| Revision as of 11:12, 23 November 2014 editMasem (talk | contribs)Administrators187,160 edits →Follow-Up Reply, and Alternate Suggestion← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 13:48, 26 December 2024 edit undoPsychloppos (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users9,255 edits →Insults | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{Short description|Noticeboard for reporting incidents to administrators}}<noinclude><!-- Inside the noinclude, because this page is transcluded.-->{{/Header}}</noinclude>{{clear}} | |||
| {{stack begin|float=right|clear=false|margin=false}} | |||
| {{User:MiszaBot/config | {{User:MiszaBot/config | ||
| |archiveheader = {{Administrators' noticeboard navbox all}} | |archiveheader = {{Administrators' noticeboard navbox all}} | ||
| |maxarchivesize = |
|maxarchivesize =800K | ||
| |counter = |
|counter = 1174 | ||
| |algo = old( |
|algo = old(72h) | ||
| |key = 740a8315fa94aa42eb96fbc48a163504d444ec0297a671adeb246c17b137931c | |||
| |key = 95f2c40e2e81e8b5dbf1fc65d4152915 | |||
| |archive = Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive%(counter)d | |archive = Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive%(counter)d | ||
| |headerlevel=2 | |||
| }} | |||
| }} | |||
| {{stack end}} | |||
| <!-- | <!-- | ||
| NEW ENTRIES GO AT THE BOTTOM OF THE PAGE NOT HERE | |||
| {{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveThis | |||
| NEW ENTRIES GO AT THE BOTTOM OF THE PAGE NOT HERE | |||
| |header={{Administrators' noticeboard navbox all}} | |||
| NEW ENTRIES GO AT THE BOTTOM OF THE PAGE NOT HERE--> | |||
| |archiveprefix=Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive | |||
| == Disruptive editing and WP:TALKNO by ] == | |||
| |format=%%i | |||
| |age=36 | |||
| |index=no | |||
| |numberstart=826 | |||
| |archivenow={{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow}} | |||
| |minarchthreads= 1 | |||
| |minkeepthreads= 4 | |||
| |maxarchsize= 700000 | |||
| |key=d85a96a0151d501b0ad3ba6060505c0c | |||
| }} --> | |||
| 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 . | |||
| <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 15:20, 17 December 2024 (UTC)</small> | |||
| :The other user in this case is ]? This looks like a content dispute over whether the article is on the English version of a German-Arabic dictionary or the dictionary itself. ] (]) 15:47, 17 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| <!-- | |||
| ::Yes the is indeed about ]. I see the content dispute as stemming from the fundamental conduct issue, which has manifested itself most egregiously with insisting on violating ] repeatedly even after I that I had and that they should refrain from changing the heading again in order to preserve the integrity of the link, after which they went ahead and . ] (]) 16:00, 17 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::The heading dispute is between a date heading, and a descriptive heading? that's not really reformulating your entry. ] (]) 17:44, 17 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::It's a conduct issue. ] (]) 19:58, 17 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::But what conduct issue? TALKNO doesn't forbid changing headings. In fact the wider guideline makes it clear it's perfectly acceptable "{{tqi|Because threads are shared by multiple editors (regardless of how many have posted so far), no one, including the original poster, "owns" a talk page discussion or its heading. It is generally acceptable to change headings when a better heading is appropriate, e.g., one more accurately describing the content of the discussion or the issue discussed, less one-sided, more appropriate for accessibility reasons, etc. Whenever a change is likely to be controversial, avoid disputes by discussing a heading change with the editor who started the thread, if possible. It can also sometimes be appropriate to merge entire sections under one heading (often preserving the later one as a subheading) if their discussions are redundant.}}" To be blunt, if you don't want editors changing the headings of sections you start, don't use such terrible headings. I definitely recommend you stay away from ANI since changing headings is quite common here. ] (]) 06:25, 18 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Actually I missed the signature issue. That's far more concerning unfortunately lost IMO partly because you concentrated on silly stuff. ] (]) 06:29, 18 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::‎إيان: I suggest you stop messing around with the section heading since it's a distraction which could easily lead to you being blocked. But if AnonMoos changes your signature again, report it and only that without silliness about section headings, mentioning that they've been warned about it before if needed. ] (]) 06:50, 18 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| I wrote a long and detailed explanation on his user talk page as to why the date-only header is basically useless in that context, but he's still for some peculiar reason fanatically determined to keep changing it back. Frankly, I've basically run out of good-faith reasons that make any sense -- except of course, his apparently unshakable belief that he has certain talk-page "rights", which according to Misplaced Pages guidelines he does '''not''' in fact have (outside of his own personal user talk page)... ] (]) 23:10, 17 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ----------------------------------------------------------- | |||
| New entries go down at the *BOTTOM* of the page, not here. | |||
| ---------------------------------------------------------- | |||
| As this page concerns INCIDENTS: | |||
| Place the PAGENAME of the incident in the header. | |||
| Otherwise, if the notice is about the actions of an individual across several pages, then place the USERNAME of the individual in the header. | |||
| ---------------------------------------------------------- | |||
| Do not place links in the section headers. | |||
| (Immediately UNDER the header is preferred). | |||
| ---------------------------------------------------------- | |||
| Entries may be refactored based on the above. | |||
| ---------------------------------------------------------- --> | |||
| :{{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) | |||
| == Ryulong accuses me of threatening him, WP:CONDUCT issues == | |||
| ::], 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) | |||
| *<big>'''Will someone close this and all subsections please. An arbcom case appears likely so sniping here is not needed.'''</big><p>(and remove my comment) ] (]) 06:34, 18 November 2014 (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) | |||
| {{tq|Ruylong has offered an apology to Auerbachkeller, so there's nothing more to do here. ] <small>(])</small> 00:10, 16 November 2014 (UTC)}} Not accepted. | |||
| ::::I just can't fathom what tool they're using to get around the HTTPS requirement to edit Misplaced Pages securely. — <b>]:<sup>]</sup></b> 17:42, 18 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Should be impossible as it's required to even access the site in the first place according to ]]<sup>] </sup> 16:41, 19 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::<strike>Looking at his talk page it's been going back to at least 2011]<sup>] </sup> 16:17, 19 December 2024 (UTC)</strike> | |||
| :Guys, I do not deliberately set out to modify signatures, and when it happens, I am not usually aware of doing so. As I've already explained before in several places, since the December 2019 encryption protocol upgrade (NOT 2011!), the only way I can edit (or view) Misplaced Pages at all from home is by an indirect method which is not fully Unicode-compliant. To change this, I would have to get a completely different type of Internet connection, which would permanently disconnect my older computer, which I still use almost every day. | |||
| :Meanwhile, this thread has been set up so I can't add a comment to it from home without affecting Unicode characters, so I was unable to reply here for 36 hours or so. If I'm silent in the future, it will be for the same reason. ] (]) 01:14, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::Misplaced Pages uses Unicode characters (] encoding). Anyone who cannot edit without corrupting such characters should '''not edit'''. ] (]) 03:47, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::Whatever, -- I was using them perfectly fine until December 2019, and still use them perfectly fine on public WiFi, but in December 2019 a requirement was imposed that you can't access Misplaced Pages '''at all''' unless you can handle encryption algorithms and protocols that weren't introduced until the mid-2010s. I have a 2012 web browser on my home computer that handles UTF-8 just fine, but 2012 simply wasn't good enough for the Misplaced Pages developers -- you had to have software that was almost up to date as of 2019, or you would be abruptly totally cut off. If you can drag up the relevant archive of Village Pump Technical, I and others complained at the time, but our concerns were not listened to or considered in any way. The basic attitude of the developers was that if you weren't running almost up-to-date software, then screw you, and if your computer is not capable of running almost up-to-date software, then double screw you! The change was announced for January 2020, but was actually implemented in mid-December 2019, apparently because they were so eager and anxious to start excluding people. It wasn't one of Misplaced Pages's finer moments. Since that time, I have had to use an indirect method to access Misplaced Pages from my home computer, and I don't feel particularly guilty about it (other people's obnoxious behaviors in 2019 have done away with most of the guilt I might feel)... ] (]) 20:59, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::...] was created in ''1994'', and became an official specification in '''2000''', not "mid-2010s". I'm not sure what 2012 web browser you're using, but if it's not able to handle HTTPS not being able to access Misplaced Pages with it is the least of your browsing concerns, given that 85-95% of the World Wide Web defaults to it now. Also I hate to think of how many security holes your ancient computer has. I'm going to be honest: with a brower setup that old it isn't safe for you to be on the web ''at all'', and the security hole that lets you access Misplaced Pages without using a secure connection should be fixed, because that is ''not'' working as intended and is - as mentioned - a security hole. - ] <sub>]</sub> 00:18, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::You unfortunately don't know what you're talking about. New ENCRYPTION ALGORITHM AND PROTOCOL METHODS have been introduced ''within'' HTTPS from time to time. I was using HTTPS perfectly happily until December 2019, when the developers arbitrarily ENCRYPTION ALGORITHM AND PROTOCOL REQUIREMENTS. ] (]) 00:57, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::And even leaving that aside, as Johnuniq mentions - if you can't edit without corrupting Unicode characters, and by your own admission you ''don't know when it happens'', you shouldn't be editing. - ] <sub>]</sub> 00:20, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::This is probably a reference to when Misplaced Pages started requiring TLS 1.2 (because earlier versions were deprecated). Anyone who was/is still on Windows XP at that point couldn't connect any more. ] (]) 01:29, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::I'm not talking about when the update happening, I'm talking about how you have known about this issue, and have been getting complainants about it since <strike>2011</strike>and are still not taking any steps to do anything about it. What kind of internet connection would not support your PC? What on earth are you even using? Dial-Up? Because that still is supported by even Windows 10. ]<sup>] </sup> 02:59, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| <strike>:::Also, how did you see me saying "this has happened since 2011" as me saying that the update happened in 2011? Can you clarify. ]<sup>] </sup> 03:07, 23 December 2024 (UTC) </strike> | |||
| ::::The problem didn't start in 2011, and I have no idea what you're referring to when you mention 2011. The problem started in December 2019 when the developers arbitrarily imposed new ENCRYPTION ALGORITHM AND PROTOCOL REQUIREMENTS... ] (]) 00:57, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: Apologies. I was extremely tired when I wrote both above. I have striken the date parts. Rest of my comments still stand. ]<sup>] </sup> 01:06, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ===None of this matters=== | |||
| I don't care what tool this guy uses or what his excuse is. If he can't edit without screwing up people's sigs, then he must not edit. {{U|AnonMoos}} shouls consider himself on notice now that if one of his edits messes stuff up one more time, he'll be blocked until he can give assurance that he's come into the 21st century. ]] 18:05, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :That's nice -- and also totally inaccurate. I ''was'' in the 21st century, and using 2012 tools, up until December 2019, when the developers pitchforked me backwards by arbitrarily imposing HTTPS ENCRYPTION ALGORITHM AND PROTOCOL REQUIREMENTS which my home computer hardware is not able to run. Notice that I had no problem complying with character-set handling -- the problem is with arbitrary ENCRYPTION ALGORITHM AND PROTOCOL REQUIREMENTS. ] (]) 00:48, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::The century imagery is irrelevant. You have been warned. ]] 03:14, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::That was ''six years ago'', which is IMO about 3-4 years too long to keep using it as an excuse. Technology changes over time, so whatever this non-standard thing you think you need to do to edit here, it may be time to make a choice. ] (]) 00:56, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::As I said, to fix the problem, I would have to get a completely different type of Internet connection which would permanently disconnect my old computer, which I still use almost every single day. I would basically have to change my workflow and overall habits/methods of working because of an arbitrary decision by Misplaced Pages developers about encryption protocol updates. Anyway, when editing through public WiFi, I'm 100% Unicode compliant, and by exercising a little prudence, I can also avoid most problems when working from home. If I was constantly mangling Unicode right and left, there would have been a chorus of complaints long before now. But occasionally I can't anticipate a problem... ] (]) 01:06, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::And just to say for the third time: you're out of chances. "Occassionally" is too often. Once more is too often. And if and when that happens, your attitude of entitlement displayed here will pretty much ensure an indefinite block. ]] 03:14, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Think it's time to draft up a formal proposal at this point? ]<sup>] </sup> 18:29, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::I don't think that's necessary. The key isn't formally deciding the criterion for blocking (because that's obvious to everyone) but rather detecting the next incident. Best way to do that for everyone gathered here to watchlist ]. Sooner or later, futher trouble will show up there. ]] 21:31, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::If you have DSL or even DialUp. That still works with modern machines. ]<sup>] </sup> 01:08, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Heck, ''I'' am on DSL (and have been since, if I recall right, 2008). I have no idea what sort of ancient Internet connection AnonMoos is claiming to be using, but it's clearly one that was already obsolete before this change he's still up in arms about six years later was made. - ] <sub>]</sub> 05:44, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Not to mention it would STILL be supported these days. It's literally right there when you click wifi/network settings in Windows 10. ]<sup>] </sup> 18:20, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *The response by AnonMoos to feedback about this problem is bizarre. I don't really care what the excuse or the history behind it. If you are unwilling to edit Misplaced Pages using tools that work in 2024 then you should stop editing. The behavior is completely unnecessary and it seems like you don't understand the disruption. ] (]) 14:45, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| * AnonMoos hasn't really explained in any detail what their technical limitations are. They don't have to, but we can't really give advice otherwise. If as others have suggested their computer can't negotiate TLS 1.2, I'm surprised that they're able to use any websites at all from that computer. Requiring TLS 1.2 is not controversial; Misplaced Pages wasn't doing anything unusual in dropping TLS 1.0/1.1 around that time. ] ] 15:02, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| Ryulong made referencing me as . When I politely requested that he not cite me in the future due to this incident, he accused me in multiple places on WP of threatening him: and He is now . Ryulong's behavior appears to be a WP:CONDUCT violation on the grounds of civility at the very least. I hope this issue will be addressed. ] (]) 19:49, 15 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :My edit is only being construed as BLP because Mr. Auerbach was not pleased with how a counterpoint to his piece was presented in the article and {{U|The Devil's Advocate}} explicitly listed me as the offending party who originally wrote the piece. This resulted in Mr. Auerbach leaving me a message to the effect that he wishes to censor me from ever discussing him again and I refused. Mr. Auerbach has been coached by TDA as well as {{u|ChrisGualtieri}}, both of whom have prior content and personal disputes on this project, to punish me for an action whic weeks ago was seen as benign. This is a frivolous request, as is Mr. Auerbach's statement at the ongoing Gamergate arbitration request, as I should have never been singled out by TDA as I have and Chris should not have gone out of his way to sully my name on this project. This should be thrown out and instead TDA and ChrisGualtieri censured for using an off-wiki dispute to urge Mr. Auerbach into doing their dirty work.—] (]) 19:58, 15 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::This account is also incorrect with regard to me. As it is undocumented I will not refute it in detail, other than to say that accusations of "censoring" and of being "coached" are serious matters. ] (]) 20:48, 15 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *If it's that much of a problem for his computer, go and buy a new computer. It would certainly be better than whining about how Misplaced Pages broke his ability to edit without screwing things up for other users.] (]) 07:06, 25 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| Note that this should probably be moved to ]. (not commenting otherwise here, either way). --] (]) 20:00, 15 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :Everybody stop confusing this man because he has already been told to post something at arbitration by {{u|Drmies}} and then here by {{u|Strongjam}}. Let's just leave this here and let the community at large see it than let it stagnate in a page no one has used other than to get each other banned from the Gamergate pages.—] (]) 20:02, 15 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::Apologies. I should have just pointed him to ] to get better advice on how to deal with the dispute and left it at that. — ] (]) 20:07, 15 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :Meh. None of ''this'' matters. Signatures sometimes get accidentally fucked up. This is an encyclopedia, not a forum, and this signature thing is not a real disruption to the creation of encyclopedic content. <span style="position: relative; top: -0.5em;">꧁</span>]<span style="position: relative; top: -0.5em;">꧂</span> 07:21, 25 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| This has the potential to make the GamerGate article dispute even messier than it already is. ], I think it would be a good idea for you to refrain from dealing with ] or his writings from now on. I don't think you are handling your interactions with him well and you are blowing things out of proportion. I also think that Auerbachkeller should be wary about who he takes advice from, as he risks being used as a proxy for editors who are inappropriately attempting to drag him into preexisting conflicts. ] <small>(])</small> 20:12, 15 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::While true, it's still a violation of ], and if it's accidentally changing characters in signatures, who knows what ''else'' it might be doing that isn't getting caught or reported? - ] <sub>]</sub> 07:27, 25 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :I wrote one thing about his writings in the whole of the Gamergate article and that is not even to say that there are plenty of other editors who had directly cited him that he is not complaining about. I have been unfairly singled out by The Devil's Advocate because I am not a fucking professional writer and I wrote a shit two or three sentences about someone else being critical of one of Mr. Auerbach's articles and he linked to that pisspoor attempt at writing from weeks ago as if I'm to blame for the whole of the article's content. Just like a quote unquote journalist did to me and Tarc on some pro Gamergate news blog that everyone is lapping up. And then Tarc starts arguing with Mr. Auerbach on Twitter, Jimbo yells at Tarc, and then Mr. Auerbach comes onto Misplaced Pages fully believing someone that I have an agenda against him when I'm just being painted all over the Internet as the big enemy on the Gamergate Misplaced Pages article. No one can edit the Gamergate page for another week so what does it matter anyway? I should not have to deal with people like Russavia evading his ban on Jimbo's talk page and others who have a personal dispute with me goading someone into getting me banned.—] (]) 20:25, 15 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::It is safe to assume there more than a few of the editors taking part in this discussion have years and decades of technological experience under their belts, myself included. I do not think The Accused is straight-up lying about the technical hurdle, but clinging to the "I refuse to change my system of operation, therefore it's Misplaced Pages's fault for (6 years ago) making the change!" excuse is the real problem here - this is at the heart a ''behavioral'' discussion, not a technical one. Consistently violating the norms of the community is indeed a real disruption to the creation of encyclopedic content. ] (]) 16:29, 25 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::All of that sucks. There's no denying that. But I feel that your anger about all of that might be clouding your judgment. Leave others to interact with User:Auerbachkeller. If you feel like he or others are acting inappropriately, post on the GG sanctions page and let uninvolved parties handle it. ] <small>(])</small> 20:28, 15 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::It's not inherently about the signatures. It's that he's stubbornly insisting on using an outdated system that introduces errors into ''other content''. — <b>]:<sup>]</sup></b> 17:40, 25 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::I will just add that Ryulong's account of my actions & motivations & influences here, in addition to being undocumented, is incorrect. ] (]) 20:45, 15 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::agree on this. Incidental changing of signayures due to the tech issue is not a small problem itself but that clearly has potential to impact a much wider range of mainspace content. I have a hard time believing that there is not a browser that supports https and can run on a decade old computer (something like Opera even). Claiming inability to switch or upgrade needs to be explained in detail or otherwise this has potential to be a bigger problem. ] (]) 17:55, 25 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::You came here and when you made your request several editors who have had personal grudges with me on this site came to your aid immediately. I am being character assassinated all over the internet by a vicious fringe movement and your misinterpretation of my intent three weeks ago is not helping you or I.—] (]) 21:13, 15 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Disengage voluntarily, or it will be enforced. ] (]) 21:15, 15 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Unless you are alleging that Auerbachkeller has something to do with this offsite harassment, then there's no reason you can't drop this matter voluntarily and let other editors engage with Auerbachkeller. ] <small>(])</small> 21:18, 15 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::] is fully protected for another week and all I am doing now is responding to Mr. Auerbach. What has to be disengaged from? I am saying that Mr. Auerbach is being influenced by onsite members who have prior disputes with me as well as offsite harassment. I am not alleging that he is involved with the offsite harassment.—] (]) 21:20, 15 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::You've made that point. Now it is time for you to disengage, let matters cool off, and let others handle it. I understand tempers are high on this article, but if you are unwilling to moderate or disengage, I am considering imposing an ]. ] <small>(])</small> 21:27, 15 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::I'm considering blocking him for all of these unsubstantiated claims made in relation to Auerbachkeller. {{u|Ryulong}} if you would like to present evidence to confirm and back up your claims, of course, that would change the situation, but you know we do not let people make allegations without providing evidence. You are no exception. ] (]) 22:06, 15 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::I've presented minimal diffs at Gamaliel's user talk that I had intended to post here (), modified all of the statements I had initially made that Mr. Auerbach found questionable (, ), and left him an apology on his user talk for my actions over the past 12 hours ().—] (]) 22:10, 15 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| == Disruptive editing by ] == | |||
| At Drmies advice I am staying off of Ryulong's Talk page. He is not, however, staying off of mine. I will nonetheless not engage with him directly to the best of my ability from this point on. ] (]) 21:24, 15 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| {{atop|1=IP blocked 24 hours, and then ] and created an account to evade the block, which has now been indef'd. - ] <sub>]</sub> 22:43, 24 December 2024 (UTC)}} | |||
| *Hmm. Another fine mess. ANI being what it is, it's probably not the best place for this since as a single "incident" it probably does not warrant much admin action. Then again, it is entirely possible that an admin (in this particular case I certainly don't consider myself uninvolved; see the article talk page for my involvement with the Auerbach article) decides to act, citing the general sanctions. Now that we're here anyway, let me add that I think that Ryulong's behavior in this particular case is problematic--not that edit in the article, but the behavior afterward: the "threatening" comment. I wouldn't sanction him for this alone, but I have a feeling that if I take in the totality of Ryulong's actions and comments on the talk page I would feel differently--I have a feeling that if I take that in I will be inclined to think that Ryulong should take a break from the article, that while he has done good work he may perhaps be too enthusiastic in an already overheated situation. ] (]) 21:27, 15 November 2014 (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. | |||
| ] (]) 20:52, 18 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| Ryulong has also made a somewhat dubious where he calls me a patsy. It shouldn't need to be said but I am acting on no one's behalf but my own and with no intent but to protect my reputation. ] (]) 21:28, 15 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :@]: It looks like you both are ] on ].<sup class="plainlinks"></sup> That's not particularly helpful, so you should try to have a discussion on the ] as to whether you should include the ] name for the article in the lead/infobox. –<span style="font-family:CG Times, times">] ]<sup>]</sup></span> 20:33, 19 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *{{ping|User:Ryulong}} why does your name keep popping up here? I see there is already a discussion involving you above, just saying but when your name is being brought here multiple times this is something that should be looked into. My advice would for you to disengage per the admin or find a way somehow to avoid you being dragged here again and again. - ] (]) 21:30, 15 November 2014 (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) | |||
| *:There's only a thread above because I reported that guy first and he's very verbose and blunt about what he says. In this case, I may have overreacted to Mr. Auerbach's initial message but when I am subject to so much onsite and offsite harassment over this my current state is to be expected.—] (]) 21:33, 15 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::@]: I am not suggesting that the IP editor isn't being disruptive, but my point is that {{u|Moroike}} isn't making the situation better (using the example of that one article). You can see this by looking at <span class="plainlinks"></span> where {{gender:Moroike|he has|she has|they have}} mostly just reverted this editor without using a summary. –<span style="font-family:CG Times, times">] ]<sup>]</sup></span> 18:02, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::Maybe you should take a wikibreak, idk I just have noticed your name a-lot in here it seems is all. - ] (]) 21:41, 15 November 2014 (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) | |||
| *:::So because other people are indiscriminately angry at me all the time and I'm never censured for it that's a problem?—] (]) 21:43, 15 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| Since this IP user won't stop and is stonewalling, either he/should be temporarily blocked, or all the pages he is POV pushing without sources, should be semi-protected, so that only registered users can edit them. ] (]) 21:37, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :After he/she was blocked for 24 hours, this IP created an account as ] in order to evade the block and has resumed his/her POV pushing. ] (]) 16:51, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| == Creating the need to make 400,000 unnecessary edits == | |||
| Ryulong now says I I have *never* advocated for his banning nor for any particular sanction at all, nor am I acting "at the behest" of anyone. That statement is simply not true. ] (]) 21:42, 15 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *Can one impose an interaction ban on these two under the aegis of ]? Because I am sorely tempted. ] <sup>(])</sup> 22:29, 15 November 2014 (UTC). | |||
| *:This was posted by Mr. Auerbach before I further modified my statement and left him a personal apology.—] (]) 22:37, 15 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *: @{{u|Lankiveil}} Yes: ] <small>]</small> 00:48, 16 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| Can we please dp something about editors who make unnecessary changes to widely-used modules, and then need to change 400,000 talk pages to get the same result we had before the change? Thanks to change from last week, which removed the parameter "living" from the bannershell, we now have more than 400,000 pages in ]. After the "cleanup" by ] (and perhaps others), we will have the exact same result as we had last week, no new functionality, no new categories, no improvement at all, but a lot of flooded watchlists. | |||
| *'''Comment''' I also want to point out the concurrent discussion on Jimbo's talkpage: ]. - ] (]) 01:15, 16 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| I tried to get him to stop at ], to no avail. This isn't the first time, as you can see from that discussion. ] (]) 14:57, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| Note: This matter was concluded with Ryulong's apology and so there's nothing more to do here. Auerbachkeller is within his rights not to accept the apology but there is nothing actionable at this point besides hurt feelings. My closure of this section was undone by an involved editor seeking to stir up more drama. It should be closed again unless there is something productive to be done here. ] <small>(])</small> 02:55, 16 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :If you want to discuss {{tl|WikiProject banner shell}}, you should do so at ]. | |||
| : I disagree with your characterization but you are entitled to your opinion. I believe you are more involved than I to close it and probably should wait for an uninvolved admin. Consensus is currently against the topic ban while at the same time there is a call for more DS being applied. --] (]) 03:23, 16 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :As for the size of the category, I have no plans to empty it, and was only going to update a few hundred more categories and templates. <b>~</b> <span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:16px;">] (] ⋅])</span> 15:02, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::You made nearly 2000 of such edits in the last few hours, and when asked to stop pointed me to a category with 400,000 entries. I have no way to know how many more you planned now or in future runs. Starting a discussion at the module would hardly stop you. ] (]) 15:10, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::"{{tq|when asked to stop pointed me to a category with 400,000 entries}}": incorrect. Since you wrongly thought I was making cosmetic edits, i.e. "{{tq|no change in output or categories}}", the category was to inform you that they are not cosmetic. | |||
| :::Regarding a BRFA for the bulk of the category, that's looking more likely since the category appears to be neglected. <b>~</b> <span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:16px;">] (] ⋅])</span> 15:29, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Unnecessary removing a synonym and then making thousands of edits to remove the hidden cat created by that unnecessary change is not really any better than making cosmetic edits, the end result is that nothing has changed for the affected pages at all. ] (]) 15:33, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Not unnecessary. The Lua code is very complex and removing the need the support various settings makes the code both easier to read and maintain. As always, editors that don't want to see these edits can hide these by hiding the tag "talk banner shell conversion". ] (]) 12:32, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::It doesn´t look as if the specific code to have these synonyms was very complicated though, the argument that in some cases two synonyms were used on one page with conflicting values was more convincing. And the edits I complained about did ''not'' have that tag, so no, even if people knew about hiding that tag, it wouldn't have helped here at all. ] (]) 16:04, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :This was discussed in detail on ]. Ideally these edits would be done by an approved bot so they do not appear on people's watchlists. The main benefit is to merge the {{para|blp}} and {{para|living}} parameters. When both are in use, we find they often get conflicting values because one gets updated and the other does not. — Martin <small>(] · ])</small> 17:25, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::Isn't it more logical to first have a bot cleanup the unwanted parameter, then remove it from the template, and only then start populating the cat with the somehow remaining or since added instances? In any case, this is a typical bot task and shouldn't be done with massive AWB runs. ] (]) 17:39, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::Yes, probably. But we have this mechanism already set up and I assumed {{ul|Cewbot}} would deal with these as part of its normal activities. Happy to look at other options - maybe discuss on template talk? — Martin <small>(] · ])</small> 18:23, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I don't know what this is about, but if the OP is correct, it is totally absurd to edit 400,000 talk pages for a tweak. Discussing at a template talk page monitored by those focused on the template would simply hide the issue. ] (]) 03:53, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Edits like these should ''always'' be bots, so they can be filtered from watchlists. There are numerous other editors who have recently engaged in the mass additional of categories to articles which I had to ask them to stop as my watchlist was flooded. ]] 13:02, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::Hiding bot edits from watchlists is not a viable option for many editors, since it also hides any non-bot edits that predate the bot edit (], 2007, unassigned). Users ], ], ], ], {{lang|la|et al}} edit with such high frequency that hiding their edits leads to an unacceptable proportion of watchlist items not appearing. {{Small|(Also, Citation bot's edits should usually be reviewed, since it has a non-negligible error rate and its activators typically don't review its output, exceptions noted.)}}{{pb}}The code for maintaining two aliases for one parameter cannot possibly be so complex as to warrant a half million edits. If one of the two "''must''" undergo deprecation, bundle it into Cewbot's task. If the values don't match, have the banner shell template populate a mismatch category.{{pb}}In general, if a decision is made to start treating as an error some phenomenon that has previously not been a problem, and that decision generates a maintenance category with tens or hundreds of thousands of members, it is a bad decision and the characterisation of the phenomenon as "erroneous" should be reversed.{{pb}}At minimum, any newly instanced maintenance task scoped to over a hundred thousand pages should come before the community for approval at a central venue. ] (]) 15:19, 25 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::{{Small|Also, like, if only one of {{para|blp}} and {{para|living}} {{tqq|gets updated}}, shouldn't the net result be pretty obvious? Valid updates should really only go one direction. ] (]) 15:24, 25 December 2024 (UTC)}} | |||
| * Is it just me or are talk pages like ] just perpetual ] issues where a very small number of editors (frequently 5 or less) make major changes that affect thousands of articles, all without involving the broader community through, at minimum, places like ]? ]]<sup>]</sup> 04:03, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| May I ask whether Gamaliel's suggestion to Ryulong that "it would be a good idea for you to refrain from dealing with User:Auerbachkeller or his writings from now on" has been accepted? (It was, after all, my initial request.) I can't see that it was ever followed up on. ] (]) 04:14, 16 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *{{ping|Fram|Tom.Reding|Kanashimi|Primefac}} I got AWB working again. If cewbot would take time for making the changes, and if this needs attention soon, then should I file a request for that particular bot task? —usernamekiran ] 06:20, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:The robot is in operation... ] (]) 09:09, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::yay! —usernamekiran ] 16:04, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :Meanwhile, the category has grown to over 800,000 pages. Perhaps next time an RfC to determine whether creating such a large cleanup task is warranted, would be better? ] (]) 16:34, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ===Propose Topic ban=== | |||
| :{{re|Fram}} this is logical. We should also make it a policy (or at least a guideline), something along the lines "if change would lead to edits/updating more than XYZ pages, a consensus should be achieved on a venue with a lot of visibility". Like {{u|Silver seren}} mentioned above, sometimes a formal consensus/discussion takes place, but it happens on obscure talk pages. —usernamekiran ] 14:01, 25 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Topic Ban Ryulong''' from gamergate articles (30 day?, 90 day?, indef?). It appears that his work on that topic area always ends up here. Auerbachkeller would appear to be COI at that article anyway. Ryulong has an issue with Auerbachkeller today, but earlier it was a different editor, tomorrow it will be someone else until the topic ban is eventually placed. Let's cut the drama cord now. There has been repeated calls for more DS and this is a good time to police it. --] (]) 00:04, 16 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :* I don't believe the apology was accepted as being too little, too late. Topic ban is a remedy, though, so discussion about the incident can be closed. We can discuss the remedy here or GG DS page. I propose here for eyeballs. How many times are we going to ignore topic induced incivility and disruption? --] (]) 00:23, 16 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' Ryulong always ends up here because there is an inexhaustible supply of throw-away accounts promoting nonsense and making clueless commentary on several gamergate articles. Ryulong may well have cracked under the strain and behaved poorly in this instance (he is also being attacked offwiki), however it seems likely (] and ]) that Ryulong has taken the advice that has strongly been offered to drop the matter raised in this report. There is a ] so an ANI-imposed sanction is not needed. Furthermore, a topic ban would be counter productive as knocking out one of the small number of editors who are defending the encyclopedia would be most unhelpful. ] (]) 00:32, 16 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' Per Johnuniq. Also DHeyward, if you are going to re-open this thread because Auerbachkeller didn't accept Ryulong's apology, I think you should try to find another reason. All the non-acceptance showed is that David seems to be too upset or too petty to accept a sincere apology. ] (]) 00:39, 16 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| **Whoa: that an apology was offered doesn't mean all harm is undone. One should not topic ban Ryulong for this one single incident, but by the same token we shouldn't ''not'' topic ban him in relation to this one single incident. Auerbach's not accepting Ryulong's apology does not negate Ryulong's earlier behavior--and let's remember that, if it hadn't been for some admin editing through protection while seeking consensus on the talk page, that stuff would still be in the article. In other words, ''berouw komt altijd na de zonde'' ("regret always follows the sin"?), but the real question here is about the actions (plural) on Ryulong's part that led to all these events: that is what we are asked to judge if a topic ban is to be granted. It's there we can differ. ] (]) 01:04, 16 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ***I did not base my oppose on the apology, nor it's acceptance. So I don't understand your comment. I do agree that the inability of Ryulong to acknowledge mistakes can be problematic, I do not think that rises to a topic ban in an area that needs editors at the moment. ] (]) 01:28, 16 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| **It was closed 5 minutes after my proposal and it doesn't appear over if one side is continuing on. I can give other reasons related to arbcom pending case but I'd rather not devolve to that level as the close was in good faith. The reopening is in good faith as well. Note that Jimbo as already called for Tarc to not edit for a similar reason . --] (]) 01:10, 16 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ***Ok, but I still think it should be closed, and my oppose is per Johnuniq and other factors having nothing to do with David. ] (]) 01:28, 16 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *He asked for a retraction. I gave a retraction. He asked for an apology. I gave an apology. Just because he does no want to accept that apology shows more of his behavior than anything I could ever do. This is ridiculous. I should not be banned for anything concerning David Auerbach.—] (]) 00:52, 16 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| * I apologize if my inability to accept Ryulong's apology makes me appear "upset" or "petty." Ryulong's immediately preceding comment, however, does not strike me as the words of a genuinely repentant editor, and consequently I am still unable to accept the apology, and I believe its sincerity should be up for debate rather than accepted as a given. Apologies in advance if this response is unwelcome on this page. ] (]) 01:44, 16 November 2014 (UTC) {{unsigned|Auerbachkeller|08:15pm EST}} | |||
| **No need to apologise to me, I can understand someone being upset during these interactions. But I encourage you to find out more about Misplaced Pages and the policies, plus the POV driven masses sent from 8chan concerning the article in question. If not, that's fine too, just a suggestion. ] (]) 01:28, 16 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ***Sorry for forgetting to sign the last comment. I am indeed a neophyte but I had little choice but to pick up policies as quickly as possible when I felt that I was being seriously misrepresented and had little recourse (I certainly couldn't edit the article myself). But as I implied, my inability to accept the apology is not because I'm upset, but because I cannot convince myself of its sincerity. I accepted Tarc's apology for his attacks on me because it did indeed seem sincere. I did not get that sense from reading Ryulong's apology, and his immediate reversion to criticizing me after my polite refusal has only reinforced me in that belief. I remain concerned about Ryulong's future edits as far as they may affect me. I am troubled by Ryulong's statement that "So because other people are indiscriminately angry at me all the time and I'm never censured for it that's a problem?" You are, of course, free to disagree with any of these points. ] (]) 01:44, 16 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ****I gave you a sincere apology and told you the truth about everything that has been affecting me over the past two months after you asked for an apology and you say "sorry no dice". I should be expected to be appalled by your actions here.—] (]) 01:50, 16 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *****If so much has been happening to you there's all the more reason for you to just stay away. I don't understand in the first place why someone would be a Misplaced Pages editor and a Twitterer at the same time. ] (]) 01:56, 16 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ******I don't use Twitter other than to follow some Japanese video game news feeds. I just get hate there because I bothered to respond. I don't go inviting this shit to me on my social media. It targetted me directly.—] (]) 01:59, 16 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ****Don't worry about the occasional forgotten signature and other bureaucratic stuff. Misplaced Pages is a pretty loose kind of place where people are not required to offer an apology—our purpose is to build the encyclopedia and any disruption that interferes with that process is stopped (eventually!). People are not required to say they were wrong or otherwise humble themselves because it doesn't contribute much in the long run—what counts is how frequently poor behavior is repeated. The community just wants unhelpful behavior to stop. Ryulong was needlessly aggressive in his responses to you, but you might understand his poor approach if you had experienced the silliness that has been continuous ever since people started trying to use Misplaced Pages to excuse the harassment described in ], and to pretend that the article would exist if it really were about the concerns of gamers regarding the ethics of journalists. Ryulong should definitely disengage and not make any further commentary on this topic. ] (]) 02:00, 16 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *****<small>A ] is a type of sexually viable ant.—] (]) 02:20, 16 November 2014 (UTC)</small> | |||
| ****{{EC}}Yes, what Johnuniq said. Also, I wasn't talking about your missed sig, I'm more than happy to sign it for you and let you know how to do it yourself(even though you obviously know and are adapting quickly). I was referring to such Wiki policies as ] and ]. A couple of basic ] of Misplaced Pages. If anything, it will make it easier for you to understand some things that go on here when referring to Misplaced Pages in your articles. But again, just a suggestion. ] (]) 02:23, 16 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' a topic ban on ] from Gamergate, because Ryulong is usually right, and in general because the community cannot deal effectively with editors who polarize the community, and Ryulong, right or wrong, is a polarizing editor on Gamergate and some other issues. This thread, as a request for a topic ban, is a waste of electrons. However, a very strong '''Warning''' is in order that Ryulong appears to be too angry to be dealing effectively with Gamergate, and if he doesn't calm down, he may need to be blocked. ] (]) 02:18, 16 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Oppose'''. This is an involved editor stirring up more drama. ] <small>(])</small> 02:57, 16 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :* I respect your oppose. Your aspersions are without merit, however. --] (]) 03:26, 16 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Oppose''' topic ban. I retain confidence in Ryulong. ] (]) 03:54, 16 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' .--] <sub>] ]</sub> 05:02, 16 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *:The Devil's Advocate, none of those have anything to do with David Auerbach's writing and everything I wrote is supported by reliable sources. Stop cherrypicking things and presenting them out of context.—] (]) 05:39, 16 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *::No, what you wrote in the first two diffs is '''not''' supported by the RSes cited. You wrote that Kluwe did not receive harassment ''despite'' making inflammatory remarks. The corresponding RSes state that Kluwe made inflammatory remarks, but ''do not deny'' Kluwe receiving harassment - they don't talk about it at all. I checked. All four of them. The closest is the Time piece citing Kluwe's claim not to have been doxxed, which is a weaker claim than "wasn't harassed at all". For all we know, doxxing of Kluwe was attempted and unsuccessful. The CNN piece also claims that Wheaton and Kluwe weren't doxxed, but relies on uncited Twitter hearsay for this claim. | |||
| *::For that matter, as far as I can tell, the RSes in question don't even support the assertion that Day, Wheaton and Kluwe are "all gamers". The position that Kluwe is a "gamer", in particular, seems at odds with the anti-gamer remarks he made that are the point of this discussion in the first place. Keep in mind here that we are specifically referring to video games here; fans of tabletop board games (which certainly do include Day and Wheaton) aren't normally labelled thus. | |||
| *::The Vice opinion piece is obviously biased, comes from a source that should not be considered reliable, and takes a POV on the question of "fair use" which was not balanced in any way, and (while also glossing over what seems to me like a joke at Vice's expense). Further, the claim that archive.today "strips advertisements from the archived web page" . I'm sure you're about to point to ] - let me quickly rebut that while it may not be required that something be proven true to be included, it is not reasonable to include, in Misplaced Pages's voice, something which is ''proven to be false''. | |||
| *::In the next edit, you removed a claim that had three proper sources, because you felt that it was "not a major point of contention" in two of them (an absurd objection in an article with over a hundred citations, most of which are used for a single-sentence observation out of perhaps thousands of words) and that the third - Reason.com - is not reliable. WP's own article on Reason notes in the lede that "The magazine has a circulation of around 70,000 and was named one of the 50 best magazines in 2003 and 2004 by the Chicago Tribune.", and has no Controversy section, so I simply can't fathom your objection here. | |||
| *::The "Dashgate" bit is absurd because it's sourced by a relative no-name "death and taxes magazine" that is representing an offer of charitable donation, clearly presented as a rhetorical tactic (the expectation being that the offer would be declined, so as to confirm someone else's viewpoint) as a "bribe". This is ignorant of the context and deliberately spun to create an impression of hypocrisy WRT ethical standards where none exists. It also draws a connection between two Twitter conversations that appear to be completely unrelated if you actually follow the links. It also ignores the context in the second conversation whereby Dash (who was represented as "having literally nothing to do with the situation whatsoever") claimed without evidence that Cernovich "supports bullying women out of gaming" and Cernovich replied by noting the matching donation he had already made to an anti-bullying charity. Including this bit is thus very, very clearly pushing a POV. | |||
| *::The bit from Fast Company is, quite simply, not notable. Why should anyone '''care about''' the colour scheme of Vivian James' sweater? | |||
| *:: ] (]) 05:21, 18 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *:: .--] <sub>] ]</sub> 07:27, 16 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *:::Still all entirely unrelated to Auerbach. What are you trying to prove exactly, TDA? If anything, I can show that you are clearly doing all of this because it's pro/anti rather than any actual issues with the article. . Heck, you completely go off the wall here . And if we're pulling unrelated diffs out of our collective hats, .—] (]) 07:34, 16 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *:::: .--] <sub>] ]</sub> 18:19, 16 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::TDA, why are you posting all these diffs? Everything I added in these is supported by reliable sources. Just because you disagree doesn't mean it's evidence I should be topic banned. This is gettin ridiculous. Can someone close all this off now?—] (]) 19:09, 16 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::: .--] <sub>] ]</sub> 19:52, 16 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::::All TDA is doing here is picking out every edit I've made to the article that he disagrees with rather than edits that have done anything wrong.—] (]) 22:35, 16 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::::: .--] <sub>] ]</sub> 02:29, 17 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::Presenting naked diffs without discussion is not a viable approach to resolving disputes. ] (]) 18:12, 19 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::Many of these diffs speak for themselves.--] <sub>] ]</sub> 19:05, 19 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' A topic ban isn't warranted in my opinion because Ryulong's edits have been balancing in the article, and ANI is a ridiculous platform to vote (indeed, vote) on topic bans. How about admins actually enforce the ] sanction? Clearly Ryulong's incivil behauvior has violated the "expected standards of conduct" mentioned in the sanctions, even if they do not warrant a topic ban. --]] 06:16, 16 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' per Johnuniq. ]|] 16:01, 16 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' per everyone above - 9 times outta 10 Ryulong's only brought here by newly created accounts whom have nothing better to do than cause drama. –] • ] 16:12, 16 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::'''Note:''' 8 out of 9 times Ryulong seeks the 1 edit accounts out, because they make it their business to be in SPI. If you were getting a 10% valid complaint return, providing ten times as many irrelevant rubbish may be a good way of drowning yourself out of scrutiny. If you got a 10% complaint rate on eBay, they'd ban you from the site. <font color="green" size="2" face="Impact">~ ].].]</font> 19:54, 16 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::RTG is making statements that he does not know anything about still. Why hasn't he been interaction banned from me yet?—] (]) 22:16, 16 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *<s>'''Oppose and Close'''</s> '''Oppose and Boomerang''' There appears to be a solid consensus not to impose a topic ban here. - ] (]) 18:21, 16 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :*Per below I have amended my opinion as Auerbachkeller is making this disruptive. - ] (]) 22:41, 17 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| Apologies for intruding once again, but since this suggestion of Gamaliel's, I wanted to repost it here so it doesn't get lost: | |||
| :This has the potential to make the GamerGate article dispute even messier than it already is. User:Ryulong, I think it would be a good idea for you to refrain from dealing with User:Auerbachkeller or his writings from now on. I don't think you are handling your interactions with him well and you are blowing things out of proportion. I also think that Auerbachkeller should be wary about who he takes advice from, as he risks being used as a proxy for editors who are inappropriately attempting to drag him into preexisting conflicts. Gamaliel (talk) 20:12, 15 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ] (]) 21:19, 16 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| == User:ZanderAlbatraz1145 Civility and Content #2 == | |||
| Ryulong has continued to discuss the conflict today , where he now claims I started the conflict and repeats a false claim that I only know his name via The Devil's Advocate. In truth, I learned Ryulong's name by searching diffs via Wikiblame on the edit in question. ] (]) 21:35, 16 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *{{userlinks|ZanderAlbatraz1145}} | |||
| :I am allowed to talk to Jimbo about this. I have been singled out unfairly and despite what you think I have no issue with you. I'm sorry you felt that my writing was incorrect but that's not something that requires a ban or voluntary anything.—] (]) 22:16, 16 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| This user has engaged in a lengthy display of disruption. Namely through incessant incivility I have noticed . | |||
| Instances such as , , on , etc. Users such as {{Ping|Waxworker}} and {{Ping|Jon698}} can speak to their experiences, I'll outline mine. | |||
| <s> in which he is giving . Yes, I realize this is off-WP, but in my opinion it bears rather strongly on the matter at hand.</s> ] (]) 07:08, 17 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' and ''']''' since {{U|Auerbachkeller}} is unwilling to ], the only sensable solution is to strongly warn Auer that the next time they try to bring this specific complaint they will be dealt with less gentleness. Auer's importing off offsite complaints in addition to shoveling any manure on Ryulong demonstrates the prime behavior of this "movement" to burn down established names in favor of their jettionsable pseudonyms. ] (]) 22:29, 17 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| On December 10, I noticed on the article ] page several additions were made that didn't adhere to the article's purpose. Zander restored these with an introductory summary rife with . For the most part there was an attempt to discuss the issue we had, but ultimately did not see eye to eye. I asserted I'd be escalating the issue to garner more substantive dialogue around it, Zander's response includes a needless . I made some attempts at engaging the topic at the article's talk page, in addition to WikiProject Film, it was over a week that saw no input. I would go on to state that (at the time) in two days, I would restore the page to it's status quo. I would do so, . Zander , and after another terse interaction, I moved to nominate the article for deletion, finding with the conflicting views of what Unrealized meant, it was too open ended and led to these lists being essentially trivia. Since then, Zander has elected to take an antagonistic approach towards me, making swipes they openly admit , and now that I am putting said comments , Zander is now doing the editing equivalent of mockingly repeating me, with edits such as and . | |||
| :'''Oppose and Boomerang''': the proposal was made in bad faith in order to promote one side of a content dispute. This should have been nipped in the bud, but as it has gone on this long, best to sanction the proposer with a WikiTrout. ] (]) 22:33, 17 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose and ]erang''': mostly I just wanted to say "trouterang", but seriously I think I've seen editors come from the Gamergate area to propose topic bans for Ruylong three separate times since last Thursday (I'll find diffs if you want) and none have had much of any basis in policy or ] of being accepted. Proposing the same thing over and over again is disruptive, and there's clearly no appetite for using admin tools to <s>throw gas on this fire</s> attempt to solve this dispute. It looks like it's already being discussed at Arbcom. ] (]) 22:44, 17 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' Only on the basis that this specific thread is not about the topic but about user interactions. ] (]) 03:10, 18 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| This editor displays no interest in conducting themselves cordially or cooperatively on this website. ] 23:20, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :'''Oppose boomerang''' This is ridiculous ] (]) 03:22, 18 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :I've given them a warning for canvassing: - ] <sub>]</sub> 04:08, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' topic ban. Ryulong appears a great deal at ANI and his interactions with people often leave a lot to be desired. However, on the flipside of the coin, the fact that he hasn't lost his mind after all the crap the internet has thrown at him is a credit to his resilience and commitment to the project. It's a very rare day indeed when Ryulong has been hauled out for poor content injection. People will invariably disagree about what content he may put in but I highly doubt that, if we all stood back a bit, the quality of his content could be seriously challenged. This is not to say that a prolific content contributor should get a free card, but context is everything. ] (]) 23:09, 18 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| : - ] <sub>]</sub> 05:36, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::And they appear to be continuing editing while ignoring here. - ] <sub>]</sub> 05:39, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::This feels par for the course for Zander frankly. As noted with the bit about Zander reverting after an explicit edit summary saying not to and there being two days worth of me saying that edit would be made and they made no objections until the move was made. They disengaged from discussion but only re-engaged when the situation changed to their disliking. ] 02:07, 25 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == SPA ] back at it on ] == | |||
| ===Okay, now what?=== | |||
| Hi, all, I'd like some assistance with the SPA ], who's been POV pushing on the ] article since . A quick view of their extremely short edit history shows that their sole focus is on pushing a vaccine-denialist POV on that and similar COVID-related topics. Started out on the talk page and BLPN, but now they've graduated to edit-warring on the article itself; they were active in June, made a single related edit in October, but now they appear to be . They've already , and have received an warning--to which they were . Would appreciate a more permanent resolution, either a COVID-19 topic ban or just an indef considering their SPA status, so they don't just go back into hibernation and then turn up again like a bad penny. (And yeah, given this context, I don't love the implications of the username "Tikitorch2", either.) Thanks, ] ]] 05:13, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| I'll be honest with everyone here. I have no idea what to do at this point. I thought we were close to having this issue resolved with Ryulong's apology. He deserves kudos for doing that regardless of whether or not it was accepted, and I think Auerbachkeller is perfectly within his rights not to accept it, but that should have been the end of it. But instead of the apology ending this issue, other parties attempted to use this dispute to topic ban Ryulong. In my opinion, that was an inappropriate attempt to hijack the issue with something that should have been handled separately and inflamed an issue that seemed to be nearing resolution. It's pretty clear Ryulong is not going to be topic banned, and now the two main parties are still <s>sniping at</s> complaining about each other and everyone is still annoyed. {{facepalm}}. ] <small>(])</small> 07:24, 17 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| : Can you tell me where I have been sniping at Ryulong? I have had no contact with him since yesterday. ] (]) 07:25, 17 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::You just posted above complaining about him. I will change my phrasing, I really don't care. The essential point is that you are both unhappy and I think third parties are trying to fan the flames here. ] <small>(])</small> 07:30, 17 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::Yes, I am unhappy that Ryulong is continuing to make false statements about me on and off WP after his supposed apology. Yes. ] (]) 07:34, 17 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :"It's pretty clear Ryulong is not going to be topic banned." That's the problem: to a basically outside observer, he's the cause of a lot of the problems in the article, and it would be much better off if he ''were''. Unfortunately, the wagons appear to have been circled around him and he won't be, so yeah, now what? If we can't get consensus to topic ban a disruptive editor from an article, what's left? ] (]) 12:19, 17 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :*]. It was inappropriate for editors to hijack a sensitive situation to attempt to impose a topic ban, but concerned editors can request enforcement of general sanctions at any time. ] <small>(])</small> 16:33, 17 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::*Why would we bother? As expected, the sanctions appear to be only for those perceived to be on one side of the debate. ] (]) 23:17, 17 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::*I'm not sure how I'm supposed to answer this. I'll use the sanctions if somebody gives me a reason to. But all I see here are a complaint that has been resolved with an apology and partisans trying to get the other side and only the other side banned. ] <small>(])</small> 00:28, 18 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::*The reasons have been detailed for some time. Why they haven't been used, I don't know. ] (]) 14:46, 18 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| * Given the contentious nature of the topic, anyone who edits it heavily is going to attract significant blowback; it's unrealistic to expect any resolution to enjoy universal acceptance under those circumstances. But I think it's clear that there's a broad consensus here that Ryulong has acted appropriately overall -- like I mentioned on the article's talk page, I think the root of this particular issue stemmed not from anything Ryulong did but from another editor who accidentally changed the meaning of Ryulong's paraphrase while blindly applying ], which accidentally changed its meaning from "Auerbach's article implied this" (which was a reasonable paraphrase of what the article being referenced was saying about him, even if Auerbach clearly disagrees with that article) to "Auerbach literally said this" (which obviously isn't.) Overall, though, this article needs more attention from users who understand our policies; I don't see how it would benefit from driving Ryulong away from it. Rather, if people are concerned, then what the article really needs is more attention from additional experienced editors so Ryulong isn't taking all the heat over editing it himself and so he doesn't become a flashpoint for everyone who has a concern with how it's currently written. --] (]) 15:08, 17 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :* I don't think he's acted appropriately at all. Nor do I think his paraphrasing (or your "implied" version) was reasonable. This topic is under general sanctions. There have been a number of topic bans. Jimbo has asked Ryulong multiple times not to edit the article. Policies are enforced by admins using general sanctions and the drama keeps going because no one will step up and topic ban them and use DS to calm the waters. It doesn't have to be permanent but a handful of ] editors need to take a break (either on their own or by general sanctions). Two have been called out by Jimbo. A few are being attacked off-wiki and have been drawn in to the point where it's nearly ] if not past that point. They need a break if only to stop the external BS that keeps being brought here. No article should be identified with individual editors and unfortunately, these articles are. This is not a hard decision and 30 or 60 day TBAN will go a long way to defocus the external eyes from specific editors. --] (]) 15:46, 17 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::*It's hard to see how this won't be interpreted as punishment for offsite harassment, and worse, encouraging offsite harassment because it gives them the results they want. Honestly, there's about six editors on either side that I think should be forced to take a break, but I don't know how to make that sort of sanction stick and how to do it without blowing the whole thing up. The relatively <s>minor and</s> clear cut sanctions that have been imposed so far, for much worse behavior and for blatant repeated BLP violations, have already been dragged before ArbCom by partisans claiming that they are "tyrannical behavior". ] <small>(])</small> 16:33, 17 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::*Okay the "clear cut" and "much worse" parts can be debated, but "relatively minor" is just absurd. Are three month, one year, or indefinite topic bans considered "minor" these days?--] <sub>] ]</sub> 18:35, 17 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::*You're absolutely right, that was extremely poor wording on my part and I have struck that phrase. I was trying to convey that the issues were not difficult to sort out for admins compared to others, not that the sanctions themselves were minor. ] <small>(])</small> 20:01, 17 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :]? ] (]) 06:25, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::* As I understand it, his paraphrasing was discussed on the talk page, and nobody objected to it particularly at the time (indeed, based on the comment when he first added it, he was careful to get feedback from other people before putting it in.) It only attracted attention after Auerbach objected (responding to the version with Halfhat's accidental ] edits, ''not'' to the version Ryulong wrote.) Either way, disagreeing with the precise wording of someone's paraphrase wouldn't blow up to this extent if it weren't for the environment of constant offsite pressure you describe; none of the things people are accusing Ryulong of would even be comment-worthy in a normal situation. Saying that off-wiki attacks are a reason he should pull back is likewise missing the point -- none of the off-wiki attacks really have anything to do with Ryulong or any of the other editors they're targeting; the people doing the targeting literally just made a list of the most prolific editors that they disagreed with and went after them. If Ryulong stepped back, the harassment would move down the list to the next-most-prolific editor, and so on until the article was purged of everyone perceived as unfriendly to their views. Which leads me to the most important point: In an environment like this, where anyone who steps up to edit the article is likely to be subject to fairly vicious attacks from some quarter or another, we absolutely need people who are willing to step up to the plate regardless. Ryulong should, for the most part, be commended for enduring that kind of pressure, not criticized for being a target of offsite harassment; just a look over the talk page shows that they have constantly engaged in good-faith discussions with people who have many different views, and that the article has been improved as a result. We need more people willing to participate in that sort of fairly grueling discussion over contentious topics like this. The best solution, of course, to the situation is for the article to get more experienced editors keeping their eyes on it and chipping in, not to drive away the few people who have been willing to endure the harassment and anger surrounding it until now in an effort to edit constructively... but given how Ryulong has been treated for his work there, it's not hard to see why that isn't happening. --] (]) 19:58, 17 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::{{duck}}. I'm sending this ]. - ] <sub>]</sub> 11:16, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::, so might just be generic disruption. - ] <sub>]</sub> 22:47, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :What are you implying with regard to my username? My edit history has been limited to trying to correct two red flags that stood out so much that I followed the citations when I was searching these scientists who were in the news for censorship. It has been enlightening learning how wikipedia selectively chooses secondary sources but discourages the use of primary sources to help discriminate which secondary sources are credible. | |||
| :For my two attempted contributions to Misplaced Pages, the two red flags were pretty dramatic to prompt me to check out the citations--Sunetra Gupta's article implied more than 1 in 1000 people in England died from Covid in spring 2020 in an effort to discredit her, which was trivially easy to google as untrue. I corrected that without really changing the overall narrative. The article for Martin Kulldorff...I would probably not have spent time looking at the sources or realized how unscientific Kulldorff's critics were had there not been such superfluous "Wikivoice" editorializing and synthesizing suggesting Kulldorff lied in an essay to the public. ] (]) 06:30, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::] are not to be used for anything but simple facts about a subject. They absolutely are not to be used {{tqq|to help discriminate which secondary sources are credible}} because that is ]. - ] <sub>]</sub> 08:57, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::Not sure why you felt the need to repeat what I said. Maybe I am the sock puppeteer! ] (]) 03:33, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::What I am implying is that such a username in the context of an account pushing COVID-denialist rhetoric that flies in the face of the sources and Misplaced Pages policy is . Anyway, this editor continues to be a drain of editor time and attention. ] ]] 14:58, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::Ah an absurd, convoluted, and contrived personal attack. Assuming anyone but you knew tiki torches were present at a political event where someone was killed, why would I choose my username based on that? Tikitorches provide light, warmth, and keep the mosquitos away. I guess its not surprising an editor named writ keeper attacks the editor rather than effectively debating the subject of the edit. ] (]) 03:28, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Even if it was a personal attack, making one ''back'' isn't going to fly here. Knock it off. - ] <sub>]</sub> 04:04, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::], your edits are being examined at ANI. This is not a pleasant experience, I'll admit. So, it's best for you not to dig yourself into a hole. I know the instinct is to defend yourself but it doesn't help your situation to come out swinging. It's probably to your benefit to address any concerns that have been raised and say no more than that. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 04:30, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Disruptive editor on ] == | |||
| :::* "none of the things people are accusing Ryulong of would even be comment-worthy in a normal situation." That's absurd. Why, just the other day I . There have been hundreds of citations of issues with his behaviour WRT the article by now. Your claims about "targeting" are also unsubstantiated and, in my view, meritless. Offsite discussion I've witnessed has centered on Ryulong, yes - but only because he's been noted as annoying huge numbers of people across a wide spectrum of articles and communities, documented all over the Internet, over the course of a solid 8 years. When I did my own research, for example, I found a claim that he once leveled a /16 IP ban. But as regards the Gamergate article, most discussion explicitly already names three or four other editors as problematic, and accuses them of ] either explicitly or in more community-specific phrasing. ] (]) 05:53, 18 November 2014 (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) | |||
| My question: given that Ryulong is continuing to misrepresent me and unable to give a factually correct account of recent events, given that his behavior shows little improvement from before his "apology," and given that he is by his own admission a poor and unclear writer, how am I to think that he will represent me or my writings at all accurately in the future? ] (]) 19:54, 17 November 2014 (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. | |||
| :You shouldn't worry about this at all; if anyone misrepresents your writings on Misplaced Pages, someone else will correct them. It’s precisely the same situation as you would face if your book were reviewed in, say, TLS, by someone whom you think dislikes you and who, in any case, doesn't adore your book. As you doubtless know, attempting to address this directly is known as an Author’s Big Mistake. That's why people are urging you to drop the stick and back away. You've received more than you could reasonably have expected here; let it go. ] (]) 22:40, 17 November 2014 (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). ] ] 21:36, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::{{ping|Schazjmd}} I'm awaiting for an admin to respond. This conversation is getting nowhere hence the reason why I brought it here in the first place. I've tried to explain to the user on their talk page along with this entire thread and it's getting nowhere. {{ping|The Bushranger}} you left a comment but could you please share your opinion on the dispute? Or possibly ping an admin who's familiar with music if this isn't your area of familiarity? ] (]) 21:49, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::There was no reason to bring this conversation here. I talked to you directly but go no real reply or any arguments despite adding sources and explaining why it's not an Alt pop album. I've explained to you well enough. Please stop trying to get admins to ban me simply because I (and other editors) recognize that the genre list that you got rid of was far more fitting. There's a new genre list now with sources but it is not Alt-pop. The album was already added to the wikipedia album pages for Alternative rock and art pop. I'm familiar with these genres and Fiona Apple specifically to know that it's accurate hence why the genre list has been that way for years. If you're adamant about sources, there is a source. Accusing me of not sourcing should be considered a false accusation at this point. Not all sources are equal either and I've tried explaining that to you. ] (]) 21:55, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::], you were given good advice which is to have this discussion on the article talk page which neither editor has posted at yet. This is a content dispute. If no action has been taken yet by an administrator, it's likely because they don't agree with your statement that action needs to be taken. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 22:22, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Okay, will do. Thank you Liz. ] (]) 22:24, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| === Irrelevant sources and unnecessary changes to genre list on {{pagelinks|When the Pawn...}} === | |||
| I would remove the post with the Reddit AMA link myself but don't know if that is allowed. Consider that entire post rescinded nonetheless. ] (]) 00:17, 18 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :"If off wiki dealings are so inconsequential, I fail to see the fuss over 8chan or KotakuInAction" grumbled DSA510. --] ] 04:54, 18 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :: There is indeed a massive double standard there, as I noted in . ] (]) 05:55, 18 November 2014 (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. | |||
| ===A Background Note=== | |||
| Here's how the genre list has looked over a long period of time, without much controversy from editors not readers: | |||
| Yesterday, I came across a thread (I believe at 8chan) that discussed the given name, city of residence, religion, and sexual orientation of the editor whose topic ban we were discussing above. I'm not sure this report presents significant information, or whether that discussion is already known. And I have no idea at all whether the assertions made there were accurate, facetious, or (for all I know) common knowledge in the community. I’m not even certain whether mentioning the existence of such discussions is appropriate or helpful. I made no particular note at the time, and only later realized that some editors here might wish to know this. ] (]) 16:32, 19 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=When_the_Pawn...&oldid=1178937091 from 2023 | |||
| https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=When_the_Pawn...&oldid=1049316366 from 2021 | |||
| But it seems to me that this sort of thing ought to be taken into account. ] (]) 16:32, 19 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| Thank you. ] (]) 19:32, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :Check your net history for any threads you viewed, and substitute the first number in the URL into this link http://8archive.moe/gg/thread/''number''/ I'd actually love to see evidence of this, rather than accusation. ] (]) 18:45, 19 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :Why do people have to argue about what genre music is rather than just listening to it, and hopefully enjoying it? ] (]) 19:58, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::The genre list was fine and accurate and uncontroversial until this user decided to remove the entire thing. It's important that the genre list is accurate. People find albums through genres. There's other reasons as well. ] (]) 20:38, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::This is neither here nor there, but I thought albums are generally sorted in alphabetical order by band name or the musician's last name. | |||
| :::Please, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, or my information is incomplete. ] (]) 22:28, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I was trying to explain the important of listing genres accurately. If you go to a record store then yes, albums are listed in alphabetical order. But they're still put in categories of genres. ] (]) 22:43, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::If we were going to list musical genres "accurately," we wouldn't bother at all. Except in very broad strokes ("rock," "punk," "Baroque," etc), so many of these horribly subjective "genres" are made up by bored media writers and bands that hate the notion of being The Same As Everyone Else. Get ten people to listen to ten different tracks of heavy metal, and you won't get as many as a third of them agreeing on any of them on the doom/grudge/dark/death/Goth/Viking/sludge/*-grind/*-core/etc etc etc spectrum. Beyond that, arguing whether any given artist is "that genre" is ''very'' highly subjective. (Hell, I've sung Baroque, classical, folk, rock, ethnic, shape note, so many genres I can't readily count.) ] 15:12, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Multiple users breaking 3RR on Gilman School article == | |||
| ::OK, I've got the thread. But of course, simply posting it here would be wrong, would it not? Especially at the prompting of an IP editor? If any admin would like to get in touch by phone, email, or on my user page, I'm right here in my office. ] (]) 19:15, 19 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :{{ping|MarkBernstein}}, how much bad behavior should we excuse because of off-site stress? At what point are we allowed to say enough is enough? ] (]) 00:58, 20 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| We don't doxx or out people. It shouldn't matter who an editor is IRL unless they are sock puppet or paid editor -- and even then, this isn't the place. email arbcom. It's time for an editor to take a step back if the profile of the editor or wikipedia is higher than the article. --] (]) 22:44, 19 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::@DHeyward: let me get this straight. An outspoken editor is subjected to antisemitic and homophobic derision (and perhaps worse) off-wiki. Is that of no conceivable interest to ANI? An IP editor suggests I'm mistaken or lying; I take time to hunt down the urls and answer that I have them if anyone needs them. This is a reason to urge the person under attack to take a wikibreak? And what have I done wrong? ] (]) 01:14, 20 November 2014 (UTC). | |||
| ::: I know at least one editor who has been doxxed for GamerGate on site. Now, would you be equally concerned on who it was if I didn't let up info about their flag of colors? I also find it concerning that you've not even mentioned it. (If you did se it) ] (]) 20:40, 20 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::Let '''me''' get this straight. The actions of editors off-wiki are not relevant to the discussion, but the actions of ''non-''editors ''are''? | |||
| :::Also, since you mention 8chan and "antisemitic derision": that in itself is reason to suspect that it's just antisemitic trolls going on about antisemitism, rather than anyone seriously thinking they actually have any evidence about anyone's religious beliefs. That is, after all, part of the -chan "reputation" that's the entire reason anyone in the discussion cares about the -chans in the first place. | |||
| :::As for "This is a reason to urge the person under attack to take a wikibreak?" No, any such urging is obviously completely unrelated. I really don't understand how you managed to come up with that bit of logic to attribute to others. DHeyward's argument was in favour of stepping back because of the editor's "profile", not because of the effects of negative attention drawn by that profile. And nobody said you did anything wrong. ] (]) 20:05, 20 November 2014 (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 | |||
| :::{{ping|MarkBernstein}} Let me get this straight for you: I have no idea what you are talking about and quite frankly don't want to know. Outing/doxxing people on ANI or anywhere is not allowed. email ArbCom. That's not hard to understand why the ] is a bad thing. Also don't bring off-wiki drama here. It doesn't help. --] (]) 20:40, 21 November 2014 (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. | |||
| ] (]) | |||
| ::::{{ping|DHeyward}} I'm happy to email details to anyone: please point me to the pertinent policy or email address or wherever such reports should go. Or call me at the office -- I'm easy to find. Thanks for your helpful advice about what I shouldn’t do here; it seemed to me (naive fellow that I am) that it might interest administrators to know what information the opponents of Ryulong are spreading off-wiki, as this might be helpful in understanding the context. But of course, if the context never matters, that’s my mistake. ] (]) 22:04, 21 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *E/C applied. ] ] 19:51, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::{{u|Counterfeit Purses}}, please be aware that the ] article was kept in a recent Articles for Deletion debate, so the consensus of the community is that he is notable. Edit warring to keep his name off the alumni list is a ''really bad idea''. ] (]) 20:14, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::@] No problem, I've already given up. I would argue that ] applies here, but there's no sense in pushing against the tide. If you're content to have the lede section of Gilman School include "prominent graduates including "alleged murderer Luigi Mangione", I guess that's fine. It seems to be an unusual thing to include and an obvious case of undue weight given to something that is in the news at the moment. Perhaps someone should start a Wikiproject to add famous murderers to the ledes of other schools? ] (]) 22:00, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::{{u|Counterfeit Purses}}, in my view, ] is among our most misunderstood policy documents. It begins {{tpq|In principle, all Misplaced Pages articles should contain up-to-date information. Editors are also encouraged to develop stand-alone articles on significant current events.}} I believe that Mangione is notable, the evolving article is acceptable, and his name belongs in the alumni list. Many, many "bad people" are listed as alumni in countless school articles, and it is not at all unusual. The only unusual thing here is that the lead of this particular school article lists alumni, and so I have removed them from the lead. ] (]) 01:07, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I'm glad that misunderstanding WP:NOTNEWS is so common because I am going to continue to misunderstand it. I see that Liz Luigi Mangione from the lede before you removed the rest of the list. Acknowledging again that I have given up hope that Mangione will be removed from this article, let me ask you what you think the purpose of these alumni lists is? Including Mangione is an editorial decision. We don't include all notable alumni in these lists, so why should we include Mangione, and why now? It's too soon to know if he will have lasting relevance. ] (]) 04:22, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::{{tqq|We don't include all notable alumni in these lists}} Why not? If someone is Wikinotable and went to a Wikinotable school, then they belong in the "Notable alumni" section of that school's page, ] - ] <sub>]</sub> 04:28, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::@] I'm not saying "we shouldn't", I'm saying "we don't". We don't include every notable alumnus in these lists, nor should we because it would lead to long, unhelpful lists stuck in the middle of articles about the schools. ] (]) 04:49, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::If an alumni list bloats an article, it can be split out. See ]. 11:29, 23 December 2024 (UTC) (Oops, signing) ] (]) 16:01, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::Of course that's always an option, but what I am saying is that it isn't desirable to have every alumnus listed in an article for a school. Ideally, it would be a selection of alumni who have made significant achievements in their field. Otherwise, it's just trivia. Am I wrong? ] (]) 17:21, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::Yes. You're making a value judgment that some alumni (with articles, else they most definitely should not be included) are more notable than others. That is ]. ] (]) 20:05, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::Yes, that's called editorial judgment. Just like deciding not to include every known fact about something in an article. At some point, it is just trivia. Misplaced Pages is not a database. That info would probably be welcome over on Wikidata, which is a database. Alternatively, someone could just add ] (in this case). ] (]) 20:52, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::And a new user, who doesn't understand categories and has no idea Wikidata exists, is relying on the list on the page. - ] <sub>]</sub> 21:35, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == User:Glenn103 == | |||
| :::::{{ping|MarkBernstein}} To send ArbCom sensitive information, see ]. Email is basically {{NonSpamEmail|arbcom-l|2=lists.wikimedia.org}}. --] (]) 22:21, 21 November 2014 (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. — ] ] 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? | |||
| == Legal threats by DungeonSiegeAddict510 == | |||
| :I mean you might have a point, but wow. – ] (]) (]) 04:57, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| Similar behavior to {{checkuser|PickleMan500}} and other socks puppeted by {{checkuser|Abrown1019}}, which also made tons of drafts on Cyrillic characters that cited few sources (and none with in-depth coverage). Most drafts have been ]'d, of course, so only those with admin perms can verify the deleted contribs. <small>Since these socks have been banned (]), I haven't notified them of this discussion.</small> ] (] '''·''' ]) 17:08, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :Good catch, and looking at the contribution histories it {{duck}}. Changing the block to indef as a sock accordingly. - ] <sub>]</sub> 07:22, 25 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == North Korean involvement in Russian-Ukraine war discussion == | |||
| Here DSA threatened legal action over alleged threats offsite. I've previously notified his constant habit of soapboxing and WP:FORUM here | |||
| 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. | |||
| * Soapboxing about Gawker media and a commentator, misrepresenting their position as "20k+ white males are doing it purely for "misogyny"" | |||
| * Soapboxing on the arbcom case, promotes conspiracy theories, referred to Gawker as "encouraging domestic abuse under the guise of "feminism" or whatever" and their authors as "sick bullies on their payroll". Dramatically exceed the word limit despite admin notice . | |||
| * Soapboxing on the Arbcom case, claiming that Conservapedia and Encyclopedia Dramatica are more neutral than the WP article | |||
| * Soapboxing on Gamergate discussion page, equating feminism with fearmongering against men ""All men are rapists" "Kill all men" "Die cis scum"" | |||
| * Making nonsensical proposals on talk pages eg, using unsourced images from the internet | |||
| * Violates WP:CIVIL, referred to User:Tarc "It's only because your No True Scotsman BS" | |||
| * Again, soapboxing, referring to a source as "trite from a known troll". | |||
| * On RS noticeboard, claimed that all Gawker sources should be blacklisted, and that they're nothing but clickbait. | |||
| * Soapboxing about OpSkynet, refers to Gawker and GG critics as promoting an echo chamber and censorship | |||
| * Reposted BLP violating material on his talk page | |||
| '''Key Points:''' | |||
| * Warned about sig policy violations | |||
| * Warned by uninvolved admin for edit warring | |||
| * Indirectly notified for violating WP:FORUM | |||
| # '''Prolonged Discussions and RfC Closure:''' | |||
| He was cautioned by the closing admins, yet his behavior continues , and his battlefield mentality in pushing a pro-Gamergate POV is completely unconstructive.--] (]) 04:26, 19 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| #* The RfC on North Korea's inclusion was conducted thoroughly, with a wide range of arguments presented by both sides. | |||
| #* The closing administrator, S Marshall, determined there was a clear consensus to include North Korea as a belligerent based on reliable sources and the strength of arguments. | |||
| #* The close explicitly allowed for reevaluation if new battlefield events or sources emerged, but no substantial new evidence has invalidated the prior consensus. | |||
| # '''Ongoing Disruption:''' | |||
| #* Despite the RfC's resolution, the same arguments are being repeated across multiple threads, often by the same editors. | |||
| #* This behavior includes undermining reliable sources, misrepresenting their content, and insisting on a higher standard of verification (e.g., requiring firsthand evidence of North Korean combat, which is unreasonable given the context). | |||
| # '''Reliable Sources Confirming North Korean Involvement:''' | |||
| #* Multiple reputable outlets, including the BBC, Reuters, and Pentagon statements, confirm North Korean military involvement and casualties in the conflict. | |||
| #* Experts from institutions like Chatham House and RUSI have explicitly stated North Korea's role in combat, aligning with the community's decision. | |||
| # '''Impact on the Community:''' | |||
| #* The continued disruption consumes editor time and resources, detracting from the article's improvement. | |||
| #* These actions disregard Misplaced Pages's consensus-building principles and guidelines for resolving disputes. This dispute has been ongoing for months, with multiple threads being opened and closed on the same topic. | |||
| '''Request for Administrative Action:''' | |||
| :"Expect legal action" is a blatant legal threat. Regardless of what side anyone is on, that is not allowed. The user must be blocked until, or if, he recants and disavows the legal threat. ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 04:32, 19 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::Because of the pending arbitration request I'm not going to respond to the context of this specific user or comment on his or her overall pattern of editng. Nonetheless, I must emphasize that Baseball Bugs' knee-jerk reaction is a far too simplistic analysis and must be rejected. The editor here is alleging that he was threatened on IRC with being "SWATTED" in retaliation for his editing. This refers to the dangerous practice, constituting a serious crime, in which one calls in a false police report against a targeted individual, claiming the existence of a life-threatening emergency at his or her residence. The intended result is to cause the residence to be invaded by a SWAT team of armed police officers. Again, obviously I have no way of knowing whether such a threat actually was made, or if so in what context, but if this actually occurred in a serious context it would be entirely appropriate, if not essential, to report it to law enforcement and doing so could not reasonably be considered to violate Misplaced Pages policy in any fashion. ] (]) 04:41, 19 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::"No legal threats" is a bright line that cannot be crossed. ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 05:02, 19 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::So if you credibly threaten to shoot me and I call the police, I should be blocked? That's absurd, and if that's going to be the quality of your input on this noticeboard then you shouldn't be allowed to post on it. ] (]) 05:05, 19 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I agree completely with {{U|Newyorkbrad}} here. I have no sympathy, personally, with Gamergate, and this editor may have behaved unreasonably. But discussing the deep consequences of off-Misplaced Pages threats of "swatting" does not violate our ban on legal threats regarding Misplaced Pages editing. "Swatting", to the extent it actually exists, is an extremely grave form of online harassment that results in significant risk of severe legal problems, destruction of property, personal injury, and even loss of life. This is not an online game. ] ] 05:15, 19 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| I fixed it. Also that IP has a vetted interest in me. Go away. --] ] 05:09, 19 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::If someone's being seriously physically threatened, they should go to the police for help, not Misplaced Pages. ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 16:08, 19 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::You seriously think i haven't? --] ] 22:55, 19 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :also let it be known I am not " pro-gg". I'm a former anti turned neutral. --] ] 05:18, 19 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :: Indeed, and they are forum shopping since the arbitration enforcement request has gone with no action, and are presenting in effect that same amount of diffs, and took the diff of the supposed 'legal threat' out of its necessary context. I'm gonna just say that this IP seems to either be a heavy troll, a dedicated sock master, or someone's bad hand, good hand sock. They also seem to have a vendetta against Dungeon for some odd reason...I wonder if the swatting threats also have some importance in this. Oh, and why do sides matter in this? Does someone who's 'Anti GG' get more leniance in policy or guidelines than 'Pro GG'? They shouldn't, but in this, this is in effect an anonymous IP user only here to stir the pot of drama and to forum shop for no reason at all. Oh and even seeing it in its proper context is iffy with me, but we should go with the spirit of the policy for ]: A chilling effect. If it turns out that some member of Wiki is literally sending swatting threats to Dungeon--a waste of SWAT teams' money and their ability to respond to actual emergency requests, I'd hope they get their comeuppance. I also don't see within the spirit of the policy of Dungeon breaking such. ] (]) 05:23, 19 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| I respectfully request that administrators address the following issues: | |||
| :Let's at least give a full sentence worth of context, shall we? | |||
| :{{quote|Anyways, I've already reported that little farce, however, if I find that it was condoned by a member of this wiki, expect legal action.}} | |||
| :That's clearly a conditional statement. No party was identified as a potential target. I don't see how this can credibly be called a legal threat. Am I not allowed to say, for example, "any WP editor who breaches a signed contract with me in real life should expect legal action"? | |||
| :As for the other diffs you've supplied, I don't see how any of them are relevant. This comes across to me like an attempt to just throw a bunch of grievances against the wall and see if anything sticks. Further, you seem to be misrepresenting at least some of them. DSA510 did not, for example, propose to "use unsourced images from the internet"; he used an unsourced image from the internet, ''informally'', as justification for a separate proposal to ''remove'' material from the article. ] (]) 19:52, 20 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| <br/> | |||
| so shall we ] because of the ]? Imho this was a blatant attempt at ] after the IP didn't archive his desired result at the enforcement page. I fear this will not be the last of this ] (]) 12:40, 21 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :You mean the ''other'' IP, right? x.x ] (]) 17:58, 21 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *For what it's worth, I noticed DSA's "legal threat" the other day myself, and thought it was too mild to warrant any sort of action. Besides, if it were to be interpreted as a legal threat, he made it ''in an Arbcom case request'', possibly the most foolish place a user could make a block-worthy comment. If it was actionable, someone would have by now. As for the IP, ] them that ] is disruptive, and let's move on. ] (]) 18:09, 21 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| # Enforce the consensus reached in the closed RfC, as no new evidence significantly alters the previous conclusions. | |||
| *Note new complaint against DSA at ] for overnight WP:FORUM and WP:SOAPBOX in defense of Gamergate (including comparisons of opposing editors to Holocaust denial and Birtherism). Note also ?psuedo?-sympathy offered to Ryulong regarding his doxxing ] ]. ] (]) 14:49, 22 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| # Discourage editors from rehashing resolved discussions, particularly when arguments have been repeatedly addressed and dismissed. | |||
| # Consider imposing a topic ban or other appropriate measures on editors who persist in disrupting the article with repetitive or bad-faith arguments. | |||
| This matter has been discussed exhaustively, and it is essential to prioritize Misplaced Pages's goals of maintaining a high-quality, well-sourced, and consensus-driven encyclopedia. | |||
| * Mooted (I believe) by 90-day topic ban at discretionary sanctions. ] (]) 21:52, 22 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| Thank you for your attention to this matter. | |||
| UPDATE: I just noticed that North Korea was removed as a belligerent and added to the 'supported by' section, completely violating the consensus. | |||
| ] (]) 08:48, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :Since this report isn't really about an incident and your request is directed towards admins, I think this complaint would be better placed at ] rather than ANI. It will also need more specifics, which articles, which edits, which editors. You'll need to provide that. I also question whether or not these are content standards that the community can't handle on their own. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 09:50, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::I was going to post it at ] but it said: "'''This noticeboard is for issues affecting administrators generally – announcements, notifications, information, and other matters of''' ''general administrator interest.'' | |||
| ::If your post is about a '''specific problem you have''' (a '''dispute''', user, help request, or other narrow issue needing an administrator), you should post it at the ''']''' (ANI) instead. Thank you." | |||
| ::I posted it on ANI beecause my specific problem was this dispute ] (]) 12:07, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::The original post in this thread appears to resemble LLM output. GPTzero confirms this impression, rating text as "99% probability AI generated". Using AI to generate ANI submissions is highly inappropriate. ] (]) 18:01, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Even when a message appears to be AI-generated, I think it is worth considering whether or not it is pointing out an actual problem. I think editors might be ignoring the results of an RFC, I just don't think asking for administrators to monitor a subject area, without identifying specific articles, is a feasible solution. It does seem like, possibly, a point that could come up in a complaint at AE regarding the Ukraine CTOP area. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 19:55, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I had a peek and it's a messy RfC and, as is generally the case with a messy RfC had a very involved closure message which seems to reflect that the closer felt constrained by the framing of the RfC. I didn't see any immediate indication in the edit history that anyone had tried to implement the RfC result and been rebuffed (although I might have missed it). So there's some smoke here but, I think, not a ton of fire. ] (]) 20:21, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Liz, I don't disagree but I'm not at all convinced that use of AI is a positive contribution to CTOP areas. ] (]) 20:27, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::It was written with AI assistance. Not all AI. ai detectors aren’t considered reliable, because you can put the U.S. constitution through one and it says 100% AI generated. Regardless, whether it’s AI or not has nothing to do with the topic. It’s just that there’a been so many discussions and when I checked the info box it said ‘supported by”, violating the consensus of the RFC ] (]) 12:45, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::{{tq|you can put the U.S. constitution through one and it says 100% AI generated}}{{snd}}Well, I just put it through GPTzero and got ''97% human''. Might be best if you don't just make up random "evidence". ]] 17:25, 25 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::I think the underlying issue here is that if you use AI to generate text which looks like obvious AI output then readers will wonder "does the end user even have sufficient English to understand what the AI has generated for them?" and "did the end user understand the material prior to deciding to employ AI?". Thus if a user is fluent in English, as you obviously are, it will always be better to communicate in your own voice. | |||
| :::::::At the end of the day, a user making a valid point in their own voice is generally speaking going to be taken more seriously than a user employing LLM output. | |||
| :::::::There are plenty of other reasons for users not to employ AI (see the recent thread here for extensive coverage) but the argument above seems like a good practical reason for fluent English speakers to always prefer using their own voice. | |||
| :::::::You will see from the recent thread that many users here are vehemently against AI use. ] (]) 15:46, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::I understood the material very well, its not like I just used 100% AI out of nowhere. I know the context. I have been involved in this discussion since September. ] (]) 16:43, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::It's a respect thing. It's disrespectful of other editors to make them read chatbot output rather than ''your'' words. ] (]) 16:49, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| {{external media|video1=}} | |||
| ::::::::::Rc2barrington's user page says {{tq|This user believes in the bright future AI and robotics will bring}}, so there's probably no point in arguing here. However, I simply observe that in any kind of discussion where you're trying to convince other people, don't use a method that aggravates a significant number of readers (probably a significant ''majority'' of readers). It really is that simple. ] (]) 19:11, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::<p>Putting the use of LLM aside, however you compose your message you should comply with the basics of ANI. This includes not making allegations without supplying evidence. This would normally be in the form of diffs but in this case just links might be fine. But ] has provided none. </p><p>Probably because this is because their initial complaint appears to be unsupported by what's actually happening. They claimed "{{tqi|Despite the RfC's resolution, the same arguments are being repeated across multiple threads, often by the same editor}}". But where is this? I visited the talk page, and what I see is here ] there was a request for clarification from the closer, something which is perfectly reasonably and which the closer followed up on. The OP then offered an interjection which frankly seemed unnecessary. There was then a very brief forumish discussion. To be clear, AFAICT no one in the follow up discussion was suggesting any changes to the article. So while it wasn't he most helpful thing as with any forumish discussion; it's hardly causing that much disruption especially since it seems to have quickly ended and also cannot be called "the same arguments" since there was no argument. No one in that discussion was actually suggesting changing the article. </p><p>Then there is ]. There was again some forumish discussion in this thread which again isn't helpful but wasn't that long. But there was also discussion about other things like the name of the article and whether to restructure it. To be clear, this isn't something which was resolve in the RfC. In fact, the closer specifically mention possible future issues in a non close comment. </p><p>Next we see ]. Again the main focus of the discussion is in how to handle stuff which wasn't dealt with in the RfC. There is a total of 2 short comments in that thread which were disputing the RfC which is unfortunate but hardly something to worry ANI about. </p><p>Next there is ]. DPRK was briefly mentioned there but only in relation to a suggestion to change the infobox for other countries. No part of that discussion can IMO be said to be disputing the DPRK RfC. Next we have ]. Again DPRK was briefly mention but only in relation to other countries. No part of that discussion can be said to be disputing the RfC. AFAICT, the only threads or comments removed from the talk page since the closure of the RfC was by automated archival. The only threads which seem to be post close are on ] and none of them seem to deal with North Korea. </p><p>So at least on the article talk page I don't see what the OP has said is happening. The tiny amount of challenging of the RfC is definitely not something ANI needs to worry about. Even the other forumish or otherwise unproductive comments aren't at a level that IMO warrants any action IMO. If this is happening somewhere else, this is even more reason why the OP needed to provide us some evidence rather than a long comment without anything concrete, however they composed it. </p><p>] (]) 10:15, 25 December 2024 (UTC)</p> | |||
| == Concern About a New Contributor == | |||
| ==Electronic cigarette== | |||
| {{atop|Suspected editor was indeed a sock. Unnecessary drama created by all-too zealous reporting--let this be the end of it. ] (]) 21:19, 24 December 2024 (UTC)}} | |||
| {{userlinks|Kriji Sehamati}} | |||
| Dear Wikipedians, | |||
| ===]=== | |||
| This user has more or less become a single purpose account. There editing has become not very produce such as: | |||
| * | |||
| *</nowiki>now that you Qack, are the master of ridiculous.] | |||
| *They have also been involved in a fair bit of ]. For example he recently put these notes on a couple of users talk pages requesting their participation and and others. They earlier requested the support of one of these users after having made some controversial changes | |||
| Does this rise to the level of a temporary topic ban? ] (] · ] · ]) 16:09, 4 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :Excuse me? Cherry-picked quotes? And a complaint about canvassing relating to a case where ''you'' were remanded for inappropriate notification? This seems more like a play to remove editors that you disagree with, than a true complaint, sorry. --] 16:31, 4 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :: First of all, let me mention that he requested mere participation not support (except in the last one where he added his own opinion). Doc James, you've been warned for 3RR along with Ferret, I believe this is just not enough for a TBAN. Doc, you're in it too. I believe you all should quit this ]. A self-imposed TBAN will go a long way. Just my two cents. --]</font> <sub><span style="color:orange;font-family:Trajan Pro, Optima">«] § ]»</span></sub> 18:17, 4 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :{{nao}} I'm not sure that what is described here is canvassing. AlbinoFerret neutrally notified seven different editors, each of whom had previously edited the page or engaged in Talk discussions and had expressed different views, of an RFC occurring on the page: the two above plus This appears to be allowed according to ]. I don't understand the purpose of this report, especially given that Doc James has already engaged in edit-warring with AlbinoFerret on this article. ] (]) 20:17, 4 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::In the very beginning AlbinoFerret only notified the two editors who have the same POV as he does. After editors commented AlbinoFerret was canvassing then AlbinoFerret notified the other editors. Another editor stated "Now that I read the discussion, it looks like inappropriate ]." The editor was referring to this . ] (]) 20:46, 4 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::There was a 10 hour difference between when the first two editors were notified and the other five were notified. Does that qualify as canvassing? I wouldn't think so but perhaps I'm wrong. If the post on the village pump is considered canvassing (is it? I don't know), then bringing it up now, a week later, seems a little late. ] (]) 21:48, 4 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::The discussions were long that day and I needed some sleep, there is no time limit on when editors need to be notified by, I got up and notified others. But even if I only notified the two editors you point out, they are active on the article and had both edited the article. Informing them of the RFC, and all I did was ask them to look at the RFC, is allowed. ] (]) | |||
| I will address all these false accusations. | |||
| *The so called canvasing was going back a week or so in history and notifying every editor of the article that wasnt an IP of a rfc. Including ones I knew would probably disagree with my position like Yobol. | |||
| * #85 is out of sequence and happened the night before the rfc was made, all I ws doing was asking another editor to look at the edits I had done to see if a NPOV tag/banner she had placed could be removed. This distorting of the timeline to suggest something wrong is intentional. It has been pointed out the Doc James before. As such it, in my opinion the retaliation is . These accusations were addressed in the report on Doc James linked to here. I was warned for edit warring, resuscitating them here is a desperate ploy. | |||
| *My opinion of the WHO (World Health Organization) is just that my opinion, and I have a right to it. The WHO is treated like some kind of God on the article. While he has me saying my opinion of the WHO on a talk page, he doesnt have diff's of me removing statements of the WHO from the article. | |||
| *The third was a sarcastic response to a well known edit warrior ] with a long ban list history calling the additions of another editor ridiculous. | |||
| This is just retaliation for bringing a charge of being involved in an edit war on Doc James. Perhaps its time for a boomerang. ] (]) 19:04, 4 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :I still think the two tags are unnecessary. You ? You restored the . Please explain what is wrong with the lede or remove the tag from the lede. ] (]) 20:46, 4 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::That tag was placed by Kim, you removed it with an open RFC on it, that is still open. I replaced it because it is the subject of an open RFC. ] (]) 20:53, 4 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::You haven't shown what is the issue with the lede and yet you ? ] (]) 20:55, 4 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::It would be wiser to keep content related stuff to the article talk page. --] 21:03, 4 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| Yes it appears that a few editors want to exclude the position of the ] and a review article published in ], one of medicines most respected journals. They instead wish to replace these with the position of a single author review published in a 1 year old journal with an impact factor of zero. ] (] · ] · ]) 22:04, 4 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :Thanks for showing your true motivation, a conflict over content, and silencing those that disagree with you. The boomerang should hit hard ] (]) 22:37, 4 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::I am sure it will. My motivation is to accurately reflect the best available sources. Personal attacks are unfortunately becoming more common ] (] · ] · ]) 23:03, 4 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::Yes, you proved personal attacks are becoming common by coming here. ] (]) 23:54, 4 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :I'm sorry Doc, but do you really think that fighting over content issues is appropriate for AN/I? Noone - None - Zip - Nada persons want to ''"exclude the position of the ]"''. The issue over a particular conference report from the WHO is significantly more complex than should be dragged out here, and certaintly not by misrepresenting peoples views. --] 23:16, 4 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::While we have this comment , which sounds like a desire to exclude the WHOs position IMO. If some come to the discussion with this perspective it makes it difficult to edit health related content. And than we have the personal insults. ] (] · ] · ]) 23:18, 4 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::Yep, that sarcastic comment, Who has been pointed out a few times for disruptive editing of the article . Where can we find the entry on this page from you for QuackGuru who shares your point of view? Nobody has tried to remove the WHO from the article. There is a report they commissioned, that is used 36 times, its use needs to be scaled back, but its used more and more.] (]) 23:57, 4 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::: Let's note one thing. Doc, you've accused him of being an SPA, which I believe he is not. But the fact that he's made 786 (take away or give a few, I used Ctrl+F on his contribs) edits to E-cigarette related stuff is disturbing. And unless, he's been factually incorrect, has failed to maintain a NPOV or has some kind of a COI, there's really no ''problem'' if this is a SPA. Doc, you're certainly involved and the fact that you've not taken any actions is an excellent thing (in fact, if you felt you've been wronged and you came to ANI for that, it was a perfectly fine decision). ''Note to all: Please refrain from making personal attacks. It can be grounds for harassment. <small>It's also time to quit all of your battleground mentality.</small>'' --]</font> <sub><span style="color:orange;font-family:Trajan Pro, Optima">«] § ]»</span></sub> 13:26, 5 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I just want to comment on the number of edits. I rarely make single edits and leave. A majority of the time typo's, extra spaces, justification problems, and syntax errors pop up because the wysiwyg editor doesnt work quite right on my distribution so I edit source most of the time. I will add a word because it doesnt read right, or after reading the paragraph move the addition to group it. It usually takes about 5 or more edits on something before I'm done, even on talk pages. If you divide that number by 4 or 5 its not that bad. While its still over 100 it isnt that bad on an article that is constantly changing. ] 17:27, 6 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *'''<s>Neutral on topic ban (for now).</s> <ins>Weak support for topic ban, definite warning needed and maybe X hours block for hounding to force them to take a break for a bit and come back with a clear head. ''' A topic ban would alleviate some issues at the page, but the behavior issues mostly seem to stem from a misunderstanding of NPOV that is causing disruption at the page. ] and ] could be helpful for this user, but I'm not sure that will solve the problem either.</ins> I've been watching the talk page from afar, and I will admit that there are issues that need to be resolved there, but I really can't put my finger on one single thing that's the main issue we can tie everything together with. ], just my take on the points you listed: | |||
| :#I do think AlbinoFerret's comments on the WHO being treated as god-like appear problematic. This could be a misunderstanding of ] with the degree of weight (usually quite a bit) we give statements from respected scientific organizations and ] behavior to a degree. Not really actionable by itself though. | |||
| :#For personal attacks, even sarcastic statements should not be used in spiny topics because they will rarely be taken as sarcastic. If there are many attacks though, then there would be something to consider for action there. AlbinoFerret definitely appears to have a spiny attitude in some cases after skimming over the talk page. I'm not sure the case has been made for personal attacks with just one diff though (feel free to provide more diffs if I missed a lot going through that mess). | |||
| :#I can see how you are looking at canvassing considering that those requests you mentioned (while worded neutral) did result in opinionated editors entering the fray. That does pose the question on whether canvassing was going on, but is there anything to substantiate that AlbinoFerret knew what their stance would be already and was recruiting? An extremely dicey question to tackle, but that would seem to be the only way to demonstrate canvassing here. | |||
| :Overall, SPA's are tricky to actually pin down as such. The core concept of an SPA is advocacy in some form, so maybe the better question is to ask whether AlbinoFerret's edits are grounded in advocacy for a particular point of view? Looking over how much they have been involved in the topic and the general vibe I get looking at their talk posts, this is a legitimate question to look into at this point, but advocacy actually being an issue here hasn't really been demonstrated yet (i.e., more concrete diffs). This would really have to answered before considering any kind of ban. ] (]) 03:13, 9 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::I recently edited the acupuncture article so what did AlbinoFerret write? He wrote "I think I want to add another article to my list of ones I want to edit, perhaps acupuncture would be nice." AlbinoFerret also wrote "If you look at the text that comes after it goes on to point out bias in other studies. so if you intend to change it, the bias statement will come in." Lots of sourced text was removed from the article but there was no reason to delete the text even if it was recently added. He undid the removal of text later when an editor commented on his . Now he . Please review the problematic RFC. See ]. The RFC is and the ]. ] (]) 04:36, 9 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::I hear you on deleting swathes of text while claiming no consensus though when saying order or section names haven't been decided. That is inappropriate, not to mention the Unknown (etc.) talk section is a plain silly premise and ]. You guys should be summarizing what the reliable secondary sources ''say'' whether the source says something does happen, doesn't, ''or'' is unknown. It looks like AlbinoFerret does need help understanding NPOV/due weight when it comes to their concerns about "negative bias", such as this diff , but that's not a matter for this noticeboard, but over at ] unless that behavior related to all this content discussion has become either a ] issue or advocacy. The acupuncture comment is threatening to ] you in this context, no doubt there. Basically, I do agree now that there is a problem with this user. | |||
| 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. | |||
| :::So, the threatening to hound should get a warning at a minimum or maybe an order of hours block to get the point across that civility is needed to cool their jets. That's just obviously bad. Everything else? Still really ambiguous for me what exactly would justify admin action since there are so many different things that are in a gray zone for whether help in other noticeboards is needed or admin action for disruptive editing. ] (]) 05:19, 9 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::], I think this is mainly a case of he does not like what the MEDRS compliant sources say. I think he will continue to delete reliably sourced text. ] (]) 05:37, 9 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::That is an unfounded accusation, one that you have repeated in quite a few places. Your source says nothing of the kind. It is contrary ]. ] 19:21, 13 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| I believe your experience could help address this situation effectively. | |||
| # The "canvassing" does not seem to be an issue, other users were notified in time, and I'm sure AlbinoFerret is now aware of the protocol. | |||
| # The comment about the WHO is not a big deal, and we should be able to accommodate different opinions without allowing it to chill discussion. OF course that does not mean that AF gets to veto WHO sources that meet RS/MEDRS. | |||
| # The personal attack against Quack Guru is unwarranted, and should be struck by AF. AF should be warned about making personal attacks. | |||
| # The suggestion that AF will follow QG to acupuncture is unhelpful at best. AF should be advised not to make these types of comments in future. | |||
| # AF's comment "This is just retaliation for bringing a charge of being involved in an edit war on ..." suggests that AF was deliberately edit warring. AF (and if necessary others) should be reminded that edit warring is not a good solution to disputes. However this ha already been done: AF was warned about edit warring on the 7th. They seem to understand, though there is resistance to other advice offered. | |||
| # There is no reason for a few hour cooling down block, this section is already several days old. | |||
| * I suggest a suitably worded warning/advice about personal attacks (2 above) and threatening to hound (3 above) by an uninvolved admin/editor would serve to resolve this section.{{Break}} | |||
| All the best: ''] ]'', <small>18:35, 9 November 2014 (UTC).</small><br /> | |||
| :] warned AlbinoFerret against further ]. See ]. He was . ] is probably the root of the . ] (]) 20:10, 9 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support topic ban''' from electronic cigarettes, broadly construed. AlbinoFerret is a straight-up ] ] who is engaging in disruptive ]-playing editing regarding the topic. AF joined the e-cig conversation on Sept. 30, with only a relative handful of edits before that and long gaps in Misplaced Pages participation. A review of shows 272 of his 284 article edits since Sept. 30 to the topic itself, and ONE HUNDRED PERCENT of his 681 Talk page edits(!) just since Sept. 30 related to the topic. This does't take into account his User Talk page involvement, ] discussion, or ] and ] activity related to his behavior regarding his editing of this topic.<p>For the game-playing, one example: AF was involved in Talk page discussion regarding one source, it concluded with no consensus to include the source because it didn't meet the ] standards. It was added back anyway by another editor, which led to DRN discussion that AF was involved it. It was closed as successful by the DRN volunteer against AF's position, with "no consensus to include". AF appears to have taken this as a license to open up RFCs at the article Talk page over content he doesn't like, and then use that as an excuse to removed lots of well-sourced content while stating "no consensus to include". For example, review this RFC AF started: ], which asks "Should more claims of the Unknown, Concerns, Unclear, Uncertain, and Possibilities type be added to the e-cigarette article?" Several experienced editors pointed out that this is a flawed RFC from the get-go. {{u|Formerly 98}}, {{U|QuackGuru}}, {{U|Doc James}}, {{U|Cloudjpk }}, {{U|Johnuniq}}, {{U|FloNight}}, {{U|Alexbrn}} and myself have all stated that the RFC itself is at best unclear and at worst impossibly out of line with policy, particularly ]; only {{u|EllenCT}} has responded in support. This didn't prevent AF from going ahead and removing a ton of well-sourced content with edit summaries like "remove non consensus edits": <p>Overall AF's involvement at regarding this topic is very disruptive and a topic ban is warranted. <code>]]</code> 22:10, 9 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose topic ban''' - the travesty at ] has shaken my faith in the integrity of the Misplaced Pages medical editing establishment more than any other event. There are multiple very high quality MEDRS literature reviews which have been cited in the article for months, but the medical editor clique -- the same editors opposed to AlbinoFerret here -- are staunchly against including their plain language statements that e-cigarettes are helpful to smokers who switch to them, much less harmful if harmful at all compared to cigarettes, and that physicians should support smokers switching to them. Instead of expressing concerns rooted in policy or guidelines, this cadre is simply making up new rules from whole cloth, pretending that a WHO conference proceeding has been independently reviewed when it is not, and insisting that the uncertainty of inconclusive reviews be exclusively and prominently summarized in the article introduction when they know full well there are no alternative hypotheses contradicting the fact that millions of smokers lives could be saved over the next decade if e-cigarettes are only effective for a quarter of the smoking population (as one of the longstanding MEDRS reviews says) '''because they mitigate the damage from ]'''. If I was not so demoralized by this sad state of affairs, I would have already escalated it through WP:RSN to higher level dispute resolution to call this formerly respectable cadre to account. Oh! How my heroes have fallen! <span style="color: red;">''Sic transit gloria mundi!''</span> I urge administrators to admonish the fallen cadre for their blatant disrespect and violation of the NPOV pillar policy. ] (]) 00:03, 10 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::Rather a vast conspiracy you are positing here Ellen. Why do you suppose that a group, many of whom are physicians, and which has created for itself the most demanding set of sourcing rules of any project in Misplaced Pages, the Medicine Project would suddenly and en mass decide to conspire to cover up evidence supporting a health-promoting device? I'd urge you to think about alternate hypotheses for explaining the current deadlock.] (]) 00:20, 10 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::Not a conspiracy, just a bunch of bullies who have become so overwhelmed with ]ership of an entire subject matter that they are willing to ignore policy and make up new rules to save face. I've repeatedly asked for alternative hypotheses on the article talk page, and none have been forthcoming. So what do you say they are? ] (]) 06:18, 10 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::<p>Please, Ellen, this ANI discussion needs to remain focused on editor behavior and not turn into a content discussion. You haven't made any behavior-based argument here against a topic ban for AF. We need to be able to have disagreements about sourcing and content without engaging in disruptive behavior, as AF has done. <code>]]</code> 00:45, 10 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::I am complaining about editor behavior, and there is no way to explain that complaint without reference to the underlying content. That is just the way things are. AlbinoFerret should be commended for upholding the NPOV pillar policy in the face of so much willingness to disregard and violate it, and shame on your characterization of that admirable behavior as disruption. ] (]) 06:18, 10 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| <Strike>*'''Support Topic Ban, preferably in combination with a temporary freeze on editing by all editors''' By way of disclosure I have been somewhat involved in this conflict and on the other side from AF. I've personally felt concerned by what I perceive as a lack of understanding or perhaps a even a lack of regard for MEDRS by AF and some of his allies, who really seem to me less concerned with reliable sources and reflecting the extremely heavy emphasis placed on health issues in virtually all reliable sources on this topic than on making sure it presents a certain point of view. How one can take a topic in which so much of what is in the literature is about health and make suggestions such as splitting out the health issue discussion into a separate article is beyond my imagination as behavior of someone who is trying to build an encylopedia rather than advocate. But as I have admitted, I am to some extent a combatant here and so my opinion should be taken with a grain of salt.<p>I am also concerned about the effect this long running battle has on the culture of Misplaced Pages. The Electronic Cigarette article has been edited 272 times this week and the Talk page 508 times. We usually have at least one RFc ongoing. This is an edit war on the scale of WWI, with an equal level of deadlock.<p>Its time for the United Nations to send in some peacekeeping troops. I'd urge a fairly lengthy freeze of the article contents. I think a two week or longer ban on ALL EDITS by ALL PARTIES would potentially have a saluatory effect at this point. This, combined with topic bans for those whose behavior is indicative of not putting the encyclopedia first might put us on the right track. I'd recommend both of these actions, but either one by itself might help. ] (]) 23:56, 9 November 2014 (UTC)</strike> Striking and reversing based on good progress today. Will <b>oppose</b> tentatively contingent on continued progress. ] (]) 21:11, 11 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| **'''Support editing freeze''' - the cadre trying to omit the conclusive, prescriptive statements from the MEDRS reviews they otherwise support need to step aside and make way for editors who have respect for the NPOV policy. At this point I agree that a two week ban on edits by those who have previously edited the article is the only way to accomplish that. A topic ban alone would make things worse. ] (]) 06:31, 10 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support topic ban''' It is obvious that the ] is formulated as a vague motherhood statement to be used as a pretext to revert unwanted edits. Contributors wanting to tell the world about the benefits of e-cigarettes will have to excuse the slow and methodical approach of the ] editors who correctly want to wait for suitable sources. AlbinoFerret has 272 edits to ] and 680 to ], all made in the last 42 days, and the frenetic pace is not matched by improvements to the article. ] (]) 02:31, 10 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *:Banning someone because editors with an opposing POV don't like the way an RFC is worded would be abhorrent. Issues with the RFC should be addressed within the RFC itself, not by begging admins to squelch the voice of its author. ] (]) 06:34, 10 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *::Three hours after my above comment, AlbinoFerret removed verified text from the article (]) with edit summary "{{tq|remove speculative statement added while RFC on topic is ongoing}}". In other words, the RFC is already being used as a pretext to remove information verified by a reliable source. The point about e-cigarettes is that they are new and it will be many years before proper studies are available to provide accurate information. Until then, reliable sources will make many tentative statements such as the one removed on the basis that it was speculative. The big problem is that ''every'' statement about the efficacy and benefits of e-cigarettes is speculative (other than statements such as the one removed). The article talk page shows AlbinoFerret still arguing that the RFC is valid—that is why a topic ban is required. ] (]) 09:26, 10 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support topic ban''' based on above comments. ] (] · ] · ]) 03:05, 10 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support topic ban'''. The construction of an off-policy RfC and the subsequent mass deletion of content because of its assumed authority is damaging the page; the torrents of ] text on the Talk page are similarly unwelcome. ] <sup>]|]|]</sup> 07:00, 10 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| Looking forward to your advice on how to proceed. | |||
| <Strike>What looks to me like a 3RR violation as well, at a minimum getting very close for someone previously warned against edit warring: , , , Another large set of reversions the day before, about 12 hours outside the 24 hour window. ] (]) 11:51, 10 November 2014 (UTC)</strike> Striking and reversing based on some good progress today. ] (]) 21:11, 11 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| Thankyou! ]] 15:21, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose topic ban''' It is sad reflection of the state of relations between users who edit the e-cig article that what is effectively a content dispute gets raised here. From all that I have seen AlbinoFerret's behaviour and actions have been mostly positive ones (and certainly in good faith). In regards to the points originally raised, AlbinoFerret's low opinion of The WHO that was voiced on a talk page is not a violation of any policies/guidelines that I know of, he is fully entitled to an opinion. The point regarding him calling QuackGuru "the master of ridiculous" also carries little weight since the intention was clearly to highlight QuackGuru's (an editor with an ], last blocked for disruptive editing on the e-cig article) own derogatory use of "ridiculous". ], well if it was canvassing AlbinoFerret very soon realised their mistake and notified editors with opposing opinions. ] is not specifically prohibited as I understand it, I see no evidence that they are engaging in advocacy and little evidence has been presented that they have a ]. Better to ] in the face of a lack of evidence I think.] (]) 14:01, 12 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :"Vandalize" is a very loaded word here with a specific meaning. As far as I can tell, what they've done is nominate 4 articles for deletion, and your has been to accuse them of vandalism, ignoring dispute resolution procedures and making personal attacks – none of which I can see at a glance through their contributions. | |||
| *'''Oppose topic ban''' this is a content dispute. I have done nothing to warrant a topic ban. Much has been said in the comments about an RFC I started on "Speculative" statements citing ]. There has never been consensus for adding these "Unknown" and "unclear" statements. As noted they have been removed by me and others. Only to have the larger group of medical editors restore them, even if someone else removes them. But WP isnt build on who the larger group is, but consensus. I started the RFC top see where consensus lies. Citing it as a problem, use of an RFC to see what the consensus of the editors is, only goes to prove that this is a content issue. The fewer non medical editors, the easier it will be for group ownership to continue. ] 06:42, 13 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :Perhaps if you supplied ] of this behaviour, someone would be able to help? If your issue is that they've nominated 4 articles of which you are a major contributor ''and'' are doing so by going through your contributions in order to find articles to nominate for deletion with specious reasons, then this board would be the place to come. If not, then making your arguments for keeping the articles on the AfDs in question would be your best bet. | |||
| ::As an uninvolved editor, what I'm seeing isn't just a content dispute. It's concerns over behavior stemming from a content dispute that has gotten out of hand. Sometimes editors have a tough time disentangling those ideas. I've seen your concerns about "Unknown" and "unclear" statements on the page, and it looks like that is one of the main things that is getting the talk page pretty bloated. ] pertains to us as editors trying to figure out what future relevance may be. If a reliable source though is summarizing scientific research and stating its current state of knowledge in the field, that's a very different case (i.e., Here are important things that we don't know much about yet). Points like that don't seem to be getting across, which is a behavior issue described by ]. Sometimes that's a competence issue, sometimes it's just being passionate in a controversial topic and not being as receptive to criticism depending on the editor. Normally, that is a behavior that can be remedied as it's not as serious as an isolated incident, but it can become very disruptive when it persists over time. I'd suggest just stepping back for a bit and reflecting on some of the legitimate criticism made about your behavior. You're definitely in a position where admin action isn't needed if you can resolve your behavior, so I'd suggest learning about how scientific research is summarized and maybe ask over at ] about how unknowns are summarized in literature too. I'm only slightly positive on a ban because it does seem like it would improve the talk page discussion, but it doesn't seem like a good option at all compared to following the path I just mentioned. You've definitely got room to move forward on this, so good luck. ] (]) 16:09, 13 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :By the way is forum shopping. Stop that. ] (]) 16:06, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::Thank you for the comment ], sometimes the words of an uninvolved editor have more impact when there is a controversy. I was hoping for more uninvolved editors to comment on the RFC, perhaps if that had happened it would have been withdrawn sooner. That a few people voted No to inclusion had me thinking perhaps I was correct that there was no consensus. . I did go looking for information on WPNOV, but ] 16:33, 13 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :(ec) This is an odd one. As S-Aura failed to provide diffs, I looked at Kriji Sehamati's contribution history. New account (9 Dec) began editing today, created two drafts and made a bunch of edits to those. Then began adding COI tags to articles S-Aura wrote, nominated those articles for deletion, and then left a template on S-Aura's talk page. Really seems to be something weird going on here between those two. (In addition to opening this ANI thread, S-Aura asked for help with basically the same message on the talk pages of Ipigott, Ryan shell, CFA, and BusterD, and S-Aura opened same complaint at AN.) ] ] 16:06, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support topic ban''' - this is just too disruptive. AlbinoFerret thinks he . Originally AlbinoFerret said but later he misused the RFC to with edit summary "remove speculative statement added while RFC on topic is ongoing". He wrote in his edit summary . It was not a study. It is a ] compliant review. He has a . ] (]) 07:36, 13 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::I am concerned that ]’s actions, including unjustified deletion nominations and spamming, are disruptive and violate Misplaced Pages’s guidelines. | |||
| ::I dont believe adding speculative statements to the article has consensus, removing ,also this edit did not remove this claim from the article, but just from the lede, it existed in the Harm reduction section. This edit cited by QuackGuru thinking that other reviews had cleared things up. The claim exists in the article today and hasnt been removed. Two of the diffs added by you are duplicates of other links in your comment. ] 08:06, 13 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::She seems to lack understanding of basic Misplaced Pages guidelines, particularly those related ] and ]. ]] 16:40, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| '''Oppose topic ban''' = Those edits were made more than a week ago. When it comes to ], ] should apply to Doc James for canvassing repeatedly. -] (]) 23:38, 13 November 2014 (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) | |||
| *Comment. User:AlbinoFerret, please explain . My recent edit did not change any section name. I commented on the talk page the section name should be simple rather than long. ] (]) 01:42, 15 November 2014 (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: | |||
| :{{ping|User:QuackGuru}} I had already you were posting here. It was your pal Cloudjpk who reverted back to the inaccurate section name. After you did not change it, I changed it to one of the proposed names. The section name is inaccurate as it discusses 3 different particle sizes. Your wanting to keep the name and phrasing you have edited ] | |||
| :::: • | |||
| ::It was previously explained on the talk page that the text and sources describe the particles in the ultrafine range. User:Formerly 98 wrote: "I don't understand the OR tag on the Ultrafine particles section. The cited references clearly describe these particles as being in the nanometer size range, which is on the order of a couple of thousand molecules. Doesn't get much finer than that. What exactly is the OR being referred to here?" | |||
| :::: • | |||
| ::There is no need to have a long section name and you never had consensus in the first place to change the section name. ] (]) 02:03, 15 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::: • | |||
| :::The name still needs to be changed. But this is not the place to discuss content issues. After 2 days of discussing it, I changed it to better describe its content. It needs to be changed as we speak because of a revert. This is an ongoing issue, things are done to improve the article, only to be reverted. ] 02:10, 15 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::: • | |||
| ::::Disagreed. The section name is accurate. Now you are arguing to change the wording back to vapor. But the article says "Mist produced from an e-cigarette is frequently but inaccurately called vapor." Do you understand the term vapor is inaccurate? ] (]) 02:39, 15 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::and many more | |||
| :::::I am not arguing, but discussing. The word Vapor is common usage when discussing e-cigarettes. ] tells us we should write for the common reader using normal terms when possible, not jargon. It was never agreed to change every instance of vapor to mist. There was a discussion in the lede about the by you, another ownership issue. An agreement was made for that sentence, excluding the whole article (see the last comment in the section I linked to), to change that sentence to mist. You have been busy changing vapor to mist, but forgot about aerosol. If it works for one word, it works for both. , if it works for one word , it should work for both words that were But this is not the place to discuss content issues. ] 03:37, 15 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Thankyou! ]] 17:33, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Do you think your edit matched your ? Part of your edit included deleting the wikilink for no apparent reason and you changed the text that was in quotes. You should not change the quoted text. Changing the text that were quoted is original research. You previously wrote ] (]) 06:15, 15 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::We wouldn't generally treat an AfD as vandalism. ] (]) 17:39, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::I think a large boomerang should hit you. You are quick to post content issues here in an attempt to get me topic banned. This is not the place for content problems, but you insist on bringing them here. But talk little on the articles talk page except to defend the problems you insert in the page (see long line diff's below). You revert things to how you added them no matter how the wording was changed or who changes it. You originally You want . Based on limited . But only so far as it doesnt touch edits you have made or wording you have placed in, because the limited agreement was to chose "mist" over "vapor" or "aerosol" you did not change one instance of aerosol without wikilinking to it to cheat the agreement, and then only for a few, but there is no consensus for any widespread change as shown by the limited agreement. Regardless what guidelines like ] say you wirt like a medical journal and not for the general reader always adding jargon. You have been banned for disruptive editing more times than anyone I have edited a page with. Yet you still continue to disrupt the editing of e-cigarette. , , , and here where You insist on inserting ] . You argue over small words that have the same meaning and dont pahaphrase. You insert non MEDRS to make medical claims . You insist on placing one review out of order to serve your pov and refuse any order but the one you want. After dating the citation names in the source to keep them in order you changed them back to disguise your actions and edited the section to place your subjective order in place. A forever boomerang should hit you because you have had banns (look at his talk page for a long list) but still continue disruptive editing. ] 12:53, 15 November 2014 (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 have started a new RFC, it is on the use of the word to see what the consensus is in using these words. There have been a lot of edit battles on the words as some want one thing other want something use used they are replaced with each other all the time by multiple editors. Quack Guru just made a statement that severely goes against ] . These accusations include ] and to "carry on ideological ]S". He is also suggesting we carry out ] by using one source to correct others. I am trying to use the tools Misplaced Pages has to fix issues. These attacks are just sad. ] 08:43, 16 November 2014 (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) | |||
| *'''Oppose topic ban''' - this is a thinly-veiled attempt to resolve a content dispute by getting an editor with opposing views removed from the discussion. ] (]) 06:44, 16 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::Please provide evidence of this. ] (]) 18:06, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose topic ban''' - I agree with Mihaister; this is just an attempt to get rid of an editor the MED cabal don't like. If anyone should be topic banned it's QuackGuru and Doc James, who've turned an article about a consumer product into a terrifying list of speculation and unfounded concerns based mostly on a single paper by a mechanical engineer.--] (]) 20:22, 16 November 2014 (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) | |||
| *'''Oppose topic ban''' Since it seems that all the involved editors have chosen to give their 2 cents here, i will do so as well, even if i'm involved, and really shouldn't :( . What is happening here is basically one "side" of a content dispute trying to get rid of an editor on the other "side" - and that really should have been thrown away immediately. I find it a sad state of affairs that something as silly as this gets escalated to ANI - but perhaps it is time to find some non-involved volunteer admin who will "police" the article for misbehaviour on either "side". --] 01:18, 17 November 2014 (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) | |||
| *'''Support topic ban''' The record is clear: endless ], ] and just plain disruptive editing. ] (]) 04:45, 17 November 2014 (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) | |||
| ::'''Comment:''' I think you will find that most editors (on both 'sides') involved in the e-cig article have been guilty of some amount of ] and partisan editing, where is the evidence that AlbinoFerret is substantially more guilty than everyone else? In fact AlbinoFerret has ] to try and diffuse all the feuding between 'sides'. | |||
| {{od}} | |||
| :{{ping|Kriji Sehamati}} hasn't edited since their AfD spree earlier today, let's wait and see what their response here is when they return to editing. ] ] 18:16, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::I couldn't agree more with the likes of and that this all has far more to do with trying to suppress the opinions and legitimate editing of a particularly active editor, therefore gaining ground in a content dispute. Whether intended or not, it is also likely to intimidate other editors.] (]) 15:52, 17 November 2014 (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) | |||
| *'''Oppose topic ban''' per EllenCT, Levelledout, Mihaister, CheesyAppleFlake and Kim D. Petersen. I have no involvement in this content dispute but have been watching from a far. This appears to be an effort to get rid of opposing views. --] (]) 03:29, 22 November 2014 (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) | |||
| * '''Support topic ban''' - Albino has gone on a tear now, adding non-NPOV content about pharma companies lobbying to have e-cigs treated as medical devices in europe, to a bunch of articles: and and and . None of his edits mention lobbying efforts ''by the e-cig industry'' against treating them like medical devices. These efforts are named in ''the title'' of the NYTimes article he is using a source: and the e-cig industry lobbying is the focus of most articles about it. argh. Albino's ] POV-pushing related to a pro-e-cig POV is extending out beyond the e-cig article. In the GSK article, I've reverted the addition and asked why the content should be given any ] and if so, how much, and the question is just going right over his head. (discussion is ]) All he can see is e-cigs. Enough already. ] (]) 02:25, 23 November 2014 (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) | |||
| === User:CheesyAppleFlake === | |||
| *:::::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) | |||
| {{archivetop|NAC:] indeffed by ] as ]. ] (]) 17:17, 18 November 2014 (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) | |||
| *{{userblock|CheesyAppleFlake}} | |||
| *:::::Dear @], | |||
| This editor is a ] with fully 157 of his 164 edits regarding ]. For whatever reason this article has become extremely contentious, but Cheesy's contributions to the topic area serve purely to insult others and fan the flames. He had already received one civility warning from {{u|Doc James}} regarding comment of his; his responses were "By now everyone knows Quack is basically your meatpuppet" and "the incestuous relationship between Quack and Doc James is pretty common knowledge". Today he posted at the article Talk page, calling other editors {{tq|retarded chipmunks}}. I asked him to reconsider at his User Talk, his response was , {{tq|the article is being destroyed by semi-literate idiots intent on forcing a medical agenda onto an article about a consumer product. And you can't seriously tell me that either Sieg Heilman or Quack has any significant mastery of the English language}}. Calling Doc James "Sieg Heilman" is beyond the pale. See current status of their User Talk . I don't believe this is a candidate for a topic ban because I have no evidence they're here to do anything other than take potshots or fan the flames, I don't detect any kind of learning happening or even any desire to do better. I think this is a candidate for a block. <code>]]</code> 05:23, 18 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::It means I have been proven wrong, and that user’s contributions have been more focused on me, which is quite insufficient to catch someone’s lie that she is pretending to be new, when in fact she is old. | |||
| ::I didn't call other editors retarded chipmunks. I said the Health Effects section ''looks like it was written by'' retarded chipmunks, because it does. However any attempt to change the wording gets reverted by Doc James or Quack, neither of whom appears to be a native English speaker.--] (]) 11:15, 18 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::Also, I am not against AfD; I am simply expressing my opinion. ]] 13:12, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::Cheesy, you ''might'' have been able to hide behind this tiny fig leaf, which is nothing more than a technical letter-but-not-spirit loophole in ] policy, had you not gone ahead and ''named Doc James and QuackGuru explicitly'' on your User Talk as the individual editors you were referring to. And if you recognize that calling other editors "retarded chipmunks" was unacceptable enough to attempt to hide behind a technicality in ] policy to distance yourself from it, what are we to think about the <u>other</u> comments you've made, where you haven't bothered to make even that effort? <code>]]</code> 13:24, 18 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::Could you please rephrase your point here? I don't understand. While it's okay to be suspicious that this editor is somehow socking or doing something else deceptive due to the familiarity, it seems unacceptable to deliberately accuse them of such repeatedly without firmer evidence. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff"> ‥ </span>]</span> 13:19, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I may not have put it that way. but a lot of the article looks like someone wrote down claims on slips of paper, tossed them in a bag, and pulled them out one at a time and inserted them. "looks like it was written by retarded chipmunks" looks to be a very sarcastic comment, not something based in anger. It also addresses a common issue on the article where at least one editor cant paraphrase or refuses to. Where at least one major contributor has what appear to be reading comprehension issues, and that isnt an insult but assuming good faith. Where that editor wont rewrite sentences or remove problematic uses of sources where they acknowledge a problem probably exists, but insists others do it for them. You are pointing out the symptom and not seeing the underlying problem. The way its addressed could definitely use some improvement, but we need people pointing out issues in the article so it can be improved. Silencing someone for anything but a small time to think on their actions is counterproductive. ] 16:16, 18 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::::Dear @], | |||
| *:::::::I am not engaged in paid activities on Misplaced Pages, and she claimed that I am connected with the subject, who is a judge, lawyer, etc. You all should understand that this is not a trivial matter; justice is a very respected position. Making such allegations can escalate court cases. I would like to remind you of the Misplaced Pages vs. ANI case. ]] 13:24, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :His response in response to the conflict currently going on Where you, and you are an admin, are refusing to follow ]. ] 05:29, 18 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :: |
*::::::::One thing you need to understand immediately is you should never make another post that sounds vaguely like a legal threat, as you've just done above. ] That intonation is seriously not helping us decide who's right or wrong here. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff"> ‥ </span>]</span> 13:27, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | ||
| *:::::::::Okay! ]] 13:35, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Yes; his dictatorial attitude and serious ] issues. He's just an editor like anyone else, but he throws his weight around like he owns the place. No interest in consensus, just an obsession with forcing MED rules on everything that takes his interest.--] (]) 11:17, 18 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::::I will caution you that this is tiptoeing right up to the edge of ] and you'd be advised to avoid making legal threats. ] (]) 13:28, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::There is never a reason for racial slurs, never, ever, ever, ever. The way you addressed a problem is wrong. But there is a problem. The reasons for the actions you see is because there is a larger group of editors acting as a group. I cant prove collusion, but if an issue pops up editors from the medical side amazingly pop up. Doc James has already been warned for . He knows that he has backup. A big issue on the article is a heightened standard of references for what should be non contentious claims and requiring every claim have a reference even in areas that are not medical in nature on a article about a consumer product. There is also a problem imho with completely silencing any criticism of the Grana article or the WHO. ] 16:43, 18 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::::::Dear @], | |||
| :::There he constant battle between two groups of editors, medical, and non medical over content. I agree he does have a lot to learn, but if asked nicely he may change. I have asked him nicely to remove other things before, and he did. But there is no time really to teach anyone anything on the article talk pages. Its a constant battleground that leads to a battleground mentality. The article needs someone to step in, not someone with ties to the article, or Wikiprojects that have an interest in it. Its getting worse, and the article has more problems, frankly I fear to bring them up because of it. ] 05:40, 18 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::::::I am merely showing that she can potentially do something inappropriate. I am following the guidelines and not making any legal threats. ]] 13:31, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Civility--basic respect for editors you don't necessarily agree with--is essential, especially at a contentious article. You don't even seem to be aware that Cheesy's involvement at the article is significantly inhibiting your ability to work on it. <code>]]</code> 05:45, 18 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::::::Accusing another editor of potentially making legal threats is not much better, when there is no concrete evidence that they would do so. Being interested in articles about judges does not suffice. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff"> ‥ </span>]</span> 13:32, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::But it wouldn't ''be'' a contentious article if a few members from one Wikiproject weren't insisting on treating it as medical and using massive over-reliance on one dubious paper to slant it the way they want.--] (]) 11:27, 18 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::::The page of Justice ], who had conducted over the Misplaced Pages vs. ANI court hearing, was also created by me. ]] 13:28, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I think there is a bigger problem than Cheesy, QuackGuru is involved in almost all the conflicts as a main participant. Could Cheesy use a break to think on what he has done? Maybe, but a ban? I dont think so. Like I said, there are lots of problems, and conflicts start all the time. I am doing my very best to stay calm and just work on the article, but its near impossible. Formally 98 had it quiet for a day or so, to bad it didnt last. ] 05:50, 18 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::: |
*:::::::::<del>State plainly what the implication you are making here is, because what I'm hearing is "I'm familiar with people who have hit Misplaced Pages with a mallet in court before, and I can make sure it happens again".</del> <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff"> ‥ </span>]</span> 13:30, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | ||
| *::::::::::This is becoming a rabbit hole. I urge you not to pursue the rabbit further. ] (]) 13:33, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::Maybe so? I take that back QuackGuru is a main participant in ALL the conflicts. As for Cheesy, bans are not ment to be punitive]. Thats what I see happening here, and how Cheesy will take it. We need to quiet the conflicts, because thats whats causing the problem with Cheesy, we need to stop with the "I Just Dont Like it" edits. Because as I said above, its a battleground and it brings about a battleground mentality. Its turning everyone into a fighter when we should be editing. These notice board filings are treating a symptom and not the problem underneath. If anything, a short topic block to cool off. ] 06:03, 18 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::::::::Good call, I'll retract the above. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff"> ‥ </span>]</span> 13:34, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::Please start a new section if you want to complain about something else. ] (]) 05:43, 18 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::::::No, that is not what I am implying. ]] 13:33, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::It isnt a complaint so much as context. QG's conduct is already chronicled above, but perhaps a section of his own instead of hoping for a boomerang would be better. Without undestanding the root of the problem, its just treating a symtom. ] 06:18, 18 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *:::No one has said your contributions are not good. However, it should be noted that a draft being accepted at AfC or a new page having been ] does not guarantee greater scrutiny would not result in a valid AfD nomination. That said, echoing others here it's clear something problematic is up with this user's behavior. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff"> ‥ </span>]</span> 12:02, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::AF, re "As for Cheesy, bans are not ment to be punitive WP:BLOCKNOTPUNITIVE" -- If you really believe BLOCKNOTPUNITIVE applies here, you are seriously misunderstanding what's going on. However per your own comment where you call out Cheesy's behavior as unacceptable <u>and</u> implore him not to continue doing it indicates that you know his behavior has been bad and is likely to continue--''that'' is exactly what sanctions are designed for. Any sanction being considered for Cheesy will be ''preventative'' against future bad behavior, and so BLOCKNOTPUNITIVE does not apply here. <code>]]</code> 13:14, 18 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *::You can't both criticize someone for {{tq|lack understanding of basic Misplaced Pages guidelines, particularly those related ] and ]}}, and then argue that she is too familiar with the platform to be a newcomer for knowing how to file an AfD. I wouldn't be surprised if most people here knew how to file an AfD before knowing all 14 notability guidelines by heart. ] (] · ]) 12:59, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::If you dont see that a ban instead of a short topic block will be seen as punishment by Cheesy and a lot of the editors that see the same problems with the article, it brings questions about your understanding of people and how to help with admin actions and not hurt. Where are the comments on any other page but their own and e-cigaertte that are problems? Why the heavy handed approach? ] 16:25, 18 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *:::There are detailed instructions on filing an AfD that can be found by googling "how can I get a Misplaced Pages page deleted" - if somebody had some personal reason for wanting to have pages removed it doesn't strain credibility to think that's why they created a WP account and that they just followed the very clear instructions on the appropriate pages. | |||
| *] referring to '''Sieg Heilman''' (see ] and ]) shows that a topic ban from ] is required for CheesyAppleFlake. There is no need to block if the user manages to edit constructively elsewhere. ] (]) 05:43, 18 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *:::In fact that might explain why some of the AfD filings were reasonable and some were, on their face, incorrectly filed. If you looked up the AfD ''process'' but not ''criteria'' that is the likely outcome. That's why I find the "new user files AfDs must be a sock" idea here somewhat uncompelling. ] (]) 13:04, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| **There is really no response when someone starts making racial slurs. This is ] in action. Further less than helpful comments keep coming in ] (] · ] · ]) 06:43, 18 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *I believe we're entering boomerang territory at this point. Opinions? ] (]) 13:35, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:I think OP is upset that a cluster of their articles were put up at AfD. This in itself is understandable, but while there's reason to think there might be mischief by Kriji Sehamati, we don't have any real evidence of it. We either need the OP to make it clearer what misconduct, if any, has occurred, or they need to ]. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff"> ‥ </span>]</span> 13:37, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| Yes, its been very contentious. But the problem here is not just a content dispute. Cheesy never misses an opportunity to add an insult to his comments on the Talk page or even his edit summaries. He's here to try to beat his opponents into submission, and to my knowledge has never made a single post that encouraged any sort of compromise or consensus building. Some Cheesy classics: | |||
| *::The OP has been intentionally disruptive (by creating a new ANI thread which was reverted), and this thread is going nowhere. IMHO, there's nothing ANI can do here. Everything I'm reading about should be resolved at the page talk and user talk level, in my opinion. The AfDs are underway. If dispute resolution is needed, fine. Nobody is harming S-Aura. S-Aura can't come crying to ANI (or four random user talk pages like mine) anytime someone merely disagrees with them. ] (]) 14:08, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| * "I'll just suggest that instead of trying to force a medical slant on this article you learn something about the subject first. That's the main cause of this whole damn mess" | |||
| *:::I'd have said close with trout for all if not for creating the second thread at AN/I. Based on that I'd say the OP should be formally cautioned against such antics in the future. ] (]) 14:10, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| * "This is because, no offense, you have no idea about the subject in general." | |||
| *::I should have added that I largely hold with Remsense in their position. ] (]) 14:15, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| * Im response to my proposal that we take 24 hours off from editing for a cooling off period: "No. Go spend the 24 hours learning something about the damn subject" | |||
| *:::] is definitely a sock puppet on Misplaced Pages, but we don’t have any evidence because understanding Misplaced Pages’s AfD process so quickly can be a bit challenging. I have no problem with AfD regarding my contributions, and it’s a good thing that experienced contributors are giving their feedback. If you believe that the kriji is 100% correct and her activity is not suspicious, then this discussion should be closed. ]] 14:27, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| * "So we didn't all agree that e-cigs are a health hazard, and now you grab your ball and go home. Fine. See you when you finish elementary school" | |||
| *::::You need to stop insisting this is definitely the case if you don't have any evidence for it, period. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff"> ‥ </span>]</span> 14:28, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| * "Well then I am going to change every instance of "mist" back to "vapor". Nobody else in the entire fucking world calls e-cig vapor "mist" apart from this idiotic article." | |||
| *::::S-Aura, how did you make the determination {{tq|User:Kriji Sehamati is definitely a sock puppet on Misplaced Pages}}? Please share your process. That's a personal attack, and requires proof to prevent you from being in violation of ]. I've looked at the AfDs and they seem reasonable to me. When you've provided strong sources the article is being kept. So far the jury is out on the others. Both of you seem to be writing articles about obscure living persons who wouldn't normally (by my cursory reading) have a Misplaced Pages article about them because reliable sourcing is not readily found. When I see that, I must suspect COI or undeclared unpaid editing here, but nobody's admitting to it. ] (]) 15:05, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| * "But hey, it's also an alternative to very lucrative (but useless) NRTs, so the med crowd don't care if it saves lives or not." | |||
| *::::S-Aura's continuing to issue personal attacks makes it more difficult for us to just close this (without some form of consequence for the editor making unproven personal attacks after they've been warned repeatedly). ] (]) 15:08, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| * "Meanwhile a review published in Addiction is being rejected by your lapdog because he doesn't like its conclusions." | |||
| I've been |
*:::::I have made a level-four user talk page warning for the personal attack. FYI. We've been very nice about this up 'til now, but we need to stop being so kind. Doing foolish things has real world consequences. ] (]) 15:17, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | ||
| * Both editors' apparent use of AI is certainly disruptive. If it continues, it should lead to blocks. <span style="padding:2px 5px;border-radius:5px;font-family:Arial black;white-space:nowrap;vertical-align:-1px">] <span style=color:red>F</span> ]</span> 15:10, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :Really? How about QuackGuru? If you want to identify the real problem on the article (and many more) it's him, abetted by his fearless protector.--] (]) 11:13, 18 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *:No personal hate intended, but I just found this and thought it would be worth checking. ]] 16:49, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::It would be nice if you could explain the significance for those who do not speak Hausa. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff"> ‥ </span>]</span> 16:51, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| Adding also the following exchange on Chessy's Talk page: | |||
| *:::She had made contributions to pages in other languages a few months ago. I am attaching her contributions link. ]] 16:59, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :: <i>This was not an appropriate or collaborative, content-focused comment, and it was just one of many unnecessary sharp comments you've made at that article's already overly-contentious Talk page. Please reconsider your approach to working alongside your fellow editors. Zad68 9:01 pm, Yesterday (UTC−8) | |||
| *::::How does this constitute evidence of sockpuppetry if we aren't to know what exactly happened? There's a reason we don't just automatically block anybody who is blocked on another language wiki, and I looked through the edits some and didn't find anything outrageous that made it past the language barrier. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff"> ‥ </span>]</span> 17:01, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::It was perfectly appropriate, because the article is being destroyed by semi-literate idiots intent on forcing a medical agenda onto an article about a consumer product. And you can't seriously tell me that either Sieg Heilman or Quack has any significant mastery of the English language, because they don't.--CheesyAppleFlake (talk) 9:07 pm, Yesterday (UTC−8)</i> | |||
| *:::::I agree that it’s important to ensure we have solid evidence before making conclusions. I appreciate your perspective on not automatically blocking users based on blocks from other language wikis. ]] 17:17, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::Please don't reply to me or others using ChatGPT. It is flat-out rude. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff"> ‥ </span>]</span> 17:18, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| Even Cheesy's main supporter on this page clearly sees a problem: | |||
| * '''Support BOOMERANG''' - I've been uninvoled and have mainly just been watching the back-and-forths, but the personal attacks and ] mindset, such as "questioning the validity of all the work that has been carefully reviewed and maintained by experienced contributors", concerns me. Not sure for how long, but I don't think anything longer than a months is appropriate given the circumstances. ]<sub>]</sub><sup>]</sup> 15:47, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::<i>Hi Cheesy. The e-cigarette article needs editors. I like having someone else like you who sees the components section as important and in need of developing on the article. But the personal stuff has got to stop. I really really know its hard to bite your tong or sit on your hands. But it doesnt do any good to post some of the stuff they have links of you posting. I truly believe that some people do and say things hoping to get a reaction they can use against you. But posting stuff only plays into their game. Take some time to cool down. Strike the words you have posted in aggravation towards someone else. Be a better person and rise above it. Again, its not easy, it never is, and the Lord knows I have not always followed my own advice in the past. AlbinoFerret 10:52 pm, Yesterday (UTC−8)</i> ] (]) 11:28, 18 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *This whole thread, but especially the 16:49, 24 December 2024 (UTC) comment, feels like the OP is just throwing literally everything at the wall to see what sticks. But, worse, what is being thrown at the wall lacks any significant body of evidence to support. I note that a personal attack warning has been given for the continued unfounded accusations being presented, which I think is a good move. I don't support a block at this point, although if I was the OP I would withdraw this complaint and/or drop the stick and walk away from this topic as a matter of urgency to avoid continuing to make the situation worse. ] (]) 17:41, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::I dont think that was a nice thing to do. An attempt to help someone turned around and used against them. This proposed ban is treating the symptom and not the problem. Some of Cheesy's comments are problems. I would never make them. But so are a lot of the actions on e-cigarette that bring these comments out. Its a battleground and it has got to stop. Would a short time off to cool down and think about all this help? Probably. My comments on Cheesy's talk page were an attempt to get more thinking and less instant action. I agree with what I assume to be a lot of the underlying reasons for the posts, just not the words used and the way he went about confronting the problem. ] 15:51, 18 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| The real problem is QuackGuru, who falsely claims consensus for stupid edits like his wholesale replacement of "vapor" with "mist", and Doc James isn't helping much either. Topic ban them and the article will cool down considerably. Neither of them knows anything about the subject anyway and they haven't shown any willingness to learn, so apart from regurgitating the Grana paper at every opportunity they don't have a lot to offer.--] (]) 11:36, 18 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :*'''support block''' per original posting and subject's behavior in the discussion above. ]. ] (]) 12:39, 18 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :*'''Support block''' too as an uninvolved editor having reviewed the evidence. ] (]) 16:17, 18 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :*'''Block and indefinite topic ban from electronic cigarettes''', as they clearly are too emotionally involved in the topic to contribute usefully to the topic. "Sieg Heilman"? Seriously? How are they not blocked already? ] (]) 16:20, 18 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| * I don't understand why we are discussing a block here when the editor is clearly not here to build an encyclopedia and his actions at this noticeboard is of a ] mentality that we don't need in this project. I went ahead and gave him an indefinite block. ] <sup>]</sup> 16:44, 18 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :*'''support short topic block'''. The users actions are problematic, but centred on one article with no proof that it extends to any other page. A short time to step away and think on their actions would be helpful. A complete removal from WP is heavy handed and a long term topic block will let the underlying problems with the article continue by talking one more voice of a small group that speak on them. I hope Cheesy can come back and change their actions and work in a constructive way to address the problems that exist on e-cigarette and are not going away. ] 16:53, 18 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::I type to slow. ] 16:56, 18 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::You really believe that if you could just have typed a little faster, you could have "saved" Cheesy, given the above? No. <code>]]</code> 17:01, 18 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| {{archivebottom}} | |||
| === User:QuackGuru === | |||
| ] has been blocked before for disruptive editing. He has a long term history of disruptive editing to multiple articles on WP. A search of the ] cases brings back A common theme when reading through some of the reports is ] A review of the log that is accessible from his talk page shows he has had blocks for disruptive editing 3 times this year and once in the last month. The log also shows a repeated pattern of disruptive editing with numerous blocks/bans over time. All for disruptive editing. He seems attracted to controversial articles and adds disruption to already difficult situations. The actions below all revolve on the ] article. | |||
| In a textbook case of ] QuackGuru is being disruptive to the ] talk page. He is attempting to poison the RFC that is on the topic of what word to choose to describe what comes out of an e-cigarette, either | |||
| He started out trying to use a limited agreement on one sentence in the lede by placing comments to other commentator in two places at once. Since he also tried to attribute motive for the RFC I replied to the comment and told him the previous consensus was limited to one sentence in the lede and that he had broken the agreement and that the RFC was to see where consensus lies. | |||
| He created a subsection of the RFC called "Consensus" He also placed the same comment trying to prove that a limited consensus, that he broke, was consensus on the topic of the RFC in that subsection. He had placed the comment before in the RFC already in the question C section. and it was pointed out again in that section that the consensus was limited and that he had broken the agreement. | |||
| He then collapsed the comment in the original subsection he created and used bold to make a fake subsection with a <nowiki>{{OD}} and <big></nowiki> tag to place the comments in. Another editor ] commented on his ] activities in two spots in the comments section.. In a bit of irony QuackGuru is part of a DRN because he removed subsections and other organization items from the article saying they were there to attract attention. . | |||
| From a section above on me that has seemed to have stalled I am copying a section that lists all the disruptive acts QuackGuru has recently done. | |||
| {{Quote | text=:I think a large boomerang should hit you. You are quick to post content issues here in an attempt to get me topic banned. This is not the place for content problems, but you insist on bringing them here. But talk little on the articles talk page except to defend the problems you insert in the page (see long line diff's below). You revert things to how you added them no matter how the wording was changed or who changes it. You originally You want . Based on limited . But only so far as it doesnt touch edits you have made or wording you have placed in, because the limited agreement was to chose "mist" over "vapor" or "aerosol" you did not change one instance of aerosol without wikilinking to it to cheat the agreement, and then only for a few, but there is no consensus for any widespread change as shown by the limited agreement. Regardless what guidelines like ] say you wirt like a medical journal and not for the general reader always adding jargon. You have been banned for disruptive editing more times than anyone I have edited a page with. Yet you still continue to disrupt the editing of e-cigarette. , , , and here where You insist on inserting ] . You argue over small words that have the same meaning and dont pahaphrase. You insert non MEDRS to make medical claims . You insist on placing one review out of order to serve your pov and refuse any order but the one you want. After dating the citation names in the source to keep them in order you changed them back to disguise your actions and edited the section to place your subjective order in place. A forever boomerang should hit you because you have had banns (look at his talk page for a long list) but still continue disruptive editing. ] 12:53, 15 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :I may not be perfect and I may have a lot to learn when dealing with disruptive people. But when I do make mistakes, I apologize for them, and make changes going forward. ] 14:36, 15 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :I have started a new RFC, it is on the use of the word to see what the consensus is in using these words. There have been a lot of edit battles on the words as some want one thing other want something use used they are replaced with each other all the time by multiple editors. Quack Guru just made a statement that severely goes against ] . These accusations include ] and to "carry on ideological ]S". He is also suggesting we carry out ] by using one source to correct others. I am trying to use the tools Misplaced Pages has to fix issues. These attacks are just sad. ] 08:43, 16 November 2014 (UTC) }} | |||
| ====Continued edit warring while listed here==== | |||
| During the discussion here, which QuackGuru was notified of , and he is active on WP and knows about because he removed the notice. I removed the embellishments that have no place in the RFC. QuackGuru has continued edit warring by reverting that change. ] 18:43, 19 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :You're being ridiculous. You modified another editor's comments. What was his ? <code>]]</code> 18:48, 19 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::I did not edit his comments, I edited a fake section he created. The words he posted remained intact. The section they are in remained the same. He is edit warring. ] 18:50, 19 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::I'll leave it to others to review the edits to determine whether you refactored. QG then undid your change <u>one</u> time, to leave you an edit summary explaining why you probably should not have modified it. Then QG immediately removed it. You are describing this as "edit warring".... on the <u>Talk</u> page. <code>]]</code> 18:57, 19 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Per ] edit waring is "An edit war only arises if the situation develops into a series of back-and-forth reverts". ] which is a section of ] says any part of a page is the scope "A "page" means any page on Misplaced Pages, including talk and project space." I have changed header once, I have changed the embellishments the second time because they were a fake header that looked like one. QuackGuru insists on the form, and the word. Per ] <b>Section headings</b> no one owns section headers, they are not comments. ] 19:16, 19 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| A continuation of the above is QuackGuru improperly trying to influence an RFC. I started a section to specifically deal with the future closing because a few comments in the discussion area had talked about it. Today Quackguru added a comment, like many of the others mentioned in this section to that section. This is continued disruption. ] 23:04, 22 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ====Block or Ban==== | |||
| *I think he is a candidate for an indefinite block. ] 15:59, 19 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :'''Support Block or Topic Ban'''While some have tried to label this as a content issue, it is not. The problem is long term disruptive editing and talk page posting that is seriously harming the article, and from his system log shows it is widespread. Way to much time has already been wasted on discussing the copyright, ownership, and misapplication of WP policies like ] with no change in actions or posting. He has had lots of chances to fix these issues brought up by previous blocks and banns but continues to do it. It has even continued after this section was placed and he was notified. Other editors should not be distracted with these problems that continue so disrupt and place WP at risk with copyright issues. While a block would protect WP, a topic ban if made long enough might, and I am not at all convinced it might, convince him of the need to change. So far all other attempts, blocks, and bans have failed. There have also been allegations that I am doing this because of what happed above to CheesyAppleFlake, or that I somehow excused his actions. I never defended those actions, I only suggested that a topic ban might be effective. Its a diffrent case entirely with QuackGuru who has had numerous blocks/bans and has not changed. The types of behaviour are also different, Cheesy never put WP at risk of copyright violations where QuackGuru continues to. It is also a case of two wrongs dont make a right, because someone else may have done something wrong, is no excuse for QuackGuru's actions. ] 16:02, 21 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose block''' I support blocks when editors either are being uncivil or are creating a impassable barrier to resolution. The conversation at the article in question is ongoing. Discussions of extremely controversial topics of international importance are unlikely to be resolved quickly by a few Wikipedians on a talk page, so while I recognize the difficulty here I am not ready to dismiss a leading participant in this conversation, especially when practically everyone who even looks at the talk page of this article loses all their sense and goes crazy. | |||
| :I have defended QuackGuru in the past because this user seeks out the most controversial spaces in Misplaced Pages's health articles. I do not think this user creates the controversy, nor do I blame any Misplaced Pages user for the controversy's existence. It is the nature of Misplaced Pages to create forums where people of various perspectives would meet, and if there is controversy on Misplaced Pages, then this is only because there is no other forum anywhere in which people of varying perspectives can meet to seek consensus. | |||
| :The biggest fault that I find in all of this is lack of good source material, ambiguity in the subject matter, and a greater burden to seek quality on Misplaced Pages editors than the burden is on scientific and popular publishers. The pressure here is that Misplaced Pages editors should achieve higher quality than exists among think tanks which with huge amounts of funding have only produced lower-quality explanations. I find no fault with the debate in this article. It is progressing. ]] 14:56, 21 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| Oppose block | |||
| This is just continuation of the entrenched content war at E cig by other means. I would not call QGs behavior perfect, but I would call it better than that of many of those he is arguing with, and several orders of magnitude bettrr than that of Cheesy, whom AlbinoFerret was vigorously defending in this exact forum just a few days ago. ] (]) 16:27, 21 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' irrespective of what the wider issue is, I always find it highly improper when two parties are in a dispute of any kind and one party seeks the topic ban or indef block of the other party. In such cases I wil invariably oppose. The only exceptions being blatant copyvios, legal threats, threats of violence, outing or doxing, outright vandalism, proven socking and racism. ] (]) 06:31, 22 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' Albino needs to drop the stick. ] (] · ] · ]) 09:28, 23 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ====Discussion==== | |||
| :This is the kind of thing that makes Misplaced Pages a laughingstock - endless battles over individual words - such as vapor vs. mist vs. whatever. What do ''valid sources'' call it? ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 16:14, 19 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::Yup sort of a case of who cares. Best available sources call it a aerosol. Albino it appears does not like the term as it sounds negative. | |||
| ::Of the last 500 edits in less than 2 weeks QG made ~142 and Albino made ~168. | |||
| ::I have proposed a topic ban for Abino above | |||
| ::Since that has occurred they have supported a now banned user who more or less made racist comments ] (] · ] · ]) 16:19, 19 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::That is an inaccurate description of I did not support or excuse the things he did. In fact I said that racist slurs "should never, ever, ever, ever be used" I spoke to lessoning of the actions and giving Cheesy time away from the article with a topic ban, to think, and perhaps change for the better. That since his actions were only on one article, in the midst of a controversy, a block of all WP was a bit extreme imo. ] 19:05, 19 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::{{ping|User:Baseball Bugs}}The problem is, that sources call it different things. Best sources is a matter of opinion as the majority of them use vapor and it is the most common term used that a general reader will easily understand. There is an effort to remove the term "vapor" from the article citing a few medical reviews and that its "promotional" but I disagree. The article is on a consumer product, in a consumer category. The reason the RFC was started was to find consensus because the words were constantly being changed and reverted. QuackGuru seems to be at the center and yes as DocJames pointed out I make a lot of edits. But in defence I dont just make one edit to add something but usually have to make 4 or so to get it right. The actions of QuackGuru are disruptive to the article because they seek to put an ephisis on a limited consensus, that he broke, through a twisting of the facts. They are classic ] because other editors besides myself have told him he is not correct. Yet he adds them again and again. The adding of a subsection is just trying to draw attention to the lie. He is a disruptive editor in a controversy. ] 17:02, 19 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :I am involved with both AF and QG at the article, but I am not seeing evidence presented here of genuine disruptive editing that rises to the level that it needs an indef block... not anything even close. This is a garden-variety content dispute that doesn't belong at ANI. <code>]]</code> 16:30, 19 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::At the least an indefinite topic ban, but I think a block is more appropriate because of the wide scope of disruptive editing he has engaged in and has had numerous bans of time. He just refuses to learn that he cant do it, its ]. He has been topic banned from ] before. The time needs to seriously escalate because of repeated problems. ] 17:15, 19 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| Having tried to review some of this (and at its ] appearance) I'm having a hard time understanding why there's such a fight over it. The argument over "mist" versus "aerosol" is supremely pointless given that any layperson is going to implicitly understand them to be the same; "vapor" at least would be understood to be something different but it's clear enough that the scientific literature states that there is more than vaporization going on, and that therefore the scientific statements have priority over advertizing or popular impressions. I do not understand why you have the bit in your teeth about this. ] (]) 18:12, 19 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :The issue that everyone is focusing on is there is a controversy, thats not been disputed, but what actions QuackGuru is engaging in during the discussions are the problem imho, ] and clear ] violations where he has accused me of ] without a shred of evidence, and trying to bias the responders to the RFC with attention grabbing embellishments and a twisting of the history. The question shouldn't be why is there a conflict, but why is QuackGuru acting as he is during a conflict. ] 18:19, 19 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :: AF, the page has been full of ]. I can see that QG hasn't been a model of ] towards you. I think the whole page needs to be left to calm down a bit, sadly there's no way that would happen. ] (]) 18:28, 19 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::There was a listening to others. There was a compromise on the lede, that was limited to the lede. I was happy with leaving the rest of the page use whatever the source said. I was happy letting the specific section that had a specific common word use that word that was most appropriate. QuackGuru as chronicled above broke that agreement by going and changing vapor to mist in sections he did not edit leaving aerosol alone in other parts of the article. The RFC may seem silly to some, but the conflict on the page made it necessary. He is now trying to improperly influence the RFC with embellishments and a twisting of the history. He keeps adding it. Others have engaged in discussion, he has not and its a clear case of ] because I am not the only person to tell him so. ] 18:37, 19 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| : I am involved with both Albino and QuackGuru, vaguely, on the talk page and I have to say whilst i could understand someone finding QuackGuru a bit of a pain and he certainly treads close to POV pushing at times and can be a bit abrasive,I haven't seen anything which looked like it would warrant sanctions. ] (]) 18:17, 19 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :AlbinoFerret's complaints here fit his long history of lobbying for terms not supported by best sources. It's also an ]. "I think a large boomerang should hit you" etc. make it pretty clear this is about AlbinoFerret, not QuackGuru. | |||
| :This is at best a garden-variety content dispute that doesn't belong at ANI. ] (]) 19:19, 19 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| Obvious retaliatory thread is obvious. Baseball Bugs has pretty much hit it on the head. Of all things to fight over, editors are fighting over the different use of three words that mean the same thing. I wonder how long it will take them to realise how ridiculous they look. ] (]) 22:30, 19 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| I agree that a good deal of the evidence presented so far has been content related, but some of it is genuinely conduct related and there are still long-term issues with QuackGuru's conduct that need addressing. I have noticed that QuackGuru has made an effort to improve since being blocked the last time, but his editing is still frequently ], lacking in ] and sometimes bordering on ]. Likewise his contributions to discussions and attempts to collaborate are often inadequate and/or disruptive in themselves. I appreciate that Quack seems to have made an attempt to improve but it is still often almost impossible to collaborate with him and reach any sort of consensus. | |||
| Here are some evidence for these conclusions although do bear in mind that rarely is a single one of Quack's edits the problem, the problem is more a pattern of edits over a long time span, making it very difficult to collect all of the evidence: | |||
| ] QuackGuru makes the accusation that AlbinoFerret has filed a "fake" 3RR violation (whatever that may mean) in the middle of a discussion regarding sections. This is disruptive and ]. | |||
| ] QuackGuru is made aware of adding exact copies of sources and/or failing to paraphrase, which could potentially lead to legal (copyright) issues for Misplaced Pages. He seems to struggle get this point and unfortunately a week later is still needing to be warned to ]. This is a ] issue. | |||
| ] / collaborating in discussions - ] QuackGuru states "If it does not matter to you then will you stop discussing this". | |||
| ] QuackGuru complains that changing "can" to may" was not explained and demands an explanation (the way he does it is rude and bordering on ]) is provided to him, after receiving a reply QuackGuru states "Both can and may is OR". | |||
| In this example, QuackGuru merged some subsections stating that this was necessary in order to prevent "promotion" of e-cigarettes. After I politely inferred a more detailed explanation be provided, QuackGuru simply stated ] in reference to an entirely different edit. | |||
| Later in the discussion, after a point was raised regarding sourcing by another editor, QuackGuru gives ] as to why there should not be subsections. | |||
| When given the chance to resolve the dispute at DNR, QuackGuru stated in his ] that "The problems were already explained at ]. Now editors can work together to remove the unreliable sources from the construction section." | |||
| ] is another example of disruptive editing / ] issues. In this discussion the original poster is as polite as possible and gives a detailed request for information. Quack gives a 5 word explanation for his edit, "I removed the SYN violation". It turns out Quack is just misunderstanding policy/the edit but continues to insist that he is right because of a different reason (the word "some" was changed to "may") and then yet another different reason, even after it is pointed out to Quack that he has done the exact same thing himself in another part of the article. | |||
| This continuous changing of goalposts and avoidance of genuine discussion is very disruptive (]) and often makes it impossible to resolve any disagreements. This post is not a retaliatory action on my part or done for the desire of seeing someone removed from a content dispute, I am genuinely frustrated with Quack's protracted disruptive editing.] (]) 00:54, 20 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :As with many long comments full of clever links to WP:TENDENTIOUS + WP:COMPETENCE + WP:OWN + more, the above has very little content.<p>Someone needs to throttle the rate of editing/commenting relating to this topic because the bustle is not matched by improvements to the article. AlbinoFerret has made 393 edits at ] and 1005 edits ] and at least another 200 edits relating to e-cigs on noticeboards. All that has happened since 30 September 2014. That is over 1598 edits related to e-cigs in 52 days (30 edits per day). This complaint about Quackguru appears to be no more than a retaliation to one of QG's opponents being indeffed above. ] (]) 01:51, 20 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::Appearances can be deceiving, especially when you assume things. The rate of improvements to the article would increase and posts to talk pages would decrease if a QuackGuru's disruptive actions on the article and interaction on the talk page stopped. Its death by a thousand cuts. I have also explained that I rarely make one edit and leave. Even on talk pages. I fix my comments sometimes 4 and 5 times before the comment is done. A look at the history will prove that. | |||
| ::This is not about Cheesy getting blocked, its because of a continuous pattern of problems. I am a Christian who follows the Bible to the best of my ability. Cheesy had issues but, I am a firm believer that people can change. I was following "Open thy mouth for the dumb, in the cause of all such as are appointed to destruction". Cheesy wasnt a "friend" but an acquaintance on a talk page. I am not doing this because Cheesy got blocked. | |||
| ::Unfortunately in QuackGuru's case he hasnt changed even though he has been given chances to change in the past. Its a steady adding of problem on top of problem. He has comprehension issues that add to the problems. and way before Cheesy was blocked. I have added a lot of diff's above, the underlying issue may have been content. But the edits on the page and the sections linked above clearly show that the problem I am talking about isnt the disagreement with content on the page, but the but the way he acts when there is a problem. ] has a better way with words, and hit the nail on the head. ] 02:38, 20 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::Note that QuackGuru did not file the complaint against CheesyAppleFlake or even contribute to the discussion. I also condemn CheesyAppleFlake's actions that got them blocked. I agree that there are issues with editing at the e-cigarette article being disrupted although that is not specifically what is being discussed here. By the way QuackGuru himself has made about 38 edits in the past 24 hours relating to the e-cigarette article.] (]) 02:41, 20 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::The edit counts are not important (although they show excessive enthusiasm), but for the record QG has 328 edits at the article and 365 at its talk, from 30 September 2014 (total 15/day); QG's first edit was at 20 April 2014 and from that date the edits are 459 + 404. ] (]) 03:03, 20 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Here is a prime example of ] copied from the talk page. This type of discussion is commonplace in any discussion including QuackGuru. He just doesnt listen. Its disruptive. | |||
| <blockquote> | |||
| ::::::According to you it is original research to change aerosol to vapor. You claimed aerosol is not a synonym of vapor but according to this change you did replace aerosol with vapor. Do you think it is original research to change () and do you think vapor should be used throughout the body of the article no matter what the source says? ] (]) 18:45, 19 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::This is bait and switch. You are saying <i>again</i> that I am claiming it is original research. I never have and I already explained this to you. But you dont here it ] The diffs you use dont prove the accusations you are levelling. has clear comments on it "change sentence to avoid copyright problems" that mention "copyright issues". has clear comments on it that the change was "change to be consistent" or consistency with the rest of the article according to the agreement that you broke.] 19:46, 19 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::You claimed we are using another source to . You previously wrote "We are not permitted to use one source to correct others. That would be ]." However, shows your replaced aerosol with vapor. Your edit summary claims it was a copyright issue but you changed it because it appears you wanted to use the word vapor. You edit showed at the time you did think aerosol and vapor are synonyms. Editors want to use commonsense and use more neutral wording or more accurate synonyms in accordance with NPOV. ] (]) 03:23, 20 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::We have went over this art least once. You dont seem to get it. I explained why you are wrong yet you still persist. Here is the answer I gave yesterday on why I went to the OR board. I never claimed anything, I simply asked a question for information. Here is what I told you yesterday: | |||
| ::::::::::"I have suspicions that it may be OR based on a question I asked yesterday on the OR notice board. But since it is such a difficult question I was seeking information on if it was OR before bringing it up here. I dont like sticking my foot in my mouth as you just did here claiming one thing, when in fact it is another." | |||
| :::::::::I changed the word because of a copyright issue, the whole sentance was a close copy of the source, I should have changed it more. We have gone over this quite a few times in the past. ] 03:46, 20 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::Your edit changed it to vapor but what did the source say? You changed it because you also preferred the synonym . Why would anyone think synonyms could be an OR issue? ] (]) 03:58, 20 November 2014 (UTC) </blockquote> | |||
| :::::Its endless, you cant discuss anything with him. He goes on and on, and on, on the same thing, over, and over, and over again. If there is an issue with his edits for any reason, its endless rounds in circles trying to explain whats wrong. Then when he possibly gets it, he insists you make the changes. Here is a where he just doesnt seem to get it. I can find a lot more sections just like it, . The issue isnt a content disagreement. Its the disruptions caused by bringing up problems he inserts like copyright violations. He insists on the wording he copied in. He will misapply ] if its changed. This ends up seriously harming the article and hampering the work done on it. ] 04:04, 20 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::I too have been involved in editing and discussion of this article and have been frustrated by QG's attitude. The unrelenting disruptive editing makes any substantive progress in the article impossible. QuackGuru's history of POV-pushing and ]ership issues and his rather lengthy for similar behavior seem to suggest that it is unlikely he will change his ways or learn how to edit collaboratively. ] (]) 06:02, 20 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| {{OD}}Today was like a lot of others in the past. Quackguru added a copyright violation, again. Quackguru argued over the difference between . Switched it calling it ]. QuackGuru switched back a good edit because of ownership issues, first as ] Then changing two minutes later from an edit to "droplets" . But a aerosol or vapor is made up of tiny droplets. The claim was in the lede, its supposed to be simple there was a great deal of working together Its one step forward, and three steps back. ] 01:08, 21 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::AlbinoFerret's continued, endless, complaints here are much like what he puts in the Talk page. I find them tiresome, ], vindictive, and seldom justified by the facts. Some here amount to just plain false accusations. I believe boomerang applies. I propose a lengthy block for AlbinoFerret. ] (]) 02:08, 21 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::Petty? No, just demonstrating the continued disruptive editing and postings on the talk page. GuackGuru has been editing a long time, but still dose not paraphrase, even though its been gone over with him numerous times. This puts WP at risk because of copyright issues. He also continuously misuses ] to justify changing edits back to words he gets fixated on. This isnt about me but the article, and how its being disrupted and how WP is put at risk. | |||
| :::Vindictive? No.<strike>, but I think I know who is. Its amazing the amount of times you suddenly appear to defend QuackGuru. I also question this comment on the talk page section where only you and QuackGuru take one side of a discussion. You make this comment . We? Yes you and your friend QuackGuru. You both are the only editors taking the same point of view. I cant remember ever seeing an editor say "We", its always "I". </strike> ] 04:06, 21 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::: I don't think there's need to cast aspersions AF, remember to ]. However, I am coming to the view that QG is causing a lot of difficulties in improving the article. Very territorial, Very POV. The whole Mist debacle is a good example. The fact that with no respect for ] he will include any speculation in a ] that's negative to e-cigs, going so far as to create a new section just to say "We also don't know that they don't damage the environment" based on one source. It's difficult to work there at the moment. I think QG may need some time to cool off and AF, you're taking things personally. QG may be pushing your buttons but you're letting them be pushed. You could probably also do with some time to cool off. ] (]) 14:43, 21 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::{{ping|User:SPACKlick}} The statement above, which I just struck, was in response to accusations of a similar nature that were levelled against me. While its factual and has some proof behind it, I will take the high road and take it out. As for pushing buttons, its a fact and I have made a effort to stop letting it happen as much. I do have an area that I have to draw the line at, placing WP at risk with copyright issues, it cant be allowed to continue and has to be addressed every time. ] 16:08, 21 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| <b>Will somebody please, please, please put a 2 week block on editing of this article by any and all editors</b> The level of inflexibility, refusal to compromise, and bickering has simply gone off the charts. If this keeps up, David Healy is going to put an article on his blog suggesting an investigation into the role of SSRIs in this behavior. ] (]) 20:21, 21 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :Do you think that would actually help though? I mean from everything I've witnessed so far that would probably result in everybody picking up where they left off in two weeks time. I'm sure that a psuedo-science article (can't remember which one, acupuncture maybe??) was recently put into some sort of special measures by an administrator and I'm starting to think that might be needed on the e-cigarette article. Basically absolute zero-tolerance of certain policy violations, 1RR to prevent edit-warring, etc.] (]) 06:10, 22 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :I agree with ], two days wont help anything. The refusal to compromise pre-dates my first edit on the article if the archives are any proof. It looks like he is also right on acupuncture from the look of the talk page there. Its also one of the articles QuackGuru edits regularly. ] 08:29, 22 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::This is <b>Exactly the problem, Albino</b> You explain this childish conflict that has taken over your life with comments like "I explained to editor XYZ that he was wrong, and he still didn't accept my point of view" or "Oh, we're still fighting because the other side won't see reason". Honest to god, its time to fucking grow up. Nobody gives a shit a←bout this and we all tire of the endless bickering. Walk away from the keyboard, take your wife out to dinner, get a hobby and forget Misplaced Pages exists for 2 weeks. Electronic cigarettes will not be banned as a result of your failure to bicker with Quack for 2 weeks. Or for the rest of your life for that matter. I don't know how to put it any plainer. ] (]) 20:53, 22 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Although I can understand the general frustration, I don't think these comments are particularly helpful. The more I try and step back and think about this multiple editors are involved in the problems and eradicating one or even two of them is actually unlikely to improve the article. The feuding pre-dates AF's involvement and goes back as long as I have been trying to edit the article. We need to find a way forward, a block on all editing is all very well but it needs to followed up by very strict enforcement of ], 1RR and possibly some other core policies like ] in addition to close monitoring of all editors' conduct in general. I don't like authoritarian measures more than anybody else but something needs to be done, this is the only thing I can think of. Somehow we need to get to point where editors actually make genuine efforts to reach ] as opposed to simply taking sides and adopting battleground mentality.] (]) 01:41, 23 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Keep removing sourced information from other articles, Im sure it helps WP. ] 06:52, 23 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| == Paperzz.com: useful or spammy? == | |||
| Not sure about this one: At first contributions from ] seemed like 100% citation spamming replacement, but for dead links. But the first two new URLs I checked really do have archived content, though one has to work some (2-3 clicks) to get it; if there are advertisements, I don't see them (thanks to ]). | |||
| Anyone see a problem here? —] (]) 16:10, 19 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :I visited the first link in their recent contributions and disabled AdBlock. No ads that I saw after a quick look and I didn't have to do anything more than just click the link to access the content (dadletter.pdf in this case). Seems fine to me. <small>Non-admin comment</small> ] <small><span style="color:black">(] · ])</span></small> 19:26, 19 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::I also didn't need any extra clicks, but I did run into a heap of ads. I'm inclined to say the replacements are both useful ''and'' spam; the two aren't mutually exclusive. Better replacements, like the Wayback Archive, should be preferred if available. ] (]) 21:03, 19 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :From what I've seen in the past, where dead links are replaced with links to copied versions of the content, is that the new link will someday be replaced with an advertisement. ] (]) 18:15, 20 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :Ah, yes, we should find better archives, then. I'll help if I can. <kbd>]]]</kbd> 10:30, 22 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::I went through the contributions of that IP and fixed all links that were still in the article. I also checked with ], and I think all links to this site have been removed. <kbd>]]]</kbd> 06:07, 23 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| == Operation Zarb-e-Azb == | |||
| *{{ul|TheSawTooth}} | |||
| *{{ul|Faizan}} | |||
| I'm having a problem with two aggressive P.O.V. pushers who are now bombing my talk page with inapplicable warnings. Users TheSawTooth and Faizan keep on adding "Afghan terrorists" and "Afghan militants" as belligerents in the infobox of ], which are unsupported by the cited sources (I've read them all). I recently started a discussion on its talk to have this attack on Afghans removed because the reports simply don't mention Afghan terrorists or Afghan militants but these two editors won't allow me. I also added a latest New York Times article explaining that the operation has thus far resulted in 1.5 million Pakistanis becoming displaced. About 250,000 of them were forced into taking shelter in Afghanistan. This is obviously important information as it involves the lives of so many civilians and very relevant to the article but TheSawTooth removed it. I recommend TheSawTooth be blocked for disruption, it was created less than a month ago and has already engaged in edit-wars with multiple editors. I also feel that Faizan be blocked for P.O.V. pushing and deliberate source falsification. This will teach him that falsifying information in articles based on personal feelings is not accepted in Misplaced Pages otherwise he will continue and create more problems. I don't enjoy seeing editors get blocked and that's not the reason I'm here, but these two are asking for it. I warned them to stop but they took it as a joke. We are probably dealing with ("Chronic sockpuppeteer who primarily attacks and disrupts articles on India-Pakistan-Afghanistan (often Military History) with a Pro-Pakistani bias.)").--] (]) 16:36, 19 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :See also: | |||
| :* ] | |||
| :* ] | |||
| :* ] (not relevant) | |||
| :* Final warning(s) for disruption , . <span class="vcard"><span class="fn">]</span>; ]</span> 19:00, 19 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| I did not revise after last warning widefox why are you putting same report everywhere? Faizan and Krzyhorse22 have this dispute. I came later. --] (]) 19:34, 19 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| Krazy horse made first edit in his life at administrator notice board . He knew what sock puppet is at that time? How can new user go to noticeboard and report another user without knowing wikipedia users? I am still learning and I have stopped edit war. Now I do two revisions not more. He is not replying to Faizan on talkpage after 5 november but he wants to revise this main page. --] (]) 19:47, 19 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :I have told admins here in the past that my first edit was nominating an unfree image of Mullah Omar back in August which was deleted along with my first edits. You think first edit of a new editor should be putting "hi" on own page like you did on 27 October? Don't bring up outdated and irrelevant information to this discussion. I'm not concerned about you being new or abusing multiple accounts (that's a different issue), you're plainly an aggressive P.O.V. pusher engaged in edit-wars with multiple editors. This is the problem I'm addressing here. Tell admins why you're adding "Afghan terrorists" and "Afghan militants" in the article Operation Zarb-e-Azb, when the sources do not support it? Also, explain why you removed the latest NY Times report about the 1.5 million displaced Pakistanis? Is it because you don't like people to read that the operation created such a massive problem for the native Pakistani civilians? Is someone paying you or telling you to remove this particular information? Please explain.--] (]) 22:22, 19 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::To me only a sock can make his at ANI calling another user as a sock. In-fact bringing a content dispute to ANI is another attempt to create a melo-drama. This is not a drama board. You could solve these issues at the article's talk, I tried my best to stay away from conflicts and took a Wikibreak but he is hounding me and dragging me to conflicts, just as ] used to do in his time. Probably he is back. I have started an SPI . Regarding the content disputes he has not cooperated on the article's talk since November 5. He tried to by calling all users with usernames starting with "]" as my socks. Content dispute be solved at the appropriate talk-pages or dispute resolution or third-party comments. Regarding the number of IDPs, there have been different disputed figures. For example source, it gives varying disputed figures. So please do not try to get content disputes into ANI. <span style="border:2px solid #000;background:#000">]]</span> 17:22, 20 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::In his last , he accused all Pakistanis of terrorism and Pakistan as a terrorist sponsoring state from the point of view of . And it caused the harassment of Pakistanis. I am not a nationalist, but calling a whole country as terrorist bothers me, and that's why I left a on his talk. <span style="border:2px solid #000;background:#000">]]</span> 17:36, 20 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::Regarding "dragging me to conflicts, just as User:Lagoo sab used to do in his time", please provide a diff to verify that. The last time you commented on the talk was November 5 and it's now November 20 so bringing the issue here was appropriate. You can accuse me of sockpuppet but that isn't going to change the fact that you're an aggressive P.O.V. pusher falsifying information in ]. I didn't call any country a terrorist, you're the one adding "Afghan terrorists" in an article and citing sources that don't support it. This is source falsification and it seems you're an expert at this. This is the issue at hand here and in the talk of the article.--] (]) 20:38, 20 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Regarding , one can't help it but to suspect sockpupptry when he spots and .--] (]) 20:58, 20 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Actually it's you who is ] with multiple users, including me, User:TheSawTooth and User:Saadkhan12345. Your last edit on ] was on , which was infact an accusation of terrorism on all Pakistanis, harassing and personally attacking them, and since then you have not replied to the concerns raised by SawTooth. If you think it's the case of source falsification, this is not the appropriate forum. What's the similarity in my edits and that of nehal that you tried to portray . Completely tragic. <span style="border:2px solid #000;background:#000">]]</span> 08:45, 21 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::No. You're falsely accusing me I'm not edit warring with anyone. There's nothing more for me to explain at Talk:Operation Zarb-e-Azb, you added "Afghan terrorists" but none of the sources you cite support your illogical opinion. I was expressing my opinion about ] which is often highlighted in major news reports. I'm practicing my ] (I'm American and Misplaced Pages is based in America), that's not an attack on anyone and such information cannot be censored, see ]. Only if admins say you're not related to ] and ] can I be satisfied.--] (]) 16:25, 21 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| == Another IAC sock == | |||
| {{archive top|status=going, going...gone|To steal Sitush's thunder, socks are just like buses - they all show up at once, and then are dispatched into the ether. Let's hope this all calms down eventually --]]<small>]</small> 11:11, 20 November 2014 (UTC)}} | |||
| {{user|Romana Busse}} has just appeared and is another of the India Against Corruption sock/meatfarm (]). Anyone fancy blocking now? I can provide info by email if desired. - ] (]) 06:17, 20 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :I am verifiably Romana Busse as Sitush has found from some Whois. Sitush is sexually harassing me by passing lewd and sexually coloured remarks. Why can't Sitush's information be shared publicly. ] (]) 06:25, 20 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| Can some admin block this latest IAC avatar, {{noping|Romana Busse}}, now apparently piggybacking on the GGTF arbcom case ? Blocking admin: please make sure that talk-page access is also removed, since it will inevitably be abused otherwise. Background ]. Also pinging {{ping|Bishonen|Sitush|Voceditenore}} who should be able to verify the quacking.<p> | |||
| '''PS''' Given the puppetmaster's confirmed record of real life harrassment and filing of lawsuits (not just legal threats), I don't intend to inform the account of this ANI discussion myself. ] (]) 06:22, 20 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :Just merged this with my earlier section. Email needs to be disabled also. - ] (]) 06:24, 20 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::The police complaint I filed for child pornography was against the Wikimedia India Chapter (an autonomous organisation). The complaint has no mention of Sitush or Misplaced Pages or Wikimedia Foundation or India Against Corruption. I have no link with India Against Corruption. ] (]) 06:28, 20 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::Please block / ban Sitush for OUTING my real world identity on . Now he is trying to erase / hide the OUTING and cover his tracks. ] (]) 06:37, 20 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *Please block Romana Busse ASAP because the pathetic attempts to sling mud with completely bogus claims about good editors are disruptive. Prior incarnations of ] have concocted lies about copyvios, and now they are resorting to an old favorite of sex. ] (]) 06:39, 20 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| : | |||
| :::*'''EXTRACT OF OUTING / Stalking''' "Actually, I now know that you are a sock/meat. Whois is a wonderful thing. You will be blocked very shortly, I am sure. - Sitush (talk) 05:57, 20 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::*... I am sure any such Whois will also show a social privacy organisation I work with and which contains my complete verifiable address and my assertion of privacy protection to defend against stalkers and Arbcom sanctioned abusers of women like you. Romana Busse (talk) 06:02, 20 November 2014 (UTC)" ] (]) 06:44, 20 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *I have been AFK for some time for reasons of health, but Romana's behavior on-wiki combined with Romana's behavior on gendergap-l are enough to convince me that she is likely an IAC sock, and if not, can be justifiably blocked for not being here to contribute productively to the encyclopedia anyway (her emails to gendergap-l threatened to sue arbcom members.) As such, I have indeffed her. ] (]) 06:53, 20 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| : {{done}} by {{u|Kevin Gorman}} and me.--] (]) 06:55, 20 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *Clearly a sock. The "sexual harassment" charges against Sitush have been a part of their campaign for over a month as has their on- and off-wiki harassment of a female WMF trustee and another female Indian editor active in WMF initiatives via posts on the Wikimediaindia-l mailing list and at the WMF websites. Here on Misplaced Pages, observe 's edits (where he claims that has filed a sexual harassment suit with the WMF) and (where he issues legal threats against the Trustee). ] (]) 09:29, 20 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *Gee, I had to be asleep, not fair. I would have liked to be the one to block this time, for more reasons than one. ] | ] 10:08, 20 November 2014 (UTC). | |||
| :*It was a bit like buses in the UK, bish: nothing turns up for a while, then two turn up at once ;) - ] (]) 10:14, 20 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ===Another one=== | |||
| {{User|PhilipRothman}} <p> | |||
| Any admins interested in this game of whack-a-mole, should watchlist the ]. ] (]) 21:05, 20 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :Indeffed by ]. --] (]) 21:28, 20 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ===And another=== | |||
| {{User|Prof Ravi IIT Kanpur}} <p> | |||
| Another duck continuing debate on RFD talk page after main RFD page was semi-protected. The RFD has been closed as delete, so there is some hope of a reprieve. ] (]) 15:51, 21 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :{{u|Bishonen}} was AGF'ing on that one. Since her last post on her talk page, I noted . IIT Kanpur is, btw, a hotbed for IAC. - ] (]) 15:54, 21 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::Blocked. ] ] 16:05, 21 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| {{archive bottom}} | |||
| == Further violation of interaction ban and incivility by The Rambling Man at ITN, etc == | |||
| Well, once again, in violation of our iban, ] has quoted (with quote marks!) and responded to me directly at ITN nominations: "". | |||
| Given the Iban I am not going to put a notice on his talk page, but he's been mentioned, and I invite an admin to notify him for me. Apparently the last ANI was entirely ignored, as were ]'s warnings today to TRM to stop the personal comments: | |||
| * | |||
| * | |||
| and these edits and their edit summaries of TRM's: | |||
| * | |||
| * | |||
| * | |||
| * | |||
| which show a pattern of unnecessary incivility. | |||
| Note also this comment by ] on the Ref Desk talk page: . | |||
| So what am I to do, just put up with iban violations, or ignore the iban and respond in kind? My understanding is that TRM is both an admin and a sysop. Is this appropriate behavior? I request the minimum of a warning block, to stop this behavior. Thanks. ] (]) 21:08, 20 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Notified'''--v/r - ]] 21:18, 20 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *The comments on ] are really out of bounds. ] (]) 06:11, 21 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| Let us note that on his user page, TRM first | |||
| *, then restored it with the comment he'd be away for two days, during which he himself expects a block: | |||
| *"" | |||
| Meanwhile, on his talk page he dismissed (and deleted) notification of the ANI case and his fellow editors and admins with: | |||
| *"" | |||
| And on Newyorkbrad's homepage (NYB has expressed his wish to remain impartial) TRM describes himself as "disagreeing" and me as "abusing": | |||
| *"" That is, he is just talking civil, while I am attacking him and admins are ignoring me? When NYB merely asks for civil discussion, TRM responds | |||
| *"" | |||
| This sounds like a confession and a retreat mixed with, "It's not me, it's Medeis and the admins." See ''"you're the pest"'' above. ] (]) 07:10, 21 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :I'm loathe to respond to these kangaroo proceedings, but given the plethora of false assumptions and incorrect assertions I see (yet again), and given the absolute stone cold intensity with which some users wish to see me "punished", I felt compelled, even today, my son's first birthday, to say a couple of things. I (as well as many many others) have become sick and tired of the self-centred approach, the "why always me?" claims, the incorrect assumptions being hurled around so often at ANI. Some users wish to have their cake and eat it, as evidenced in the multiple responses to the last time I was dragged here. I'm certain if Jayron or NYB have a real problem with me, they are more than capable of doing something about it themselves. Jayron and I frequently have ''robust'' discussion, no-one dies and everyone survives to the next time. NYB on the other hand appears from time to time to believe he can sweep into ITN and do exactly as he pleases (usually regarding posting poor quality articles on recently deceased Americans from the movie industry). Indeed, NYB's insistence on threatening to make illegitimate posts has been rejected by four, maybe five different admins in the past. When it comes to ITN, he's just an editor, nothing more. | |||
| :Regarding the policy issue, some users need to be continually reminded that claiming specific policies at ITN is actually factually incorrect. We have policies, guidelines, essays etc. There is a clear difference in the significance of each of these, it's worthwhile understanding that. | |||
| :Finally, I added the holiday notice to my page because, yes, I'm taking my son out for his first birthday and wanted people to know that I'd be unlikely to respond to the current pack of misrepresentations, leave alone any more incorrect claims which may be dug up throughout the day. I restored some of the content with something of an ] edit summary. Sorry if some users didn't understand that, I must try harder to ensure our "global" audience gets it. Finally, unlike one of the bogus claims above, I have never named any user as being "abusing". If some users wish to assume it to be in reference to them, that is entirely their problem, and they should try hard to address their insecurities. It was, in fact, with reference to those editors who swear at others, who edit war with them etc. If a user believes they meet that profile, bingo. | |||
| :Have a good day all, I'm going to the big smoke for lunch with the little 'un. ] (]) 08:26, 21 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::Looking at the first accusation re the interaction ban violation (that was a direct response to Medeis), it doesn't look to be the case. I read the response as being directed at Masem, and actually supporting what Medeis said. ] ]] 13:47, 21 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| * Of all the diffs above, two are allegedly violations of the IBAN. The rest are alleged incivility, to other editors than μηδείς, and pretty tame by the standards we see here. Am I right? | |||
| : Of the diffs regarding the IBAN, I'm struggling to see the violation in the first one - TRM and μηδείς are making similar points about the lack of policy, but I'm struggling to see it as TRM interacting with μηδείς. The second one might be construed as a violation, I guess - responding to NewYorkBrad who was responding to μηδείς. It's not exactly smoking gun material, though. | |||
| : I've a great deal of respect for both these editors, and a TBAN for both from ITN would be a great loss to ITN. But it seems that the IBAN hasn't helped cool things down between them. Any suggestions for other ways of cooling things down? ] (]) 13:55, 21 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::There is no justification for a TBAN. First, there's no complaint against me, no diffs, and no reason to ban me, since I have not commented once on TRM, while he has on me, as well as reversions, etc. Second, TRM is perfectly capable of doing good work on ITN, all he needs to do is stop addressing me. Third, any such TBAN would be pointless, as we still both edit many overlapping pages. The solution is clear and simple: ''enforce the IBAN that's already in place.'' ] (]) 19:39, 22 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I'm not seriously suggesting a TBAN, just thinking out loud about how to cool the situation down. It needs cooling down, on both sides. This is the second time this has ended up at ANI in recent times, both times because you've perceived a violation of the IBAN where other editors have said either the violation is not clear or that you have to work very hard to read it as a violation. And this report has a long list of diffs completely unrelated to you or the IBAN tacked on. It reads a lot like you're on the lookout, just waiting for the slip up that you can bring to ANI and get him blocked/banned. On the other hand, TRM'S response is not exactly conciliatory. Both of you remain unprepared to work in a collaborative, collegial way, then. Ideally, tips both take a long, hard look at yourselves (not each other), let the past go and get on with building an encyclopedia which, so long as you don't cross paths, you both do well. Since that seems unlikely to happen, sadly, I'm trying to think about other ways of making the situation less explosive and, largely, coming up empty-handed. ] (]) 09:54, 23 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| Since I was summoned, I might as well make some brief comments. It would be nice if TRM tried to influence discussions by the strength of his arguments, and could also quietly let other people have opinions which differ from him. It's only the ] diversions that create a problem, that and his deliberate attempts to ] against people who don't hold the identical opinion he does. Otherwise, I don't really care what happens. TRM makes himself more and more irrelevant the more he behaves in uncooperative ways. It would be nice if he could become a more effective person who was able to actually create the important changes he wants to; but his treatment of others prevents him from being successful in ways that would benefit the encyclopedia. --]''''']''''' 14:16, 21 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::^I'll support this. I only know TRM from the ref desks, and it seems he could be a big help there, but he doesn't choose to. That's fine, we spend time where we want. Whatever his abilities and skills are, it seems that TRM has managed to step on a few toes. Then again so has Medeis. If I could hand out sentencing I would give TRM and Medeis both a trouting, remind them both to respect the IBAN, and hope that they learn that a more cooperative attitude would make both of their efforts more productive. ] (]) 15:38, 21 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| You people created your own monster. The Rambling Man, a productive editor and an admin, is perfectly justified in expecting the Rule of Corbett (i.e. productivity means you can be as rude as you like) to apply to him as well, and I can't say I blame him. The only difference is he doesn't appear to have the squads of acolytes and fawning admins ready to fall on their swords in his defense. What a joke! --] (]) 19:13, 21 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :No, the rule defines a "valuable contributor" as one with acolytes. ] (]) 19:30, 21 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *I won't be able to comment at length or research the diffs for about 12 hrs from now, but the issue here really is violations of the iban by TRM. The incivility is just part of the pattern. There have been previous iban violations by TRM, and a previous ANI that documented them in October. I'll search the archives tonight. The "for the fiftieth time" and quotation of the word policy in the edit above was directed at me. He quoted me, and my occassional use of the word policy has been a bugaboo of his apparently for over a year now, hence his "for the fiftieth time" statement. I'll look for these comments tonight, can someone tell me how to search for the use of the word policy by TRM on the ITN nomination page only? I find searching the history of that page very difficult. Bottom line, TRM has repeatedly been warned not to interact with me and continued to do so, I have made no comments regarding him. He should be treated like any other editor would who violated an IBAN. ] (]) 19:34, 22 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| **Several people above have agreed that TRM is too snarky (add me to that list), but is there any chance that you could stop to contemplate that what TRM said about policy is totally correct? He did not address you, and writing "policy" is just a standard use of ]. Being snarky is a problem. But so too is failing to grasp fundamentals such as use of ''policy''. ] (]) 02:41, 23 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| == Copyright violations by a sockpuppet == | |||
| {{atop|Blocked--] (]) 13:17, 22 November 2014 (UTC)}} | |||
| {{U|Irmovies}} was ] indef a couple of weeks ago following a mass creation/addition of copyright material relating to Persian cinema. Now {{u|Mattewina}} is doing the same sort of edits. ] has a clear copyvio plot, along with several other articles. Their account was created on the 14th November and then 3 days and six edits later, they are creating brand-new articles on Iranian films. ] is quacking like mad. Can someone take a look while I clear up the ] issues? Thanks. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 12:44, 21 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| {{abot}} | {{abot}} | ||
| == Darkwarriorblake making aspersions == | |||
| == ]'s block of ] == | |||
| {{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)}} | |||
| {{archive top|status = no problems|result = Consensus is that admins who do their job should be commended for doing their job. --]''''']''''' 03:20, 22 November 2014 (UTC)}} | |||
| Postscript: Ah, someone just close this, I don't care any more. — ] <span style="color:#900">•</span> ] 22:56, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ] created a a large number of articles, which all took a great degree of effort and time, relating to different bus stops in Norway. Each article was nominated for deletion for being non-notable and you can see the discussion taking place ] which is fine, I even contributed to the discussion. However, the user (who I feel was only trying to enhance the project in good faith) was blocked for disruptive editing without a single warning. It bugs me that he was treated worse than a traditional vandal who generally gets some kind of warning before being blocked. I've ], but looking through their talk page history, she's previously been brought to ANI for similar trigger happy incidents. She claims he had plenty of warnings with the numerous AfD templates on his talk page but since all the articles were based on bus stops in Norway, there's a possibility he didn't even speak english! I believe there was a distinct lack of assuming good faith, a massive douse of biting and inappropriate use of admin tools — ] (]) 13:30, 21 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :Looking at this a bit longer, I agree that my block of Amss125 for 24 hours was inappropriate. It should have been an indef block as a block-evading sock of ]. {{ping|Rettetast}}, as the admin who blocked that editor, can you confirm my very strong suspicions? First edit of Amss is creating ] (not really a common first edit). Third edit, seven minutes later, is adding ] to : note that this is not the template he just created, but a template created by Leee84. And then, compare by Leee84 (the drug and porno statement) with to the same article by Amss125. Both edits, which were undone as good faith edits, should probably be oversighted (or at least rev-deled) as very serious BLP violations. ] (]) 13:47, 21 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :Note: it looks as if blocked editor ] was an earlier incarnation of this editor as well. ] (]) 13:56, 21 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::Despite all this, which you've discovered ''after'' the block (and yes, it does all seem pretty conclusive), you still blocked him without a warning for "disruptive editing". — ] (]) 14:02, 21 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::Which shows that my disruptive editing radar works pretty well... By the way, you said that I had "previously been brought to ANI for similar trigger happy incidents." Can you link to these, so I and others can see whether there is a pattern, and what the frequency is, and what the conclusion of these earlier reports was? As far as I recall, my most disputed blocks were completely different, things like a block of Eric Corbett (which, no matter if my block was right or wrong or something in between, is not comparable to this situation at all). ] (]) 14:12, 21 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I was referring to your only warning message — ] (]) 14:17, 21 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Which, again, is a completely different situation: no one was blocked, a warning was given, and it was not some clueless newbie biting, but a WMF employee. That doesn't mean that I was right or wrong, but to see some similarities between the block of an uncommunicative "newbie" with loads of soon-to-be-deleted new articles, and the warning of a WMF employee over WMF-related stuff and discussions, only because both end up at ANI, is grasping at straws (or poisoning the well, whichever you prefer). ] (]) 14:29, 21 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::"The block of an uncommunicative "newbie"" - this is exactly my problem! Granted since the block, new sockpuppetry evidence has come to light and I'm pretty sure your suspicions will be confirmed. However, you still blocked this individual, for what? Not replying to a couple of AfD template messages? — ] (]) 15:01, 21 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Not replying to anything, not the AFD or Prod templates nor a personalised message, ''and'' continuing with the creation of articles after it should have been clear to every slightly attentive editor that there was much opposition and very little support for them. Note how the editor ''created'' ] with the AfD template in place! So it's not as if the editor didn't return to any pages and never saw the AfD notices (and somehow missed all the talk page messages as well), he simply didn't care (he also e.g. edited after it had been AfD nominated as well, again evidence that he had seen the notes). When ''all'' an editor does is creating pointless work for other editors, and there is no indication that his behaviour will change or that he cares about the concerns, then the most logical thing left to do is block the editor. ] (]) 15:17, 21 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :Perhaps someone over on Commons can also note that Krsno and Leee84 have both been blocked there for uploading copyright violations, and has received a warning for doing the same, with images of very similar topics, as well. Just a few too many coincidences for my taste. I'll file an SPI here, but checkuser will probably be impossible as the data are stale (hmm, ] was blocked 12 October 2013, ] was created 4 January 2014, or nearly three months later: Leee84 was blocked 27 January 2014, and Amss125 created 25 April 2014, or again nearly three months later: one starts to wonder if a deliberate attempt to avoid CU is part of the deal here). ] (]) 14:08, 21 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :Thank you for posting this BranStark. Too often, people don't get the opportunity to see the good work people like Fram do. Thanks Fram. --] (]) 14:21, 21 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::Thanks, Onorem. ] now filed. ] (]) 14:29, 21 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::Well the underlying point is valid, the snarky sarcasm with which it was delivered provides no benefit. <small>]</small> 22:31, 21 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :Fram's behavior before the ANI thread was pretty much exemplary -- this is polite but clear , as is the block statement . We grant some editors the tools to act on our behave ''specifically'' for situations like this -- it's a false, saccharine sweetness to allow an uncommunicative editor to waste their time on stuff that's going to be deleted, and pointless work for the editors who have to flag the content for deletion. <small>]</small> 22:31, 21 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :Blocks are supposed to be done to prevent disruption, which was clearly the case here. Notwithstanding the now-known evidence of sockpuppetry, a disruptive editor who is unresponsive (even if because English is not their first language) is still a disruptive editor, and ]. Good call, Fram. ] (]) 22:54, 21 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| {{archive bottom}} | |||
| == John811jd disruption == | |||
| {{user|John811jd}} is posting POV-ridden screeds such as , despite attempts to explain that Facebook etc are not reliable sources. They have also been inserting large amounts of copyvio, principally at ] and its talk page. I've just lost my temper trying to deal with the TLDR stuff that is going on and which is completely screwing up that article's talk. They've had some warnings, including with regard to the sanctions in place for the topic area. | |||
| I don't care what is done but please can I have some help resolving the present behaviour. - ] (]) 14:37, 21 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :Examples of copyvio include from and from . There are other examples that I've come across along the way. | |||
| :Other stuff, such as , seems to have been copied from other articles without attribution, which I guess is a slightly more technical issue for a newbie. - ] (]) 16:05, 21 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::I'm on my way out of the door, and I am unfamiliar with the whole administrative side of things with regard to discretionary sanctions, but this should be an indef block IMO. I'm not placing it myself because I currently don't have the time to find out how to file, and wrap up the paperwork, but if anyone else could, that would be great. ] (]) 16:47, 21 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *I'm looking at some of these diffs. {{U|Sitush}}, I don't see the copyvio in your second set of "this from this", and I can't access the book in the first set. , which you singled out, has text found all over the web, including in our article ] where it is sourced to a book. So there may be an attribution problem for the copied paraphrase, yes. Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, dear Sitush-- of theirs borrows to ], without proper attribution. Newbie problem, maybe, but, {{U|John811jd}}, you can't edit like this: see ]. If you cannot follow that guideline we may have a competence problem.<p>It's clear that edits like are highly disruptive--POV, FORUM, non-recognition of RS, etc (oh, that's the one you linked). Now, I see that they've already been warned about the discretionary sanctions (]), so a block is in order and I will place it; I will let further discussion decide on whether this should be an indefinite block or not. ] (]) 17:17, 21 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :*{{U|Drmies}}, in the second set of diffs, check for "Accepting Mughal overlordship, the princes were admitted to the court and the emperor’s privy council and were given governorships and commands of armies." - straight out of Britannica and not in the article at the previous diff.<p>I think that the fundamental issue here is going to be one that has quite a long history: members of the Gurjar community do not like members of the Rajput community, and vice versa. Periodically, we get combinations of puffery of their own article and attack of the other. {{u|Gurjeshwar}} has recently been temporarily blocked for warring and socking, and {{U|John811jd}} was active in attempting to slur on ] at the same time as Gurjeshwari was attempting to promote on ]. It could be just coincidence but, in any event, inflammatory talk page stuff as in my original diff are very problematic. - ] (]) 17:33, 21 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::*I placed a temporary block and have logged it. I have no qualms about making that an indefinite block if the disruption continues, nor do I have a problem with another admin extending it on the basis of the evidence here. I'm not going to be able to pursue this any further right now; I gotta pee and there's other work to do, so I'm going to press the BOSS button and *pff* ] (]) 17:46, 21 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Try and keep it professional. There is no benefit to Misplaced Pages in descriptions of your bodily functions in this or your edit summaries. ] (]) 19:01, 21 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Eh, it's my daughter's variation on what happens to the fairy in ], but I understand if you didn't get that. Feel free to point these things out elsewhere. ] (]) 20:00, 21 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::If we're supposed to be professionals then I demand a raise. --]<sup>]</sup> 21:10, 21 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::I offer you twice what you're on now, Ponyo. I've left a note on the blocked user's talk page. I'm getting a bit wound up and so am taking a break - please can someone monitor that page in case they respond, copying any response to here. Thanks. - ] (]) 21:16, 21 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::So I get ''another'' Misplaced Pages golf shirt? Score! --]<sup>]</sup> 21:19, 21 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::Nah, the shirt is a perk, a bonus. I was talking the basic rate (now backpedalling like mad!) - ] (]) 21:21, 21 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::: We should give Ponyo his own farm with a sandbox, a village pump, ], and a spacious barn(star)! ] (]) 21:28, 21 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| == Rangeblock needed == | |||
| ...for an edit-warring POV pusher on ], ], and other articles--] is the best example of their disruption. I'm following up on a note {{U|A. Parrot}} left at ]; I do not know if Doug's advice to file on IRC has been followed and/or if anything came out of it; if this is redundant, my apologies. Thanks, ] (]) 16:58, 21 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::see the most recent thread on AN. ] (]) 17:02, 21 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *I've blocked for 72 hrs.--v/r - ]] 17:06, 21 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| == Kevin Gorman complains about Giano == | |||
| Giano has both recently while throwing untrue accusations at me, and has managed to find a I made in a different place within three minutes of me making it to throw some extra insults at me. Would someone uninvolved mind telling him to stop stalking my contribs and violating NPA? ] (]) 22:04, 21 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::If you don't want to look like a fool Kevin, don't behave like one. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em; class=texhtml">]</span> ] 22:08, 21 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::1) Why don't you ask Arbcom clerks. 2) Your comments on the GGTF talk page are pretty vague as to what earns someone removal from a mailing list. And while Giano isn't my favorite person, I think Giano's comments are spot on. You seem to want the mailing list to be a giant patting on the back for everyone on it without dissent. So, I'm not sure what to tell you, Kevin.--v/r - ]] 22:12, 21 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Because one of the pages involved isn't an arbcom page. Whether or not you agree with how I moderate GG-L doesn't really negate NPA or civility. ] (]) 22:19, 21 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :If you don't want him talking to you, why are you replying ? <small>]</small> 22:22, 21 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::Most people reply to repeated violations of NPA by the same person. ] (]) 22:27, 21 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Kevin (<small>I had a hamster called Kevin when I was little</small>) you really are becoming tres tedious. I have said all I need to here . Now do put a sock in it. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em; class=texhtml">]</span> ] 22:31, 21 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::If someone comes here with an alleged stalking issue ] is far from the ideal way to respond (to say the least). ] (]) 22:36, 21 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::That's assuming there's a victim of course. ] ] 22:42, 21 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::Well that would be true if Kevin were a victim, but he's not. I'm very sorry that he doesn't like my opinions, but that won't stop me expressing them. What's the point of a debating chamber where everyone who doesn't agree with you is "kicked out"? I would have thought that was of very little use to anyone. Kevin's mailing list reminds of another censored and blinkered list I came across some time ago - that recommended banning anyone who was able to speak German - just imagine, if I hadn't put a stop to it, we could have lost ] - that would have been unfortunate. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em; class=texhtml">]</span> ] 22:47, 21 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::Last I checked, ] is still policy. You've admitted that you only post because I do, and you do so in a way that violates NPA/civility. ] (]) 23:10, 21 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Look, Giano has a long-standing reputation as a hothead. Unless he's literally preventing you from posting, you should just pretend he doesn't exist. ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 16:29, 22 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| Giano, if you are innocent or guilty in this case is not important. What is important is this person feels stalked by you. I would be a nice thing to do if you gave this editor some space, doing so would not be an admission of wrongdoing. ] 23:06, 21 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :*I could say ] that you appear to stalk me, but I'm not that silly. If this editor wants space then perhaps he had better stop making the most ridiculous and ill thought posts and then being surprised when people respond to them. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em; class=texhtml">]</span> ] 09:03, 22 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::*You can say all sorts of things but that does not make it true Giano. We have had very little contact since you have toned down your incivility to a more tolerable level. Thanks for that. ] 18:06, 22 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| {{tlx|archive top}}Giano, please don't follow Kevin Gorman unless he mentions you or goes to a page you've previously been editing. You may comment freely on the arbitration pages, subject to the customary arbitration rules of decorum. Thank you. ] <sup>]</sup> 23:40, 21 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :Certainly not, if you think I've been stalking him, then take me to Arbcom and prove it! If you can't prove it (and you can't) then please stop casting serious aspersions. I shall post exactly where I please, a right I enjoy along with all other editors. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em; class=texhtml">]</span> ] 09:30, 22 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::{{up-arrow}} Jehochman's close statement and Giano's reply to weren't appearing in my browser -- my guess is it was overloading the {{tl|archive top}} template? -- so I've refactored thus . <small>]</small> 14:06, 22 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| == Single purpose account promoting a mthod == | |||
| The user ] is heavily promoting a single method: OpenKanban on the ] page. There are several revisions where the user has been adding the same content all the time ro the page, completely ignoring to try solve the issue: that it clearly looks like an advert. I suspect this is a single purpose account to try promote it. | |||
| http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Kanban_(development)&diff=634692008&oldid=633775865 | |||
| http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Kanban_(development)&diff=627556168&oldid=627552623 | |||
| http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Kanban_(development)&diff=627422758&oldid=627291071 | |||
| http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Kanban_(development)&diff=626920643&oldid=626920543 | |||
| http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Kanban_(development)&diff=609849797&oldid=609849712 | |||
| http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Kanban_(development)&diff=609817308&oldid=609741321 | |||
| There have been several undos by other editors: | |||
| http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Kanban_(development)&diff=627423765&oldid=627422758 | |||
| http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Kanban_(development)&diff=622798661&oldid=622798194 | |||
| http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Kanban_(development)&diff=614341636&oldid=614339834 | |||
| In one of the diffs the user has claimed to try improve it ro be more neutral, but no results a has been shown at all. Thwre has been some talk with another editor before here. | |||
| http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Ronz#Open_Kanban_Mention | |||
| Sorry if this is messed up but I am on mobile | |||
| ] (]) 00:25, 22 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :Looks like an promotional ] to me. No edits outside the topic, all edits are about how Open Kanban "innovates". ] (]) 00:53, 22 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :Here we go again... | |||
| :https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Kanban_%28development%29&diff=634981836&oldid=634901467 | |||
| :Undone with this: | |||
| :https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Kanban_%28development%29&diff=635000000&oldid=634982645 | |||
| : ] (]) 19:45, 22 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| == Block review for ] requested == | |||
| I'm just going to request a review of my block to ]. Back in July, I blocked the editor based on edits like which were just argumentative and not appropriate. I unblocked him some time later but I just reblocked him again indefinitely based upon what looks like what invites to youtube videos editing. Seeing that the flags at the ISIS page were screwed up and based on his prior editing, I just think the editor needs to not jump into things like that. I don't know if this is too aggressive but if so, I'm more than willing to unblock and leave it be for now. -- ] (]) 00:50, 22 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :Reviewed, no complaints here. <small>]</small> 02:46, 22 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :*Support block. I think he behaves as in circus because he actually believes that . ] (]) 04:33, 23 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| A User gave me the advice to talk about here. I explained everything on a AfD page for this article. (Long story short: A sock creates articles about famous politicans, singers and soccer playes with the same name - all born in 1992 in Salzburg, Austria - he also creates "sources" for this articles) As long as you don't delete this article and block the obvious sock you make a joke out of English Misplaced Pages. --] (]) 01:42, 22 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :Deleted contributions reviewed, and {{User5|Demise21}} blocked indefinitely as ] of {{User5|RealMadridCF2012}}. I would ask people much smarterer than me do the templating and categories, as SPI is not really my area of expertise. As they say in German, "Das ist nicht in meiner Job Description!" And also because I don't actually have any area of expertise. Pete AU aka --] (]) 08:39, 22 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| == A repost by a banned editor? == | |||
| Is ] a repost of the frequently deleted previous versions of this article? This has been a subject of ] in the past. I'd appreciate if an admin could look at it and delete if necessary. ] (]) 03:53, 22 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :Past deletions were for creation by a banned user, and then by ]. Neither of these makes it eligible for speedy deletion merely for being recreated. I suggest you try AfD instead. —] (]) 04:11, 22 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| == Insulted by Lugnuts == | |||
| Hi. User Lugnuts, to insult me trying to law violation there. I have with respect all rules try on creation, and efflorescence have, but this Lugnuts user The law violation leaves with There accusation racist to my nationality, Please hold front of this person. Thank you ] (]) 05:36, 22 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :<span class="template-ping">@]:</span> Where are you suggesting this insult took place? —''']''' (]) 05:51, 22 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::This is clearly related to the 'Copyright violations by a sockpuppet' section above. ] (]) 05:57, 22 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::This User unadvised of i and my status, To me the addressed infringement. for works my It good, must insult it is lawful? What is my sin?. Am me abiding law, but only user Lugnuts have law violation.] (]) 06:18, 22 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :You're clearly the same person who was adding ] into film articles, per the link above. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 10:33, 22 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| : Yesterday, I have undone a copypaste move by ] and stopped short of blocking them (mainly because I had no time for investigation). Given that apparently they do not speak English, I am not sure their further participation in the English Misplaced Pages as an editor is beneficial.--] (]) 11:15, 22 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::You're ] clearly doing insult. You try to rule of law you with force tell, all of me thanks to but you Insult. | |||
| ::] Dear user, many of the articles rest Is wrong, but just me snag you!. You're know yourself, i much am helpful. Please refer to the rights of others respect.] (]) 12:05, 22 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::: {{done}} On the second thought and after looking at the latest contributions of the user, I blocked them for an indefinite duration. It is clear that since they do not speak English, they do not really understand what they are adding to articles, and most of their edits just make no sense. This is on top of a record of copyright violations.--] (]) 13:12, 22 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| == Disruption by Djcheburashka, proposed ban(s?) == | |||
| (Restoring this from auto-archive. ] (] · ] · ]) 06:24, 22 November 2014 (UTC)) | |||
| This user has been here since April 13, 2014 and has already racked up quite a few warnings (see {{pagelinks|User talk:Djcheburashka}}). As of recent, they've been generally disruptive. Actions include: | |||
| *Bad faith AfDs on ] and ]. (See ], and ) | |||
| *Removal of comments from AfDs ({{diff2|633066618}}, {{diff2|633066698}}) | |||
| *Template regulars or sending them nasty messages when they revert their edits (e.g., {{diff2|633210466}}, {{diff2|633045798}}, {{diff2|633350102}}) | |||
| *Assuming bad faith and accusing editors ({{diff2|633046267}}, {{diff2|633339948}}) | |||
| *Edit war on {{pagelinks|Dasha Zhukova}} and Roscelese's own talk page {{pagelinks|User talk:Roscelese}} | |||
| *Hounding/following {{U|Roscelese}} ({{diff2|633187166}}, {{diff2|633169043}}, {{diff2|633187445}}, started section on ] soon after Roscelese edited) User appears to have a bone to pick related to sexual assault (see {{diff2|633114220|this edit}}, {{diff2|633063462}this edit}}, {{diff2|633063034|this edit}}, {{diff2|633063581|this edit}}, ], edits on ], edits on ]) as well as financial crimes (e.g., ], edits on ], ], ], ], ], ]). I won't say they haven't made constructive edits, but their recent actions have garnered the attention of a number of editors. But the editor history on their talk page speaks volumes. I would at the very least suggest an IBAN with Roscelese and a TBAN on all things sexual crime related (as that's where the most disruptive behavior has occurred). But honestly I get a big ] feeling and think a site ban might be in order. ] ] <small>Please {{]}}</small> 09:21, 11 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :They seem to have a desire to drag uninvolved parties into this dispute that specifically don't like Roscelese] (]) 14:05, 11 November 2014 (UTC). | |||
| ::Some more reading, ], ] and ]. ], ], ] 14:20, 11 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support siteban'''. The disruption in areas related to women is self-evident, but the user's behavior at ] is also illustrative, and additionally, his harassment of various users (including stalking and canvassing) is something that there's no reason to think will not happen again in other topic areas. –] (] ⋅ ]) 15:25, 11 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support siteban'''. I too thought an iBan would be enough, but I no longer think so. Only a community imposed siteban will do. They lack the ability to see that their behavior is the problem. They lack "behavioral competence". Their behavior is very much like the blocked ]. They could be twins. A huge timesink, with denial and lots of blaming of others. , while written to Worldedixor, applies here too. I'm really tired of newbies coming here and thinking they know better than every experienced editor. The inability to process and accept advice creates huge problems. Both of them need to be sitebanned. -- ] (]) 15:51, 11 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Response''' This is a bad-faith request by a pair of editors who engage in improper tag-team editing with a third, ]. After I found serious sourcing problems with a page and tried to discuss them on the talk page, and R refused to do so or allow editing, I started a POV discussion (properly). R then reverted the POV page repeatedly, causing me to ask for protection and administrator intervention. In fact, it was me who requested the protection on those pages so the "edit war" would stop and the dispute resolution process could proceed. The retaliation for that is what brought us here. | |||
| : There are a lot of accusations here, which should be addressed, and I apologize in advance that because of the shotgun approach above I need a bit of length to respond: | |||
| : I do not have a "bone to pick" regarding sexual assault. It is true that after a decade practicing law, when I see someone say that the false-reporting rate for 'any' crime is 6%, it makes me laugh my coffee out my nose. We're discussing this about sexual assault only because that crime has political implications, and wherever there's politics there are extremist academic claims alongside the mainstream discussion. (To preempt the inevitable misogyny allegations: My view is that rape is probably underreported more than most other crimes, but also probably falsely reported more than most other crimes. One reason is that rape laws are very complex, and people often believe they've been raped when, under the law of the jurisdiction, they have not.) Anyway, when I saw stuff on the page that didn't make sense to me, my response was to go into detail, read the sources, and try to improve the page. I ''thought'' my edits and proposals should have been relatively uncontroversial since they were quite moderate -- expanding the discussion of sources, putting things in chronological order. The vehemence and nastiness that followed is part of why I suspect bad faith -- something I did not raise until the nastiness had gone on for an extended period of time and involved multiple personal attacks. | |||
| : ] became involved then. She and R use tag-team editing that page and a number of other pages. | |||
| : There was no edit war on ]. I and others revised the page over a period of time after opening discussion on the talk page and soliciting comment. The page has had a not-very-often vandalism issue where periodically someone will drive-by and without comment try to revert the page to the preceding form. A few nights ago an editor (one not otherwise involved here), claiming to be fixing honorifics, brought the page to the preceding form. (I find behavior like that to be curious, but that's a topic for another day.) I reverted the changes and asked the user to open discussion on the talk page and seek consensus if he wanted to change the article. That's when ], who had no prior involvement with the page but had made a series of nasty comments on the discussions about the Rosceles issue, showed up to unrevert my revert. That's straightforward disruptive editing, and I left the template along with an explanation of the page's history. I invited Calton, if he cares about the page, to raise the issue on the article talk page. He declined. I also invited him to explain to me why he felt my disruption template was improper, and offered to self-revert if he had a good explanation. He declined again. | |||
| : Regarding whether I have a "bone to pick" with financial crimes - well, I suppose that is true in a sense, I consider myself something of an expert on the subject of financial frauds. My edits to these pages ], ], ], ], ], ], were generally adopted, usually after raising the issues for consensus and discussion on the talk pages. Early on I wasn't as good about that, but I've gotten better. I've also made a proposal regarding ] and convicted felony fraudsters, because I think there are special issues that arise in fact-checking fraudster biography claims. Many of my other edits on these pages involved removing pointless cutesy biographical detail sourced only to the subjects' memoirs. | |||
| : The actual edits that this is about concern pages where sources have been misrepresented in favor of a study by ]. Lisak, during his now-over career as an academic researcher, published studies claiming, among other things, that 16% of men are confessed rapists, 9% of the men on college campuses are "serial rapists," and 8% are child molesters. The edit to ] that they object to, is that for the lede I want to use Lisak's own description of his occupation from his website of his occupation. Described on this site as a "leading researcher" in his field and expert who helps prosecutors, in fact Liskan has no affiliation with any research institution -- he was rejected by the academy and the courts a decade or so ago. He is now a consultant who gives speeches on sexual assault. A political sector continues to promote his work, and they're large enough for it to not be ] (barely), and that's fine. I don't think it should be marginalized. But neither should Lisak be lionized, nor should the wiki declare that any disagreement with him has been "discredited," as though opposing work, which is the majority of the field, were the intellectual equivalent of holocaust deniers. I think the pages should simply relate the facts, saying what the studies say, what Lisak actually did, and what he actually does. They don't need to take a side. | |||
| : I understand that B, E and R disagree with me about Lisak's views. This does not make my participation "disruptive" -- it means issues should be resolved through the talk pages, and if necessary the POV dispute and other dispute resolution mechanisms. I have tried to do that. This is the retaliation. | |||
| : Regarding ]: He claims to be a neutral, said any pages where he and R both edited must be incidental and he doesn't know about it, etc. But, see here: ]. The substantive issue with that page concerns one half of a single sentence. Another editor tried to take it out as unsourced and wrong. R objected, and bullied him off. I took a look at the sources and realized he was right. I therefore opened a talk page discussion on the subject. (To preempt the bias accusation, my view is that what Republicans were doing on womens' rights issues, which they never really stopped, are bad enough to speak for themselves, but are exaggerated and distorted in the page.) There is a pattern here: editor find a problem with a page and attempt to help. The response (most vehemently from R, usually with support from B or E or both, sometimes others) is a refusal to discuss substantive issues and torrent of accusations of bias and incompetence, threats, disruption templates, etc. Going through some of these, I realized that in some cases, I agreed with the editors who had been bullied-off (in most cases I did not). I therefore have started to re-raise those issues. An interaction or site ban would, of course, allow them to (falsely) maintain that there's a consensus in favor of their version of the pages, again without having to address the issues that led multiple editors to object. Similarly, an interaction ban, where the other editor has touched a slew of pages on topics in connection with their own agenda, would simply prevent someone they disagree with from joining the discussion, allowing the continued claim of a consensus that doesn't really exist. | |||
| : If you think '''I''' may have been harassive or abusive, I refer you to the comments that ] and ] have been leaving on my talk page. Nasty, personal, aggressive, pointless --- and neither of them has said a thing about the underlying issues that led to this, which have to do with improper sourcing, POV issues, and a refusal to participate in either the consensus-building or POV dispute resolution process. | |||
| : Regarding templates, I stand by every template I applied. Regarding templates for "regulars" -- is that a joke? Even if it mattered whether the person was a "regular," the templates were proper. R has received similar warnings and block threats from numerous editors and several admins for what has been a multi-year career of abusive behavior, bullying, improperly using templates herself to bully and harass other users, violating blocks, and so forth. Mine were comparatively mild. Calton, I haven't checked whether he has, but I'd be shocked if he hasn't considering his self-proclaimed role as Batman-of-the-wiki. | |||
| : Regarding the afd for two pages: I realize now that I made technical errors when I nominated those pages and in response to a vote from R that I'd misinterpreted as another improper reversion attempt. Those were my mistakes, and I take responsibility for them, but they were technical in nature, not bad faith. There was a substantive error in one of the requests, though. Because of that and all of the static, I have not re-nominated either page. I do intend to return to them once the rest of this has calmed down and they can be discussed (unless they are improved in the meantime) without all the strum und drang. Both pages have serious writing and lack-of-source problems for years that no-one's bothered to fix. Why did R get involved in this so quickly? Either because she was tracking what I was doing, or because of tag-teaming with evergreenfir; the pages seem to be linked to her forthcoming PhD dissertation. | |||
| : Regarding this 'I'm really tired of newbies coming here and thinking they know better than every experienced editor.' from B, I thought we didn't have a hierarchy on wikipedia? We have editors, we have administrators, and we have ArbCom, but that's really it. Editors' work is supposed to be evaluated based on the quality of the work, not the tenure of the editor. Doesn't B's comment really say it all? | |||
| : Regarding "hounding" and bringing in others, I have gone through many of R's edits after seeing how she dealt with mine and problems on a few other pages. Most of the edits I looked at seem to be perfectly good. Some of them, on women's rights issues in particular, seem to have real issues. R has had run-ins with a number of people on those issues over the years. Each time, there's a core group (e.g., E, R, sometimes B) who seem to track each other and show up quickly so they can declare consensus. ]. Editors are not just disagreed with, they're driven off with threats, disruption templates, and accusations. If those editors' views were cumulated, 'they' would be the consensus. It's also true that, where R received certain block warnings from administrators, where those warnings involved conduct similar to what I saw here, I reached out to the admins to ask them to get involved. | |||
| : I think that covers it. If there are additional accusations I may pop back in to respond, and if anyone reading this wants sources or links to examples, please let me know. | |||
| : Best, ] (]) 18:26, 11 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::] - When you reply to a post with an absurdly long reply containing personal attacks, remember that you might be throwing a ]. What the subject has proved with this reply is that he is a combative editor. I don't have an opinion on the original merits yet. ] (]) 20:23, 11 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::Mmm. Your comment says a lot about you, too, actually. --] (] · ] · ]) 12:49, 15 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support indefinite block'''. I have been watching this editor since they first started editing. I have also been watching subsequent events with some dismay. The only reason I haven't taken administrative action is because I am ], having gotten into a content dispute with the editor on two articles from the get-go. I noted early, though, the obvious aggression and distortion of facts. I also believed the editor was on a crusade, although, frankly, I wasn' sure what it was. Others may have a better handle on that based on his more recent substantive edits. In the beginning, he had a problem with an Alabama regulator, ]. Because Borg was mentioned in the ] article, he attacked both articles because he believed too much credit was being given to Borg. As a consequence we had a lovely exchange on the Belfort Talk page . One of Dj's more choice comments was "I'm taking this out. If I see it inserted here again, I'll give the journalists who cover him a nice complete dossier on the Alabama politician's apparently 5-year-long history of making false claims about the case. Try me." His subsequent behavior has been just if not more intemperate. That said, I wouldn't move directly to a site ban.--] (]) 18:59, 11 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Support indefinite block'''. The diffs above paint a picture of someone who has the rather impressive ability to repeatedly deny the obvious and extensively argue indefensible positions. If this isn't trolling, then it's essentially indistinguishable. Editors should not have to waste time arguing with someone who insists that a sourced article has no citations. The characterization of removing multiple valid votes at AfD as a "technical error" is equally perplexing. I wanted to wait until Djcheburashka had a chance to reply, but apparently, the editor in question still sees nothing wrong with these actions. A topic ban or interaction ban could work, I suppose, but the problematic behavior would probably just continue in other areas. An indef siteban seems a bit over-the-top with no evidence of blatant trolling or sock puppetry. ] (]) 19:40, 11 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *I don't know who all was responsible for ], but I removed <s>three</s> four completely unacceptable sections from that article. BLPlease, people. ] (]) 19:54, 11 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :*It looks to me like one of the sections you removed was also removed by Dj.--] (]) 20:02, 11 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :: Actually all of them -- I hadn't noticed, but Calton had re-re-reverted it again. The edits by ] put it in approximately a similar position to what I and others had done -- actually he took out a bunch of stuff that I had wanted to take out, but I didn't want to go further than we had without more involvement from others. So I'm happy to see the edits. ] (]) 21:17, 11 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::: That's not accurate. You removed one piece recently and did some other editing much earlier. {{U|Drmies}} removed considerably more. Regardless, this does not change my recommendation that you be indefinitely blocked. As someone said somewhere above, not all your edits have been destructive. However, many have, and equally important, your ''attitude'' is not suitable for collaborating on this project.--] (]) 21:49, 11 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I saw that Djetc. removed one of the things which were later restored and then removed by me. I went to that article to see what was up with this editor and saw that the blind were leading the blind, at least there. ] (]) 00:08, 12 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Comment''' "User appears to have a bone to pick related to sexual assault", {{u|EvergreenFir}}, you identify with the feminist school of criminology on your user page and that school has very distinct views about false rape accusations in comparision with some other criminologists (Djcheburashka apparently was pushing for another POV). Are you honestly concerned about the user conduct, not ideological differences? It would be bad if it seemed like ideological sniping. To be honest, all the "violations" here are mild except for the two AfDs. Templating regulars or hounding Roscelese to vote keep just like she did on Palestinian stone-throwing are not a reason for indef block. --]] 20:35, 11 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::{{re|Pudeo}} he edits on those pages are what brought this user to my attention a few days ago. After the bad faith AfDs, they've moved on to other areas... kinda. I don't mind people with other POVs discussing a page's content. But I think I've shown in the edit diffs that this was much more than that (edit warring, hounding someone related to that page and feminist topics in general, bad faith AfDs, etc.) While I understand your concern, I am perfectly capable of getting along with people that don't share my views (just ask {{U|Two kinds of pork}}). This user is not just someone who disagrees with me. They are disruptive to the point of being ]. ] ] <small>Please {{]}}</small> 21:34, 11 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::Thanks, I accept your clarification and believe it. Although I still think those offences are rather mild given the editor apparently does not have any previous sanction log. If the editor does not engage anymore in what can be seen as hounding or POINTy behaviour, I think indef block is too harsh. --]] 21:44, 11 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose siteban''' - the evidence provided is weak. A lot of it is legitimate consensus-seeking discussion in a contentious topic area, which is very difficult, but in which the user has ''mostly'' kept civil even when other editors haven't. Indeed, {{ul|Calton}} and {{ul|BullRangifer}} made inappropriately angry, aggressive posts on Djcheburashka's talk (e.g. , , ) and the user did not respond in kind. Their comments, while ], show an understanding of ] and ] policies we don't normally see from newbies. I share some concern that the user is here to ] - I accept that the user did not understand how to complete the AfD process but a more serious issue is that they felt those articles should be deleted in the first place. I am similarly concerned that they may be ] our policies to push an agenda, but they have edited in several disparate topic areas and it's not clear what that agenda would be, and we are required to ] unless there is strong evidence otherwise. For the procedural issues they have apologized, repeatedly. They and the other editors involved should be warned to actually discuss their issues politely rather than disruptively and repeatedly templating each other and calling each other names, and Brangifer should be ] for claiming a privilege of authority based on their ]. ] (]) 22:04, 11 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose siteban''' based on the fact that this user only has an edit count within the hundreds, and Misplaced Pages in itself is a rather convoluted and complicated mess of policies. The afd thing is unambiguous that he removed people's comments, but when you are a new person to the topic area of afd, you're probably unsure of how things worked. I believe that he used ] approach to justify deleting the comments--as he mentioned, he was trying to evade the keeping of a problem page with overt problems. I can absolutely see why he would have that POV. I also believe that in spite of the OP removing comments, the afds were closed out of practice as 'speedy keep' and assumed bad faith on the OP, when that wasn't warranted. The other 'templating the regulars' and supposedly combative edit summaries; I've seen more established editors talk to me in a much more combative way in open view, with no repercussions at all. I see no swearing, I see no outright anger, I see maybe a misunderstanding of what a 'disruptive' editor is and what a 'SPA' is. But I don't believe the evidence waivered deserves anything but maybe a mandated tutor on exactly which policies and guidelines to follow and whether he has a skewed outlook of them. Blocking somebody indefinitely because they didn't know all the wiki syntax and etiquette is kind of harsh, however maybe a 1 month topic ban (and then a block if it continues into other areas during that time) would be warranted. At this time, however, it doesn't seem so much to warrant an indefinite block--which is the last resort in any sort of conduct issues. This is attempting to shotgun a fly instead of using a fly swatter instead. ] (]) 22:52, 11 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support IBAN with Roscelese''' I think there is a call for this but it would be in excess to indef them. They are a new user. Perhaps a warning could suffice and we could point out to them where they can recieve help such as the ] and ].] (]) 23:53, 11 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :*The evidence of ] provided here is ''extremely'' weak. However if {{ul|Roscelese}} believes that an interaction ban will improve the situation, I will support it. ] (]) 00:16, 12 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::I weigh the weak evidence against DJ with them trying to draw a user that doesn't like roscelese into this dispute. If this isn't canvassing itself it certainly seems to me to violate the spirit of the Canvassing rules. But yes I agree that would be a good idea to see what Roscelese views on this are.] (]) 00:37, 12 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I mean, I wouldn't object to an IBAN if that's all we can get out of this discussion. But my first interaction with this user was a ''week'' ago and since then he's stalked me to various places in the encyclopedia, harassed me on my talk page, blanked my discussion comments, and canvassed other users against me. That's not evidence of a problem he has with ''me'', that's a behavioral problem. Do you really think that that won't just happen to the next user who disagrees with him, and the next? –] (] ⋅ ]) 01:41, 12 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| I do object to an iban if the effect of it would be to confer ownership over the pages at issue, which I think is what is being sought. I have not "stalked" or "harassed" Roscelese; in fact, I think the record of our talk page diffs shows the opposite. All of this arose when R refused to abide by the consensus or POV dispute process, then (with evergreenfir) commenced an edit war over it, and so on, which are issues R has had in the past. ''A lot''. EvergreenFir participated with her in that initial edit war. ] I followed dispute resolution and consensus procedures and sought community and admin assistance when I saw the edit war brewing, and tried to freeze things so that the process could proceed. The POV dispute resolution process should have been, and still should be, allowed to play-out without interference, harassment, retaliation, canvassing, tag-teaming, abusive template-adding, bullying, threatening, retaliation, or disruption. That's it! ] (]) 02:31, 12 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :The power not to interfere, harass, retaliate, canvass, tag-team, abusively template, bully, threaten, retaliate (more), or disrupt, was always inside you. We all would have loved if discussions could have proceeded and consensus could have been built without any of this, but it was your own choice to behave poorly that prevented that. I recommend that you recognize what you've done, decide not to do it again, and possibly even apologize. (Although I'll note for the benefit of other readers that Dj evidently considers his own opinion, opposed by 4+ other users, a "consensus.") –] (] ⋅ ]) 03:04, 12 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :: Roscelese, I tried to discuss these matters with you reasonably on your talk page, on mine, and on the POV dispute page. You reverted, deleted or ignored at least '''5''' of my attempts before this became an "edit war." Can you point to ''any'' diff, anywhere, where you attempted to engage me in any conversation or discussion about this, or responded to anything I said other than to declare whatever matter closed and threaten me? :: By the way -- if you now agree that there is no consensus regarding the original pages (even if you're miscounting), then we're done here. Because you're then admitting that the POV template should be on the pages in question; that your conduct regarding the "edit war," the POV dispute, the "warning templates" left on my page, and so on, on your part and EvergreenFir's, were all violations; and that the conduct you claim was harassive on my part (i.e., complaining that the repeated reverts and threats were disruptive) was actually proper. | |||
| :: This ban proposal will be over soon, and we will then move forward. ] (]) 04:01, 12 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::I think the extreme ] in this comment is useful to note. If any constructive users are interested in talking to me about this issue, I'm reachable, but I don't see a point in continuing to coddle this person when he continues to deny and defend his misbehavior and show every intent to continue it. Hit me up if you need me. –] (] ⋅ ]) 07:23, 12 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :WP:INVOLVED does not apply. Evergreenfir is not acting as an admin here but as an editor, further is evergreenfir an admin? If the record shows the opposite surely you can show how the record shows the opposite. ] (]) 02:57, 12 November 2014 (UTC) ::{{re|Serialjoepsycho}} Not admin, just reviewer. ] ] <small>Please {{]}}</small> 03:11, 12 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::You are reviewer of course of wikipedia per ], but right now and during this dispute where you have taken part have you acted in your capacity as a reviewer or have you acted in your capacity as an editor?] (]) 04:01, 12 November 2014 (UTC) ::: I did not mean "involved" in a technical sense -- I just meant, she's involved in the underlying dispute. This did not, as she claims, "come to her attention" looking at pages. In fact, as I recall she fired several of the first edit-war salvos. Sorry if my use of the link was confusing as to my intent. ] (]) 04:01, 12 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::So you didn't mean involved by the in the wikipedia definition of the word involved that you linked to but you mean the general definition. Well that's great. The fact the they made edits or fired salvos or what ever doesn't disprove that they were looking at pages that they were looking at pages before they stumbled across your disruption.] (]) 08:24, 12 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: She didn't "stumble across it" -- she was one of the people who started the edit war. She went into the background after Roscelese got very aggressive about it. ] (]) 03:12, 13 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *'''OPPOSE''' for many of the same reasons stated by {{u|Tutelary}}. Experienced editors are supposed to be patient with new editors, but that certainly isn't evident in some of the comments I've been reading. I recommend mentoring. <font style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.1em 0.1em 0.4em,#F2CEF2 -0.4em -0.4em 0.6em,#90EE90 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#E6FFFF"><b>]</b></font><font color="gold">☯</font>] 18:55, 12 November 2014 (UTC) ::Just point this out, Atsme is the user that Djcheburashka attempted to bring into this conflict.] (]) 19:04, 12 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::I apologize to the editors participating in this discussion for the pointless comment made by {{u|Serialjoepsycho}} who has relentlessly been ] me for nearly 8 months now. Following are the diffs showing the question asked by {{u|Djcheburashka}} on my Talk page regarding Roscelese's abuse of warning templates. And my response to her question. I suppose it's just coincidence that Serialjoepsycho supports the same POV as Roscelese, who - purely by coincidence, I'm sure - happens to be one of the certifiers in the RFC/U Serialjoepsycho initiated against me after a recent BLPN consensus determined the Islamophobia template on IPT was a BLP violation. It doesn't surprise me that he attempted to distract the focus of this discussion away from his own actions, but then, that's how he operates. At least he's consistent, right? I'm not here to pass judgement on who is right or wrong - I'm just recommending leniency toward the new editor, {{u|Djcheburashka}}, and suggested mentoring. <font style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.1em 0.1em 0.4em,#F2CEF2 -0.4em -0.4em 0.6em,#90EE90 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#E6FFFF"><b>]</b></font><font color="gold">☯</font>] 20:19, 12 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Yes, this is very logical. Djcheburashka canvasses Atsme and my responding to this fact for a second time here is me hounding atsme. I supposedly support Roscelese 'POV' here and yet Atsme is not actually going to be able to point out which POV of Roscelese I support. Now if you review the above you will see that I support one of multiple POV's that Evergreenfir has brought forth. The IBAN. Atsme is not here to pass judgement, She is here to help a user that has canvassed her to go against a user that she does not like because of among other things this user had opened an RFC/U against her.] (]) 20:55, 12 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Your hounding and false accusations have been duly noted, Serialjoepyscho. <font style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.1em 0.1em 0.4em,#F2CEF2 -0.4em -0.4em 0.6em,#90EE90 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#E6FFFF"><b>]</b></font><font color="gold">☯</font>] 07:54, 13 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :: ] had left a warning on ]'s talk page. It seemed to involve some of the same stuff as I'd been concerned about, and it seemed more authoritative than most of the warnings -- I'm really still getting the hang of the way all this hierarchy and dispute resolution stuff works. Apart from the warning I saw, I had no knowledge at all of who Atsme is or any prior relationship or interaction with Roscelese, RFC/U (whatever that is) or anything else. Honestly, I really still don't. | |||
| :: That night, I made a series of requests to Roscelese to discuss and resolve things. I then tried to seek dispute resolution help when it became clear that she would not discuss the matter --- using the POV disputes page, and the page protection request page, etc. My post to Atsme -- which asked him/her if s/he would take a look at things, was part of my attempts to seek dispute resolution through the community process. Is that canvassing? I thought I was seeking community dispute resolution assistance. Pls compare my comment to Atsme with this: ] ] (]) 03:12, 13 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::No, {{u|Djcheburashka}}, asking questions is not ], however, the behavior exhibited by your accuser is typical of troll behavior, but more specifically of his very skewed interpretation of policy. Ignore his rhetoric, or he will continue until it consumes you. The post by {{u|Robert McClenon}} at (20:23, 11 November 2014) is excellent advice. <font style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.1em 0.1em 0.4em,#F2CEF2 -0.4em -0.4em 0.6em,#90EE90 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#E6FFFF"><b>]</b></font><font color="gold">☯</font>] 07:54, 13 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Yes you are absolutely right. Asking a question is not canvassing. For example if they asked you what color is the sky that wouldn't be canvassing. Asking a question to someone solicit their involvement in a dispute because that individual may specifically not like the editor in question is canvassing. Robert McClenon offers great advice, If you can notice it you should keep it in mind.] (]) 09:57, 13 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Excellent examples of classic canvassing can be seen in your talk page discussion with Roscelese regarding this dispute, , and again in the recent past when you drug her into your obsessive attempts to get me topic banned because I corrected a BLP violation you ignored, , , and in the not so distant past when you contacted a banned user who supported your POV during a BLPN and a merge-delete discussion for IPT: , and again here regarding a pending edit war on another article: . I consult you to stop making false accusations in what appears to be a deliberate attempt to get a new user blocked or banned for making inconsequential newbie mistakes. Your pattern of behavior is one I am quite familiar with as the target of your relentless hounding and recent attempts to get me blocked or topic banned because of your skewed interpretation of policy as you have demonstrated here. <font style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.1em 0.1em 0.4em,#F2CEF2 -0.4em -0.4em 0.6em,#90EE90 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#E6FFFF"><b>]</b></font><font color="gold">☯</font>] 15:46, 13 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::This whole unrelated argument is, I believe, showing exactly why it was wildly inappropriate for Dj to contact Atsme for support. –] (] ⋅ ]) 15:55, 13 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::What that is a classic example of is you simply not knowing what the hell you talking about Atsme. But there are plenty examples of that. Contacting Roscelese to tell her that I wasn't going to ask any more questions to an evasive editor in the RFCU that she was involved in is not canvassing. Contacting Sepsis II to about the discussion on the BLPN that you mentioned them multiple times in is not canvassing. Contacting Sepsis II about an editwar they were involved in at to try to get them to discuss it on the talk page is not canvassing. Contacting Roscelese that a user is is trying to canvass you into their dispute is not canvassing.] (]) 17:05, 13 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::Roscelese, "wildly inappropriate" is the fact that Serialjoepsycho drug me into this ANI because he has been trolling my edits and talk page for the past 8 months, and has relentlessly posted disparaging comments about me almost everywhere I go, which equates into ]. In the interim, I believe it is wrong to hang a canvasing tag on {{u|Djcheburashka}} because she is innocent, not to mention a new editor. Serialjoe clearly doesn't understand ] or ] if he doesn't think his call-to-arms-communication to you is acceptable behavior, as are his past canvassing activities which demonstrate ]. I suppose he doesn't see his current activities as ], either. Sad. I hope that, at the very least, you understand why the comment he made in his initial post is ludicrous by alleging that Dj was dragging {{xt|uninvolved parties into this dispute that specifically don't like Roscelese}}. It is a lie to suggest that I "specifically don't like Roscelese", when in fact (and evidence will prove) that it is the other way around. It is long past due the time to make peace, and stop edit warring. <font style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.1em 0.1em 0.4em,#F2CEF2 -0.4em -0.4em 0.6em,#90EE90 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#E6FFFF"><b>]</b></font><font color="gold">☯</font>] 18:30, 14 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::: ] I think your last comment demonstrates pretty clearly that you either haven't been reading what other people say, are assuming that we're lying, or just don't care. I think this entire ban request was bad faith from the start, and at this point the question is how to move forward. | |||
| :::::: Right now, if there was a vote on the POV discussion, it would be 4:2, which is no consensus anyway; 3 on the "4 side" are strongly affiliated with what some have called "radical feminism," and I will decline to try to name because any name will be deemed offensive by someone; and none of the four have identified any ] in support of their position, or offered anything but a conclusory statement that "the literature" says something (which it plainly does not). Meanwhile, no-one has offered a defense of the current form of the ] page in any respect. | |||
| :::::: ] suggested we take this back to the article talk pages. Are you willing to do that and to work with me in a constructive, non-warfare way to try and get the articles to simply note what is noteable, express the key points from the key sources, and not take a view on controversial matters or marginalize legitimate and widely-held views? If so, I am willing to put all the noise behind us and let's get back to work. ] (]) 02:00, 14 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' The question he had asked me, it speaks for itself. I would consider Djcheburashka to be fairly new as he don't know how en.wiki works. It is better to give him a chance to be good. ] <small>(] • ] • ])</small></span> 04:06, 13 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support indefinite block''' While I was initially swayed by the arguments that this is a relatively new user, the continued disruption since this ANI was filed suggests this problem seems unlikely to resolve with time. Dj’s BLP activities are particularly alarming and are basically what convinced me a block seems reasonable here. To illustrate the BLP editing concerns regarding Dj, today Dj has been edit warring to remove the “Career” subheading from the ] article with talk page explanation: “I removed the career subheading, since she doesn't have a "career." She's a socialite.” Earlier Dj deleted the New York Times reference which described Zhukava‘s career, while doing so he also changed the lead from: :{{tq| Darya "Dasha" Alexandrovna Zhukova (Russian: Дарья Александровна Жукова; born 8 June 1981) is a Russian philanthropist, businesswoman, fashion designer and magazine editor. She is the editor-in-chief of bi-annual art and fashion magazine GARAGE.}} | |||
| :To: :{{tq| Darya "Dasha" Alexandrovna Zhukova (Russian: Дарья Александровна Жукова; born 8 June 1981) is the girlfriend of billionaire Roman Abramovich.}} | |||
| :{{tq| Ms. Zhukova is affiliated with a number of organizations based on which she has been described as a "philanthropist, entrepreneur, fashion designer" and magazine editor. However, with the exception of a three-month period with one magazine, none of Ms. Zhukova's organizations appear to have any existence independent of her or Mr. Abramovich.}} :Dj added no reference for his edits criticizing the legitimacy of Zhukova’s career. | |||
| :--] (]) 16:33, 14 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :: I'm almost amused... I've been trying to edit that page for some time, including with participation from other people on this thread. One of those people proposed to delete a bunch of stuff from the page that I have wanted to remove for a while, and I did so. ] then reverted the page without looking at or joining the talk page discussion. I reverted his edit and asked him to join the talk page discussion ''before'' editing the article. | |||
| :: One of the changes I had made was to remove the subheading for "Career," collapsing that content into the rest of the article, since after a series of edits there was very little left in the section and "Career" seems to have been a misnomer anyway. Neither the page nor any secondary source says that Zhukova has ever been employed in any profession or job at any time. Well, perhaps her brief three-issue stint as an editor of an arts magazine from which she was removed counts, but if so its a very short section. | |||
| :: ]'s principal concern is that he does not want any mention of the incident in which a photograph of Zhukova sitting on a chair made to look like a mostly-naked, highly sexualized black woman, was published on MKL Jr's birthday. This led to something of a controversy, and twitter campaign, and articles in the Guardian and Independent UK, and Time, etc. With more than 8000 google hits it would be notable on its own. See http://newsfeed.time.com/2014/01/23/apology-for-black-woman-chair-photo/ ], however, feels that its derogatory. My view is that whether it creates a negative impression of her or not, it happened, and it was notable -- in fact, I believe its the central thing for which Zhukova is known. | |||
| :: I added the "none of the organizations..." sentence after researching them and finding no indication of them anywhere except for on each others' bare websites and the wiki page. I wanted to just delete the references, but did not think deleting the organizations entirely would fly. But, that is what came out of the talk page, and so the sentence Bobo doesn't like has been taken out along with the material that it addressed. | |||
| :: Why is this here? Why is ] suddenly drive-by editing an article that doesn't intersect any subject matter in which s/he expressed any interest whatsoever in the past? Notably, shortly before s/he began to look at the Zhukova page, I took a position opposite ] in a POV dispute he raised, about which he apparently feels very, very, very strongly. ] (]) 01:35, 15 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::Dj, this response in many ways actually illustrates the disruption that I've noticed to be part of your talk page style (here and elsewhere including the NPOV noticeboard discussion you referenced ). I notice you seem to repeatedly misrepresent occurrences. I'm not sure if by accident or what could be going on. Anyone interested in the occurrences of the Zhukova article should refer to As is clear from ], my principal concern has nothing to do with omitting info from the chair photo incident. I specifically said, "Huff Post is a RS, so this info might be able to be incorporated if we do so neutrally and cautiously". I went on to actually add it. . My principal concern involves your apparent attempts to turn this biography into an attack or smear piece. I was actually alerted to the Zhukova article via this ANI listing. --] (]) 19:35, 15 November 2014 (UTC)--] (]) 19:35, 15 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::It is pretty obvious to me, and I think it will be pretty obvious to you if you look at the Zhukova talk page, that the subject of this BLP is known for more than those chairs. Whether you like her or not, whether you consider her a socialite or not, it cannot be denied that this person is notable, and for more than (and long before) sitting on a chair, and I am surprised that this was maintained for so long, and maybe still is. Saying that Bobo's only interest is keeping the chair out is simply not true: the chair is in. ] (]) 21:23, 17 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| {{anchor|my comment above}} | |||
| *'''Oppose any sanctions whatever''' against Djcheburashka. Dj has behaved just fine, for a newbie. He/she is arguing, reasonably, and occasionally boldly editing. It's what we do. Please don't hesitate to ping me if you get any more harassment like this, Dj. Carry on. (If a good case is made to support Dj's description of bullying on ] and other pages, I would support strong sanctions against those involved.) --] (] · ] · ]) 12:41, 15 November 2014 (UTC) *'''Oppose siteban'''. I would support a topic ban on Dasha Zhukova and an IBan with Roscelese. Seems like a fairly new editor who wasn't trying to cause harm. That said some of the comments as to why he was edit warring stuff on Dasha Zhukova's page and the responses to Roscelese are very inappropriate and should not continue. --] (]) 00:50, 19 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::At a minimum, a topic ban on ] seems needed because Djcheburashka has made clear he has no intention to stop disruptively editing page. In fact, after myself and ] recently reverted his lack of consensus edits, Dj said on talk he'll just wait until we are no longer watching and "fix it" --] (]) 15:16, 19 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::That's the thing, though - a topic ban from Zhukova (or from rape, broadly construed) or an IBAN with me might help temporarily, but this is obviously a user behavior issue and we have no reason to suspect that things will be any different with regard to the next topic area or the next user that Dj takes a grudge against. –] (] ⋅ ]) 20:59, 19 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::If he jumps into another topic with similar behavior then we will know at that time that a topic ban would be ineffective, but I am not willing to skip that step to see if it is just a localized problem, and one hopefully he will realize it is inappropriate and not continue the behavior. If all the bad behavior is localized we have no reason to believe that it wouldn't end with a topic ban, and that should be our default unless we have reason to believe otherwise. --] (]) 04:17, 20 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::: That's wrong. After drmies edited the page he and I began discussing changes. Bobo then jumped in, apparently in retaliation when I objected to his position in an NPOV dispute he'd raised concerning another page. Bobo then, interfered with the consensus, and repeatedly implemented the same against-consensus changes, while ''every time'' misrepresenting what he had done. After Bobo abandoned most of what he'd done (following several reverts for me as his changes were against consensus), DrMies shifted -- consensus having moved, I did not revert and have said I will hold-off and deal with the page at a later day. | |||
| ::: That this is even here is an abuse of the process ] (]) 18:15, 19 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support topic ban on ]''' based on the diff cited by ] above. I won't support a full site ban or indefinite block at this point, but ], you really should stop edit warring and editing against ], no matter how strongly you believe your version is the right one. Nobody ] an article, so try to co-operate with fellow editors, even those who hold opposing points of view.<br>I would suggest you step away from controversial articles for a while and help ] elsewhere, even if it means that the Wrong Version of some or other article will remain unchallenged for now. But if you find that unacceptable, keep making ] arguments on talk pages, keep attempting to build consensus, leave out the revert-warring and accept you won't get your way every time. ] (]) 17:12, 19 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::: ] -- I don't think I've seen your username before, so you may not be fully aware of what this is. Suffice it to say, I think Bobo is seriously misrepresenting what's taken place, what I've said, what I've done, and his own involvement. If you're genuinely interested in the issue, let me know on my talk page and I will provide you with diffs. ] (]) 18:15, 19 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I'll be the first to admit I may not be fully aware of what this is, but both my advice to you and my not-vote above stand regardless of whether or not BoboMeowCat has misrepresented things. The diff cited - the one where you essentially say you will wait until BoboMeowCat and Drmies have turned their backs, and will then resume trying to push through your version - epitomizes the wrong way to resolve a content dispute. You're not supposed to exclude other editors from the editing process, but work together with them - and while ], BoboMeowCat and Drmies turning the other way and leaving you alone doesn't constitute a change of consensus. One gets the impression you want to push your version through, regardless of what other editors think; that's ] and against policy.<br>It doesn't help that your other recent contributions include page histories like ; unlike some here I feel you can be a constructive editor and contribute positively, but you'll really have to stop edit warring.<br>I'll be happy to strike my not-vote if you tell me I've misinterpreted the diff, that you understand what the problem would be if my reading were correct, and that "coming back in a few weeks to fix it" really means you will come back to the talk page a few weeks from now, start a new discussion from a fresh angle, invite BoboMeowCat and Drmies to take part in it, and don't intend to make any edits that were previously opposed until the new discussion's gained steam and it's clear that consensus has shifted to support your edits.<br>Remember that ] is always disruptive, even if you're right and the other editor(s) wrong. Avoid it. ] (]) 20:26, 19 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: ] Actually, I think if you look at the timeline of the diffs and talk page, you'll see something of a different story -- it was me who opened the talk page discussion, and Bobo who ignored it, and repeatedly ignored consensus. Drmies changed his view about a small number of Bobo's proposals after most had been dropped and at that point I said "fine." I don't see any productive discussion on the talk page, and I don't think Bobo is there for any reason other than to retaliate because I didn't give him what he wanted on another page. I think the page right now has ], ], and other issues. It's been a regular target of apparently ] no-username vandals. Its misusing sources. And it leaves out several of the most important facets of the subject. Rather than continuing a battle which serves no purpose, with someone who seems interested in creating an edit war, I am taking a break from the page. I will return to it later, see what is there, and take appropriate action at that time. Whether that action is commencing a new discussion (which failed before, since Bobo chose to ignore it and impose his changes), or BRD, or what, will depend on the condition of the page at that time. ] (]) 01:52, 20 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| Another editor asked me to look deeper into this after ]. Dj appears to have edited as an IP for a while, not signing their talk page posts, before creating this account, and continued not signing talk page posts for a bit. Some of this account's early edits were classic ] and other mistakes that no very experienced editor would have made but, then, their earliest edits were also peppered with very familiar language: <br> | |||
| Sixth edit (unsigned talk page comment) "Someone's PR campaign is not, of itself, notable..." Uses "notable" while failing to sign.<br> | |||
| Seventh edit: Uses "weasel words", "unsourced", "sourced to"<br> | |||
| Eighth edit. Uses "reverted" in the edit summary.<br> | |||
| I've got house guests and can't really devote the necessary time to it, but I can understand others being leery of this behaviour. Still, the familiarity with our language and norms may have come from a prior dynamic IP career, and the arguing and boldness is fine with me. If we get into the realm of misrepresenting sources or ''problematical'' edit warring (I see a little edit warring on all sides - linked above) then I will change my mind, but for now I would just say, Dj, please generally allow yourself to be guided by ], particularly regarding edits that throw a living person into a less favourable light. You're editing in very controversial areas and that requires (at least from newbies) an extra dose of politeness. Long term editors have had to deal with the most appalling POV-pushers and defamers over the years, and can sometimes be short on patience. Please try to be understanding and genuinely patient with them - they fill an extremely important and mostly thankless role here. --] (] · ] · ]) 06:24, 22 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :It's arguable but reasonable that they are a new user. If they happened to continue appearing at pages that Roscelese has edited this would not be ideal. If they continue to edit war that would not be ideal. This ANI serves as a warning here if nothing else. The ] and ] were both mentioned above. There maybe other places like on wikipedia. If so please do mention them. These were set up to assist new editors with acclimating to wikipedia. {{ping|Djcheburashka}} I encourage you to use them to your benefit.] (]) 22:01, 22 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| <div class="boilerplate" style="background-color: #EDEAFF; padding: 0px 10px 0px 10px; border: 1px solid #8779DD;">{{Quote box2 | |||
| | title = | |||
| | title_bg = #999 | |||
| | title_fnt = #FFF | |||
| | quote = Deleted the excessive text dumps per CSD U5. This user is ] for building the encyclopedia. There was unexplained removal of past CSD taggings of unrelated users. Warned user. No further action needed. ] <sup>]</sup><sub style="margin-left:-7.5ex;">]</sub> 14:54, 22 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| | width = 30%|halign=left}} | |||
| :''The following discussion is closed. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> No further edits should be made to this discussion.''<!-- from Template:Archive top--> | |||
| ---- | |||
| Something is going on with ]. The editor's only edits over the last three weeks are large text dumps at subpages which were then taken over by ]. -- ] (]) 09:17, 22 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :CSD U5 every page, as they are clearly not here for building the encyclopedia? <small>I added the notification of this discussion to user's and IP's talk pages.</small> ] <sup>]</sup><sub style="margin-left:-7.5ex;">]</sub> 10:58, 22 November 2014 (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. | |||
| :''The discussion above is closed. <span style="color: #F00;">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> No further edits should be made to this discussion.''<!-- from Template:Archive bottom --></div><br style="clear:both;" /> | |||
| '']'' 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. | |||
| == Stalking, venomous Attacks on my talk page, and sequential reverts of all my edits == | |||
| The article states that ] demurred being cast in the role upon finding that out. for this claim is a ] on ], which contains the sentence | |||
| See my talk page and ], and then check the editors contribs. Just hostility and incomprehensible edit summaries, with one aim, to revert any work I do. I would appreciate some administrative oversight. Thank you.] (]) 15:04, 22 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| : ''Reportedly, Liddy was on board until he got to the part where Beeks .'' | |||
| :Bishonen blocked the user two minutes after you filed this report. ] (]) 17:48, 22 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| 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'': | |||
| == Amrit Ghimire Ranjit == | |||
| {{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''. | |||
| *{{userlinks|Amrit Ghimire Ranjit}} | |||
| 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.() | |||
| Since I had seen these changes-- to ], with the reasons like "''This section will make India centric. So it is better to remove it''", it was becoming obvious that this user's main purpose is to promote ]i POV. His contributions have either got some error or they are very one sided. Diffs:- | |||
| {{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;...}} | |||
| : - ] is not a country or territory. | |||
| : - Not written in English, unrelated too. | |||
| : Removing every other location, except Lumbini, with the explanation "''Ok then I will publish Mahatma Gandhi was born in Nepal''", "''What if I publish Mahatma Gandhi was born in Nepal?''"- | |||
| : - POV wording. | |||
| :Moved ] to ] because "''The article is fully concentrated to India only''" | |||
| :Forking ] for making a ], redirect seemed to have been established for a long time and when I reverted this ], he considered it to be ] because "''Same page for India is acceptable but that for Nepal is not accepted?''" | |||
| :On ], he keeps inserting '']'',- but the status of ''Buddha'' had no connection with Lumbini. | |||
| :] - Clear violation of 3rr ---- and Nepali POV he is removing '']'' because he finds that word to be similar to ''India''. | |||
| :It is usually unclear that what he is speaking about, due to severe ] issues, he told Acalamari that I am threatening him ''for ]''. | |||
| My accompanying comment was ''(a) That was the source's voice, not Liddy's. It's called a euphemism. Demonstrable by how it links to a clip of the scene in which a man is raped by a gorilla. (b) Source says "reportedly" for this claim, without evidence. Poor quality source. Removing claim'' | |||
| I have tried to discuss with him, but he misrepresents me or the policies, and carry out personal attacks, see ], ]. He would hardly ever discuss about the subject, he would try to distract from it, as much as he can and continue reverting. ] (]) 15:33, 22 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::I've left a note on {{u|Amrit Ghimire Ranjit}}'s talk page asking them to discuss changes on article talk pages. Please let's not get content disputes tangled up with accusations of personal attacks and legal threats. ]<sup>♦]</sup> 08:00, 23 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| That was reverted by Darkwarriorblake () with the comment ''Nothing wrong with Indiewire as a source, if there is I'd raise it at ]. Until then, there's a talk page for you to use per ]. Your comments sound agenda driven and therefore not Neutral.'' | |||
| == Behavior of ] == | |||
| 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. | |||
| *{{userlinks|Eightball}} | |||
| 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''. | |||
| Yesterday afternoon, a disgrameent ensued over the inclusion of a flag in ]. This quickly developed into a fierce dispute including a violation of ]. User:Eightball has reverted other users' contributions labeling them vandalism and calling the users making them liars {{diff2|634831934}}, {{diff2|634842492}}, {{diff2|634885854}}. The user has harassed other users involved on their talk pages {{diff2|634765043}}, {{diff2|634888573}}, has declared their intention not to discuss to keep reverting despite already being in violation of WP:3RR {{diff2|634885583}}, and declared their intention not to accept consensus {{diff2|634889746}}. During the discussion process the users has repeatedly issued personal attacks through calling disagreeing users vandals and liars {{diff2|634885583}}, {{diff2|634886644}}. I consider the attitude Eightball diplayed in the dispute utterly unacceptable. I will not deny that my own behavior was not what it should have been (in particular, I reverted to much which I deeply regret). I've allowed myself to be dragged into this way to deeply. What I would like to see is for this user to learn to collaborate constructively with other users instead of calling them liars and vandals. That they learn to respect other users' opinions and that at that at times the community disagrees with them. I would also like that this user learns to have respect for the Misplaced Pages policies such as ], ],... ] (]) 16:31, 22 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| This was reverted - again - by Darkwarriorblake () with the comment '' How are you an admin? "rape played for laughs" is an agenda, this went through FA as is so ] and ] apply. You must go to the talk page, not I. I don't know if you're going through a bad time or something but this isn't how an admin should be acting or communicating with others, up to and including ]'' | |||
| == Gamergate (again) == | |||
| 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 . | |||
| The article ] has been unprotected for less than an hour. Edit warring began within minutes in order to restore the allegation that Zoe Quinn exchanged sexual favors for favorable reviews. These allegations are unsupported by reliable sources, and indeed have been frequently refuted. Nevertheless, editors insist that the longstanding heading language must report the Allegations without qualifier, or with only the qualifier "unproven". | |||
| So anyhow regardless of whether the Indiewire source is deemed suitable or not, I'm just wondering what the feeling here is about someone making goofy assertions on the record that another editor has "an agenda" (what agenda could it be?) and may not be emotionally stable, which really doesn't feel like ] at all. — ] <span style="color:#900">•</span> ] 20:03, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| This page needs eyes (and IMHO protection) urgently. Obviously, Misplaced Pages’s repeating an untrue allegation about a game developer's sexual history involves BLP, and given the prominence of the issue. Note that I believe I may have violated 3RR under the BLP exemption and hope this was done appropriately. I'd appreciate it if the authorities could take over now. ] ] (]) 16:57, 22 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :Hrrm, this seems a bit excessive. | |||
| :Considering how long this nonsense has been going on, protecting it for only ten days was Pollyannish at best. It should be re-protected for a lengthier time, like say a year or two, and then reverted back to the last non-BLP-violating version. ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 17:09, 22 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :*I've added a second source for the claim. Really this should've been the first option rather than removing the content. | |||
| :*The first summary was, as stated, "Don't mince words; the interaction between Beeks and the gorilla is rape played for laughs". "Rape played for laughs" is a loaded comment and not something said in the article or the source text, so it's a personal opinion, it's not neutral, it's agenda-driven. | |||
| :*When this was reverted, the editor just removed the content entirely claiming IndieWire was unreliable. There is, as far as I'm aware, nothing wrong with Indiewire. I've since found a second source, the Telegraph, which is reliable per ]. | |||
| :*The editor ignored WP: BRD when raised, and as an admin they should adhere to policy. | |||
| :*The editor states that they are an admin on their page. Assuming this is true, the aggressiveness of their edits, hyper focus on the single area, and use of words like "crap listicle" seemed out of line with what I, personally, would expect from an admin on Misplaced Pages, certainly someone who has been so for nearly two decades. Perhaps the edit summary wasn't the place to have that discussion but, as stated, they weren't adhering to WP: BRD to start a discussion, and in the interim the article needed putting back to the status quo. | |||
| :*I find accusations of OWNERSHIP often tend to come when people don't get their way. Which is fine. I have plenty of reversions on the page for people adding unsourced content and there are plenty of changes as well. I find someone removing sourced content and me putting the sourced content back to not ''really'' be something you can fling ownership at. | |||
| :*Within the context of the film, Beeks does become the romantic partner of the gorilla, it seemed more appropriate and encylcopedic text than just saying 'rape', and neither source I've added says that either. | |||
| :*Anyways, my edit history shows I'm a massive contributor and helper and it's nearly Xmas, and I don't feel like engaging with this any further, good luck Hex. ] (]) 20:27, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::Of course you don't, having ignored the actual matter of your conduct that I'm raising here. Your comments about the content of the article are irrelevant. — ] <span style="color:#900">•</span> ] 20:43, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *Hex's position is not wholly supported, although in the entire issue, their toolset is irrelevant. There was no incivility on either part, and an all-out edit war seems to have been averted.{{pb}}Fundamentally the change Hex wanted to make was pure OR; rape may have been intimated—or, as Hex themself admits, implied—but its never overtly stated and is a wholly loaded term. This is the interpretation of an editor, not of secondary sources. If there is a pron=blem with Indywire as a source—currently used in —take it to WP:RSN. If it's disputed that it's a high quality source per WP:FA?, then take it to WT:FAC. Accusations of OWNership are as unhelpful—and as much an aspersion—as accusations of agenda-led editing. In fact, for OWNership, Hex should read the relevant policy: here, it is WP:FAOWN, which not only allows for careful stewardship of featured material, but requires significant changes to the consensus version to be discussed on talk; I don't suppose there's any suggestion that introducing rape—particularly "played for laughs"—wouldn't be a significant addition.{{pb}}Really though, this is an overblown content dispute which should have started with ''one revert'' each, and ended on the talk page. --]'']''] 21:10, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:"Never overtly stated... 'played for laughs' be a significant addition" - with John Landis, the director. {{talk quote|One of the executives was deeply appalled by a man being sexually molested by a gorilla. And I said you know, it's a joke and it goes by very quickly. But the first preview was very successful and it all went away. ''''}} | |||
| *:Feel free to amend the article on that basis. I'm certainly not interested in spending any more time on it. — ] <span style="color:#900">•</span> ] 22:48, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ===Followup=== | |||
| And mybe MarkBernstein ] before making such accusations because I made it clear that that wasn't my ] (]) 17:19, 22 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| I just want to say that, now that we've had an ANI thread on the subjeect of Gordon Liddy's feelings about portraying the romantic partner of a gorilla, I can die happy. | |||
| While we're on the subject, recites that {{tq|Prior to his departure from the FBI in 1962, Liddy sought admission to various bars.}} I'm curious to know whether this is meant to imply that Liddy had a , and whether this could have had any bearing on the whole gorilla romantic partner situation. ]] | |||
| {{Done}} Gamaliel's already full protected it again. <small>]</small> 17:38, 22 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| :Per Bugs, I've extended protection. Chaos seems to erupt whenever protection expires or is downgraded, so we ought not let it expire again so soon. For a while, full protection was set to expire in late April, so I've put it back to that; other admins are welcome to downgrade it if they believe it necessary (no need to ask me or notify me; I don't care about the topic), although I'd advise against it. ] (]) 17:44, 22 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::I'm not sure protection was necessary. User Avono seems to concede the issue to MarkBernstein's suggestion.--v/r - ]] 17:51, 22 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::I'm not sure that it was necessary because of this specific incident, but that wasn't the reason for the extension of protection; I did it because of the longer-term trends, and I would have believed protection necessary even without this specific incident. ] (]) 17:54, 22 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::: Plus, long term protection violates ] as this is supposed to be the Misplaced Pages that everybody can edit, not the encyclopedia that any admin can protect a page for a long amount of time just because it has 'problems'. A lot of page have freakin' editing problems. NPOV, biased content, tendendious editors. The solution to those problems is to discuss on the talk page, (and maybe file for enforcement for the more conduct related) not shut down all editing for literally 5 months because you think 'it'll calm down after that'. That's a fool's errand, and just delays the problem. You should absolutely use full protection for short periods of time, but not for this longer period since it happily negates any meaningful discussion on the talk page. I urge to you restore the full protection original date. This I also believe is unprecedented. ] (]) 18:07, 22 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Tutelary, no one is being oppressed. If you have a particular edit suggestion, propose it on the talk page, get consensus, and then sit back and enjoy the improved product. ] (]) 21:50, 22 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| Not worth worrying about here and now. Twenty four hours after this vote, the criteria was met for the opening of an arbcom case. (The actual declaration depends on the availability of an arbcom clerk, who are volunteers like the rest of us.) <small>]</small> 18:21, 22 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| == User Stationmanagerskidrow removing information on ] page == | |||
| ::::: I'm extremely happy to see the page receive long-term protection. If anything resembling a consensus can be established on the talk page, then it can go into main article space. ] (]) 18:24, 22 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *The article should not be removed to a semi-permanent draft version that will serve like an admin-only Pending Changes article. Such a concept goes against our core policies. I will recognize that there is a major effort by parties to advance an agenda, but semi-protection and the sanctions on the page are tools enough to control the matter without becoming draconian. Misplaced Pages is a neutral party, but compromising our standards and processes sets a bad precedent and it indicates that Misplaced Pages is helpless to regulate, control and maintain high-visibility articles. Full protection only projects vulnerability and shame in our self-regulation ''because'' when we pride ourselves on the notion that "anyone can edit" Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 18:29, 22 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :The sanctions did not prevent (false) allegations about a young woman’s sexual history from being posted to article space within five minutes of the end of protection. The sanctions have not prevented Ryulong's doxxing and the shameful anti-semitic rants against him offsite, nor have they yet taken effective measures against relentless speculation about other unsourced claims ], nor an admin’s repeated talk-page assertion that two reliable sources that refer to an image as a "rape joke" must be wrong because no static image can depict rape. This page needs an extended time-out, and related pages need watchful eyes. ] (]) 18:56, 22 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::: Uh, we can only deal with the vandalistic edit after the fact, and that's an oversight that has happened to other articles before. (Not restoring semi protection after full protection and a vandalistic edit gets through) To try to say that the article should be protected for '''5 months''' because of a single vandalistic edit is absolutely crazy. And we don't control what happens off site, and linking to a general enforcement page in which the user is warned is not productive. Also commenting on deal dispute matters which you don't like the reply of an admin is also not exactly relevant to the topic. Also please don't insult or personally attack other editors, per ]. ] (]) 19:04, 22 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::The accusations against Quinn was the focal point for all of Gamergate, and discussed many many times in reliable sources, and considered refuted by most of those reliable sources. It has been long since accepted in talk page discussion that in discussing those allegations as the starting point and the fact they've been pretty much disproven is not a violation of BLP. Further, you need to stop misquoting me and making veiled personal attacks. --] (]) 19:01, 22 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::I'm getting real tired of the harassment I'm getting. --] ] 19:03, 22 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ] is repeatedly removing information about a recent incident involving a Jewish DJ at ]. They say that it is incorrect information, even though it is sourced. The name also states clearly that this is a company account. Lastly, they have continued this behavior even after being warned on their talk page. ] (]) 03:07, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :User is now editing using ] ] (]) 03:34, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ===Draconian Proposal=== | |||
| On the one hand, I agree with the comment that putting the article under several months of full page protection, which amounts to Pending Changes by admins, and gives too much power to admins, is contrary to Misplaced Pages policy that anyone can edit as long as they do not edit disruptively. On the other hand, it does appear that every time page protection expires, someone re-inserts the sexual allegations against ], and the sexual allegations are an intolerable ] violation, and potentially libelous, and Misplaced Pages has a legal and moral responsibility to remove them again summarily. Therefore, I propose the remedy that we establish that anyone who re-inserts the allegations with any wording other than “false” should immediately (without further warning) be topic-banned by any ] administrator, and may be immediately blocked in order to allow time for the topic-ban to be posted. It should be understood that any wording of the allegations short of ‘false’ (and ‘unproven’ is short of ‘false’) is an attempt to weasel around the ban on re-inserting the allegations and so not permitted. With this specific definition of sanctionable conduct, perhaps we can go back to short-term rather than long-term page protection. ] (]) 19:42, 22 November 2014 (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) | |||
| * '''Support''' as proposer. ] (]) 19:42, 22 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Oppose''' There is no need for this; this is what the general sanctions are supposed to handle. The editors that edit warred (''both ways'') over long-established phrasing should be warned and/or have sanctions enforced to mitigation the issue. Doing this type of solution, having admin actions on specific details, I can see grow way too fast out of control. --] (]) 19:56, 22 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''', as the sanctions would cover this and, if things were to change in the future, would preempt the ability of the article to change with time. Terrible suggestion. ] (]) 20:00, 22 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Support''' as necessary (extended page protection is also necessary). Also -- and knowing that I am walking directly up to the line of WP:CIVIL here, both ] and ], opposing above, fought long and hard today to make the sexual allegations as visible as possible, and their discussion as protracted as possible,] (]) 20:04, 22 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| **This is simply untrue. ] (]) 20:12, 22 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Oppose''' Sanctions cover this sort of stuff. Redundant and unnecessary. ] (]) 20:30, 22 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Oppose''' As this was never the issue. ] (]) 20:39, 22 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *'''oppose''' --] ] 20:45, 22 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' - unnecessary per above. ]'']'' 21:02, 22 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ·====Follow-Up Reply, and Alternate Suggestion==== | |||
| I see that consensus is running against my draconian proposal. I can understand that. I also see that it is said that the sanctions should cover the issue of the deletion of the word "False", which has been done several times today (along with other stuff) before full page protection was imposed. Is there a noticeboard for requesting that actual sanctions, such as topic-bans, be imposed under the general sanctions? If these were Arbcom discretionary sanctions, I would know how to request action. Is this the proper noticeboard? If so, is it in order to request that the editors who changed "False Allegations" to "Allegations", aware of the general sanctions, be topic-banned from the article? It appears that the general sanctions are not being used effectively to deal with disruptive editing that violates BLP guidelines. Is that because full page-protection is easier for admins to impose, or why? Are the general sanctions not being used effectively, or are they not suitable for being used effectively? Can the editors who removed "False" be topic-banned? ] (]) 22:33, 22 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| That article probably should be speedied as an A7 for not containing any assertions of notability; which obscures that Stationmanagerskidrow appears to have been edit warring on it with an undisclosed COI, and presumably was ]ing as , and if so violated 3RR as well. It's probably best for me not to take administrative action here tonight as I won't be around later/tomorrow to deal with any followups, but something should be done here beyond just saying "take it to the talk page." ]] <small><sup>Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!</sup></small> 06:22, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :The sanctions page is . Other than the initial flurry, and today's topic ban of DSA (after a at least one previous request and two or more trips here), enforcement has been glacial and, in my view, ineffective. Not only was the ''False'' allegations edit warred, but a subsequent edit war broke out on the talk page over whether discussion of Zoe Quinn’s sex life could be hatted or whether the five pillars require that the BLP violations remain prominently visible on the talk page. Yesterday's rape discussion was, in my view, beyond belief and also deserves close scrutiny, which I have been inviting just as I felt I had to open this discussion with my own 3RR violation. That this should be necessary to gather attention to the matter is unfortunate, but if attention is being paid otherwise, its effects are not evident to attentive onlookers. ] (]) 23:38, 22 November 2014 (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) | |||
| ::If you're going to slander me, at least ping me. I don't sit around all day looking through contribs, so I'd prefer i know who is slandering my name, and where and when. --] ] 23:43, 22 November 2014 (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) | |||
| ::::As your conduct was not under discussion here, and as it's not clear that you could contribute to this discussion (having been topic banned), it didn't occur to me. I'm regret the omission, @DungeonSiegeAddict510.] (]) 01:01, 23 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| == Insults == | |||
| :Just changing "false allegations" to "allegations" one time is in no way a violation of the general sanctions though trout-worthy due to the fact the issue has been discussed much per talk archives (and while using "false" is still controversial, is generally considered a stable solution at the present time), but ''edit warring'' over that would be. --] (]) 02:02, 23 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::Oh, for crying out loud. Telstar introduced the issue ], reverted by NorthBySouthwestBaranof. Telstar restated the BLP violation again ], was stepped on by Avono introducing the draft revision wholesale, and again reverted by NorthBySouthwestBaranof. Avono immediately reverted to plain "Allegations" ], reverted by me. Avono tries to replace "Allegations" with "Unproven allegations", reverted by me. As I'm reporting myself to ANI for that revert (head of this discussion), Gamaliel protects the page. | |||
| 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) | |||
| :: ] knows this. ] can, presumably, read '''view history''' just as well as I can. I know people hate drama here, but in the post above, ] can only be intentionally misleading his colleagues -- what other explanation can we offer for the edit immediately above. ] (]) 03:46, 23 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :Hello, Psychloppos. What action are you seeking to happen here? <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 09:42, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::I have no idea which actions are warranted here. Maybe an admin could leave a message to this IP and this registered user and remind them that they should ] ? It would also be nice to remind them about ] and ]. Saying that I am "fuelled by an unhealthy obsession" or questioning my sanity do not seem to respect those guidelines. ] (]) 09:52, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::Normally this starts with warnings on the user's Talk page, but it seems you two have already hashed that out. So unless this account does it again, there's no further action to be taken. — <b>]:<sup>]</sup></b> 18:25, 25 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::FYI, following , I have made ]. ] (]) 13:48, 26 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| === Request for Review of Neutrality and Repeated Actions === | |||
| {{Atop|This complaint has no merit and does not require administrative intervention.--] (]) 18:08, 24 December 2024 (UTC)}} | |||
| Dear admin, | |||
| :::For further reference, ]'s talk page edits today insisting on fuller exposure of Zoe Quinn's sex life, and attempting to argue that the allegations concerning her alleged exchange of sexual favors for editorial coverage were not false, in the teeth of (as far as I am aware) ''unanimous'' reliable sources: ], ] (page is protected at this point), , ,] (worrying that new editors might not be familiar with Zoe Quinn's sex life), ] (alluding to '''more'' sexual accusations which we will not discuss because they're not true either, except we have to mention again and again that they were alleged), ], plus five subsequent diffs that interested readers can pursue as easily as I through View History. All of this, mind you, was closely coordinated with a small group of associated editors who play assigned roles: one is always careful to claim neutrality (while invariably favoring more discussion of Zoe Quinn's private life), one is more aggressive, a third is now topic-banned. But, after a whole day parsing whether or not "sodomy" is a good euphemism for rape and asserting that a static image cannot n any case refer to rape -- again in the teeth of the sources and defiance of art history and semiotics and common sense -- if this is, on a page already subject to sanctions and already at ArbCom -- if this is not misconduct, then let's just turn out the lights right now. ] (]) 04:01, 23 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| I hope this message finds you well. I am writing to express my concern regarding Psycholoppos, who has repeatedly applied the neutrality dispute tag to content related to Randa Kassis. Despite previous clarifications, these actions suggest a potential bias, which could undermine the objectivity and integrity of the platform. | |||
| I kindly request that you review this matter and take appropriate steps to ensure that all users adhere to neutrality standards. If possible, I would also appreciate guidance on how to address such situations constructively in the future. | |||
| ::::'''Please stop personally attacking me'''. --] (]) 04:03, 23 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| Thank you for your attention to this issue. Please feel free to reach out if further clarification is needed. | |||
| With respect ], I'm not attacking you. I'm attacking the pattern of your edits on the page in question which (a) have consistently ignored WP:BLP in favor of prurient inquiry into the sexual history of a game developer whom the sources ''and you yourself'' agree is blameless, (b) bitterly contested efforts to at least hat the BLP violations on the talk page which you could easily have ended, (c) have facilitated a coordinated POV attack on this page and its talk page which is known to be coordinated offsite, and where your aid is specifically cited as an important asset, and where (d) these tactics are openly discussed. I confess that WP:CIVILity in the teeth of facilitating threats of rape against my colleagues, which you spend yesterday defending, was difficult. But you assert above that '''one''' edit was made, when all can plainly see -- and you very clearly knew -- that many edits had been made and that you spend hours -- literally -- defending them personally. ] (]) 04:30, 23 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| Hazar ] (]) 17:45, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :Yes you are attacking me. "have facilitated a coordinated POV attack on this page and its talk page which is known to be coordinated offsite, and where your aid is specifically cited as an important asset" is an outright attack without proof and I can tell you is 100% false - I have purposely ''avoided'' any discussion of the GG article with anyone outside of the discussions on Misplaced Pages (save for what I've already documented at ArbCom as one private discussion with a person that wanted to know how reliable sources work on WP). I'm well aware my name comes up in several conversations on outside sources, but that's why I have fully avoiding interaction (and in part I am not proGG, I'm only fighting for an impartial article per NPOV). So that's an outright fabrication and a personal attack. Additionally, it is '''not''' BLP to discuss an accusation that has been the center of discussion of numerous mainstream reliable sources and central to the entire debate, which has also been generally debunked. BLP says we should be using the best sources if we have to discuss it (which we are) and we just have to establish how the allegations came and how they were refuted. You're claiming I'm trying to drag more of her life into this which is absolutely bogus - I know other other allegations exist but will not state what those on WP are because that would be a BLP violation at the current time. I'm trying to argue from the proper accurate and neutral wording to how to present the nature of the accusations. And I am only contesting hatting when ''involved'' editors are doing so, because of the talk page being under sanctions - if a discussion needs hatting, grab an uninvolved admin and do it themselves.--] (]) 04:41, 23 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :@], whether the NPOV tag is needed or not should first be discussed on the article's talk page. Also, see the large notice at the top of this page: you are required to notify the editor you are reporting. ] ] 17:53, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::The editor is also called Psychloppos, not Psycholoppos. I have notified them for the OP. – ] (]) (]) 17:59, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :I wouldn't give a chatbot-written thread the time of day. HS, ]. —] ] <sup><small>] ]</small></sup> 18:05, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| {{Abot}} | |||
| * Note: I moved this retaliatory post to be a sub-heading of the original issue. — <b>]:<sup>]</sup></b> 18:34, 25 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I urge careful attention to the paragraph above, notably the phrase ''' I know other other allegations exist but will not state what those on WP are because that would be a BLP violation ''at the current time''.''' That's breathtaking -- and so generous of you to not wish to discuss prurient details in a matter in which this software developer is blameless ''at the current time''! '''Please: someone. Take this to sanctions or wherever it needs to go. It has to be done, and I can't face another long day of being dragged through innuendo about a colleague's sex life for the amusement of Misplaced Pages process.''' ] (]) 04:56, 23 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Where did I say "sex life"? There are other allegations about her life, but ''not'' about her sex life. You are misquoting me left and right. '''Please stop immediately'''. --] (]) 05:01, 23 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::(And to be clear, these are allegations I am aware the proGG has made, but no RS has covered in any detail we can even start to use, and hence why I won't bring the specifics up at all) --] (]) 05:04, 23 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::That's breathtaking Masem. If you're not willing to drop the topic for a couple of months I think sanctions will be necessary. Meanwhile, readers here can thnk about what bad things ] might have done—that is, bad things apart from her sex life. Perhaps the allegations are that she has committed fraud or blackmail? Or that she threatened to kill or rape someone? Can't you see how utterly inappropriate it is for editors to use any page on Misplaced Pages to promote such nonsense? '''Please stop immediately'''. ] (]) 09:43, 23 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::I am absolutely not promoting those. I am saying, as editors of an article that has received an inordinate amount of outside interest, that we need to be aware that there are other things the proGg side would like WP to say but we are nowhere close to having any sources to even speak to them, much less cover them. I don't believe any of said things are true in any remote way, but that doesn't change the fact that there are people that want to come to WP to ask us to add them, and to respond best to them it is better not to be ignorant of these other claims and broadly what they involve (as it tells us what other articles might be subject to outside influence because of the connection). I am absolutely not promoting adding anything more regarding Quinn. --] (]) 11:12, 23 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ==Nlkyair012 and LLM chatbots == | |||
| ==Elvis Image Usage== | |||
| *{{Noping|Nlkyair012}} | |||
| The following Elvis image is under public domain. | |||
| This editor has been constantly using AI chatbots to respond and write messages. They are a single purpose account for glorifying the ] caste using unreliable ] era sources, I and several other experienced editors have taken time and effort to respond to their endless queries and ] generated using ChatGPT. They have posted AI generated walls of text on multiple noticeboards such as ] and ] and including here , accusing me of vandalism. | |||
| Despite my repeated requests and even a final warning to them (including a request by {{ping|ActivelyDisinterested}}) they are still continuing to do it. Their messages are repeating the same argument again and again and are frankly just ] that bring up fictitious guidelines or misrepresent the existing ones. Several editors have told them that Raj era sources are not reliable yet they continue to ask for more evidence on why that is the case based on AI generated claims of supposed academic value or neutrality. This is getting very disruptive and taking up valuable contributor time to respond to their endless AI responses which take a few seconds to generate. I have alerted them about ] and ], I would appreciate it if someone could enforce a restriction on this user from at minimum caste area. - ] (]) 13:07, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| https://commons.wikimedia.org/File:King_Creole_poster.jpg | |||
| :Hello @Ratnahastin, | |||
| Can I publish this image on my book without getting the permission from the Elvis estate.] (]) 17:55, 22 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :To start with I should admit that I am sorry for all the inconvenience that I may have caused as a result of my actions. It was never my intention to take people’s time or skew the conversation in a certain way. I appreciate the core idea to contribute the thoughts to the Wiki and share it borne in mind the overall rules and policies of this program. | |||
| :This kind of question is better suited for the ] page. Let me just remind you that there are other kinds of ] issues besides copyright — you may need to check into trademarks (who knows, they might have trademarked one of the two images?), ], and other types. Talk to a lawyer. ] (]) 18:04, 22 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :I understand your fears about the AI utilities you have mentioned on your site. Even when I was using AI for the grammar check or, for instance, to elaborate on some point in the text, I saw to my mismanagement that over the process we probably confused the readers and repeated the same information and thoughts, which I would never wish to happen again. From now on I will ensure that in the future the input which I provide to wikipedia fits the Misplaced Pages standard and is more personal. I will also not write walls of text and will not make assertations that do not have substantiated evidence in sources. | |||
| :As for subjects that concern the Raj and the sources from this period and the discussions we have had it seems that I have gone too far in demanding clarification for the same thing. That being the case, with the understanding that the consensus will be acknowledged, I shall not be inclined to reopen this discussion unless new substantiated evidence is produced. I don’t want to prolong the conversation or bring any more stress. | |||
| :I will strive to learn from my experience to be more productive in my interactions going forward. If there are other limitations or additional rules to which I have to stick to, I will receive them with pleasure. | |||
| :In the same respect, let me specially apologize for the inconvenience and thank all of you for bearing with us. That was why I wanted to remind all of us that we can and should keep collectively improving Misplaced Pages as a resource. <span style="font-family:Georgia,serif; color:#FF4500; font-size:120%; font-weight:bold;">]</span> 13:31, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::This comment also has a typical LLM feel and contains meaningless statements such as "I understand your fears about the AI utilities you have mentioned on your site" and differs substantially from , although GPTzero said this is human input. - ] (]) 13:38, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::It seems human in that it contains some composition and grammar errors that I don’t think an LLM would produce. <span style="position: relative; top: -0.5em;">꧁</span>]<span style="position: relative; top: -0.5em;">꧂</span> 13:56, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Thanks for the reply sir, I can't explain how frustrated I'm feeling from this morning which this user made me experience <span style="font-family:Georgia,serif; color:#FF4500; font-size:120%; font-weight:bold;">]</span> 14:02, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::The time when I messaged Vikram banafar I was casual not formal and second of all your saying doesn't prove anything "and differs substantially from your usual (non-AI) writing style" that's a straight up false accusation and utter nonsensical point and 3rd point being that GPTzero stated that this is a human input then that's an human input end of the question. <span style="font-family:Georgia,serif; color:#FF4500; font-size:120%; font-weight:bold;">]</span> 14:01, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::No it's really not the end of the story if GPTZero says "likely human". In fact I'd actively discourage people depending on tools like GPTZero in favour of their human senses ] than yet another computer program. And, frankly, what you're hearing from people here is we'd rather your casual, human, flaws-and-all style of writing over ChatGPT output "formal" report templates. They are doing the opposite of what you're looking for and have become disruptive. ] (]) 14:05, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Man you still wanna do this? @] also says this doesn't seems AI generated to him and he used his actual "Human senses" to lean that way <span style="font-family:Georgia,serif; color:#FF4500; font-size:120%; font-weight:bold;">]</span> 14:10, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Admitting that you have used AI for writing your comments and then saying that you have not used AI is not going to help your case. - ] (]) 14:36, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::You know what I think this is getting to the ] point. Having to tell somebody to have the basic respect of other editors to not subject them to text-walls of chatGPT garbage over and over again is a disruptive distraction from what we should all be doing. ] (]) 14:38, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::This ain't getting anywhere <span style="font-family:Georgia,serif; color:#FF4500; font-size:120%; font-weight:bold;">]</span> 14:59, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::I really don't understand the problem. Cuz I literally also said many where that yes I used AI but for expanding and grammar correction <span style="font-family:Georgia,serif; color:#FF4500; font-size:120%; font-weight:bold;">]</span> 14:54, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::If this combative approach is your "casual" style, perhaps your use of AI and its over the top politeness was an attempt to mask it. In any case, I think you are ] but for caste glorification given your obsession with a certain sub-caste. - ] (]) 14:33, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::im not obsessed with a certain subcaste but am sure is obsessed with British Raj sources. <span style="font-family:Georgia,serif; color:#FF4500; font-size:120%; font-weight:bold;">]</span> 14:56, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::I don't think that's better. ] (]) 15:44, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::If we just temporarily put aside the AI-generated comments, can Nlkyair012 accept the view of experienced editors on Raj era sources and not push any viewpoint on a particulary caste? Because, to be honest, editors who have done this in the past usually end up indefinitely blocked. There is a low tolderance here for "caste warriors". <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 19:27, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Potential vandal trying to start edit war on the page for Frisch's. == | |||
| ::Thanks for the advice.] (]) 19:33, 22 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| {{atop|1=Page protected, and now this admin is flashing back to his youth going to Frisch's Big Boy in ]. - ] <sub>]</sub> 22:37, 24 December 2024 (UTC)}} | |||
| This user keeps using IP addresses in order to revert creditable information about who makes their tartar sauce. Please look into this user. IP Addresses used were 67.80.16.30, 66.117.211.82, and 216.24.107.180. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 15:17, 24 December 2024 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| :Courtesy link ]. ] (]) 17:02, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Abuse of talk page access at ], and requesting writing of guidelines for use of talk page by blocked users == | |||
| :<del>This sounds a '''lot''' like the same edit warrer I dealt with on ], down to the false accusations of vandalism, removal of sourced information, and apparent use of proxies (all the IPs geolocate to different places). I wouldn't be surprised if this is the same person.</del> I've asked RFPP to intervene. ] | ] 21:05, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::NVM, checked MaxMind for geolocation and they all are in the same general area. ] | ] 21:08, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| == ] inaccurate edit summaries == | |||
| I believe I am justified from the nature of the recent edits to the page listed above as per to request that Reguyla's access to his talk page be revoked for the duration of his block. I also believe that there is good reason to perhaps request that we have some serious attention to what sort of activity editors who are blocked from editing everything but their user talk page can and cannot engage in during the time of their block. ] (]) 20:07, 22 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :'''Trout:''' {{tq| This page is on my watch list, as pretty much all pages I edit, and if I see continuing misuse of this page...}} just unwatch his talk page if you don't like what he posts on it. Nothing is against policy, though maybe some of it could be moved to a subpage. | |||
| :In fact, everyone should just unwatch his talk page. That goes for Chillum, Beeblebrox, etc. They have no good reason to be there and it smacks of drama-mongering. ''']''' 20:30, 22 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::A valid concern, but it does not address the matter of the numerous pings the editor has fairly regularly made to draw attention to his page, which are rather clearly visible, or the request I made, admittedly possibly in the wrong place, to have some clarification of what sort of use of user talk pages should be permitted for editors who are blocked from editing everything but their user talk pages.] (]) 20:41, 22 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::{{ec}}x2 As far as clarifications on talk page access, I don't think that further rules and bureaucracy would help. Rather, I think just standard discretion and common sense on the part of admins should determine what is clearly inappropriate and what isn't. His complaints are not out of line, thus yet, but if they devolve into purely disruptive and offensivepersonal attacks, then that is something of greater concern. ''']''' 21:00, 22 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::The use of pings or anything else which triggers the notification system seems inappropriate for a user confined to his/her talk page, since it causes text to appear on other pages, contrary to the intention of the ban. ] (]) 21:04, 22 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::And if the guidelines regarding what is and is not acceptable for editors whose edits are confined to their user talk page don't say that clearly yet, I think they should. ] (]) 21:11, 22 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Agreed. ] (]) 21:27, 22 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| To quote the closing of the community unban discussion "'''Accordingly, the block on Reguyla should be adjusted to 6 months from today, counting this discussion as the community's offer to return and 6 months of zero disruption as Kumioko's acceptance'''" | |||
| All but 2 of user's edit summaries are "Fixed Typo" when they are in fact partially updating statistical information on the page. Have left multiple messages/warnings on TP, with no response. ] (]) 16:03, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| These are the terms the community came up with and the closure that was accepted by that community. | |||
| == Lil Dicky Semi-Protection == | |||
| I see 4 options: | |||
| {{atop|1=] is thataway →. - ] <sub>]</sub> 22:34, 24 December 2024 (UTC)}} | |||
| ] was semi-protected back in 2019. Now that five years have passed, could the semi-protection be lifted? ] (]) 16:25, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :Ask at ] ] ] 16:28, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| # We reset the 6 month offer we have given him where Reguyla is to make '''zero''' disruptions as was the community offer and we allow him talk page access. | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| # We reset the 6 month offer we have given him where Reguyla is to make '''zero''' disruptions as was the community offer and we we remove talk page access. In the spirit of not giving him too much rope. | |||
| # We withdraw the offer because Reguyla did not accept it. | |||
| # We ignore this behavior and let the timer run out. | |||
| == Disruptive behavior from IP == | |||
| I support option 2 as I really don't think this user recognizes that starting a sentence with "Bullshit!" is not civil and is above zero disruption. If he can not sock puppet or send any nasty e-mails during this time we welcome him/him back with open arms. | |||
| For the past month, {{ip|24.206.65.142}} has been attempting to add misleading information to ], specifically trying to use the unofficial "777-200LRF" designation beyond first mention in the relevant section and passing it off as official (, , , , , , , , , , ). Their behavior died down for a few weeks, but restarted several days ago (, ), including that {{u|Fnlayson}} is "okay with it". They have been asked numerous times on ] to either stop or provide evidence of official use of the designation, but they have failed to do so and have continued their disruption. - ] <sub>]</sub><span style="color:#6B8E23">\</span><sup>]</sup> 19:51, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| I forgot to mention that this user has used at least two other IPs; {{ip|24.206.75.140}} and {{ip|24.206.65.150}}. 24.206.65.142 is the most recent to cause disruption. - ] <sub>]</sub><span style="color:#6B8E23">\</span><sup>]</sup> 20:10, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| I don't like option 1 because I am sure he will just do it again, I don't like option 3 because I know this person can be an asset to the project | |||
| :"777-200LRF" is not misleading, some cargo airlines do use that designation. Today I reverted to a previous version that ] was okay with . I feel that ] is going overboard with charges of misinformation and disruptive editing. ] (]) 19:59, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| I cannot abide by option 4 as the offer from the community was very generous and '''today alone''' we have: | |||
| ::It is misleading to remove any mentions of it being unofficial. Boeing has never made a "777-200LRF", no aftermarket conversion has ever been offered under that name, nor has the FAA or any other regulatory agency ever certified such an aircraft. To pass such a designation off as official is by definition misleading and misinformation. Likewise, to continuously do so after you have been told to stop by multiple people and falsely claiming that others support your arguments is by definition disruptive. - ] <sub>]</sub><span style="color:#6B8E23">\</span><sup>]</sup> 20:06, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::Of note is the fact that this is not the first time the IP has claimed to have Fnlayson's support. ] not to assume support without a specific statement, yet it seems they've also ignored that. - ] <sub>]</sub><span style="color:#6B8E23">\</span><sup>]</sup> 20:23, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::Its not misinformation as here are the sources which use "777-200LRF", including GE Capital Aviation (the engine supplier for most Boeing 777) and Leeham News (to avoid confusion with the upcoming 777-8F). ] (]) 21:06, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I have asked you for sources from either Boeing or the FAA, yet you still either refuse to do so or (more likely) cannot because they don't exist. Only Boeing and the FAA can designate factory-built Boeing aircraft. Airlines and misinformed news websites have no authority to do so, and any alternative names they use are purely unofficial and should not have anything more than a single brief mention in the appropriate article section. Your ] to get that after numerous people have told you is disruptive. - ] <sub>]</sub><span style="color:#6B8E23">\</span><sup>]</sup> 22:14, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::None of those are ] suitable for sustaining the edit you want to make. #1 would only support that airline claiming to have that kind of plane. #2 is a model manufacturer, and #3 is a blog. — <b>]:<sup>]</sup></b> 18:37, 25 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :Relevant range is {{rangevandal|24.206.64.0/20}}, in case somebody needs it. ] | ] 21:02, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *Semiprotected ] for two days. - ] <sub>]</sub> 22:33, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Rude and unfestive language in my talk page == | |||
| and . That is today, there are other examples on other days. If the community came to a consensus that this user needs to show zero disruption for six month then that is what I want to see from this user. ] 20:50, 22 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :I would favor either the first or second of the options listed above, probably option 2 as the preferable among them. I haven't myself looked that much at the page prior to his recent pinging of me and others, so I don't know how much misuse had been done earlier. And I would also support clarifying to him as clearly as possible exactly what does and does not qualify as a disruption as per the zero disruptions. I would assume any pinging of any other editors regarding matters of articles and/or discussion on pages which the editor is not allowed to edit would qualify, but clearly indicating to the editor involved what will and will not qualify as disruption would be very welcome. And sorry about the ridiculous length of the section title. ] (]) 21:07, 22 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| I also wanted to point out that I explained what was considered acceptable talk page use for a banned user . ] 21:17, 22 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :And the pinging seems to rather clearly, if not specifically, qualify as inappropriate use as per that link, and I very much thank you for it. ] (]) 21:21, 22 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :* No, it doesn't rather clearly violate anything. He's inviting people to discussion on his talk page, and as others have noted he has not devolved into personal attacks. He is highly critical of a variety of things happening on Misplaced Pages. There is nothing wrong with criticism. When it devolves into name slinging, that is different, but that is not what is happening. If you don't want to be pinged, ask him not to. It's that simple. He's respecting Beeblebrox's request to do so. Just drop the damn sticks and walk away already. This is being turned into more of a mess than it need be because of the people getting up in arms over what amounts to...NOTHING. Just ignore the pings and/or ask him not to ping you. If he continues to ping you after being asked to ping, then fine. But, in the meantime you're adrift in a sea of bureaucracy because there is no policy governing the use of ping while blocked, there's questions marks as to whether this is a ban or a block, etc. Just drop it. Walk away. Disengage. The microphone is only on because _you_ (I mean that collectively to anyone/everyone) are letting it be on by way of paying attention to his talk page. --] (]) 21:42, 22 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::*The above looks to be a rather longish comment which seems to me to state rather clearly that "pinging" is in a grey area, and that one of the things I requested in the beginning is clarification regarding the use of pinging. And it seems to me to be completely irrational to say that the "microphone is only on because" other people are letting it be used. The pinging is the microphone in this case, and some clarification regarding the appropriate or inappropriate use of it would be useful. This matter raises that issue naturally, and it does seem to be a reasonable question, considering there is to my eyes very much a "slippery slope" regarding what would qualify as appropriate pinging and what would not for an editor blocked from everything but his user talk page. ] (]) 21:51, 22 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::* What is wrong is that there is a grey area, but no matter; people calling for his head on a platter anyway. Let's just make up policy by fiat, and retroactively apply it to Reguyla. Easy, right? The solution doesn't involve use of tools. The solution involves not paying attention to him and/or asking him not to ping you, if you are being pinged. This discussion might inform changes in policy, but it is flat wrong to change his block settings based on a perceived offense because he properly used a feature available in the software. He is honoring requests not to ping him. Use it. --] (]) 22:08, 22 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::*I believe what is wrong here is the completely irrational and unsupported jumping to conclusions in the above comment. And, as the comments involved regarding the arbitration election are not among those which are indicated as acceptable as per appropriate usages, I believe that even the statement that this is a "grey area" is at best dubious, and once again request the closing admin to take note of the full discussion in his closing. ] (]) 22:38, 22 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::* You have a choice before you. People can drop the stick and walk away, in which case the 'disruption' (which, it isn't) stops since they won't be involved in it. Or, they can continue to fan the flames, insulting Reguyla and creating far more heat than light. Reguyla can do nothing to the project. Do you understand that? He is blocked (not banned, which is not an esoteric discussion), and can't do anything BUT edit his talk page. He is honoring non-ping requests. Use it. End of 'problem'. --] (]) 03:18, 23 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| Reset the clock and throw away the key. He shouldn't be pinging anyone from anywhere using one of his 196 soapboxes. ]] 21:46, 22 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| What gray area? The terms of the unblock was zero disruption, no gray there. "mindless admins" is an attack against admins who are people. Some disruption is more than zero disruption. The community was very clear and the waters are not muddy. | |||
| My esteemed editor collegue ] just left on my talk page, on Christmas Day no less. Not really in the spirit of the season, I'd say. Considering that he was sagaciously advising me on the importance of tact and etiquette in the very same thread, he should be held to the same standard. ] (]) 17:54, 25 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| No need to make up new policy Hammersoft, ] already says what can be done on a talk page. You can pretty much '''only''' appeal your ban. I told him this in September. | |||
| :{{u|Vector legacy (2010)}} and {{u|Marcus Markup}}, you both should stop that childish behavior and disengage from one another. ] (]) 18:10, 25 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::Uh, “suck a bag of dicks” seems a cut above anything childish in VL2010’s conduct. <span style="position: relative; top: -0.5em;">꧁</span>]<span style="position: relative; top: -0.5em;">꧂</span> 08:05, 26 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::True, and given a warning accordingly - but Vector legacy's user page is also...''interesting''. - ] <sub>]</sub> 09:31, 26 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Vector Legacy's comments in that discussion are clearly poking the bear, both should be warned. On top of that, Vector has broken the 3RR rule with these 4 reverts: , , , . They acknowledge in the edit summary of the 4th that they know of the 3RR rule and that their first edit was a revert. The last revert in particular, effectively saying "haha, you can't make any more reverts because you've already made 3" when the user themselves has made 4, is really not smart nor constructive/collaborative. ] (]) 10:12, 26 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I'm normally a stickler for civility, but frankly in this case I actually think Vector legacy (2010) is the bigger problem. Marcus's Markup comment is something they can hopefully easily learn not to do and could have been an extremely unfortunate one-off in a bad situation. By comparison it seems that Vector legacy (2010) is treating editing here as a game where they win edit wars rather than collaborate constructively. I have little hope this is an attitude easily changed so a ] block might be justified soon. ] (]) ] (]) 12:25, 26 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::{{ec}} Yes. The idea of ] is that the protagonists should discuss things on the article talk page before that point is reached, not to use it as a stick to beat other editors with. I note that {{u|Vector legacy (2010)}}'s user page admits to a lot of edit warring, and it discloses a ] attitude. ] (]) 12:31, 26 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == User:Ryancasey93 == | |||
| We should take away his talk page privileges for sure because the only legitimate uses under ] is for appealing the ban and we did that and gave him a way back in. The 6 months should probably be reset because the community asked for 6 months of zero disruption as a condition. ] 22:28, 22 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| {{atop|1=31-hour block. - ] <sub>]</sub> 01:06, 26 December 2024 (UTC)}} | |||
| *{{userlinks|Ryancasey93}} | |||
| Over at ], a user by the name of {{u|Ryancasey93}} requested that their YouTube channel be cited in a passage about them () that was added by {{u|TheLennyGriffinFan1994}} (). The talk page discussion was removed by {{u|AntiDionysius}} as being promotional in nature. Ryancasey93 then decided to ] to cite their channel, which was declined by {{u|LizardJr8}}, who then proceeded to remove the passage as being unsourced. | |||
| I then brought up concerns with ] and ] with Ryancasey93, who then proceeded to respond in a needlessly confrontational and hostile manner, and pinging me and LizardJr8. Ryancasey93 then proceeded to where they said we were "very rude and belittling" to them, told us they sent an email complaint against us, called us "the most cynical, dismissive, greedy, narcissistic, and ungrateful people I ever met in my entire life", accused us of discriminating against Autistic people (I am autistic myself, for the record), and called us "assholes". | |||
| *{{ec}} Facepalm. I was just thinking this week "wow, it's impressive how Kumi is really serving out his ban terms in quiet good faith," but as it turns out, I'd just removed his talk page from my watchlist in one cleanout or another. I don't necessarily think that him using his talk page while banned would be a ban-terms violation. Policy doesn't strictly say that he can't comment on his talk page while banned, and I was prepared when I read this ANI to tell everyone to take a deep breath and calm down. However, what I see on reading that talk page isn't just "commenting on articles that need fixing", or even "sharing opinions about ongoing community stuff". Those things are there, but I also see bad faith, continuing accusations of persecution, overuse of pings to draw other editors in at his whims, and generally holding forth about how horrible everyone/thing is in exactly the same manner that led him into trouble in the first place. There's some improvement, too, but it's like any time he's not consciously ''thinking'' "ok don't talk about how everyone is awful and how they've persecuted me", it slips back in full-force. Whether his using his talk page is a strict violation of "what WP:BAN or WP:BLOCK says you can do" or not, they way he's using it is disruptive and he seems to be continuing the same behavior that led to his long spiral of trouble in the first place. I can't find it in myself to be comfortable with him auto-returning in a few months while following the same disruptive path that got us here in the first place. If nothing has changed at this point, and he doesn't even seem to recognize that anything needs to, there's no reason to think it will have in four months.<p>I would very regretfully support either options 1 or 2 from Chillum's list, but given that I don't think Kumi/Reg set out with an attitude of "aha, the ban clearly says I can't do this, so I'll do it anyway!" I'd rather go with a one-time, last warning along the lines of '''Reguyla is instructed to cease using his talk page to express opinions on the community, its processes, or other editors, or to summon other editors for non-ban-related discussions, for the remaining duration of his ban. Failure to do so will cause the ban length to be reset and his talk page access to be removed"'''.<p> I'm...really amazed at how disappointed it makes me to be having this discussion. I was so damn impressed and so looking forward to watching him return to content work. ] (]) 22:29, 22 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| Simply put, I feel as if Ryancasey93 does not have the emotional stability required to contribute to Misplaced Pages, having violated ], ], and ], and a block may be needed. ]<sup>(])</sup> 19:47, 25 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :Policy does say you cannot use your talk page while banned, except to appeal your ban. This seems to support your view. ] | |||
| :I just logged on while digesting turkey, and was alerted of the pings and this report. I don't really appreciate the messages from the user (I'm on the spectrum too, FWIW) but I think @] gave a good response, highlighting the need for secondary reliable sources. I should have done that better when I removed the unsourced information. I would like to see if there is any further activity from the user before getting into a block discussion. ] (]) 21:10, 25 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::And his comments about the arbitration election, about which he pinged several people, do not qualify as appealing his ban in any way shape or form. ] (]) 22:38, 22 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::Looks like they've been blocked for 31 hours by {{u|Cullen328}}. ]<sup>(])</sup> 23:15, 25 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::Yes, that last comment was unacceptable in several ways. ] (]) 00:57, 26 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| == User:24.187.28.171 == | |||
| : Support Fluffernutter's final warning at this time. I'm unhappy at the double standards, many editors would get away without a warning for the comments, there shouldn't be a different interpretation of what constitutes disruption as a mechanism to keep a blocked/banned editor from returning to productive editing. ] (]) 22:45, 22 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| {{atop | |||
| | result = Blocked for 3 months for edit warring. ] (]/]) 23:32, 25 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| }} | |||
| *{{userlinks|24.187.28.171}} | |||
| IP has been blocked before for previous infractions. Now, they continue to perform persistent disruptive edits contradicting the Manual of Style, either by deliberately introducing contradictions or undoing edits that resolve the issue. The user has also violated ] at ], though that remains unresolved for some reason. The IP has done all of this despite a backlog of warnings dating back to 2023. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 22:48, 25 December 2024 (UTC)</small> | |||
| :@]: could you please provide specific diffs? ] (]/]) 23:23, 25 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| == Incivility, aspersions, ] from ] == | |||
| ::Giving him a final warning when the only thing he is allowed to post is an appeal and his appeal is already accepted is just giving him rope to hang himself. He has no legitimate use of his talk page so give him the ban appeal e-mail address and remove talk page access. | |||
| {{atop|I revoked TPA, applied 3 weeks semi to the article + AfD, indef for the SPI, and tagged ] (what a name!). Thank you. ] 11:44, 26 December 2024 (UTC)}} | |||
| {{userlinks|Cokeandbread}} | |||
| ::I still think since the community came to a consensus that there should be 6 months of zero disruption that we cannot leave it at 13+ weeks left without disregarding consensus. It should be reset from the time of his last disruptive act. | |||
| ] is a few-month-old account whose area of greatest focus has been creating (and defending) two promotional pages for social media influencer-types: ] and ]. Cokeandbread has refused () to answer good-faith questions (, ) about whether they are operating as a paid editor ( to one of them with {{tq|Don't threaten me}}) and posted a copyvio to Commons (). Despite warnings (), the editor has been engaging in bludgeoning/disruptive behavior at the Jimmy Rex AfD (bludgeoning and attempting to !vote multiple times (, ) and has made uncivil remarks to other editors (, , ), while {{tq|respect}} in the other direction. Recently, Cokeandbread posted the following on their user page: {{tq|The way some people in AfD discussions move, you just know some people commenting are under demonic influence. Stay away from me and mine.}} (). Despite another warning (), which Cokeandbread removed when blanking their talk page (), this aspersion is still up. If we're at the point where an editor is accusing other editors of being demonically influenced, I think we're well into ] territory. Given the lack of response to non-admin warnings and requests, I'd ask for admin intervention here. ] (]) 23:34, 25 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *You're absolutely right. Editors should not be accusing other editors of being demonically influenced. They should ]. ]] 00:04, 26 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::Putting aside petty talk page violations his most recent personal attack was just . ] 22:49, 22 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *I concur, and have accordingly blocked. - ] <sub>]</sub> 01:14, 26 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::I thought which I made and which was, so far as I can tell, ignored, at least in terms of that editor's conduct, was already fairly clearly a "final warning" ] (]) 22:56, 22 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *Do have to wonder what's going on with that AfD given several accounts with only few contributions, contributions which themselves seem questionable, have somehow found it. But that's probably a question for ] or something. ] (]) 02:28, 26 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::@Chillum: Please do not misconstrue criticism as personal attacks. In the diff you supplied, Reguyla was criticizing ArbCom, not any one person. You may not like his criticism, but it does have some validity. Criticism <> personal attacks. If there are actual personal attacks, I'd welcome the presentation of it. This isn't it. --] (]) 03:43, 23 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *:Suspicious indeed. There's ], although CheckUser did not confirm connections on the first batch of reported accounts. ] (]) 02:35, 26 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| {{ec}}The oft-repeated claim that the "only use" of a blocked users talk page is unblock appeal <s>/ ban requests </s> is ''not'' supported by ], and I challenge anyone to link to and / or quote the section that supports that. | |||
| *:{{ec}} Actually see it's already been partly dealt with at ]. The geolocation point there is interesting, while I don't know what CUs are seeing it does seem likely given the other accounts wider interest these are editors from Nigeria which is another weird thing since there's nothing to suggest the subject is particularly known in Nigeria. ] (]) 02:37, 26 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::...after posting as the end of a series of "I won" edits, they blanked their user talk page. Appears to have been a troll from the start. - ] <sub>]</sub> 09:30, 26 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| The fundamental problem is that "Notifications" were added relatively recently and they provide a loophole to the lockdown of the user. I made a request at ] in response to another incident; more voices there would be appreciated. | |||
| *:::Should have locked their TPA. ] (]) 09:49, 26 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:::On another note, I would like to flag ] with some COI-related tag in light of this but I couldn't remember the exact template. ] (]) 09:52, 26 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| I got a ping from K /Reguyla sometime in the past month and personally found it very easy to ignore. | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| Anyway, I recommend a final "do not ping" anyone anymore final warning (no clock resetting). <small>]</small> 23:02, 22 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :I will meet that challenge, from ]: | |||
| :{{tq|Unless otherwise specified, a ban is a site ban. An editor who is site-banned is forbidden from making any edit, anywhere on Misplaced Pages, via any account or as an unregistered user, under any and all circumstances. The only exception is that editors with talk page access may appeal in accordance with the provisions below.}} | |||
| :Provisions mentioned below: | |||
| :{{tq|Post an appeal or comment there and ask (by email or other off-site means) for it to be reposted to the appropriate discussion. This is a voluntary act, and should not be abused or used to excess.}} | |||
| :and | |||
| :{{tq|Appeal by email directly to the Arbitration Committee. An e-mail appeal must specify the banned editor's Misplaced Pages username and any other usernames he or she has used to edit Misplaced Pages in the past two years. (Using Misplaced Pages's email feature to email Ban Appeals Subcommittee automatically reveals the account used for sending it.) The appeal should clearly but succinctly explain the reasons the editor feels the ban should be overturned, such as what lessons the editor has learned since the ban or block was imposed, how the editor would conduct himself or herself differently in the future if they are allowed to resume editing, or why they believe the ban was unfair. The editor should also include links to any relevant on-wiki discussions and any other information necessary to understand the grounds for the appeal.}} | |||
| :The second one does not seem to have anything to do with talk pages but is in the list of allowed actions by banned users with access to their talk page so I included it. | |||
| :Same thing I quoted this user . ] 23:13, 22 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :He's not banned. He's blocked per the AN close ]. I did screw by using the word "ban," sorry. <small>]</small> 23:23, 22 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::The deal was he was unbanned after 6 months of zero disruption. ] 23:24, 22 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :: ] <small>]</small> 23:29, 22 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::I admit I may be misinterpreting things. {{ping|Protonk}} When you said {{tq|Accordingly, the block on Reguyla should be adjusted to 6 months from today, counting this discussion as the community's offer to return and 6 months of zero disruption as Kumioko's acceptance.}} did you mean that the Reguyla is immediately unbanned and blocked for six months, or did you mean that the block setting should be set to 6 months and after 6 months of zero disruption be unbanned? Did you mean something else? ] 23:31, 22 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::If the fact is that the user is in fact blocked rather than banned I will drop that stick right now and apologize. Regardless the recent personal attack justify a reset of the 6 months. A final warning regarding person attacks resulting in another reset and loss of talk page privileges too. ] 23:34, 22 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I'll have to think about this for a bit and look at the talk page posts so far. The block was altered correctly (allowing talk page access) and I think the intent was that they would be free to communicate on their, but with ''zero'' disruption. I mentioned on the ban closure that I didn't want the community to adopt a zero tolerance approach once they return but while they're serving out the ban I think anything that resembled the behavior during the ban is cause enough to tell them to stop immediately. But like I said, I'll need a bit to make a firm decision. ] (]) 00:03, 23 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::: {{ping|Chillum}} I don't have a good answer for you. {{u|The Land}} may have a better one. I think they're still banned, but we just allowed them to use the talk page normally as a courtesy (I had hoped use would be infrequent and innocuous). I don't know how to thread the needle on what that means for the current situation. <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 01:40, 23 November 2014</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> | |||
| :::::While I had difficultly understanding the position of the closer even after asking for clarification I have apologized to err on the side of caution. This does not change the fact that the personal attacks were out of line and above '''zero disruption'''. I don't mind apologizing when I am wrong, or even when it is unclear if I am right or wrong. I would rather apologize when I am right than refuse to apologize when I am wrong. ] 06:02, 23 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| So my first thought is that we didn't get the logistics of the ban appeal down very well. Rather than wikilawyer about banned/blocked, as I think immediately extending talk page access means that Reguyla probably had a reasonably expectation they were in the latter category vis a vis talk page access when they did so without controversy. I also don't think the mentions themselves are disruptive, per se. But damn if I'm not frustrated and disappointed with the tone and wikilawyering here. I'll have more later. ] (]) 01:40, 23 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :I think this whole blocked/banned thing is a distraction. Lets make it a given that he can edit his talk page. The use of it for personal attacks is certainly a violation of the zero disruption stipulation. ] 01:43, 23 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::I agree it's a distraction and that is a good stipulation. I'd be willing to give them a little leeway until now, when this has been explicitly clarified, but that's merely a suggestion. ] (]) 02:50, 23 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| So, Kuimoko has been allowed to use his alternate user-talkpage, wrongly. Yet, my user-talkpage was barred for all but the first 2-weeks of my own ban. Not fair, not fair at all. ] (]) 02:58, 23 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Withdraw talk page access and restart the clock'''. I actually supported changing his site ban to a block. I empathised a lot with him over the last year or so during his rants at ]. I also met him once a couple of years ago and he seemed a decent chap. Now I am sorely disappointed - all I get are innuendos about my and others' participation in Arbcom elections, disruptive pings (which due to ] I'm obliged to go see what's up). I am very thick skinned and I just ignore, but the use of his talk page while blocked as a blog to simply criticise Misplaced Pages, its admins and users and in an attempt to continue business as usual on such a scale is beyond the pale. He's been warned at least three times in the last few days by various admins, including me) to either STFU or have the plug pulled on his talk page. ]. --] (]) 05:40, 23 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Note to everybody''' I have given a final warning regarding personal attacks to this user. Any further personal attacks will result in the removal of talk page privileges. I consider this a reasonable course of action and within admin discretion. I will not be participating in this discussion further, my talk page is available to anyone who wishes to discuss this further. ] 06:34, 23 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| == It's late and I'm going to bed but this wholesale, random behaviour doesn't look right to me == | |||
| ] ]] 23:46, 22 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :Blocked by Nick. Is there some magic tool to revert the recent revert en masse? <small>]</small> 23:51, 22 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| == User not here to build an encyclopedia == | |||
| {{archivetop|Indef blocked per ]. All contribs are absolute nonsense. --] (]) 05:01, 23 November 2014 (UTC)}} | |||
| {{userlinks|Immortal_Discoveries}} | |||
| User added a bunch of unsourced original research (doubtful usefulness, certainly unacceptable phrasing) to the articles and . He responded to reversion by claiming (quote) (see ]) and . | |||
| I explained a few relevant policies and guidelines (] and so forth), to which he responded by . When I more or less summed up ], ] and ] for him, he . I asked him outright if he was here to contribute to the encyclopedia or argue his personal beliefs about senses and thought, and . | |||
| We've either got a troll, or someone ] to ]. ] (]) 00:45, 23 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| Hello, all of you are useless yourself, wrong, we do each have 5 senses, idk how that could not be said anywhere! You's are very crazy! Talking about thinking/thought/ideas I am the best perfect thinker, and I only get 5 senses, they work and link with eachother and are the understanding such as seeing a object or game or 8 sheets changing order and lik so~! I can choose through them, or to move a arm unless all automated by mechanics.{{unsigned|Immortal_Discoveries}} | |||
| :Exhibit A, everyone. ] (]) 00:56, 23 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::Oh, and certainly falls under ] and ], if not ]. ] (]) 00:58, 23 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| Should add something that definitely is correct, only 5 senses a consciousness like I or you have. I will get all my answers governized. Time for corrections, plato and you's!{{unsigned|Immortal_Discoveries}} | |||
| *Indeffed per ]. --] (]) 05:00, 23 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| {{archivebottom}} | |||
| == Edit warring on ] == | |||
| Can someone please check this page? There's been an edit war by someone trying to get it deleted. Anyone who tries to create this page gets accursed as being a " sockpuppet " of a blocked user. This has got to stop. The subject is legitamate and the next power rangers season will be call "Dino Charge" . ] (]) 01:06, 23 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *The above comment was the third edit by {{user|Denny Saure}}. ] (]) 02:23, 23 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| IP editor {{IP|64.222.129.90}} and logged-in user {{User|CoffinNails420}}, who seem to me to be likely to be one and the same, have been posting screeds of accusatory material into the ] article that are, at the very least, a violation of ]. I've revision-deleted both their edits and the edit comments. It may be necessary to protect this article to prevent further similar edits. -- ] (]) 01:12, 23 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| == BOOMERANG - John Carter == | |||
| {{archivetop|Thread with no interest for admin action whatsoever. --] (]) 04:40, 23 November 2014 (UTC)}} | |||
| While we're here, does John Carter know not to template the regulars? | |||
| appears to be a level 3(!) templated warning to a regular, after a single undo to a project that Carter admits to being involved with! | |||
| Odd behaviour? It sure is, but it was justified by a really stupid edit summary . I am really interested to learn where 3 friends and 1 opposer equals a "consensus". Does John understand the concept? | |||
| Just to quash any possible rebellion, John himself turned up on my talk page to deliver the templated warning mentioned. | |||
| It would be great if we could restrict someone so ignorant to appropriate areas only. I am willing to entertain and encourage involvement from John Carter for the time being, if he will learn to treat other editors with respect. | |||
| I would be willing to mentor him if he is willing to learn. If he cannot learn, then eventually some limits will need to be set on his behaviour. --] (]) 23:39, 22 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :Does this have anything to do with anything this thread has been talking about? If so, can you clarify how? If not, could you please pursue it in a new thread or something, to keep things untangled? ] (]) 01:10, 23 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::Please try to work this out directly with John before posting on a noticeboard. ] 01:30, 23 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :] <small>]</small> 04:27, 23 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| {{archivebottom}} | |||
| == TODAY Show Page == | |||
| {{Archive top|status=No Action|result=Nothing actionable here. Please continue the discussion on the article talk page. ]<sup>♦]</sup> 07:15, 23 November 2014 (UTC)}} | |||
| {{nLivelikemusic}} {{https://en.wikipedia.org/User:Livelikemusic}} keep removing Al Roker from TODAY Show Page when Al been there for years. {{https://en.wikipedia.org/Today_(U.S._TV_program)}} ] (]) 02:15, 23 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :User's report is completely biased and uncalled for; as I've explained prior, just because something has been listed prior, does not mean it should remain. Roker's position on '']'' is completely inappropriate, as I've tried to explain on several occasions to the editor (to their continued disrespect and ignored nature), and user's actions continue to violate template guidelines for their own personal liking; exhibiting signs of ], despite template guidelines and attempts to discuss, despite several warnings on their disruptive editing. User is also acting irrationally, yelling and shouted throughout Misplaced Pages, as well as edit-warring to the point of vandalism. ''']''' ] 02:19, 23 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::Both of you need to stop editing the article back and forth; instead you should both calm down, let the discussion on the talk page play out, and see if there is any general consensus on this. Misplaced Pages is not about "winning" and the surest way to ensure that you "lose" any conflict at Misplaced Pages is to take a "I must win because I am right" mentality. Instead, you both must back off, regardless of whatever state the article is in this minute, leave it there ''even if it is wrong'', and let the discussion on the talk page play out to see where consensus lies. Many thousands of people used to edit Misplaced Pages and thought that their own "rightness" meant they could force articles to look like they wanted them to. That's why they '''used to''' be editors. We'd like you both to stay editors here at Misplaced Pages, so the path forward is to slow down, let the article be wrong for a few days, and hash out the right article on the talk page. If anyone cannot do that, they're likely to join the ranks of the "used to"s --]''''']''''' 02:25, 23 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::Roker is a weatherman on the series, and is not a presenter on ''Today''; user's irraticla editing and inability to discuss things show severe signs of ] and their continued string of edits this editing is borderline vandalism and Wikihounding. I'm merely trying to follow the template guidelines, as citing in my editing. User is against any level of change (taken from their edit history). I'm not trying to "win" anything; I'm merely editing in the best intentions and for the most concise is proper way for Misplaced Pages in accurate information. User has been against any kind of change since they joined the website a few days ago (following their edit summary history). ''']''' ] 02:31, 23 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| Al Roker is Co-Host of the third Hour and is part of The TODAY Team. He does segments soemtimes in the 8am Hour. You might as well remove Ginger Zee from good morning america page then. ] (]) 02:26, 23 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :Read what I wrote above again. This isn't about being right or wrong. This is about behaving correctly and not ]. You could be right. You could be wrong. It doesn't matter. If you're right, convince others and wait for them to agree with you. That's how you build a consensus. Use the article talk page, treat people with respect, and be willing to not get your way. People who do that spend a long time here at Misplaced Pages. People who demand other people do what they want merely because they think they are correct do not. You choose. --]''''']''''' 02:30, 23 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| TODAY Show Page list Al Roker as Co-Host http://www.today.com/allday/al-roker-co-anchor-weather-feature-anchor-6C10110723 ] (]) 02:37, 23 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :You don't need to post the same thing multiple times; once is more than enough. May this silly report be closed, please? ''']''' ] 02:39, 23 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| Sorry but Al had been listed since the creation of the page. Why did no one remove him in those 12 years then?? He is part of the team and a Weatherman and presenter and TODAY Show page sit him as a co-Host of third Hour. I gave you proof as well but seem you choose to ignore it. ] (]) 02:48, 23 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :To state for record, I have not removed Al since I was told not to; it's you who believes I am. Changing of an NDASH per ] is not removing him. We can continue to have a discussion on ''Today''{{'}}s talk page, it's not needed to be here in a report that should've never been opened in the first place and take up time from Misplaced Pages administrators that would be better placed in other issues. ''']''' ] 02:51, 23 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::I am talking about the starring section which he belongs. He is till on the show, He is not a Newsanchor or coanchor but he still Co-Host of the third Hour. Sometimes odes segments in the 8 hour. Kathie Lee and Carson Daly aren't Co anchor or News anchors either. If you going by that rule then shouldn't you also remove ginger Zee from the starting section of the Good Morning America page? ] (]) 03:07, 23 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::What do you mean by the "starring section"? If you mean the list of "presenters" in the infobox at the ''start'' of the article, his name is listed there, and has been through the last half an hour of repeated reversions of an ] instead of a ] in his entry, to bring it into compliance with ]. <span style="font-family: Gill Sans MT, Arial, Helvetica; font-weight:100;">]</span> <sup>''] ''</sup> 03:08, 23 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| I am talking about the section where it says presenters. as I said on the TODAY Talk page. they are mostly the same tihng: He is not a Newsanchor or coanchor but he still Co-Host of the third Hour. Sometimes odes segments in the 8 hour. Kathie Lee and Carson Daly aren't Co anchor or News anchors either. If you going by that rule then shouldn't you also remove ginger Zee from the starting section of the Good Morning America page? ] (]) 03:13, 23 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :You still aren't listening to us. Don't make this argument here. Make this argument at ] and then '''do nothing'''. Let other people comment as well, and see where consensus goes. The behavior that you '''must''' have your way '''now''' is what is going to cause you problems. The willingness to just wait and see if people agree with you eventually and also the willingness to sometimes not get your way, is a net positive and will let people at Misplaced Pages see you as a reasonable person. In any event, stop trying to convince people over and over that you are right. Make your case at ] and then let it go for a few days. Repeatedly saying the same thing over and over doesn't mean you "win", it just means you piss lots off people off. Pissing people off is unlikely to get you what you want. Take my advice. Make your case, then walk away. --]''''']''''' 03:21, 23 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| == Disruptive editing by ] == | |||
| :Roker's name '''is listed as a presenter''', and ''it has been the entire time you have continued to argue about this for now going on an hour.'' Will an admin please close this silly complaint? We are still trying to resolve this confusion with this editor on the Talk page of the article. <span style="font-family: Gill Sans MT, Arial, Helvetica; font-weight:100;">]</span> <sup>''] ''</sup> 03:23, 23 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *{{userlinks|Dngmin}} | |||
| {{archive bottom}} | |||
| The main issue with this editor at the moment is disruptive editing based on continuous abuse of ]. Issues began when this editor . He did it and and for past few days, thus creating a lot of work for others to undo. | |||
| Since october the user received warning for ]. Please help to block the user. | |||
| == Almost identical disruptive editing by 65.92.245.33 and Azertopius == | |||
| ]. ] ] (]) 04:19, 26 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| IP user and registered user, only history in their edits is edit warring on multiple (Many identical) pages. Both have been asked to take their controversial edits to talk pages, with no avail. Multiple users reverting their edits on numerous pages. Not sure if IP is User who forgot to log in, but the edit summaries are almost the same, and are both hitting the same realm of articles. Removing French names from Ontario articles, for example, citing "official language status", which is not relevant. --] (]) 03:53, 23 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :<small>I'm assuming the mention of diffs and {{ping|PhilKnight}} was a cut and paste failure? - ] <sub>]</sub> 07:00, 26 December 2024 (UTC)</small> | |||
| : Moved templates from section title to text, bad things happened in the cross-references. Users are {{User|65.92.245.33}} and {{User|Azertopius}} . ] (]) 06:36, 23 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| == New user creating a lot of new pages == | |||
| == ]'s Use of Rollback == | |||
| {{Archive top|status=No Action|Users are permitted to ] (with certain exceptions), so {{noping|BilCat}} has done nothing warranting action. As {{noping|Anna Frodesiak}} says, this was a "comedy of errors". ]<sup>♦]</sup> 07:44, 23 November 2014 (UTC)}} | |||
| I noticed that ] used rollback on two separate occasions to revert good faith edits by an IP address who was removing vandalism. (See ] and ]). I believed at the time that the reverts were likely mistakes, so I left a message on BilCat's talk page asking why they used rollback (]). Rather than explaining the reversions or apoligizing to the IP for the mistake, BilCat rollbacked my message (]). I attempted to work it out at the talk page level, but that clearly didn't work, so I believe an ANI discussion would be an appropriate alternative. Abuse of rollback (especially to re-add vandalism) twice then refusing to clarify or comment does not appear to be in ] to me. ] <sup>] ]</sup> 06:38, 23 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| * {{user|4Gramtops}} | |||
| :{{user|Anna Frodesiak}} has blocked the IP Bill was rollbacking for being an attempt by vandalism-only account {{user|Sargeant Stone Cold}} to evade their block. However, it looks to me like that were reverting Sargeant Stone Cold's vandalism, and Bill ended up reverting them. This all makes my head hurt! Bill/Anna could you please shed some light on this situation? I note that both of you are hardened vandal fighters. ] (]) 07:16, 23 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::It's my fault. See the history and . BilCat accidentally put back the vandalism (several times). I saw the history, and knowing BilCat is experienced, concluded without checking, that the IP must be Sargeant Stone Cold. I've unblocked and apologized. A bit of a comedy of errors, I'm afraid. ] (]) 07:25, 23 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| I am not confident I understand what 4Gramtops is up to. They in their userspace. I have not a clue what they are meant to accomplish outside of testing. It just seems strange for a user with so few edits. There was no forthcoming response to ] trying to get an explanation <small>(which I know they've seen since they )</small> | |||
| ::I can see how BilCat made the mistake in the first place: | |||
| <small>On a related note, they have also created ]. It's possible I'm just overthinking a simple troll here.</small> –<span style="font-family:CG Times, times">] ]<sup>]</sup></span> 07:35, 26 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::*Sargeant Stone Cold vandalizes | |||
| :] for permissions? - ] <sub>]</sub> 09:28, 26 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::*Crboyer reverts | |||
| ::Given ], I find it likeliest they're trying to learn ] by using their userspace as a testing environment. Harmless but technically ]. ] (]) 11:54, 26 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::*Sargeant Stone Cold vandalizes | |||
| :::*Crboyer reverts | |||
| :::*Sargeant Stone Cold vandalizes | |||
| :::*Crboyer reverts | |||
| :::*Sargeant Stone Cold vandalizes | |||
| :::*'''An IP reverts''' | |||
| :::*BilCat misses that and reverts adding back the vandalism | |||
| :::*IP reverts | |||
| :::*BilCat reverts | |||
| :::*IP reverts | |||
| == Undoing my blocks due to collateral damage == | |||
| ::I see all this and block the IP missing that crucial '''An IP reverts''' too. ] (]) 07:33, 23 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::I see how it happened as well, but BilCat ignored and rollbacked the message I left on his talk page rather than correcting himself. If he had corrected himself with a dummy edit and apologized to the IP you probably wouldn't have blocked them. --] <sup>] ]</sup> 07:37, 23 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| {{archive bottom}} | |||
| :Thanks for that explanation Anna - I figured it was something like that when I looked at the diffs. ] (]) 09:35, 23 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| Hello, could an admin undo ? Blocks like these seem to have caused way more collateral damage than they're worth, per ] (about a block I undid in October when I still had adminship) and ]. Thanks! ] (]) 10:31, 26 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Editor keeps reverting after I asked for input from other editors == | |||
| Ah, I've just done some checking, and it seems like, as ever, there's a template with unblock links. So here goes:: | |||
| Hi there. I created an article about a populated place in the United States called ]. I used , which describes Fair Play as a "populated place". Another editor, ], kept redirecting my new article. There were a few reverts, but I clearly stated on the article's talk page "this article is about a populated place that is legally recognized by GNIS. Please allow other editors to comment before reverting". Well, that didn't happen. Thank you for your help. ] (]) 07:42, 23 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *{{IPunblock|178.220.0.0/16}} | |||
| *{{IPunblock|79.101.0.0/16}} | |||
| *{{IPunblock|178.221.0.0/16}} ] (]) 12:24, 26 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *{{done}} ] (]) 13:29, 26 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 13:48, 26 December 2024
Noticeboard for reporting incidents to administrators| Noticeboards | |
|---|---|
| Misplaced Pages's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes. | |
| General | |
| Articles and content | |
| Page handling | |
| User conduct | |
| Other | |
| Category:Misplaced Pages noticeboards | |
This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems.
- Before posting:
- Read these tips for dealing with incivility
- If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page
- Try dispute resolution
- Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly.
- Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem
- Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight.
When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough.
You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.
Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)
Start a new discussion Centralized discussion- Voluntary RfAs after resignation
- Allowing page movers to enable two-factor authentication
- Rewriting the guideline Misplaced Pages:Please do not bite the newcomers
- Should comments made using LLMs or chatbots be discounted or even removed?
| Administrators' (archives, search) | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 348 | 349 | 350 | 351 | 352 | 353 | 354 | 355 | 356 | 357 |
| 358 | 359 | 360 | 361 | 362 | 363 | 364 | 365 | 366 | 367 |
| Incidents (archives, search) | |||||||||
| 1155 | 1156 | 1157 | 1158 | 1159 | 1160 | 1161 | 1162 | 1163 | 1164 |
| 1165 | 1166 | 1167 | 1168 | 1169 | 1170 | 1171 | 1172 | 1173 | 1174 |
| Edit-warring/3RR (archives, search) | |||||||||
| 471 | 472 | 473 | 474 | 475 | 476 | 477 | 478 | 479 | 480 |
| 481 | 482 | 483 | 484 | 485 | 486 | 487 | 488 | 489 | 490 |
| Arbitration enforcement (archives) | |||||||||
| 327 | 328 | 329 | 330 | 331 | 332 | 333 | 334 | 335 | 336 |
| 337 | 338 | 339 | 340 | 341 | 342 | 343 | 344 | 345 | 346 |
| Other links | |||||||||
Disruptive editing and WP:TALKNO by User:AnonMoos
The main issue with this editor at the moment is disruptive editing based on continuous abuse of WP:TALKNO and failure to get the point. Issues began when this editor removed 5000+ bytes of sourced material. They did it again and again and again.
Instead of starting a discussion on the talk page of the article, the user came to my talk page to let me know of their opinion of my contributions. When I started a discussion on the talk page of the relevant article, the user edited my signature and changed the heading of the discussion I started according to their POV. When I let them know that this was highly inappropriate according to WP:TALKNO, both in that discussion and on their talk page, they responded on my talk page stating ever since the stupid Misplaced Pages Dec. 2019 encryption protocol upgrade, to able to edit or view Misplaced Pages at all from my home computer, I have to use an indirect method which involves a non-fully-Unicode-compliant tool. I couldn't even really see your signature that way, and so didn't know to try to avoid changing it
, which I had never heard of. In any case, they kept reverting the content supported by the reliable source, they also kept attempting to apply their POV to the discussion heading again and again and again. I finally explained that I had sought a third opinion and that they should refrain from changing the heading again in order to preserve the integrity of the link, and they went ahead and changed it again anyway.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by إيان (talk • contribs) 15:20, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
- The other user in this case is User:AnonMoos? This looks like a content dispute over whether the article is on the English version of a German-Arabic dictionary or the dictionary itself. Secretlondon (talk) 15:47, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
- Yes the is indeed about User:AnonMoos. I see the content dispute as stemming from the fundamental conduct issue, which has manifested itself most egregiously with insisting on violating WP:TALKNO repeatedly even after I explained that I had sought a third opinion and that they should refrain from changing the heading again in order to preserve the integrity of the link, after which they went ahead and changed it again anyway. إيان (talk) 16:00, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
- The heading dispute is between a date heading, and a descriptive heading? that's not really reformulating your entry. Secretlondon (talk) 17:44, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
- It's a conduct issue. إيان (talk) 19:58, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
- But what conduct issue? TALKNO doesn't forbid changing headings. In fact the wider guideline makes it clear it's perfectly acceptable "
Because threads are shared by multiple editors (regardless of how many have posted so far), no one, including the original poster, "owns" a talk page discussion or its heading. It is generally acceptable to change headings when a better heading is appropriate, e.g., one more accurately describing the content of the discussion or the issue discussed, less one-sided, more appropriate for accessibility reasons, etc. Whenever a change is likely to be controversial, avoid disputes by discussing a heading change with the editor who started the thread, if possible. It can also sometimes be appropriate to merge entire sections under one heading (often preserving the later one as a subheading) if their discussions are redundant.
" To be blunt, if you don't want editors changing the headings of sections you start, don't use such terrible headings. I definitely recommend you stay away from ANI since changing headings is quite common here. Nil Einne (talk) 06:25, 18 December 2024 (UTC)- Actually I missed the signature issue. That's far more concerning unfortunately lost IMO partly because you concentrated on silly stuff. Nil Einne (talk) 06:29, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
- إيان: I suggest you stop messing around with the section heading since it's a distraction which could easily lead to you being blocked. But if AnonMoos changes your signature again, report it and only that without silliness about section headings, mentioning that they've been warned about it before if needed. Nil Einne (talk) 06:50, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
- Actually I missed the signature issue. That's far more concerning unfortunately lost IMO partly because you concentrated on silly stuff. Nil Einne (talk) 06:29, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
- But what conduct issue? TALKNO doesn't forbid changing headings. In fact the wider guideline makes it clear it's perfectly acceptable "
- It's a conduct issue. إيان (talk) 19:58, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
- The heading dispute is between a date heading, and a descriptive heading? that's not really reformulating your entry. Secretlondon (talk) 17:44, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
- Yes the is indeed about User:AnonMoos. I see the content dispute as stemming from the fundamental conduct issue, which has manifested itself most egregiously with insisting on violating WP:TALKNO repeatedly even after I explained that I had sought a third opinion and that they should refrain from changing the heading again in order to preserve the integrity of the link, after which they went ahead and changed it again anyway. إيان (talk) 16:00, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
I wrote a long and detailed explanation on his user talk page as to why the date-only header is basically useless in that context, but he's still for some peculiar reason fanatically determined to keep changing it back. Frankly, I've basically run out of good-faith reasons that make any sense -- except of course, his apparently unshakable belief that he has certain talk-page "rights", which according to Misplaced Pages guidelines he does not in fact have (outside of his own personal user talk page)... AnonMoos (talk) 23:10, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
- @AnonMoos: I don't see a problem with changing the heading but why on earth did you change their signature multiple times ? That is indeed a clear violation of WP:TPOC since the signature was perfectly valid per WP:NLS. In fact your change was far worse since it changed a perfectly valid signature which would take other editors to the contributor's talk page and user page into an invalid one which lead no where. If you're using some sort of plugin which does that, it's your responsibility to manage it better so it doesn't do that ever again especially if you're going to edit talk pages where it might be common. If you're doing that intentionally, I suggest you cut it out or expect to be indeffed. Nil Einne (talk) 06:48, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
- User:AnonMoos, this is not good to see. Don't rewrite or reformat other editor's signatures. There is no reason to be doing this unless you are trying to provoke the other editor. Liz 07:51, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
- For what it's worth, AnonMoos stated earlier that the changing of the signature was a unintentional technical issue, due to his use of some "non-standard tool" in accessing the internet . This seems plausible, as similar apparently unintentional changes to non-Ascii character data have happened in edits of his before (e.g. ). But if he knew of this issue, it's rather disappointing he let it happen again some days later . Equally disappointing is the extremely aggressive rhetoric and acerbic tone with which he has been escalating this essentially harmless, good-faith content dispute from the beginning. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:25, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
- I just can't fathom what tool they're using to get around the HTTPS requirement to edit Misplaced Pages securely. — The Hand That Feeds You: 17:42, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
- Should be impossible as it's required to even access the site in the first place according to WP:SECLakesideMiners 16:41, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
Looking at his talk page it's been going back to at least 2011LakesideMiners 16:17, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
- I just can't fathom what tool they're using to get around the HTTPS requirement to edit Misplaced Pages securely. — The Hand That Feeds You: 17:42, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
- For what it's worth, AnonMoos stated earlier that the changing of the signature was a unintentional technical issue, due to his use of some "non-standard tool" in accessing the internet . This seems plausible, as similar apparently unintentional changes to non-Ascii character data have happened in edits of his before (e.g. ). But if he knew of this issue, it's rather disappointing he let it happen again some days later . Equally disappointing is the extremely aggressive rhetoric and acerbic tone with which he has been escalating this essentially harmless, good-faith content dispute from the beginning. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:25, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
- User:AnonMoos, this is not good to see. Don't rewrite or reformat other editor's signatures. There is no reason to be doing this unless you are trying to provoke the other editor. Liz 07:51, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
- Guys, I do not deliberately set out to modify signatures, and when it happens, I am not usually aware of doing so. As I've already explained before in several places, since the December 2019 encryption protocol upgrade (NOT 2011!), the only way I can edit (or view) Misplaced Pages at all from home is by an indirect method which is not fully Unicode-compliant. To change this, I would have to get a completely different type of Internet connection, which would permanently disconnect my older computer, which I still use almost every day.
- Meanwhile, this thread has been set up so I can't add a comment to it from home without affecting Unicode characters, so I was unable to reply here for 36 hours or so. If I'm silent in the future, it will be for the same reason. AnonMoos (talk) 01:14, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- Misplaced Pages uses Unicode characters (UTF-8 encoding). Anyone who cannot edit without corrupting such characters should not edit. Johnuniq (talk) 03:47, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- Whatever, -- I was using them perfectly fine until December 2019, and still use them perfectly fine on public WiFi, but in December 2019 a requirement was imposed that you can't access Misplaced Pages at all unless you can handle encryption algorithms and protocols that weren't introduced until the mid-2010s. I have a 2012 web browser on my home computer that handles UTF-8 just fine, but 2012 simply wasn't good enough for the Misplaced Pages developers -- you had to have software that was almost up to date as of 2019, or you would be abruptly totally cut off. If you can drag up the relevant archive of Village Pump Technical, I and others complained at the time, but our concerns were not listened to or considered in any way. The basic attitude of the developers was that if you weren't running almost up-to-date software, then screw you, and if your computer is not capable of running almost up-to-date software, then double screw you! The change was announced for January 2020, but was actually implemented in mid-December 2019, apparently because they were so eager and anxious to start excluding people. It wasn't one of Misplaced Pages's finer moments. Since that time, I have had to use an indirect method to access Misplaced Pages from my home computer, and I don't feel particularly guilty about it (other people's obnoxious behaviors in 2019 have done away with most of the guilt I might feel)... AnonMoos (talk) 20:59, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- ...HTTPS was created in 1994, and became an official specification in 2000, not "mid-2010s". I'm not sure what 2012 web browser you're using, but if it's not able to handle HTTPS not being able to access Misplaced Pages with it is the least of your browsing concerns, given that 85-95% of the World Wide Web defaults to it now. Also I hate to think of how many security holes your ancient computer has. I'm going to be honest: with a brower setup that old it isn't safe for you to be on the web at all, and the security hole that lets you access Misplaced Pages without using a secure connection should be fixed, because that is not working as intended and is - as mentioned - a security hole. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:18, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- You unfortunately don't know what you're talking about. New ENCRYPTION ALGORITHM AND PROTOCOL METHODS have been introduced within HTTPS from time to time. I was using HTTPS perfectly happily until December 2019, when the developers arbitrarily ENCRYPTION ALGORITHM AND PROTOCOL REQUIREMENTS. AnonMoos (talk) 00:57, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- And even leaving that aside, as Johnuniq mentions - if you can't edit without corrupting Unicode characters, and by your own admission you don't know when it happens, you shouldn't be editing. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:20, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- This is probably a reference to when Misplaced Pages started requiring TLS 1.2 (because earlier versions were deprecated). Anyone who was/is still on Windows XP at that point couldn't connect any more. MrOllie (talk) 01:29, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- ...HTTPS was created in 1994, and became an official specification in 2000, not "mid-2010s". I'm not sure what 2012 web browser you're using, but if it's not able to handle HTTPS not being able to access Misplaced Pages with it is the least of your browsing concerns, given that 85-95% of the World Wide Web defaults to it now. Also I hate to think of how many security holes your ancient computer has. I'm going to be honest: with a brower setup that old it isn't safe for you to be on the web at all, and the security hole that lets you access Misplaced Pages without using a secure connection should be fixed, because that is not working as intended and is - as mentioned - a security hole. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:18, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- Whatever, -- I was using them perfectly fine until December 2019, and still use them perfectly fine on public WiFi, but in December 2019 a requirement was imposed that you can't access Misplaced Pages at all unless you can handle encryption algorithms and protocols that weren't introduced until the mid-2010s. I have a 2012 web browser on my home computer that handles UTF-8 just fine, but 2012 simply wasn't good enough for the Misplaced Pages developers -- you had to have software that was almost up to date as of 2019, or you would be abruptly totally cut off. If you can drag up the relevant archive of Village Pump Technical, I and others complained at the time, but our concerns were not listened to or considered in any way. The basic attitude of the developers was that if you weren't running almost up-to-date software, then screw you, and if your computer is not capable of running almost up-to-date software, then double screw you! The change was announced for January 2020, but was actually implemented in mid-December 2019, apparently because they were so eager and anxious to start excluding people. It wasn't one of Misplaced Pages's finer moments. Since that time, I have had to use an indirect method to access Misplaced Pages from my home computer, and I don't feel particularly guilty about it (other people's obnoxious behaviors in 2019 have done away with most of the guilt I might feel)... AnonMoos (talk) 20:59, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- I'm not talking about when the update happening, I'm talking about how you have known about this issue, and have been getting complainants about it since
2011and are still not taking any steps to do anything about it. What kind of internet connection would not support your PC? What on earth are you even using? Dial-Up? Because that still is supported by even Windows 10. LakesideMiners 02:59, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- Misplaced Pages uses Unicode characters (UTF-8 encoding). Anyone who cannot edit without corrupting such characters should not edit. Johnuniq (talk) 03:47, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Also, how did you see me saying "this has happened since 2011" as me saying that the update happened in 2011? Can you clarify. LakesideMiners 03:07, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- The problem didn't start in 2011, and I have no idea what you're referring to when you mention 2011. The problem started in December 2019 when the developers arbitrarily imposed new ENCRYPTION ALGORITHM AND PROTOCOL REQUIREMENTS... AnonMoos (talk) 00:57, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- Apologies. I was extremely tired when I wrote both above. I have striken the date parts. Rest of my comments still stand. LakesideMiners 01:06, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- The problem didn't start in 2011, and I have no idea what you're referring to when you mention 2011. The problem started in December 2019 when the developers arbitrarily imposed new ENCRYPTION ALGORITHM AND PROTOCOL REQUIREMENTS... AnonMoos (talk) 00:57, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
None of this matters
I don't care what tool this guy uses or what his excuse is. If he can't edit without screwing up people's sigs, then he must not edit. AnonMoos shouls consider himself on notice now that if one of his edits messes stuff up one more time, he'll be blocked until he can give assurance that he's come into the 21st century. EEng 18:05, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- That's nice -- and also totally inaccurate. I was in the 21st century, and using 2012 tools, up until December 2019, when the developers pitchforked me backwards by arbitrarily imposing HTTPS ENCRYPTION ALGORITHM AND PROTOCOL REQUIREMENTS which my home computer hardware is not able to run. Notice that I had no problem complying with character-set handling -- the problem is with arbitrary ENCRYPTION ALGORITHM AND PROTOCOL REQUIREMENTS. AnonMoos (talk) 00:48, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- The century imagery is irrelevant. You have been warned. EEng 03:14, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- That was six years ago, which is IMO about 3-4 years too long to keep using it as an excuse. Technology changes over time, so whatever this non-standard thing you think you need to do to edit here, it may be time to make a choice. Zaathras (talk) 00:56, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- As I said, to fix the problem, I would have to get a completely different type of Internet connection which would permanently disconnect my old computer, which I still use almost every single day. I would basically have to change my workflow and overall habits/methods of working because of an arbitrary decision by Misplaced Pages developers about encryption protocol updates. Anyway, when editing through public WiFi, I'm 100% Unicode compliant, and by exercising a little prudence, I can also avoid most problems when working from home. If I was constantly mangling Unicode right and left, there would have been a chorus of complaints long before now. But occasionally I can't anticipate a problem... AnonMoos (talk) 01:06, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- And just to say for the third time: you're out of chances. "Occassionally" is too often. Once more is too often. And if and when that happens, your attitude of entitlement displayed here will pretty much ensure an indefinite block. EEng 03:14, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- Think it's time to draft up a formal proposal at this point? LakesideMiners 18:29, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- I don't think that's necessary. The key isn't formally deciding the criterion for blocking (because that's obvious to everyone) but rather detecting the next incident. Best way to do that for everyone gathered here to watchlist User talk:AnonMoos. Sooner or later, futher trouble will show up there. EEng 21:31, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- Think it's time to draft up a formal proposal at this point? LakesideMiners 18:29, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- And just to say for the third time: you're out of chances. "Occassionally" is too often. Once more is too often. And if and when that happens, your attitude of entitlement displayed here will pretty much ensure an indefinite block. EEng 03:14, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- If you have DSL or even DialUp. That still works with modern machines. LakesideMiners 01:08, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- Heck, I am on DSL (and have been since, if I recall right, 2008). I have no idea what sort of ancient Internet connection AnonMoos is claiming to be using, but it's clearly one that was already obsolete before this change he's still up in arms about six years later was made. - The Bushranger One ping only 05:44, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- Not to mention it would STILL be supported these days. It's literally right there when you click wifi/network settings in Windows 10. LakesideMiners 18:20, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- Heck, I am on DSL (and have been since, if I recall right, 2008). I have no idea what sort of ancient Internet connection AnonMoos is claiming to be using, but it's clearly one that was already obsolete before this change he's still up in arms about six years later was made. - The Bushranger One ping only 05:44, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- As I said, to fix the problem, I would have to get a completely different type of Internet connection which would permanently disconnect my old computer, which I still use almost every single day. I would basically have to change my workflow and overall habits/methods of working because of an arbitrary decision by Misplaced Pages developers about encryption protocol updates. Anyway, when editing through public WiFi, I'm 100% Unicode compliant, and by exercising a little prudence, I can also avoid most problems when working from home. If I was constantly mangling Unicode right and left, there would have been a chorus of complaints long before now. But occasionally I can't anticipate a problem... AnonMoos (talk) 01:06, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- The response by AnonMoos to feedback about this problem is bizarre. I don't really care what the excuse or the history behind it. If you are unwilling to edit Misplaced Pages using tools that work in 2024 then you should stop editing. The behavior is completely unnecessary and it seems like you don't understand the disruption. Nemov (talk) 14:45, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- AnonMoos hasn't really explained in any detail what their technical limitations are. They don't have to, but we can't really give advice otherwise. If as others have suggested their computer can't negotiate TLS 1.2, I'm surprised that they're able to use any websites at all from that computer. Requiring TLS 1.2 is not controversial; Misplaced Pages wasn't doing anything unusual in dropping TLS 1.0/1.1 around that time. Mackensen (talk) 15:02, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- If it's that much of a problem for his computer, go and buy a new computer. It would certainly be better than whining about how Misplaced Pages broke his ability to edit without screwing things up for other users.Insanityclown1 (talk) 07:06, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
- Meh. None of this matters. Signatures sometimes get accidentally fucked up. This is an encyclopedia, not a forum, and this signature thing is not a real disruption to the creation of encyclopedic content. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 07:21, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
- While true, it's still a violation of WP:TPO, and if it's accidentally changing characters in signatures, who knows what else it might be doing that isn't getting caught or reported? - The Bushranger One ping only 07:27, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
- It is safe to assume there more than a few of the editors taking part in this discussion have years and decades of technological experience under their belts, myself included. I do not think The Accused is straight-up lying about the technical hurdle, but clinging to the "I refuse to change my system of operation, therefore it's Misplaced Pages's fault for (6 years ago) making the change!" excuse is the real problem here - this is at the heart a behavioral discussion, not a technical one. Consistently violating the norms of the community is indeed a real disruption to the creation of encyclopedic content. Zaathras (talk) 16:29, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
- It's not inherently about the signatures. It's that he's stubbornly insisting on using an outdated system that introduces errors into other content. — The Hand That Feeds You: 17:40, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
- agree on this. Incidental changing of signayures due to the tech issue is not a small problem itself but that clearly has potential to impact a much wider range of mainspace content. I have a hard time believing that there is not a browser that supports https and can run on a decade old computer (something like Opera even). Claiming inability to switch or upgrade needs to be explained in detail or otherwise this has potential to be a bigger problem. Masem (t) 17:55, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
Disruptive editing by User talk:185.146.112.192
IP blocked 24 hours, and then kept digging and created an account to evade the block, which has now been indef'd. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:43, 24 December 2024 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The User talk:185.146.112.192 is engaging in disrupte editing. Neither does this IP provide sources and is POV pushing. And this IP has been warned multiple times for this on his/her talk page.
Moroike (talk) 20:52, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Moroike: It looks like you both are edit warring on Kichik Bazar Mosque. That's not particularly helpful, so you should try to have a discussion on the article talk page as to whether you should include the Talysh language name for the article in the lead/infobox. –MJL ‐Talk‐ 20:33, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
- MJL why and how did you pick out that one article over the many this IP has made recent changes to? The IP has been making disputed edits for months and has been reverted by a number of editors, not just Moroike. CMD (talk) 01:10, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- @CMD: I am not suggesting that the IP editor isn't being disruptive, but my point is that Moroike isn't making the situation better (using the example of that one article). You can see this by looking at their last 50 contributions where they have mostly just reverted this editor without using a summary. –MJL ‐Talk‐ 18:02, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- The IP's edits were removed a total of 13 times on the page regarding the capital city of Azerbaijan, Baku. You can't let him continue engaging in further edit wars with other users besides Moroike, can you? Nuritae331 (talk) 17:24, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- MJL why and how did you pick out that one article over the many this IP has made recent changes to? The IP has been making disputed edits for months and has been reverted by a number of editors, not just Moroike. CMD (talk) 01:10, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
Since this IP user won't stop and is stonewalling, either he/should be temporarily blocked, or all the pages he is POV pushing without sources, should be semi-protected, so that only registered users can edit them. Moroike (talk) 21:37, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- After he/she was blocked for 24 hours, this IP created an account as User talk:Ibish Agayev in order to evade the block and has resumed his/her POV pushing. Moroike (talk) 16:51, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
Creating the need to make 400,000 unnecessary edits
Can we please dp something about editors who make unnecessary changes to widely-used modules, and then need to change 400,000 talk pages to get the same result we had before the change? Thanks to this change from last week, which removed the parameter "living" from the bannershell, we now have more than 400,000 pages in Category:Pages using WikiProject banner shell with unknown parameters. After the "cleanup" by User:Tom.Reding (and perhaps others), we will have the exact same result as we had last week, no new functionality, no new categories, no improvement at all, but a lot of flooded watchlists.
I tried to get him to stop at User talk:Tom.Reding#Cosmetic edits, to no avail. This isn't the first time, as you can see from that discussion. Fram (talk) 14:57, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- If you want to discuss {{WikiProject banner shell}}, you should do so at Template talk:WikiProject banner shell.
- As for the size of the category, I have no plans to empty it, and was only going to update a few hundred more categories and templates. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 15:02, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- You made nearly 2000 of such edits in the last few hours, and when asked to stop pointed me to a category with 400,000 entries. I have no way to know how many more you planned now or in future runs. Starting a discussion at the module would hardly stop you. Fram (talk) 15:10, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- "
when asked to stop pointed me to a category with 400,000 entries
": incorrect. Since you wrongly thought I was making cosmetic edits, i.e. "no change in output or categories
", the category was to inform you that they are not cosmetic. - Regarding a BRFA for the bulk of the category, that's looking more likely since the category appears to be neglected. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 15:29, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- Unnecessary removing a synonym and then making thousands of edits to remove the hidden cat created by that unnecessary change is not really any better than making cosmetic edits, the end result is that nothing has changed for the affected pages at all. Fram (talk) 15:33, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- Not unnecessary. The Lua code is very complex and removing the need the support various settings makes the code both easier to read and maintain. As always, editors that don't want to see these edits can hide these by hiding the tag "talk banner shell conversion". Gonnym (talk) 12:32, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- It doesn´t look as if the specific code to have these synonyms was very complicated though, the argument that in some cases two synonyms were used on one page with conflicting values was more convincing. And the edits I complained about did not have that tag, so no, even if people knew about hiding that tag, it wouldn't have helped here at all. Fram (talk) 16:04, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- Not unnecessary. The Lua code is very complex and removing the need the support various settings makes the code both easier to read and maintain. As always, editors that don't want to see these edits can hide these by hiding the tag "talk banner shell conversion". Gonnym (talk) 12:32, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- Unnecessary removing a synonym and then making thousands of edits to remove the hidden cat created by that unnecessary change is not really any better than making cosmetic edits, the end result is that nothing has changed for the affected pages at all. Fram (talk) 15:33, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- "
- You made nearly 2000 of such edits in the last few hours, and when asked to stop pointed me to a category with 400,000 entries. I have no way to know how many more you planned now or in future runs. Starting a discussion at the module would hardly stop you. Fram (talk) 15:10, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- This was discussed in detail on Template talk:WikiProject banner shell. Ideally these edits would be done by an approved bot so they do not appear on people's watchlists. The main benefit is to merge the
|blp=and|living=parameters. When both are in use, we find they often get conflicting values because one gets updated and the other does not. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:25, 20 December 2024 (UTC)- Isn't it more logical to first have a bot cleanup the unwanted parameter, then remove it from the template, and only then start populating the cat with the somehow remaining or since added instances? In any case, this is a typical bot task and shouldn't be done with massive AWB runs. Fram (talk) 17:39, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, probably. But we have this mechanism already set up and I assumed Cewbot would deal with these as part of its normal activities. Happy to look at other options - maybe discuss on template talk? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:23, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- I don't know what this is about, but if the OP is correct, it is totally absurd to edit 400,000 talk pages for a tweak. Discussing at a template talk page monitored by those focused on the template would simply hide the issue. Johnuniq (talk) 03:53, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- Edits like these should always be bots, so they can be filtered from watchlists. There are numerous other editors who have recently engaged in the mass additional of categories to articles which I had to ask them to stop as my watchlist was flooded. GiantSnowman 13:02, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- I don't know what this is about, but if the OP is correct, it is totally absurd to edit 400,000 talk pages for a tweak. Discussing at a template talk page monitored by those focused on the template would simply hide the issue. Johnuniq (talk) 03:53, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, probably. But we have this mechanism already set up and I assumed Cewbot would deal with these as part of its normal activities. Happy to look at other options - maybe discuss on template talk? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:23, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- Hiding bot edits from watchlists is not a viable option for many editors, since it also hides any non-bot edits that predate the bot edit (phab:T11790, 2007, unassigned). Users AnomieBOT, Cluebot III, Lowercase sigmabot III, Citation bot, et al edit with such high frequency that hiding their edits leads to an unacceptable proportion of watchlist items not appearing. (Also, Citation bot's edits should usually be reviewed, since it has a non-negligible error rate and its activators typically don't review its output, exceptions noted.)The code for maintaining two aliases for one parameter cannot possibly be so complex as to warrant a half million edits. If one of the two "must" undergo deprecation, bundle it into Cewbot's task. If the values don't match, have the banner shell template populate a mismatch category.In general, if a decision is made to start treating as an error some phenomenon that has previously not been a problem, and that decision generates a maintenance category with tens or hundreds of thousands of members, it is a bad decision and the characterisation of the phenomenon as "erroneous" should be reversed.At minimum, any newly instanced maintenance task scoped to over a hundred thousand pages should come before the community for approval at a central venue. Folly Mox (talk) 15:19, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
- Also, like, if only one of
|blp=and|living=gets updated
, shouldn't the net result be pretty obvious? Valid updates should really only go one direction. Folly Mox (talk) 15:24, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
- Also, like, if only one of
- Isn't it more logical to first have a bot cleanup the unwanted parameter, then remove it from the template, and only then start populating the cat with the somehow remaining or since added instances? In any case, this is a typical bot task and shouldn't be done with massive AWB runs. Fram (talk) 17:39, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- Is it just me or are talk pages like Template talk:WikiProject banner shell just perpetual WP:LOCALCONSENSUS issues where a very small number of editors (frequently 5 or less) make major changes that affect thousands of articles, all without involving the broader community through, at minimum, places like Misplaced Pages:Village pump (technical)? Silverseren 04:03, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Fram, Tom.Reding, Kanashimi, and Primefac: I got AWB working again. If cewbot would take time for making the changes, and if this needs attention soon, then should I file a request for that particular bot task? —usernamekiran (talk) 06:20, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- The robot is in operation... Kanashimi (talk) 09:09, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- yay! —usernamekiran (talk) 16:04, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- The robot is in operation... Kanashimi (talk) 09:09, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- Meanwhile, the category has grown to over 800,000 pages. Perhaps next time an RfC to determine whether creating such a large cleanup task is warranted, would be better? Fram (talk) 16:34, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Fram: this is logical. We should also make it a policy (or at least a guideline), something along the lines "if change would lead to edits/updating more than XYZ pages, a consensus should be achieved on a venue with a lot of visibility". Like Silver seren mentioned above, sometimes a formal consensus/discussion takes place, but it happens on obscure talk pages. —usernamekiran (talk) 14:01, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
User:ZanderAlbatraz1145 Civility and Content #2
- ZanderAlbatraz1145 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
This user has engaged in a lengthy display of disruption. Namely through incessant incivility I have noticed they were previously reported for.
Instances such as ordering IP editors to stop editing articles, hostilely chastising them, making personal attacks in edit summary on several occasions, etc. Users such as @Waxworker: and @Jon698: can speak to their experiences, I'll outline mine.
On December 10, I noticed on the article Luca Guadagnino's unrealized projects page several additions were made that didn't adhere to the article's purpose. Zander restored these with an introductory summary rife with bad faith assertions about my intelligence and asserting they'd engage in edit war behavior. For the most part there was an attempt to discuss the issue we had, but ultimately did not see eye to eye. I asserted I'd be escalating the issue to garner more substantive dialogue around it, Zander's response includes a needless "bite me". I made some attempts at engaging the topic at the article's talk page, in addition to WikiProject Film, it was over a week that saw no input. I would go on to state that (at the time) in two days, I would restore the page to it's status quo. I would do so, asking it not to be reverted. Zander reverted anyway, and after another terse interaction, I moved to nominate the article for deletion, finding with the conflicting views of what Unrealized meant, it was too open ended and led to these lists being essentially trivia. Since then, Zander has elected to take an antagonistic approach towards me, making swipes they openly admit add nothing to the discussion threads they're added to, and now that I am putting said comments behind collapsable tables for being offtopic, Zander is now doing the editing equivalent of mockingly repeating me, with edits such as this and this.
This editor displays no interest in conducting themselves cordially or cooperatively on this website. Rusted AutoParts 23:20, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- I've given them a warning for canvassing: - The Bushranger One ping only 04:08, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- And more personal attacks here - The Bushranger One ping only 05:36, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- And they appear to be continuing editing while ignoring here. - The Bushranger One ping only 05:39, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- This feels par for the course for Zander frankly. As noted with the bit about Zander reverting after an explicit edit summary saying not to and there being two days worth of me saying that edit would be made and they made no objections until the move was made. They disengaged from discussion but only re-engaged when the situation changed to their disliking. Rusted AutoParts 02:07, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
- And they appear to be continuing editing while ignoring here. - The Bushranger One ping only 05:39, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
SPA User:Tikitorch2 back at it on Martin Kulldorff
Hi, all, I'd like some assistance with the SPA User:Tikitorch2, who's been POV pushing on the Martin Kulldorff article since June. A quick view of their extremely short edit history shows that their sole focus is on pushing a vaccine-denialist POV on that and similar COVID-related topics. Started out on the talk page and BLPN, but now they've graduated to edit-warring on the article itself; they were active in June, made a single related edit in October, but now they appear to be back at it. They've already been notified about the CTOP status of COVID-19, and have received an edit-warring warning--to which they were less than receptive. Would appreciate a more permanent resolution, either a COVID-19 topic ban or just an indef considering their SPA status, so they don't just go back into hibernation and then turn up again like a bad penny. (And yeah, given this context, I don't love the implications of the username "Tikitorch2", either.) Thanks, Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 05:13, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- User:Michael.C.Wright? 173.22.12.194 (talk) 06:25, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
Looks like a duck to me. I'm sending this to SPI. - The Bushranger One ping only 11:16, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- SPI says unrelated, so might just be generic disruption. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:47, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- What are you implying with regard to my username? My edit history has been limited to trying to correct two red flags that stood out so much that I followed the citations when I was searching these scientists who were in the news for censorship. It has been enlightening learning how wikipedia selectively chooses secondary sources but discourages the use of primary sources to help discriminate which secondary sources are credible.
- For my two attempted contributions to Misplaced Pages, the two red flags were pretty dramatic to prompt me to check out the citations--Sunetra Gupta's article implied more than 1 in 1000 people in England died from Covid in spring 2020 in an effort to discredit her, which was trivially easy to google as untrue. I corrected that without really changing the overall narrative. The article for Martin Kulldorff...I would probably not have spent time looking at the sources or realized how unscientific Kulldorff's critics were had there not been such superfluous "Wikivoice" editorializing and synthesizing suggesting Kulldorff lied in an essay to the public. Tikitorch2 (talk) 06:30, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- Primary sources are not to be used for anything but simple facts about a subject. They absolutely are not to be used
to help discriminate which secondary sources are credible
because that is original research. - The Bushranger One ping only 08:57, 22 December 2024 (UTC)- Not sure why you felt the need to repeat what I said. Maybe I am the sock puppeteer! Tikitorch2 (talk) 03:33, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- What I am implying is that such a username in the context of an account pushing COVID-denialist rhetoric that flies in the face of the sources and Misplaced Pages policy is not an accident. Anyway, this editor continues to be a drain of editor time and attention. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 14:58, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- Ah an absurd, convoluted, and contrived personal attack. Assuming anyone but you knew tiki torches were present at a political event where someone was killed, why would I choose my username based on that? Tikitorches provide light, warmth, and keep the mosquitos away. I guess its not surprising an editor named writ keeper attacks the editor rather than effectively debating the subject of the edit. Tikitorch2 (talk) 03:28, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- Even if it was a personal attack, making one back isn't going to fly here. Knock it off. - The Bushranger One ping only 04:04, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- User:Tikitorch2, your edits are being examined at ANI. This is not a pleasant experience, I'll admit. So, it's best for you not to dig yourself into a hole. I know the instinct is to defend yourself but it doesn't help your situation to come out swinging. It's probably to your benefit to address any concerns that have been raised and say no more than that. Liz 04:30, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- Even if it was a personal attack, making one back isn't going to fly here. Knock it off. - The Bushranger One ping only 04:04, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- Ah an absurd, convoluted, and contrived personal attack. Assuming anyone but you knew tiki torches were present at a political event where someone was killed, why would I choose my username based on that? Tikitorches provide light, warmth, and keep the mosquitos away. I guess its not surprising an editor named writ keeper attacks the editor rather than effectively debating the subject of the edit. Tikitorch2 (talk) 03:28, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- Primary sources are not to be used for anything but simple facts about a subject. They absolutely are not to be used
Disruptive editor on When the Pawn...
User User:Longislandtea has repeatedly removed reliably sourced refs to the genres infobox by removing alternative pop simply because they don't believe it to be correct as the ref is "new" and that the artist isn't that genre. I had sent them two warnings now and also explained that's not how this works, so they decided to add more genres with refs that don't even mention the genres they included. I do not believe this editor is going to cooperate. Pillowdelight (talk) 08:27, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- User:Pillowdelight changed the genre list of When the Pawn... which originally had been a variation of certain genres: Art pop, jazz rock, art rock, alternative rock, jazz pop, chamber pop, all of which are somewhat accurate and agreed upon by various editors of this page over many years. It was changed to just Alt pop, a genre that is used to describe the newer sounds of pop in the early 2010s with Lorde, Sky Ferreira and Lana del rey. It is not a genre that fits the album hence it has never before user:Pillowdelight been described as such beyond what her poor source says, a Fiona Apple revisit (that is not even about When the pawn.. specifically) from a new, small and virtually unheard of web magazine. Sources such as Rateyourmusic, allmusic and Pitchfork are far more accurate and robust and that's why this album has never been described as alt pop. That genre did not exist at the time of the release of the album. The source needs to be accurate, it is not. It's not an album review, it is a fluff article about Fiona Apple by a small web magazine. It's not even about When the pawn... specifically, it makes no sense. I think the other editors agree, it is inaccurate.
- Allmusic and pitchfork are far better sources. I have added both as sources. I didn't change the genre list, I simply changed it back to the genre list that had stood there the longest before user:Pillowdelight changed it a few months ago for the first time, having never touched this page before yet complaining about other editors. Longislandtea (talk) 18:52, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Longislandtea: I removed the genres because they're unsourced, which I stated in many edit summaries you keep reverting, as well as on your talk page. It doesn't matter that just because you believe a source another user added calling the album alternative pop is incorrect and unreliable because it's "new, small and virtually unheard of" is a ridiculously excuse. Read Template:Infobox album it states — genres must be stated and referenced in the body of the article; personal opinions or original research must not be included. The sources you have added specifically from Pitchfork don't state the genres you've listed. Pillowdelight (talk) 20:12, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- Sources need to be legitimate and relevant. Your source is not relevant and it is disputed. Pitchfork is added because they describe the album as an alternative album several times in the review and the genre category is ROCK. What is alternative and rock? Alternative rock. That is how the album was marketed. You can't cherrypick a single article to make a case for a genre that the album absolutely is not in. I will remove the Pitchfork source, that's fine. There's numerous ones including from Allmusic that clearly state that it is an alternative rock album. The album was even added to Misplaced Pages's page for alt rock albums ages ago. This is very uncontroversial. Just having alternative rock is also lacking; jazz fusion, art pop (the album is already added on the wikipedia page for art pop albums) and art rock are accurate too and have been there for ages but alas! Let's get rid of it all to only serve your opinion. Numerous albums have unsourced genres might I add, but the vast of amount of editors agree to it because they know these accurately describe the album, these are the scenes that the album and artist comes from and sourcing for genres can often times be lacking. In that case, rather than trying to look for BAD sources, it's better to agree with the consensus. In our case, we do have sources. Rateyourmusic has been used as a source for adding art pop, alternative rock, jazz pop, fusion, art rock and chamber pop as genres before. Longislandtea (talk) 20:54, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- Here's the page for what is considered acceptable sources Misplaced Pages:Acceptable sources (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs).
- Relevance. Sources must be relevant--there must be some reason for the reader to care about what the author has to say. For example, the opinion of a random individual on the presidency of George W. Bush, as published in a letter to the editor of a major newspaper, is not relevant; and thus should not be included--even though it is published, traceable to its author, and given in a reputable publication. Relevance can be imputed several ways--through explicit personal knowledge, through subject-matter authority, through general notability of the author, through demonstrable correlation with the opinion(s) of a large group of people, etc.
- A large group of people, the editors of When the Pawn...'s page throughout the years, thousands of people on music reviewing sites and numerous music journalists from legitimate publications do not agree with what this one article you cherrypicked states.
- Note that this policy is the minimum standard for inclusion as a reference in Misplaced Pages. Sources may meet this standard and still not be authoritative, reliable, accurate, free from bias, or undisputed. Sources which meet this minimum standard but which fail to meet stricter standards may be used, but should be used with caution. In particular, such sources should be explicitly attributed to their author(s) or publisher(s) in an article's prose (rather than being presented as fact with the author only given in the notes), and disputes considering the source's veracity should be described.
- Meaning you can't just add any genre because some random source says it when it goes against larger and more reliable sources as well as it is controversial.
- Thank you and please stop vandalizing pages on topics of music you do not understand. Longislandtea (talk) 21:04, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- WP:NOTVAND. Note that accusing editors of vandalism when they are not, in fact, vandalising can be considered a personal attack, so I'd suggest you strike that comment. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:14, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- Okay, I strike. Longislandtea (talk) 21:17, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- You didn't actually strike any comments. To do so, do this <s>Comment</s> which will make it look like this
Comment. Liz 22:17, 22 December 2024 (UTC)please stop vandalizing pages on topics of music you do not understand.Longislandtea (talk) 22:26, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- You didn't actually strike any comments. To do so, do this <s>Comment</s> which will make it look like this
- Okay, I strike. Longislandtea (talk) 21:17, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- WP:NOTVAND. Note that accusing editors of vandalism when they are not, in fact, vandalising can be considered a personal attack, so I'd suggest you strike that comment. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:14, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Longislandtea: How is the source considered not relevant and where was this dispute? AllMusic does not call the album alternative rock at all within its article. Rate Your Music is also not a source it's user generated which is against Misplaced Pages. I really wish an admin would comment on this because this is getting absolutely nowhere. Pillowdelight (talk) 21:05, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- Here's another source describing it as an alternative rock and jazz fusion album
- https://www.the-solute.com/the-solute-record-club-fiona-apple-when-the-pawn/
- Alt pop is not accurate. If you're so adamant about alt pop, please argue why. It is completely inaccurate and you have one singular source over music journalists and music sites. Allmusic does categorize it as alternative rock, Pitchfork has categorized it as rock since 1999 of its release. There was NO Alt-pop at the time. It still isn't. These are different genres. Art pop is not Alt pop. You edited the page one time in October 2024 only to get rid of the genre list that editors agreed upon to add Alt pop which makes no sense whatsoever. Longislandtea (talk) 21:17, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- I have now added a new source to the genre list. If you have any problems with the new source, tell me. But it's much more accurate this way. It's still sad to see the whole genre list that was originally there, so much more descriptive and fitting, hacked away but oh well. Longislandtea (talk) 21:31, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- Pitchfork's categorizations mean basically nothing. They have ten categories, one of which is "Pop/R&B", and another of which is "Global". By the way, you should just stop caring about this, because sources misclassify genres of music chronically and everywhere you look. Take your passion to RateYourMusic. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 18:16, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- Sources need to be legitimate and relevant. Your source is not relevant and it is disputed. Pitchfork is added because they describe the album as an alternative album several times in the review and the genre category is ROCK. What is alternative and rock? Alternative rock. That is how the album was marketed. You can't cherrypick a single article to make a case for a genre that the album absolutely is not in. I will remove the Pitchfork source, that's fine. There's numerous ones including from Allmusic that clearly state that it is an alternative rock album. The album was even added to Misplaced Pages's page for alt rock albums ages ago. This is very uncontroversial. Just having alternative rock is also lacking; jazz fusion, art pop (the album is already added on the wikipedia page for art pop albums) and art rock are accurate too and have been there for ages but alas! Let's get rid of it all to only serve your opinion. Numerous albums have unsourced genres might I add, but the vast of amount of editors agree to it because they know these accurately describe the album, these are the scenes that the album and artist comes from and sourcing for genres can often times be lacking. In that case, rather than trying to look for BAD sources, it's better to agree with the consensus. In our case, we do have sources. Rateyourmusic has been used as a source for adding art pop, alternative rock, jazz pop, fusion, art rock and chamber pop as genres before. Longislandtea (talk) 20:54, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Longislandtea: I removed the genres because they're unsourced, which I stated in many edit summaries you keep reverting, as well as on your talk page. It doesn't matter that just because you believe a source another user added calling the album alternative pop is incorrect and unreliable because it's "new, small and virtually unheard of" is a ridiculously excuse. Read Template:Infobox album it states — genres must be stated and referenced in the body of the article; personal opinions or original research must not be included. The sources you have added specifically from Pitchfork don't state the genres you've listed. Pillowdelight (talk) 20:12, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- All of this discussion should be taking place on the article's talk page (which neither editor has used). Schazjmd (talk) 21:36, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Schazjmd: I'm awaiting for an admin to respond. This conversation is getting nowhere hence the reason why I brought it here in the first place. I've tried to explain to the user on their talk page along with this entire thread and it's getting nowhere. @The Bushranger: you left a comment but could you please share your opinion on the dispute? Or possibly ping an admin who's familiar with music if this isn't your area of familiarity? Pillowdelight (talk) 21:49, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- There was no reason to bring this conversation here. I talked to you directly but go no real reply or any arguments despite adding sources and explaining why it's not an Alt pop album. I've explained to you well enough. Please stop trying to get admins to ban me simply because I (and other editors) recognize that the genre list that you got rid of was far more fitting. There's a new genre list now with sources but it is not Alt-pop. The album was already added to the wikipedia album pages for Alternative rock and art pop. I'm familiar with these genres and Fiona Apple specifically to know that it's accurate hence why the genre list has been that way for years. If you're adamant about sources, there is a source. Accusing me of not sourcing should be considered a false accusation at this point. Not all sources are equal either and I've tried explaining that to you. Longislandtea (talk) 21:55, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- Pillowdelight, you were given good advice which is to have this discussion on the article talk page which neither editor has posted at yet. This is a content dispute. If no action has been taken yet by an administrator, it's likely because they don't agree with your statement that action needs to be taken. Liz 22:22, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- Okay, will do. Thank you Liz. Pillowdelight (talk) 22:24, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Schazjmd: I'm awaiting for an admin to respond. This conversation is getting nowhere hence the reason why I brought it here in the first place. I've tried to explain to the user on their talk page along with this entire thread and it's getting nowhere. @The Bushranger: you left a comment but could you please share your opinion on the dispute? Or possibly ping an admin who's familiar with music if this isn't your area of familiarity? Pillowdelight (talk) 21:49, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
Irrelevant sources and unnecessary changes to genre list on When the Pawn... (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
On October 22 2024, User:Pillowdelight (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) changed the genre list that has stood in place for years and has been a variation of the same variety of genres: Art pop, art rock, jazz, alternative rock, jazz rock, chamber pop and jazz pop. Across the biggest music sites, this is what the album is described as. The user changed it to Alt pop using a single irrelevant and unreliable source. The album is not described as such anywhere else. The user is going against the general consensus. Sources have now been added to the genre list and I don't feel as though that would mean I'm breaking any rules. The user is threatening to get another editor banned because they're uncooperative with how us other editors feel the genre list should look like. It's an album that has been categorized as rock by Pitchfork at the time of its release and was added to rock charts when released too. Here's how the genre list has looked over a long period of time, without much controversy from editors not readers: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=When_the_Pawn...&oldid=1178937091 from 2023
https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=When_the_Pawn...&oldid=1049316366 from 2021
Thank you. Longislandtea (talk) 19:32, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- Why do people have to argue about what genre music is rather than just listening to it, and hopefully enjoying it? Phil Bridger (talk) 19:58, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- The genre list was fine and accurate and uncontroversial until this user decided to remove the entire thing. It's important that the genre list is accurate. People find albums through genres. There's other reasons as well. Longislandtea (talk) 20:38, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- This is neither here nor there, but I thought albums are generally sorted in alphabetical order by band name or the musician's last name.
- Please, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, or my information is incomplete. Shovel Shenanigans (talk) 22:28, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- I was trying to explain the important of listing genres accurately. If you go to a record store then yes, albums are listed in alphabetical order. But they're still put in categories of genres. Longislandtea (talk) 22:43, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- If we were going to list musical genres "accurately," we wouldn't bother at all. Except in very broad strokes ("rock," "punk," "Baroque," etc), so many of these horribly subjective "genres" are made up by bored media writers and bands that hate the notion of being The Same As Everyone Else. Get ten people to listen to ten different tracks of heavy metal, and you won't get as many as a third of them agreeing on any of them on the doom/grudge/dark/death/Goth/Viking/sludge/*-grind/*-core/etc etc etc spectrum. Beyond that, arguing whether any given artist is "that genre" is very highly subjective. (Hell, I've sung Baroque, classical, folk, rock, ethnic, shape note, so many genres I can't readily count.) Ravenswing 15:12, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- I was trying to explain the important of listing genres accurately. If you go to a record store then yes, albums are listed in alphabetical order. But they're still put in categories of genres. Longislandtea (talk) 22:43, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- The genre list was fine and accurate and uncontroversial until this user decided to remove the entire thing. It's important that the genre list is accurate. People find albums through genres. There's other reasons as well. Longislandtea (talk) 20:38, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
Multiple users breaking 3RR on Gilman School article
Two users are actively engaged in an ongoing edit war on Gilman School, with both Counterfeit_Purses (talk · contribs · logs · block log) breaking 3RR 1, 2, 3, 4 and Statistical_Infighting (talk · contribs · logs · block log) being right at 3 Reverts 1, 2, 3.
This seems to go back to December 9th, with the first editor (Counterfeit) removing it here and here, again on the 17th, 18th, and then being at the above today.
- E/C applied. Star Mississippi 19:51, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- Counterfeit Purses, please be aware that the Luigi Mangione article was kept in a recent Articles for Deletion debate, so the consensus of the community is that he is notable. Edit warring to keep his name off the alumni list is a really bad idea. Cullen328 (talk) 20:14, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Cullen328 No problem, I've already given up. I would argue that WP:NOTNEWS applies here, but there's no sense in pushing against the tide. If you're content to have the lede section of Gilman School include "prominent graduates including "alleged murderer Luigi Mangione", I guess that's fine. It seems to be an unusual thing to include and an obvious case of undue weight given to something that is in the news at the moment. Perhaps someone should start a Wikiproject to add famous murderers to the ledes of other schools? Counterfeit Purses (talk) 22:00, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- Counterfeit Purses, in my view, WP:NOTNEWS is among our most misunderstood policy documents. It begins
In principle, all Misplaced Pages articles should contain up-to-date information. Editors are also encouraged to develop stand-alone articles on significant current events.
I believe that Mangione is notable, the evolving article is acceptable, and his name belongs in the alumni list. Many, many "bad people" are listed as alumni in countless school articles, and it is not at all unusual. The only unusual thing here is that the lead of this particular school article lists alumni, and so I have removed them from the lead. Cullen328 (talk) 01:07, 23 December 2024 (UTC)- I'm glad that misunderstanding WP:NOTNEWS is so common because I am going to continue to misunderstand it. I see that Liz removed Luigi Mangione from the lede before you removed the rest of the list. Acknowledging again that I have given up hope that Mangione will be removed from this article, let me ask you what you think the purpose of these alumni lists is? Including Mangione is an editorial decision. We don't include all notable alumni in these lists, so why should we include Mangione, and why now? It's too soon to know if he will have lasting relevance. Counterfeit Purses (talk) 04:22, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
We don't include all notable alumni in these lists
Why not? If someone is Wikinotable and went to a Wikinotable school, then they belong in the "Notable alumni" section of that school's page, Q.E.D. - The Bushranger One ping only 04:28, 23 December 2024 (UTC)- @The Bushranger I'm not saying "we shouldn't", I'm saying "we don't". We don't include every notable alumnus in these lists, nor should we because it would lead to long, unhelpful lists stuck in the middle of articles about the schools. Counterfeit Purses (talk) 04:49, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- If an alumni list bloats an article, it can be split out. See Category:Lists of people by school affiliation. 11:29, 23 December 2024 (UTC) (Oops, signing) Narky Blert (talk) 16:01, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- Of course that's always an option, but what I am saying is that it isn't desirable to have every alumnus listed in an article for a school. Ideally, it would be a selection of alumni who have made significant achievements in their field. Otherwise, it's just trivia. Am I wrong? Counterfeit Purses (talk) 17:21, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- Yes. You're making a value judgment that some alumni (with articles, else they most definitely should not be included) are more notable than others. That is WP:OR. Narky Blert (talk) 20:05, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, that's called editorial judgment. Just like deciding not to include every known fact about something in an article. At some point, it is just trivia. Misplaced Pages is not a database. That info would probably be welcome over on Wikidata, which is a database. Alternatively, someone could just add Category:Gilman School alumni (in this case). Counterfeit Purses (talk) 20:52, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- And a new user, who doesn't understand categories and has no idea Wikidata exists, is relying on the list on the page. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:35, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, that's called editorial judgment. Just like deciding not to include every known fact about something in an article. At some point, it is just trivia. Misplaced Pages is not a database. That info would probably be welcome over on Wikidata, which is a database. Alternatively, someone could just add Category:Gilman School alumni (in this case). Counterfeit Purses (talk) 20:52, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- Yes. You're making a value judgment that some alumni (with articles, else they most definitely should not be included) are more notable than others. That is WP:OR. Narky Blert (talk) 20:05, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- Of course that's always an option, but what I am saying is that it isn't desirable to have every alumnus listed in an article for a school. Ideally, it would be a selection of alumni who have made significant achievements in their field. Otherwise, it's just trivia. Am I wrong? Counterfeit Purses (talk) 17:21, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- If an alumni list bloats an article, it can be split out. See Category:Lists of people by school affiliation. 11:29, 23 December 2024 (UTC) (Oops, signing) Narky Blert (talk) 16:01, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- @The Bushranger I'm not saying "we shouldn't", I'm saying "we don't". We don't include every notable alumnus in these lists, nor should we because it would lead to long, unhelpful lists stuck in the middle of articles about the schools. Counterfeit Purses (talk) 04:49, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- I'm glad that misunderstanding WP:NOTNEWS is so common because I am going to continue to misunderstand it. I see that Liz removed Luigi Mangione from the lede before you removed the rest of the list. Acknowledging again that I have given up hope that Mangione will be removed from this article, let me ask you what you think the purpose of these alumni lists is? Including Mangione is an editorial decision. We don't include all notable alumni in these lists, so why should we include Mangione, and why now? It's too soon to know if he will have lasting relevance. Counterfeit Purses (talk) 04:22, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- Counterfeit Purses, in my view, WP:NOTNEWS is among our most misunderstood policy documents. It begins
- @Cullen328 No problem, I've already given up. I would argue that WP:NOTNEWS applies here, but there's no sense in pushing against the tide. If you're content to have the lede section of Gilman School include "prominent graduates including "alleged murderer Luigi Mangione", I guess that's fine. It seems to be an unusual thing to include and an obvious case of undue weight given to something that is in the news at the moment. Perhaps someone should start a Wikiproject to add famous murderers to the ledes of other schools? Counterfeit Purses (talk) 22:00, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- Counterfeit Purses, please be aware that the Luigi Mangione article was kept in a recent Articles for Deletion debate, so the consensus of the community is that he is notable. Edit warring to keep his name off the alumni list is a really bad idea. Cullen328 (talk) 20:14, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
User:Glenn103
Glenn103 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been mass creating unsourced stubs about Cyrillic letters, most of which have been draftified. They've also disruptively edited in the past, such as: ''']''' (talk • contribs) 01:41, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- Most of these pages don't even make any sense (eg.: Draft:Yery with tilde). The user also ignores any notice about his articles being moved to draftspace by simply recreating duplicates of them (eg.: Draft:Tse with caron & Tse with caron). Immediate action may be needed. Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 07:38, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- Given a uw-create4im with directions to come here, let's see what happens. - The Bushranger One ping only 08:00, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- They've continued editing, this time adding infoboxes to the articles, so I don't think the warning worked... ''']''' (talk • contribs) 08:10, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- I have blocked them from article space and page moves, and will leave note on talk page to come here. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 15:33, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- They've continued editing, this time adding infoboxes to the articles, so I don't think the warning worked... ''']''' (talk • contribs) 08:10, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- Given a uw-create4im with directions to come here, let's see what happens. - The Bushranger One ping only 08:00, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
Honestly, this almost feels like trolling. Their basic procedure seems to be: pick a random Cyrillic letter. Combine it with a random diacritic. Write a short stub on the combination, saying effectively "this letter combination is not used anywhere." The occasional historical mentions ("this combination was used in such-and-such obscure Siberian language") are completely unsourced, of course. (Everything is unsourced.) Oddwood (talk) 04:43, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- Excuse me for detracting from the report, but this was your 4th edit, your last edit was in January 2016... how have you found yourself here of all places?
- I mean you might have a point, but wow. – 2804:F1...57:88CF (::/32) (talk) 04:57, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
Similar behavior to PickleMan500 (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) and other socks puppeted by Abrown1019 (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki), which also made tons of drafts on Cyrillic characters that cited few sources (and none with in-depth coverage). Most drafts have been WP:G5'd, of course, so only those with admin perms can verify the deleted contribs. Since these socks have been banned (WP:3X), I haven't notified them of this discussion. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 17:08, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- Good catch, and looking at the contribution histories it Looks like a duck to me. Changing the block to indef as a sock accordingly. - The Bushranger One ping only 07:22, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
North Korean involvement in Russian-Ukraine war discussion
The inclusion of North Korea as a belligerent in the infobox for the "Russian invasion of Ukraine" article has been a point of extensive and protracted discussion since September. A formal Request for Comment (RfC) on this matter ran for several weeks and was closed with a clear consensus to include North Korea as a combatant based on reliable sources and expert analysis. However, despite the closure, the discussion has continued unabated across multiple threads, with certain editors repeatedly rehashing resolved points and questioning the validity of reliable sources, leading to significant disruption.
Key Points:
- Prolonged Discussions and RfC Closure:
- The RfC on North Korea's inclusion was conducted thoroughly, with a wide range of arguments presented by both sides.
- The closing administrator, S Marshall, determined there was a clear consensus to include North Korea as a belligerent based on reliable sources and the strength of arguments.
- The close explicitly allowed for reevaluation if new battlefield events or sources emerged, but no substantial new evidence has invalidated the prior consensus.
- Ongoing Disruption:
- Despite the RfC's resolution, the same arguments are being repeated across multiple threads, often by the same editors.
- This behavior includes undermining reliable sources, misrepresenting their content, and insisting on a higher standard of verification (e.g., requiring firsthand evidence of North Korean combat, which is unreasonable given the context).
- Reliable Sources Confirming North Korean Involvement:
- Multiple reputable outlets, including the BBC, Reuters, and Pentagon statements, confirm North Korean military involvement and casualties in the conflict.
- Experts from institutions like Chatham House and RUSI have explicitly stated North Korea's role in combat, aligning with the community's decision.
- Impact on the Community:
- The continued disruption consumes editor time and resources, detracting from the article's improvement.
- These actions disregard Misplaced Pages's consensus-building principles and guidelines for resolving disputes. This dispute has been ongoing for months, with multiple threads being opened and closed on the same topic.
Request for Administrative Action:
I respectfully request that administrators address the following issues:
- Enforce the consensus reached in the closed RfC, as no new evidence significantly alters the previous conclusions.
- Discourage editors from rehashing resolved discussions, particularly when arguments have been repeatedly addressed and dismissed.
- Consider imposing a topic ban or other appropriate measures on editors who persist in disrupting the article with repetitive or bad-faith arguments.
This matter has been discussed exhaustively, and it is essential to prioritize Misplaced Pages's goals of maintaining a high-quality, well-sourced, and consensus-driven encyclopedia. Thank you for your attention to this matter. UPDATE: I just noticed that North Korea was removed as a belligerent and added to the 'supported by' section, completely violating the consensus. Rc2barrington (talk) 08:48, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- Since this report isn't really about an incident and your request is directed towards admins, I think this complaint would be better placed at WP:AN rather than ANI. It will also need more specifics, which articles, which edits, which editors. You'll need to provide that. I also question whether or not these are content standards that the community can't handle on their own. Liz 09:50, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- I was going to post it at WP:AN but it said: "This noticeboard is for issues affecting administrators generally – announcements, notifications, information, and other matters of general administrator interest.
- If your post is about a specific problem you have (a dispute, user, help request, or other narrow issue needing an administrator), you should post it at the Administrators' noticeboard for incidents (ANI) instead. Thank you."
- I posted it on ANI beecause my specific problem was this dispute Rc2barrington (talk) 12:07, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- The original post in this thread appears to resemble LLM output. GPTzero confirms this impression, rating text as "99% probability AI generated". Using AI to generate ANI submissions is highly inappropriate. Axad12 (talk) 18:01, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- Even when a message appears to be AI-generated, I think it is worth considering whether or not it is pointing out an actual problem. I think editors might be ignoring the results of an RFC, I just don't think asking for administrators to monitor a subject area, without identifying specific articles, is a feasible solution. It does seem like, possibly, a point that could come up in a complaint at AE regarding the Ukraine CTOP area. Liz 19:55, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- I had a peek and it's a messy RfC and, as is generally the case with a messy RfC had a very involved closure message which seems to reflect that the closer felt constrained by the framing of the RfC. I didn't see any immediate indication in the edit history that anyone had tried to implement the RfC result and been rebuffed (although I might have missed it). So there's some smoke here but, I think, not a ton of fire. Simonm223 (talk) 20:21, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- Liz, I don't disagree but I'm not at all convinced that use of AI is a positive contribution to CTOP areas. Axad12 (talk) 20:27, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- It was written with AI assistance. Not all AI. ai detectors aren’t considered reliable, because you can put the U.S. constitution through one and it says 100% AI generated. Regardless, whether it’s AI or not has nothing to do with the topic. It’s just that there’a been so many discussions and when I checked the info box it said ‘supported by”, violating the consensus of the RFC Rc2barrington (talk) 12:45, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
you can put the U.S. constitution through one and it says 100% AI generated
– Well, I just put it through GPTzero and got 97% human. Might be best if you don't just make up random "evidence". EEng 17:25, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
- I think the underlying issue here is that if you use AI to generate text which looks like obvious AI output then readers will wonder "does the end user even have sufficient English to understand what the AI has generated for them?" and "did the end user understand the material prior to deciding to employ AI?". Thus if a user is fluent in English, as you obviously are, it will always be better to communicate in your own voice.
- At the end of the day, a user making a valid point in their own voice is generally speaking going to be taken more seriously than a user employing LLM output.
- There are plenty of other reasons for users not to employ AI (see the recent thread here for extensive coverage) but the argument above seems like a good practical reason for fluent English speakers to always prefer using their own voice.
- You will see from the recent thread that many users here are vehemently against AI use. Axad12 (talk) 15:46, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- I understood the material very well, its not like I just used 100% AI out of nowhere. I know the context. I have been involved in this discussion since September. Rc2barrington (talk) 16:43, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- It's a respect thing. It's disrespectful of other editors to make them read chatbot output rather than your words. Simonm223 (talk) 16:49, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- I understood the material very well, its not like I just used 100% AI out of nowhere. I know the context. I have been involved in this discussion since September. Rc2barrington (talk) 16:43, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- It was written with AI assistance. Not all AI. ai detectors aren’t considered reliable, because you can put the U.S. constitution through one and it says 100% AI generated. Regardless, whether it’s AI or not has nothing to do with the topic. It’s just that there’a been so many discussions and when I checked the info box it said ‘supported by”, violating the consensus of the RFC Rc2barrington (talk) 12:45, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- Even when a message appears to be AI-generated, I think it is worth considering whether or not it is pointing out an actual problem. I think editors might be ignoring the results of an RFC, I just don't think asking for administrators to monitor a subject area, without identifying specific articles, is a feasible solution. It does seem like, possibly, a point that could come up in a complaint at AE regarding the Ukraine CTOP area. Liz 19:55, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- The original post in this thread appears to resemble LLM output. GPTzero confirms this impression, rating text as "99% probability AI generated". Using AI to generate ANI submissions is highly inappropriate. Axad12 (talk) 18:01, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
| External videos | |
|---|---|
 Rc2barrington's appearance on Jeopardy |
- Rc2barrington's user page says
This user believes in the bright future AI and robotics will bring
, so there's probably no point in arguing here. However, I simply observe that in any kind of discussion where you're trying to convince other people, don't use a method that aggravates a significant number of readers (probably a significant majority of readers). It really is that simple. Axad12 (talk) 19:11, 24 December 2024 (UTC)Putting the use of LLM aside, however you compose your message you should comply with the basics of ANI. This includes not making allegations without supplying evidence. This would normally be in the form of diffs but in this case just links might be fine. But User:Rc2barrington has provided none.
Probably because this is because their initial complaint appears to be unsupported by what's actually happening. They claimed "
Despite the RfC's resolution, the same arguments are being repeated across multiple threads, often by the same editor
". But where is this? I visited the talk page, and what I see is here Talk:Russian invasion of Ukraine#Post RFC discussion there was a request for clarification from the closer, something which is perfectly reasonably and which the closer followed up on. The OP then offered an interjection which frankly seemed unnecessary. There was then a very brief forumish discussion. To be clear, AFAICT no one in the follow up discussion was suggesting any changes to the article. So while it wasn't he most helpful thing as with any forumish discussion; it's hardly causing that much disruption especially since it seems to have quickly ended and also cannot be called "the same arguments" since there was no argument. No one in that discussion was actually suggesting changing the article.Then there is Talk:Russian invasion of Ukraine#North Korea RFC aftermath discussion. There was again some forumish discussion in this thread which again isn't helpful but wasn't that long. But there was also discussion about other things like the name of the article and whether to restructure it. To be clear, this isn't something which was resolve in the RfC. In fact, the closer specifically mention possible future issues in a non close comment.
Next we see Talk:Russian invasion of Ukraine#Follow up to the previous discussion (Request for comment, can we add North Korea as a belligerent?). Again the main focus of the discussion is in how to handle stuff which wasn't dealt with in the RfC. There is a total of 2 short comments in that thread which were disputing the RfC which is unfortunate but hardly something to worry ANI about.
Next there is Talk:Russian invasion of Ukraine#Can we add a Supported by section for Ukraine in the infobox?. DPRK was briefly mentioned there but only in relation to a suggestion to change the infobox for other countries. No part of that discussion can IMO be said to be disputing the DPRK RfC. Next we have Talk:Russian invasion of Ukraine#Remove Belarus from the infobox. Again DPRK was briefly mention but only in relation to other countries. No part of that discussion can be said to be disputing the RfC. AFAICT, the only threads or comments removed from the talk page since the closure of the RfC was by automated archival. The only threads which seem to be post close are on Talk:Russian invasion of Ukraine/Archive 20 and none of them seem to deal with North Korea.
So at least on the article talk page I don't see what the OP has said is happening. The tiny amount of challenging of the RfC is definitely not something ANI needs to worry about. Even the other forumish or otherwise unproductive comments aren't at a level that IMO warrants any action IMO. If this is happening somewhere else, this is even more reason why the OP needed to provide us some evidence rather than a long comment without anything concrete, however they composed it.
- Rc2barrington's user page says
Concern About a New Contributor
Suspected editor was indeed a sock. Unnecessary drama created by all-too zealous reporting--let this be the end of it. Drmies (talk) 21:19, 24 December 2024 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Kriji Sehamati (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Dear Wikipedians,
I hope you’re doing well. I wanted to inform you about a new contributor @Kriji Sehamati, despite lacking experience, has repeatedly attempted to vandalize multiple articles. These articles were properly aligned with Misplaced Pages’s guidelines and reviewed by experienced contributors, but he/she seemed unwilling to understand or respect their adherence to the policies.
I believe your experience could help address this situation effectively.
Looking forward to your advice on how to proceed.
Thankyou! 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 15:21, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- "Vandalize" is a very loaded word here with a specific meaning. As far as I can tell, what they've done is nominate 4 articles for deletion, and your response has been to accuse them of vandalism, ignoring dispute resolution procedures and making personal attacks – none of which I can see at a glance through their contributions.
- Perhaps if you supplied evidence of this behaviour, someone would be able to help? If your issue is that they've nominated 4 articles of which you are a major contributor and are doing so by going through your contributions in order to find articles to nominate for deletion with specious reasons, then this board would be the place to come. If not, then making your arguments for keeping the articles on the AfDs in question would be your best bet.
- By the way is forum shopping. Stop that. 81.2.123.64 (talk) 16:06, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- (ec) This is an odd one. As S-Aura failed to provide diffs, I looked at Kriji Sehamati's contribution history. New account (9 Dec) began editing today, created two drafts and made a bunch of edits to those. Then began adding COI tags to articles S-Aura wrote, nominated those articles for deletion, and then left a possible UPE template on S-Aura's talk page. Really seems to be something weird going on here between those two. (In addition to opening this ANI thread, S-Aura asked for help with basically the same message on the talk pages of Ipigott, Ryan shell, CFA, and BusterD, and S-Aura opened same complaint at AN.) Schazjmd (talk) 16:06, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- I am concerned that User:Kriji_Sehamati’s actions, including unjustified deletion nominations and spamming, are disruptive and violate Misplaced Pages’s guidelines.
- She seems to lack understanding of basic Misplaced Pages guidelines, particularly those related WP:GNG and WP:NPOL. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 16:40, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- You were asked to provide diffs. You did, almost, here but then reverted yourself. Those diffs (well, the ones before those diffs) are just the other user nominating articles for deletion (which is allowed) or tagging them for what they believe to be conflict of interest edits (which is also allowed).
- Please provide some actual evidence that the other user is engaging in chronic, intractable behaviour, rather than just not editing how you would like them to. 81.2.123.64 (talk) 17:21, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- Here are some diffs highlighting her problematic edits. However, I believe that many of her contributions may be in violation of Misplaced Pages’s guidelines. It appears she has specifically targeted me and added the COI tag multiple times to the same page. I would appreciate it if you could review her actions more thoroughly:
- •
- •
- •
- •
- and many more
- Thankyou! 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 17:33, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- We wouldn't generally treat an AfD as vandalism. Simonm223 (talk) 17:39, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- I understand your point about AfDs not generally being treated as vandalism. However, I noticed that the major contribution history of the user seems suspicious. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 17:42, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- Not from where anybody else is standing so far. I get that you're upset to have four articles of yours nominated for deletion, and if you have any evidence at all that you are being deliberately targeted by the other editor, then people will very much act on that. Please provide it. 81.2.123.64 (talk) 17:58, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- I am here to contribute and edit articles in accordance with Misplaced Pages’s guidelines. However, today a new user targeted me and falsely blamed me for actions that are not accurate. I believe this is unfair and not in line with the collaborative nature of the platform. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 18:04, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- Please provide evidence of this. 81.2.123.64 (talk) 18:06, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- Please check! 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 18:07, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- The articles that have been nominated for deletion discussion have been reviewed by experienced contributors. These discussions involve articles about judges and lawyers, under WP:NPOL, a valid criterion according to Misplaced Pages’s guidelines. Therefore, the deletion decision was made after carefully reviewing these articles. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 18:11, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- Honestly it looks like this user, rightly or wrongly, believes you have a conflict of interest and are acting on the basis of that assumption. I would suggest, if you don't have a CoI, talking to them about this and maybe asking why they've come to this conclusion. Simonm223 (talk) 18:10, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- They have just started targeting my contributions, and I tried to inform her about the situation. However, she is acting as if she knows everything about Misplaced Pages and is dismissing my concerns. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 18:15, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- Please check! 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 18:07, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- Please provide evidence of this. 81.2.123.64 (talk) 18:06, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- I am here to contribute and edit articles in accordance with Misplaced Pages’s guidelines. However, today a new user targeted me and falsely blamed me for actions that are not accurate. I believe this is unfair and not in line with the collaborative nature of the platform. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 18:04, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- Not from where anybody else is standing so far. I get that you're upset to have four articles of yours nominated for deletion, and if you have any evidence at all that you are being deliberately targeted by the other editor, then people will very much act on that. Please provide it. 81.2.123.64 (talk) 17:58, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- I understand your point about AfDs not generally being treated as vandalism. However, I noticed that the major contribution history of the user seems suspicious. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 17:42, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- We wouldn't generally treat an AfD as vandalism. Simonm223 (talk) 17:39, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Kriji Sehamati: hasn't edited since their AfD spree earlier today, let's wait and see what their response here is when they return to editing. Schazjmd (talk) 18:16, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- We need to stop focusing on the OP's calling this vandalism; it is not. I've changed the header to reflect that. That said, the new user's edits are problematic and merit scrutiny. As for the UPE stuff, I've removed that post from the OP's Talk page; it's nonsensical coming from a new user and does not merit a response.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:42, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- It is, of course, not vandalism to nominate articles for AFD discussions as long as a legitimate deletion rationale is provided and the article hasn't just been discussed at a recent AFD. However, I don't think it's a good sign when a brand new editor claims to understand all of Misplaced Pages policies and whose first actions are to nominate articles at AFDs. They are almost never an actual new editor, especially when they know how to even set up an AFD or are familiar with using Twinkle on their first day of editing. Liz 19:34, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- It seems that she is not new to Misplaced Pages and might be operating multiple accounts. It appears she has an issue with one of my contributions, as she created her account just 15 days ago, yet she already has a good understanding of tools like Twinkle and AfD procedures. This level of familiarity suggests prior experience on the platform. I am now requesting her account to be blocked as I am completely disturbed by her repeated allegations and disruptive behavior. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 11:32, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- I am now genuinely confused—if all my contributions are not good, then why am I even here? Were the experienced editors who reviewed and approved these pages also mistaken? A newcomer, who joined just recently, is now disrupting and questioning the validity of all the work that has been carefully reviewed and maintained by experienced contributors. This situation is deeply discouraging. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 11:58, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- Please resolve this situation—either block her for her disruptive behavior. How can i continue working under such constant targeting and stress ? 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 12:00, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- User:S-Aura, you seem to be making unsupported personal attacks against User:Kriji Sehamati. You should provide specific evidence of wrongdoing, including diffs, or your arguments here will fall on deaf ears (and bring consequences for you). Meanwhile, as a filer on ANI, you have brought all your own edits to close scrutiny by the community. You may have to face that smart people disagree, and this is how we sort disagreements out on English Misplaced Pages. You are not required to edit, but we encourage you to do so. Nobody is going to block Kriji Sehamati at this point, because you've given us no reason to do so. BusterD (talk) 12:01, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- Meanwhile, in the last few minutes S-Aura has disruptively created a second thread about this exact issue on this same board, which was reverted by another editor. This is intentional disruption. BusterD (talk) 12:07, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- As to the question "Why am I here?", poets and artists have been trying to answer this question for eons. Epistemology is outside the scope of this board, but there are articles about it. Show up to edit if you want to, but expect disagreement from time to time. (That's actually a sound answer to any epistemology question as well.) BusterD (talk) 12:16, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- Dear @BusterD,
- It means I have been proven wrong, and that user’s contributions have been more focused on me, which is quite insufficient to catch someone’s lie that she is pretending to be new, when in fact she is old.
- Also, I am not against AfD; I am simply expressing my opinion. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 13:12, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- Could you please rephrase your point here? I don't understand. While it's okay to be suspicious that this editor is somehow socking or doing something else deceptive due to the familiarity, it seems unacceptable to deliberately accuse them of such repeatedly without firmer evidence. Remsense ‥ 论 13:19, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- Dear @Remsense,
- I am not engaged in paid activities on Misplaced Pages, and she claimed that I am connected with the subject, who is a judge, lawyer, etc. You all should understand that this is not a trivial matter; justice is a very respected position. Making such allegations can escalate court cases. I would like to remind you of the Misplaced Pages vs. ANI case. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 13:24, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- One thing you need to understand immediately is you should never make another post that sounds vaguely like a legal threat, as you've just done above. Seriously. That intonation is seriously not helping us decide who's right or wrong here. Remsense ‥ 论 13:27, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- I will caution you that this is tiptoeing right up to the edge of WP:NLT and you'd be advised to avoid making legal threats. Simonm223 (talk) 13:28, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- Dear @Simonm223,
- I am merely showing that she can potentially do something inappropriate. I am following the guidelines and not making any legal threats. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 13:31, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- Accusing another editor of potentially making legal threats is not much better, when there is no concrete evidence that they would do so. Being interested in articles about judges does not suffice. Remsense ‥ 论 13:32, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- The page of Justice Subramonium Prasad, who had conducted over the Misplaced Pages vs. ANI court hearing, was also created by me. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 13:28, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
State plainly what the implication you are making here is, because what I'm hearing is "I'm familiar with people who have hit Misplaced Pages with a mallet in court before, and I can make sure it happens again".Remsense ‥ 论 13:30, 24 December 2024 (UTC)- This is becoming a rabbit hole. I urge you not to pursue the rabbit further. BusterD (talk) 13:33, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- Good call, I'll retract the above. Remsense ‥ 论 13:34, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- No, that is not what I am implying. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 13:33, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- This is becoming a rabbit hole. I urge you not to pursue the rabbit further. BusterD (talk) 13:33, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- Could you please rephrase your point here? I don't understand. While it's okay to be suspicious that this editor is somehow socking or doing something else deceptive due to the familiarity, it seems unacceptable to deliberately accuse them of such repeatedly without firmer evidence. Remsense ‥ 论 13:19, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- Meanwhile, in the last few minutes S-Aura has disruptively created a second thread about this exact issue on this same board, which was reverted by another editor. This is intentional disruption. BusterD (talk) 12:07, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- User:S-Aura, you seem to be making unsupported personal attacks against User:Kriji Sehamati. You should provide specific evidence of wrongdoing, including diffs, or your arguments here will fall on deaf ears (and bring consequences for you). Meanwhile, as a filer on ANI, you have brought all your own edits to close scrutiny by the community. You may have to face that smart people disagree, and this is how we sort disagreements out on English Misplaced Pages. You are not required to edit, but we encourage you to do so. Nobody is going to block Kriji Sehamati at this point, because you've given us no reason to do so. BusterD (talk) 12:01, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- No one has said your contributions are not good. However, it should be noted that a draft being accepted at AfC or a new page having been patrolled does not guarantee greater scrutiny would not result in a valid AfD nomination. That said, echoing others here it's clear something problematic is up with this user's behavior. Remsense ‥ 论 12:02, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- Please resolve this situation—either block her for her disruptive behavior. How can i continue working under such constant targeting and stress ? 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 12:00, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- You can't both criticize someone for
lack understanding of basic Misplaced Pages guidelines, particularly those related WP:GNG and WP:NPOL
, and then argue that she is too familiar with the platform to be a newcomer for knowing how to file an AfD. I wouldn't be surprised if most people here knew how to file an AfD before knowing all 14 notability guidelines by heart. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 12:59, 24 December 2024 (UTC)- There are detailed instructions on filing an AfD that can be found by googling "how can I get a Misplaced Pages page deleted" - if somebody had some personal reason for wanting to have pages removed it doesn't strain credibility to think that's why they created a WP account and that they just followed the very clear instructions on the appropriate pages.
- In fact that might explain why some of the AfD filings were reasonable and some were, on their face, incorrectly filed. If you looked up the AfD process but not criteria that is the likely outcome. That's why I find the "new user files AfDs must be a sock" idea here somewhat uncompelling. Simonm223 (talk) 13:04, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- I am now genuinely confused—if all my contributions are not good, then why am I even here? Were the experienced editors who reviewed and approved these pages also mistaken? A newcomer, who joined just recently, is now disrupting and questioning the validity of all the work that has been carefully reviewed and maintained by experienced contributors. This situation is deeply discouraging. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 11:58, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- It seems that she is not new to Misplaced Pages and might be operating multiple accounts. It appears she has an issue with one of my contributions, as she created her account just 15 days ago, yet she already has a good understanding of tools like Twinkle and AfD procedures. This level of familiarity suggests prior experience on the platform. I am now requesting her account to be blocked as I am completely disturbed by her repeated allegations and disruptive behavior. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 11:32, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- I believe we're entering boomerang territory at this point. Opinions? BusterD (talk) 13:35, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- I think OP is upset that a cluster of their articles were put up at AfD. This in itself is understandable, but while there's reason to think there might be mischief by Kriji Sehamati, we don't have any real evidence of it. We either need the OP to make it clearer what misconduct, if any, has occurred, or they need to drop the stick. Remsense ‥ 论 13:37, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- The OP has been intentionally disruptive (by creating a new ANI thread which was reverted), and this thread is going nowhere. IMHO, there's nothing ANI can do here. Everything I'm reading about should be resolved at the page talk and user talk level, in my opinion. The AfDs are underway. If dispute resolution is needed, fine. Nobody is harming S-Aura. S-Aura can't come crying to ANI (or four random user talk pages like mine) anytime someone merely disagrees with them. BusterD (talk) 14:08, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- I'd have said close with trout for all if not for creating the second thread at AN/I. Based on that I'd say the OP should be formally cautioned against such antics in the future. Simonm223 (talk) 14:10, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- I should have added that I largely hold with Remsense in their position. BusterD (talk) 14:15, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- User:Kriji Sehamati is definitely a sock puppet on Misplaced Pages, but we don’t have any evidence because understanding Misplaced Pages’s AfD process so quickly can be a bit challenging. I have no problem with AfD regarding my contributions, and it’s a good thing that experienced contributors are giving their feedback. If you believe that the kriji is 100% correct and her activity is not suspicious, then this discussion should be closed. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 14:27, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- You need to stop insisting this is definitely the case if you don't have any evidence for it, period. Remsense ‥ 论 14:28, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- S-Aura, how did you make the determination
User:Kriji Sehamati is definitely a sock puppet on Misplaced Pages
? Please share your process. That's a personal attack, and requires proof to prevent you from being in violation of WP:NOPERSONALATTACKS. I've looked at the AfDs and they seem reasonable to me. When you've provided strong sources the article is being kept. So far the jury is out on the others. Both of you seem to be writing articles about obscure living persons who wouldn't normally (by my cursory reading) have a Misplaced Pages article about them because reliable sourcing is not readily found. When I see that, I must suspect COI or undeclared unpaid editing here, but nobody's admitting to it. BusterD (talk) 15:05, 24 December 2024 (UTC) - S-Aura's continuing to issue personal attacks makes it more difficult for us to just close this (without some form of consequence for the editor making unproven personal attacks after they've been warned repeatedly). BusterD (talk) 15:08, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- I have made a level-four user talk page warning for the personal attack. FYI. We've been very nice about this up 'til now, but we need to stop being so kind. Doing foolish things has real world consequences. BusterD (talk) 15:17, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- User:Kriji Sehamati is definitely a sock puppet on Misplaced Pages, but we don’t have any evidence because understanding Misplaced Pages’s AfD process so quickly can be a bit challenging. I have no problem with AfD regarding my contributions, and it’s a good thing that experienced contributors are giving their feedback. If you believe that the kriji is 100% correct and her activity is not suspicious, then this discussion should be closed. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 14:27, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- The OP has been intentionally disruptive (by creating a new ANI thread which was reverted), and this thread is going nowhere. IMHO, there's nothing ANI can do here. Everything I'm reading about should be resolved at the page talk and user talk level, in my opinion. The AfDs are underway. If dispute resolution is needed, fine. Nobody is harming S-Aura. S-Aura can't come crying to ANI (or four random user talk pages like mine) anytime someone merely disagrees with them. BusterD (talk) 14:08, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- I think OP is upset that a cluster of their articles were put up at AfD. This in itself is understandable, but while there's reason to think there might be mischief by Kriji Sehamati, we don't have any real evidence of it. We either need the OP to make it clearer what misconduct, if any, has occurred, or they need to drop the stick. Remsense ‥ 论 13:37, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- Both editors' apparent use of AI is certainly disruptive. If it continues, it should lead to blocks. C F A 15:10, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- No personal hate intended, but I just found this and thought it would be worth checking. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 16:49, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- It would be nice if you could explain the significance for those who do not speak Hausa. Remsense ‥ 论 16:51, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- She had made contributions to pages in other languages a few months ago. I am attaching her contributions link. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 16:59, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- How does this constitute evidence of sockpuppetry if we aren't to know what exactly happened? There's a reason we don't just automatically block anybody who is blocked on another language wiki, and I looked through the edits some and didn't find anything outrageous that made it past the language barrier. Remsense ‥ 论 17:01, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- I agree that it’s important to ensure we have solid evidence before making conclusions. I appreciate your perspective on not automatically blocking users based on blocks from other language wikis. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 17:17, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- Please don't reply to me or others using ChatGPT. It is flat-out rude. Remsense ‥ 论 17:18, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- I agree that it’s important to ensure we have solid evidence before making conclusions. I appreciate your perspective on not automatically blocking users based on blocks from other language wikis. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 17:17, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- How does this constitute evidence of sockpuppetry if we aren't to know what exactly happened? There's a reason we don't just automatically block anybody who is blocked on another language wiki, and I looked through the edits some and didn't find anything outrageous that made it past the language barrier. Remsense ‥ 论 17:01, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- She had made contributions to pages in other languages a few months ago. I am attaching her contributions link. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 16:59, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- It would be nice if you could explain the significance for those who do not speak Hausa. Remsense ‥ 论 16:51, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- No personal hate intended, but I just found this and thought it would be worth checking. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 16:49, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- Support BOOMERANG - I've been uninvoled and have mainly just been watching the back-and-forths, but the personal attacks and VESTED mindset, such as "questioning the validity of all the work that has been carefully reviewed and maintained by experienced contributors", concerns me. Not sure for how long, but I don't think anything longer than a months is appropriate given the circumstances. EF 15:47, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- This whole thread, but especially the 16:49, 24 December 2024 (UTC) comment, feels like the OP is just throwing literally everything at the wall to see what sticks. But, worse, what is being thrown at the wall lacks any significant body of evidence to support. I note that a personal attack warning has been given for the continued unfounded accusations being presented, which I think is a good move. I don't support a block at this point, although if I was the OP I would withdraw this complaint and/or drop the stick and walk away from this topic as a matter of urgency to avoid continuing to make the situation worse. Daniel (talk) 17:41, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
Darkwarriorblake making aspersions
The OP says they don't care any more which I'm reading as a withdrawal and the other party says they won't be responding again so I'm closing this discussion. My only comment is that both editors in this dispute should have brought this to the article talk page to talk this disagreement out. I don't know if the differences would be resolved but this is what we advise editors to do when their edits are reverted. Now I just have to get that scene in the movie out of my mind. Liz 05:54, 24 December 2024 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Postscript: Ah, someone just close this, I don't care any more. — Hex • talk 22:56, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
I'm posting here after a particularly underwhelming interaction with an editor in the form of edit summaries. I'll need to provide the context of a brief content dispute which hopefully won't take too long and then get to the point. I'm not asking for anyone to take my side in the dispute.
Trading Places is a widely acclaimed comedy film from 1983, which is also widely acknowledged to have problematic elements by modern standards, including a scene in which the villain of the piece, stuck in a gorilla costume, is locked in a cage with a real gorilla, which is implied to sexually penetrate him without his consent.
The article states that G. Gordon Liddy demurred being cast in the role upon finding that out. The citation for this claim is a listicle on Indiewire, which contains the sentence
- Reportedly, Liddy was on board until he got to the part where Beeks becomes a gorilla’s mate.
Reportedly by whom is not mentioned, let alone is there a direct quotation from Liddy. Plus as can be seen the words "becomes a gorilla's mate" are linked to a very poor quality, hand-held video of the scene in question playing on a television. This alone should be enough to raise serious questions about the use of this "source" in a featured article.
The content dispute began when I changed it like this (diff) with the comment Don't mince words; the interaction between Beeks and the gorilla is rape played for laughs:
| − | Liddy was interested in the offer until he learned that Beeks | + | Liddy was interested in the offer until he learned that Beeks is raped by a gorilla. |
This was reverted (diff) by Darkwarriorblake with the comment not what the source says.
After thinking about it a moment I came to the conclusion described above about the quality of the source, and decided that it was better out than in, which is what I should have done in the first place.(diff)
| − | ...was offered the role of corrupt official Clarence Beeks | + | ...was offered the role of corrupt official Clarence Beeks with Paul Gleason eventually taking the role;... |
My accompanying comment was (a) That was the source's voice, not Liddy's. It's called a euphemism. Demonstrable by how it links to a clip of the scene in which a man is raped by a gorilla. (b) Source says "reportedly" for this claim, without evidence. Poor quality source. Removing claim
That was reverted by Darkwarriorblake (diff) with the comment Nothing wrong with Indiewire as a source, if there is I'd raise it at Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources. Until then, there's a talk page for you to use per WP:BRD. Your comments sound agenda driven and therefore not Neutral.
This is where the reason for me to raise this at this board begins, because that's solidly an example of casting aspersions. It came on top of a revert which reintroduced a claim cited to a rumor in a blog post into a featured article, but that's really not my concern, because if the champions of the featured article process have decided that it's somehow acceptable for our "best" content then I'm just going to move on to something else rather than argue.
There's one final back and forth which was enough to motivate me to post here. First, I reverted that revert (, my only time using the actual "Undo" button today), with this comment: a good source doesn't say "reportedly" (ie, spread a rumor), it specifies the origin of a fact. My only "agenda" is with a crap listicle being used as a reference, regardless of who published it. Take it to talk if you want to argue for the continued inclusion of a trash ref in a featured article, or source the claim properly yourself.
This was reverted - again - by Darkwarriorblake (diff) with the comment How are you an admin? "rape played for laughs" is an agenda, this went through FA as is so WP:STATUSQUO and WP:BRD apply. You must go to the talk page, not I. I don't know if you're going through a bad time or something but this isn't how an admin should be acting or communicating with others, up to and including WP:EDITWARRING
At this point it's gone firmly into the realm of knee-jerk reversions, because if Darkwarriorblake took the time to read the article which they've reverting changes to for years (is this ownership? Kind of feels that way), they would get down to the critical reassessment section. Which says "some critics have praised the film while highlighting elements that they believe aged poorly, including racial language, the use of blackface, and the implied rape of Beeks by a gorilla", cited to articles in four major publications. Or, you know, even search Google for "Trading Places gorilla rape".
So anyhow regardless of whether the Indiewire source is deemed suitable or not, I'm just wondering what the feeling here is about someone making goofy assertions on the record that another editor has "an agenda" (what agenda could it be?) and may not be emotionally stable, which really doesn't feel like assuming good faith at all. — Hex • talk 20:03, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- Hrrm, this seems a bit excessive.
- I've added a second source for the claim. Really this should've been the first option rather than removing the content.
- The first summary was, as stated, "Don't mince words; the interaction between Beeks and the gorilla is rape played for laughs". "Rape played for laughs" is a loaded comment and not something said in the article or the source text, so it's a personal opinion, it's not neutral, it's agenda-driven.
- When this was reverted, the editor just removed the content entirely claiming IndieWire was unreliable. There is, as far as I'm aware, nothing wrong with Indiewire. I've since found a second source, the Telegraph, which is reliable per Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Perennial sources.
- The editor ignored WP: BRD when raised, and as an admin they should adhere to policy.
- The editor states that they are an admin on their page. Assuming this is true, the aggressiveness of their edits, hyper focus on the single area, and use of words like "crap listicle" seemed out of line with what I, personally, would expect from an admin on Misplaced Pages, certainly someone who has been so for nearly two decades. Perhaps the edit summary wasn't the place to have that discussion but, as stated, they weren't adhering to WP: BRD to start a discussion, and in the interim the article needed putting back to the status quo.
- I find accusations of OWNERSHIP often tend to come when people don't get their way. Which is fine. I have plenty of reversions on the page for people adding unsourced content and there are plenty of changes as well. I find someone removing sourced content and me putting the sourced content back to not really be something you can fling ownership at.
- Within the context of the film, Beeks does become the romantic partner of the gorilla, it seemed more appropriate and encylcopedic text than just saying 'rape', and neither source I've added says that either.
- Anyways, my edit history shows I'm a massive contributor and helper and it's nearly Xmas, and I don't feel like engaging with this any further, good luck Hex. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 20:27, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- Of course you don't, having ignored the actual matter of your conduct that I'm raising here. Your comments about the content of the article are irrelevant. — Hex • talk 20:43, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- Hex's position is not wholly supported, although in the entire issue, their toolset is irrelevant. There was no incivility on either part, and an all-out edit war seems to have been averted.Fundamentally the change Hex wanted to make was pure OR; rape may have been intimated—or, as Hex themself admits, implied—but its never overtly stated and is a wholly loaded term. This is the interpretation of an editor, not of secondary sources. If there is a pron=blem with Indywire as a source—currently used in 1000s of articles—take it to WP:RSN. If it's disputed that it's a high quality source per WP:FA?, then take it to WT:FAC. Accusations of OWNership are as unhelpful—and as much an aspersion—as accusations of agenda-led editing. In fact, for OWNership, Hex should read the relevant policy: here, it is WP:FAOWN, which not only allows for careful stewardship of featured material, but requires significant changes to the consensus version to be discussed on talk; I don't suppose there's any suggestion that introducing rape—particularly "played for laughs"—wouldn't be a significant addition.Really though, this is an overblown content dispute which should have started with one revert each, and ended on the talk page. --SerialNumber54129 21:10, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- "Never overtly stated... 'played for laughs' be a significant addition" - here's an interview with John Landis, the director.
One of the executives was deeply appalled by a man being sexually molested by a gorilla. And I said you know, it's a joke and it goes by very quickly. But the first preview was very successful and it all went away.
- Feel free to amend the article on that basis. I'm certainly not interested in spending any more time on it. — Hex • talk 22:48, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- "Never overtly stated... 'played for laughs' be a significant addition" - here's an interview with John Landis, the director.
Followup
I just want to say that, now that we've had an ANI thread on the subjeect of Gordon Liddy's feelings about portraying the romantic partner of a gorilla, I can die happy.
While we're on the subject, our article on Liddy recites that Prior to his departure from the FBI in 1962, Liddy sought admission to various bars.
I'm curious to know whether this is meant to imply that Liddy had a drinking problem, and whether this could have had any bearing on the whole gorilla romantic partner situation. EEng
User Stationmanagerskidrow removing information on Radio Skid Row page
User:Stationmanagerskidrow is repeatedly removing information about a recent incident involving a Jewish DJ at their station. They say that it is incorrect information, even though it is sourced. The name also states clearly that this is a company account. Lastly, they have continued this behavior even after being warned on their talk page. Pyramids09 (talk) 03:07, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- User is now editing using User:159.196.168.116 Pyramids09 (talk) 03:34, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- This is a content dispute and the article is being actively edited by many different editors. However, no discussion about the disagreements has occurred on the article talk page which is where this discussion should be happening. Liz 04:37, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
That article probably should be speedied as an A7 for not containing any assertions of notability; which obscures that Stationmanagerskidrow appears to have been edit warring on it with an undisclosed COI, and presumably was WP:LOUTSOCKing as this IP, and if so violated 3RR as well. It's probably best for me not to take administrative action here tonight as I won't be around later/tomorrow to deal with any followups, but something should be done here beyond just saying "take it to the talk page." ⇒SWATJester 06:22, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- The page was longer, but sourced (all but?) soley to the station's site and it's been trimmed down to what it is now. Given the repeated edit-warring by IPs I've semi-protected the page for two days for now. - The Bushranger One ping only 07:59, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- WP:USERNAME and WP:COI message added here. I'm just about to make myself thoroughly WP:INVOLVED by seeing what I can do about the Radio Skid Row article. Shirt58 (talk) 🦘 09:11, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
Insults
I'd like to report an incident related to this discussion. A person under IP already accused me of being "obsessed". Now someone (possibly the same person) suggests that I may need psychiatric help. Please also see this comment. I guess we can always agree to disagree with other people, but this is going a bit too far. Thank you. Psychloppos (talk) 09:30, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- Hello, Psychloppos. What action are you seeking to happen here? Liz 09:42, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- I have no idea which actions are warranted here. Maybe an admin could leave a message to this IP and this registered user and remind them that they should assume good faith ? It would also be nice to remind them about Misplaced Pages:Civility and Misplaced Pages:No personal attacks. Saying that I am "fuelled by an unhealthy obsession" or questioning my sanity do not seem to respect those guidelines. Psychloppos (talk) 09:52, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- Normally this starts with warnings on the user's Talk page, but it seems you two have already hashed that out. So unless this account does it again, there's no further action to be taken. — The Hand That Feeds You: 18:25, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
- FYI, following this, I have made this sockpuppet investigation request. Psychloppos (talk) 13:48, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
- Normally this starts with warnings on the user's Talk page, but it seems you two have already hashed that out. So unless this account does it again, there's no further action to be taken. — The Hand That Feeds You: 18:25, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
- 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)
Request for Review of Neutrality and Repeated Actions
This complaint has no merit and does not require administrative intervention.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:08, 24 December 2024 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Dear admin, I hope this message finds you well. I am writing to express my concern regarding Psycholoppos, who has repeatedly applied the neutrality dispute tag to content related to Randa Kassis. Despite previous clarifications, these actions suggest a potential bias, which could undermine the objectivity and integrity of the platform.
I kindly request that you review this matter and take appropriate steps to ensure that all users adhere to neutrality standards. If possible, I would also appreciate guidance on how to address such situations constructively in the future.
Thank you for your attention to this issue. Please feel free to reach out if further clarification is needed. Hazar HS (talk) 17:45, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Hazar Sam, whether the NPOV tag is needed or not should first be discussed on the article's talk page. Also, see the large notice at the top of this page: you are required to notify the editor you are reporting. Schazjmd (talk) 17:53, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- The editor is also called Psychloppos, not Psycholoppos. I have notified them for the OP. – 2804:F1...26:F77C (::/32) (talk) 17:59, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- I wouldn't give a chatbot-written thread the time of day. HS, we have less tolerance for AI-written arguments than the American court system. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v 18:05, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- Note: I moved this retaliatory post to be a sub-heading of the original issue. — The Hand That Feeds You: 18:34, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
Nlkyair012 and LLM chatbots
This editor has been constantly using AI chatbots to respond and write messages. They are a single purpose account for glorifying the Kamaria Ahir caste using unreliable WP:RAJ era sources, I and several other experienced editors have taken time and effort to respond to their endless queries and WP:SEALIONING generated using ChatGPT. They have posted AI generated walls of text on multiple noticeboards such as WP:RSN and WP:DRN and including here , accusing me of vandalism.
Despite my repeated requests and even a final warning to them (including a request by @ActivelyDisinterested:) they are still continuing to do it. Their messages are repeating the same argument again and again and are frankly just hallucinations that bring up fictitious guidelines or misrepresent the existing ones. Several editors have told them that Raj era sources are not reliable yet they continue to ask for more evidence on why that is the case based on AI generated claims of supposed academic value or neutrality. This is getting very disruptive and taking up valuable contributor time to respond to their endless AI responses which take a few seconds to generate. I have alerted them about WP:GSCASTE and WP:ARBIPA, I would appreciate it if someone could enforce a restriction on this user from at minimum caste area. - Ratnahastin (talk) 13:07, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- Hello @Ratnahastin,
- To start with I should admit that I am sorry for all the inconvenience that I may have caused as a result of my actions. It was never my intention to take people’s time or skew the conversation in a certain way. I appreciate the core idea to contribute the thoughts to the Wiki and share it borne in mind the overall rules and policies of this program.
- I understand your fears about the AI utilities you have mentioned on your site. Even when I was using AI for the grammar check or, for instance, to elaborate on some point in the text, I saw to my mismanagement that over the process we probably confused the readers and repeated the same information and thoughts, which I would never wish to happen again. From now on I will ensure that in the future the input which I provide to wikipedia fits the Misplaced Pages standard and is more personal. I will also not write walls of text and will not make assertations that do not have substantiated evidence in sources.
- As for subjects that concern the Raj and the sources from this period and the discussions we have had it seems that I have gone too far in demanding clarification for the same thing. That being the case, with the understanding that the consensus will be acknowledged, I shall not be inclined to reopen this discussion unless new substantiated evidence is produced. I don’t want to prolong the conversation or bring any more stress.
- I will strive to learn from my experience to be more productive in my interactions going forward. If there are other limitations or additional rules to which I have to stick to, I will receive them with pleasure.
- In the same respect, let me specially apologize for the inconvenience and thank all of you for bearing with us. That was why I wanted to remind all of us that we can and should keep collectively improving Misplaced Pages as a resource. Nlkyair012 13:31, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- This comment also has a typical LLM feel and contains meaningless statements such as "I understand your fears about the AI utilities you have mentioned on your site" and differs substantially from your usual (non-AI) writing style, although GPTzero said this is human input. - Ratnahastin (talk) 13:38, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- It seems human in that it contains some composition and grammar errors that I don’t think an LLM would produce. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 13:56, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for the reply sir, I can't explain how frustrated I'm feeling from this morning which this user made me experience Nlkyair012 14:02, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- The time when I messaged Vikram banafar I was casual not formal and second of all your saying doesn't prove anything "and differs substantially from your usual (non-AI) writing style" that's a straight up false accusation and utter nonsensical point and 3rd point being that GPTzero stated that this is a human input then that's an human input end of the question. Nlkyair012 14:01, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- No it's really not the end of the story if GPTZero says "likely human". In fact I'd actively discourage people depending on tools like GPTZero in favour of their human senses which are better at detecting LLM outputs than yet another computer program. And, frankly, what you're hearing from people here is we'd rather your casual, human, flaws-and-all style of writing over ChatGPT output "formal" report templates. They are doing the opposite of what you're looking for and have become disruptive. Simonm223 (talk) 14:05, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- Man you still wanna do this? @Zanahary also says this doesn't seems AI generated to him and he used his actual "Human senses" to lean that way Nlkyair012 14:10, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- Admitting that you have used AI for writing your comments and then saying that you have not used AI is not going to help your case. - Ratnahastin (talk) 14:36, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- You know what I think this is getting to the WP:NOTHERE point. Having to tell somebody to have the basic respect of other editors to not subject them to text-walls of chatGPT garbage over and over again is a disruptive distraction from what we should all be doing. Simonm223 (talk) 14:38, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- This ain't getting anywhere Nlkyair012 14:59, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- I really don't understand the problem. Cuz I literally also said many where that yes I used AI but for expanding and grammar correction Nlkyair012 14:54, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- You know what I think this is getting to the WP:NOTHERE point. Having to tell somebody to have the basic respect of other editors to not subject them to text-walls of chatGPT garbage over and over again is a disruptive distraction from what we should all be doing. Simonm223 (talk) 14:38, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- Admitting that you have used AI for writing your comments and then saying that you have not used AI is not going to help your case. - Ratnahastin (talk) 14:36, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- Man you still wanna do this? @Zanahary also says this doesn't seems AI generated to him and he used his actual "Human senses" to lean that way Nlkyair012 14:10, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- If this combative approach is your "casual" style, perhaps your use of AI and its over the top politeness was an attempt to mask it. In any case, I think you are not here for building an encyclopaedia but for caste glorification given your obsession with a certain sub-caste. - Ratnahastin (talk) 14:33, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- im not obsessed with a certain subcaste but am sure is obsessed with British Raj sources. Nlkyair012 14:56, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- I don't think that's better. Shovel Shenanigans (talk) 15:44, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- im not obsessed with a certain subcaste but am sure is obsessed with British Raj sources. Nlkyair012 14:56, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- No it's really not the end of the story if GPTZero says "likely human". In fact I'd actively discourage people depending on tools like GPTZero in favour of their human senses which are better at detecting LLM outputs than yet another computer program. And, frankly, what you're hearing from people here is we'd rather your casual, human, flaws-and-all style of writing over ChatGPT output "formal" report templates. They are doing the opposite of what you're looking for and have become disruptive. Simonm223 (talk) 14:05, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- It seems human in that it contains some composition and grammar errors that I don’t think an LLM would produce. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 13:56, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- If we just temporarily put aside the AI-generated comments, can Nlkyair012 accept the view of experienced editors on Raj era sources and not push any viewpoint on a particulary caste? Because, to be honest, editors who have done this in the past usually end up indefinitely blocked. There is a low tolderance here for "caste warriors". Liz 19:27, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- This comment also has a typical LLM feel and contains meaningless statements such as "I understand your fears about the AI utilities you have mentioned on your site" and differs substantially from your usual (non-AI) writing style, although GPTzero said this is human input. - Ratnahastin (talk) 13:38, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
Potential vandal trying to start edit war on the page for Frisch's.
Page protected, and now this admin is flashing back to his youth going to Frisch's Big Boy in Tampa. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:37, 24 December 2024 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This user keeps using IP addresses in order to revert creditable information about who makes their tartar sauce. Please look into this user. IP Addresses used were 67.80.16.30, 66.117.211.82, and 216.24.107.180. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JrStudios The Wikipedian (talk • contribs) 15:17, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- Courtesy link Frisch's. Knitsey (talk) 17:02, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
This sounds a lot like the same edit warrer I dealt with on Redbox, down to the false accusations of vandalism, removal of sourced information, and apparent use of proxies (all the IPs geolocate to different places). I wouldn't be surprised if this is the same person.I've asked RFPP to intervene. wizzito | say hello! 21:05, 24 December 2024 (UTC)- NVM, checked MaxMind for geolocation and they all are in the same general area. wizzito | say hello! 21:08, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
User:Nadeem asghar khan inaccurate edit summaries
All but 2 of user's edit summaries are "Fixed Typo" when they are in fact partially updating statistical information on the page. Have left multiple messages/warnings on TP, with no response. Spike 'em (talk) 16:03, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
Lil Dicky Semi-Protection
WP:RFPP is thataway →. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:34, 24 December 2024 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Lil Dicky was semi-protected back in 2019. Now that five years have passed, could the semi-protection be lifted? 174.93.89.27 (talk) 16:25, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.Disruptive behavior from IP
For the past month, 24.206.65.142 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has been attempting to add misleading information to Boeing 777, specifically trying to use the unofficial "777-200LRF" designation beyond first mention in the relevant section and passing it off as official (, , , , , , , , , , ). Their behavior died down for a few weeks, but restarted several days ago (, ), including baseless claims that Fnlayson is "okay with it". They have been asked numerous times on their talk page to either stop or provide evidence of official use of the designation, but they have failed to do so and have continued their disruption. - ZLEA T\ 19:51, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
I forgot to mention that this user has used at least two other IPs; 24.206.75.140 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 24.206.65.150 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). 24.206.65.142 is the most recent to cause disruption. - ZLEA T\ 20:10, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- "777-200LRF" is not misleading, some cargo airlines do use that designation. Today I reverted to a previous version that User:Fnlayson was okay with . I feel that User:ZLEA is going overboard with charges of misinformation and disruptive editing. 24.206.65.142 (talk) 19:59, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- It is misleading to remove any mentions of it being unofficial. Boeing has never made a "777-200LRF", no aftermarket conversion has ever been offered under that name, nor has the FAA or any other regulatory agency ever certified such an aircraft. To pass such a designation off as official is by definition misleading and misinformation. Likewise, to continuously do so after you have been told to stop by multiple people and falsely claiming that others support your arguments is by definition disruptive. - ZLEA T\ 20:06, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- Of note is the fact that this is not the first time the IP has claimed to have Fnlayson's support. They have been told before by Fnlayson not to assume support without a specific statement, yet it seems they've also ignored that. - ZLEA T\ 20:23, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- Its not misinformation as here are the sources which use "777-200LRF", including GE Capital Aviation (the engine supplier for most Boeing 777) and Leeham News (to avoid confusion with the upcoming 777-8F). 24.206.65.142 (talk) 21:06, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- I have asked you for sources from either Boeing or the FAA, yet you still either refuse to do so or (more likely) cannot because they don't exist. Only Boeing and the FAA can designate factory-built Boeing aircraft. Airlines and misinformed news websites have no authority to do so, and any alternative names they use are purely unofficial and should not have anything more than a single brief mention in the appropriate article section. Your failure or refusal to get that after numerous people have told you is disruptive. - ZLEA T\ 22:14, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- None of those are reliable sources suitable for sustaining the edit you want to make. #1 would only support that airline claiming to have that kind of plane. #2 is a model manufacturer, and #3 is a blog. — The Hand That Feeds You: 18:37, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
- Its not misinformation as here are the sources which use "777-200LRF", including GE Capital Aviation (the engine supplier for most Boeing 777) and Leeham News (to avoid confusion with the upcoming 777-8F). 24.206.65.142 (talk) 21:06, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- Relevant range is 24.206.64.0/20 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)), in case somebody needs it. wizzito | say hello! 21:02, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- Semiprotected Boeing 777 for two days. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:33, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
Rude and unfestive language in my talk page
My esteemed editor collegue Marcus Markup just left this rude message on my talk page, on Christmas Day no less. Not really in the spirit of the season, I'd say. Considering that he was sagaciously advising me on the importance of tact and etiquette in the very same thread, he should be held to the same standard. Vector legacy (2010) (talk) 17:54, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
- Vector legacy (2010) and Marcus Markup, you both should stop that childish behavior and disengage from one another. Cullen328 (talk) 18:10, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
- Uh, “suck a bag of dicks” seems a cut above anything childish in VL2010’s conduct. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 08:05, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
- True, and given a warning accordingly - but Vector legacy's user page is also...interesting. - The Bushranger One ping only 09:31, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
- Vector Legacy's comments in that discussion are clearly poking the bear, both should be warned. On top of that, Vector has broken the 3RR rule with these 4 reverts: , , , . They acknowledge in the edit summary of the 4th that they know of the 3RR rule and that their first edit was a revert. The last revert in particular, effectively saying "haha, you can't make any more reverts because you've already made 3" when the user themselves has made 4, is really not smart nor constructive/collaborative. Valenciano (talk) 10:12, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
- I'm normally a stickler for civility, but frankly in this case I actually think Vector legacy (2010) is the bigger problem. Marcus's Markup comment is something they can hopefully easily learn not to do and could have been an extremely unfortunate one-off in a bad situation. By comparison it seems that Vector legacy (2010) is treating editing here as a game where they win edit wars rather than collaborate constructively. I have little hope this is an attitude easily changed so a WP:NOTHERE block might be justified soon. Nil Einne (talk) Nil Einne (talk) 12:25, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Yes. The idea of WP:3RR is that the protagonists should discuss things on the article talk page before that point is reached, not to use it as a stick to beat other editors with. I note that Vector legacy (2010)'s user page admits to a lot of edit warring, and it discloses a WP:BATTLEGROUND attitude. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:31, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
- Vector Legacy's comments in that discussion are clearly poking the bear, both should be warned. On top of that, Vector has broken the 3RR rule with these 4 reverts: , , , . They acknowledge in the edit summary of the 4th that they know of the 3RR rule and that their first edit was a revert. The last revert in particular, effectively saying "haha, you can't make any more reverts because you've already made 3" when the user themselves has made 4, is really not smart nor constructive/collaborative. Valenciano (talk) 10:12, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
- True, and given a warning accordingly - but Vector legacy's user page is also...interesting. - The Bushranger One ping only 09:31, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
- Uh, “suck a bag of dicks” seems a cut above anything childish in VL2010’s conduct. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 08:05, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
User:Ryancasey93
31-hour block. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:06, 26 December 2024 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- Ryancasey93 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Over at Talk:Anti-Barney humor, a user by the name of Ryancasey93 requested that their YouTube channel be cited in a passage about them () that was added by TheLennyGriffinFan1994 (). The talk page discussion was removed by AntiDionysius as being promotional in nature. Ryancasey93 then decided to make an edit request to cite their channel, which was declined by LizardJr8, who then proceeded to remove the passage as being unsourced.
I then brought up concerns with WP:GNG and WP:COI with Ryancasey93, who then proceeded to respond in a needlessly confrontational and hostile manner, creating a chain of replies and pinging me and LizardJr8. Ryancasey93 then proceeded to go off on a tangent where they said we were "very rude and belittling" to them, told us they sent an email complaint against us, called us "the most cynical, dismissive, greedy, narcissistic, and ungrateful people I ever met in my entire life", accused us of discriminating against Autistic people (I am autistic myself, for the record), and called us "assholes".
Simply put, I feel as if Ryancasey93 does not have the emotional stability required to contribute to Misplaced Pages, having violated WP:NPA, WP:ASPERSIONS, and WP:PROMOTION, and a block may be needed. The Grand Delusion 19:47, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
- I just logged on while digesting turkey, and was alerted of the pings and this report. I don't really appreciate the messages from the user (I'm on the spectrum too, FWIW) but I think @Tamzin gave a good response, highlighting the need for secondary reliable sources. I should have done that better when I removed the unsourced information. I would like to see if there is any further activity from the user before getting into a block discussion. LizardJr8 (talk) 21:10, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
- Looks like they've been blocked for 31 hours by Cullen328. The Grand Delusion 23:15, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, that last comment was unacceptable in several ways. Cullen328 (talk) 00:57, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
- Looks like they've been blocked for 31 hours by Cullen328. The Grand Delusion 23:15, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
User:24.187.28.171
Blocked for 3 months for edit warring. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:32, 25 December 2024 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- 24.187.28.171 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
IP has been blocked before for previous infractions. Now, they continue to perform persistent disruptive edits contradicting the Manual of Style, either by deliberately introducing contradictions or undoing edits that resolve the issue. The user has also violated WP:DOB at Huntley (singer), though that remains unresolved for some reason. The IP has done all of this despite a backlog of warnings dating back to 2023. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EdrianJustine (talk • contribs) 22:48, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
- @EdrianJustine: could you please provide specific diffs? voorts (talk/contributions) 23:23, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
Incivility, aspersions, WP:NOTHERE from Cokeandbread
I revoked TPA, applied 3 weeks semi to the article + AfD, indef for the SPI, and tagged Hammy TV (what a name!). Thank you. El_C 11:44, 26 December 2024 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Cokeandbread (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Cokeandbread is a few-month-old account whose area of greatest focus has been creating (and defending) two promotional pages for social media influencer-types: Jimmy Rex and Hammy TV. Cokeandbread has refused (diff) to answer good-faith questions (diff, diff) about whether they are operating as a paid editor (responding to one of them with Don't threaten me
) and posted a copyvio to Commons (diff). Despite warnings (diff), the editor has been engaging in bludgeoning/disruptive behavior at the Jimmy Rex AfD (bludgeoning and attempting to !vote multiple times (diff, ) and has made uncivil remarks to other editors (diff, diff, diff), while demanding respect
in the other direction. Recently, Cokeandbread posted the following on their user page: The way some people in AfD discussions move, you just know some people commenting are under demonic influence. Stay away from me and mine.
(diff). Despite another warning (diff), which Cokeandbread removed when blanking their talk page (diff), this aspersion is still up. If we're at the point where an editor is accusing other editors of being demonically influenced, I think we're well into WP:NOTHERE territory. Given the lack of response to non-admin warnings and requests, I'd ask for admin intervention here. Dclemens1971 (talk) 23:34, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
- You're absolutely right. Editors should not be accusing other editors of being demonically influenced. They should WP:ASSUMEGODFAITH. EEng 00:04, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
- I concur, and have accordingly blocked. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:14, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
- Do have to wonder what's going on with that AfD given several accounts with only few contributions, contributions which themselves seem questionable, have somehow found it. But that's probably a question for WP:COIN or something. Nil Einne (talk) 02:28, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
- Suspicious indeed. There's an open case at SPI, although CheckUser did not confirm connections on the first batch of reported accounts. Dclemens1971 (talk) 02:35, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Actually see it's already been partly dealt with at Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Amaekuma. The geolocation point there is interesting, while I don't know what CUs are seeing it does seem likely given the other accounts wider interest these are editors from Nigeria which is another weird thing since there's nothing to suggest the subject is particularly known in Nigeria. Nil Einne (talk) 02:37, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
- ...after posting this as the end of a series of "I won" edits, they blanked their user talk page. Appears to have been a troll from the start. - The Bushranger One ping only 09:30, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
- Should have locked their TPA. Borgenland (talk) 09:49, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
- On another note, I would like to flag Hammy TV with some COI-related tag in light of this but I couldn't remember the exact template. Borgenland (talk) 09:52, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
- ...after posting this as the end of a series of "I won" edits, they blanked their user talk page. Appears to have been a troll from the start. - The Bushranger One ping only 09:30, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
Disruptive editing by Dngmin
- Dngmin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
The main issue with this editor at the moment is disruptive editing based on continuous abuse of Byeon Woo-seok. Issues began when this editor 1500+ bytes of sourced material. He did it again and again and again for past few days, thus creating a lot of work for others to undo.
Since october the user received warning for blocked from editing. Please help to block the user. diffs. PhilKnight Puchicatos (talk) 04:19, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
- I'm assuming the mention of diffs and @PhilKnight: was a cut and paste failure? - The Bushranger One ping only 07:00, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
New user creating a lot of new pages
I am not confident I understand what 4Gramtops is up to. They created 50+ new pages in their userspace. I have not a clue what they are meant to accomplish outside of testing. It just seems strange for a user with so few edits. There was no forthcoming response to my talk page messages trying to get an explanation (which I know they've seen since they used my heading as a new subpage title)
On a related note, they have also created this epilepsy nightmare. It's possible I'm just overthinking a simple troll here. –MJL ‐Talk‐ 07:35, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
- Gaming the system for permissions? - The Bushranger One ping only 09:28, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
- Given Special:PrefixIndex/User:4Gramtops/, I find it likeliest they're trying to learn Lua by using their userspace as a testing environment. Harmless but technically U5. Folly Mox (talk) 11:54, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
Undoing my blocks due to collateral damage
Hello, could an admin undo these blocks that I made? Blocks like these seem to have caused way more collateral damage than they're worth, per this message on an IP talk page (about a block I undid in October when I still had adminship) and this message on my talk page. Thanks! Graham87 (talk) 10:31, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
Ah, I've just done some checking, and it seems like, as ever, there's a template with unblock links. So here goes::
- 178.220.0.0/16 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • trace • RBLs • block log • unblock)
- 79.101.0.0/16 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • trace • RBLs • block log • unblock)
- 178.221.0.0/16 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • trace • RBLs • block log • unblock) Graham87 (talk) 12:24, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
Done BusterD (talk) 13:29, 26 December 2024 (UTC)