::JzG is defending an editor (Avidor) who regularly called several of us wackos and cultists. Never once did JzG threaten to block him. Why is that?
	::For my part, what would you like me to do? Withdraw it? Delete it? I'd like to play by the rules here, although I'd be hard pressed to find evidence that JzG has been held to the same standard (multiple, irrefutable cases of edit warring and assuming bad faith, and from an admin). Am I really to be banned for such a small transgression when this ''admin'' has flaunted the rules repeatedly on these pages? ] 17:53, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
	::: Being banned reduces an editor's ability to carry weight in arguments. Conversely, strong arguments will attract plenty of new editors (including Admins). Admins are not accountable to each other, and generally look at things from independent points of view, within the standard published rules. And I'd be surprised if Admins wanted Yes men as Admins. That wouldn't get the encyclopaedia anywhere. Much better is to bring new people into the discussion who may find new ways to move things forward. There are many strong editors who are keeping an eye on this article - lethe, for example. ] 18:04, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
	::::I do not plan on being banned. I wrote what I wrote and that's that. JzG has established an air of hostility on these pages, and I wrote something that in retrospect I probably shouldn't have (though, come on, given the way JzG has treated us, calling us POV pushers and edit warring on every change we make, is this such a crime?)
	::::But now that we're here, the two things I'd like to know is: (1) how do I make amends for ''my'' transgression, and (2) how do I see to it that JzG's numerous transgressions are similarly addressed. ] 23:54, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
	::: Another point while I remember it. The level of hostility on this issue is relatively low compared to others I have seen, but has lingered a long time. It would be good to sort it out to make editing more enjoyable and constructive going forward. ] 19:37, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
	::::You're preaching to the choir, Stephen. I've repeatedly tried to work with JzG, but he keeps accusing me of bad faith. Just a few hours ago, he accused me of to make a ], just because I asked for sources for several article contentions. Maybe I should have done what he's done repeatedly: remove the contentions without comment and edit-war when someone tries to re-insert. Then maybe I wouldn't be accused of disruption for (gasp!) asking for ''sources!'' ] 23:54, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
	::::: I don't understand - the quote doesn't look that bad to me, in these discussions we've had far far worse. The problem is, we've had discussions that focus on subjective things like POV. Every article has a point of view, and its not an easy task to quantify its neutrality. JzG has insisted on a POV that many of us thinks is not neutral, and the "personal attacks" have been taken from both sides, with JzG implying that me an a couple other users are pushing advertisement, while we have accused JzG of pushing the idea that PRT is a wishy-washy conglomeration of badly thought out plans.
	::::: This isn't to make our discussions out to be name calling - but the accusations have been taken from both sides, and I don't think any of our recent discussions have warrented any formal action.
	::::: My opinion is that ATE is a little to vehement about bringing up JzGs faults up for debate. JzG is not a vandal, but does produce very questionable edits sometimes, and his agreement with Avidor <small>(personal attack removed - ] <small>(] | ])</small>)</small> is a little disconcerting. However, we need to figure out a way to agree on ways that we can edit, and come to a consensus more quickly - without annoying the shit out of eachother. ] 02:56, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
	::::::If you have to apologize for it, don't say it in the first place. Especially when we're talking about personal attacks. >:( - ] <small>(] | ])</small> 03:01, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
	:I'd just like to say that ] has been blatantly and egregiously flame-baiting these particular topics for many months. I am currently in the process of compiling evidence against him to take to the arbitration committee; I feel that his behaviour has been more than enough to warrant the revocation of his administrative rights. None of this means that it is right to take the bait and flame him, but it is certainly very, very understandable; I have done so myself on occasion. If ATE and Fresheneesz do not seem terribly contrite, then this is why: under the trying circumstances of dealing with JzG's mass reverts, accusations and innuendos, straw men and sophistry, capricious threats to lock the page and ban people, and clear violations of ], ], and ], they have been civil beyond belief. They are right to bristle at any degree of chastisement. Just so that this note isn't entirely sour, however, I would like to single out ] for commendation as a "skeptic" who has made a positive contribution to the articles, and is always a welcome presence in the debate. ] 03:17, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
	::::A.T.E has gotten himself banned from the Seattle P.I discussion board for his annoying and insulting behavior]]...and now he's continued his relentless insults and trolling on Misplaced Pages{http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Sdedeo&diff=37815871&oldid=37812315]... since my name no longer appears in the Misplaced Pages PRT article and since I will no longer waste my time editing the article , I ask Misplaced Pages administrators to stop allowing anonymous contributors like A.T.E. to continue to insult me (and others) on the Misplaced Pages.... How many chances will you give A.T.E. to insult me? Is that the purpose of an encyclopedia? ] 18:39, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
	:I guess I'll add my $0.02. First, I think this is a pretty weak example of a personal attack that would make another user a candidate for banning or even a stern talking to. I only have a few weeks of experience contributing to the PRT and UniModal articles, but so far it seems to me that JzG has strong opinions regarding PRT and it prevents him from being impartial. He seems to administer the pages in a dictatorial fashion as opposed to mediator. He seems to revert and delete with little or no explanation. I don't know why, but he seems to have POV goals with regards to PRT. Maybe he's really impartial and constructive in other areas, but in all things PRT, JzG will only accept verbiage that shrouds the articles in sceptism (ie: "unproven technology") and accepts certain unsupported assertions (ie: "100MPH") but not others (ie: "$1M/mile"). In the discussions, he makes unsubstantiated assertions (ie: "majority view") to support his reverts and deletions. If the story deserves to be told, then admins should help find a way to clearly tell the story instead of trimming the story to the point of insignifigance. In short, JzG seems to reign over PRT and his opinionated administation technique creates an adversarial tone that is reflected in the sometimes taunting retorts by others. Stephen B Streater seems to be more neutral but I get the impression that even he doesn't want to cross JzG by contradicting or not supporting him. --] 18:41, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
	:::JzG has bent over backward to let the PRT promoters have their say. He is absolutely correct in saying PRT does not exist except as a concept. Professor of Transportation at Penn State Vucan Vuchic gave PRT only a few paragraphs in his book "Transportation for Livable Cities" (Rutgers 1999) ] Professor Vuchic calls PRT an "imaginary system". The Encyclopedia Britannica doesn't even have an article on PRT. Perhaps the real reason the PRT promoters are so eager to get rid of JzG has more to do with several upcoming elections of PRT-promoting politicians in Minnesota and a trial of a prominent PRT promoter in Minnesota Federal District Court at the end of July for extorting bribes.] 19:28, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
	::::I don't think there is much of an argument even from PRT promoters that PRT is more than a concept that has only rarely seen prototype development, but JzG has NOT gone to great lengths to let PRT promoters indulge themselves. I'm not calling JzG an outspoken critic of PRT. I'm saying that he's taking the position that in the absence of a fully functional PRT system, there mustn't be even a hint that any of the information contained in the article is more than the utopian fantasy of the designer. Whether or not PRT exists, is feasable, or how many words Britannica devotes to PRT has nothing to do with how the article is administered. Maybe if Britannica had millions of editors and unlimited space for every subject, they too would beef up their information on PRT. --] 20:39, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
	So it's okay for A.T.E. to insult JzG, Sdedeo and myself?] 21:50, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
	:I say, no, it's not OK. But the particular transgression JzG originally referenced I don't think is grounds for a potential bannishment. And I think JzG's administration fosters bickering and so certain transgressions need to be weighed against that. --] 00:18, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
	:::The bickering over PRT has been going on for thirty years... mostly it's the small group of PRT proponents who do the bickering. JzG has a lot of patience. All these PRTistas do is argue about something that doesn't exist.... endlessly.....] 01:24, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
	Interesting:] 01:37, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
	==User:Pravi Gusinjez==
	{{user|CrnaGora}} has requested that I unblock {{vandal|Pravi Gusinjez}} because stated that his account has been hacked and that someone took over his account and started vandalising. I appear to half believe him becuase of these tw edits, (insulting "himself") and (insulting "himself" again). But other edits () seem to make me think otherwise. What do you think? <font color="#007FFF">]</font>''']'''<font color="#007FFF">]</font>|<sup><font color="orange">]</font></sup> 12:52, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
	:<s>Has he reset the password and has control again? The same thing happened a while ago to another user (who forgot to log out on a school library PC) and he has been fine once he reset the password. I would AGF (at least the first time) if he has regained control. ] 13:24, 24 June 2006 (UTC)</s>
	:On second thought, forget it. The sitatuation referred to above was of an established editor who temporarily lost control of his account. Pravi's very first edit was vandalism, making his explanation somewhat unlikely. If he wants to be productive he can use his new CrnaGora account, although I would keep a close eye. ] 15:58, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
	::Hmmm... Too late! Already unblocked him, but I will keep an eye on him. ;-) <font color="#007FFF">]</font>''']'''<font color="#007FFF">]</font>|<sup><font color="orange">]</font></sup> 19:04, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
	==Yeago==
	{{User|Yeago}} has been poisoning the work environment on ] for weeks, and has just left me yet another nasty note on the talk page minutes ago. Multiple users have admonished him to stop personal attacks on the Coleman talk page and his own talk page , but he has been ignoring them. I think an administrator should take a look at the talk page and block him a day for incivility, giving him a warning to clean up his act before he is subject to a RfC or RfAr. ] | ] 16:13, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
	:While I agree I could approach people with more tact, you continue to hide behind the incivility argument to strongarm your position at ]. For instance, you suggest ] is uncivil simply because he suggests that your solicitation of others into the debate led to a skewed result. So, while I may occasionally be colorful or brash in my points, at least there is an honesty to it. Sorry you don't like the fact that I have a bad habit of letting the air out of your consensus-seeking facade (of which this notice is one example).] 17:49, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
	:I've placed a warning on the talk page. Let me know if there are any more offences.--Fil] ] 16:37, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
	::A balanced response.] 17:49, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
	== ] ==
	Repeatedly removes prod tag from ]. Someone kill it. ] ] 16:16, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
	:He has every right to remove the PROD tag! And once it has been removed, by '''anyone''', for any reason, it should not be put back. Please familiarize yourself with how ] works. PROD is ''over'' for that page. If you want it deleted, take it to AfD. <b><span style="color: #f33">&middot;]&middot;</span></b> 16:34, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
	* I didn't put the prod there.
	* Sorry I didn't read the PROD policy thoroughly.
	] ] 16:41, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
	:: When you were there you could have added the afd tags yourself, but that's three steps and thats too much right? The time you saved can be used for instance for telling me repeatedly and in a nice voice that I violated the WP:PROD. I just wanted to stop a blatant spam, per ], I used my common sense and restored the prod which would serve wikipedia better. The article has a snowball's chance in hell that it will survive the AfD. I wanted to restore the prod, with same tone answer as you gave me and ] link, but I am using db now, even if it doesn't meet the criteria. ] ] 16:59, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
	''Spam'' is a valid candidate for speedy deletion. In case like this one, you could probably have gone from Prod to CSD. It all depends on how much text was there. However, when the creator of an article removes the prod tag.... Well, it's why I'm not fond of the system. ] 17:31, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
	:CSD? I used db|spam that's all. The creator of the article should be able to change the tag to AfD, but not completely delete. ] ] 17:41, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
	Sorry if I came across as rude, ackoz. (I didn't send it to AfD because, frankly, I don't think that's the right thing to do here, but I respect your feeling that it is.) <b><span style="color: #f33">&middot;]&middot;</span></b> 21:23, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
	====
	Check. ] ] 17:09, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
	:Nothing since your warning. In the future, please make sure the user is properly warned and is continuing to vandalize, then take to ]. Thanks. :) <tt style="color:#161;">RadioKirk<small> (]|]|])</small></tt> 17:44, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
	== Leonard23 ==
	{{vandal|Leonard23}} has been calling my edits vandalism, and he's also using sockpuppets on TV station pages ] and ]. (see {{cat|Suspected Misplaced Pages sockpuppets of Leonard23}}) --] ] 17:11, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
	:The only issue here is a dispute between which version of a logo to use in the article, with each user terming the other's edits "vandalism". Figure out how to talk to each other and resiolve the dispute or take it to ] or you'll both end up blocked for ]. <tt style="color:#161;">RadioKirk<small> (]|]|])</small></tt> 17:52, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
	HEY! I didn't call his edits vandalism! --] ] 18:02, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
	:You reported him here as <nowiki>{{</nowiki>vandal|Leonard23}} rather than as <nowiki>{{</nowiki>user|Leonard23}}; meantime, you also spouted off about ] while saying, "" (it's '''suspected''' sockpuppetry until confirmed, and I see no requests at ]). Meantime, the remainder stands; work together or take it to ] or everyone guilty of ] will be blocked for it. <tt style="color:#161;">RadioKirk<small> (]|]|])</small></tt> 18:58, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
	::Er, using the {{tl|vandal}} template here versus the {{tl|user}} template doesn't mean that someone is actually calling another editor a vandal&mdash;it's just used when one wants to display a different set of links regarding an editor's history. The former template adds the user's page moves, block history, and a block link. I've not investigated this dispute at all, but I think it's important to understand that the use of that template doesn't imply that the user is a vandal. ](]) 19:12, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
	:::Exactly, and excuse me for not knowing what to do to report sockpuppets. --] ] 19:28, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
	::::That's over ]. This dispute really isn't as big of a deal that you are making it. Just ] instead of edit warring. —]&nbsp;<span
	style="font-weight: bold; font-family: Calibri;"><font
	size="-2"><nowiki>]<nowiki>] ]<nowiki>]</nowiki></font></span> 19:42, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
	::::Okay; I've always found that the use of the {{tl|vandal}} template was considered a vandal report; I'll rethink the position. Meantime, CFIF, it's not that you reported or didn't report sockpuppetry so much as you '''said''' the other person '''had''' them rather than that you '''suspected''' so. Still, you're using this as a straw man; you're both edit-warring to your preferred version, your only communications are you saying the other's version "" while his response is "", leading you to beat him to it. The fact remains that neither of you is taking any steps, besides coming here to "report" someone, to resolve the dispute. At the very top of this page, it notes that this is not "the place to bring disputes over content, or reports of abusive behaviour &mdash; we aren't referees, and have limited authority to deal with abusive editors. We have a ] which we recommend you follow." Apologies if I'm snippish today, but when a report here comes across as a case of "wah, I'm telling!", the response is often "go work it out." <tt style="color:#161;">RadioKirk<small> (]|]|])</small></tt> 19:47, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
	:::::]. Leonard seems way more than impossible to deal with, so I think dispute resolution works. I really don't see how you can take Leonard's side, he's the one who's causing problems with his "suspected" sockpuppets. --] ] 19:52, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
	::::::This user is continuing to make and acting . --] ] 19:54, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
	::::::I'm taking sides? Are you serious? You've been here for a year, Chris, you should know better than to get into an edit war, especially with someone who you accuse of using sockpuppetry to get his way. Use the process, use ] if appropriate, and stay out of the war; otherwise you give the appearance of being as much to blame as he is, even if you're not. Meantime, I've left him a note regarding ] and ]. <tt style="color:#161;">RadioKirk<small> (]|]|])</small></tt> 20:03, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
	::::::: And I've left him a note about vandalism, too, since CFIF's last link there actually is to vandalism by Leonard23—he's seen about himself on the page ]. ] | ] 21:53, 24 June 2006 (UTC).
	:::::::: --] ] 03:04, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
	:::::::::Ha, you think that's belligerent? You've been ! (You and me both.) ] | ] 14:40, 25 June 2006 (UTC).
	::::::::::Ha! It even got erased due to being invalid. --] ] 18:18, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
	==]==
	The two users who filed this have just been revealed to be socks of one another by CheckUser (]). As such, could somebody please close the RFC for lacking certification and perma-block one or the other (both are pretty new, so neither is obviously the puppet master for the other one)? Thanks! -]<sup>]</sup> 21:56, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
	:I've deleted it. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 22:28, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
	== Aish Warya sockpupped of blocked user Nacho Librarian ==
	] has engaged in mass vandalism, reverts, and POV pushing and is a likely sockpuppet of blocked ], see ]. He is currently logged in and continuing to edit. ] 22:08, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
	:While there is something to be said for the excessive use of reversions, I don't see any vandalism in the last 100 contributions. There are likenesses to Nacho in quite a few aspects, from my limited understanding of the case... However, until there starts being true vandalism, or continued issues after DR, this should be handled by the ] process and not blocking. --] ] 22:18, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
	::{{user|Aish Warya}} has been engaged in , , , , , and . I think that many of ]'s edits could be considered as vandalism and Aish Warya seems to be editing in bad faith. This seems like a bad case of ]. --] 23:24, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
	:::There is definite POV pushing there that has a definite chance of being solved simply by following ]. There is also quite a bit of incivility; Which could be solved just by following the dispute resolution process. (Although I fail to see how the virgin comment qualifies as a ''personal attack''.) As for the "vandalism", there is a fairly well-documented bug which occures as to the chunks of article being dropped; I think it's in relation to Firefox and Google Toolbar. It needs to be reverted, but it doesn't qualify as vandalism. ], please. --] ] 02:14, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
	::::Avillia, I think the new user, {{user|A rat tat tat yo bass}} might be another sockpuppet of Nacho Librarian and Aish Warya. His contributions shows mass vandalism, reverts, and POV pushing on the same pages. Look at this edit where he the whole articles without any explanation. Notice how he blanked the articles 3 times, , , . That seems like intentional vandalism to me. Notice this where ] blanked the article in tandem to avoid the 3RR. --] 02:22, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
	:::::] is another sock with the same edit pattern. After I blocked him, he was repeatedly incivil towards ] and ] on his talk page, which I then protected. ] ] 04:29, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
	==]==
	I have protected ], since Molobo is repeatedly inserting an attack on the motives of other editors there. ]|] 23:51, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
	== Lesage Gravity and CambridgeBayWeather Intervention ==
	As most of us know, Misplaced Pages is becoming a favorite venue for various physics cranks to propound and promote their pseudo-scientific theories. For example, a well-known crackpot named Mark McCutcheon recently published a book called "The Final Theory" in which he claims that all of modern science is a fraud, and that gravity is actually due to the continual expansion of the Earth and all other matter. He then came to Misplaced Pages and created an article on his "Expansion Theory", heavily quoting his own book on the subject. After a protracted edit war, this individual's self-promotional original research was finally removed from Misplaced Pages. This is an illustration of how the Misplaced Pages policies are actually effective in the long run at weeding out self-promoting pseudo-science crackpots. There are many other examples of similar crank pseudo-science articles that have been weeded out. But the process is not pretty. It typically requires one or more individual(s) who are at least somewhat knowledgeable in the actual scientific field, and who are also familiar with the ways of science cranks, and who will persistently correct, challenge, and revert the seemingly endless pseudo-scientific drivel that a dedicated crackpot can generate.
	Recently a particularly virulant case came up, involving what is called "Lesage Gravity". A group of well-known physics crackpots (including the likes of Tom "faces on Mars" van Flandern, Paul Stowe, Barry Mingst, and Matt Edwards, names familiar to readers of the sci.* newsgroups), put together a book called "Pushing Gravity", propounding the old and long-since-discredited idea that gravity is caused by an aetheral flux of invisible particles pushing in all directions. They then (like Mark McCutcheon before them) came to Misplaced Pages to promote their pseudo-science book, heavily quoting themselves, in an article that reads like a publicity release for their book. None of the collaborators on the book have ever been able to get their ideas published in reputable journals, so they had to resort to putting together their own book, and then promoting it on Misplaced Pages. Stowe, Mingst, and Edwards were soon joined by another well-known Usenet physics crank named Ed Schaefer, and the four of them have produced an article that is an embarrassment to Misplaced Pages. As in other such cases, this situation could have been dealt with by the usual Misplaced Pages processes... HOWEVER....
	An unusual and somewhat unexpected thing has happenned. These four individuals have somehow gained the cooperative support of a Misplaced Pages administrator named CambridgeBayWeather. This administrator, for whatever reason, seems to do whatever Ed Schaefer and/or Paul Stowe tells him to do. If Ed or Paul say to lock the article, CBW locks the article. If Ed or Paul tell him to unlock the article, he unlocks the article. If they tell him to block a user, he blocks the user. As a result, the only individual who has been trying to restrain this cadre of physics crackpots (namely myself) has now been blocked (on the flimseyist pretext of a 3RR complaint that I've ever seen... check the record for yourself to see what I mean), so the article is now completely "owned and operated" by these self-promoting original researchers.
	My reason for posting this message here is not to complain about the physics cranks. They will always be with us, and they simply do what is in their nature to do. I'm posting this message simply to point out the odd behavior of CambridgeBayWeather, the Wiki administrator who seems to be operating at the beck and call of these crackpots. I have no personal stake in whether Misplaced Pages succeeds or fails, so I'm just as happy to walk away, but if there's anyone out there who cares about the quality and integrity (and reputation) of Misplaced Pages science articles, I suggest you look into the behavior of CambridgeBayWeather, and find out what he thinks he's accomplishing by blocking individuals who are simply trying to uphold the Misplaced Pages policies and standards, and who are making a good faith effort to adhere to the rules while doing so.] 00:08, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
	: This appears to be a pretty typical ] conflict. See ]. Except to confirm that CBW has been correctly upholding the policies (it's pretty clear he has), this is a content issue and doesn't really need admin attention. ]]] ] 00:16, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
	:: I'm surprised to see it characterized as a typical 3RR conflict. The administrator blocked me after the SECOND revert for a calender day, because this revert was only 22 hours (rather than 24 hours) after the first of two reverts on the previous calender day, making a total of four reverts with a single 24 hour period... even though I explicitly explained my intention to stay within the 3RR limit. I've personally witnessed "revert wars" where people have reverted articles dozens of times in as many minutes, but the administrators in those situations just counsuled patience, and indeed the situations resolved themselves before long. There was a time when blocking an editor was regarded as a serious an undesirable step, given the whole philosophy of Misplaced Pages, and it was reserved for egregious intentional violations of policy. In this case, ferreting out the fact that an inadvertent violation had even occurred took some careful scrutiny.
	:: I'd also like to point out that I've been continually and repeatedly threatened by other editors, mainly Ed Schaefer, posting private messages to me, telling me things like "I hereby advise you to change your name, "Fixwiki", because I find it offensive, as if you are claiming that you are going to "fix" Misplaced Pages"; If you go on being offensive in this manner, I will have you banned from Misplaced Pages". I simply ignore his messages, which seems to enrage him to send me even more outrageous messages, but I frankly didn't think anything of it... UNTIL... he actually campaigned to get the administrator CambridgeBayWeather to have me blocked, by alerting him to the horrifying "infraction" I described previously (reverting at 22 instead of 24 hours). At that time I asked CBW where I could complain about this, and he directed me here, so I posted the message above. Then when I just logged back on, I have another private message from Mr. Schaefer, informing me that he has noted my message here, and if I keep up this unacceptable behavior, he will have me banned permanently. And he seems to have the endorsement or at least the support of CambridgeBayWeather in his campaign against me.
	:: Is this really just a "content issue"? It really seems to me there is a serious problem here, one that has little or nothing to do with content. I think the crux of the problem is the Misplaced Pages policy, formulated by Jim Wales, against "physics cranks" and "original research". I have invoked this policy in the explanations of my edits, and this has made me the target of personal attacks from physics cranks, perhaps not surprisingly. My message here is not that I need or seek any kind of protection against the attacks of physics cranks; those attacks go with the territory. My message is that I don't think Misplaced Pages administrators should let themselves be manipulated into carrying out the threats of physics cranks. Is this too much to ask? By the way, any one of my messages may be the last, because I'm sure when Mr Schaefer sees this, he will launch some charge at me before CambridgeBayWeather, who will probably block me permanently. ] 06:01, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
	:::I've tried to explain to Fixwiki that 3RR is not a calendar day but a 24 hour period. The thing that bothered me most was edit where he seems to me to bee implying that he is just going to continually edit war. ] ] 13:46, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
	:::As our policy says, the 3RR is an electric fence and not an entitlement. Even if one strives to stay within the letter of the 3RR &ndash; which I hasten to say, Fixwiki apparently failed to do &ndash; an editor who perpetually stays just within the border of the 3RR is still engaged in edit warring, and is still likely to find himself blocked. ](]) 16:04, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
	:::: I understand completely that the 3RR rule applies to any consecutive 24 hour period, not to calender days. I also fully acknowledge that I reverted the disputed article four times within one 24 hour period. I explained this in the previous messages above. My point is that blocking someone on the second day of reverting a disputed article, when he reverted the article only 3 times on one calender day and only twice on the next, for a total of FIVE reverts in TWO days, is a rather zealous application of the 3RR rule. Also, I think a review of your talk page shows that this action of yours, as with your previous actions related to this disputed article, were taken in direct response to instructions that you received from Ed Schaefer. It's as if you have appointed Ed as a deputy administrator, and frankly I think this is highly unwise and inappropriate, because he is one of the "physics cranks" (to use the term from the Misplaced Pages policy statement) who is promoting the violation of Misplaced Pages policies against (1) self-promotion, and (2) original research in science articles.
	:::: Ed has stated explicitly that he does not feel bound by those policies and does not intend to adhere to them, and of course the same applies to his accomplices Paul Stowe, Matt Edwards, and Barry Mingst. If you are so vigilant to take pre-emptive action against ME based on a message in which I indicated that I would ADHERE to the 3RR policy (albeit with a mis-interpretation of the 24 hour versus calender day), why do these blatent statements of Ed Schaefer voicing his intention to VIOLATE two of the most important Wiki policies not prompt you to take action against HIM? (By the way, that's a rhetorical question... I have never sought to have anyone blocked, silenced, or censored, and I will not start now.)
	:::: As an adminnistrator, I would think you would also take into account the fact that each of my five reverts over two days, separated by about 8 hours, was answered by an anti-revert, usually within MINUTES, and with no justification, from either Ed Schaefer or his accomplice Paul Stowe. This is another reason that, in the past, Misplaced Pages administrators have tended to take a more circumspect view, and not just decide to BLOCK one particular editor, and certainly not after five reverts in two days. Misplaced Pages contains the ability to revert articles for a reason, and it is quite understandable that, especially in the case of disputed articles written by a group of self-promoting "original researchers", that there will be multiple reverts at some stage of the process. As I said, dealing with physics cranks is not a pretty process. I really think Misplaced Pages has the resources to do it successfully, BUT ONLY if the administrators refrain from actively supporting the cranks by blocking and banning individuals who try to uphold the Wiki anti-physics-crank policies. ] 16:31, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
	::::: Yeah, 3RR and everything. But regarding the factual issues Fixwiki is complete correct. It's tedious and unrewarding (except sometimes by legal and other threats) to keep the self-promoting cranks within control. I can help out FixWiki by doing some of the reverts, but what is achieved by this? It looks at best ironic when these conflicts are met with the standard formal answers like "discuss on talk page". Heck, there's nothing to discuss with Tom van Flandern, you either are an encylcopedia or you let TvF contribute. Sorry for this rant, by these problems always leave me severely depressed. --] 22:50, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
	:::::: Pjacobi - I have put a fair amount of work into trying to obtain an article that is fair to the subject of ] and is NPOV towards it. I have gotten in the way of the pro Le Sage gravitation editors just as much as I hae gotten in the way of Fixwiki. In fact, if you look at the discussion for the article in question, you will find that I have reached out to Fixwiki over and over again, and been rebuffed because I am a known "crackpot". Also, you will find that in general the other editors have been quite polite in their dealings with each other, while Fixwiki and his various aliases (yes, aliases and not sock puppets) have regularly been hostile towards the rest of us.
	:::::: Fixwiki claims that we reverted his revents without justification. I admit that none was given at the time, but also refer you to ]. At this point, the editors of that page put together a consensus view of what to do with the page in the wake of an edit war that got in protected. Fixwiki had plenty of time in which to weigh in on that discussion, and chose not to do so. Instead, he waited until he was sure that the protection was off, and then reverted to his version from the previous edit war. If you look at , you will see that Fixwiki was asked to discuss changes first. His respose in his next revert was to say that he had previously pointed out the "errors" and implied that they needed no further discussion. And so it went.
	:::::: IMO, Fixwiki is acting like a crank, and is no more deserving of resepct than ] who is Fiwiki's pro-Le Sage alter ego on that page. BTW - Le Sagian is now working primarily through the talk page these days as I have requested that he do, and so he is not an issue at this time. So let's just say that people should be very careful about what they are doing before they side with Fixwiki here. I do not mind a mainstream sanity check on that article (and given the current pool of editors for that page such a check really is needed), but IMO Fixwiki is and has been as POV and disrputive as many anti-mainstream editors are. --] | ] 06:06, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
	::::::: I defer this to your judgement EMS, you've invested a hefty dose of time into the article, and you aren't a crackpot for sure, I only hope you don't suffer from the ]. Perhaps FixWiki must be grouped to the Anti-Troll-Trolls (who lose sober judegement when trying to defend Misplaced Pages's integrety). Anyway, TvF editing Misplaced Pages makes me strongly nervous. --] 06:49, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
	:::::::: Thanks much. I assure you that the issue for me is Fixwiki's behavior, not his intent. He definitely is something of an anti-Troll-Troll (although "troll" is not term I would use in this case). At the least, he is highly biased against Le Sage gravitation to the point that his edits are unnecessarily dispariging of it. I thank you for saying the I am not a crackpot, but Fixwiki will contest that and with a valid reason: I have (and still am) trying to promote a theory of my own devising which modifies ]. However, unlike others with such ideas who come here I have chosen not try to present that work in the article space in accord with ]. --] | ] 14:41, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
	==]==
	Is appropriate? ]|] 01:26, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
	:Finally, this account is blocked indefinately. What good news... I think the post should stay. It demonstrates what a problem this user was, and serves as a reminder in case a credulous admin (there are many of them) is ever tempted to unblock him. Unlike most sanctioned POV-pushers, RJII outright admits in the statement his goal of undermining conventional encyclopedic and scholarly standards in order to push a POV: ''The RJII Project has been victorious in what it set out to accomplish on Misplaced Pages, but the larger goal is still to be acheived. Why was the Project undertaken? Certainly it is to shape public opinion .... No longer will the academic hierarchy decide what the student sees or does not see.'' ] | ] 01:35, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
	While I will doubtlessly be ostracized for stating the obvious:
	*It's a great way of saying goodbye after tiring of the community.
	*It's a great social experiement which seems to have suceeded.
	Whatever way you slice it, it's hilarious. --] ] 02:04, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
	::ElectricRay is certainly acting inappropriately (not for the first time) in "adopting" the text of a banned user and re-posting it. I have removed it, per ]:
	::''Because we discourage people from using Misplaced Pages to interact with banned users, it is likewise inappropriate to post comments and discussion on behalf of banned users. Such activity is sometimes called "proxying". As people respond to such material, this will inevitably draw in the banned user, and again may tempt them to subvert their ban. Our aim is to make it as easy as possible for banned users to leave Misplaced Pages with their dignity intact, whether permanently, or for the duration of their ban. Offering to proxy is likewise inappropriate.''
	:: ] | ] 02:13, 25 June 2006 (UTC).
	:::Well... Has he been 'banned'? He's been blocked for a indefinite period for admitting to a shared account ''today''. He added the text onto his userpage himself on his account; It is more likely that he will be drawn in by the removal of this information in comparison to letting it stand as it's own topic under his userpage. Additionally, ''anyone'' can view the text in the prior revision(s). Removing it from the talk page serves no purpose. Then again, neither does reinstating it by the same path of logic. --] ] 02:24, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
	::::(Shh....! Notice me ostracizing ya, Avilla? {{smiley}}) ] | ] 02:55, 25 June 2006 (UTC).
	: RJII's response to a recent block by me was ''All I can say is I'm glad I'm out of here at the end of the month. Good riddance to you all.'' I duly pointed out that under his probation he could have earned a ban from editing the article in question and, in the circumstances, a three-hour block for "Sterile edit warring with ] on ]" was quite lenient.
	: Given RJII's demonstrated immaturity, I'd take the grandiose claims accompanying his departure with a bushel of salt. --] 21:21, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
	==]==
	Has anyone spoken to this user about coming up with a new User name? They've been here for almost a year. ]|] 01:58, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
	:: I don't think we should force him/her to change it, if they've been here a year I'm sure they've behaved properly. If the user was causing problems then I would change my mind. I've already encountered this particular user and they seem quite friendly. Let them keep it. ] 02:06, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
	:::If this were truely a problem the devs would just disable unicode support/other language support in usernames. I don't know how this user got the idea that using those kind of characters in their name was a GOOD idea. --]] 02:10, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
	::::Currently, all new Usernames that contain other than Latin characters are blocked on sight. ]|] 02:14, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
	:::::Looks like Kimchi.sg's spoken to them on their ] -- ] <small>]</small> 02:16, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
	== User Antonio en las Ruedas has been blocked by a bot (page moves)==
	] has been blocked by a bot intended to block pagemove vandalism.
	Please check the and .
	Please delete this message after the situation has been resolved.
	'''This message was generated by the bot.''' -- ] 04:07, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
	Spanish translation, Anthony on Wheels, WoW endorse block. ] ] 04:10, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
	::Looking at the block log, this account was originally blocked immediately when it was created, but after the vandal tagged his user talk page with {{]}}, another admin who did not realise the Spanish translation was fooled enough to unblock it. My point is that this should be a reminder to expect more user names like that where "on wheels" is translated to other languages. ] ] 06:29, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
	*also there seems to be a connection to the AN/i troll, see post directly under this one for reference--] 05:32, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
	== Vandalism in Progress at the Uma Thurman page, June 25, 2006 ==
	The Uma Thurman page, which is one of the featured articles, is currently being vandalized. When you click on it you get a blank page with "Willy's back, bitches!" written on it. Please direct your attention to it.
	It's 12:11 a.m, Eastern Time here. Thank you.{{unsigned|Mrcocksman}}
	*AN/i *cough* troll--] 05:11, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
	== ] ongoing personal attacks and WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF breaches ==
	This user has had an ongoing history of making personal attacks against other users. He has exhibited a complete inability to be civil. A quick glance at his talk page, his comments on my talk page and Talk:Bear community shows WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF breaches as well as contemptuous comments aimed at the communty as a whole. I attempted to file an RfD only to discover that one was filed within the last six months. It was suggested to me by ] that I bring the issue up here. My awareness of this user came about due to his comments at ] on the talk page, wherein he has suggested that this very valid and historically important subcommunity of the gay community was a vanity entry. He then made attacks on any users who disagreed with him. I broached the subject on his talk page in what I felt was a very civil manner, and he proceeded to belittle the entire Bear Community movement - including their flag, the very symbol of the movement - on my talk page. When it became apparent to him that I was not going to let this behaviour pass unnoticed, he began a lengthy diatribe on my talk page. It seems overwhelmingly clear that this user has not learned any lessons from past reprimands, and continues to show a flagrant disregard for others on Misplaced Pages. It is time, I think, for someone to step in and set things right once and for all. ] 06:04, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
	:<small>That's quite a ] for this section. ;-) --] <sup><font color="#3D9140">]</font></sup> 06:08, 25 June 2006 (UTC)</small>
	:As of now, I have blocked him for 48h regarding ] (, ) and borderlin ]. Also several rather uncivil comments. ] 06:14, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
	::It's 2 in the morning here. I'm going to bed. Feel free to review and unblock if you consider appropriate, but considering the long history of confrontational editing from haizum, i feel the block more than justified. ] 06:21, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
	:::I don't know about this user or his behavior otherwise, but those diffs you listed don't justify any block in particular. --] 06:21, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
	::::The block was quickly lifted. I would like other Administrators to review the actions taken against me for the sake of the community. ] 06:41, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
	I've unblocked Haizum for the time being. See his talk page for more info. If you feel I have erred, don't hesitate to contact me. Thanks. --] <sup><font color="#3D9140">]</font></sup> 06:42, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
	::::Let me just clarify what this user has done, and how serious it is: he has gone into an article - ] - and asserted, based solely on his personal distaste for the subject matter, that it is a vanity entry and invalid. He has shown a complete lack of respect for a community of people that numbers in the hundreds of thousands, globally. And he continues to do so in his extensive uncivil comments. I may be expressing a major POV on the matter, but how are we supposed to judge someone's intent if not by his actions? What this user says is simple "sarcasm" is, to me, a gross trivialization of a group of people's existance. What he said amounts to me going to an article on Puerto Rico and saying "Oh, well I'm just going to call my living room a country and make up a flag for it, so it's just like Puerto Rico!" And he continues to belittle and attack others! I don't understand how this individual is NOT in extreme violation of WP:CIVIL, and I just don't understand how the admins have allowed it to continue! Please! HELP ME understand! I know this may come off as insincere, but I really am at a loss to comprehend. ] 06:45, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
	:::::Sir, I made my ''opinion'' known and nothing else. I did not seek deletion of the article, and I did not pursue major revision. Please do not continue to assume my position on the gay community, I am quite tolerant. ] 06:51, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
	::::::I would also like to note that this incident started on my talk page with the following comments:
	::::::''a topic about which you clearly know nothing'' <small>-Pacian</small>
	::::::''That is, quite literally, a statemnt of ignorance.'' <small>-Pacian</small>
	::::::''to further educate yourself'' <small>-Pacian</small>
	::::::''your seeming need to treat others poorly here on Misplaced Pages'' <small>-Pacian</small>
	::::::I peacefully left the discussion page in question weeks, if not months ago without any lasting influence effecting the article. I then received the aforementioned comments on my talk page. My response was sarcastic, but no personal attacks were launched, even after a retaliatory ANI was started against me. I would like this situation to end. I obviously have no interest in the Bear Community page, and I have no interest in talk page discussions with Pacian. ] 06:48, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
	: I'm sorry, Haizum, but you suggested that an encyclopedia entry about a 25-year-old sub-community of the gay community was a vanity entry, clearly without educating yourself on the matter. That is the sheer definition of ignorance. You have an extensive history of people complaining about the way you talk to them - that indicates that SOME PEOPLE clearly feel you are treating them badly. And even if these incidents you cite here WERE attacks on you - which they so clearly were not, when viewed in context of the paragraph you took them from - it doesn't justify you attacking back. ] 06:52, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
	:: I have just had my talk page vandalized by ]. I would be interested to know who this user is, and to have them blocked, as it was an obvious retaliation for this ongoing conflict. ] 06:52, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
	:::you obviously weren't listening hard enough when i said SCREW YOU COMMIE BASTARD. obviously you piss off a LOT OF wikipedians around here with your antics--] 06:58, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
	::::Administrator, please remove the last two comments from this board. Pacian has no business announcing (and implying responsibility for) vandalism on his talk page under this heading. ] 07:02, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
	:::::The only thing I implied is that the user Scewfot has obviously been prompted to make his vandalistic edits based on my recent edits. I do find it quite a coincidence that a brand new user registered, came to Misplaced Pages, and managed to stumble solely on this particular confict, and vandalize pages only relating to it and nothing else. But I am insinuating nothing. ] 07:04, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
	::::I've indef blocked ]...edits have consisted of personal attacks and vandalism exclusively . ] 07:08, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
	*I wouldn't worry too much about it, here on AN/i we have a little thing we like to call the AN/i troll, a user with one or two edits who comes here to AN/i and reports very strange, usually non-existant "incidents" then goes away, which is exactly why you '''don't bring content disputes to WP:AN/i''', it only ever winds up feeding the odd little troll living under this particular bridge--] 07:09, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
	:pacian, I'd like to comment on your behavior here. I have found Haizum to dislay an history of confrontational editing and uncivil comments. I told that when coming here, you should make a clear case and present. You have come and, for lack of a a better term, ''rambled''. This does not make our job any easier. I looked into this because I wanted to be helpful after nullifying your reactivation of and old RFC, but it is not the job of admins to examine in details the contribution history when a user accuses another. You have failed to present proofs, and this is probably the reason you have been mostly ignored. However, I think this (and probably the ] case, although you are not involved in the latter) case might benefit from ]. ] 12:02, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
	::E.G.:Unfortunately, saying, "I have found Haizum to dislay an history of confrontational editing" would qualify as a lie '''if''' an individual actually glanced at my edit history. For the most part, my edits have been '''small corrections and tags''', the rest is '''talk/discussion page''' related. Also unfortunate is the fact that I run a 50% chance of being blocked simply for pointing out how someone else is misrepresenting me/the issue/the POV/etc, which usually falls under the WP:CIV Iron Umbrella. Of course the initial confrontational act of saying "I have found Haizum to dislay an history of confrontational editing" gets a complete pass. ] 16:53, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
	::I will retract if by "editing" we mean all types of article and talk/disc page editing; I am indeed bold with regards to discussion, but that does not directly affect the informational content and encyclopedic value of Misplaced Pages. ] 16:57, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
	== {{vandal|WillyonWheels}} ==
	Here we go again...]]<b>]</b> 07:58, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
	:No such user exists. ] 08:49, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
	== Indefinite block of KraMuc ==
	I have indefinitely blocked {{vandal|KraMuc}}. The immediate cause was , after I gave him . In the interest of full disclosure, I have been involved in editing articles he's worked on, largely in regard to trying to explain/enforcec ] and ], whic he habitually ignores. In the past he has been blocked for a week for abusive sockpuppetry, and further back he made threats to take action against a user in real life. (Because the user in question was me, I elected to explain the rule in this regard and not to take further action at the time; however, he continues to allude to legal action in an effort to intimidate other users.) For more detail, read my warning.
	Although the particular offense he just committed is not deserving of an indefinite block, on the heels of the warning I gave him it indicates to me that the user has no interest in following Misplaced Pages's rules and policies, either regarding basic civility or regarding our core rules like NPOV and NOR. He has been warned and reminded of these things an extraordinary number of times, with no result, so I no longer believe he has any potential to be an asset to the project.
	If anyone has concerns about this blocking or is tempted to reduce it, I urge you to review the case in more detail. I am happy to provide more diffs and to discuss at length if requested. However, as his recent edit all by itself (his second block for personal attacks in the last few days) merits an extentended block anyway, I do request that time be allowed for discussion ''before'' the block is reduced. -- ] 10:48, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
	: I'd say that the NOR issue is disputable, it seems to be in part a lack of providing references in time (and he excused himself of being temporarily unable to do so). However, ] and ] are sufficient for an extended block IMHO. ] 12:07, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
	: I would add ] and ] as additional grounds, but on the other hand, I wish he could come back at some future point a changed man and learn to play by the WP rules. If Krause's work is verifiable and notable, regardless of its possible fringe position, WP would want it properly described, with appropriate alongside other views. It seems that KraMuc is eager to present this theory, but needs to learn a collaborative and civil WP style to do so. If he ever does come back, I would support a "one strike you're out" probation for ]. ] 12:26, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
	::Your points are both good. However, I think I gave him many extra chances to learn NPOV and NOR (and would never block for those alone anyway), and many extra chances on CIV and NPA as well. In the end, I gave him a "one strike and you're out" ultimatum on the civility, and he responded by making a scathing and deliberate personal attack on another user. I believed for a long time he might become a good contributor once he learned the rules, but at this point he's had every opportunity. -- ] 15:25, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
	:::I saw some of his (and his puppets') vitriol and profanities in the meanwhile, and 'scathing' may be an understatement. I would say at least a year before any consideration for rehabilitation. ] 15:57, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
	*If he's threatening legal action, you should point out "no legal threats". If he fails to adhere to that, he can be blocked until he does. - ] 21:14, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
	== ] ==
	In ], Kuratowski's Ghost has deliberately falsified a quotation by Desmond Tutu in order to remove something he didn't like and replace it with something KG can agree with. The quotation KG left in the article passes off something Desmond Tutu '''never said''' as a direct quotation.
	See
	Kuratowski's Ghost changed (emphasis added):
	"Many South Africans are beginning to recognize the parallels to what we went through. (South African Cabinet Minister) ] and (South African Member of Parliament) ], '''two Jewish heroes of the antiapartheid struggle''', recently published a letter titled "Not in My Name." Signed by several hundred other prominent Jewish South Africans, the letter drew an explicit analogy between apartheid and current Israeli policies. ] and ] have also pointed out the relevance of the South African experience."
	to
	""Many South Africans are beginning to recognize the parallels to what we went through. (South African Cabinet Minister) ] and (South African Member of Parliament) ], '''two ANC members of Jewish ancestry''', recently published a letter titled "Not in My Name." Signed by several hundred other prominent Jewish South Africans, the letter drew an explicit analogy between apartheid and current Israeli policies. ] and ] have also pointed out the relevance of the South African experience."
	His edit note reads "Ozinsky and Kasrils do not consider themselves to be Jewish nor did they do anything particularly heroic)"
	Kuratowski's Ghost may not agree with Tutu's description of Ozinsky and Kasrils but that doesn't give him the right to ''alter'' Tutu's words to something Kuratoski's Ghost can agree with. Deliberately falsifying a quotation is vandalism.According to ], "Sneaky vandalism" is
	:"Vandalism which is harder to spot. Adding misinformation, changing dates or making other sensible-appearing substitutions and typos."
	The deliberate misquotation has been reverted. I would like a neutral admin to investigate KG's action and act appropriately. ] 14:03, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
	:Reviewing the edit history, I think KG just made a mistake, and forgot he was dealing with a quotation. He only edited it once, and did not revert his error when it was corrected. Please ].--] 17:07, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
	==Spamming of talk pages==
	] is spamming talk pages trying to get people to stop an article that he created from being delete. Some examples are: --] | ] 14:20, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
	Thanks. I'll look into it immediately.--Fil] ] 14:21, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
	== Continuing mess ==
	The dispute on ] and the talk page there which led to MONGO's block of Pokipsy76, ostensibly for "vandalism", has continued to degenerate into increasing incivility and personal attacks by all sides... followed by MONGO blocking SkeenaR and CB Brooklyn for those personal attacks. Both users have objected to this given MONGO's involvement in the dispute and one attempted to bring those objections here with IP edits while blocked. MONGO has reverted those edits and the situation continues to deteriorate.
	I have added these issues to ] and would request that people comment there rather than continuing to revert war on this page. --] 16:09, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
	:I fear you may dig yourself into a hole by ] with people.--] 16:18, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
	:I call your attention to , .--] 16:33, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
	== ] violations by ] against ] ==
	Would some other people care to take a look at what's going on at ] please? I've removed several of ]'s incendiary comments regarding ] from the AfD discussion, and left a note for him on his talk page indicating that the comments are wholly inappropriate. Ignoring my comments, he has restored his remarks, and left a note for me on the AfD talkpage telling me that ''my'' actions are inappropriate. I have no dog in this fight, which is clearly a result of some background conflict between RK and NTK, and would appreciate input from others before proceding. ]<font color="#008000">]</font>]] 17:06, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
	:I've removed the comment regarding personal attack parol because they have no relavence to the deletion debate and there was no personal attack. However i have left the comments about canvassing for votes in as they are relavent and the closing admin needs to see them. ] | ] 19:26, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
	::I'm not opposed to the "canvassing" bit, although the ArbCom stuff was repeated, in part, in that discussion as well, which is why I removed it. Allusions to the ArbCom parole are also made in NTK's vote, which is what made me say that it's clearly a result of some background conflict between RK and NTK. The comment we've both now removed from the AfD page has been resurrected by NTK again on the AfD talkpage, further congealing my opinion that NTK is on some kind of crusade against RK, not simply critical of the article, which he barely mentions anywhere. ]<font color="#008000">]</font>]] 22:27, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
	== ] ==
	I have <span class="plainlinks">] (] • ] • <font color="002bb8"></font> • ] • <font color="002bb8"></font>)</span> for edit warring and disruption. Please review, as I have some history with the user, but I believe the block to be in the best interests of the encyclopedia to stop a brewing edit war. User has a history of claiming that the 3RR "entitles" him to three reverts per day, see the first section on my user talk page. It is my opinion that the user needs to be asked, by multiple users, to stop edit warring, as I have repeatedly attempted to clarify the 3RR to him, to no avail. If this behavior continues, I fear a much longer block may be necessary. —] (]) 19:44, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
	::I was reluctantly participating in the edit war with Pat8722 that BorgHunter references above, though I made several attempts to get Pat8722 to discuss the changes on the talk page of the relevant article before Pat8722 finally decided to respond to my posts there. This was my first interaction with Pat8722, but I believe that BorgHunter's block was justified. In the course of my interaction with Pat8722, I came across a user conduct Rfc, located ]. I think the comments there support BorgHunter's prognosis, unfortunately. - &middot; <font color="#013220">]</font>'' <font color="#465945" size="1">]</font>'' &middot; 20:14, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
	==Emails I have received from ]==
	Just for completenness's sake. I don't speak Polish, so I'd appreciate some translations of the little niceities he threw in
	#As if this is going to stop me from pointing out nationalist edits against Poles. You seriously believe your little cenzorship will help in this nationalist crusade ? Hitled didn't got us, neither will biased editors on Wiki. Cheers ! Polacy nigdy się nie poddają. Pamiętaj o tym.
	#How amusing, you even don't let me defend yourself. Not to worry though, I lived in such system before 1989, I guess you would fit in nicely with those that enslaved us.
	#I shall contribute to defence against this German nationalism in any other means possible. Deletion of information about Wehrmacht war crimes or persecution of Poles in Prussia shows how biased Misplaced Pages has become by being dominated by members of some national groups do to their numerical advantage.
	#I am sure your move will be supported. I am also certain many Wikifriends will be brought by it, by pure coincidence.
	Sounds like some curious threats, to me. Oh, and by the way, Molobo, I have added you to my spam filter, so I won't be seeing any more of your nice little emails, so don't bother sending me any more. ]|] 20:07, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
	*It sounds like Molobo is reacting inappropriately and has a persecution complex, but I don't think that the "in any other means possible" is actually a threat. --] 14:02, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
	== Rdos again ==
	OK, I have done my best to get {{User|Rdos}} to stop promoting his theory via Misplaced Pages, but he seems determined. Having removed the content, removed his reposting of the content, removed the reposting of the content on his Talk page, blacklisted his links which he was posting to every discussion on the issue - now he's using the article histories to promote it. of his Talk shows what I mean. I've issued a warning about disruption, I think if there's any more of this nonsense it should be No More Mr. Nice Guy. ] 20:14, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
	:I fully endorse any blocks needed to make him listen. ]|] 20:18, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
	::Blocks don't make people listen, they shut people up. In some cases tho, that's a necessary evil. I fully endorse any blocks needed to shut this guy up. ]<font color="#008000">]</font>]] 03:01, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
	This is not promotion, and it has been moved to a private wiki. I just digged up the history. Where are the rules against assembling history on a talk-page? --] 06:57, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
	:Well, if you've already got a "private wiki", then you don't need to use the talk page or any other Misplaced Pages page, do you? --] | ] 07:05, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
	::I certainly don't. I had no idea ] would interpret it as promotion. It was a neutral investigation that I thought others would be interested in. Turned out not to be. --] 07:15, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
	:::It was an article and subject judged -- multiple times -- as unsuited to Misplaced Pages, of which you were informed multiple times. Recreating it in whatever form on Misplaced Pages is recreating it on Misplaced Pages, period/full-stop -- especially when you've already been warned AND you claim to already have an off-Misplaced Pages place. Don't pretend otherwise. --] | ] 07:48, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
	::::I didn't recreate the deleted text. I didn't even make any descriptions of the theory at all. Some user (I think it was ]) informed me that I could mention the theory on my user page and link to it. No doubt, it seems like he has changed his mind about this now. He wants the total eradication of it, and won't hesitate to delete history on Misplaced Pages to achieve his goal. --] 07:57, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
	:::"It was a neutral investigation that I thought others would be interested in" - evidently by force, as you seem to have had no qualms about sticking the POV tag on an article because it didn't include your theory - see ]. ] 07:54, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
	::::I didn't put the POV-tag on it because it didn't include my theory. That was just a tiny bit of the reason for this. --] 07:57, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
	==Was Kelly Martin block of MONGO correct?==
	Block was for a brief discussion on Gmaxwell's talk page. This block looks like a total overraction, please tell me if Im missing something. Do these admins have a history of conflict? ] 20:34, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
	:I was blocked too for the same fact, but it was a symbolic punishment: just 15 minutes.--] 20:40, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
	::Sounds a bit like a "love-tap" block. I got that type of block for vandalizing ]'s ]. ] 20:49, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
	MONGO commented again on Gmaxwells page after the block, should he be blocked again? Where are you Kelly? ] 21:19, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
	(edit conflict) While I generally detest applications of ] this is one which I don't object to. I would assume that Kelly meant it as something of a 'wake up call' or 'hey stop it!' with the (largely insignificant) block included as a form of 'exclamation point' to demonstrate the seriousness of the issue. There is definitely a need for greater deliberation and less hostility (more light, less heat) in this situation so perhaps it will do some good. --] 21:30, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
	:MONGO and Gmaxwell were discussing on the talk page. He got blocked for doing what you say he should be doing. ] 21:37, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
	::MONGO and Pokipsy76 were arguing offensively with one another on Greg's talk page. We do NOT encourage people to engage in flame wars on the talk page of a third party. My block was intended as a "tap on the shoulder", to get his attention and underscore the message that flamewarring on third party talk pages is not acceptable. MONGO's reaction to it tells me that he is in dire need of an attitude adjustment, however, and I think he should consider either (a) a wikibreak or (b) resigning his adminship. ] (]) 22:05, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
	::I told you I did not see that Gmaxwell had asked to not post on his talk page.--] 05:29, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
	:::I suspect that's not the point - after all Pokipsy76's only edit there was ''before'' Gmaxwell asked you both to stop, and he was 'blocked' too. It's just generally 'poor form' to import an argument onto someone else's talk page. Not a 'blockable offense' under any policy, but then '15 minutes' isn't what I'd call a 'real' block either. --] 11:14, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
	::::Precisely. It's a speed bump. You hit one of those at sixty and you wake up&ndash;at least one hopes. ] ] 11:19, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
	:::::I'll remember that the next time you do something that violates nothing. I was having a conversation with Gmaxwell, not that he bothered to lower himself to my level, being so important as he is...some truly are legends in their own minds I fear. I was doing nothing wrong...I'm not sure who Kelly Martin thinks she is, but with nary a single FA, I'd have to say, a nobody as far as this website is concerned. We got plenty of janitors around here.--] 11:44, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
	::::::Well, I have an FA (]), and both a) still consider myself a nobody, and b) think hijacking Gmaxwell's talk page for your squabble deserved a fifteen minute 'hey, quit it', which is all it was. ]<I><B>/</B>/<B>/</B></I><small>]</small> 11:56, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
	::::::Gah! MONGO, ''please'' stop. I realize this is not at all fun and I'm probably responsible for a large fraction of your current stress, but you aren't helping yourself. I apologize for contributing to your burdens, but I assure you that it is not personal and I think that is true for ''most'' of the people who have questioned your actions. You do many very good things. I am not saying that you are a bad guy. I just disagree with a few specific things and am hoping to prevent them in the future... not see them spread to this board due to the added stress we have unfortunately placed you under. --] 12:07, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
	:::::::I'm at stress level zero. Kelly Martin had zero basis for a block, her commentary above was rude to an extreme. I am not blind to this. I was trying to inform Gmaxwell, that I believe that there was no content dispute, he responded and I responded back and to a comment made by a another and I didn't see that Gmaxwell had asked that we not start a forest fire on his page. Both the third party and myself were blocked by Martin. I don't care if it was for 15 minutes or fifteen seconds...you want to talk about abuse of sysop tools...that is a prime example. A polite request is the normal procedure I am confident.--] 12:54, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
	::::::::You might want to remain a little more civil. Implying that Kelly Martin was not a "proper" editor because she had not brought an article to featured status was unnecessary, uncalled-for and uncivil. As for the topic at hand, I endorse the blocks, and Kelly Martin has my full support. ] ] 13:32, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
	:::::::::I don't endorse them. It's not appropriate to block for any length of time without a warning, unless you're blocking something like a bot zooming through the encyclopedia pulverizing it. There are only two choices with a 15-minute block: either it's designed to mortify and embarrass, which is not what we should be about, or it's not designed as a meaningful gesture at all, in which case don't do it either. MONGO is not a child to be "love-tapped". ] | ] 13:36, 26 June 2006 (UTC).
	:::::::::I don't endorse the block either. We can say it's not a big deal, as it was only fifteen minutes, but I imagine that having it there permanently on one's block log causes more mortification than the very temporary inconvenience of not being able to edit. The block was counter-productive because there's now ''more'' ill feeling than there was before. Mongo's posts did not amount to violations of ], and there was no reason to block, ''especially'' without warning. Unless we see our role on Misplaced Pages as punishing people for violations of good manners, we should try to avoid demeaning good-faith editors by handing out unexpected blocks. An editor should never be blocked for something that isn't against policy, and that he didn't know could lead to a block. ] ] 14:08, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
	:::::::::The goal we all share is to de-escalate this so we can get back to doing useful work. I'm sure Kelly Martin intended the block to do that. Even though it was done in a good-faith, it didn't have that desired result. Well, we've all made well-intended mistakes. What we don't need is to start blocking each other out of process for making out-of-process blocks. ] <sup>]</sup> 17:10, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
	== ] ==
	Apparently, {{user|Scribe85}} doesn't like to communicate. His edits get reverted on a regular basis (For example, he changes dates and generally doesn't conform to any MOS guidelines - but he's done more). First he repeatedly blanked a talk page filled with warnings and when he finally archived as instructed, he put it on a page called "Useless Crap". I know stubborness or newbie-ness isn't a blockable offense, but it doesn't look like this user is going to conform to Misplaced Pages policy or even try to remain civil. What should I/we do? - ]|] 21:28, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
	:I've blocked him for 24 hours for incivility, and have renamed his archive to something less obnoxious. ]|] 22:40, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
	:I have now reblocked him indefinitely, for his demands to be blocked and his absolute lack of civility and interest in communications. ]|] 03:18, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
	==]==
	Could we get this image added to the image blacklist? Johnny the Vandal is using over and over again. ]|] 22:40, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
	:Does it have any legitimate usages? if it does then it shouldn't be added, if it doesn't then we should see if it really needs to be added. Only the most severe image vandalism images should be added to prevent the list from filling up with erroneous listings. <small>]</small><sup>] | ] | ]</sup> ---- 06:06, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
	::It is primarily used on ] to illustrate the subject of that article. Therefore, I am not sure if it should be on any image blacklist. ] ] 06:20, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
	:::So is ], but it isn't allowed on the ] page. ]|] 02:02, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
	==Scientology-related articles under spam attack==
	] and related articles in the ] are currently coming under spam attack from a range of newly registered accounts and anon IPs, all spamming identical links to ytmnd.com. Grateful if people could keep an eye on this and semi-protect/revert where needed. -- ] 23:10, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
	:Semi-protection has failed - another newly registered account (probably the same person again) has re-spammed ] ''despite'' it being semi-protected. Is semi-protection bugged at the moment or something? -- ] 23:29, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
	::Nope, not bugged. The account {{userlinks|Mattcruise}} was created back in January. . ] (]) 23:33, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
	:::And yet it's not made any edits before today. Bizarre. -- ] 23:35, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
	::::This is not uncommon. Premeditated vandals will often create "sleeper" accounts in advance to circumvent semi-protection on a page.-]<sup>]</sup> 13:32, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
	:::::Yes, that is what I was going to say. Vandals will use accounts that were created a while back in order to continue their edits when they are blocked or protection is on an article. <font color="#007FFF">]</font>''']'''<font color="#007FFF">]</font>|<sup><font color="orange">]</font></sup> 16:49, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
	:The link should probably be added to the spam blacklist. There's a concerted attempt going on to Googlebomb that link to the top of the Google search results for Scientology. --] 04:48, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
	== ] ==
	I'm not sure where I should take a possibly long-term luke-warm dispute like this, so I'm pleading my case here. We need some help de-biasing this article. It has been the subject of a few recent revert wars, one of which I was involved in. There are some rather blasphemous examples of Jesus in this article, and a group of editors believe that this information should be left out until more positive examples can be found that balance out the controversial info. Does the NPOV policy extend to balancing facts? As I interpret it, it does not, it only calls for a neutral ''presentation'' of the facts, but perhaps I'm wrong. I've tried to establish a discussion on the talkpage in order to recieve some input from both sides, unfortunately, the editors who want to leave out controversial information are mostly AOL IPs that don't communicate. Someone please help me, I don't want another edit war to flare up a few days from now, which could possibly land me a 3RR block. ] 23:38, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
	:I've been staring at this message for a while now, and I still can't figure out the raison d'etre of the article. Why does it exist? What on earth can it say? Isn't it guaranteed to be a vomiting up of offensive and celebratory depictions, depending upon the motives of the contributors? Isn't it also a fork? I mean, it promises to tell the reader how Jesus is depicted in the popular culture which the reader, ostensibly, must ''know.'' Very strange. ] 04:28, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
	::An entire article devoted to trivia. Hot damn. ] ] 11:23, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
	:::Well, I originally created the article because the examples of Jesus in modern society were quite limited in most of the articles in the Christianity series. After seeing as how ] was basically the same thing I supported a merge and a name change, which never really happened. I didn't expect the article to end up as a trivia dump as it is now. ] 13:46, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
	::::Hrm... can we delete this as Trivia; complete junk-dumping-ground or has that not yet made the speedy criteria? ]<sup>]</sup> 15:03, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
	:::::Just because it needs to be cleaned up doesn't mean it should be deleted. Shall we change it to "Jesus in secular culture" in order to achieve a wider scope? I'm adding a tag for cleanup. ] 15:24, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
	::I didn't mean to be hostile, but I really couldn't figure it out from the title. Would it be better to actually perform the merge and then make one of them a redirect to the other? I can't wrap my mind around "in popular culture." Again, I don't mean to be hostile. It's just that it.... Well, are we talking about the political uses of Jesus (a huge topic that would generate tremendous heat), the casual references in things like ] novels and '']'' episodes (which seems to not actually ''say'' anything but kind of doom itself to a trivia dump), discussions of depictions of Jesus in the dramatic arts (which would probably be a duplicate)? Really, I don't want to be mean: I'm seriously puzzled as to the objectives of the collection and the discursive function. ] 17:19, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
	:Yes, well, "Dramatic portrayals" sounds a bit narrow. I got rid of some of the trivial cruft. I'm starting to clean it up, I'm getting rid of the bulleted style, as well as some non-notable things. Anyone wanna pitch in? ] 17:40, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
	== Blocked ] as a block evasion by ] ==
	I blocked ] about a week ago; immediately afterwards, ] was created. I didn't notice that until the ] account, fresh off the block, so to speak, vandalized my talk page. I reblocked for the vandalism, and when I went to ], was redirected to the sock. I'm putting it here for further admin review. ]]] ] 23:59, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
	== Copy of Half-life computations ==
	I need a copy of this article for personal use and revision and as a learning tool. It contains many valuable items which can also find use elsewhere. Please provide me with a copy of the article. Thanks. <small> ...] (])</small> 01:33, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
	:Replied at user's talk page. ]]] ] 01:42, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
	== Ceiling cat vandal: the return! ==
	The ceiling cat vandal has struck again: probably with more to come. --]]] <sub>]</sub> 02:07, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
	:A bunch of AOL IPs doing it are filling Recent Changes...it's bad enough to move up the wiki defcon.--] (]·]·]) 03:12, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
	== AIV backlog ==
	Just want all you admins to know that there's quite a backlog over at ]. --]]] <sub>]</sub> 02:26, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
	:Backlog cleared. ]]] ] 03:28, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
	==Big war going on...==
	...at ]. Sprotected after request on my talk page. Howvever, per RL concerns I must leave ASAP and so cannot finish dealing with the incident myself. Would appreciate if another admin restored order. - <b>]</b><small> ]/]</small> 02:28, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
	==The continuing trials of Wiki-star==
	{{vandal|Wiki-star}} keeps changing ] comments on a whim to and even after final warning, as its "fun". Has a history of being ''extremely'' abrasive and stand-offish to other users, particularly as it concerns to ]. Has and on several occassions Sparring even now during on Buu's talk page. Says he will not stop until perma-banned or "when justice is served", and though he's currently blocked (again) for his current shenanigans on Buu, after months of continued strife I believe it may be time to acquiesce to his request. ] 03:42, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
	* '''Comment''': I blocked him for 24 hours for editing other users comments. No other interactions. ]<sub>(])</sub> 03:55, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
	*:'''Comment:''' Unfortunately, blocking Wiki for *seventy-two* hours doesn't do a lick of good, so I'm sure he can do a day standing on his head. Temporary blocks are a minor deterrence when you've got five months-worth of problems with fellow users under one's belt. ] 04:08, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
	*The amazing thing to me about this fight with Wiki-Star—and please, make no mistake, I think he's an idiot of the first order and a destructive presence at Misplaced Pages—is that you guys have been content to just argue and argue and argue and argue and revert and revert and revert and revert at for months now. Aren't you tired of it? We have other ] methods, you know, from mediation to RfCs right up to arbitration—why not try some? It feels like the current strategy is to let him keep being an ass, tattle here and hope someone blocks him for a long time, which, given his personality, will probably work but isn't really the Misplaced Pages way, I don't think. <b><span style="color: #f33">&middot;]&middot;</span></b> 04:38, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Comment:''' Boy, if I had a nickel for every time I've heard that... Listen, you can try to be "nice" to him all you want, you can try to communicate and discuss the problem with him in a civil and respectful manner a dozen times, you can try to come up with different ways to handle this situation a million times, you can ban him for 24, 48, 72 hours, hell even a week only to see him return and act in the same disrespectful, ignorant, uncivil, hostile, manner that he has grown accustomed to. Not once has he listened to the voice of reason, do you actually think he is going to listen to an admin, much less a mediator? The fact of the matter is this plain and simple. Wiki-star has been, is, and always be Wiki-star, and unless the proper measures are taken, then he will continue to roam Misplaced Pages doing the same thing he has done since the very second he typed in his name and password for the first time. -] 04:59, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
	:*Who said anything about being "nice"? You want "the proper measures" taken (i.e., you want him banned), arbitration is a better route to go than just complaining on AN/I and hoping you find a sympathetic admin. But there's a process to go through before you get to ArbCom. I'm suggesting that you start that process. If you are right about Wiki-Star—and I have no doubt you are—he will continue to shoot himself in the foot, but you'll have a firmer foundation for your complaints. <b><span style="color: #f33">&middot;]&middot;</span></b> 05:09, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
	:'''Comment:''' Dude, I'm not even a ''party'' to most of it; to be truthful, this is my first time filing a compaint versus the guy & I'm just sick of hearing about it. But knowing what I do of the user, harmony is kiboshed five minutes in, regardless of the undertaking or best intentions. People have discussed, ''discussed'', '''''discussed''''' resolution over the hill and around the mulberry bush and through the bend and back again - they...will... not... play. Arbitration is a wash, given his personality. Consensus is a failure, as his definition of the word is the conformity and embracement of his own ideas. It's ultimately an exercise in futility, as time would be better spent head-butting dead pixels out of one's monitor.
	:The editors of the article have reached consensus, - multiple times actually, not to put too fine a point on it - of which Wiki-star has utterly ignored. Do you ''honestly'' think that negotiation, mediation, and arbitration under ] will make *any* difference when all else has failed and Wiki marches to his own drummer regardless? After all that's transpired, the benefit of the doubt doesn't swing in his favor in matters where *his* article is concerned.
	:And about that - it's not even about some inane animated character, something I've seen other editors take a bit of flak about. It's all in the attitude, and Wiki-star has it in spades (brace for verbage three steps beyond ]) - a masters in dickery with a minor in disruptive behavior & being outright crass.
	:Which, y'know, is not a *crime* per se, but detrimental to Misplaced Pages and all who use it as a rule. ] 05:13, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
	::How can you say that arbitration would not matter given that many disruptive users have been banned from the articles they were disrupting via ArbCom decisions? Please take 20 minutes to browse the ArbCom decisions archive to see for yourself. As Rodii has said, go through the process. It does work. - ] 05:43, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
	:::I'm sorry; it's just that it's so *frustrating* to have gone through all this for so long without resolution, even if it ''is'' a tad hasty to give up before all avenues have been reached. I don't feel I'm suited to start the process, however; as said I'm not much more than a side-party. ] 05:52, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
	::::I sympathize, really! I had to deal with him at the help desk before he stopped coming there. I'm just saying that if you want a definitive answer take it to arbitration. But that's a lot of work, I agree. <b><span style="color: #f33">&middot;]&middot;</span></b> 20:16, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
	== ] ==
	<span class="plainlinks">] (] &bull; ] &bull; &bull; ] &bull; )</span>, appears to be ] (whom vandalised the world cup article) pretending to be me. ] <sup>]</sup> 04:09, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
	*Blocked for eternity - <b>]</b><small> ]/]</small> 04:37, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
	::Blocked for ''all'' eternity. <font color="#007FFF">]</font>''']'''<font color="#007FFF">]</font>|<sup><font color="orange">]</font></sup> 16:59, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
	== Pistolpierre ==
	{{vandal|Pistolpierre}} has a very poor understanding of our POV and citation rules. He got blocked for 3RR for trying to put in that Adolf Hitler is the product of an incestuous relationship; he then posts large passages from a book by William Shirer, and then makes judgments about the subject of the article. He has a certain fascination with Shirer's book, prompting him to add large quotes from it in multiple articles. He does not seem to understand that we strives towards neutrality here, and that we cannot have copyrighted material here (a few sentences could be fair use; he was posting multiple paragraphs). He is now suggesting suggesting I'm a neo-Nazi, that I'm nuts, and comparing me with Neville Chamberlain. It would be poor form if I removed this guy personally, so I ask the community do me the favor. --] 06:51, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
	:No one else even responded; after this edit i'm taking it upon myself. --] 12:00, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
	==User:Rdos==
	Has been doing a lot of disrupting of Misplaced Pages lately to make a ]. On ], bottom of the page, he admitted to forking arguments he personally disagrees with and "hiding" them in obscure locations to make his point that Asperger syndrome is not a medical condition, that it can be self-diagnosed by a layperson, and that it is a blessing. On deletion review under my proposal for undeleting ], he has made a snide remark about User:JzG's reasonable actions to prevent Rdos from spamming Misplaced Pages with his "Aspie-quiz" website link instead of addressing whether Trehin should be undeleted or not. On my talk page, he made another snide remark about me and JzG being "pals" when he shouldn't be communicating with me at all after I gravely insulted him and was blocked for three days for it. He has been clogging this notice board, the Asperger syndrome talk page, his talk page, JzG's talk page, and any other forum he can find with his protestations that he should be allowed to make his point that people with Asperger's are part Neanderthal. I realize that ] is only a guideline, not a policy, but Rdos has been doing a lot of disrupting to try to make people listen to his ideas. He has disrupted deletion review further by trying to get his "Neanderthal theory of autism" undeleted when it has been posted and deleted many, many times, which is a disruption in itself. I don't know what to do about him, and I can't go off on him again, so I'm leaving a message here so I don't get angry and say something inappropriate. ] 08:08, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
	:I think you got this wrong, Brian. I suggest you provide some diffs to prove your point. I've not talked much, if anything, about the Neanderthal theory at Misplaced Pages before I saw its deletion and was demanded to remove it from my user page. This is clearly when these discussions arised. As for moving content out of the ] article, this was done by consensus and the need to reduce size of the article. You are trying to make the ] article a ] article again. Not everybody shares your view that autism is a disorder or disease, and Misplaced Pages should be neutral. As for the reincarnations, I'm not responsible for any of them. I listed the last deletion for ], which I'm AFAIK I'm allowed to do --] 08:22, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
	::''Of course'' you think I'm wrong. You think anyone who disagrees with you is wrong. ] 08:59, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
	:::Provide the diffs. --] 09:01, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
	::::This statement is redundant per your talk, and the current debates on ] and here. Stop baiting other users. ] 09:14, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
	:::::Any way you want it, but the above comment that "I'm always right and others wrong" doesn't have anything to do with the issue at hand. --] 09:16, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
	:::::: The fact that you clearly believe this is symptomatic of the problem. ] 14:20, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
	:::::::How is that a fact? I won't you ask for diffs, because you will not provide them as of above --] 15:58, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
	==Blocked ] circumventing block==
	{{vandal|Rms125a@hotmail.com}} is evading his block as {{vandal|216.194.3.138}} (evidence: ). Can an administrator block please? Thanks! ] 09:30, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
	== OMG an imposter!==
	] and ]. ] 10:33, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
	:Could be a coincidence. The first username is the name of a pro-wrestler. --] 22:24, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
	== Privacy violation by Zeq ==
	Removed pending investigation of complaint by ]. ] 21:09, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
	== ] ==
	User has registered apparently for the sole purpose of ], most of which are not directly connected to the site's topic. ] 13:51, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
	*I reverted all of his edits and blocked him for 2 days for linkspam. I'll keep an eye on him and permaban him if he does it again. --] 14:11, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
	== Lai Sim ==
	I need the page "Lai Sim" deleted immedietly. I accidently defamed someone. Thank you. {{unsigned|Allenginzburg}}
	:Actually, it's ], it's already been deleted<s>, and... how was that accidental?</s> (stated as per instructions left on user's talk page). <tt style="color:#161;">RadioKirk<small> (]|]|])</small></tt> 14:41, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
	:You tell me, chief. {{unsigned|Allenginzburg}}
	Per , {{vandal|Allenginzburg}} has been indef-blocked as a sock of {{vandal|Marytrott}}, {{vandal|Niggershvar}} and {{vandal|Fredgreg}}. <tt style="color:#161;">RadioKirk<small> (]|]|])</small></tt> 15:16, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
	:<s>Add ] (surprise...) to the list. User claims a few other names; none seems to be accurate. <tt style="color:#161;">RadioKirk<small> (]|]|])</small></tt> 17:35, 26 June 2006 (UTC)</s> This one e-mailed me to lift the block, claiming to be Lai Sim Pang (see "Vandal is back again..." immediately below). If I was wrong to block, I apologize. <tt style="color:#161;">RadioKirk<small> (]|]|])</small></tt> 22:34, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
	== Vandal is back again... ==
	Please see above posting "Twice-banned editor/vandal is back"... they are back once again, using the IP address ]. ]]] <small>]]</small> 16:38, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
	:Wow, and I see that he has aleady been quite busy today, from the above comment... ]]] <small>]]</small> 16:42, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
	::Yeah, but here's the trick: unless was just adding on for fun and is not related to the Aussie cheese fries vandal (that's my moniker for this, er, editor), then we're getting it from more than one location (208.49.95.12 resolves to either San Francisco or Oakland, California, depending on the Whois service, while 124.184.176.56 resolves to the Canberra area in Australia&mdash;and I have no reason to believe either IP is a proxy).
	Okay, this just got really interesting; '''if''' this user is in Australia, he used to be in Michigan. I did some further work on IP 208.49.95.12 on a hunch and it appears to actually resolve to the area of Oakland, '''Michigan''', not California. Why the hunch? This vandal invokes several names; Mary Ellen Trott is the President of the in Michigan; Eugene Seaborn is (former?) Principal of (and ) in Michigan; David Pryor is Assistant Principal of . '''Edit''': Oh, and Lai Sim Pang is listed as a member of the UIA Katrina Project Staff in&mdash;you guessed it&mdash;Michigan. By the way, there is a ], but that appears to be mere coincidence. <tt style="color:#161;">RadioKirk<small> (]|]|])</small></tt> 19:43, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
	:Do they still send criminals to Australia? No, I'm kidding. This is quite interesting though... ]]] <small>]]</small> 20:29, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
	::Only Abusive Aussie Husband wannabes ;) <tt style="color:#161;">RadioKirk<small> (]|]|])</small></tt> 22:35, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
	== ] ==
	An admin speedy deleted ] per CSD:G4, but apparently nobody ever closed the AfD.--] 18:27, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
	:Closed it. ] ] 19:45, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
	== Indefinite block of user Do! Run Run ==
	I have indefinitely blocked {{vandal|Do!_Run_Run}} for repeatedly adding a fair use image (]) from a game to the article ] which makes no mention of the game. Please review my actions. --] ] 18:49, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
	:User doesn't understand policy or refueses to? Seems like a good block... I guess... I'd rather just have a 24 hour block for now in case the user catches on... as it is the first block. But that's just my preference (assuming really good faith here). ''']''' ]|] 20:07, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
	::Seemed to me that he was refusing to. I pointed him to counterexample 2 on ] which is pretty close to this case, but he continued to add the image back in. I did comment in my block message to email me when he undertook to stop abusing fair use and he would be unblocked. I thought an indef block was appropriate in such cases to protect the foundation from possible legal consequences, but I posted here to make sure. --] ] 20:50, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
	::I would not be surprised if this is the same person as ], whom I blocked here and on commons for uploading pirated material to Wikimedia servers. Both made edits to ], and both have names from Mr. Do! video games. An RfCU may be in order. --] 21:07, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
	== Request to block 60.227.115.38 ==
	An anonymous user using IP 60.227.115.38 has been persistently vandalising the article on ] by removing a link to a related article (]) and adding information of a personal nature about someone who has contributed to both articles.
	Rather than discussing the accuracy of the content of the articles the anonymous user has resorted to ''ad hominem'' attacks on a contributor, and I request that he/she be blocked. ] 19:27, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
	:Give us some diffs here. I can see the lame edit warring but I don't see any personal attacks. ''']''' ]|] 20:03, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
	== ] ==
	More eyes would be useful at this article which is being multiply reverted to include personal information, poorly sourced, of a non-notable lawyer, which was initially inserted in an attempt to damage his career. ] - ] 20:13, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
	== Linkspammer - Geraldine123 ==
	] is currently ] many articles with links to interviews on suicidegirls.com. ] 20:26, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
	:Blocked . I could do with some help reverting. ] | ] 20:36, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
	::All done. Thanks everyone. ] | ] 20:46, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
	:::If that wasn't a bot, she was a ''very'' dedicated spammer. --] ] 21:01, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
	*We could simply have the site blacklisted... - ]|] 22:56, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
	* Wow that's alot of spamming, I do see no need for the site, so I agree with the blacklist ] ] 02:18, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
	== 12.40.31.149 (Collective and proper nouns) ==
	Please help. This user is edit warring with me on pages such as ], ], ] and ] when I was trying to correct the nouns. Later, he continues to change them back as well. He's trying to be like ], the person who continues to change nouns on the same pages. Please ban the user in a way to stop this edit war. Anything you could provide would be most helpful. ] 20:55, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
	:This is a two-sided edit war, and ] may be applied to a lot of editors if it doesn't stop. If the users cannot decide between what '''sounds''' correct ("The Doors were a band...") and what '''is''' correct ("The Doors was a band..."), take it to ]. <tt style="color:#161;">RadioKirk<small> (]|]|])</small></tt> 21:01, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
	:I think what's correct here may depend on dialect of English too -- American and British English have different rules for what is treated as plural on these issues. --] 21:04, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
	This has been discussed at length on several talk pages to use "is" and "was" for American bands, not "are" and "were". See ], ], and ]. ] 21:10, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
	If I may point those interested to the discussion ], two manuals are cited which agree with the way I'd learned it a&mdash; well, a few decades ago (grin). I have noticed that Americans tend to go with what '''sounds''' right, to the point that misuses are eventually validated by dictionaries (I, for one, will '''never''' use "presently" when I mean "currently" ). <tt style="color:#161;">RadioKirk<small> (]|]|])</small></tt> 21:13, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
	*Simply follow the manual of style. ] is/are from the United States, so US English should be applied. --> "The Doors is a band." - ]|] 22:55, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
	**Au contraire, there is a specific exception for just this sort of thing: ]. It is not in but is linked to from the ]. They should all be plural. The Doors '''are''' a band. ]]] ] 00:52, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
	::Ah, but read that first paragraph in full, where it notes how sentences are rewritten to avoid what is clearly controversial in treatment of "the people constituting the team, rather than with the team as an entity." "Walt Disney Pictures presents" is perhaps the preeminent example of the treatment of a singular entity with a "plural" name. I will maintain to the end of my days that The Doors '''is''' a band, and its members '''are''' people. :) <tt style="color:#161;">RadioKirk<small> (]|]|])</small></tt> 02:42, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
	==User Netwriter==
	I'm not sure if this is the appropriate forum to raise this issue, however I am having a recurring problem with ]. I have a long history of being harassed by this user in various internet venues, and he is currently posting my name (and those of several others) on his user page. I have removed mine and one other three times now, and have posted requests that he not put our names on his page. He continually reposts them and removes our requests from his talk page. He is also accusing us of vandalising his entries and conducting a vendetta against him, which is odd since the edit history proves we have done no such thing. I have made a concerted effort to avoid this guy, but I refuse to let him use my name without my permission. Could someone please look into this. Mine is not the only name he has been told to remove and has reposted. Thanks in advance. ] 23:20, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
	:The use of the ''name'' isn't a violation of policy at all; The ''personal attack'' is. Someone already removed the full section; I watchlisted the page and will add a NPA warning if someone else hasn't by the time I finish typing this. --] ] 00:05, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
	::I too have added it to my watchlist. I'm on A LOT. --]] 00:56, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
	:::I was tempted to toastify the entire page per ] -- he's pretty blatantly just treating Misplaced Pages as a web host. He even refers to it as his "home page" on ]. ]]] ] 01:07, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

---

Latest revision as of 12:16, 24 December 2024

Noticeboard for reporting incidents to administrators

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

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents Shortcuts

• WP:ANI
• WP:AN/I

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

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

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

---

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

Start a new discussion Centralized discussion

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

Noticeboard archives

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

Obvious sock threatening to take legal action

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

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

---

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Disruptive editing and WP:TALKNO by User:AnonMoos

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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)

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)

Disruptive editing by User talk:185.146.112.192

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Request for closure

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mgtow definition

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Creating the need to make 400,000 unnecessary edits

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Is it just me or are talk pages like Template talk:WikiProject banner shell just perpetual WP:LOCALCONSENSUS issues where a very small number of editors (frequently 5 or less) make major changes that affect thousands of articles, all without involving the broader community through, at minimum, places like Misplaced Pages:Village pump (technical)? Silverseren 04:03, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
• @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)

User:Augmented Seventh

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

You're removing demographic categories and templates by blanking them out; irreligion still deals with religion no matter your argument. That's definitely not compliant with WP:CAT and clearly vandalism. There's no action to take here except that you need to stop removing these categories and templates. Nate • (chatter) 19:42, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

And you are now required to cite how your edits meet WP:CAT; spamming it in edit summaries is not discussion. Nate • (chatter) 19:47, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

While doing routine vandal patrol, I came across what seemed to be a hasty and massive removal of content, being done in a very directed and personal manner.

After looking at the persistent removal, and communicating, I restored the well-drawn categories.

Hopefully, this is easily resolved.

Augmented Seventh (talk) 20:40, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

43*, do not continue to revert these category removals without discussing them first. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:48, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

THere is nothing to discuss. The guidelines are clear. What needs to be done is editors need to be familiar with the cat guidelines. We don't discuss whether the sky is blue do we? 43.249.196.179 (talk) 02:05, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

THey are not well drawn, it was not hasty, it was not massive, and it was not "personal". It was directed because they all had the same issue. 43.249.196.179 (talk) 02:07, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Editors should not blindly revert. They should be required to understand the guideleines. 43.249.196.179 (talk) 02:08, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

I'm sorry, but "I don't remember what policy says but I'm right so leave me alone" is an indication you should be trying to do better instead of telling us we should do the same. If you're not willing to actually explain why guidelines vindicate your changes, then being right sometimes isn't enough if you want to make things better. Communication is the process, not something ancillary to it. Remsense ‥ 论 02:10, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

GO and read the guidelines. It does not need discussion. 43.249.196.179 (talk) 02:15, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Discussion is required when other editors ask you questions in good faith in order to resolve present disputes and prevent future ones. Remsense ‥ 论 02:18, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Bear in mind this is WP and not social media. 43.249.196.179 (talk) 02:16, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

How do you get the impression that "I don't remember what policy says but I'm right so leave me alone". 43.249.196.179 (talk) 02:18, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

No. You brought this here. The WP:ONUS is on you to explain how the guidelines justify your edits, not to say "go look it up". Also How do you get the impression that "I don't remember what policy says but I'm right so leave me alone" - because that's exactly what you said. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:19, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

It's not unreasonable in many cases to link to a very specific passage of a guideline and expect an editor to understand its meaning as regards a pertinent dispute, but you can't just fail to clearly articulate your argument while also insisting it's vindicated somewhere within the full text of a guideline. Remsense ‥ 论 02:21, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Content dispute. Bold edits were reverted; next step is discussion, probably at WT:CAT. If there is dispute over interpretation of the guideline you can consider leaving a pointer at WP:VPP. If there are any categories that shouldn't be used at all that can be discussed at WP:CFD. 184.152.68.190 (talk) 03:31, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

The content dispute could have been discussed on any of the talk pages. Yet it was brought here first. Conyo14 (talk) 06:16, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

When a content dispute involves several pages it is often though not always best to centralize discussion. Misunderstanding ANIs purpose and bringing content disputes here is a common and understandable error; best just to point people at appropriate WP:DR when that happens. 184.152.68.190 (talk) 06:53, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

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

Unblock request of Rereiw82wi2j

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

User:ZanderAlbatraz1145 Civility and Content #2

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SPA User:Tikitorch2 back at it on Martin Kulldorff

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

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

Disruptive editing Movement for Democracy

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

diff1 diff2

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sugar Bear returns with personal attacks

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

Past disruption from nearby IPs includes the following:

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

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

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

Comments by Locke Cole

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

User talk:International Space Station0

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

• This account has been globally blocked as an LTA so it shouldn't be an issue. Liz 05:25, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

  At what point is it appropriate to selectively delete their hundreds of edits of nonsense from the page history?

  Or is that just something that isn't done? – 2804:F1...A7:86CC (::/32) (talk) 05:28, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

  If you are talking WP:SELDEL, there is rarely a good reason for it's use at present. If instead you mean WP:REVDEL see WP:CRD and WP:REVDELREQUEST. 184.152.68.190 (talk) 05:33, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

  I've gone ahead and revdel'd the lot of them, as cut-and-pasting from other articles without proper attribution is copyvio and thus RD1able. Selective deletion (making the edits go away from the history) is probably not going to happen, if it's even technically possible for an article with almost *9500* revisions (I know I'm not going to try!). - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:55, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

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

POV IP editor and 2024 Kobani clashes

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

Promotional content about Elvenking (band)

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

Disruptive editor on When the Pawn...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bunch of racist IPs/account

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

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

---

Article: Anti-Turkish sentiment

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

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

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

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

Urgent need for page protection on BLP

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

Multiple users breaking 3RR on Gilman School article

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

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

Awshort (talk)

• E/C applied. Star Mississippi 19:51, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Counterfeit Purses, please be aware that the Luigi Mangione article was kept in a recent Articles for Deletion debate, so the consensus of the community is that he is notable. Edit warring to keep his name off the alumni list is a really bad idea. Cullen328 (talk) 20:14, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

@Cullen328 No problem, I've already given up. I would argue that WP:NOTNEWS applies here, but there's no sense in pushing against the tide. If you're content to have the lede section of Gilman School include "prominent graduates including "alleged murderer Luigi Mangione", I guess that's fine. It seems to be an unusual thing to include and an obvious case of undue weight given to something that is in the news at the moment. Perhaps someone should start a Wikiproject to add famous murderers to the ledes of other schools? Counterfeit Purses (talk) 22:00, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Counterfeit Purses, in my view, WP:NOTNEWS is among our most misunderstood policy documents. It begins In principle, all Misplaced Pages articles should contain up-to-date information. Editors are also encouraged to develop stand-alone articles on significant current events. I believe that Mangione is notable, the evolving article is acceptable, and his name belongs in the alumni list. Many, many "bad people" are listed as alumni in countless school articles, and it is not at all unusual. The only unusual thing here is that the lead of this particular school article lists alumni, and so I have removed them from the lead. Cullen328 (talk) 01:07, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm glad that misunderstanding WP:NOTNEWS is so common because I am going to continue to misunderstand it. I see that Liz removed Luigi Mangione from the lede before you removed the rest of the list. Acknowledging again that I have given up hope that Mangione will be removed from this article, let me ask you what you think the purpose of these alumni lists is? Including Mangione is an editorial decision. We don't include all notable alumni in these lists, so why should we include Mangione, and why now? It's too soon to know if he will have lasting relevance. Counterfeit Purses (talk) 04:22, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

We don't include all notable alumni in these lists Why not? If someone is Wikinotable and went to a Wikinotable school, then they belong in the "Notable alumni" section of that school's page, Q.E.D. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:28, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

@The Bushranger I'm not saying "we shouldn't", I'm saying "we don't". We don't include every notable alumnus in these lists, nor should we because it would lead to long, unhelpful lists stuck in the middle of articles about the schools. Counterfeit Purses (talk) 04:49, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

If an alumni list bloats an article, it can be split out. See Category:Lists of people by school affiliation. 11:29, 23 December 2024 (UTC) (Oops, signing) Narky Blert (talk) 16:01, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Of course that's always an option, but what I am saying is that it isn't desirable to have every alumnus listed in an article for a school. Ideally, it would be a selection of alumni who have made significant achievements in their field. Otherwise, it's just trivia. Am I wrong? Counterfeit Purses (talk) 17:21, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes. You're making a value judgment that some alumni (with articles, else they most definitely should not be included) are more notable than others. That is WP:OR. Narky Blert (talk) 20:05, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes, that's called editorial judgment. Just like deciding not to include every known fact about something in an article. At some point, it is just trivia. Misplaced Pages is not a database. That info would probably be welcome over on Wikidata, which is a database. Alternatively, someone could just add Category:Gilman School alumni (in this case). Counterfeit Purses (talk) 20:52, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

And a new user, who doesn't understand categories and has no idea Wikidata exists, is relying on the list on the page. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:35, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

User:NoahBWill2002

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Vandal encounter

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

diffs:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

User:Glenn103

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

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

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

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

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

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)

TPA for 83.106.86.95

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

Can you please help?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

POVPushingTheTruth

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

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

---

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

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

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

North Korean involvement in Russian-Ukraine war discussion

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

Key Points:

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

Request for Administrative Action:

I respectfully request that administrators address the following issues:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dispute Over Edits and Use of British Raj Sources

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

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

---

Hello,

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

1. Misapplication of Policy:

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

2. Dismissal of Reliable Sources:

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

3. Unilateral Edits and Dismissive Behavior:

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

Evidence:

Diff of my original version

Diff of their first edit

Diff of their second edit

Ratnahastin talk page

Request for Administrative Action:

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

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

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

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

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

---

Best Regards

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

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

Nothing to say about me really bot

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

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

---

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

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

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

Concern About a New Contributor

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

Dear Wikipedians,

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

I believe your experience could help address this situation effectively.

Looking forward to your advice on how to proceed.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

•

•

•

•

and many more

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  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)

  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)

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.

Extremely Annoying situation

Blocked for one week. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:03, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

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

---

I reverted this edit by this IP. They then trouted me multiple times for it. One of these was for "being shovel shenanigans" which I took as a PA and informed them of it.

The rest escapes words for me. See these discussions.

on my page

On theirs

they also used a second IP to continue to irk me. I hesitated to bring this to ANI, since they seemed new, and I didn't want to bite, but enough is enough.

Shovel Shenanigans (talk) 00:51, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

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

IP vandalism

Blocked. (non-admin closure) C F A 03:53, 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: user:76.67.115.228 seems to be on a spree of Vandalism, which they are summarising in the edit summaries as 'reverting vandalism'. Example: 1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Terrainman (talk • contribs) 02:39, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

including racist edits summarized as reverting racist texts. Example irisChronomia (talk) 03:06, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

The IP is already blocked. To OP: Consider reporting obvious vandalism like this at WP:AIV. – 2804:F1...57:88CF (::/32) (talk) 03:34, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

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)

Category:

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards