Misplaced Pages

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

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 21:30, 7 January 2015 editSomedifferentstuff (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users18,469 edits →Harassment of editors by Earl King Jr.: new section← Previous edit Latest revision as of 16:30, 25 December 2024 edit undoZaathras (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users5,812 editsm →None of this matters 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Short description|Noticeboard for reporting incidents to administrators}}<noinclude><!-- Inside the noinclude, because this page is transcluded.-->{{/Header}}</noinclude>{{clear}}
{{pp-sock|expiry=9 December 2014|small=yes}}
{{stack begin|float=right|clear=false|margin=false}}
<!-- Adds protection template automatically if page is semi-protected, inside the noinclude, because this page is transcluded. --><noinclude>{{#ifeq:{{PROTECTIONLEVEL:edit}}|autoconfirmed|{{pp|small=yes}}}}{{pp-move-indef}}{{Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentsHeader}}</noinclude>__NEWSECTIONLINK__
{{User:MiszaBot/config {{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{Administrators' noticeboard navbox all}} |archiveheader = {{Administrators' noticeboard navbox all}}
|maxarchivesize = 700K |maxarchivesize =800K
|counter = 867 |counter = 1174
|algo = old(36h) |algo = old(72h)
|key = 740a8315fa94aa42eb96fbc48a163504d444ec0297a671adeb246c17b137931c
|key = 95f2c40e2e81e8b5dbf1fc65d4152915
|archive = Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive%(counter)d |archive = Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive%(counter)d
|headerlevel=2
}}
}}
{{stack end}}
<!-- <!--
NEW ENTRIES GO AT THE BOTTOM OF THE PAGE NOT HERE
{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveThis
NEW ENTRIES GO AT THE BOTTOM OF THE PAGE NOT HERE
|header={{Administrators' noticeboard navbox all}}
NEW ENTRIES GO AT THE BOTTOM OF THE PAGE NOT HERE-->
|archiveprefix=Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive
== Disruptive editing and WP:TALKNO by ] ==
|format=%%i
|age=36
|index=no
|numberstart=826
|archivenow={{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow}}
|minarchthreads= 1
|minkeepthreads= 4
|maxarchsize= 700000
|key=d85a96a0151d501b0ad3ba6060505c0c
}} --><!--


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 .
-----------------------------------------------------------
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.
---------------------------------------------------------- -->


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 .
== Canvassing and campaigning, aspersion, POV pushing, editing in edits and editing to shame by User:P-123 ==
<!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 15:20, 17 December 2024 (UTC)</small>
{{archive top|The following remedies are enacted as community bans:
*{{user|P-123}} is ] for three months (expiry 12:00, 2 April 2015 (UTC)) from all pages broadly related to ], notwithstanding the ].
*{{user|GregKaye}} is warned that any further misconduct in the ] topic area will likely result in a topic ban.
*{{user|P-123}} and {{user|GregKaye}} are prohibited from ], each other anywhere on Misplaced Pages, for three months (expiry 12:00, 2 April 2015 (UTC)) notwithstanding the ].
These sanctions will be recorded at ] and will be enforced with escalating blocks. <b>]</b> (] • ] • ]) 00:29, 2 January 2015 (UTC)}}


:The other user in this case is ]? This looks like a content dispute over whether the article is on the English version of a German-Arabic dictionary or the dictionary itself. ] (]) 15:47, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
* {{userlinks|P-123}}, formerly P123ct1
::Yes the is indeed about ]. I see the content dispute as stemming from the fundamental conduct issue, which has manifested itself most egregiously with insisting on violating ] repeatedly even after I that I had and that they should refrain from changing the heading again in order to preserve the integrity of the link, after which they went ahead and . ] (]) 16:00, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
:::The heading dispute is between a date heading, and a descriptive heading? that's not really reformulating your entry. ] (]) 17:44, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
::::It's a conduct issue. ] (]) 19:58, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::But what conduct issue? TALKNO doesn't forbid changing headings. In fact the wider guideline makes it clear it's perfectly acceptable "{{tqi|Because threads are shared by multiple editors (regardless of how many have posted so far), no one, including the original poster, "owns" a talk page discussion or its heading. It is generally acceptable to change headings when a better heading is appropriate, e.g., one more accurately describing the content of the discussion or the issue discussed, less one-sided, more appropriate for accessibility reasons, etc. Whenever a change is likely to be controversial, avoid disputes by discussing a heading change with the editor who started the thread, if possible. It can also sometimes be appropriate to merge entire sections under one heading (often preserving the later one as a subheading) if their discussions are redundant.}}" To be blunt, if you don't want editors changing the headings of sections you start, don't use such terrible headings. I definitely recommend you stay away from ANI since changing headings is quite common here. ] (]) 06:25, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::Actually I missed the signature issue. That's far more concerning unfortunately lost IMO partly because you concentrated on silly stuff. ] (]) 06:29, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::&lrm;إيان: I suggest you stop messing around with the section heading since it's a distraction which could easily lead to you being blocked. But if AnonMoos changes your signature again, report it and only that without silliness about section headings, mentioning that they've been warned about it before if needed. ] (]) 06:50, 18 December 2024 (UTC)


I wrote a long and detailed explanation on his user talk page as to why the date-only header is basically useless in that context, but he's still for some peculiar reason fanatically determined to keep changing it back. Frankly, I've basically run out of good-faith reasons that make any sense -- except of course, his apparently unshakable belief that he has certain talk-page "rights", which according to Misplaced Pages guidelines he does '''not''' in fact have (outside of his own personal user talk page)... ] (]) 23:10, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
'''Canvassing and campaigning'''
P-123 is quite conscious of the issue of canvassing as indicated by edits of:
:1 "then realised it could be seen as canvassing an edit and there are strict rules about this!"
:2 "I have amended my comment ... so if there are any spies watching it's hardly a canvassed edit!"


:{{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)
Instances of canvassing and campaigning include:
::], 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)
:3 "Your contributions are valuable"
::: 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)
:4 Gazkthul reverts P-123's deletion of text at User talk:Gazkthul that read, "What about "diktat"? In history-writing this is a neutral term, but to me for a heading in "Governance" it is a POV, loaded word"
::::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)
:5 "The editor was banned. "... for his manipulations" is a ]". The editor mentioned is {{userlinks|Technophant}}. I was not pinged I have not been personally asked to account for my earlier edit.
:::::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)
:6 "I hope you can knock some sense into them. Good luck; you will need it." (typo - s/b GraniteSand ] (]) 18:24, 27 December 2014 (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>
:7 repositioning and emboldening talk page announcement with content "I can no longer copy-edit this article as it is moving in a direction I disagree with too much."
: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.
:''<small></small>''
: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)
'''Aspersion, POV pushing and editing in edits'''<br />
Can I also cite P-123's earlier content where it was stated: "All this must be very galling for you, given your peaceable stance on things (I have read your userpage). WP can be a bearpit and it has nearly stopped me editing in the past (before you arrived on the ISIS page). Just hang on in there. :):) 08:19, 24 October 2014 (UTC)" and where the view was stated, "You and a couple of other editors have the best manners on the TP, IMO. ... 20:12, 10 December 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)
All the same I receive comments such as in this case "I have been very concerned about your conduct on the Talk page with regard to some of the editing in the article for a very long time."


: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)
I think that issues on this regard are well covered in the thread as started by P-123 in which I believe that P-123 is well demonstrated as being the editor with the POV issues.
::While true, it's still a violation of ], and if it's accidentally changing characters in signatures, who knows what ''else'' it might be doing that isn't getting caught or reported? - ] <sub>]</sub> 07:27, 25 December 2024 (UTC)


::It is safe to assume there more than a few of the editors taking part in this discussion have years and decades of technological experience under their belts, myself included. I do not think The Accused is straight-up lying about the technical hurdle, but clinging to the "I refuse to change my system of operation, therefore it's Misplaced Pages's fault for (6 years ago) making the change!" excuse is the real problem here - this is at the heart a ''behavioral'' discussion, not a technical one. Consistently violating the norms of the community is indeed a real disruption to the creation of encyclopedic content. ] (]) 16:29, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
I think that it is also demonstrated in the thread: ]. P-123 made edit which I have regarded to break WP:OR, WP:RS, WP:NPOV and WP:INDCRIT. It was made on an important thread intended to reach a consensus as to whether entries on the ] should be barred from being entered into article pages and listings otherwise reserved for countries, nations and states yet, without any substantiation, P-123's content asserted, "Any lawyer can weasel out of it, but these are all hard ''facts'', and they have to be dealt with as such in this article. These ''facts'' should not be twisted or denied with ]". With intention to save public discord or personal embarrassment I privately broached the subject and then challenged what I considered to be argumentative talk page content on a User talk page thread with final version (A reference that I saw but did not file in researching this AN/I relates to a comment by P-123 now in the archive of my talk page to the effect of P-123 stating that s/he would like editors to be more ~direct with him/her). None-the-less, I went too far in subsequent edits of this content to on one occasion say that "you continue to argue dirty" which, after thread deletion and reinstatement, I edited to say, "(<small>add:</small> in my view) you continue to argue <s>dirty</s> (<small>add: unfairly)</small>".


== Disruptive editing by ] ==
At this point, in contrast to all my efforts to present dealings with P-123, in with private approaches, my mail was hacked in form so as to, I believe, present maximum personal embarrassment. I retrieved my text to original form with amendments made as P-123 has taken the view presented saying "Have some respect for another editor's Talk page" to which I replied saying "Have some respect for edits and threads". None-the-less, one of my article talk page texts was edited into with the intruding text being removed by me , which was followed by P-123 collapsing the content which I view to have been misrepresented as a "refactoring muddle" (the texts were only moved) and with further additions to my text being added which again claimed that the comments were refactored.
{{atop|1=IP blocked 24 hours, and then ] and created an account to evade the block, which has now been indef'd. - ] <sub>]</sub> 22:43, 24 December 2024 (UTC)}}
The ] is engaging in disrupte editing. Neither does this IP provide sources and is POV pushing. And this IP has been warned multiple times for this on his/her talk page.


] (]) 20:52, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
Just in the run up to Christmas I have had a number of threads started asserting criticising me in various ways on the talk pages of two separate admins: {{U|Lor}} and {{U|PBS}}. I have repeatedly asked and pleaded P-123 to desist from making unsubstantiated accusations and this can be confirmed by searching through any related content for terms such as "BEGGING" and "ASPERSIONS". Just for the sake of clarifying issues I even initiated a thread for the sake of clarification entitled ]. Nothing seems to work. I have no problem with criticism but criticisms need to be substantiated. I really feel at my wits end with this and have no idea what will happen next.


:@]: It looks like you both are ] on ].<sup class="plainlinks"></sup> That's not particularly helpful, so you should try to have a discussion on the ] as to whether you should include the ] name for the article in the lead/infobox. &#8211;<span style="font-family:CG Times, times">]&thinsp;]<sup>]</sup></span> 20:33, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
'''Shaming'''<br />
::MJL why and how did you pick out that one article over the many this IP has made recent changes to? The IP has been making disputed edits for months and has been reverted by a number of editors, not just Moroike. ] (]) 01:10, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
I have continually sought to raise issues privately with P-123 as this editor has repeatedly indicated a concern for reputation as indicated with "I have a reputation to protect" and with "What does that do for my reputation?"
:::@]: I am not suggesting that the IP editor isn't being disruptive, but my point is that {{u|Moroike}} isn't making the situation better (using the example of that one article). You can see this by looking at <span class="plainlinks"></span> where {{gender:Moroike|he has|she has|they have}} mostly just reverted this editor without using a summary. &#8211;<span style="font-family:CG Times, times">]&thinsp;]<sup>]</sup></span> 18:02, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
::The IP's edits were removed a total of 13 times on the page regarding the capital city of ], ]. You can't let him continue engaging in further edit wars with other users besides Moroike, can you? ] (]) 17:24, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
Since this IP user won't stop and is stonewalling, either he/should be temporarily blocked, or all the pages he is POV pushing without sources, should be semi-protected, so that only registered users can edit them. ] (]) 21:37, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
:After he/she was blocked for 24 hours, this IP created an account as ] in order to evade the block and has resumed his/her POV pushing. ] (]) 16:51, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
{{abot}}


== User engaged in edit warring to remove disputed content prior to consensus ==
However, when dealing with another editor P-123, despite having been in situations in which showed other ways of working, chose to headline a user name on an article talk page which I reedited
{{atop|There's nothing actionable in this content dispute, except perhaps trouting the original poster for failing to assume good faith and hounding friendly admins when they try to help. Longtime user ] (4.5 yrs, over 5K edits) has made several assertions based on their clear misunderstanding of social norms. In this discussion they've failed to notify the subject (they actually failed to use the subject's name in the OP), they've failed to bring any diffs, they failed to sign their post, and over and over they seem to have failed to assume good faith of their fellow editors. A number of editors including several admins have attempted to talk Sxbbetyy down. Nobody in this discussion seems to agree with Sxbbetyy on the merits, yet Sxbbetyy keeps circling back to their own personal interpretation of policy. The discussion at ], where Sxbbetyy refuses to listen to the admin they asked, gives another example of the problem. Sxbbetyy is reminded that creating a post on ANI puts all their own behaviors up for examination. ] (]) 15:46, 23 December 2024 (UTC)}}


Title is pretty self explanatory. Rather than engage in the consensus building process to determine if the disputed content discussed ] is problematic, ] editor has instead immediately reverted the disputed content. They have been informed of the relevant policies prohibiting this behavior and how it should normally be handled (tagging the content as disputed while the discussion is ongoing) but have elected to instead engage in edit warring to keep the disputed content removed prior to any consensus on the matter. Also important to note that they wish to have the content removed entirely, but have stated that they no longer intend to participate in the consensus building discussion. So this appears to be a ] tactic to accomplish their goal of removing the content immediately without a consensus. Seeking admin help to halt this behavior and restore the content with the correct tagging.<!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 23:36, 18 December 2024 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Xsign -->
Please see current ] threads: ], ], any other threads of your choosing and content on my talk page and recent archive for further information. Nothing except for items that P-123 has with drawn or, I think, one thing that I have immediately deleted is missing.
:It would help if you named the editor and signed your name to figure out what you are talking about; a noticeboard only works if you give us notice about the subject and what is happening. <span style="font-family: Roboto;">''']''' <span style="color:#00008B">•</span> <small>''(])''</small></span> 23:39, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
::The editor appears to be {{u|PerfectSoundWhatever}}, based on the under the word "this" as well as . — ]&nbsp;<sub>]</sub> 23:51, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
::My apology, this is my very first time making such a post. The other pages o have spoken on seemed to have signed themselves automatically. Will remember this going forward. And yes, that was the user, posted this using my phone so I didn't want to mis-spell their name, just linked instead. ] (]) 17:01, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
:{{non-admin comment}} IMO the best practice is that in the event of a content dispute, the article should be reverted to the status quo of how the article's content appeared before the dispute started, until such a time that consensus is established to re-add it (see: ]). It seems like the beginning of the content that is in dispute was added on 18 August 2024, the dispute began a few weeks later on 23 September 2024 and has been ongoing ever since.{{pb}}In this case, since the article existed in a relatively steady state for several months (or even years?) previous to the disputed material being added, I think it'd be wise to leave the disputed content out of the article until the discussion comes to a close. ] (]) 00:07, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
::I have been seeing this opinion from a few editors and even one admin on how to interpret this article. However, the first few sentences in that section do outright state to avoid reverting the disputed content prior to a consensus. And prior to opening this report, I asked several admins on the topic and got a response that reverting the disputed content immediately is incorrect per WP:STATUSQUO as it bypasses the consensus building process. I was advised that the content should instead be tagged as disputed rather than be outright removed. The offending user was made aware of the relevant policies but has nonetheless engaging in edit warring to keep it reverted, hence this report. ] (]) 17:13, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
:::The status quo of an article constitutes implicit consensus (]). The person trying to include disputed content in an article despite it not being status quo is the one that could be construed as attempting to bypass the consensus building process, not the person trying to maintain status quo until discussion takes place. ] (]) 17:20, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
::::Correct, and at no point was the definition of what constitutes the status quo ever in contention. In fact, if you review the edit history of the article you can see that the disputed content was the status quo via implicit consensus at the time PSW chose to first outright revert the content, and then continued to revert it as others tried to restore it (both before and after the consensus discussion began). ] (]) 23:38, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::{{tq|1=the disputed content was the status quo via implicit consensus at the time PSW chose to first outright revert the content}}<br>Not really, I personally wouldn't define "been there a few weeks" as status quo.{{pb}}I think maybe the other replies to this thread provide pretty good reasoning to take a step back and say "hey maybe I'm the one in the wrong here" instead of talking in circles ] (]) 00:30, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::Personally I think the number of contributions since the edit where it has gone unchanged is a more useful metric, especially on low traffic pages such as this one. Regardless, per the policy you cite, there seems to be no official Misplaced Pages stance on what exact criteria are needed for a contribution to be considered the current status quo, beyond it having been unchallenged in subsequent contributions (which is the case here).
::::::As for the rest of your comment, there seems to be a high amount of band wagoning and "]" going on in the rest of this. Or people trying to use this report as an extension of the dispute discussion on the article's talk page. Hopefully more actual admins to chime in on the topic as I don't actually want to waste my time talking in circles.
::::::On that note thanks for actually taking the time and baseline minimal effort to engage in a discussion where you actually support your point and don't just devolve into repeating the same talking points over and over. It's a nice change of pace. ] (]) 02:48, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
:I am the editor being discussed here. I'll provide a summary of events since the initial statement by Sxbbetyy is misleading.
:Myself and the editor had a content dispute at ] (]) and following circular discussion, I stopped engaging since I felt I had laid out my points. Per ], I maintained the state of the article to before the dispute. I requested for a ], which was answered by {{ping|BerryForPerpetuity}}, who agreed the statement should be removed, albeit for a different reason than mine. I took this 2-1 as rough consensus. I also posted the dispute on two WikiProjects, and have received no response so far. Sxbbetyy reached out to three admins about the matter, {{ping|Sergecross73|Oshwah|Pbsouthwood}}. The ] can be summarized as Sergecross believing that I haven't engaged in misconduct, and that I have presented a "plausible, good-faith interpretation of ]". Sxbbetyy then accused Sergecross73 of not acting in good faith. Oshwah did not respond to the post on ], but {{ping|BusterD}} did, essentially agreeing that the sourcing does not back up the claim in the content dispute. Sxbbetyy received help on ] about responding to a content dispute. And now we're here.
:Throughout these interactions, Sxbbetyy has demonstrated a failure to assume good faith, refuses to accept ], and ]s talk pages, refusing to let the other editor have the last word. Frankly, this is a massive waste of editor time: it should have been a brief talk page discussion then an RfC. Apologies for all the pings. — ] (]; ]) 00:23, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
::This summarization in itself leaves out critical context, (such as berry's concern being alleviated and them no longer expressing a desire to remove the content), the specifics of why that conversation with Serge ended the way it did despite my repeated attempts to engage with them in good faith, and the entire discussion with pbsouthwood (who quite definitively explained that the behavior PSW was engaged in was not correct). So I urge all involved to go read those topics to get the correct context through your own eyes and then discuss any concerns from what you see here. That being the case, it seems pretty clear cut imo. ] (]) 17:20, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Just to be clear, in no way did I express that I didn't want the content to be removed. I did not receive a notification for your reply, and I wouldn't have engaged either way. —&nbsp;] ] 17:24, 19 December 2024 (UTC)


: Yes, I would leave that material out of the article. Whilst it may not exactly be synthesis ''per se'', it is certainly editorialising ("the removal of that amount of marine debris is of negligible consequence...") ''unless'' there is an actual source that says this by making a link between between the two statistics (the amount of waste removed by Team Seas and the rate at which waste is entering the ecosystem). And even then, I would say that such an edit would need to say something like "However, ARandomNewspaper pointed out that ...". ] 00:34, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
Please can something can be done in the current situations. If nothing else can be agreed I suggest a topic ban in relation to the Syrian Civil War and ISIL. From my perspective issues here are wasting too much time.
::That is actually no longer the content that is being disputed. If you look at the that got reverted on the article you can see the current version. I had made edits to it precisely because of valid WP:NPOV concerns brought to my attention by PSW. However, their dispute with the content remains with the claim that is is synthesis rather than any other concern. Which they have been thus far unable to obtain a consensus on. ] (]) 17:27, 19 December 2024 (UTC)


*I have some pretty serious ] concerns about the topic starter here. They came to me for help (no idea how/why me, I have no connection to this dispute) and I repeatedly told them I didn't see any misconduct, and then they started attacking ''me'' when I refused to agree with them. And now this. This is a very simple content dispute, with a very simple ] outcome. I've told them this. It's a disappointing time sink on a rather trivial content dispute. ] ] 00:52, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
]] 15:42, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
*:At no point was he "attacked". I defended myself after he became hostile with me (as anyone can read in our convo, I stated multiple times that I would leave and did not want to be a burden if they didn't want to engage with this, but he made no such objections and continued). Eventually he just became outright hostile and refused to explain their points any further, devolving the conversation into them repeating themselves over and over, its all there to read on his talk page. As for why I contacted him, I wanted to ensure I chose impartially so I just randomly looked at the currently active admins at the time and he was the first one I found. ] (]) 18:23, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
*::The discussion is , if anyone wants to look. The "attack" I'm referring to you is your accusation that I responded to you in bad faith. I was not involved in the dispute, have no stance on it, and had no pre-conceived notions about either of you - what in the world would my motivations be for "bad faith responses"? It doesn't make any sense. You simply didn't get the response you wanted, and proceeded to badger me on it. Did I get vaguely irritated when I volunteered my time to review and comment on a dispute I had no stance or interest in, only to get all sorts of ] responses on it? Yeah, sure, but who wouldn't? ] ] 18:44, 19 December 2024 (UTC)


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


:Also, it looks like the participants in the dispute on the Team Seas article are acting as if this report is an extension of that dispute discussion.
'''Comments (1)''': </br>
:This is a report of edit warring to revert disputed content prior to a consensus being reached (there was no consensus prior to the reversion and there still is no consensus, as admitted by PSW themselves in that very dispute and In their latest revert message, no idea why now in this report they are trying to claim that there is suddenly consensus for removal).
I have put in a lot of time (over a period of nearly three weeks) into attempts to stop this dispute escalating (see our Talk page discussions, mainly on the editor's, some is archived now). I can provide evidence of this if needed. (I had prepared an IBAN request but this pre-empts that now). I am concerned about '''misrepresentation''' here, which has been one of my main criticisms of this editor in our dealings. Please refer to discussion on the Talk pages of admins PBS and Lor and for this. ] (]) 17:12, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
:This is not a report on the dispute itself, just to make that very clear since those involved are responding as if it is. ] (]) 18:41, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
*item 3 - this was intended to encourage an editor. Please read the whole paragraph.
::You've still got this backward. You need to show a consensus to keep your content in the article, as everyone else has been telling you. ] is directly on point, and I'll quote it here: {{Tq|The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content.}} ] (]) 18:53, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
*item 4 - this is my edit, not Gazkthul's. How is this canvassing? I was asking Gazkhtul's opinion.
:::Thank you. I have tried to inform them of this many times and many ways. I do not know why they cannot wrap their head around the concept. Conceptually, it would be very problematic if we were required to retain every disputed content until consensus ruled it out. It wouldn't be workable. ] ] 19:02, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
*item 5 - has to be read in context (my comment was on Gregkaye.) (Why does Gregkaye give Technophant's (an old adversary) full details above, including link to his block log?)
:::Nobody is arguing WP:ONUS here...not in the dispute and not here in this report. The point is that the content is being removed prior to there being a consensus on if it should be removed.
*item 6 - please read in here. (wrong editor named, btw) ] (])
:::I was directly advised by admin Pbsouthwood that the removal of disputed content BEFORE any consensus has been reached is not allowed (save for specific situations, none of which apply to the disputed content) as this bypasses the consensus building process. ] is the talk page where I was advised this. This is echoed with the wording in WP:STONEWALLING and ]. Here is the direct quote from the latter, "To eliminate the risk of an edit war, do not revert away from the status quo ante bellum during a dispute discussion. Instead, add an appropriate tag indicating the text is disputed. For an article, many of the inline dispute tags are appropriate. For other pages, {{under discussion inline}} is good. Leave the status quo and the tag in place until the discussion concludes." ] (]) 19:58, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
*"Aspersion ...", para 2 - this is disingenuous. Gregkaye has known since at least the beginning of October that I have had concerns about his editing, i.e. what I saw as POV-pushing. I have never made any secret of it, either in our exchanges or on the main Talk page. Until recently this was an amicable disagreement that did not interfere with our good working relationship. Please read the quote in its context in the link given, and note the missing "As you know" at the beginning. There is spin here. <small> (added later)</small>
::::{{tq|The point is that the content is being removed prior to there being a consensus on if it should be removed.}} <--- No. This is your problem. What you are saying here is incorrect. Policies say the opposite of this. You are not going to get support at ANI. In fact, the longer you keep going with this ] insistence that community practice is actually the opposite of what policies plainly say it is, the more likely it is you're going to find yourself blocked for disruption. Pbsouthwood didn't tell you this either (what he wrote doesn't match what you've been doing), and your initial question did not properly represent the situation at hand. But we can invite him here to see if he actually supports what you're doing here: {{ping|Pbsouthwood}}, what say you? ] (]) 20:06, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
*"Aspersion ... ", para 4 - Gregkaye seems to object to normal Talk page discussion. In the the main objection seems to be that he does not like the view I expressed in that particular discussion.
:::::This entire comment serves absolutely zero purpose whatsoever. You're parroting what others have already said with no supporting evidence. Along with throwing in an oddly included threat that is completely nonsensical and wholly unwarranted.
*"Aspersion ...", para 5 - I have explained before how that "hacking" came about. (The "Sovereign state" thread.) I had wanted to annotate that passage for my own records in preparation for the IBAN mentioned above but went about it in the wrong way (for further explanation please see PSB's Talk page and search "annotated"). Gregkaye says in para 5, "At this point, in contrast to all my efforts to present dealings with P-123, in with private approaches, my mail was hacked in form so as to, I believe, present maximum personal embarrassment." On PBS's Talk page where I explained this, Gregkaye was pinged, so he knew the real reason. More '''misrepresentation'''.
:::::And while I could point out the myriad of ways your claim about what Pbsouthwood said was inaccurate, that would pretty much involve reposting his reply, which is a waste since anyone can already go to his talk page and read it themselves.
*"Aspersions ...", para 5 - second part of this para deals with Gregkaye's moving two of my comments, one of which was to counter a serious '''misrepresentation''' by Gregkaye about my editing practice. (See diff he .) By moving the comments out of context, their sense has been lost and the '''misrepresentation''' is (see near collapse box). I raised this with PBS as I am not clear about WP policy on an editor moving another editor's comments around but have not yet had a reply.
:::::So at this point, if you need that admin to come here and tell you what they already said themselves, more power to you. Would save us all a ton of time to get an authoritative answer on this, especially with another admin holding the opposite view point, in spite of the specific policy wording. ] (]) 23:08, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
*"Aspersions ...", para 6 - I went to Lor and PBS in desperation asking for advice and help on how to deal with this escalating dispute that we could not resolve peaceably. See the links to their Talk pages above, additionally and , where this could not be clearer. More selection, more spin.
::::::], there does not need to be an established consensus for the removal of content. ]. - ] <sub>]</sub> 01:28, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
*"Shaming", para 2 - I own up to this. It was done in the heat of the moment and I readily agreed to Gregkaye's refactoring of the heading when he pointed out my error.
:::::::I'm not the one insisting otherwise...this report only exists because an ]. And as I've posted in my previous replies, the wording in the policies clearly support that. Makes me question how many have actually bothered to really read these policies... ] (]) 02:22, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
I am glad ] brought this to AN/I; I even suggested he do this myself, to clear the air. <s>I am not sure of the best solution. I had thought a longish IBAN on both. (I have tried to self-impose one, but it does not work!) A sanction that would enforce us both to be civil to one other would probably work, but I haven't seen anything like this in WP. I am not against a topic ban, as I have already said on my Talk page that I no longer wish to copy-edit <s>or edit</s> the ISIS page.</s> ] (]) 21:05, 27 December 2014 (UTC)</br> <small>(That should have just said "copy-edit", not "or edit" - see my notice on my Talk page) ] (]) 11:48, 30 December 2014 (UTC)</small>
::::::::The other admin told you ''nothing'' about the removal of ], which is always appropriate. ]. - ] <sub>]</sub> 03:19, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
*<small>'''Note:''', a point by point refutation of P-123's objections is presented further down the page. ]] 17:41, 30 December 2014 (UTC)</small>
:::::::::# This report is not an extension of the dispute discussion for that article, if you want to involve yourself in that discussion, do so there, do not hijack this report.
:::::::::# The disputed content is plainly not WP:SYNTH as I explain on the talk page in great length, with nobody thus far having provided valid examples as to how it is.
:::::::::# If you are going to make the claim that any WP:SYNTH concerns warrant immediate reversion without consensus, please feel free to share the quote in the relevant policy that says this. I have not found any such wording and instead found that what is present matches up with what PBsouthwood informed me.
:::::::::] (]) 17:17, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::] ] ] 02:05, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::At this point I say that my advice was given without a specific context, and without prejudice. I maintain that it is more collegial and polite to discuss a removal of unsourced but ''plausible'' content ''before'' removing it, as it can often avoid disputes of this kind, but it is not forbidden to arbitrarily delete content that an editor ''plausibly considers inappropriate provided the relevant reason is given''. It is always the responsibility of the person advocating inclusion to provide a reference when challenged, regardless of the process of challenge.
:::::Some forms of synthesis are acceptable. If a conclusion is logically inevitable based on undisputed factual premises, or is a simple mathematical calculation, we routinely accept claims that may not be specifically stated in a source, but we may require the logic to be explained, as it may not be obvious to the reader.
:::::At the risk of being ], I also refer readers to <s>]</s> <u>(looks like that essay has been expunged, try ])</u>. &middot; &middot; &middot; ] ]: 06:59, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::I think many of us used to the mess editors adding unsourced content can create would strongly oppose leaving in unsourced content just because it's plausible. The standard should instead be at a minimum that you believe the claim made is most likely correct and sourceable not simply that it's plausible. Although ultimately such discussions are a little silly anyway. If editors would just add sources rather than leaving it for someone else because they're claiming it's unlikely to be challenged or whatever, there would be a need for others to decide whether to query or remove unsourced content. ] (]) 09:56, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::I was suggesting tagging with citation needed while you wait a reasonable time for a response, but as we know some of us do not have the patience and just revert. It in not unheard of to know something, but not have a source handy at the time. What is obvious to one may be totally obscure to others. This is acceptable within policy and guidelines. You could start a RfC to have the guidelines changed, but I suspect it would not get through as being a bit bitey. Cheers, &middot; &middot; &middot; ] ]: 12:47, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::Yes, what you say is true, that's absolutely an acceptable approach. But that's not really the problem at hand here. The bigger issue is that Sxbbetyy appears to be believe that the alternative approach - reverting per STATUSQUO or NOCONSENSUS - is somehow misconduct, and that's simply not true. They're not arguing about if your approach is valid, they're arguing that its ''compulsory'', and they're attempting to report a user for not following your possible approach, which is completely meritless. ] ] 17:31, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::Please do not put words in my mouth. The only reason this report exists is because Peter Southwood advised that this was how I should proceed if the editor participating in this no-consensus reverting continued to do so and was unreceptive to further discussion. (Both are true by admission of PSW themselves). ] (]) 18:22, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::Yes, I've seen , but you presented the situation to them entirely in hypotheticals that lacks crucial context. You frame PSW as unwilling to engage in discussion but omit the fact that You accuse PSW of edit warring to keep their information in the article, but omit the fact that . I would think the near-unanimous rejection of this ANI report would indicate that this was not, in fact, a good thing to report. Best case scenario, this is archived with no action, but I'd be shocked if it didn't result in a ]. ] ] 18:44, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::I don't know why you are attempting to present the entire discussion on that talk page as some sort of proof that PSW was willing to engage in further discussion to halt the behavior this report is about. At no point whatsoever did PSW ever indicate anything like that; if they did this report wouldn't exist as the discussions on your talk page or Peter Southwood's page would have never needed to happen. Not to mention if you take the time to actually read the discussion, you see that most of it is on the specifics of the validity of the WP:SYNTH claim made by PSW, eventually culminating in PSW actually asserting that they will not stop change their position on this and then outright refusing to engage any further.
:::::::::::And now you accuse me of edit warring by citing the entire recent edit history of the page...this isn't fooling anyone who actually bothers to read any of the revert messages and examine the timeline of when they occurred (talk about omitting "crucial context").
:::::::::::Beyond just slandering my character, I don't really see what these kind of spurious claims accomplish. It wastes everyone's time, makes yourself look biased and hostile, and adds nothing to the conversation. Keep things civil please, I really shouldn't have to tell you of all people that basic expectation. ] (]) 02:38, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::Wait...are you seriously trying to suggest that, even though you were the only one who reverted him every single time, he was edit warring and you weren't? ] ] 02:50, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::If you are going to continue to twist words and make false claims immediately after being asked to keep things civil, maybe it would be best for all involved if you just moved on from this conversation. Sad that even has to be stated at this point, it should be a given. ] (]) 17:25, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::::Yet another IDHT response where you try to baselessly chastize me rather than address anything anyone is saying to you. ] ] 18:14, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::What a choice to post this exact type reply to my last message... not to mention the sheer absurdity of it. To claim that I've never addressed anyone's points in my replies is so easily and visibly wrong (literally this entire topic is full of my detailed replies to people's concerns, including this very reply) that it's almost insulting to the rest of the people participating in this or to anyone who even chooses to read that message. It's as if you think nobody can see the rest of this discussion (or even the comments directly above it). ] (]) 11:52, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::Thank you for taking the time to respond and my apology for any inconvenience it may have caused. Ive tried to keep it as civil as possible, but there seems to be a very hostile air in this discussion by those with the dissenting opinion. As for how this situation is to be resolved, would it be appropriate to restore the currently disputed content with the appropriate tags (as it is sourced and was the statusquo on the page at the time of reversion)? Or is there something further that must be done here? I'm generally unfamiliar with how ANIs actually function. ] (]) 17:52, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
:Have you considered starting an ]? The fact is that you made a ] addition to the article; someone else objected to it, which means you now ought to seek consensus ''for your addition''. As numerous people have told you, none of the relevant policies and guidelines (], ], ], etc) would allow you to make a recent addition the "default" the way you want, but more generally - the problem is that you're trying to dig through policy for something that will make your preferred version the default, allowing you to have it in the article without having to demonstrate consensus for it even in the face of challenges. Even if the policies and guidelines I listed ''were'' on your side this would still be a bad way to approach it. You have a conflict, your goal should be to resolve it by making consensus as clear as possible - figuring out what the crux of the dispute is and then, if you can't reach a compromise, holding an RFC to see where consensus lies. Also, I have to point out that just by a quick nose count of people who have weighed in on talk, I'm seeing a dispute that is now three-to-one against you. That ''is'' a consensus - not a massive one, maybe an RFC will pull in a bunch of people that say something else, but it doesn't make sense for you to keep demanding a consensus to remove something you added when there actually ''is'' such a consensus on talk. You've disagreed with their arguments but they're not obliged to ] you; ultimately if you think your arguments are so strong and theirs are so weak, the only real option for you at this point is to start an RFC and hope that you can demonstrate that there. --] (]) 04:10, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
::As mentioned earlier in the discussion, this report is not an extension of the dispute on that article, nor is that what this report is about. Also, a RFC was already started for the topic about a week or so ago by PSW, but that occurred after he reverted the status quo, disputed content with discussion (repeatedly). As for the rest of your comment, Peter Southwood, an admin, has addressed what is the actual expectation. ] (]) 18:00, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
:::What? I never started an RfC. — ] (]; ]) 19:07, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
::::I just checked and on 12/9/24 at ] you said the following, "Thanks – just wanted to mention I requested comments from ] and ] about 2 weeks ago."
::::Did that not actually happen? ] (]) 02:11, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::] is a specific process. Asking questions on a couple of Wikiprojects is not an RFC. ] (]) 02:22, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::That's fundamentally not what an RFC is. This is getting ridiculous... ] ] 03:03, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::It's almost like this is the very first time I've ever been involved in this kind of issue on Misplaced Pages before...seriously these kind of replies come off as rude and don't actually say anything meaningful or helpful. Ever since our conversation on your talk page you have made next to no real effort to engage in good faith and I find that highly disappointing to be coming from an admin. And my apology if I offended you at all at some point or if you have just "lost your patience" with me, but I don't see how that gives you the green flag to suddenly disregard ]. I certainly haven't, in spite of being on the receiving end of this. ] (]) 17:44, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::I haven't said anything uncivil, I just keep calling you out when you say something incorrect. ] ] 18:08, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::], is a powerful force, I find it difficult to resist myself. ] (]) 18:10, 21 December 2024 (UTC)


===Request for closure===
'''Comments (2)''': </br>
Despite its large size, the consensus here is quite clear. There's no misconduct here, just standard following of procedures of ] and ], which is perfectly acceptable. Not a single person has suggested taking any action towards PerfectSoundWhatver. Outside of a a potential IDHT BOOMERANG, there's nothing left to be done here. Can someone close this? ] ] 14:02, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
I formally request the imposition of an interaction ban on Gregkaye and myself for as long a period as possible. ] (]) 01:03, 29 December 2014 (UTC)</br>
:I second that. If there has been any edit-warring by any party that should be dealt with in the normal way. {{u|PerfectSoundWhatever}} has certainly done nothing wrong, and the OP will get blocked if they don't start listening to people pretty quickly. ] (]) 14:24, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
:After the questions raised by this AN/I have been settled. ] (]) 11:48, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
::Exactly. And even that's probably unlikely, as most of the "edit warring" was singular reverts with days or weeks in between. It's far from a 3RR situation at least. ] ] 15:26, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
:{{non-admin comment}} I don't think this conversation is going anywhere fast, other than seemingly coming to the conclusion that @] has done nothing wrong, which seems to be the opposite of what this ANI post was about. There's no edit warring here, and even if there was, it wouldn't be dealt with at this venue. Shut it down! ] (]) 16:48, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
:In what way whatsoever is this editor's decision to revert the disputed content during the discussion "standard following of procedures of WP:STATUSQUO"? The literal first words that appear at that link are in bold and say, "'''Avoid reverting during discussion'''", followed by a detailed explanation of the actual proper procedure. And to make it very clear what it says, here is the literal first paragraph verbatim: "To eliminate the risk of an edit war, do not revert away from the '']'' '''during a dispute discussion'''. Instead, add an appropriate tag indicating the text is disputed. For an article, many of the ] are appropriate. For other pages, <code><nowiki>{{</nowiki>]<nowiki>}}</nowiki></code> is good. Leave the status quo and the tag in place until the discussion concludes." ] (]) 02:31, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
::In what way is ''that'' your read of the consensus in the discussion above? ] ] 02:49, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
:::In what world do you logically come to that conclusion from a message that consist of almost entirely the word for word quote of the procedures described in WP:STATUSQUO, that directly counters the claim you just made? Are you saying it is "against consensus" simply because it presents a viewpoint you don't like and don't want to address? I don't see another reason why you would again twist my words, to the point of lunacy. And this is, once again, despite the fact that all of what has been said is literally within view.
:::Also, regarding the consensus. Out of everyone that has actually joined the discussion and all the messages sent (~90% of which are either from myself or you Serge), there have been only three people who have actually said anything in support of your interpretation of this. The rest either did not discuss the topic, did not express an opinion, or were Peter Southwood who supported the interpretation of WP:STATUSQUO as stated on its page. Seems like you're just trying to rush a end to the conversation to get the conclusion you want. ] (]) 15:02, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
::::I'm saying there has been no consensus for anything you're arguing here. Not a single person has supported action against PSW. ] ] 15:15, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
::::The status quo ante bellum that shouldn't be reverted from is the version ''without the new content''. ] (]) 15:16, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
{{abot}}


== Creating the need to make 400,000 unnecessary edits ==
:::::::::::::::''End of P-123's '''Comments''' section</br>


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


I 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)
*] Please qualify how any of your efforts have made any contribution "to stop this dispute escalating". The fact is that I have spent inordinate amounts of time with you on a variety of topics but which have included what I consider to have been attempts to diplomatically get past what I consider to be your wrong preconceptions of POV, to present other views and to present issues related to the application of other points in guidelines. I have often got responses that I view as IDNHT. For me personally the issues became very difficult on the issue of aspersion. You say of course it won't happen and then it just happens again and again and again. In the past, as you know, I have gone way out of my way to protect you but your last three week onslaught has broken me. I am no longer willing to collude with and otherwise tolerate your departures from otherwise standard Misplaced Pages behaviours.
:If you want to discuss {{tl|WikiProject banner shell}}, you should do so at ].
:At this point I will give you the same advice that you are familiar that I give to other alleged guideline departing editors. Choose. Either decide to try to prove why all the various accusations don't apply or admit to relevant wrongdoings and give assurances as to why they will not apply in the future. I honestly think that the issues mentioned are clear and that you will not be helped by taking the first route. Everyone has to follow the same set of guidelines. All the guidelines There are no exceptions. ]] 21:10, 27 December 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. &nbsp;&nbsp;<b>~</b>&nbsp;<span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:16px;">] (] ⋅])</span>&nbsp; 15:02, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
*]: It is a shame that I have only just deleted my reference here to ]. This has been one of my main objections to Gregkaye's dealings with this dispute on our Talk pages, on the Talk pages of PBS and Lor (I have already provided links to their Talk pages which spell this out clearly), and lately even on the main ISIS Talk page. I have been particularly upset about this. I will let whoever adjudicates this make their own judgment from what they see there. I would add that this has happened only recently, since the dispute escalated.</br>
::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)
:Secondly, I have told Gregkaye repeatedly how this dispute has driven me to distraction and how I will not be pushed any more by the relentless questioning. One of the most trying aspects of attempting to settle this dispute has been Gregkaye's interminable requests for citations to back up every word I say. I have said to him repeatedly: that all the answers he seeks are in our Talk page discussions, that I have repeated them ''often'', that he only has to read them again, that I am always straightforward (Gregkaye used to say he liked my directness) so he cannot miss them. It is unreasonable to expect someone to trawl through those endless discussions and extract the answers he seeks to place them before him when he can read them for himself. Even when I have attempted to answer them, the answers are unsatisfactory (see latest threads on his Talk page) so nothing is gained. </br>
:::"{{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.
:Thirdly, it is my opinion that Gregkaye is too sensitive to editorial criticism and too ready to criticise those who depart from WP guidelines and policy and give out advice to them. I will not comment on his customary hectoring tone as here other than to remark on it. There is a lot of rough and tumble in ISIS editing and editors need to be robust enough to take the knocks. Other editors do not have a problem with this. ] (]) 22:27, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
:::Regarding a BRFA for the bulk of the category, that's looking more likely since the category appears to be neglected. &nbsp;&nbsp;<b>~</b>&nbsp;<span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:16px;">] (] ⋅])</span>&nbsp; 15:29, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
::] You can't just make accusation without providing reference as this in many cases eliminates or at least reduces opportunity for resolution. I have regularly asked for justification for your on going accusation and get none. In the recent thread you cite misrepresentation at ] while citing nothing specific. This leaves me to do all the work to attempt any resolution. I'm sick of it. Please understand.
::::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)
::Your second point has no relation to current issues and yet can be easily addressed. The majority of our communication has been conducted at your initiation on my talk page. The archives are open. I have previously cited that there should be ~"no censorship" but now view that topics of discussion should conform to the clear guidelines presented at ]. What answers have you repeated? What you have ''often'' done is repeat accusation without reference or citation. What I perceive to be the spin in your edits to my talk page I find to be "unsatisfactory" as referenced to your edit and my reply I still do not agree with your uncited and, I think, unjustified and continuing assertions. ''Again'' ask, plead, beg, for to end your use of uncited accusations that hamper any chance or reply or resolution.
:::::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)
::You suggest "Gregkaye is too sensitive to editorial criticism" and ] immediately come to mind. I am totally fine with criticism if it is based on the fair application of the ] that are meant to apply to all. This I believe is well demonstrated in talk page comment. This followed a general criticism made elsewhere regarding edits that were made out of sequence and I took the unrequired move to make the noted public confession of this infringement activity which I have endeavoured not to repeat. I think that all editors should (ideally) be equally open to guidance as to how to better meet Misplaced Pages's standards. ]] 10:21, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
:::I have already outlined above and below my reasons for not acceding to your innumerable requests for explanation. I am never sensitive to genuine editorial criticism. No good editor would be. I am sensitive to ad hominem criticism, though. ] (]) 10:51, 28 December 2014 (UTC) ::::::It doesn´t look as if the specific code to have these synonyms was very complicated though, the argument that in some cases two synonyms were used on one page with conflicting values was more convincing. And the edits I complained about did ''not'' have that tag, so no, even if people knew about hiding that tag, it wouldn't have helped here at all. ] (]) 16:04, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
:This was discussed in detail on ]. Ideally these edits would be done by an approved bot so they do not appear on people's watchlists. The main benefit is to merge the {{para|blp}} and {{para|living}} parameters. When both are in use, we find they often get conflicting values because one gets updated and the other does not. &mdash;&nbsp;Martin <small>(]&nbsp;·&nbsp;])</small> 17:25, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
::::I have also replied to your comment below, "Make your charges properly, or not at all". Please follow your own standards in this. You mention above ] criticism. If you believe this then you are perfectly entitled to start your own AN/I. You have gone privately to one admin and one, presumably, suspected admin so as to start multiple threads regarding supposed issues and, as far as I have seen, you have cited nothing. I have cited the one bit of criticism above that, I think may have been most relevant to this argument. Again your lack of reference leaves me with all the work to do. ]] 15:13, 28 December 2014 (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)
::::::*]: Sorry, I was not referring to ''ad hominem'' criticism from you specifically. This next is to expand on the answer given below. On starting "multiple threads", I went to PBS and Lor over three issues, just before Christmas: (1) to PBS to ask for help in resolving the dispute and asking if he could impose an IBAN on both; (2) to Lor for the same thing; (3) to PBS over the collapsed discussion as I was very concerned about it; (4) to PBS over the moving (not refactoring) of text which I was also very concerned about. Unfortunately those four things came to a head at the same time. ] (]) 23:43, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
:::::In my "Comments" above I gave links to their pages which show I was seeking help on how to resolve this dispute, as I said. They had already been involved and knew the situation. There was another request to PBS for help on "Refactoring" with full citations. What is privately? I went to their Talk pages. I have no wish to pursue any sanction after this AN/I and have already let Gregkaye know this. ] (]) 16:57, 28 December 2014 (UTC) :::Yes, probably. But we have this mechanism already set up and I assumed {{ul|Cewbot}} would deal with these as part of its normal activities. Happy to look at other options - maybe discuss on template talk? &mdash;&nbsp;Martin <small>(]&nbsp;·&nbsp;])</small> 18:23, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
::::I don't know what this is about, but if the OP is correct, it is totally absurd to edit 400,000 talk pages for a tweak. Discussing at a template talk page monitored by those focused on the template would simply hide the issue. ] (]) 03:53, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::You say, "What I perceive to be the spin in your edits to my talk page I find to be "unsatisfactory" as referenced to your edit and my reply " How can an opinion be "spin"? You have called one of my editing views "spin" as well. That does not make sense. You seem determined to take nothing I say at face value. I have found this very trying. ] (]) 23:31, 28 December 2014 (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)
{{od}}
::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)
] I do take things at face value and object to the values that I think are unnecessarily presented. You now force me to again spend time in breaking things down. In the first of the references You said:
:::{{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)}}
*"That I "push" for consensus is petty misrepresentation." We can play with words but you had initiated with me to add comment to a thread to seal consensus against Felino123.
*"I see as attempts to control editors", but you say this with no reference that I am trying to get them to adhere to issues like ]. There have also been issues where I have disputed the way in which a case has been presented and, if you have any specific point of contention, you should bring it. Editors can argue any case they want but should do it within guidelines and in expectation of fair reply to content as presented.
Other points from that post shown to be repeated in the next content. See: hounding.


* 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)
In the second of the references I replied:
*{{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)
*"Collapsing a discussion that was way off topic and which continued regardless under the hat" to your assertion "Closing down discussion by collapsing discussion mid-flow as today on main Talk page". This was the issue about which you went to PBS to say, "Gregkaye has collapsed a thread in the middle of a very important discussion on NPOV" when in reality it was a thread proposing a reference to caliphate in the first the lead to which all our conversation was utterly unrelated. You also stated, "I cannot speak freely even on the Talk page now because of it." Anyone can talk freely but, if their content goes beyond the bounds of WP:guidelines, it can be challenged.
*:The robot is in operation... ] (]) 09:09, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
*"Remonstrating, when? how? in what way was my content wrong? What is wrong with quoting policy? This is something that you do yourself. Should it be disregarded?" to your assertion "Remonstrating with editors who disagree with you by quoting policy at them and trying to bring them to heel". Non judgemental words like protesting or preferably attempting to correct would be kinder. I am certainly not trying to bring editors to my heel. I have been attempting to call people to the standards presented in the Misplaced Pages guidelines. Support in this would be appreciated.
*::yay! —usernamekiran ] 16:04, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
*"Requesting that editors behave according to WP:GUIDELINES" to your assertion "Telling editors who disagree with you how they should behave (Felino, Technophant, WheelsofSteel0, P-123)". I added: "Show instances where this was not the case. I think that editors, myself included, should behave. With regard to Technophant you said that you did not understand why he was acting to me as he was and I think that was in thread Guido in the archive of ALL my talk page content. With WheelsofSteel0 you said that s/he was full of PA." If someone's comments are full of PA don't you think that it is fair for these issues to be raised?
*finally you said, "Blackening of editors' reputations with scurrilous charges of manipulation and misrepresentation" to which I immediately replied "Please see all of the above". As far as I had perceived you had adopted a negative spin on everything I had done. Again, if you think that any particular "charge" has been "scurrilous" then you should raise issue on that particular case and in this you should state what was actually said while citing or otherwise referencing evidence that you think relevant.
:In regard to blackening reputations are you referring to any of my User talk page discussions with you regarding {{userlinks|Technophant}}? Is there something else? You asserted that "T. would have had an IBAN imposed on you." Has he told you this by e-mail, is it your assumption or on what else is it based. Any editor can review my interactions with Technophant and come to their own conclusions as to who was in the wrong. A review of a thread, as would content on Technophant's talk page.
:In all your presentations above I have interpreted that you have framed content in negative terms. I have said that I perceive this as being spin and this is how I interpret it to be. I find your approach as being extremely argumentative and time wasting. I don't imply that you intended the spin but have my interpretation on the result. From my point of view a negative interpretation of issues has been adopted in every case. Again, even in questioning my perception on this, more time has been wasted. I don't agree with your expressed opinion. Again, none of your content was cited or referenced. This has got to stop. ]] 13:20, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
::*'''Misrepresentation''': "to seal consensus against Felino123" is another disreputable slur on character. I was consensus-gathering and asking all involved editors to cast their "vote", as it were. It is a good thing WP is not real life.
::*I view your wikilawyering with editors, which has been extremely frequent on the Talk page (and throughout this AN'I), as an attempt to control them.
::*I do not believe that you closed the discussion because it had gone off-topic. I believe it was because you and Legacypac were disagreeing with my diametrically opposed views on NPOV. As I said to PBS, I believed it was censorship. I have asked PBS to look at this, but again have had no reply yet.
::*I think you confuse the word "spin" with "opinion".
::*Your ref to Technophant and IBAN: nothing has been said in email about it, this is a deduction from what he said to you on his Talk page.
::*On "argumentative and time-wasting": (1) in editing on the main Talk page, this is how you sometimes interpret editors who disagree with your views, in my opinion; (2) on our Talk pages, this is how you interpret my attempts to sort things out with you; I find it difficult to understand what you are driving at a lot of the time and I cannot make myself understood to you. I have equally found you "argumentative and time-wasting", but this is more an observation than a criticism.
::*I am not quite sure what this has to do with the ANI/I. ] (]) 16:00, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
::::] Neither am I sure what this has to do with the AN/I. The AN/I has been written to cover the serious contentions: "Canvassing and campaigning, aspersion, POV pushing, editing in edits and editing to shame by User:P-123". My edit above was in direct reply to your content. There is plenty that I could say in reply to the points above but I believe these should be addressed in an appropriate forum. You say that you want to are looking to present a request for an IBAN which, as I believe I have already said, you are at liberty to do. Any editor is able to review all the related threads themselves. They can do this both on my User talk page with minimal deleted content, on your relatively highly edited page, on talk pages of PBS and Lor and at talk:ISIL. ]] 05:55, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
::::: ]: This undignified bickering has to stop. You have made your points, I have made mine. I will only comment if I see major '''misrepresentation''', not minor misrepresentation. In "Comments (2)" I have asked for a comprehensive IBAN. I checked beforehand with the Help Desk which confirmed that an IBAN request could be made during an AN/I. Leave what is presented for others to judge and do not add more to it; that way others will be put off proper perusal of what is here, which will be to your disadvantage. ] (]) 13:21, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
::::::] I have calmly stated my case in a straightforward way. You have offered your objections. I have disagreed. While there is plenty else that I could add the content here, I believe, will provide sufficient information for a reviewing admin to assess.
::::::Did you check to find out whether further information could not be added to an AN/I before instructing "do not add more to it" or is that your opinion? ]] 16:54, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
::::::: ]: No, I didn't. Just thought it was sensible not to. I am not trying to put you off adding new points, but if you do I would keep them succinct. What bothers me slightly is that others may be reading this now and making their assessments, missing anything that is added or skipping passages that look like more of the same. Shall we collapse this from "This undignified bickering"? I leave it to you. :) ] (]) 18:15, 30 December 2014 (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)
'''Comment''':</br>
:{{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)
I've been disappointed to see P-123, an editor I used to really respect, become argumentative and combative, seemingly for the sake of picking arguments, because when pushed there is no substance or objective to the point. P-123 fails to grasp ] focussing only on the neutral part to the exclusion of the balanced part. The encouragement of disruptive editors on article talk and personal talk to continue disruptive behavior is quite annoying. It appears to me they have been hounding Gregeye across various pages including my talk page ] and ] I've tried to stay out of this fight, but now that we are here, decided to comment. Seems to me P-123 could benefit from stepping back for a bit to get some useful perspective. ] (]) 18:24, 27 December 2014 (UTC)


== ] ==
*Legacypac is on the same side of the divide, as it were, over ] as Gregkaye; they interpret it one way, I interpret it another. For my sin of raising this very important issue and pursuing it relentlessly, I am considered a nuisance and troublemaker by them. No other editor has engaged in this debate on the Talk page recently, although the editor in item 6 has similar views to my own as can be seen in that link. There are a few others, but it would wrong to name them here. Legacypac's "encouragement of disruptive editors on article talk and personal talk to continue disruptive behaviour" is a judgment for the AN/I arbitrator to make on the evidence presented, of course, but "they have been hounding" is inaccurate; that was strictly between Gregkaye and myself. I warn now that any misrepresentation of facts in this AN/I will continue to be exposed. ] (]) 19:09, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
::] The other serious issues mentioned include: Canvassing and campaigning, aspersion, editing in edits and editing to shame. There should be no divide. Misplaced Pages has clear guidelines and indictions as to whether they are being followed are demonstrated in the quotes above as well as at ]. 21:18, 27 December 2014. I am pleased that you acknowledge, "that any misrepresentation of facts in this AN/I will continue to be exposed". ]] 17:34, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
{{collapse top|Digression}}
<small>Digression collapsed and some content <s>deleted</s> struck out as unnecessarily combative. ] (])</small></br>
<small>I was away from discussion but agree with ]'s collapse was an appropriate move. ]] 16:37, 28 December 2014 (UTC)</small>


:::<s>] I would leave it to whoever adjudicates this to act as judge and policeman in this matter. I know you like these roles, but it is not appropriate for you to undertake them at AN/I. ] (]) 22:27, 27 December 2014 (UTC)</s>
::::] What exactly are you saying this time? As you have more often taken the punitive, legislative, "nipping in the bud" approach to editors I find your suggestion of roles to be particularly insulting. How have I overstepped my role in the AN/I?
:::::Any editor can reply to any other editor so as to highlight perceived issues such as WP:OR, WP:RS, WP:NPOV, WP:INDCRIT or any other guideline based issue. As I have repeatedly stated, in many cases I have even tried to avoid direct article talk page confrontation by raising issues privately. As you know my first attempt has always been to try to approach an editor personally with attempts to reason a matter through. ]] 11:22, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
::::::<s>]: No, you are not having that. I took one editor to SPI for fairly obvious sock-puppeting, which action you agreed with and supported. I have never taken action against another editor. I do not take editors to task for infringing WP policy and guidance either (although I have supported you and Legacpac when you have taken editors to noticeboards). I do not feel it is my place to do that. ] (]) 11:40, 28 December 2014 (UTC)</s>
:::::::*I had forgotten about the RfC/U that I and another editor took out on one editor, although technically the first editor took it out and I joined in. ] (]) 01:30, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
:::::::] And this was the same editor that you got me to take to AN/I despite my reluctance to do so. <s>How many times have</s> you (<small>add:</small> have) privately canvassed editors towards the taking of action with other editors, otherwise advocated such action or highlighted infringement publicly for instance on article talk pages <s>or</s> (<small>add:</small> and there is evidence suggestive that you have) arranged such action on <s>the phone</s> e-mail<s>?</s>. ] ] 12:04, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
::::::::<s>] That is scurrilous and dangerous talk. It is defamation of an editor's character by insinuation. Again. Make your charges properly, or not at all. ] (]) 12:45, 28 December 2014 (UTC)</s>
:::::::::] All I was trying in indicate in response to your policeman and judge comment is that, from my perception of things, you have a more "the punitive, legislative, "nipping in the bud" approach" than I. I did not think that this content was relevant to the AN/I as presented. I can search through and find the references if you wish. I would ask that you please hold to the sentiment, "Make your charges properly, or not at all". It is very representative of a point of contention that I have also various made on a great many occasions. ]] 14:29, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
:::::::::::<s>We both know what you meant by email contact and that you know the full story there. That was a deliberate smear tactic. ] (]) 22:57, 28 December 2014 (UTC)</s>
::::::::::::I heard the story. You now assure that it is the full story. My initial question, "How many times have you ... arranged such action on e-mail" was genuine and placed in the context of a claim that I was especially the one who liked the roles of judge and policeman. A statement was then made, again in this context. There is no slur, only reply to the slurs that you have struck. ]] 17:30, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
:::::::::::::Fgs, ]! Of course it is. It was gone into in enormous detail at the time as you know. Why so much paranoia? There has been no other such action apart from the sock-puppet case and no, there was no consulting by email there, I did it on my own. And re re policeman: touché. :) ] (]) 18:43, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
:::::::''''
{{collapse bottom}}
:::Correct - relentless pursuit of an issue to the point of being a nuisance and troublemaker. It's very wrong to try to make an article about a terrorist organization - one that even al-Qaida rejects as too extreme - neutral. We need to have balance to all claims they make given the worldwide rejection of their claims and actions. To be clear, since I've been misinterpreted, I mean above that P-123 has been hounding Gregkaye, in my observation, for weeks. The editor in Item 6 that P-123 is encouraging to "knock some sense into them" was 3 month ISIL topic banned for being disruptive (recently lifted), which proves the point about "encouraging disruptive editors". And why has P-123 pushed my first comment out of order? Makes things hard to follow and confusing. ] (]) 22:04, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
<small>]: Technical problem. I intended my "Comments" section to end where in fact it says 21:05. I had been accumulating them, broke off to respond to your comment, returned to adding to them and added signature at the end of it, at 21.05. Then I went on to answer Gregkaye's responses. I did not mean to push your comment to one side. My apologies. ] (]) 22:58, 27 December 2014 (UTC)</small>


] is making wholesale reverts of my edits in contravention to guidelines. ] (]) 19:17, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
:]: To repeat, I view the ] issue as crucial to the editing of this article. <s>You do not, hence your view that pursuit of it was disruptive.</s> You disagree with an editor over what NPOV is in this article, hence you regard them as a nuisance and a troublemaker. That type of attitude to editors who disagree with you both suggests something I do not intend to broach here. I did not agree with the editor in item 6 on his stance on an editing point that led to his ban, btw, though I did think the ban was too harsh; I told him so in a very brief exchange about that subsequently. I had no idea what his views were about NPOV or anything else (they were not voiced on the Talk page) ''until'' I saw his response to my comment, as you will see if you read those exchanges carefully. So the canvassing charge there does not hold water. On the "hounding" point I misinterpreted "they", which I now see you meant in the Wikipedian sense of "s/he", sorry. The hounding was mutual, btw, but I would not expect you to be objective about this given all I said ealier, though to be fair, it would be unreasonable to expect you to know this, as you probably have not followed the labyrinthine twists and turns of this dispute. (I defy any sane person to attempt it, unless really necessary, as there are screeds and screeds of it on our Talk pages.) ] (]) 23:30, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
:You're removing demographic categories and templates by blanking them out; irreligion still deals with religion no matter your argument. That's definitely not compliant with ] and clearly vandalism. There's no action to take here except that you need to stop removing these categories and templates. <span style="font-family: Roboto;">''']''' <span style="color:#00008B">•</span> <small>''(])''</small></span> 19:42, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
::And you are now '''required''' to cite how your edits meet ]; spamming it in edit summaries is not discussion. <span style="font-family: Roboto;">''']''' <span style="color:#00008B">•</span> <small>''(])''</small></span> 19:47, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
::::While doing routine vandal patrol, I came across what seemed to be a hasty and massive removal of content, being done in a very directed and personal manner.
::::After looking at the persistent removal, and communicating, I restored the well-drawn categories.
::::Hopefully, this is easily resolved.
:::] (]) 20:40, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
::::43*, do not continue to revert these category removals without discussing them first. - ] <sub>]</sub> 22:48, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::THere is nothing to discuss. The guidelines are clear. What needs to be done is editors need to be familiar with the cat guidelines. We don't discuss whether the sky is blue do we? ] (]) 02:05, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
::::THey are not well drawn, it was not hasty, it was not massive, and it was not "personal". It was directed because they all had the same issue. ] (]) 02:07, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Editors should not blindly revert. They should be '''required''' to understand the guideleines. ] (]) 02:08, 21 December 2024 (UTC)


I gave up editing because there were too many problems that the wiki communtity is not sorting out. One of them is treating anon editors as second class wikicitizens.
:::I DO view NPOV as important which is why I oppose all efforts to present highly disputed fictional positions taken by terrorists as factual in WP. My view of NPOV on this topic is pretty mainstream as seen ] and as a couple examples of efforts to keep WP NPOV. ] (]) 00:01, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
::::] I am very sorry, I misrepresented you there. I have struck out the comment. But who is right and wrong on this is not the issue at hand in this AN/I. The charge is of POV-pushing, which I hope I have answered. ] (]) 00:38, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
:::::The third of the five charges presented was of POV-pushing and, with the other charges mentioned, the closing admin will come to a decision. Your unsubstantiated accusations "You do not"<small>struck</small> and "you regard them as a nuisance and a troublemaker"<small>not struck</small> and your derision "I would not expect you to be objective" are again, I think, clear examples of the ] of which I have been trying to make you aware. Those screeds are mainly on my talk page where you have regularly come to edit. Through it all there has been plenty of good and mutually beneficial material. However potential "eavesdroppers" may be well warned. ]] 18:42, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
::::::More '''misrepresentation'''. I deliberately kept Gregkaye off my Talk page when this dispute was well advanced, having asked him not to post any more comments. Until then I would say there were roughly equal amounts covering this dispute on both Talk pages. That comment gives the impression I was hounding. Again, the facts are trivial, but the '''misrepresesentation''' is not. ] (]) 16:49, 31 December 2014 (UTC)


Another problem is "this is how it is so we are going to leave it like this for years and years" and this is at the expense of the quality of WP.
'''Point by point response to "Comments (1)" by {{u|P-123}} above'''
*Item 4, the full quote here was "The quarrelling and walls of text on the Talk page now I think is driving editors away. I have only just seen your comments on the Talk page about the length of the article, and the answer to my question about criticism was there! Sorry about this. I am assuming you mean the emotive words in "Criticism". I have already gone through the article changing "massacres" and "executions" to neutral "killings". What about "diktat"? In history-writing this is a neutral term, but to me for a heading in "Governance" it is a POV, loaded word. ~ ] (]) 11:26, 17 November 2014 (UTC)" I think that this is pushing opinion and canvassing on a debate that at this same time was underway on the talk page. See
*Item 6, In whatever context, "I hope you can knock some sense into them. Good luck; you will need it", is canvassing. I also think that it counts as an encouragement of conflict of which we have already seen too much at talk:ISIL.
*'''Aspersion, POV pushing and editing in edits''', para 2, The context is found ]. There is nothing disingenuous. To put that in context the full quote was, "As you know I have been very concerned about your conduct on the Talk page with regard to some of the editing in the article for a very long time. The conflict between this and our otherwise good working relationship until recently has always put an enormous strain on me which you may not be aware of. I am afraid your latest aggression was the last straw and from now on I will be putting the article first. This is to inform you that I have added my concern to Anastaisis'" The alleged aspersion is within, "I have been very concerned about your conduct on the Talk page with regard to some of the editing in the article for a very long time." From my personal point of view I have felt it difficult to address issues related to NPOV with P-123 and had regularly deferred to discussing this editor's interpretation of my own alleged POV bias. More recently I have also began to challenge back but, as far as I am aware, this has always been in the context of my talk page. More recently still P-123 initiated the Pro-ISIL and anti-ISIL thread at Talk:ISIL and I gave a full presentation of how I viewed that the principles of NPOV were rightly applied in regard to the situations mentioned to which there was no reply. Despite discussion I still get comments alluding to some supposed concerning conduct of mine on the talk page. I don't think that this is good enough. I can understand that discussions may have "put an enormous strain" on P-123 but, again, the conversations were on my talk page. There was no hounding. From my perspective I simply replied as best I could to a great number of often drawn out conversations. As far as I can see the latest aggression mentioned was my reference to P-123's sophisms etc. text to which, in my second attempted private User talk page response I said "you continue to argue dirty" which at the time of the 'concerns' post had been refactored to "argue unfairly". That's what I think. I only wish I had developed the terminology of "scurrilous slurs" at the time. The informing of the concern was on Lor's talk page with new editor Anastaisis being pinged.
*'''Aspersion, POV pushing and editing in edits''', para 4, the edit again mentioned contains the text, "Any lawyer can weasel out of it, but these are all hard ''facts'', and they have to be dealt with as such in this article. These ''facts'' should not be twisted or denied with ]." I still regard the whole content to flagrantly break WP:OR, WP:RS, WP:NPOV and WP:INDCRIT. Again P-123's content was here entered on the 'important thread intended to reach a consensus as to whether entries on the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant should be barred from being entered into article pages and listings otherwise reserved for countries, nations and states' and yet, without any basis of logical support that I can see for the proposal, P-123 still I think alluded to lawyering weaseling supposed hard ''facts'' (certainly not established in talk page discussion and refuted in the "Pro-ISIL..." thread), twisting, denial and the use of sophistries. I responded with annoyance yes, but I would hope for better from Misplaced Pages editors than this.
*'''Aspersion, POV pushing and editing in edits''', para 5, absolutely I think my edit was hacked. Misplaced Pages editor's have no right to edit into other editor's contents. I did believe that edit was placed to provide maximum personal embarrassment. It was put on display with bold, bracketed and capitalised comment and drawing passing editor's attention to your IBAN proposal which should otherwise be presented in an appropriate forum. Such a forum would also permit the fair presentation to the, I believe, scurrilous slurs that were presented on the main article talk page.
*'''Aspersion, POV pushing and editing in edits''', para 5, again you should not have edited into my edits.
*'''Aspersion, POV pushing and editing in edits''', para 6, You say that you went to Lor and PBS in desparation. I had started the thread to you privately on your talk page partly to try to help you avoid potential conflict with another editor and then added to content with annoyance at the scurrilous slurs that I interpret that you had made and still not recognised on the article talk page.


I can't remember the specific category guideline for the edits I did but is the undoing editors need to look it up. Categorisation is something that a lot of editor do not understand. Go and put a notice on WikkiProoject Categorisation and you will fing that there is support for my edits.
While I admit to frustrated response I see that there is no excuse for the editorial activities mentioned. P-123 has been fully aware of topics mentioned and in some cases I have personally provided provided perspectives on the issues mentioned. Editor's are really obliged to edit according to practice presented in the guidelines and P-123 is no exception to this. Reassurances should be given that efforts will be made so that the editing practices mentioned will not be repeated. ]] 11:53, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
::]: You are repeating yourself. The "Sovereign state" complaint was answered in para 5 in "Comments (1)"; you are being disingenuous about this, you knew what had happened. This <s>petty sniping</s> has to stop; it will not help your case. The IBAN I requested in "Comments (2)" is now beginning to look like a very good idea. <s>, as you seem incapable of dropping this.</s> I am prepared to forgive and forget and get back to editing, but I will not tolerate '''misrepresentation'''. ] (]) 13:49, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
:::] I have presented a case, you have offered limited objections, I have proposed refutations to your objections. In regard to the '"Sovereign state" complaint' please also see the question presented in my post of 16:40, 30 December below. Accusations of an editor being "disingenuous" and engaging in "petty sniping" are serious. I have presented what happened. My case is presented to specifically address guidelines based behaviours as related to content above. For me it is genuinely with heavy heart that I am pursuing this action. I find it ridiculous that things have come this far and yet I see no choice other than to follow through on an AN/I that was enacted upon at your suggestion. The sovereign state issue, for one, is clear to me. In this your content was, in my view and your wording, full of "scurrilous slurs". While it is always preferable to have tolerable relationships with fellow editors, you can do as you like with your forgive and forget. The only issue here is that everyone in Misplaced Pages has the same obligation to in every way practicable edit in according to guidelines. I have found your editing practice to be disappointing in my personal view is that and my interpretation is that your resistance to face up to some clear issues is symptomatic of the problem. ]] 18:20, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
::::Obviously I cannot make you think what you don't want to think, ]. It seems to me you are determined to think ill of me and impute ''mala fides'' to everything I do. How can it have gone from exactly the opposite to this, in one month? We were always frank with each other and it has gone sour, and I cannot even remember exactly what the trigger was now. I do not agree with your assessment and it is not through pride. Let others decide which guidelines I have gone against, from the evidence you presented. One thing I do regret is having cast ] on you in this AN/I, for which I apologise. Let's stop, this isn't ]. ] (]) 19:25, 30 December 2014 (UTC)


WP could be sooo much better. ] (]) 02:02, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
=== ] is not an admin ===
Sorry, I just want to point out that ] is not an admin, although he definitely looks like one. Asking Lor for help isn't going to solve anything. ] (]) 22:47, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
:Pinging admin {{Ping|PBS}}. ] (]) 22:54, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
::] Thanks. Both have already been pinged, out of courtesy only, as the admin and editor involved in looking at the dispute before AN/I. ] (]) 23:30, 27 December 2014 (UTC)


:I'm sorry, but "I don't remember what policy says but I'm right so leave me alone" is an indication you should be trying to do better instead of telling us we should do the same. If you're not willing to actually explain why guidelines vindicate your changes, then being right sometimes isn't enough if you want to make things better. Communication is the process, not something ancillary to it. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>]</span> 02:10, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
*Hold on, admin ] hasn't been active a few days. Ping admin ] instead. ] (]) 23:40, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
::GO and read the guidelines. It does not need discussion. ] (]) 02:15, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
**Yes, I had the impression PBS was away. It is not like him not to respond to posts, and he hasn't been doing for some days now. Not sure Bishonen can help, as s/he has not been involved in this at all. No other admin has. Unless you are suggesting Bishonen should adjudicate this; as a comparative newbie I don't know how these things work. ] (]) 23:48, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
:::Discussion is required when other editors ask you questions in good faith in order to resolve present disputes and prevent future ones. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>]</span> 02:18, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Bishonen or ] should be able to help. ] (]) 23:56, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
::::] May I ask who you are? You seem quite knowledgeable for an IP. ] (]) 12:12, 28 December 2014 (UTC) ::Bear in mind this is WP and not social media. ] (]) 02:16, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::], you need to answer ] when he asks you a valid question. Just say that you are Neil Chadwick aka Technophant aka Stillwaterrising. You also should not be sockpuppeting after being banned. ] (]) 21:39, 31 December 2014 (UTC) ::How do you get the impression that "I don't remember what policy says but I'm right so leave me alone". ] (]) 02:18, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
:::No. You brought this here. The ] is on ''you'' to explain how the guidelines justify your edits, not to say "go look it up". Also {{tqq|How do you get the impression that "I don't remember what policy says but I'm right so leave me alone"}} - because that's exactly what you said. - ] <sub>]</sub> 02:19, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::]: May I ask you who are as well? No IP would have that kind of knowledge. ] (]) 22:10, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
::::It's not unreasonable in many cases to link to a very specific passage of a guideline and expect an editor to understand its meaning as regards a pertinent dispute, but you can't just fail to clearly articulate your argument while also insisting it's vindicated somewhere within the full text of a guideline. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>]</span> 02:21, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::You mean you want to know my real name? Sure, what's yours first, Sir? ] (]) 22:55, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
:Content dispute. Bold edits were reverted; next step is discussion, probably at ]. If there is dispute over interpretation of the guideline you can consider leaving a pointer at ]. If there are any categories that shouldn't be used at all that can be discussed at ]. ] (]) 03:31, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::] No, I meant username, but it doesn't matter, you have explained to Legacypac. :) ] (]) 10:26, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
::The content dispute could have been discussed on any of the talk pages. Yet it was brought here first. ] (]) 06:16, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
:::When a content dispute involves several pages it is often <small>though not always</small> best to centralize discussion. Misunderstanding ANIs purpose and bringing content disputes here is a common and understandable error; best just to point people at appropriate ] when that happens. ] (]) 06:53, 21 December 2024 (UTC)


Not overly impressed by 43's comments above. But do wish to note that their ] of ] from at least one BLP appears to have been correct. The subsequent reversion of that removal is misfortune. ] <sup>]</sup> 08:06, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
=== Comments by {{u|GraniteSand}} ===
I'll comment on the section in which directed at me on my talk page are characterzed as "canvassing". A cursory look by a reasonable outside person show that the comments provided are not canvassing. As a matter of fact, the body of "evidence" in that section in general is rather fevered. The blood between Gregkaye and P-123 has really gone bad over the past few weeks, with no small part being played by {{u|Legacypac}}, seen above, as well. The entire root of this conflict is the incredibly pugnacious climate over at ]. Both this dispute and the article need outside intervention, preferably not by ], as he is both ill-equipped and, by this point, involved. ] (]) 02:24, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
::*I agree. The article is in serious trouble. ] (]) 09:24, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
:I've tried to steer clear of conflict between these two, even told them to calm down at one point. I've commented here because it got really out of hand and landed here. My advice (as I said above) is that P-123 take a break from the topic because it is evidently getting the best of the editor (based on the editor's various comments). ] (]) 02:32, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
:#{{u|GraniteSand}} Please see ], "While the purpose of article talk pages is to discuss the content of articles, the purpose of user talk pages is to draw the attention or discuss the edits of a user." The concept is that, if you see an issue with regard to a user's edits, you go directly to that user so as to raise issues directly. P-123's comments went well beyond these bounds and into canvassing.
:#Please strike your comment, "with no small part being played by {{u|Legacypac}}" or justify. Again see ]. As far as I can remember the only time that Legacypac has made comment on our interaction was in the context of my previous attempt to clear up understandings with P-123 in my thread ]. In that thread Legacypac added comment which I moved to subsection: Respectful interjection, and the comment read: "Respectfully in my opinion both of you have been taking a perfectionist "challenge everything" and eliminate anything that could be read as POV by anyone. Remember this is WP and anyone can edit." I know of no other interjection placed by Legacypac and give you opportunity to elucidate.
:#I agree that the blood has gone bad even to the point of actions being initiated against me first thing on Christmas Day. This was all in response to P-123's newly acquired habit of editing my edits. We used to have a good relationship as perhaps evidenced by the 379 reverences to P123ct1 in my ] alone. In all this time I had tolerated what I have increasingly come to recognise as policy infringement and at this point I saw no reason not to take up the suggestion of initiate the AN/I. There is nothing fevered in the AN/I although the anger on both sides is there. The "entire root of this" AN/I is P-123's manner of behaviour in relation to his/her editing of this and related articles. You cite "the incredibly pugnacious climate over at ]". I will in turn cite P-123's recent comment stating, amongst other things, that "You and a couple of other editors have the best manners on the TP, IMO". The whole point of coming to AN/I is to get "outside intervention" which I think has been long overdue. I have no objection to the involvement of another admin but I am very far from an opinion that PBS may have taken any side. Your slurs against this administrator of being "ill-equipped" and "involved" should be substantiated. I suspect that your intervention here is only as a result of the selective by an editor that, I think, habitually refuses to get the point. If uninvolved people are meant to make contribution, why are you here? ]] 08:40, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
::::(edit conflict) In response to Legacypac's comment, I would say it is getting the better of Gregkaye, based on the editor's latest comments on his Talk page. I believe all this has happened because for the very first time I have taken an uncharacteristcally strong line on editing in this article on the main Talk page. These two editors have never been seriously challenged. An editor who did challenge the status quo in the article I believe was driven from the page for his outspoken views. I do not think is right that I should name this editor. I have not met any serious opposition from editors apart from these two. I have always managed to work in harmony with other editors, <s>with no exception,</s> even when our views have been different.. I have even managed to persuade editors to come to consensus after long debate that was getting nowhere, on at least three occasions, and have never been criticised for that. ] (]) 09:11, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
:::::]: You say, "The "entire root of this" AN/I is P-123's manner of behaviour in relation to his/her editing of this and related articles." Which related articles? This is a very good example of the type of slurs on my editing that Gregkaye has been making recently, in five different venues. In my view, this is defamatory, and if it were not for this AN/I I would probably do something about it. This kind of talk would not be permitted in real life. ] (]) 10:03, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
::::::::''''
::::::::And that is what I said above in the context of this current content. This comment was made by way of reply to claim that the "entire root of this" AN/I was within something entirely different which I view to be falacious. I have recently challenged Legacypac regarding accountability to the talk page. At the bequest of P-123 I took an editor to AN/I even though this editor had similar views to me. I reject any notion that this AN/I was initiated due to viewpoint issues on the page. It is presented in response to behaviours, behaviours that I think should be applied to this editor's contribution to article discussion and behaviours in relation to this editor's interaction to me. It is as simple as that. ]] 13:58, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
:::::::::]: I was referring to the slur about "and related articles". Which related articles? ] (]) 21:36, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
::::::::::*]: You need to answer that question. Which related articles? Until you do, that sentence looks like another '''misrepresentation'''. ] (]) 22:22, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
::::::I need to amend what I said in my last comment but one. I said that the two editors had never been seriously challenged. In fact, Gregkaye was challenged over an editing matter at AN/I in October, but the result of the AN/I was inconclusive and he received no sanction. I said that I had managed to work well with all editors. There was an exception in August when there was trouble between myself and another editor who no longer edits in ISIS along with many others. At that time I was less vociferous and forceful than now. I do not think it right to name the editor, but can provide details to whoever arbitrates this AN/I if needed. ] (]) 22:06, 28 December 2014 (UTC)


== User:ZanderAlbatraz1145 Civility and Content #2 ==
===Further discussion===
*{{userlinks|ZanderAlbatraz1145}}
With regards to ] comment "preferably not by ], as he is both ill-equipped and, by this point, involved." see on ].As neither ] or ] has made any such accusation I will put those to one side.
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.
The problem here is that two users are distressing each other, but compared to some wikidrams (see for example {{cite web |url= http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/bitwise/2014/12/wikipedia_editing_disputes_the_crowdsourced_encyclopedia_has_become_a_rancorous.html |title= Encyclopedia Frown |last=Auerbach |first=David |date=11 December 2014}}) this is not a particularly insidious one.


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 .
ANI is suitable for dealing with clear breaches of Misplaced Pages policies and to a lesser extent guidelines. In this case problems are based on differences in points of view of a specific topic which is already subject general sanctions (see ]), and as these points of view have not been reconciled despite good will on both sides to try to resolve tensions. These differences in points of view have lead to conflict and a gradual erosion of good faith.


This editor displays no interest in conducting themselves cordially or cooperatively on this website. ] 23:20, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
The request for an ] is inappropriate while one of the editors are so narrowly focused on the topic area covered by the general sanctions mentioned in the previous paragraph (, and . This is because the POV differences inevitably means that the two editors are going to come into conflict over that issue and specifically the article ]. I see no reason to place an involuntary restriction on either editors at the moment but I would like to encourage ] to follow up on the statement made higher up this page:
:I've given them a warning for canvassing: - ] <sub>]</sub> 04:08, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
*{{green|I am glad ] brought this to AN/I; I even suggested he do this myself, to clear the air. ... I am not against a topic ban, as I have already said on my Talk page that I no longer wish to copy-edit or edit the ISIS page. ] (]) 21:05, 27 December 2014 (UTC)}}
: - ] <sub>]</sub> 05:36, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
If ] is willing to agree to such a voluntary restriction on all the pages covered by the ] and the talk pages of those articles for a period of three months, then we can close this ANI. This voluntary moratorium is only to come into affect with an explicit announcement by ] in this ANI, and on the understanding that it does not come into affect until ] agrees to withdraw all allegations listed at the start of this ANI. The self-imposed moratorium will not prevent ] voicing a single opinion of not more than 400 words on any "RfC" or "Requested move" on the article talk pages covered by the general sanctions. -- ] (]) 15:32, 29 December 2014 (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 ] ==
I have had responses from both Gregkaye and P-123 to this proposal on my talk page (see ). The most specific point is that P-123 states "I changed my mind about a topic ban". -- ] (]) 17:21, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
:Thanks to ] for making the effort to sort this out. He stated above that he'd like to get a voluntary agreement. For two editors like ] and ] who have been active on a topic like ISIS, an IBAN poses obvious difficulties. This leads us to consider the wisdom of a topic ban. Should the voluntary agreement to a topic ban not be found (since P-123 now objects) the option of a mandatory topic ban under ] should be considered. I suggest that other admins should wait until PBS has finished his efforts before imposing such a remedy. ] (]) 18:11, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
::Are we talking about topic bans for both editors or only P-123? ] (]) 22:01, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
:::Maybe editors could comment here on the merits of a topic ban on P-123 versus both P-123 and GregKaye. This entire thread was opened as a complaint by ]. Following his statement, ] asked for a mutual interaction ban: {{green|I formally request the imposition of an interaction ban on Gregkaye and myself for as long a period as possible. }} A review of ] shows that much of the page consists of back-and-forth disputes between the two editors. This shows the wisdom of ] trying to negotiate a voluntary topic ban of both parties. But if one or more editors disagrees, and if we conclude that we might have to sanction just one party then somebody will have to read through all that stuff and weigh the claims. ] (]) 23:14, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
:::::*I am shocked that reading all that stuff and weighing the claims is not done routinely at AN/I. ] and I took a lot of trouble to present and defend the case as carefully as we have. ] (]) 09:03, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
::::My concern is the edit pattern of P-123 as shown in the edit history I listed at the start of this subsection. Nearly all of the edits in article space are to ] or related subjects with the exception of some edits to the article "]" and one edit to the biography article "]". The editing interaction of the two in article space can be seen . Looking through their edit interaction on the talk pages I do not see one as much worse than the other, they both now tend to assume bad faith in what the other says and does. When one editor is editing such a narrow range of articles an IBAN is not an option (if editors were edit a wider range of articles with less overlap then IBAN becomes an option). @] my proposed solution was based on what ] had offered near the beginning of the section, but that offer has been withdrawn. I had not suggested a voluntary topic ban for both editors as that was not an option that ] had offered. Also on my talk page ] has stated that "while I would go along with a voluntary restriction if that is what is chosen, my concern is that this resolves nothing". GregKaye is concerned that a break of 3 months interaction between himself and P-123 is only putting the issue on ice -- I tend to think that a cooling off period may help re-establish some good faith (or at least reduce the bad faith) and to encourage P-123 to start to edit wider range of articles. @] given the postings by ] and ] you should be able to see where this conversation is heading, please explain briefly why you have withdrawn you offer to take a wiki-break from editing "]". -- ] (]) 00:18, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
:::::To clarify, my steadily growing concern over time and at every stage of this process is that nothing is resolved. There are issues related to content in this AN/I that I have raised with P-123 regarding editing behaviour (with these with these issues being firstly raised within the context of our long history of talk page discussion, then in response to discussion that spilled over into article talk page discussion as at and then, when I did not see any other option available, in this AN/I. The issues that I am raising are "Canvassing and campaigning, aspersion, POV pushing, editing in edits and editing to shame". My concern here as elsewhere is that, as far as I have seen, there is a lack of admittance by P-123 in regard to the issues mentioned and no reassurance seems to be given that the same behaviours will not continue in the future. The issues mentioned, as I have mentioned, are not solely relevant to "ISIL" related topics but are general principles of Misplaced Pages and the more specific aspersions issue is not specific to me but may similarly be apply to other editors as well. P-123, for instance, declares knowledge of strict rules in regard to canvassing and yet still engages in these behaviours. This editor has a knowledge of guidelines but, as I see it, doesn't like it when an editor starts "Telling editors ... how they should behave" as per my talk page. <small>(All editors should conduct themselves according to Misplaced Pages guidelines. I don't apply this solely only to apply this to editors who disagree with me. This is shown in that I recently left a message with Legacypac relating to what I considered to be best practice and have similarly presented messages at ], an editor who has similar views as me on some issues, and I was still advocating guidelines based behaviour).</small> Plain and simple, this AN/I is about editor behaviours that I am saying have to stop. Other issues can be dealt with elsewhere. ]] 05:03, 30 December 2014 (UTC)


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


:]? ] (]) 06:25, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
'''Response by P-123 to AN/I charges'''</br>
::{{duck}}. I'm sending this ]. - ] <sub>]</sub> 11:16, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
:::, so might just be generic disruption. - ] <sub>]</sub> 22:47, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
:What are you implying with regard to my username? My edit history has been limited to trying to correct two red flags that stood out so much that I followed the citations when I was searching these scientists who were in the news for censorship. It has been enlightening learning how wikipedia selectively chooses secondary sources but discourages the use of primary sources to help discriminate which secondary sources are credible.
:For my two attempted contributions to Misplaced Pages, the two red flags were pretty dramatic to prompt me to check out the citations--Sunetra Gupta's article implied more than 1 in 1000 people in England died from Covid in spring 2020 in an effort to discredit her, which was trivially easy to google as untrue. I corrected that without really changing the overall narrative. The article for Martin Kulldorff...I would probably not have spent time looking at the sources or realized how unscientific Kulldorff's critics were had there not been such superfluous "Wikivoice" editorializing and synthesizing suggesting Kulldorff lied in an essay to the public. ] (]) 06:30, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
::] are not to be used for anything but simple facts about a subject. They absolutely are not to be used {{tqq|to help discriminate which secondary sources are credible}} because that is ]. - ] <sub>]</sub> 08:57, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Not sure why you felt the need to repeat what I said. Maybe I am the sock puppeteer! ] (]) 03:33, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
::What I am implying is that such a username in the context of an account pushing COVID-denialist rhetoric that flies in the face of the sources and Misplaced Pages policy is . Anyway, this editor continues to be a drain of editor time and attention. ]&nbsp;]] 14:58, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Ah an absurd, convoluted, and contrived personal attack. Assuming anyone but you knew tiki torches were present at a political event where someone was killed, why would I choose my username based on that? Tikitorches provide light, warmth, and keep the mosquitos away. I guess its not surprising an editor named writ keeper attacks the editor rather than effectively debating the subject of the edit. ] (]) 03:28, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
::::Even if it was a personal attack, making one ''back'' isn't going to fly here. Knock it off. - ] <sub>]</sub> 04:04, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::], your edits are being examined at ANI. This is not a pleasant experience, I'll admit. So, it's best for you not to dig yourself into a hole. I know the instinct is to defend yourself but it doesn't help your situation to come out swinging. It's probably to your benefit to address any concerns that have been raised and say no more than that. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 04:30, 23 December 2024 (UTC)


== ] ==
I do not believe I have canvassed or campaigned or that I have broken any guidelines on ], but that is for the adjudicator to determine on the evidence presented. I think that ] has misinterpreted my intentions on almost everything. I think this is borne out by my detailed answers to his charges at the beginning of this AN/I. I think it is telling that none of these charges has been raised on our Talk pages and came as a great surprise, except the charges of ] and of POV-pushing, which arises from our difference of view on ] (which until recently was a long-standing amicable disagreement). I would add that the way I express my strong views on the Talk page which Gregkaye objects to as breaking the ] guideline is nowhere near the level of ] that other editors come to, and he has not taken any action there. Since the dispute started Gregkaye's hostility has grown apace, and mine in reaction, and has reached a pitch in this AN/I that shocked me when I first read his charges a few days ago. ] (]) <small>(signature added later)</small>
{{atop|result=Just officially closing this discussion as the account involved has been globally blocked. If an editor has Spore on your Watchlist and you see this occurring again, contact your local administrator. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 06:25, 24 December 2024 (UTC)}}
This user made 500 edits to their user page which were all completely useless (] to inflate their edit count) and then once receiving extended-confirmed permissions vandalized ] by copypasting another article. Their user page shows them editing and counting to 500. ]] 04:52, 22 December 2024 (UTC)


:It's a ], and I just reported to AIV. ] (]) 04:58, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
Correction: Gregkaye has raised with me on his Talk page his objection to editing within edits. There were several instances of that in the past week or so on the main Talk page (as he noted I have not done it before) and I am still not clear whether it violates any guideline. There have been a couple of instances of the "editing to shame" - where I put the name of editors who had breached some guideline in a heading - but readily accepted the error when pointed out by Gregkaye. This completes the list of reprehensible behaviours that Gregkaye has raised, I believe. ] (]) 08:52, 30 December 2014 (UTC)</br>


::Would it be possible to put up some kind of filter to alert for this? Something that…say…catches when more than 25 edits are made in a single space (user space for example) or something that would trip if the edits added less than 5 characters consistently? <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 05:15, 22 December 2024 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:::There is a filter for this. Look at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Special:AbuseLog&wpSearchUser=International+Space+Station0&offset=20241222044736, "New account unusual activity" covers exactly this. ] (]) 05:22, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
*This account has been globally blocked as an LTA so it shouldn't be an issue. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 05:25, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
*:At what point is it appropriate to selectively delete their hundreds of edits of nonsense from the page history?
*:Or is that just something that isn't done? &ndash; ] (]) (]) 05:28, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
*::If you are talking ], there is rarely a good reason for it's use at present. If instead you mean ] see ] and ]. ] (]) 05:33, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::I've gone ahead and revdel'd the lot of them, as cut-and-pasting from other articles without proper attribution is copyvio and thus RD1able. Selective deletion (making the edits go away from the history) is probably not going to happen, if it's even technically possible for an article with almost *9500* revisions (I know ]!). - ] <sub>]</sub> 08:55, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
{{abot}}


== Disruptive editor on ] ==
'''Further discussion (continued)'''


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)
The edits to this sub-section since my last edit, by ] and ] are a microcosm of the problems that this ANI highlights. Unsolicited GregKaye jumps in and muddies the water reiterating points that have been made several times (and given that it is addressed to three experienced edits/administrators teaching grandmothers to suck eggs). It was not helpful as it obscures the simple question I asked ]. ] You have made three posts one of which is inserted out of chronological sequence "{{green|I am shocked...}}", one of which had no signature "{{green|I do not believe...}}", and not one of them did as I requested: {{green|given the postings by ] and ] you should be able to see where this conversation is heading, please explain briefly why you have withdrawn you offer to take a wiki-break from editing "]"}} -- ] (]) 10:49, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
:]: (a) I had not forgotten your question; (b) there is a time-zone difference here; (c) I could not see where the conversation was leading; (d) I was distracted by Gregkaye's digression; (e) last but not least, I was puzzled by your "please explain briefly why you have withdrawn you offer to take a wiki-break from editing "]". I had said, "I am not against a topic ban", did not offer a voluntary topic ban (if that is what you meant by an offer to take a wiki-break from editing). I changed my mind because like ] I would like this question of behaviours sorted out properly before any sanction is applied, voluntary or otherwise. Please make allowances for the stress that Gregkaye and I are under in this AN/I, not least because two once good colleagues have fallen out, which I know distresses us both. ] (]) 11:29, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
*]: I can only presume that there are some AN/I conventions or maybe something more basic that I should have researched and followed on this. In this I guess I messed up in that I was trying to raise clarity, not to reduce it. I will happily take relevant direction to move or delete or take other action with content here. ]] 20:24, 30 December 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.
::@] My question was in reference to {{green|I am glad ] brought this to AN/I; I even suggested he do this myself, to clear the air. ... I am not against a topic ban, as I have already said on my Talk page that I no longer wish to copy-edit or edit the ISIS page. ] (]) 21:05, 27 December 2014 (UTC)}} specifically {{red|as I have already said on my Talk page that I no longer wish to copy-edit or edit the ISIS page.}} Why have you changed your minded over a twice repeated statement that you no longer wish to copy-edit or edit the ISIS page? -- ] (]) 12:07, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
:::Admin ] has brought up a good point. ] should just answer the question. Also, ], have you noticed that this ANI is the longest on this page mainly because of your edits? ] (]) 21:53, 31 December 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)
::::I was surprised by that as it wasn't my impression so did a rough count. After the first part ending with my "Comments (2)": P-123 - 155 lines: Gregkaye - 235 lines. My comments were nearly always in response to Gregkaye's; surely self-defence is permitted. ] (]) 12:06, 1 January 2015 (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)
:::::]: In "Comments (1)", "I no longer wish to copy-edit or edit the ISIS page" was a mistake; "or edit" should not be there. I noted the mistake in small print just beneath that. I had twice said (in ISIS talk and own Talk page) that I no longer wished to copy-edit the page, nothing about editing. Editing is very different from copy-editing, which is what I mainly do in WP (see my userpage). I would like to continue editing ISIS as opposed to copy-editing it, ''if'' no IBAN is imposed (which looks increasingly unlikely). I hope that is clear now. ] (]) 15:09, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
::::Here's the page for what is considered acceptable sources {{lw|Acceptable sources}}.
::::''Relevance. Sources must be relevant--there must be some reason for the reader to care about what the author has to say. For example, the opinion of a random individual on the presidency of George W. Bush, as published in a letter to the editor of a major newspaper, is not relevant; and thus should not be included--even though it is published, traceable to its author, and given in a reputable publication. Relevance can be imputed several ways--through explicit personal knowledge, through subject-matter authority, through general notability of the author, through demonstrable correlation with the opinion(s) of a large group of people, etc.''
::::A large group of people, the editors of When the Pawn...'s page throughout the years, thousands of people on music reviewing sites and numerous music journalists from legitimate publications do not agree with what this one article you cherrypicked states.
::::''Note that this policy is the minimum standard for inclusion as a reference in Misplaced Pages. Sources may meet this standard and still not be authoritative, reliable, accurate, free from bias, or undisputed. Sources which meet this minimum standard but which fail to meet stricter standards may be used, but should be used with caution. In particular, such sources should be explicitly attributed to their author(s) or publisher(s) in an article's prose (rather than being presented as fact with the author only given in the notes), and disputes considering the source's veracity should be described.''
::::Meaning you can't just add any genre because some random source says it when it goes against larger and more reliable sources as well as it is controversial.
::::Thank you and please stop vandalizing pages on topics of music you do not understand. ] (]) 21:04, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::]. Note that accusing editors of vandalism when they are not, in fact, vandalising can be considered a ], so I'd suggest you strike that comment. - ] <sub>]</sub> 21:14, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::Okay, I strike. ] (]) 21:17, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::You didn't actually strike any comments. To do so, do this <nowiki><s>Comment</s></nowiki> which will make it look like this <s>Comment</s>. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 22:17, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::<s> please stop vandalizing pages on topics of music you do not understand.</s> ] (]) 22:26, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
::::{{ping|Longislandtea}} How is the source considered not relevant and where was this dispute? AllMusic ''does not'' call the album alternative rock at all within its article. Rate Your Music is also not a source it's user generated which is against Misplaced Pages. I really wish an admin would comment on this because this is getting absolutely nowhere. ] (]) 21:05, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::Here's another source describing it as an alternative rock and jazz fusion album
:::::https://www.the-solute.com/the-solute-record-club-fiona-apple-when-the-pawn/
:::::Alt pop is not accurate. If you're so adamant about alt pop, please argue why. It is completely inaccurate and you have one singular source over music journalists and music sites. Allmusic does categorize it as alternative rock, Pitchfork has categorized it as rock since 1999 of its release. There was NO Alt-pop at the time. It still isn't. These are different genres. Art pop is not Alt pop. You edited the page one time in October 2024 only to get rid of the genre list that editors agreed upon to add Alt pop which makes no sense whatsoever. ] (]) 21:17, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::I have now added a new source to the genre list. If you have any problems with the new source, tell me. But it's much more accurate this way. It's still sad to see the whole genre list that was originally there, so much more descriptive and fitting, hacked away but oh well. ] (]) 21:31, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::Pitchfork's categorizations mean basically nothing. They have ten categories, one of which is "Pop/R&B", and another of which is "Global". By the way, you should just stop caring about this, because sources misclassify genres of music chronically and everywhere you look. Take your passion to RateYourMusic. <span style="position: relative; top: -0.5em;">꧁</span>]<span style="position: relative; top: -0.5em;">꧂</span> 18:16, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
:All of this discussion should be taking place on the article's talk page (which neither editor has used). ]&nbsp;] 21:36, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
::{{ping|Schazjmd}} I'm awaiting for an admin to respond. This conversation is getting nowhere hence the reason why I brought it here in the first place. I've tried to explain to the user on their talk page along with this entire thread and it's getting nowhere. {{ping|The Bushranger}} you left a comment but could you please share your opinion on the dispute? Or possibly ping an admin who's familiar with music if this isn't your area of familiarity? ] (]) 21:49, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
:::There was no reason to bring this conversation here. I talked to you directly but go no real reply or any arguments despite adding sources and explaining why it's not an Alt pop album. I've explained to you well enough. Please stop trying to get admins to ban me simply because I (and other editors) recognize that the genre list that you got rid of was far more fitting. There's a new genre list now with sources but it is not Alt-pop. The album was already added to the wikipedia album pages for Alternative rock and art pop. I'm familiar with these genres and Fiona Apple specifically to know that it's accurate hence why the genre list has been that way for years. If you're adamant about sources, there is a source. Accusing me of not sourcing should be considered a false accusation at this point. Not all sources are equal either and I've tried explaining that to you. ] (]) 21:55, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
:::], you were given good advice which is to have this discussion on the article talk page which neither editor has posted at yet. This is a content dispute. If no action has been taken yet by an administrator, it's likely because they don't agree with your statement that action needs to be taken. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 22:22, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
::::Okay, will do. Thank you Liz. ] (]) 22:24, 22 December 2024 (UTC)


=== Irrelevant sources and unnecessary changes to genre list on {{pagelinks|When the Pawn...}} ===
===Proposed Voluntary Resolution===
::::Commenting as an editor with significant interaction with both editors, I would like to build on PBS's great suggestion while finding a way that both can continue to edit freely. Both have made excellent and almost always productive contributions to the articles, and there is minimal content dispute (no edit warring). The problems are in the talk page activity. My suggestion is that the two editors agree to the following terms:


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.
::::1. No posting to each others talk pages
Here's how the genre list has looked over a long period of time, without much controversy from editors not readers:
::::2. No discussions between the editors on other peoples talk pages
https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=When_the_Pawn...&oldid=1178937091 from 2023
::::3. Limit interactions on article talk space to different threads except for votes. So if A starts or comments on a thread B stays out of it.
::::4. Anyone is welcome to participate constructively in any dispute resolution
::::5. If they breach these terms, anyone else can delete the comments without further debate.


https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=When_the_Pawn...&oldid=1049316366 from 2021
::::If you both agree, the ANi and everything in it ends. How about that ] and ]? ] (]) 01:40, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
:] The AN/I is written to address: "Canvassing and campaigning, aspersion, POV pushing, editing in edits and editing to shame by User:P-123". Any other alleged issues can be dealt with in another forum. ]] 05:18, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
::What ] suggests is a kind of IBAN on both, and I think he has pinpointed where the problem is: in the actual interaction between ] and myself, not the editing, although there is obviously a clear divide on some important editing points. As this AN/I has proceeded and Gregkaye has made his views very clear, more so than in any exchanges we have had in our Talk pages - I am speaking only for myself when I say that - I can see that the fundamental problem is that we do not understand each other and probably never will, hence the clashes which started on our Talk pages and as the dispute worsened spread to the main Talk page. I have often been puzzled by the objections Gregkaye has raised on our Talk pages and as I see now have sometimes misinterpreted them, and through this AN/I I understand more now about Gregkaye's objections to my editing activity than I ever did before. I would agree to the solution Legacypac proposes but I do not think Gregkaye would agree to it. ] (]) 07:28, 30 December 2014 (UTC)


Thank you. ] (]) 19:32, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
:This will not work. Lets game play it. GregKaye makes an edit to ] P-123 reverts it with some comment such as "edit unbalances POV". GregKaye writes on the talk page in a new section "Oh no it does not unbalance the POV because..." P-123 can not post an explanation, GregKaye reverts. Now what? ] breaks down. Second case P-123 makes an edit and explains in a new section on the talk page "edit to improve the POV", GregKaye can not reply and if GK disagrees and reverts with no discussion ] breaks down. Also point five "If they breach these terms, anyone else can delete the comments without further debate." bad idea as the deleting editor can be seen as biased and it will shift the debate to one with a proxy. I could go through all your points one at a time, but in brief without good faith this will not work. -- ] (]) 10:49, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
::Well I tried anyway. I'm tired of reading this bickering all over my favorite pages and on my talk page. ] (]) 12:01, 30 December 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)
::*Legacypac's 1 and 2 are a good idea, 4 and 5 not so much, but on 3: I would be prepared to not comment on ]'s edits and/or discussion by Gregkaye of edits if they raise the dreaded NPOV lurgy. Going by past experience I don't think we are likely to clash on anything else, so I don't think other restrictions need be imposed on thread discussion. '''' ] (]) 14:40, 30 December 2014 (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 - how about agreeing to Points 1 & 2 ]? At least that will confine the debate to article space and notice boards? ] (]) 19:42, 30 December 2014 (UTC)


:I much prefer Admin Dougweller's adjudication to impose a 3-months IBAN and Topic Ban to give them time to reflect on their improper behavior. ] (]) 21:44, 31 December 2014 (UTC)


::]: Could you define exactly the "improper behaviour", please? ] (]) 23:02, 31 December 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
:::I could, but I'd much rather you used the 3 months wisely in reflection. De Nile is not just a river in Egypt. ] above noted them and I did a quick search of your contributions and saw this unsigned edit by you, right? . ] (]) 23:17, 31 December 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.
===Further discussion===
*] From my point of view the very fact that you consider that the problem is "not the editing" is exactly the reason that the problem has come to this. I have presented, I think, some clear issues above and, to my eyes, I see deflection and avoidance of responsibility. For instance, after I challenged you on the content of your sovereign state edit you radically changed its content. Now you rationalise it as "normal Talk page discussion". From my point of view you have not taken the majority of issues mentioned on board and I consider IDHT. I have added a point by point response to your "Comments (1):" at the end of that section above. Please consider the content presented.
:In ] thread you promised me "of course"<small>(your words)</small> you would put "an end to the accusation without substantiation" <small>(my words)</small>. You have consistently renegued on this promise. Your sovereign state edit was, I think, dripping with scurrilous slurs. That's how I see it and again I think that there is a need for you to put aside what I consider to be your combative approach to talk page editing where a range of non guidelines based tactics seem to me to be acceptable to you. After a long history of long drawn out discussion, after chasing after multiple administrator and suspected administrator threads regarding a User talk page thread which was in response to scurrilous content and after this length of AN/I, I have no faith that these activities will stop. ]] 12:11, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
::]: <s>Wake up.</s> How that sovereign state edit came about is in para 5 of "Comments (1)": it was not meant for your eyes, I was annotating it for myself in preparation for an IBAN request, I made a mistake, I should have taken a copy and annotated that, I pinged you when explaining that to PBS, you knew this. Please do not routinely attribute ''mala fides'' to my every word and action. Again, the more you add to this AN/I the less likely it is you will get a fair hearing; who wants to trawl through all these repetitions and enormous detail? ] (]) 14:05, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
:::] One straightforward question. Please answer directly. Within a post in which you state, in a way that seems to be a statement of pure ], "Cannot justify this view, just seems common sense to me", is it then fair to then assertively state "Any lawyer can weasel out of it, but these are all hard ''facts'', and they have to be dealt with as such in this article. These ''facts'' should not be twisted or denied with ]"? Full quote found . Full archived thread, ]. Please do not insult with introductions like "Wake up". Also this is English Misplaced Pages. If you want to make accusation you can do so in the language we all speak. My specific accusation was not of bad faith but stated my view that, in your words, your statement was dripping with "scurrilous slurs". Have a look. How do you read it? There is more that I can say but one thing at a time. ]] 16:40, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
::::I see we have been talking at cross-purposes when talking about "Sovereign state". I thought you were referring to the thread in para 5 in "Aspersions ..." which also is headed "Sovereign state". I cannot see how my comments about lawyers weaseling, etc are so offensive. That kind of talk is par for the course in ISIS talk. Editors can be far harsher and more damning than that, and often personally to other editors. Now I would call ''ad hominem'' comments ], but mine was a general comment, not addressed to any one editor. In my opinion you are over-analysing it, ]. ] (]) 20:06, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
:::::], I believe that you do not see how your comments about lawyers weaseling, etc are problematic, or how such sweeping criticism of all people that disagree with your arguments is unacceptable in any situation let alone a public article talk page. This saddens me but these arguments are now for a closing admin to assess though I would be happy to research and present other examples should anything further be required. The vast majority of editors at talk:ISIL stay well clear of the type of infringement displayed just in that edit. Its no justification to say I was not wrong because others have been worse than me. The purpose in Misplaced Pages is solely to develop good, accurate, well reasoned and well presented content. This is why fair presentation of views in a collegiate and not necessarily a combative environment is key. ]] 20:37, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
::::::Your counsel of perfection is unrealistic in my opinion, ]. I think you would be better off editing than trying to hold editors to your high behavioural standards. That is the only polite way I can put it. ] (]) 23:26, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
:::::::] You do not get it. Here is the difference. In my second response I stated "you continue to argue dirty" which, when the content was placed back onto your personal User page, I edited back to "you continue to argue unfairly". In your public article talk page content you give ] in a way that I allege infers lawyerism, weaselling, "all hard facts" and twisting facts or the denial of facts with sophistries. These scurrilous, unreferenced and unfounded slurs, as I see them, go way beyond anything that I have presented and yet it seems that you don't even see any of this content as wrong. You are happy to dole out your own often unreferenced criticisms yet when you get criticised in connection to this incredibly clear situation as presented, it seems to me that ''you'' deny the facts. You mention par for the course. Who are the people who you think have presented a higher level of non-guidelines based, unsubstantiated accusation than this? The standards mentioned are not my standards. They are the standards presented by this encyclopaedia, and encyclopaedia that also sees fit to organise itself with an administrative system to see that those standards are maintained. I had previously had hope, after expending effort elsewhere in trying to present these things to you, that you might come to accept these issues at AN/I and, again, I remain saddened that this is not the case. The primary goal of Misplaced Pages is to build an encyclopaedia and I do not agree that what I regard to be manipulative partisan presentation has relevance here.
:::::::We disagree on this which is fine but, believe me, I have heard everything that you have had to say on this but I do not agree. I have twisted nothing. Your previous angry to state ".. you are deaf" has no substantiation. It goes way beyond anything I have said. <small>Thread context as </small> ]] 09:03, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
::::::::Gregkaye has often said editors with whom he has been in bitter disputes before are manipulative and misrepresent things, so I am hardly surprised at the above. (See item 5, for example, Gregkaye's comment on his adversary, that he had been "banned for his manipulations"). We have a clear difference of view and I think it should now be left to adjudicators to decide what should be done about this AN/I. I hope the result is acceptable to both of us. I have been driven to distraction by the difficulties between us recently and I apologise to Gregkaye for the criticism and hostility I have shown him during this dispute and during this AN/I. I hope that after this settles we can return to the good working relationship we once had. ] (]) 10:23, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
:::::::::As an uninvolved observer, I was reading the AN/I and I was thrown back by the length and the extent of this case. I don't see either one of the editors as capable of editing Misplaced Pages or have a future in editing the project. But, ], before I go any further, do you see nothing wrong in your edits on this page at all? ] (]) 02:00, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
{{od}}
]: If you mean edits on this AN/I page, yes, I do. I have infringed ] and ] quite a lot when addressing Gregkaye here. I regret this and have apologised to him for it here as you will see. I have also struck through the worst of it. I do not normally behave like this, as my records will show (this dispute excepted). I regret very much that our dispute spilled over into the ISIS Talk page and disrupted it, although we did collapse the worst of our arguments there. Until this ANI and about ten (?) days before it, I think, our dispute was confined to our Talk pages. As to the length, my comments in this AN/I have mostly been in response to Gregkaye's; I had to defend myself against some inaccurate statements by him. I would point out that we were particularly good colleagues until recently (our Talk pages will show this) and have worked together, as a team of two, on ISIS talk on a number of major edits (reorganising the page, for example). When I first saw this AN/I I was quite shocked, as Gregkaye had never hinted before at some of the problems raised (canvassing and campaigning, for example) '''' I take a collaborative approach to editing, again as the Talk pages will show, and have even guided editors to come to consensus after long debate that was getting nowhere. Gregkaye is a good editor and as I say we have worked collaboratively and well together until this dispute, which started about a month ago, even though we have a very different view on one aspect of editing (NPOV). I am sorry if I have been repetitive as I have said some of this elsewhere in this AN/I, but cannot be sure that all of this long AN/I has been read by those commenting on it. ] (]) 10:00, 1 January 2015 (UTC)


] (])
=== Topic ban and Iban for both editors? ===
*E/C applied. ] ] 19:51, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
I'd suggest a 3 month topic ban for both, running concurrently with a 3 month Iban. ] (]) 15:50, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
:I agree. I think Admin and ARBCOM member ] is a very wise man. Both should use this time off to act in a civil manner and refrain from back and forth confrontation. If any of this is ever repeated, they should be banned permanently. ] (]) 21:33, 31 December 2014 (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)
::Thanks, but of course I was speaking only as an Admin/Editor, not as an Arb. ] (]) 21:56, 31 December 2014 (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)
:::Little hard to take the IP's views too seriously without knowing which user is hiding behind the IP with 8 edits total, 4 in this thread? ] (]) 22:03, 31 December 2014 (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)
::::My records will show that in all the time I have been editing in Misplaced Pages, I have always kept to ] - until this dispute, which has lasted for about a month. ] (]) 22:29, 31 December 2014 (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)
:::::], you are one of the good contributors to Misplaced Pages, so I will not take your comment as a personal attack but rather a general misconception. Misplaced Pages allows you to call yourself Legacypac and allows me to call myself 69.22.169.73. Please assume good faith, one of the five pillars of Misplaced Pages. Thank you. Now, having seen what went on in this ANI, Admin Dougweller's adjudication is a wise one. I might only add that the topic ban should include talk pages where all the confrontation has taken place as well as related topics that may lead to a confrontation between the two editors.
:::::::@] 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)
:::::] (]) 22:52, 31 December 2014 (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)
::::::'''SUPPORT''' - There's a lot that justifies both bans on the two editors. ] (]) 02:50, 1 January 2015 (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)
:::::::], whoever you are, what is there that supports a ban of my editing the article? ]] 10:04, 1 January 2015 (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)
*'''Comment''' ] I definitely want the arguing and related disturbance to stop but had considered that this AN/I would be a positive way forward. My thinking was that an IBAN would, to use PBS the phrasing offered by PBS, do little more than put issues on ice. I would also be happy for comment on individual behaviours and would be pleased to follow any agreed direction given.
:::::::::::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)
:As I see it, I have honestly made sincere attempts to broach peace with P-123. I had previously proposed a resolution as shown in diff In which I offered a badly written but well intentioned the two way proposal:
::::::::::::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)
::"...Please, if at any time you want to make accusations in the future, be specific and state the content concerned. If I then think I am wrong I will happily retract, apologise or whatever. You are quite entitles to think what you like and, in regard to any of your accusations, I will be quite happy to ]. In any case where an unjustified accusation of wrong is maintained regarding some unsubstantiated catalogue of offence or some such, I will respond.
::In turn, if I make an accusation regarding a content that I<small>(wrong pronoun/reference was added)</small> think is unfair. An editor can either reply to say why s/he thinks the content is fair, give some other reply or not respond. There is no restriction. If you have a problem with this then please go to dispute resolution." (as at 11:50, 10 December 2014)
:I would have welcomed a direct move to dispute resolution with cited references that could be discussed. I honestly believe that my proposal would have worked fine but would welcome any other views.
:I reacted personally to P-123's article talk page comments. This was by far my strongest interaction that I have placed on another editor's private user talk page.
:Was I wrong to raise issue with P-123's article talk page comments? Were the comments justified? How if at all should I have tackled this? I am really trying to make sense of this and request help.
:All the same I don't see how my contribution to article content is being called into question. 08:05, 1 January 2015 (UTC) ]] 09:44, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' - I hope there is going to be some kind of judgment on the charges, as I would very much like to know for both our sakes whether they can be upheld. (I understand and accept the last two charges.) I say this as I want to keep within the policies and guidelines set by Misplaced Pages and some of them I am a little unclear about, e.g. on canvassing. I think it would help both of us to have some clarity on these things. I am going to keep repeating here that until this dispute, this editor and I had an excellent working relationship (as a casual delve into our archived Talk pages will show). ] (]) 11:37, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
*'''Support for an immediate Topic ban and Iban''', and, at this point, an indefinite ban. Let someone just end this saga. This is painful to watch. They are uncontrollable, highly emotional, vindictive albeit the intermittent appearance of moderation, stubborn, and disruptive. For example, P-123 would say something nice to Gregkaye on his Talk Page and then, with the same breath, blast him with a bunch of personal attacks on here. Their biggest problem is that neither one can see it. They cannot be trusted to edit Misplaced Pages like normal editors do. Their contributions cannot be an asset because their explosive personalities are a liability to Misplaced Pages and a waste of project time and space that trumps everything else they do. There is no ifs, ands or buts about this, these two aren't gonna change. The writing is on the wall, this saga will certainly repeat itself if not tomorrow, a week or 3 months later. ] (]) 13:28, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
::*You are not taking it in context. Until this dispute, ] and I were good colleagues who in the past have collaborated well on the Talk page despite differences of view. In the past we have both acknowledged to each other that we can be explosive. The trouble only began a month ago, around the time when I started taking a strong line on some editing on the Talk page; I cannot say there was a connection though. As I say, take a casual look at our archived Talk pages in October and November to see how good that relationship was; we had long and interesting conversations about editing in Misplaced Pages among many other things. Our profound differences on some editing points were "professional" disagreements as we both said then, and they have not hindered this good relationship until now, so much so that when he was at AN/I in October I gave him moral support, although he was on the other side of the divide, as it were. All trouble began in December. I hope Gregkaye would agree with this summary. I am sorry hostilities broke out and want to clear up this mess so we can return to being good colleagues. Not having a judgment on the charges Gregkaye has brought will not help with this. (Neither one can see it? Why else do you think I struck out some of my harsher comments to Gregkaye in this AN/I?) ] (]) 17:10, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
*'''Seconded''' ]'s three month topic ban for both, running concurrently with a 3 month Iban. This can be done through the auspices of the SCW-ISIL general sanctions. However, as I proposed before, I think that if there are any RfC or RMs they should be allowed to express an opinion with a brief explanation to support that opinion. To address ]'s concerns. Much of what you currently see as irredeemable flaws in the behaviour of P-123 will either become apparent if similar behaviour is exhibited against another editor, or prove to be transient. At the moment as there is considerable assumptions of bad faith between you both, and your accusations are not automatically substantiated when viewed with good faith. Having spent time going through your list of accusations, there is only one that I think is substantial enough on its own to warrant concern even when assuming good faith, and I will discuss that directly with ] on the talk page of P-123. -- ] (]) 16:27, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
::Expressing an opinion on an RFC or RM may certainly lead to confrontations. This is a Battleground. Let's hope that the behaviour of P-123 is transient but I see no guarantees. An indefinite block with the possibility to appeal has a better chance of getting a solid commitment and behavioural change and may lead to a final resolution of this chronic matter. The problem is that P-123's mood changes from one hour to another. GregKaye is more composed with transient outbursts. ] (]) 16:43, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
:::This chronic matter has subsisted for one month only. If you are going to make personal judgments, I suggest you look at my Talk page when talking to other editors and how I edit on the ISIS Talk page. Your judgment is made in a vacuum. I have wanted to show Gregkaye AGF, but it has been very hard when seeing what I regard as misrepresentations in this AN/I. from him. That comment rings a bell, btw. ] (]) 17:22, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
::::] I don't consider though that the admins here are not looking to take things personally and nor have I. I have taken what I have now interpreted to be your public slurs on the article talk page and regard that I have fairly but strongly raised these with you privately on your personal talk page. I honestly do not care of the judgement here if there is a chance that you will take this on board. I have chosen to do broach things on a personal basis and it has blown up in my face. I wish I had never bothered. Days of my life have recently been wasted pursuing this thing on multiple threads barely substantiated threads and I am resigned to whatever result may come about. At that stage quite frankly I was prepared to do whatever I thought it would take to gain resolution and get you off my back. Contrary to what PBS says I really hope, should you encounter other editors that take stands on issues such as unsubstantiated accusations and slurs, that similar behaviour to this will not be exhibited elsewhere, otherwise, from my point of view, this whole thing will have been an utter waste of time.
::::My planned suggestion now seems moot. I was going to suggest a form of IBAN ] might be in order in which any admin that could by any means be bothered might be given the auspices to enact judgement. In this condition a two way IBAN might be authorised to be imposed by a single admin at the raising of a valid contention by either editor at any later date. We are in a situation where you have habitually deleted my content from your talk page and in which I have made it clear that I don't want unnecessary contact from you on mine. Again all this now seems moot.
::::There are many ways in which resolution could have been sought. We may now get one that neither of us would have wanted. ]] 19:29, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
:::::The comments here from many admin/editors on possible ways forward are based very much on judgments of the two parties as persons. It seems that this is a moral court of law as much as anything, which appalls me somewhat; you seem to think so as well from those last comments. I doubt that the two-way IBAN I was thinking of requesting before this as you know would have led to the bad result which looks likely here. You have indeed broached troubles privately on our usertalk pages, as you have done regularly with other editors in the past, that is your way, but you really cannot expect results if it is accompanied by slurs on the editor's ''bona fides'' and integrity which has been my experience, I'm afraid. ] (]) 20:48, 1 January 2015 (UTC)


== Vandal encounter ==
===Reasons for a topic ban on GregKaye===
] has proposed a topic ban and ] has seconded. I would appreciate an understanding of any argument that supports this. ]] 20:03, 1 January 2015 (UTC)


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


diffs: </nowiki>] </nowiki>] </nowiki>] </nowiki>]
* '''Second''' a three, even more, months ban right away. There is too much hostility, slurs, disruption and rehashing of the same under the auspices of self defense and blaming everyone else but themselves. The disruption is clear to any uninvolved person but not to them. The thing is that they are still not getting it, and wondering why everyone is out to get them, instead of looking inside and re-reading the venom they spew at each other and at any other Wikipedian that expresses their opinion in this AN/I. This is not the norm. One editor keeps posting to the other editor's talk page even after he made it clear that he did not want any contact. This AN/I has become a hostility chat forum with no end in sight. A quick ban is now overdue. ] (]) 20:14, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
:::*I am acutely aware of the disruption this is causing, but if that is what it takes to settle this long-running dispute, so be it. I could have easily kept my mouth shut and shortened this, but any "defendant" at AN/I is entitled to represent themselves and matters would have been shortened if Gregkaye had not kept coming back on any comment I have made. I myself would have thought the first part of this AN/I would have sufficed as evidence. We both wish to thrash these charges out and have them judged properly by uninvolved admin/editors, but so far concentration has been on personalities, which I think is disastrous. ] (]) 22:01, 1 January 2015 (UTC) ''''
:::::Is that right? Who decided "if that (meaning disruption to the project, by your own admission) is what it takes to settle this long-running dispute, so be it"? You, P-123? You're not helping you case at all. No, it's not "so be it". The personality of an editor is the single most important part in Misplaced Pages's editing environment, and, more than anything else, it is the deciding factor as to whether an editor should be allowed or denied the privilege to edit on Misplaced Pages or not. ] (]) 23:02, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
::] Those arguments might be reasons supportive of an interaction ban. There has been no problem with regard to my conduct on the article talk page since my October inconclusive AN/I up until the point of the recent threads ] and ]. I did not initiate any contention here. ]] 20:46, 1 January 2015 (UTC)


I would have put this at AIV, but I have no clue how to edit source. ] (]) 23:43, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
I concur with this statement: "The problem is that P-123's mood changes from one hour to another. GregKaye is more composed with transient outbursts. 194.169.217.242" I support a 3 month ISIL topic ban for P-123 only, and an IBAN for both editors. Gregkaye has not handled this dispute very well but he sticks much closer to policy and has been more rational. Especially he does not encourage other editors to disrupt the article.] (]) 20:50, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
:Come to think of it, this is a much better resolution, but, unfortunately, I see no end in sight for this AN/I. ] (]) 21:01, 1 January 2015 (UTC)


:{{not done}} - Not an admin - I hate to be that person but unfortunately you've not sufficiently warned them, They've only received one warning and their edits aren't gross vandalism so this would only be declined by an admin anyway, If they continue I'll report them to AIV, Thanks, –]<sup>]</sup> 23:47, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
===Diversion off section topic===
::Ah, I see. Thank you! This has been noted for the future. Thank you, again! ] (]) 23:48, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
::] your "Especially he does not encourage other editors to disrupt the article" and the implication there is your judgment. You are very much ''parti pris'' and have been supporting Gregkaye on Talk pages ever since the AN/I began. I would remind you that there not been any judgment on the canvassing/campaigning charge yet. I have suspected for some time, as I said earlier in this AN/I, that you and Gregkaye would like to see me off the ISIS page, as a troublemaker who disagrees too much with both your views on how the page should be edited. '''' By the way, I am not suggesting that in this AN/I Gregkaye is doing anything more than trying to have an editor reprimanded for editorial behaviour he believes infringes WP guidance and policy, but there has been no judgment on this yet (and with my cynical hat on I am wondering if there will be now). ] (]) 21:41, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
:::You're welcome, Happy editing, Thanks, –]<sup>]</sup> 23:51, 22 December 2024 (UTC)


== User:Glenn103 ==
:::I strongly disagree with this attack. I've actually read ALL the back and forth, and I've gone to great lengths to defuse this situation, including proposing a solution above that would allow P-123 to continue to edit ISIL. Furthermore I'm posting as myself, not hiding behind an IP, so it is very bad form to attack my editing history with generalizations. ] (]) 21:59, 1 January 2015 (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)
::::] It was wrong of me to go as far as I did, I am sorry. I feel embattled and supported by no-one and it is hard to keep a cool head. I have redacted my comments. You have indeed tried to defuse the situation, more than once, and I appreciate your efforts. I believe you when you say you have read all the back and forth, but if you don't mind me saying so, it is still only your judgment at the end of the day. I cannot understand why so many are apparently hiding behind IPs. ] (]) 22:17, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
:Most of these pages don't even make any sense (eg.: ]). The user also ignores any notice about his articles being moved to draftspace by simply recreating duplicates of them (eg.: ] & ]). Immediate action may be needed. ] (] <b>·</b> ]) 07:38, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
::Given a uw-create4im with directions to come here, let's see what happens. - ] <sub>]</sub> 08:00, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
:::They've continued editing, this time adding infoboxes to the articles, so I don't think the warning worked... <span style="white-space:nowrap"><span style="font-family:monospace">'''<nowiki>''']<nowiki>]]'''</nowiki>'''</span> (] • ])</span> 08:10, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
::::I have blocked them from article space and page moves, and will leave note on talk page to come here. —&nbsp;]&nbsp;] 15:33, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
Honestly, this almost feels like trolling. Their basic procedure seems to be: pick a random Cyrillic letter. Combine it with a random diacritic. Write a short stub on the combination, saying effectively "this letter combination is not used anywhere." The occasional historical mentions ("this combination was used in such-and-such obscure Siberian language") are completely unsourced, of course. (Everything is unsourced.) ] (]) 04:43, 24 December 2024 (UTC)


:Excuse me for detracting from the report, but this was your 4th edit, your last edit was in January 2016... how have you found yourself here of all places?
:::::This is exactly what makes P-123 a liability. This is what I meant when I said "they are still not getting it, and wondering why everyone is out to get them, instead of looking inside and re-reading the venom they spew at each other and at any other Wikipedian that expresses their opinion in this AN/I". They don't know when to quit. Legacypac expressed a good testimony in good faith that did not merit confrontation, blame and personal attacks. I also have noted that Legacypac knows the two personalities a lot more than us uninvolved admins and editors and offered a good resolution to get this AN/I done and over with but someone keeps coming back like a bad penny for more and more confrontations with anyone that has a different opinion. My advice to P-123 is take a break already. ] (]) 22:18, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
:I mean you might have a point, but wow. &ndash; ] (]) (]) 04:57, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::Thanks IP 161. I suspect the use of IPs is to avoid attacks like the one just made on me. Perhaps I should switch to using an IP too, but that would reduce the relevance and credibility of my views. ] (]) 22:31, 1 January 2015 (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)
::::::::Yes, this is one of the reasons that many editors choose to edit with their IPs. Mine is static. Nothing wrong with that on Misplaced Pages. There is no reduction in relevance or credibility. AN/I is a very high visibility page that thousands of admins and editors read and when an AN/I goes on forever, some editors start to get involved. No one wants to see this AN/I closed in the 22nd Century. The views that were expressed were based on what everyone could see and assess individually. It is becoming obvious that many admins and editors that thankfully got involved have reached the same conclusion. ] (]) 22:49, 1 January 2015 (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)
:::::::::May I point out that your joint decision is not based on the grounds on which this AN/I was actually brought? Is that of so little consequence? I have not read anything from uninvolved admin/editors on whether the charges can be upheld. PBS is the only one who has hinted at a decision on this. I was shocked when an earlier uninvolved (?)admin said, "... if one or more editors disagrees, and if we conclude that we might have to sanction just one party then somebody will have to read through all that stuff and weigh the claims." I innocently thought that "reading all that stuff" was par for the course at AN/I. It seems I am very naïve about Misplaced Pages's disciplinary proceedings! I have only been here since February and there is clearly a lot to learn still. (Although I remember now that at Gregkaye's AN/I, I had the clear impression that some of the outside commenters had not looked at the case properly or grasped what it was actually about. That is just for the record, btw, and is not meant as criticism of the outside admins/editors involved in this AN/I.) ] (]) 23:16, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
::::::::::P-123, my advice to you is to stop Wikilawyering. ] (]) 23:40, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
:::::::::::::*Not wikilawyering, genuinely puzzled. Clearly making the mistake of assuming Misplaced Pages justice is like justice in real life! ] (]) 00:11, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
::::::::::::My summary below is based on my read of quite wide input by many editors, who weighed the evidence presented and the continued conduct in this thread and elsewhere. I did not mean to suggest anyone else's credibility was diminished by logging out, I was only referring to my choice to stay logged in because I will wear anything I say here. ] (]) 23:44, 1 January 2015 (UTC)


== North Korean involvement in Russian-Ukraine war discussion ==
===Please close===


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.
My review of all this sees:


'''Key Points:'''
# Universal agreement on a two way IBAN between Gregkeye and P-123 (including they have both expressed support for one)
# Universal agreement on a 90 day ISIL topic ban for P-123 (including P-123 saying various times and places, including on the ISIL talk page, he was going to stop editing on the topic.)
# Some support but not consensus for a ISIL topic ban on Gregkeye (I suggest this discussion is a pretty good warning, and can be considered if future problems arise).


# '''Prolonged Discussions and RfC Closure:'''
Many editors have commented. Plenty of time has elapsed (6 days) and way too much discussion has occurred by the two involved editors. Can an admin close this off please. ] (]) 22:15, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
#* The RfC on North Korea's inclusion was conducted thoroughly, with a wide range of arguments presented by both sides.
#* The closing administrator, S Marshall, determined there was a clear consensus to include North Korea as a belligerent based on reliable sources and the strength of arguments.
#* The close explicitly allowed for reevaluation if new battlefield events or sources emerged, but no substantial new evidence has invalidated the prior consensus.
# '''Ongoing Disruption:'''
#* Despite the RfC's resolution, the same arguments are being repeated across multiple threads, often by the same editors.
#* This behavior includes undermining reliable sources, misrepresenting their content, and insisting on a higher standard of verification (e.g., requiring firsthand evidence of North Korean combat, which is unreasonable given the context).
# '''Reliable Sources Confirming North Korean Involvement:'''
#* Multiple reputable outlets, including the BBC, Reuters, and Pentagon statements, confirm North Korean military involvement and casualties in the conflict.
#* Experts from institutions like Chatham House and RUSI have explicitly stated North Korea's role in combat, aligning with the community's decision.
# '''Impact on the Community:'''
#* The continued disruption consumes editor time and resources, detracting from the article's improvement.
#* These actions disregard Misplaced Pages's consensus-building principles and guidelines for resolving disputes. This dispute has been ongoing for months, with multiple threads being opened and closed on the same topic.


'''Request for Administrative Action:'''


I respectfully request that administrators address the following issues:
* '''Seconded'''. ] (]) 22:23, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
{{archive bottom}}


# Enforce the consensus reached in the closed RfC, as no new evidence significantly alters the previous conclusions.
== The Rambling Man forgets the IBAN once again ==
# 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.
No sooner do I use the word to describe a nomination at ITN does {{U|The Rambling Man}} quote me directly "''''''" but seems to do so tit for tat. Certainly an admin and sysop who's been blocked by {{user|Laser brain}} for previous violations of the IBAN can withdraw his comment or deal with a new block. I'd welcome an admin either notifying The Rambling Man of this comment or advising me I can do so myself in contravention of the IBAN.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
{{Collapse top|previous evidence for last block of TRM}}
UPDATE: I just noticed that North Korea was removed as a belligerent and added to the 'supported by' section, completely violating the consensus.
Well, once again, in violation of our iban, ] has quoted (with quote marks!) and responded to me directly at ITN nominations: "".
] (]) 08:48, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
:Since this report isn't really about an incident and your request is directed towards admins, I think this complaint would be better placed at ] rather than ANI. It will also need more specifics, which articles, which edits, which editors. You'll need to provide that. I also question whether or not these are content standards that the community can't handle on their own. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 09:50, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
::I was going to post it at ] but it said: "'''This noticeboard is for issues affecting administrators generally – announcements, notifications, information, and other matters of''' ''general administrator interest.''
::If your post is about a '''specific problem you have''' (a '''dispute''', user, help request, or other narrow issue needing an administrator), you should post it at the ''']''' (ANI) instead. Thank you."
::I posted it on ANI beecause my specific problem was this dispute ] (]) 12:07, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
:::The original post in this thread appears to resemble LLM output. GPTzero confirms this impression, rating text as "99% probability AI generated". Using AI to generate ANI submissions is highly inappropriate. ] (]) 18:01, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
::::Even when a message appears to be AI-generated, I think it is worth considering whether or not it is pointing out an actual problem. I think editors might be ignoring the results of an RFC, I just don't think asking for administrators to monitor a subject area, without identifying specific articles, is a feasible solution. It does seem like, possibly, a point that could come up in a complaint at AE regarding the Ukraine CTOP area. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 19:55, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::I had a peek and it's a messy RfC and, as is generally the case with a messy RfC had a very involved closure message which seems to reflect that the closer felt constrained by the framing of the RfC. I didn't see any immediate indication in the edit history that anyone had tried to implement the RfC result and been rebuffed (although I might have missed it). So there's some smoke here but, I think, not a ton of fire. ] (]) 20:21, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::Liz, I don't disagree but I'm not at all convinced that use of AI is a positive contribution to CTOP areas. ] (]) 20:27, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::It was written with AI assistance. Not all AI. ai detectors aren’t considered reliable, because you can put the U.S. constitution through one and it says 100% AI generated. Regardless, whether it’s AI or not has nothing to do with the topic. It’s just that there’a been so many discussions and when I checked the info box it said ‘supported by”, violating the consensus of the RFC ] (]) 12:45, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::I think the underlying issue here is that if you use AI to generate text which looks like obvious AI output then readers will wonder "does the end user even have sufficient English to understand what the AI has generated for them?" and "did the end user understand the material prior to deciding to employ AI?". Thus if a user is fluent in English, as you obviously are, it will always be better to communicate in your own voice.
:::::::At the end of the day, a user making a valid point in their own voice is generally speaking going to be taken more seriously than a user employing LLM output.
:::::::There are plenty of other reasons for users not to employ AI (see the recent thread here for extensive coverage) but the argument above seems like a good practical reason for fluent English speakers to always prefer using their own voice.
:::::::You will see from the recent thread that many users here are vehemently against AI use. ] (]) 15:46, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::I understood the material very well, its not like I just used 100% AI out of nowhere. I know the context. I have been involved in this discussion since September. ] (]) 16:43, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::It's a respect thing. It's disrespectful of other editors to make them read chatbot output rather than ''your'' words. ] (]) 16:49, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::Rc2barrington's user page says {{tq|This user believes in the bright future AI and robotics will bring}}, so there's probably no point in arguing here. However, I simply observe that in any kind of discussion where you're trying to convince other people, don't use a method that aggravates a significant number of readers (probably a significant ''majority'' of readers). It really is that simple. ] (]) 19:11, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::<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 ==
{{collapse top|diffs re TRM's disruption}}
{{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)}}
Apparently the last ANI was entirely ignored, as were ]'s warnings today to TRM to stop the personal comments:
{{userlinks|Kriji Sehamati}}
*
*


Dear Wikipedians,
and these edits and their edit summaries of TRM's:
*
*
*
*


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.
which show a pattern of unnecessary incivility.


I believe your experience could help address this situation effectively.
Note also this comment by ] on the Ref Desk talk page: .


Looking forward to your advice on how to proceed.
Let us note that on his user page, TRM first


Thankyou! ]] 15:21, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
*, then restored it with the comment he'd be away for two days, during which he himself expects a block:
*""


:"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.
Meanwhile, on his talk page he dismissed (and deleted) notification of the ANI case and his fellow editors and admins with:
:Perhaps if you supplied ] of this behaviour, someone would be able to help? If your issue is that they've nominated 4 articles of which you are a major contributor ''and'' are doing so by going through your contributions in order to find articles to nominate for deletion with specious reasons, then this board would be the place to come. If not, then making your arguments for keeping the articles on the AfDs in question would be your best bet.

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

::I am concerned that ]’s actions, including unjustified deletion nominations and spamming, are disruptive and violate Misplaced Pages’s guidelines.
And on Newyorkbrad's homepage (NYB has expressed his wish to remain impartial) TRM describes himself as "disagreeing" and me as "abusing":
::She seems to lack understanding of basic Misplaced Pages guidelines, particularly those related ] and ]. ]] 16:40, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

*"" 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 :::You were asked to provide diffs. You did, almost, but then reverted yourself. Those diffs (well, the ones before those diffs) are just the other user nominating articles for deletion (which is allowed) or tagging them for what they believe to be conflict of interest edits (which is also allowed).
:::Please provide some actual evidence that the other user is engaging in chronic, intractable behaviour, rather than just not editing how you would like them to. ] (]) 17:21, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
*""
::::Here are some diffs highlighting her problematic edits. However, I believe that many of her contributions may be in violation of Misplaced Pages’s guidelines. It appears she has specifically targeted me and added the COI tag multiple times to the same page. I would appreciate it if you could review her actions more thoroughly:

:::: •
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.
::::and many more
: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.
::::Thankyou! ]] 17:33, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
:Have a good day all, I'm going to the big smoke for lunch with the little 'un. ] (]) 08:26, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
:::::We wouldn't generally treat an AfD as vandalism. ] (]) 17:39, 23 December 2024 (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)
::::::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)
* 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?
:::::::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)
: 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 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)
: 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)
:::::::::Please provide evidence of this. ] (]) 18:06, 23 December 2024 (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)
::::::::::Please check! ]] 18:07, 23 December 2024 (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)
:::::::::::The articles that have been nominated for deletion discussion have been reviewed by experienced contributors. These discussions involve articles about judges and lawyers, under ], a valid criterion according to Misplaced Pages’s guidelines. Therefore, the deletion decision was made after carefully reviewing these articles. ]] 18:11, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

::::::::::Honestly it looks like this user, rightly or wrongly, believes you have a conflict of interest and are acting on the basis of that assumption. I would suggest, if you don't have a CoI, talking to them about this and maybe asking why they've come to this conclusion. ] (]) 18:10, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
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)
:::::::::::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)
::^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)
{{collapse bottom}}
{{collapse bottom}}
] (]) 01:32, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
: He used the same word as you? How about we don't notify him, and we just close this? ] (]) 02:44, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
:: Take a look at the second diff. He didn't just coincidentally use the word "iconic", he put scare quotes around "iconic", indicating he was quoting (and disparaging) what someone else wrote. Medeis' use of "iconic" in his own statement is right above TRM's comment. It's hard not to see this as a -- admittedly minor -- violation of the IBAN. Whether it's block-worthy I'll let an admin decide -- that's why they get the big bucks. ] (]) 03:00, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
::: I failed to note that Medeis' comment was to oppose TRM's ITN nomination. Like Laser Brain below, I would consider that a violation of the IBAN as well, which makes TRM's violation (which, despite the comments below, it quite clearly is -- the use of "iconic" was a choice and not an accident, and the scare quotes make his POV about the Medeis comment obvious, so I'm not sure why that is not being seen by other commenters) a '''''response''''' to Medeis' violation. So if anyone is considering any kind of sanction here, Medeis would seem to be the party who should be sanctioned. The IBAN requires him to stay away from TRM, including his nominations etc. ] (]) 04:11, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

I've had multiple disputes with The Rambling Man (some evidenced in the collapse box above, which I hadn't even realized until I entered the editing window), but this complaint strikes me as petty. ] (]) 03:06, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

: I half expect Medeis to start pointing and saying, "he's looking at me!" This is beyond petty, and bordering on harassment by Medeis. The word at issue was iconic. It's hardly inappropriate for TRM to put it in quotes, given the context, and his statement was nothing close to disparaging. It's long past time for Medeis (and one or two other folks) to stop seeing IBAN violations in every edit Rambling Man makes, and start assuming a little good faith. I've seen third graders more able to ignore another's behavior. --] (]) 03:26, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

::Who are these "one or two other folks"? If you mean {{user|Baseball Bugs}} and the host of other users like {{U|Snow Rise}} and {{U|Phoenixia1177}} or {{U|Drmies}}, etc., who've chastised him please mention and notify them. ] (]) 03:50, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

* Let's eliminate the IBAN because it's causing more trouble than it could possibly be solving. ] <sup>]</sup> 03:29, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

::Does this mean I am free to violate the IBAN as I see fit? Shall I take the "leave the cesspool to the shitheads" comment currently on TRM's talk page as read?
::When someone directly quotes me with quote marks around a word no one else has used but me, I take that a explicit violation of the IBAN. Given the last time he was blocked he promised to quit the project, threw a fit on his talk page, and I personally asked that he be unblocked I take comments like Drmargis' as uniformed and insulting.
::Either there is an IBAN or there isn't. PS, has anyone notified TRM?
::And no, Jehochman, let's enforce the IBAN since only one party keeps breaking it, and you were the last to , so your recusing yourself would be appropriate. ] (]) 03:35, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

This does not seem to be a clear violation. Even if this was a subtle jab at you which I don't think it is, then your reaction would be the exact sort of thing wanted. I recommend you ask this complaint be closed and move on. ] 03:48, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

: If anything, the only violation I've seen of late is Medeis's constant running to this noticeboard to stir up trouble. --] (]) 03:49, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

::responding to a violation of the IBAN is explicitly allowed under the terms of the IBAN. ] (]) 03:54, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

* Just out of curiosity, {{u|Medeis}}, would you consider TRM's ITN nomination a violation of your IBAN? Because I would. And that occurred before the needling you are here to complain about. I agree with Jehochman that the IBAN is pointless. --] ] 04:02, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

::No, we both comment on the same threads on ITN and at the Ref Desks and that fact was directly addressed in the three ANI's that were initiated to get the IBAN put in place. Had I said something like {{u|Nergaal}} when he opposed TRM's nom a few weeks ago ''because it was TRM's nom'', then yes, that would be a violation, as would directly quoting him or trying to do so surreptitiously. But both TRM and I have agreed and disagreed on various nominations, and TRM has even thanked me several times since the IBAN via the thank function for my comments saying he should have been unblocked, and in support of his nominations. The only question here is the very obvious violation with a direct quote of my comment, using quote marks. ''Given I am explicitly and happily banned from responding'', I have brought it here. I don't expect that to be ignored. I just want TRM to watch what he's doing and stop testing the limits as Drmies expressly forbade him to do. ] (]) 04:18, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

*What was reported is not a violation IBAN, is however. Given the pettiness of the report I'm considering blocking Medeis. <b>]</b> (] • ] • ]) 04:22, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

*Would it be feasible to keep the iBan, but prohibit Medeis from reporting violations? ] (]) 06:33, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
**Prohibiting an editor from openly reporting an alleged violation of an interaction ban would tend to encourage behind-the-scenes or off-wiki discussion instead. Is that really preferable to openness? ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 10:02, 2 January 2015 (UTC)


<s>* '''Knock it off Medeis''' - you're obviously trying to get a Rambling Man blocked. How about we ban you from mentioning his name anywhere on this encyclopedia. I fully support such a ban <span style="text-shadow: 0.1em 0.1em 0.2em blue">]] </span> 12:07, 2 January 2015 (UTC)</s> <sub> struck out, Bugs is correct <span style="text-shadow: 0.1em 0.1em 0.2em blue">]] </span> 11:50, 5 January 2015 (UTC) </sub>
**Uh, that's already there. It's called an Interaction Ban. And again, if you try to impose such a ban, you'll encourage behind-the-scenes behavior, which I can't see as an improvement. ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 19:42, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

*'''Question''' - As a "compromise" between lifting the IBAN and preventing Medeis from reporting violations, how about making it one-way? TRM should no longer be prevented from interacting with Medeis (but warned that the IBAN may be reinstated), but Medeis is prohibited from interacting with TRM? Since TRM would no longer be prohibited from responding to Medeis, any further reports of ban violations would no longer fall under an exception, and the community would no longer have to deal with these petty reports. ] (]) 14:32, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

:: Let's just get rid of the IBAN and tell both editors not to needle each other. If there's needling or worse, block shopping like this thread, whoever is causes disruption will get a series of escalating blocks. That should put an end to it. ] <sup>]</sup> 14:40, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

An IBAN is usually an imperfect solution, but it actually works a reasonable amount of the time. For it not to work, you need:
*Two editors of sufficient usefulness that we don't just want to apply the banhammer (or, the topicbanhammer) to one or both and say good riddance;
*One or both of whom have sufficient dislike of the other that they just can't seem to let go;
*One or both of whom have sufficient lack of concern for everyone else that they don't care that continuing this feud is a pain in the ass for everyone else;
*Both editors active in one or two areas (in this case, ITN and Ref Desk), where replying to other editors is an integral part of the process.
I agree with Jehochman that the IBAN isn't working here, and is actually leading to an increase in annoyance for everyone. I disagree with many here that it's all Medeis' fault. I think it's partly her fault for being ultra-sensitive to perceived slights, some of them minor but real, others imagined; partly our fault for not making clear whether we want the IBAN to apply to talking about the other editor personally, or making comments that specifically disagree with the other's comments; partly TRM's fault for not being able to resist directly quoting remarks by someone with whom he has an IBAN; and partly the world's fault for being imperfect. I suspect that just repealing the IBAN and telling them both to stop picking at scabs won't work. But we should either:
*Try that first, see if it works, and do something below if it doesn't;
*Go the bureaucratic route and try tweaking the wording of the IBAN to make clear that specifically disagreeing with each other is allowed, or disallowed;
*Go with a more Solomonic cut-the-baby-in-half-to-piss-them-both-off approach, and ban Medeis from ITN and TRM from the Ref Desks; or
*Go with the blunt force approach, and ban them both from ITN and the Ref Desk.
I suggest the first (even if I fear it has a low likelihood of success), but any of the four would work for me. --] (]) 15:23, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

* '''Comment''': I'd like to point out that today happens to be the of when I first engaged this issue and tried to "tell both editors not to needle each other" ({{u|Jehochman}}) and "stop picking at scabs" ({{u|Floquenbeam}}). Anyone who doesn't see how thoroughly that approach hasn't worked out has got their head in the sand. The IBAN hasn't worked either, because here we are a year later. Jehochman tried opening an arena for a Festivus-style airing of grievances but that doesn't seem to have had any effect. {{u|Baseball Bugs}} seems to have been far more successful than Medeis or TRM in putting this in the curbside garbage can, but I fear nothing short of issuing topic bans for Medeis and TRM from ITN and Ref Desk is going to solve this issue. Or, we can continue to let it fester and we'll see everyone at ArbCom a few weeks or months from now. --] ] 15:44, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

:: Ok. Let's try both editors banned from ITN and the reference desk and if they want to figure out a detente they can ask for the restrictions to be lifted. My arena page is open for them if they want to talk about it. Otherwise they can't interact in any way, broadly construed. It's just tiresome for the rest of us to have to endure this constant sniping. ] <sup>]</sup> 16:35, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
:::So, to be clear, we'll both be banned from ITN and the Ref desks indefinitely? Could someone please send me a note if this is the case as I'm one of the few admins left at ITN posting stories and I guess a ban from there would stop me doing that. Presumably it wouldn't stop me from updating the stories nominated? Thanks all. ] (]) 19:22, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

*'''Comment''' - I concur with the proposal to temporarily suspend their IBAN and see if that makes things better. (As for my own IBAN, keep it in place. It's not a problem for me.) ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 19:42, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

*'''Comment''' I'm of similar mind to BMK here. I find it hard to believe TRM wasn't at least partially thinking of μηδείς's comment when replying, particularly given the history here of TRM pushing the boundary of the Iban. I do however agree with some others that considering how indirect it was, even with the history here, it was probably the sort of thing best left be, regardless of whether that's only going to mean more of the same. However it also seems to me that μηδείς opposing TRM's initiated ITN candidate was also problematic, even if it had had other supports so μηδείς may be partially replying to those comments (and the support/oppose is ultimately related to the candidate anyway). I'll admit I've never really understood how the iban was supposed to work on ITNC. My assumption a while ago based on comments they made was they would work it out, but it seems clear this hasn't happened. I therefore agree that going the bureaucratic route is worth considering. I have the nasty feeling we're still going to end up with discussions about boundaries just more complicated ones (or a 10000 word iban notice) but I'm not totally sure if there's any other good alternative. I do agree that it's not simply μηδείς who is at fault. μηδείς does seem oversensitive, but TRM does seem to like to push the boundaries (although μηδείς also has too). <small>(Let's not forget in the early days of the iban TRM seemingly admitted to still watching the talk page of μηδείς over a month after the iban ] and I think, didn't seem particularly interested in removing it at the time ]. Sadly that seemingly just set the tone, and since I rarely visit ITNC where the problem seems to occur, I'm guessing I haven't even seen half of it, and I'm thinking on both sides.)</small> ] (]) 19:46, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
*:Yep, you're right, you're not clear on it at all. If by "pushing the boundaries" you mean "providing a cited response to counter an outlandish claim which happened to use a single common word" (I'm guessing I can still use "the" and "and" and "it" etc in responses) then you're right. Otherwise you're way off mark. Let's just ban us both from ITN and other similar locations, like the Ref Desk, or else let's just use some common sense and agree that this, amongst the other seven or eight complaints, is complete bollocks. ] (]) 21:41, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
*::The history suggested 'happened' is highly misleading. It's hard to believe that you were not thinking of μηδείς claims when you were responding, just as with all the other times. BTW, whether or not μηδείς claims were outlandish is a moot point, you're forbidden from responding to them in any way on wikipedia per the iban although you're free to respond to other comments like the person who started that candidate. ] (]) 12:12, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

*Fuck me, is this still rumbling on? May I suggest that you all just start the new year with a new slate and move the hell on! '''<span style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px Black;">]<sup>]</sup></span>''' 19:56, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
*:Indeed. Utter bollocks, but hey, what do you expect here these days? It's odd that around 3pm UTC we have such a barrage of outrage.... I wonder why.... ] (]) 21:41, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

I propose that we close this thread with no action other than warning that any sort of frivolous reports about this IBAN in the future can result in a block and '''will''' result in a look into the reporters behavior. This is a silly waste of time. ] 20:02, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
:You really think it's better to encourage behind-the-scenes complaints instead of openness? ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 20:10, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
::Did I say it's better to encourage behind-the-scenes complaints instead of openness? I am fairly sure I did not. ] 20:37, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
::I assume by the "behind-the-scenes complaints" you are referring to Medeis and not me? Please make this clear in your response. ] (]) 20:11, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
:::I wouldn't know what either of you might do off-wiki. I'm merely saying that the proposal of some here, in trying to pre-empt every possible complaint, is not an appropriate solution - either for this case or any case at ANI. ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 20:18, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
::::It's '''really''' important you're clear here as both you and Medeis have been in regular email contact, along with various admins. ] (]) 20:35, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
:::::I can't speak for either you or Medeis. I myself have had very little contact with ''any'' wiki users off-wiki, for ''any'' reason. To put it another way, I am not in "regular" contact with ''any'' Misplaced Pages user. ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 20:46, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
::::::Not that it matters, but you and Medeis have both had communications with admin(s) in relation to this. To deny it would be wholesale lying. On the other hand, I have never attempted to circumvent the "system" with any kind of off-wiki emailing. Neither of you can say that, and you know it. Medeis has admitted as such. So, please, clarify the point, that you and Medeis have already resorted to such off-wiki tactics. ] (]) 20:54, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
:::::::I have asked this at least three times now, and no one has answered yet: Is the off-wiki approach ''better'' than being open about it here? ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 21:17, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
::::::::And I have suggested that, in this complaint, only you and Medeis are guilty of off-wiki attempts to manipulate Misplaced Pages. She has openly admitted it, you cannot deny it. Stop trying to cover your tracks. Admittedly you are just part of a game, and you have shown on numerous occasions that you wish for the best for Misplaced Pages, but sadly the double-teaming off-wiki campaign is all too clear and painfully obvious. I'm sorry that you ended up being associated with her, other editors have suggested that she should be banned, not just from the Ref desks or ITN, but from the site as a whole. I'm sure you don't want to end up in that situation. ] (]) 21:29, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
:::::::::I have no way to know whether you're telling the truth about your own off-wiki activities, if any. However, I interpret your comments to mean that you would prefer any complaints be made here, in the open, rather than behind the scenes. Yes? ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 22:01, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
::::::::::All communication should be on wiki unlike those between you and Medeis and other admins, yes. ] (]) 22:06, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
:::::::::::So any and all complaints should be brought here, and the notion of censoring such complaints, as promoted by some here, is non-operative. Sounds good. ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 22:10, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
:::::::::::::I think you've said more than enough Bugs. Sorry! ] (]) 22:13, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
::::Bugs I said frivolous complaints, not every possible complaint. There is a big difference. ] 20:39, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
:::::How is Medeis supposed to know ahead of time, how you're going to judge a given complaint? ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 20:46, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
::::::She could base it on the other seven (or so) complaints that came to nothing. ] (]) 20:56, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
::::::Using the mighty power of ] to judge if the complaint has merit before making it. ] 21:33, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
:::::::Trying to guess how you're going to interpret something would require ESP. ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 22:01, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
:::::::::Or a level of common sense, competence or understanding of what has gone on before. Clearly that is not applicable here. ] (]) 22:09, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
::::::::::Or one might question the competence of those who claim the complaints are frivolous. ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 22:12, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
::::::::::::Or not admitting to your own off wiki collusions? Do us all a favour, do something else. ] (]) 22:26, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
:::::::::::::I am most pleased that you agree that off-wiki discussion should not be necessary. ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 22:35, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
::::::::::::::Indeed, so if you and Medeis could stop doing it, that'd be great. ] (]) 20:26, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
{{od}} {{od}}
:{{ping|Kriji Sehamati}} hasn't edited since their AfD spree earlier today, let's wait and see what their response here is when they return to editing. ]&nbsp;] 18:16, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
I am happy to have my competence reviewed by the community at any time. ] 22:15, 2 January 2015 (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's already on display here. >:) In any case, since TRM agrees that complaining off-wiki is an undesirable approach, then he has tacitly approved bringing all complaints here. Then you and your equally-competent pals can decide on a case-by-case basis whether the complaint is actionable or not. OR, you could fix this by abolishing or at least suspending their interaction ban. ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 22:21, 2 January 2015 (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)
*Baseball Bugs is derailing the discussion in order to deflect from the problem highlighted by ] above at 04:22, 2 January 2015. Callanecc pointed out that Medeis had violated the IBAN by opposing (]) TRM's nomination, while the issue Medeis complains of in this report is highly trivial. Baseball Bugs knows how to keep out harm's way and is only disruptive when one of these discussions starts. The solution is to topic ban Medeis only as they are the source of the conflict. The situation can be reviewed if that remedy is insufficient. TRM does good work at those venues and should be encouraged to continue. ] (]) 23:43, 2 January 2015 (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)
**A violation is a violation. Either there's an IBAN or there isn't. To dismiss one item as meaningful and the other as trivial suggests bias on your part. As to your personal attack on me, please note that I have no current problems with either editor, nor do I anticipate any. ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 00:42, 3 January 2015 (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)
***Wait, what? We aren't allowed to distinguish between meaningful issues and trivial ones? Please. Also, it seems to me the lengthy "discussions" in this thread between Baseball Bugs and TRM are violating the spirit of the iBan. Finally, a question: if it's (apparently) okay for the iBanned users to talk to each other in this thread, does it make any sense for Medeis to not be allowed to notify TRM when one of these threads is opened? ] (]) 01:56, 3 January 2015 (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)
****We're allowed to discuss the matter here. And you raise a good question about the awkwardness that's a consequence of an IBAN. That's why their IBAN should be modified or abolished. OR, there needs to be a solid, consistent mechanism for reporting and notification, i.e. a list of exceptions built into the definition of an IBAN, so that the victim can handle it openly instead of having to sneak around back of the house and pass notes to an admin. The apparent need to do that kind of stuff undermines the (presumed) intended purpose of an IBAN, or any ban for that matter. ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 02:10, 3 January 2015 (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)
*****Do you think there is any real chance an admin would have blocked Medeis for posting a notification on TRM's talk page? ] (]) 02:29, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
*:::::Meanwhile, in the last few minutes S-Aura has disruptively about this exact issue on this same board, which by another editor. This is intentional disruption. ] (]) 12:07, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
******Yes. ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 02:40, 3 January 2015 (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)
*There's been a death in my extended family which has been a big strain as my sister was visiting from 300 miles away for the holidays and that has been upset with the need to care for her young children and plan for the viewing and funeral tomorrow. Hence my unwillingness to stop by here for what is unpleasant enough in normal circumstances. Editting WP should be a pleasure. To summarize, a year ago, after three ANI's and with a huge consensus among dovens of commenters in favor of an IBAN it was instituted, and all the parties were formally warned not to address or interact with each other directly or indirectly. Over that period one editor has regularly flouted the IBAN, been warned for it and blocked for it. And there's really not even been a good reason like an edit war of religion to violate the IBAN, just a feeling the admin involved is above it. When this happens in regard to me I can remain silent in the face of criticism, I can respond and face a block for violating the IBAN myself, or I can bring the complaint here and hope an admin will at least deliver a talk-page warning. There's no need for any other action if this IBAN is actually enforced. Given coming here is the proper course of action, I come here. I don't expect editors who don't want to be bothered looking into the reasons for the IBAN to tell me my complaints are a nuisance, they needn't comment. The nuisance is one editor who can't seem to go a month without violating the IBAN. There's something extremely wrong when making goodfaith edits in favor of an ITN nomination gets you abuse from both a user who should know better and from people with a duty of care given their position who just don't want to be bothered. ] (]) 04:06, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
*:::::Dear @],
===Replace IBAN with very strong warning===
*:::::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 propose that the IBAN be lifted, since it is not working except to facilitate gaming, but instead replaced by a very strong warning that any incivility be dealt with by a block of one week, escalating on second offense to two weeks.
*:::::Also, I am not against AfD; I am simply expressing my opinion. ]] 13:12, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Support''' as proposer. ] (]) 04:27, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
*::::::Could you please rephrase your point here? I don't understand. While it's okay to be suspicious that this editor is somehow socking or doing something else deceptive due to the familiarity, it seems unacceptable to deliberately accuse them of such repeatedly without firmer evidence. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>]</span> 13:19, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
**Please stop dropping "let's be nice to everyone" messages into contentious topics. We all know that Medeis is more "civil" than TRM (and is only disruptive by cluelessness, not by language), so the proposal is not addressing the issue. Medeis needs to ''stop'' doing the things that TRM feels duty bound to highlight, and Medeis needs to ''stop'' bringing minor issues to ANI. As shown above, there ''is'' an IBAN violation, namely Medeis opposed (]) a nomination by TRM. That is what needs to be sanctioned, although no one here really cares about the IBAN—we just want the silliness to stop. The solution is to topic ban Medeis and let them propose a solution to return to that area if they want. ] (]) 06:37, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
*:::::::Dear @],
***It was my understanding, when this general question was raised about a year ago, that the normal course of business at ITN was not to be considered a violation. If Medeis had instead said "Support", would that still have been a "violation"? ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 06:53, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
*:::::::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)
****If this is true then the entire premise of this particular ANI is fallacious and should be closed immediately with a warning not to repeat such behaviour. ] (]) 09:44, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
*::::::::One thing you need to understand immediately is you should never make another post that sounds vaguely like a legal threat, as you've just done above. ] That intonation is seriously not helping us decide who's right or wrong here. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>]</span> 13:27, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
*****That's a major "if", because I may be remembering incorrectly. The question is whether, if users X and Y are in an IBAN, and if user X proposes something, is user Y allowed to comment ''on the proposal''? I thought so, but maybe not. Someone needs to clarify that detail, as there seem to be opinions both ways here. ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 09:52, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
*:::::::::Okay! ]] 13:35, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
******Indeed, but it's certainly something I recall Medeis herself saying. ] (]) 10:24, 3 January 2015 (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)
:::::::Perhaps you're thinking of μηδείς's comment in the discussion I linked above which I'll relink here ] where μηδείς said
*:::::::::Dear @],
:::::::{{quote|"Please note the other editor has voted in opposition to my nominations in the past, for example diff without my objection then or now, just as I am accused of here. Please note the other editor has acted directly on the same thread on which I have just commented, with no objection by me or any other user. diff"}}
*:::::::::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)
:::::::and
*::::::::::Accusing another editor of potentially making legal threats is not much better, when there is no concrete evidence that they would do so. Being interested in articles about judges does not suffice. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>]</span> 13:32, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::{{quote|"I am not interested in stopping the other editor from acting on or voting on ITN threads with which I have been involved, and I don't see any reason for any restriction on my addressing such matters objectively without regard to the other editor. On occasion we disagree on the issue at hand. Neither of us has to address the other to do so."}}
*::::::::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)
:::::::At the time, I didn't think was going to work, nor did I think this was really in tune with how ibans are supposed to work. However as mentioned above, I decided to trust that you'd all somehow work it out (also I was more concerned about the watchlist issue). Since I don't visit ITNC much at all, I presumed for a long time this was mostly happening. However the recent ANI threads suggests it's not. <p>I don't know if μηδείς has changed their mind, it appears their complaint is not that you commented on a proposal which had been started by them, but that your commented appeared to be addressing a specific comment they had made, which is a somewhat distinct point and seemed to be specifically precluded by their earlier comment. (They also suggested it was addressing their comment in a retaliatory or tit for tat way.) This may be why μηδείς felt their reply to the candidate started by you was acceptable, even if they felt yours wasn't. (Although I find it hard to believe they too weren't thinking at least of your comment, although of course it's difficult comment on a candidate wording if without at least partially replying to the person who proposed it, one of the reasons I felt this wasn't going to work.) <p>Of course since the iban is community imposed, your view, that of μηδείς or BB is ultimately not that important compared to the communities view on what the iban entails as I think you agree. <p>] (]) 14:24, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
*:::::::::<del>State plainly what the implication you are making here is, because what I'm hearing is "I'm familiar with people who have hit Misplaced Pages with a mallet in court before, and I can make sure it happens again".</del> <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>]</span> 13:30, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::I agree that it is certainly not the first time that one of them has commented on an ITN proposed by the other. However, I agree that doing so doesn't seem to be in the spirit of IBAN, nor does it seem to be very workable in practice. I would favor a clarification of the IBAN that says that parties can not comment on (or take action on) ITN candidates proposed by the other party. ] (]) 18:34, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
*::::::::::This is becoming a rabbit hole. I urge you not to pursue the rabbit further. ] (]) 13:33, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::The clear and obvious difference being I never drag Medeis here every two minutes when she comments on any of my proposals. Yet it seems fine, even commonplace for it to work the other way round. She can't have her cake and eat it. Having said that, if the community wish to block me, please make sure the block is evenly handed out this time. ] (]) 19:26, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
*:::::::::::Good call, I'll retract the above. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>]</span> 13:34, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
*::::::::::No, that is not what I am implying. ]] 13:33, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::No one has said your contributions are not good. However, it should be noted that a draft being accepted at AfC or a new page having been ] does not guarantee greater scrutiny would not result in a valid AfD nomination. That said, echoing others here it's clear something problematic is up with this user's behavior. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>]</span> 12:02, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
*::You can't both criticize someone for {{tq|lack understanding of basic Misplaced Pages guidelines, particularly those related ] and ]}}, and then argue that she is too familiar with the platform to be a newcomer for knowing how to file an AfD. I wouldn't be surprised if most people here knew how to file an AfD before knowing all 14 notability guidelines by heart. ] (] · ]) 12:59, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::There are detailed instructions on filing an AfD that can be found by googling "how can I get a Misplaced Pages page deleted" - if somebody had some personal reason for wanting to have pages removed it doesn't strain credibility to think that's why they created a WP account and that they just followed the very clear instructions on the appropriate pages.
*:::In fact that might explain why some of the AfD filings were reasonable and some were, on their face, incorrectly filed. If you looked up the AfD ''process'' but not ''criteria'' that is the likely outcome. That's why I find the "new user files AfDs must be a sock" idea here somewhat uncompelling. ] (]) 13:04, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
*I believe we're entering boomerang territory at this point. Opinions? ] (]) 13:35, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
*:I think OP is upset that a cluster of their articles were put up at AfD. This in itself is understandable, but while there's reason to think there might be mischief by Kriji Sehamati, we don't have any real evidence of it. We either need the OP to make it clearer what misconduct, if any, has occurred, or they need to ]. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>]</span> 13:37, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
*::The OP has been intentionally disruptive (by creating a new ANI thread which was reverted), and this thread is going nowhere. IMHO, there's nothing ANI can do here. Everything I'm reading about should be resolved at the page talk and user talk level, in my opinion. The AfDs are underway. If dispute resolution is needed, fine. Nobody is harming S-Aura. S-Aura can't come crying to ANI (or four random user talk pages like mine) anytime someone merely disagrees with them. ] (]) 14:08, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::I'd have said close with trout for all if not for creating the second thread at AN/I. Based on that I'd say the OP should be formally cautioned against such antics in the future. ] (]) 14:10, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
*::I should have added that I largely hold with Remsense in their position. ] (]) 14:15, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::] is definitely a sock puppet on Misplaced Pages, but we don’t have any evidence because understanding Misplaced Pages’s AfD process so quickly can be a bit challenging. I have no problem with AfD regarding my contributions, and it’s a good thing that experienced contributors are giving their feedback. If you believe that the kriji is 100% correct and her activity is not suspicious, then this discussion should be closed. ]] 14:27, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
*::::You need to stop insisting this is definitely the case if you don't have any evidence for it, period. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>]</span> 14:28, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
*::::S-Aura, how did you make the determination {{tq|User:Kriji Sehamati‬ is definitely a sock puppet on Misplaced Pages}}? Please share your process. That's a personal attack, and requires proof to prevent you from being in violation of ]. I've looked at the AfDs and they seem reasonable to me. When you've provided strong sources the article is being kept. So far the jury is out on the others. Both of you seem to be writing articles about obscure living persons who wouldn't normally (by my cursory reading) have a Misplaced Pages article about them because reliable sourcing is not readily found. When I see that, I must suspect COI or undeclared unpaid editing here, but nobody's admitting to it. ] (]) 15:05, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
*::::S-Aura's continuing to issue personal attacks makes it more difficult for us to just close this (without some form of consequence for the editor making unproven personal attacks after they've been warned repeatedly). ] (]) 15:08, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::::I have made a level-four user talk page warning for the personal attack. FYI. We've been very nice about this up 'til now, but we need to stop being so kind. Doing foolish things has real world consequences. ] (]) 15:17, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
* Both editors' apparent use of AI is certainly disruptive. If it continues, it should lead to blocks. <span style="padding:2px 5px;border-radius:5px;font-family:Arial black;white-space:nowrap;vertical-align:-1px">] <span style=color:red>F</span> ]</span> 15:10, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
*:No personal hate intended, but I just found this and thought it would be worth checking. ]] 16:49, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
*::It would be nice if you could explain the significance for those who do not speak Hausa. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>]</span> 16:51, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::She had made contributions to pages in other languages a few months ago. I am attaching her contributions link. ]] 16:59, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
*::::How does this constitute evidence of sockpuppetry if we aren't to know what exactly happened? There's a reason we don't just automatically block anybody who is blocked on another language wiki, and I looked through the edits some and didn't find anything outrageous that made it past the language barrier. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>]</span> 17:01, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::::I agree that it’s important to ensure we have solid evidence before making conclusions. I appreciate your perspective on not automatically blocking users based on blocks from other language wikis. ]] 17:17, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
*::::::Please don't reply to me or others using ChatGPT. It is flat-out rude. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>]</span> 17:18, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
* '''Support BOOMERANG''' - I've been uninvoled and have mainly just been watching the back-and-forths, but the personal attacks and ] mindset, such as "questioning the validity of all the work that has been carefully reviewed and maintained by experienced contributors", concerns me. Not sure for how long, but I don't think anything longer than a months is appropriate given the circumstances. ]<sub>]</sub><sup>]</sup> 15:47, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
*This whole thread, but especially the 16:49, 24 December 2024 (UTC) comment, feels like the OP is just throwing literally everything at the wall to see what sticks. But, worse, what is being thrown at the wall lacks any significant body of evidence to support. I note that a personal attack warning has been given for the continued unfounded accusations being presented, which I think is a good move. I don't support a block at this point, although if I was the OP I would withdraw this complaint and/or drop the stick and walk away from this topic as a matter of urgency to avoid continuing to make the situation worse. ] (]) 17:41, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
{{abot}}


== Darkwarriorblake making aspersions ==
*The interactions in this section indicate to me that the IBAN is still needed to prevent disruption. So I'd much rather see the IBAN enforced with an iron fist (which I'm happy to help with) than a civility parole (which have proved ineffective in the past). ''What about adding a clause preventing them both from commenting on each other's enforcement requests and from making any comments other than the initial report on their own enforcement requests.'' <b>]</b> (] • ] • ]) 06:50, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
{{atop|result=The OP says they don't care any more which I'm reading as a withdrawal and the other party says they won't be responding again so I'm closing this discussion. My only comment is that both editors in this dispute should have brought this to the article talk page to talk this disagreement out. I don't know if the differences would be resolved but this is what we advise editors to do when their edits are reverted. Now I just have to get that scene in the movie out of my mind. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 05:54, 24 December 2024 (UTC)}}
**That kind of leads up to what I was pondering earlier today. A given party could report a complaint, and then let the admins here decide whether it's a valid complaint or not. No further comments by the complaining party and none by the one being complained about. That ''might'' work. ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 06:58, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
Postscript: Ah, someone just close this, I don't care any more. &nbsp;— ] <span style="color:#900">•</span> ] 22:56, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
**I seldom respond to these endless requests, so mandating that I shouldn't in the future will make little or no difference to me. This was an exceptional circumstance as the double-teaming (as is clearly evident) has kicked off once again. ] (]) 09:42, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
***You are mistaken about the "double-teaming". I have no quarrel with either of you. ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 09:47, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
****How are you, Bugs, not violating your IBAN by chiming in here? ] <sup>]</sup> 09:56, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
*****I was under the impression that ANI was a safe haven for reasonable discussion of IBANs and the like. And as you may recall from your "arena" (i.e. "sandbox") page a month or two ago, there are no real issues between TRM and me. ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 09:58, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
******You two need to officially shake hands and end the IBAN before you join a thread like this one. Please cease commenting here about TRM and Medeis until that happens. Thanks. ] <sup>]</sup> 10:13, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
*******How should I go about doing that? Should I ask here for the IBAN to be revoked? OK, I will. ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 10:16, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
***For clarity, are you saying you don't normally respond to the ANI requests by μηδείς calling for some intervention due to alleged violations by you of the iban? ] (]) 12:19, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
****A rough review of the archives seems to indicate that TRM has participated in more than half of the IBAN complaints initiated by Medeis. ] (]) 19:10, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
*****I'm mildly surprised by that, but, as most threads deteriorate into hysteria and inaccuracies, I am sometimes obliged to correct them. ] (]) 19:33, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
******I found the same thing so wanted to make sure I understood what was being stated. While it's possible I've missed some (in particular if they were hatted or otherwise not findable by searching the displayed page, or if they were removed, or if they didn't happen at AN//I or simply if I didn't noticed that μηδείς was complaining about TRM somehow), my finding was in these two ] & ], TRM did reply. In ] (although this appeared to be a sort of follow up to the earlier complaint) and ] TRM did not reply. TRM also replied to ] although that was a general discussion of the iban and not initiated by μηδείς. I didn't look for these and if μηδείς didn't participate I may not have seen them (as people may refer to μηδείς as medeis). There's also the request a long time ago I mentioned above although that was against by μηδείς and not initiated by them or TRM. Finally there was the original discussion to implement the topic ban as well as ]. ] (]) 08:40, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

===Counter argument===
You know what, in all the bluster and guff above, I had actually failed to read that Medeis had used scare quotes and commented (using exactly the same words as me) on one of my proposals, just before I'd even added a factually accurate and sourced comment to an item that she '''didn't''' nominate. I have no problem at all with Medeis commenting however she likes on any ITN item I nominate, nor have I ever made any claim to the contrary. I firmly believed that we could work together on ITN items, albeit mainly in opposition to one another. But now it's clear that Medeis is taking every possible opportunity to get me blocked, banned, whatever. I am sick and tired of her constant harassment and nitpicking and sad stories. I am out of this discussion, frankly I'm sorry I even commented in the first place. ] (]) 20:32, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

*'''Comment''' Given the ongoing disruption caused by the frequent unfounded visits to ANI by Medeis, and by this new, spurious thread based on something Medeis has previously done themselves, I think we need to consider the possibility of a topic ban for Medeis from ITN. Several other editors have now complained of the disruption here by Medeis constantly filing reports, '''all of which have been refuted''', and this has to end. - ] (]) 23:02, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

::I think it's a mischaracterization to say they have all been refuted. TRM was blocked last month (and Medeis received no sanction) after an admin was sufficiently convinced of her claims of harassment. Having been introduced to TRM by that incident and having no prior experience or opinion of him, I can tell you it seemed pretty cut and dry to me as well. That block was only overturned (bizarrely) after Medeis and Bugs advocated for it to be set aside. And most of the rest of these ANI's have ended with the community here just throwing up their hands in exasperation at what to do about these two (and to a lesser extent the issues between Bugs and TRM); that's a very different thing from refuting that there is an issue with the behaviour of one of the three parties. However, I do agree with you that, as of this filing, things have clearly gone to an unacceptably hyperbolic place. This is why I view IBANs as counter-intuitive and inconsistent with the spirit of our most important behavioural policies -- because they excuse unacceptable behaviour on the part of one or more of the involved parties as a mere matter of context, when clearly if an editor is capable of violating the collegial spirit of the project with regard to one person, they are capable of doing it with another or (as in this case) finding ways to lob broadsides at the original party from a distance anyway.

::But all of that being said, it seems the community is still not yet ready to invoke longer-lasting and more general blocks -- though I'm increasingly convinced this acrimony will not ultimately stop short of such sanctions. So, until I got diverted into addressing issues of personal attacks between these parties in the section bellow, I was about to suggest something along the lines of what you have above, but on a more voluntary, mutual, and equitable basis. I was wondering -- though I very much doubt both parties will agree to it -- if Medeis would be willing to voluntarily abstain from contributing to ITN if TheRamblingMan agreed to stay out of the Reference Desks, the other area where they sometimes cross paths with explosive consequences. I think TRM might be amenable to that solution, but I'm more dubious about Medeis, since ITN seems more central to her activities than the Ref Desks are to TRM. Still, if neither party can entirely respect the IBAN, I think carving up the areas the two operate on (ridiculous as that is), is the only option short of blocking one or both. Personally my observation has been that one party is much more inclined to instigate these little meltdowns, but the other is rarely far behind in responding to these passive-aggressive overtures. So, if they can't find a way to stay out of eachother's way (and stop wasting all of our time), it may just be the case that both being asked to take a break from the project will be the only solution remaining. ] ] 01:20, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

*The repeated complaints by Medeis certainly seem to suggest a vendetta on her part and this does not favorably impress me. I think Medeis needs to do some soul–searching and ask herself why she continues to open these threads. ] (]) 23:28, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

===Proposal to strengthen IBAN===
Proposing this in a new section for discussion. The discussions between Medeis and The Rambling Man at ANI (as well as the various bits of evidence) have shown that an IBAN is still needed as they don't seem to be able to work collaboratively. So I propose that ''What about adding a clause preventing them both from commenting on each other's enforcement requests and from making any comments other than the initial report on their own enforcement requests'' be added to the wording of the IBAN to prevent the disruption evident in this section. In addition that they both be warned that the IBAN will be strictly enforced with blocks (which I'm happy to help with, assuming people don't consider me INVOLVED given my comments here). <b>]</b> (] • ] • ]) 02:11, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
*'''Support''' as proposer. <b>]</b> (] • ] • ]) 02:11, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
*'''Support''' it would probably be easier to anaylze these complaints without the involved parties getting off on lengthy arguments that hinder any actual resolution. ] (]) 02:25, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' With due respect to Callanecc, my take-away from the past few ANI's (and the events at ITN and elsewhere which have prompted them) has been distinctly different; from what I have observed, the more the IBAN has been stressed as a solution, the more drama has resulted as more editors (in an every increasing number of project spaces) become unwitting proxies for their issues. This results from the fact that the increasing focus upon the IBAN causes one of the parties to react to provocation that is increasingly minute in nature, be it perceived or real. Meanwhile, the other editor seems prone to launching passive-aggressive comments that either attack the disliked qualities of his perceived opponent in broad terms or else target large groups of editors in the spaces they share, such that he can continue to criticize that party without being said to be directly engaging him. I can't escape the conclusion that the IBAN has served no purpose but to greatly exacerbate the existing drama between the two, spread the ill-will to encompass many more parties, and draw more and more editors into the the effort to parse just who is more at fault, to the detriment of several highly-important spaces. I have little faith that adding more specific conditions to the IBAN will do much to reform the approach and attitudes of the involved parties in a long-term manner, which is really the issue that ought to be addressed here. I think the IBAN should be removed or that we should at least stop trying to lean on it as a solution reasonably likely to bring closure to this issue. I think the next time there's a conflict between the two, a ''single, uninvolved administrator'' should be asked (by every party present at the time, to make sure it gets due attention) to investigate the issue, make his best determination as to who was the real provocateur and block that user for two months. I daresay nothing short of that message will disentangle this pair. Alternatively the two could come to a mutual understanding between them as to who will operate where on the project, with no overlap, but given just how little they can agree on, I don't see that as terribly likely either. ] ] 03:12, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' Wouldn't this proposal just encourage ''more'' of these time-wasting complaints? And let's be clear, it ''is'' time-wasting. Medeis seems to feel completely free to flaunt the IBAN when it suits her (eg this pointed out above) but then comes running here when TRM does more-or-less exactly the same thing. If anything, Medeis actions are a considerably worse violation of the <strike>block</strike>ban - if the IBAN is really phrased so that one can comment on the other's ITN nominations then whoever drafted it deserves a largish trout. I just can't see how that isn't a violation of the ban in and of itself. Given that background, only hours before the edits that spawned this complaint, it's pretty hard to see this complaint in good faith. I think the time has come to stop tinkering with the terms of the ban and hand out some hard porridge - either a block each way for IBAN violations, or a TBAN for Medeis that will stop this nonsense. Or both. ] (]) 05:48, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
::There is no TBAN, GR, and the issue of a TBAN on any editor was argued directly and roundly rejected in the Jan 2014 ending ANI. Both TRM and I are allowed to oppose and support and work on each other's nominations and those of third parties, simply without quoting each other directly, reverting, etc. We've done so repeatedly, and to his credit he has '''thank'''ed me for my comments, although I don't believe I have thanked him. I have defended him though. Had TRM complained here like I did above I would probably have simply removed the comment out of good will, as it was a side matter. (Has he complained about this? I realize that sometimes noms I oppose are posted anyway, so I do try at least to improve their blurbs) I commented along with others that the blurb was inaccurate (at least in American English, I don't know if stampedes in Britain are called crushes) but opposed it on notability grounds. I did not quote, ''immediately after he used it'', a word which ''only'' TRM had used. In other words, ''I did not quote'', immediately after he used it, a word which ''only TRM had used''. You are simply not comparing like to like. He was quoting mine and only my ''rationale'' in support of a nomination, I was criticizing the wording of a blurb as a blurb. ] (]) 06:12, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
:::...a blurb that TRM had proposed, yes. TBH, I think, given the sorts of proposals being made above, that you should stop commenting here. But that's my non-admin $0.02 and you're free to ignore it. ] (]) 06:46, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' The TBAN was not "roundly rejected" - it was initially _accepted_, and overturned on a technicality. is the relevant discussion. I would certainly support re-opening that case. ] (]) 21:25, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
*There was 2 to 1 support for the IBAN and almost no support whatsovere for a TBAN. The first closingadmin realized his mistake, and asked that his closure be reviewed, at which tim it was shown there was no significant support for a TBAN. Not that that has anything to do with this proposal, which accuses TRM of disrupting the thread with his responses. I think that's absurd. I started the thread with only one complaint, but he should still be free to say whatever is civil and suppported by diffs to support himself. I find it spooky that commenters here think the only option is for TRM and myself to be deathly enemies, and to think we mist want each other indeffed from the project. I simply want the standing IBAN enforced, and feel it's been violated by TRM often enough for admins to take notice. 06:53, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
**The TBAN was overturned because the closing admin used the word "overwhelming". Roger Casement was hanged on a comma - this is an example of the process going the other way. However, that was last year, it's water under the bridge, the cat has not been belled. I would merely ask those persons in authority to consider the whole history of the case, not merely each individual incident, before making a decision - and to _make_ a decision, not just to put it off eternally. ] (]) 19:17, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
* '''Support''' I think that in this case neither user should communicate about or to each other including violations. It should be permissible for them to leave a single message to an admin if they think it has been violated, that admin can act or bring it here if they see it has merit. ] 06:31, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

===Medeis/TRM Discussion===
*My thanks for the patience during my unforseen absence. I don't seek any further sanctions as would be implied by the stronger IBAN proposal above. I won't comment on any disruptiveness, but everyone here needs free speech if its factual and civil. I can also understand that someone only just coming upon this might think that TRM's quoting my "iconic" and directly arguing against ''in itself'' it wasn't a big deal. But that's only true on its own, and when it's seen in the context of more than two years of hounding now, it's kind of like saying somebody's violating parole is not a big deal. The disruption is wanton, willful, and ''one sided''. And very simply addressed by nothing more than taking the already hard-fought IBAN seriously.</br>
:I think '''''' is telling in the extreme. First, is this "campaign" the reason why TRM felt it necessary to violate the IBAN this time? Does TRM even ''deny'' that he violated the IBAN by directly quoting me?

:Yes, I have emailed BBB and various admins in the past, and I welcome them to release the entire text of my emails to them, so long as they are complete and unaltered. You'll see I emailed an Admin last spring who had placed a stern warning on TRM's page and asked him to enforce it when TRM ignored it. That admin said he was already in a conflict with TRM and didn't want to be seen as piling on. It's why I have been bringing violations here, Most recently you will see me emailing BBB and suggesting that we ask that TRM's 48 block be removed, and me making Jehochman aware that I had done so and supported BBB's request that TRM be unblocked.

:But I haven't waged any sort of secret campaign that I haven't stated openly, and I did not contact BBB or any admin re this complaint off-wiki, or even want to, or expect to have to file this complaint.

:It's clear from the above diff that TRM thinks the entire process, including the ANI concluded last January with his support, has been a conspiracy against him, that he's the victim, that he deserves better, that he shouldn't face the consequences of his actions, that ''I'' am 'doing this to him' and that ''you'' are 'doing this to him' .

:Note that all I asked for from him was that he withdraw the comment in the . I still ask that. ] (]) 04:11, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

::Medeis, I'm of two minds on this issue. On the one hand, you are absolutely right about the personal attacks. Putting aside for the moment the question of whether his activities at ITN and elsewhere have or have not violated the IBAN (and whether they constitute him hounding you), there is ''no'' question here on whether his behaviours have violated ] repeatedly ''in these very ANI threads''. Point in fact, for the last couple of months, he has made ''dozens'' of vocal and unambiguous accusations against no fewer than seven different editors that I've seen (some of whom had just met him) that they are a part of a conspiracy/club/plot/scheme/bandwagon to get him banned. And he has insinuated that this secret cabal is utilizing all manner of underhanded tactics and that they are violating any number of specific policies, but in all of these accusations, he has yet to once provide a single diff, link, or other piece of evidence to support a single one of these claims. ]. And yet, somehow, despite the fact that he is blatantly and repeatedly launching personal attacks ''from ANI itself'', over an extended period, he has not received so much as ''a single warning'' from ''a single admin''. I am nothing short of astonished that the community and admins here have let this fly right in front of their faces, and it raises serious questions about the efficacy of our administrative process at present and the willingness of our admins to engage with a problem editor once he's passed a certain bar of tenaciousness. He seems utterly immune to sanction at this point, no matter what behavioural policy he violates, unambiguously and in our most active forum for behavioural oversight.

::On the other hand, look at how you've behaved over the same period. Last month, you filed two ANIs against him for IBAN violations and hounding. Then, unless I'm remembering this wrong, after he was blocked for this behaviour, you and Bugs both petitioned to have that block removed (!?), and it was. For a certainty you and Bugs then both bent over backwards insisting that the problem had been blown out of proportion and that all parties had proven that they could work together constructively. Meanwhile, other concerned editors, attracted by your request for assistance in this matter who were trying to establish exactly what had happened and what should be done about it suddenly were getting no help from you in straightening things out; in fact, you were working very much at cross-purposes to that effort. You were asked repeatedly whether you felt that TRM had followed you to the Reference Desks to hound you, a question which directly ignored, all while you and Bugs insisted that there was no problem that you couldn't work out with TRM and that, if anything, the IBAN should be dropped, ''in the middle of a thread you opened to get it enforced more stringently''. More than willing to be done with the matter, the community allowed the discussion to expire on your and Bugs' insistence that it was a non-issue. A day or two later, Bugs had opened a new ANI again TRM, which was quickly shut down in disgust by the community here. Now, here we are, not three weeks later, with yet ''another'' ANI lodged by you, this time on an issue that ''you yourself stipulate'' was not a significant violation. What we have her is a girl who cried wolf situation, if ''ever'' I've seen one. This bipolar behaviour has ''got'' to stop. You don't like TRM's behaviour? Well guess what, you're the one who is both encouraging his worst behaviour ''and'' enabling him to get away with it. You've created an atmosphere here where everything has been reduced to a discussion of the IBAN and the issues between the two of you, when there are actually much larger issues at work. Without this IBAN smokescreen, discussion here would be concentrated on the fact that there has been an ''insane'' number of civility violations that we could have, and should have, been talking about all along.

::So here we are, at the place you've brought us to. I don't think your behaviour has been nearly as objectionable as TRM's -- but that being said, if you get blocked or topic banned, it's going to be more your fault than his. So I'm asking you, as a last-ditch effort to find a compromise solution to this nightmare of a situation, to be the bigger person and to pull back from one of the areas you two share in common and see if maybe he wouldn't be willing to do the same, removing the contexts in which you two are likely to cross paths and (inevitably) begin to flame one another. It's not a thing any editor should be asked to do, but then, no editor who has the best interests of the project in mind should have let the situation get this far. So I'm asking you this favour. I can't ask TRM; he'll just treat the request as a sign of weakness and go on the offensive, . So, though I have doubts that TRM will agree to it himself, is there ''any'' posibility you'd be willing to give up editing on ITN if TRM will agree to stay out of an area important to you, say, for example, the Ref Desks? Because, short of that, I don't see this resolving without a block or topic ban for someone, and at this rate, I'd say it's 50-50 which one of you it will be. ] ] 08:08, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

::::I have asked for TRM to revert his obvious violation. Look at the first sentence of the above thread. That request still stands, but he won't even admit that he's quoted me, nor comment on the fact that until Jehochman reverted his block at mine and BBB's requests (we wanted the end of misbehavior, not his punishment, blocking, or banishment) that he was crying he was taking his ball and going home during the last sanction against him. This is not the state I have brought anyone to any more than a rape victim is wasting time judges could spend golfing. If this is closed without his comments being reverted and without a block, then simply expect me to bring the next violation tio this board if it happens, and expect me to expect admins to do their job and enforce existing community sanctions. TRM is an adult, a sysop, an admin, a parent and a post grad from what I am aware. let him act like one, and dont't blame me for reporting his misbehavior. See ]. See TRM's edits promising to quit, saying we got him, and wallowing pity while not amending his behavior:
::::{{hat|TRM's playing the victim in response to his last block}}
#(cur | prev) 14:38, 5 December 2014‎ Fyunck(click) (talk | contribs)‎ . . (475 bytes) (+475)‎ . . (→‎Sat it ain't so: new section) (undo | thank)
#(cur | prev) 13:12, 5 December 2014‎ The Rambling Man (talk | contribs)‎ . . (empty) (-9,105)‎ . . (←Blanked the page) (undo | thank)
#(cur | prev) 11:52, 5 December 2014‎ Martinevans123 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (9,105 bytes) (+251)‎ . . (→‎Unblocked: also, it takes much longer to get up north, the slow way) (undo | thank)
#(cur | prev) 11:32, 5 December 2014‎ Jehochman (talk | contribs)‎ . . (8,854 bytes) (+648)‎ . . (→‎Unblocked: new section) (undo | thank)
#(cur | prev) 10:20, 5 December 2014‎ Cassianto (talk | contribs)‎ . . (8,206 bytes) (+610)‎ . . (→‎A favour from any TPS: fuck em!) (undo | thank)
#(cur | prev) 10:06, 5 December 2014‎ Martinevans123 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (7,596 bytes) (+77)‎ . . (→‎what happened. John?: or Jimi?) (undo | thank)
#(cur | prev) 10:03, 5 December 2014‎ Martinevans123 (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (7,519 bytes) (+5)‎ . . (→‎what happened. John?: Hey Jude) (undo | thank)
#(cur | prev) 10:02, 5 December 2014‎ Martinevans123 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (7,514 bytes) (+204)‎ . . (→‎what happened. John?: or even) (undo | thank)
#(cur | prev) 09:36, 5 December 2014‎ Lugnuts (talk | contribs)‎ . . (7,310 bytes) (+151)‎ . . (→‎what happened. John?) (undo | thank)
#(cur | prev) 08:33, 5 December 2014‎ Bencherlite (talk | contribs)‎ . . (7,159 bytes) (+371)‎ . . (→‎A favour from any TPS: part-done) (undo | thank)
#(cur | prev) 08:20, 5 December 2014‎ The Rambling Man (talk | contribs)‎ . . (6,788 bytes) (+443)‎ . . (→‎A favour from any TPS: thanks bencherlite but...) (undo | thank)
#(cur | prev) 08:17, 5 December 2014‎ Bencherlite (talk | contribs)‎ . . (6,345 bytes) (+375)‎ . . (→‎A favour from any TPS: Monday?) (undo | thank)
#(cur | prev) 08:04, 5 December 2014‎ The Rambling Man (talk | contribs)‎ . . (5,970 bytes) (+464)‎ . . (→‎A favour from any TPS: new section) (undo | thank)
#(cur | prev) 07:52, 5 December 2014‎ Lukeno94 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (5,506 bytes) (+397)‎ . . (undo | thank)
#(cur | prev) 06:16, 5 December 2014‎ Gerda Arendt (talk | contribs)‎ . . (5,109 bytes) (+422)‎ . . (→‎Blocked: Play nicely and be creative.) (undo | thank)
#(cur | prev) 06:09, 5 December 2014‎ Bencherlite (talk | contribs)‎ . . (4,687 bytes) (+272)‎ . . (hang in there) (undo | thank)
#cur | prev) 04:32, 5 December 2014‎ The Rambling Man (talk | contribs)‎ . . (4,415 bytes) (+235)‎ . . (→‎what happened. John?: no, I'm Spartacus, sorry to disappoint you!) (undo | thank)
#(cur | prev) 04:32, 5 December 2014‎ SineBot (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (4,180 bytes) (+284)‎ . . (Signing comment by 217.43.221.251 - "") (undo)
#(cur | prev) 04:30, 5 December 2014‎ 217.43.221.251 (talk)‎ . . (3,896 bytes) (+27)‎ . . (undo)
#(cur | prev) 03:47, 5 December 2014‎ The Rambling Man (talk | contribs)‎ . . (3,869 bytes) (-43,104)‎ . . (remove the work) (undo | thank)
#(cur | prev) 03:46, 5 December 2014‎ The Rambling Man (talk | contribs)‎ . . (46,973 bytes) (-813)‎ . . (they got me) (undo | thank)
#(cur | prev) 03:39, 5 December 2014‎ The Rambling Man (talk | contribs)‎ . . (47,786 bytes) (+265)‎ . . (→‎what happened. John?: who are you and what is your purpose?) (undo | thank)
#(cur | prev) 03:37, 5 December 2014‎ The Rambling Man (talk | contribs)‎ . . (47,521 bytes) (+684)‎ . . (→‎Blocked: thanks luke) (undo | thank)
#(cur | prev) 03:26, 5 December 2014‎ Lukeno94 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (46,837 bytes) (+670)‎ . . (→‎Blocked) (undo | thank)
#(cur | prev) 03:23, 5 December 2014‎ SineBot (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (46,167 bytes) (+284)‎ . . (Signing comment by 217.43.221.251 - "") (undo)
#(cur | prev) 03:22, 5 December 2014‎ 217.43.221.251 (talk)‎ . . (45,883 bytes) (+53)‎ . . (undo)
#(cur | prev) 03:01, 5 December 2014‎ The Rambling Man (talk | contribs)‎ . . (45,830 bytes) (+215)‎ . . (→‎Tense?: no, time's up for me) (undo | thank)
#(cur | prev) 02:59, 5 December 2014‎ The Rambling Man (talk | contribs)‎ . . (45,615 bytes) (+337)‎ . . (→‎Blocked: ok) (undo | thank)
#(cur | prev) 02:45, 5 December 2014‎ ChrisGualtieri (talk | contribs)‎ . . (45,278 bytes) (+318)‎ . . (→‎Tense?: new section) (undo | thank)
#(cur | prev) 22:12, 4 December 2014‎ Laser brain (talk | contribs)‎ . . (44,960 bytes) (+880)‎ . . (→‎Blocked: new section) (undo | thank)
#(cur | prev) 16:30, 4 December 2014‎ The Rambling Man (talk | contribs)‎ . . (44,080 bytes) (-305)‎ . . (Undid revision 636663975 by Medeis (talk) nein danke, you can't have it both ways) (undo | thank)
{{hab}}
::::Note, Snow, TRM hasn't provided a single diff to prove that everyone who's criticized him is part of some vast wide ring conspiracy to have him banned. Note that not a single person has provided a single email showing I have wanted, initiated, or conspired to attack TRM in any way. I promise never to file an ANI against T if he never violates the IBAN again. I also promise to return if necessary. TRM can end this now by reverting the personal comment or any admin who wants can let him serve out his 48 hr sentence and warn him further violations will win him further sanctions.] (]) 07:19, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
:::::Well, to expound upon your (certainly hyperbolic) allusion, do you know what happens when a rape victim changes their story multiple times? The attacker walks free. It doesn't matter that the victim might have had a good reason (intimidation, being manipulated, or any other cause to which one might be sympathetic), it's still going to handicap anyone trying to make sure the right thing gets done. That's not victim blaming, that's just the reality of the situation. Several times you have brought ANIs, drawing large numbers of editors into the drama, many of whom then run afoul of TRM and are subject to many of the same behaviour you are complaining of (especially concerning his conspiracy theory personal attacks). And then suddenly (and invariably) you're saying the whole situation is overblown. And all of those parties who have made (often torturous) efforts to engage him or try to document his misbehaviour for the community and admins (which requires HUGE efforts in diffing, because he will otherwise happily call one a liar, a conspirator, or someone just out to get him banned because they don't like him) are left holding water for you. Then the thread just pewters out, and the issue fades from view...until you bring the next complaint a few days or weeks later. That is maddening after a few cycles. And I can easily provide a list of links (not unlike yours above) that demonstrate you perpetuating this cycle. I want his personal attacks and general incivility to stop too. Like you say of yourself, I don't want him banned per say, I just want him to reform his behaviour in this area. Hell, at this point I'd settle for him admitting that his behaviour has ever been a problem -- that would be a start at least, to be able to make even the slightest critical observation about his behaviour without him resorting to personal attacks, accusations of conspiracy, playing the victim, and just generally engaging in misdirection.

:::::The problem is, your behaviour is not getting us there, because you're jumping on trivial IBAN violations now, which focuses the discussion in a way that the community here is just look to stamp out the latest flare-up of what most have come to view as incessant but petty squabble. Then when you change your tune, for whatever reason, most feel like that's been accomplished, and glad to be done with the newest iteration of this toxic issue, someone closes the thread. And reasonably enough, really -- if not for the fact that the issue has come to a "close" in this manner so many times, which not everyone may be aware of. But of course the situation is just going to go ] on us again, ad nauseum. Look, if you really want to do this -- if you really just want a just and lasting solution to this mess, you need a change in strategy. What you've done in the last post is a good start. Provide ''evidence'', not your perspective. If you feel hounded, use diffs to hold up a mirror on his behaviour so the community sees him through his own words. Some people, if you engage you in a "he-said/she-said" style of discussion, are more than happy to turn that to their advantage. So don't provide that support. If he hounds, or otherwise hassles in a personal way, show us. From every angle. A diff is a small little link on it's own, so he can't even cry "wall of text" and eventually dedicated users (hopefully an admin amongst them) will look through them. Let his voice speak for himself and then he can't claim everything that is being said about him is a lie. If you want a leg up on this process, go back to ]. I posted dozens of diffs and links there of him acting inappropriately aggressively towards other editors (including numerous example of doing so with people he had just met). And as to him constantly crying "conspiracy" any time people try to suggest his behaviour is becoming uncivil, you can find unending examples of that in ANI threads themselves, as well as the Ref Desk talk page discussions about a month back.

:::::In short, don't threaten to bring this issue back here yet again; instead commit to handling it the right way now. Just stick to the facts; that's one of the beauties of Misplaced Pages -- generally speaking, no event is entirely lost to the past. You can let people see what happened, exactly as it happened, rather than engaging in accusation. Don't get into a mudslinging fight with him, I promise you will lose -- either because he outsmarts you or people just get sick of it. ] ] 13:29, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

::::::I am not trying to be contrary, Snow, but I find your statement just to commit to handling it the right way now confusing. Not including this post, I count 6 total statements by me above; ''the first one giving the diff where TRM quoted me directly at ITN''. (I'll bold it and pipe it from the word "ironic" to make it easier to spot. There were no other diffs to provide unless someone wanted a link to prior complaints, all of which have been diffed-- because I wasn't about to wait for continued provocations. I don't come here complaining about TRM when he ''isn't'' quoting, addressing or reverting me.
::::::Having been accused of conspiring to get TRM banned it seems to me bringing complaint here is the only proper thing to do. Nor do I think sending the message that TRM can get away with "minor" infractions is at all proper, leaving me to document them (where? it would be an IBAN violation) until they reach critical mass. Given the IBAN is in place, any violation is a violation. If you or some other admin is volunteering to deal with any future complaint I'll gladly accept that offer, and they can archive this thread. ] (]) 02:01, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

:::::::Look, even with the dimn view I've taken on much of TRMs behaviour the last month and a half, when I look at that link, I honestly don't see a glaring issue. Yes, technically it did violate the IBAN in a miniscule manner, but he didn't do so in order to attack you or engage in tendentious behaviour, but rather to address a content matter in a factual way -- and you're the one who has repeatedly stated (in the previous two ANI threads and the section above) that you and TRM can share spaces and collaborate in a collegial manner, whether the IBAN is in place, so why are you complaining about a minor violation of the ban when it doesn't seem to be a continuation of the hostility between you that necessitates the ban in the first place, and you're more than willing to argue that this need has been overstated to begin with, when it suits your purposes?

:::::::Now, the personal attacks, those are very much a different matter altogether. Other than the advice I've given (document it in a clean, transparent, and organized fashion, so that those here can't help but see how it has transpired), I don't know what to tell you. As I've said previously, that ''is'' a glaring issue, especially taking place as it has partly on ANI itself, without so much as warning from a single admin, despite his persistence in these behaviours. {{u|Laser brain}} was the last admin to show a willingness to address his behaviour with a formal sanction, and {{u|Jehochman}}, who reversed that block (in consult with LB), can't have been happy to see this issue arise again almost immediately. Both of those admins, to their credit, have stayed moderately involved with this issue, but as the discussion above clearly demonstrates, you're nit-picking back-and-forth over the IBAN has monopolized the time they may have otherwise spent addressing the ] concerns (which to my mind are a much bigger issue for the community at large). Though I don't know how much either knows about said issues, it's clear that the both of them (like myself and a growing number of other commenters here) see the IBAN for what it is; a waste of everyone's time and energy that is exacerbating the problems it was meant to resolve. You've wasted opportunities when both have engaged here by arguing picayune points about the IBAN, on which your own arguments have hardly been consistent. I've said it before and I'll say it again -- the IBAN needs to go, or at least be disregarded as the central issue here. Then we can see if you and TRM can get on together. If that proves unfeasible (and I rather suspect that could end up being the case), then at least we can address the ''underlying'' behavioural issues and we will at least be talking about what is really wrong the user(s) behaviour.

:::::::And before you take aim with my claim that you've been inconsistent, let me show you exactly what I mean. I could pull up many examples from the previous ANI's but the fact of the matter is you are presently engaged in sending out mixed messages right now. You started this discussion with the header "The Rambling Man forgets the IBAN once again", implying that you are the victim of habitual harassment. Two posts up in this section, you likened your relationship to that of a victim and attacker and suggested that some of the community response here represents "victim blaming"; and yes I know your exact wording was just exaggeration for effect, but at the very least you are presenting him as an aggressor who just will not leave you alone. But then, in posts that run parallel to these claims and are sometimes written within hours or minutes of them, you claim the community here are misinterpreting the situation and are making mountains out molehills! Let's look at two of your claims, made so close together that you barely have to scroll the page to get from one to the other:

::::::::: 04:11, 4 January 2015: ''"It's clear from the above diff that TRM thinks the entire process, including the ANI concluded last January with his support, has been a conspiracy against him, that he's the victim, that he deserves better, that he shouldn't face the consequences of his actions, that I am 'doing this to him' and that you are 'doing this to him' ."''

::::::::: 07:19, 5 January: ''"Note, Snow, TRM hasn't provided a single diff to prove that everyone who's criticized him is part of some vast wide ring conspiracy to have him banned. Note that not a single person has provided a single email showing I have wanted, initiated, or conspired to attack TRM in any way."''

:::::::Compare these against...

::::::::: 06:12, 4 January 2015: ''"Not that that has anything to do with this proposal, which accuses TRM of disrupting the thread with his responses. I think that's absurd. I started the thread with only one complaint, but he should still be free to say whatever is civil and suppported by diffs to support himself. '''I find it spooky that commenters here think the only option is for TRM and myself to be deathly enemies, and to think we must want each other indeffed from the project.'''" ''

:::::::So one minute you're citing the fact that TRM has persisted in these personal attacks labeling you to be a major part of a conspiracy to get him sanctioned as major issue and violation of policy (and they certainly are), but then the next minute you're saying it's "spooky" that any editor would draw the conclusion that either of you is that suspicious/critical of the other. And then back again in short order. This is just one example of one area where you seem to be presenting two entirely different stories depending on whether or not the comments are made in the context of discussing the present IBAN or a potential TBAN. I know you feel that you are parsing distinct issues with regard to both, but the fact of the matter is the tone of your comments and the nature of how you present the relationship between the two of you (and the complications it presents to the community) shifts ''wildly'' depending on which of these contexts you are commenting in. So is it really any wonder that the community here become increasingly confused and some have begun to view your complaints as petty?

:::::::Look, if you want action taken to see to it that the accusations that you are heading a conspiracy against him stop, that's one thing. I certainly support you in that, and if you manage to attract the attention of an uninvolved administrator, I will certainly corroborate that this has been a persistent and blatant issue, with him leveling similar accusations against numerous editors. I'll further provide evidence of other violations of ] and ] that I've noted during the same period. But this IBAN nonsense has got to stop. It's not getting us anywhere. It's jsut obsfucating the root issues. And I'll be honest; at the point where I started following these ANI's, I really did see you are the more innocent party and the one most willing to let the issue drop if at all possible. That's started to change in a big way though. Your reaction to him has become like an autoimmune disease; it's doing more damage than the issue it was meant to address. And can I ask you again, since you didn't respond before, is there any possibility that we can end this with a compromise solution wherein you agree to withdraw your participation from ITN in exchange for TRM doing the same with regard to the Ref Desks? (A suggestion I now see has been independently suggested by {{u|Floquenbeam}} in a post that neatly summarizes all of these issues and exactly why we've put up with both of you through all of this, ''so far''). Of course, you shouldn't ''have'' to do this, but maybe it's time to put the good of the project (and your own peace of mind) above your freedom of action as an editor in this instance. ] ] 05:57, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

::::::::I appreciate, Snow, that you told me to handle it the "right way", but you don't say what the right way is. Now you tell me to make sure accusations of conspiracy aren't raised against me. But all I have done here is bring this complaint directly to the one public forum open to me, with an uncontested diff, and not contacted anyone privately. I haven't talked about socks and proxies and off-wiki conversations. I find determining how to stop people from making accusations of conspiracy (without diffs or evidence) impossible. I've asked and still anyone who received an email or other communication from me conspiring to have TRM banned or from me regarding this last complaint to bring it forward in full. I can't prove a negative. I've also asked that some admin step forward and volunteer to handle future complaints if my reporting here is against policy; that would still be appreciated, assuming they'll be willing to act if there's a violation. At this point any such admin can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. ] (]) 02:25, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

:::::::::I'll tell you what, if you find it agreeable, I'll make this deal with you. Since I know you are concerned about the issue being twisted against you vis-à-vis the IBAN if you go directly to an administrator concerning the accusation-of-conspiracy personal attacks, I will do that on your behalf -- though specifically ''only'' in the event that I see TRM make any further accusations of conspiracy and of conduct violations (against you, Bugs, or anyone) without providing any evidence. Not just in defense of you, but in the interests of the community at large. What I'd like to ask in return is that you take a more reserved approach with regard to the IBAN and not file more complaints here unless TRM's comments in your general direction/vicinity are unambiguously personal and harassing. While that may have been the case in the past, I just don't see it as being the case in this most recent filing. I think you let your past experience with TRM cause you to jump-the-gun by quite a bit on this one. I've had my fair share of qualms with TRM's conduct with regard to you, but I don't begin to see the transgression in this case that you seem to have perceived.

:::::::::I'd also very much like you to consider the proposal that has been made that you and TRM divi-up your areas of interest and try not to inhabit the same places -- or at least that you give us some indication as to your initial feelings on this possibility. I know any editor is loathe to obstruct their freedom of movement on the project, especially with regard to an area they feel useful in, but couldn't the benefits outweigh the losses here? After-all, with all the time you've had to waste in these discussions, you're already losing out on a great deal of useful editing. And if you'll excuse some outside judgement, I think your contributions to the Ref Desk are more valuable than work on ITN. And consider also that this solution has been proposed as a type of sanction above, meaning it would be binding. If you voluntarily leave ITN be at present time and TRM ever goes dormant as an editor or goes a long time without contributing there, you can always choose to go back, knowing you won't be prevented from doing so. On the other hand, if this keeps coming back to ANI, there's a good chance the community may decide to slap both of you with TBANs or blocks, and you could end up facing big community resistance if you ever want to return to that area. So I'm asking again -- ''any'' chance you'd consider this trade-off as a reasonable compromise solution? Of course, there's no guarantee TRM will be amenable to this approach, but he didn't dismiss it out of hand when it came up as a possibility as a community sanction, so maybe that's a good sign that he might be willing to agree to it. Your thoughts? ] ] 07:40, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

===Bold proposal to nip the problem in the bud===
This problem between The Rambling Man and Medeis has gone on far too long, with repeated arguments that continually come up at ANI. It simply seems as if the two are unable to work together. The current interaction ban has been unsuccessful because the two editors are active in the same areas: In The News and the Reference Desk. From past history, it seems as if The Rambling Man is more active at In The News and Medeis more active at the Reference Desk. To nip this problem in the bud, I boldly propose a community ban for Medeis from In The News and a community ban for The Rambling Man from the Reference Desk. This way, the two editors can focus on their own respective pages without all of this trouble. If they decide in the future that they can get along, the bans can be lifted. ] (]) 10:53, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
*'''Support''' as proposer. ] (]) 10:53, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' Had this proposal been made sooner (in a "put to vote" fashion, that is; a few editors have suggested it previously), I'd probably have supported it without reservation. However, just at the moment, as per discussion above, I would not mind waiting to see if both parties could be convinced to voluntarily endorse this course of action, or at least to hear their perspectives on this proposal. There will presumably be less ill-will this way, as they will part from the issue without a further community sanction. I have to think that must be worth something to them (and us). Failing ''some sort of agreement'' between the two to reduce the drama, though -- and it need not necessarily be the one proposed above -- this would certainly be the least punitive of the the TBAN options. ] ] 13:38, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

== IBAN request (Users Baseball Bugs and The Rambling Man) ==
I would like to ask that the interaction ban between me and The Rambling Man be ended, effective on the anniversary of its imposition, of which I'm not sure of the date, but I think it would be about January 15. The discussion a month ago, and here currently, indicates that I can work harmoniously with the editor in furtherance of Misplaced Pages's goals. Thank you for your kind consideration. ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 10:27, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
:Erm, {{user|The Rambling Man}}, this will not really work unless it's a mutual request - so your comments on this proposal are invited here. ] (]) 13:30, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
::I thought it was nothing to do with the participants, someone above has clearly stated it's a community-based sanction so it should be for the community to decide. Frankly there seems to be nothing to discuss between the two of us, no issues until the double-teaming starts up again. ] (]) 19:24, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
:::The community should hear your opinion. If both parties say they can get along, the IBAN should be lifted. Bugs, will you agree not to get involved in any dispute between TRM and Medeis? I think that's what TRM wants to hear. ] <sup>]</sup> 19:34, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
::::Well the irony is that Medeis notified Bugs of this discussion, he stated he'd rather not get involved and then waded in, up to his neck. So no, I don't think that'll be possible. As I said, the double-team are back in force, using all methods, including off-wiki communications and emails to admins etc to further the cause. ] (]) 20:24, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

:::::TRM, do you have any evidence to support your accusations of off-wiki collaboration this time, or is this more of the same policy-violating speculation of a nefarious conspiracy against you that we've seen you make repeatedly against the two of them (and indeed many others who call your conduct into question after getting sucked into the gravity-well of drama the three of you generate between you) in past discussions here and elsewhere? Because if you don't have any evidence to support these notions, we are ''well'' past time for these accusations to stop; ] -- and this is far from the first time this has been pointed out to you. ] ] 21:56, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

::::::Oh good. More walls of text. I can't be bothered to find it but yes, Medeis has mentioned in the past that she has emailed, at the very least, Bishonen in regard to this. You go find it. It is, however, entirely irrelevant to this complaint. I look forward to another 2,500 characters in response. But note, I won't be continuing with this discussion, as I mentioned above. This response is purely to note that, once again, the bandwagon is rolling and you're going to make it a thousand times wordier than it ever needed to be. You are also someone who is desperate to see me blocked/banned etc, so I'm not all surprised to see you here, courtesy of a "note" from Medeis. I hope you view her transgressions in an equitable fashion, but I very much doubt you will. Do your worst, but please, spare the community your endless ramblings (ironic!!). ] (]) 22:11, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

:::::::See, this is rather exactly what I'm talking about. You've clearly (and I suspect strategically, based on similar behaviour in the previous two ANI's on your conduct) misinterpreted the behaviour I was referencing as a violation of our ], ], and ] standards. Medeis, as any other editor, is well within her rights to discreetly contact an administrator about the behaviour of another editor. For you to accuse her of doing that is not a personal attack on your part, because it is not a policy violation or behavioural issue for her to be making that contact.

:::::::What I asked of you (''clearly and un-ambiguously'') was that you either provide proof of this supposed conspiracy to get you banned (which supposedly includes many bad-faith activities and policy violations) or that you ''just stop making these accusations'' against anyone you think doesn't like you. The members of this alleged conspiracy grow with every ] or ] you are involved with, of which there are no shortage. In your head (or at least your explicit accusations), I and numerous other editors became members of this plot ], simply because that your tone towards another group of editors had grown uncivil and antagonistic. From that point on, you made no secret of the fact that you viewed each of us (despite having just met you) as members of this conspiracy and that you could dismiss our concerns about your behaviour accordingly, just as you did in the post I am responding to now. The truly inane part is that I got added into the conspiracy for telling you that it was inappropriate to accuse others of being a part of it. :/

:::::::Now you can continue to frame any oversight of your actions as "walls of text" simply because it tends to (by necessity) become rather drawn out, but I'm pretty sure that the experienced contributors of ANI can see that discussion for what it really is: ''walls of '''links'''''. Links that are only barely adequate to summarize a long history of you blowing your (incredibly short) fuse, accusing others of bad-faith behaviour without a shred of evidence, finding ways to try to side-step community sanctions that have already been leveled against you, and generally trampling all over the project's most central (and least negotiable) behavioural policies.

:::::::Now you may wish to try to suggest that I'm here because of Medeis' message (which was unsolicited and unnecessary, as I had already seen this thread), but you'll note that she left that message yesterday and despite the fact that I've been actively editing, I never commented here ''until'' I saw you begin to violate ] again. Because frankly I have zero interest in your vitriolic and frequently petty little feud with her and Bugs (aside from the fact that it incessantly burdens ANI). Medeis had every opportunity to speak up about whether she felt you were ] her in the last ANI, but she let herself get intimated into staying quiet due to the threat of a mutual topic ban for both of you from the reference desks -- this after filing the previous ANI herself -- so she can live with the consequences of that decision as far as I'm concerned. Though, for the record, I think you clearly were hounding her, and if you insist, I'll provide the diffs to show why. But my concern is not with the conflict between the three of you, but rather with incivility and personal attacks in general, which is why I only commented once those issues became germane again. The fact that you happened to be the one engaging in those activities is not on me or any other editor who might choose to take issue with them, so you can just shelve your "bandwagon" comments along with your conspiracy theories.

:::::::But given that even my two-sentence long post above was dismissed by you as a wall of text, I'll distill this down into a bite-size message that is as small as I can possibly make it: '''], ] & ]; read them and adhere to them or leave the project. Those are your options.''' ] ] 23:53, 3 January 2015 (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.
''Note'': A discussion about Medeis and TRM originally followed the above and prompted the following request for closure. The discussion was refactored into the subsection ] since it was not dependent on the above discussion. --] (]) 06:34, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
----
{{cue}} There's no headway on the IBAN on TRM/Bugs to be seen here, this should probably be closed. --] (]) 03:47, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
:Go ahead. I might ask again in a month or so. ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 04:25, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

::I agree with BBB and ], the entirety of the above should be closed, and BBB should be allowed to ask separately for a removal of the ban between himself and TRM if he wishes. This assumption that BBB and I are joined at the hip (we disagree on almost everything) has been most pernicious, and the above Shining-like maze of text unhelpful to anyone. ] (]) 21:29, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

== Editor subverting "XfD" discussion and edit-warring ==

Unfortunately, it seems to be necessary to report the recent actions of ]. Please see:

* ];
* ] this morning (2 January 2015);
* added to Edokter's talk page;
* ] this afternoon (2 January 2015);
* added to Edokter's talk page (and, it now seems, promptly deleted).

Disappointedly, ] (]) 15:43, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
:<s>You should have notified Edokter of your report here on his talk page with an ANI-notice template. <span style="background-color:white; border:3px ridge red;">]]</span> 15:47, 2 January 2015 (UTC)</s>. I see that you have done it. <span style="background-color:white; border:3px ridge red;">]]</span> 15:51, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
::Uh, they were notified before your message . ]] 15:49, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
:It appears {{u|Edokter}} has been replacing a redirected set of templates under an RfD preemptively, as the discussion has not yet closed (in fact, it just started yesterday, by Edokter). I don't understand what the purpose of doing this is, other than the editor's assertion that {{tq|these are completely redundant}} and {{tq|There are too many }}. The justification is {{tq|There is nothing wrong with restoring the previous template names to accommodate for a potential outcome}} from the template discussion. I'm sorry, but this rationale is not acceptable, and the behavior is disruptive as I see it. ]] 15:55, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
::There is also absoutely no justification for creating a redirect for an already existing template, purely out of personal preference (as I can't think of another reason), then going around slowly replacing all ''existing'' uses with the redirect! There is nothing wrong with restoring the previous version as I have done, RfD or not. I am well within my right to undo a series completely useless edits that otherewise only adds to the confusion in template naming, create a nightmare in template maintenance and landing everyone in navigation hell. Sardanaphalus has a history of bold template editing that do not always work, and his behaviour in moving templates has also created a slew of redirects that need to be cleaned up. I have warned him before about his template edits; I may well request that his template editor provileges be revoked. I have had it up to here about now. <code style="white-space:nowrap">-- ]]] {&#123;]&#125;}</code> 16:09, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
:::Please allow the RfD to conclude. That is the proper venue for deciding whether to keep these redirects. I agree that your edits today have been disruptive. &mdash;&nbsp;Martin <small>(]&nbsp;·&nbsp;])</small> 16:35, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
::::: Also agree, ] I understand you believe these redirects to be un-necessary. Let consensus make that decision, and if they are, then by all means, you have the rationale you need to remove them, but to do them ahead of time really looks disruptive. <span style="text-shadow: 0.1em 0.1em 0.2em blue">]] </span> 16:50, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
:::::: Not to mention {{u|Edokter}} is an administrator who should be well aware of the deletion procedures.--''']'''&nbsp;''{{sup|]}}'' 21:55, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

*{{u|Edokter}} has continued removing/reverting these in spite of this discussion: , , . What are you thinking, anyway? There's no urgency to remove all these, there is no compelling problem that requires this. I've seen no evidence of this "confusion" that Edokter repeatedly invokes. This is completely out of line for an administrator. ]] 01:46, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
**I don't understand why my actions are considered so controversial, while the ''initial'' change is not. But I will let the discussion run its course. Whatever the outcome, I do expect that (after the RfD) any reverts on my part are considered no more controversial; since the initial changes were unnecessary to begin with, I am simply restoring the previuous state. <code style="white-space:nowrap">-- ]]] {&#123;]&#125;}</code> 09:23, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
** I'm concerned, with good faith, that Edokter's messages suggest ] has lost good faith and perspective and may continue to edit disruptively. I note that reversions/deletions/etc seem prevalent in his editing history and I wonder how many are dogmatic rather than e.g. purely anti-vandalism. I don't know what actions have been found to transform such situations elsewhere in the past. ] (]) 09:57, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
*** Don't try and make me the bad guy here... that is quite bad faith. Yes, I revert a lot; that is certainly not uncommon, for both editors and admins, and certainly not limited to fighting vandalism. Perhaps I should make some snide remarks about your edits being primarily in template space? My main problem with you is your lack of understanding the basic ''technical'' principles of Misplaced Pages; your multiple (too) bold edits of some core templates ''without'' testing them in a sandbox; reinstating your edits after a revert in the hope it will stick, showing a poor grasp of ]; your complete lack of regard for small or mobile displays judging from the many hardcoded CSS properties you use to fit your screen, and overuse of inline CSS in general to micro-manage template's display; moving templates multiple times leaving a slew of redirects behind for others to clean up; and the reason we're here: creating redirects to existing templates and then changing existing calls to the redirect. That is just bad practice; I see it as a very sneaky way to enforce a preferred name. If you really want a different name, '''request a move''' like anyone else would. I am very intolerant of these underhanded paractices and '''that''' is why I revert them. In short: you are a loose cannon in template space, and I have been monitoring you since I spotted you, reverting when necessary and averting some potential accidents along the way. I have had to explain some principles of template coding ''multiple'' times before you adhere to them, and sometimes you slip back into old habits.
::: Don't get me wrong... I ''really'' want to work ''with'' you, and not against you; I really hate that. But we both seem to have strong personalities and will result in an occasional clash. But Misplaced Pages should not suffer from that, and that is my first resposibility. I ''am'' one of the "technical" veterans here, and I know how MediaWiki works, quirks and all, and I am more then happy to share that knowledge. I do look out after most core templates here to ensure they are in proper working order. You happen to come across a few of them, so naturally you will find me acting slightly conservative around those templates. Div col is one of them. You have a lot of ideas, some of them good. Unfortunately, some of them not soo good, and when those are rejected, you tend to take it personally, which appears to others as being stubborn. So think about your contribution to these conflicts. Just know that Misplaced Pages is not your personal playground and your edits can have major impact on millions of readers. Once you adopt that mindset, I am absolutely positive we can have very pleasent cooporation. <code style="white-space:nowrap">-- ]]] {&#123;]&#125;}</code> 10:34, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
:::*I think there is some truth in ]'s remarks. I have similar concerns with ]'s editing. There is a number of points I would like to make.
:::# <s>Edoketer's reversions have not resulted in discussion on talk pages.</s> <u>Correction: some exchanges have taken place, but on user talk pages, which I didn't see. Suggestion: perhaps template talk pages might be more appropriate, if you want outside opinions?</u> I have some of the concerned templates on my watchlist, and have seen some of the conflicts described. But I have not seen any discussions take place. Lets put it this way. Edokter has concerns about Sardanaphalus's editing on technical reasons, and reverts. Even if this is not correct, surely the thing to do would be to discuss the changes to allay Edokters concerns? But I have not seen this happen, and I really feel this needs to happen. The onus is on Sardanaphalus to do so, s/he is the one making the change. Instead Sardanaphalus sometimes seems to reinstate changes at a latter date, usually under the guise of fixing other perceived "problems". This is sneaky, and tantamount to edit warring.
:::# Many of Sardanaphalus's edits feel they are purely change for the sake of change. There is an old adage: don't fix something that isn't broke. The reaason for this adage is that you are more likely to cause problems by fixing it then solve non-existent problems. For example, the recent moving of ] to ]. I mean really what is the point? It simply doesn't matter what it's called, the title is distinct from the page name. Moving the page is simply going to cause confusion on the matter by making things more complex, and possibly breaking things in the future.
::::Now I'm not saying all of Sardanaphalus's edits are without point. I'm sure many of them are constructive. <s>But combined with an unwillingness to discuss other editor's fears I feel could cause danger to the project. Sardanaphalus really needs to justify his/her changes to a far greater extent.</s> <u>See correction above.</u> ----]&nbsp;] 11:48, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
::* I'm willing to try to share what I make of the last two messages above, but I think doing so here would be taking this thread further off-topic. Unfortunately, it seems that . ] (]) 12:20, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
:::*I understand your point. But please, after this ANI, try to make an effort to collaborate with Edokter. Nobody likes being reverted, but you've got to try to not take it personally, and try to build bridges between good faith editors. --]&nbsp;] 12:41, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
::::: Thanks for your acknowledgement; I hope your sentiments also extend to Edokter. Yours, ] (]) 12:33, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
:::*{{ping|Sardanaphalus}} I'd like to correct my statement. I've checked both of your user talk pages, and it does seem many exchanges have taken place. I didn't see them as neither are on my watchlist, only some of the concerned templates were. Hence I'd like to adjust my statement accordingly. Apologies. Also my sentiments apply to you both. --]&nbsp;] 14:52, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
::::: The , in the context of the rest of the thread (and previous discussions), indicates why much/most discussion has taken place away from where reversions were made. Regards, ] (]) 09:20, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

{{Outdent|:::::}}I feel moved to lend my support to Edokter. As an editor of some 13 years' standing, I hope that support carries some weight.

As it seems to me, Edokter is being quite unjustifiably being cast in a bad light by Sardanaphalus ("I'm concerned, with good faith, that Edokter's messages suggest he has lost good faith and perspective and may continue to edit disruptively").

Sardanaphalus came to my attention when Edokter removed a hard-coded width from ], and had it re-inserted by Sardanaphalus, and was reverted by Edokter. This sent me to Sardanaphalus' user page to find out who it was who was so unaware of the deleterious implications of hard-coding widths. To my amazement (and amusement), I discovered that on a 1024 px wide display (which I use regularly for testing our own web layouts), the TOC on ] overlaps and obscures content on the left, and ] is a real jumble.

I pointed this out on ]. What ensued was a quite fruitless discussion - fruitless, because Sardanaphalus' pages remain stubbornly unreadable at widths narrower than his/her own 1680 px wide display..

So when Edokter talks to Sardanaphalus of "your complete lack of regard for small or mobile displays judging from the many hardcoded CSS properties you use to fit your screen", I say "Amen".

--] (]) 21:21, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

* Please consider the following:
*# What prompted this thread;
*# What you may have missed in ;
*# That my edit in response to those changes was to restore the status quo{{aside|whether "good" or "bad", hard-coded or not hard-coded, etc}} due to 1.;
*# That the context for that edit ;
*# That how ] has come to be and am aware that ]'s ToC overlaps content (I am also aware both are in userspace and that the ToC has a link);
*# That the discussion to which 4. and 5. refer is ongoing yet already (pre?)judged to be "fruitless";
*# That there may have been some jumping to (or arriving with) conclusions, especially as regards and your last sentence above;
*# See 1. Are you sure, as an editor of some 13 years' standing, you wish to support this kind of activity..?
: Sincerely, ] (]) 23:34, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

::Didn't you read ''any'' of the comments I posted above? It clearly outlines the problems that I come across. You didn't address any of them. You have also been blissfully ignoring my proposal (on your talk page) to sent {{tl|Div col}} to ]. And most of all, you continue to stick to old habits... Just now you have unilaterally {{diff|Infobox university|641063980|640600623|updated}} {{tl|Infobox university}}, adding more micro-managing inline CSS, without consulting the talk page; this has been a developing pattern for a long time. This type of template editing is ''heavily discouraged'' per ], and grounds for immediate removal of your template editor privileges. You have actually broken ''most'' of the rule outlined there already. Meanwhile, you perceive every revert and critisism on your ''actions'' as bad faith and question the other party's motives; a trait you now amply demonstrated below (stalking query).
::Are you going to address the issues outlined above? <code style="white-space:nowrap">-- ]]] {&#123;]&#125;}</code> 14:07, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
::* For the time being, I am witholding a response to the above for the same reason I am witholding a response to . (The response to your proposal there is the suggestion made in the first paragraph that follows it.) ] (]) 18:41, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

I have removed Sardanaphalus's template editor right. Whether Edokter was right or not to make the reverts, it has been pretty clear for some time now that there are problems with Sardanaphalus's template editing. As well as the issues raised in this thread there have been several others raised on his talk page over the last few months. I've left a more detailed rationale at Sardanaphalus's talk page . — ''''']''''' <sup>]</sup> 11:02, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

; {{big|Query}} : Would the pattern of Edokter's behavio/ur toward my contributions – now, sadly, resumed – qualify as stalking..? ] (]) 23:34, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
:*While I'm not particularly knowledgeable on this area I'll attempt an answer. Any comments are welcome.
::On the face of it Edokters behaviour suggests that of stalking. But there are a couple of caveats.
::Firstly, you're probably aware of Edokter's admin status. Now admins quite often keep tabs on problem editors, I've seen comments suggesting this from admins. But whether you qualify for this is something I am uncertain of.
::Secondly, Edokter has a strong interest in template editing, and I expect has many on his watchlist. Therefore you could expect him to keep tabs on many templates. So it is understandable for him to make reversions. Now, if he did the same reversions on your edits in an area he was not involved in, then that would make a stronger case for stalking.
::About my earlier comments: do you think discussions on template talk pages, rather than user talk pages, might be helpful? Simply because you might have more input from concerned editors, meaning consensus building might be more likely. --]&nbsp;] 14:24, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
::: Thanks for your thoughts. Right now, I think it probably wisest if I don't respond further, except to reiterate my feeling that the patterns of those user talkpage discussions indicate it probably was best that they took place there rather than elsewhere. ] (]) 18:41, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
:::: No. The template talk page is ''always'' the first place to go to discuss changes and reverts. By going directly to my talk page, you only seek to convince me, and pre-emtively keep out input from third parties and that makes it impossible to create any kind of consensus. So you are the one making it personal. There is nothing to gain from that. <code style="white-space:nowrap">-- ]]] {&#123;]&#125;}</code> 20:33, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

* . ] (]) 12:57, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

== Sanction appeal ==

Per {{u|HJ Mitchell}}'s statement , I am officially appealing his sanction. The recent changes to ] to include "any other accounts on any other web sites" have essentially codified a protection against harassment being coordinated or performed by Misplaced Pages editors on other websites, as I have been subject to by editors involved in the ongoing dispute at arbitration, which I've only discovered because I am participating on those other websites myself and their names keep coming up. This sanction effectively prevents me from reporting harassment when ] basically proves that User:John_Doe34 is the John_Doe34 actively calling me a "retard" on another website.

I've already forwarded such material to the arbitration committee when it was relevant to the case but both the evidence and workshop phases are closed so there's not much else thats going to come out of that, particularly when more attacks were made and my name is continually dragged through the mud because I dared to ask someone to correct a typo when the mere presence of my name in the page's editing history would start a new round of abuse.

In short, the change to WP:OUTING is BS and I shouldn't be sanctioned for trying to bring to light behavior that is obviously by other editors on other websites when it concerns their duplicity on Misplaced Pages.—] (]) 21:31, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
* Ryulong did not even wait 24 hours launching this appeal, and while the active Arbitration case is on-going. ], is Ryulong really saying that the change to ] is bullshit? ] (]) 21:59, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
*:HJ Mitchell wrote "You may also appeal immediately to AN or ANI if you feel the sanction is unjust or unduly harsh, but please link to this comment", so I've done that. And I am under no restriction to do what I have done (particularly because you're linking to a workshop page entry and not the ] which still lacks any actual "we will punish you if you do this" considering it's worded to only consider a particular editor). The point of the matter is that to the wording of ] effectively prevents anyone from raising any issue about easily identifiable behavior. It prevents us from going "I've discovered this user works for this company and has been heavily editing the article on that company and/or its competitors without a disclosed conflict of interest", "I've discovered this person has been involved in extreme harassment of this living person offsite and is actively participating in editing the article on that person", or in my case "This user has been harassing me off-site in regards to actions on Misplaced Pages". I had absolutely zero intention of discussing the behavior I had seen directed at me and I should not be prevented from bringing this behavior to the notice of the community at large should I come across it, nor should anyone else.—] (]) 22:05, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
*::You should also link to when the rule was as a result of a discussion on the functionaries mailing list before it was reverted for a time by an admin with the rule change, you linked to when it was reinstated. ] (]) 22:14, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
*:::Irrelevant because the talk page also happens to point out that the original editor was not on the functionaries list whatsoever.—] (]) 22:16, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
*::::That's true but the talk page discussion also shows the message did come from them. ] (]) 23:20, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
*I disagree with the change to the outing policy as it creates this kind of absurd situation. Additionally, I would say that I do not believe this was outing even under the new policy as Logan admits to being the owner of an account under a similar name on Twitter and on Twitter he indicates he is the owner of a Reddit account under a similar name. There are many reasons for sanctioning Ryulong, but I don't think this is one of them, though the arbitration case is set to wrap up soon enough so we should await their decision. Depending on the outcome of the case, this matter can be revisited.--] <sub>] ]</sub> 23:25, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
::Logan also implicitly admits the reddit account to be his own in ] where he says "he looked up my twitter and reddit." (context: I was the one who found the reddit and twitter while casualy browsing gamergate sites, not Ryulong). ] (]) 01:04, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
*"This sanction effectively prevents me from reporting harassment". No, this sanction prevents you from ''publicly'' reporting off-wiki activity regarding GG matters. You were directed that "should you feel the need, you may email the Arbitration Committee with any such comments. Should you feel compelled to make such comments on arbitration pages, you must obtain the prior permission of a clerk or arbitrator". In that case, I fail to see the problem. &mdash;] 23:34, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
*Per Dark, I fail to see what effect this would have. If there is a real offsite problem relating to GamerGate, email the arbitrators. If you really feel it needs to be aired, ask the arbs or the clerks when emailing them, but I can't see a situation where this would be the case. ''']''' 00:47, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
*:It's offwiki harassment directed ''at'' me performed by people who are also on Misplaced Pages with obviously similar usernames or admissions offsite. And I've reported what I did to the committee as part of evidence regarding several users but the attacks and negative behavior is unending. There are threads on Reddit as we speak now attacking me and other Misplaced Pages editors. Hell, there's at least two attacking {{u|Samwalton9}} and there's a thread about this sanction and my appeal of this sanction.—] (]) 01:12, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
*::And there are threads on Reddit as we speak now attacking me. Created by you. The sanction may have something to do with your persistent refusal to follow the very rules you demand others respect. ] (]) 02:46, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
*:::Anything I may have posted there that you claim is an attack is not at all related to your behavior on Misplaced Pages as an editor .—] (]) 02:59, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
*::::WP:NPA. Thank you for proving my point. ] (]) 18:19, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
*:::::All I've done is point out that you made one edit to any of our articles as every other edit you have made is to foment a dispute that did not exist until you arrived on Misplaced Pages. I am speaking of your actions here, which is not a violation of NPA. Maybe if you were being a more involved member of the actual aim of this project instead of focusing your time into trying to get me punished by any means possible I would think more highly of you here. But all that's been accomplished is furthering the divide despite attempts to extend an olive branch or at least call to the end of hostilities.—] (]) 20:16, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
*::::::Saying that I "barely qualify for" being an editor on "the encyclopedia anyone can edit" sounds like a personal attack to me. What you think of me is irrelevant; the question is your conduct. ] (]) 21:24, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
*:::::::I meant "as" instead of for and did not recognize this error until now. Considering you have one edit to the article space you barely qualify ''as'' an editor here.—] (]) 07:30, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
*::::::::That still reads as a personal attack as well. There was no need to say any such thing in the first place, bad grammar or no, and it continues the pattern of you responding to any criticism whatsoever by shooting the messenger. Consider that this very thread has turned into you arguing why I'm not qualified to criticize you. ] (]) 16:06, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
*:::::::::The fact here is that your contributions to the project are heavily based in responding to me and about me because you did not like how the sentence about you read that was edited and changed long after I had originally written it and you continue to foster this dispute with me and basically anyone that is not pro-Gamergate. This beef solely concerns our interactions which ''you'' instigated.—] (]) 22:41, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
*::::::::::This account is false in many regards--not that I expect anyone to do anything about it. But I will note that this account is false, as usual, and end this thread here. ] (]) 23:06, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
*:::::::::::You keep saying everything I've said regarding our interaction is a lie. You've only made one article edit and everything else regards Gamergate or me in regards to Gamergate. You have no intention of becoming a part of this project but want me gone because I happen to be singled out as the go to scapegoat for Gamergate and Misplaced Pages. All I did was originally write a section about someone's criticism of one of your articles and now you've been on my ass on this website for two months and whenever I call you out on this you say "I'm no longer participating in this discussion". It's bullshit.—] (]) 02:02, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
:: Your definition of "attack" is pretty broad in my opinion, from what I can tell the thread you're referring to about admin SamWolton is just documenting that an account of the same name on reddit went on to an antiGamerGate subreddit and called people conspiracy theorists, which of course that subreddit celebrated. There's a thread on an account by you "attacking" (by your definition) journalist Milo Yinnopoulous calling him a "based liar", and that journalist Georgina of TechRaptor only writes articles for the money. If we're going to start documenting off-site behaviour you're not off grounds. ] (]) 05:50, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
:::I did not say she only writes articles for money. I said that TechRaptor is exclusively funded through Patreon and Gamergate advocates must obviously bankroll the website because they keep churning out pro-Gamergate pieces. And when someone calls me a "retard" that is definitely an attack.—] (]) 07:52, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
*I have no issue with the appeal or with its timing. Ryulong is quite within his rights to appeal if he thinks the sanction is unfair, and he did as I asked and linked to my notification so as far as I'm concerned, everything is above board and he's been perfectly fair to me. I will of course abide by whatever the community decides.<p>From my perspective, this was not related to the recent change to WP:OUTING (of which I was vaguely aware, but have no strong feelings on). One of the (many, many) issues with editor conduct in this topic area has been accusations that editors have engaged in misconduct elsewhere on the Internet. While harassment etc is abhorrent, I can't see what good can come from alleging that somebody was rude to you on another website. I can see a benefit in noting, for example, off-wiki coordination of on-wiki disruption, but one can do that without alleging that the coordinator is a particular Misplaced Pages editor or vice versa. More to the point, Ryulong seems to have repeatedly brought up editors' activity elsewhere on the Internet where it has little or no relevance (in this case, one could argue that it was tangentially relevant, but it couldn't have affected the outcome of the enforcement request, so raising it was not helpful). Given that such allegations don't seem to serve any legitimate purpose for dispute resolution or improvement of the encyclopaedia, I felt that the restriction I crafted was reasonable in that it prevents discussions being derailed by allegations that are difficult to prove and almost certainly inactionable without being unduly punitive (bearing in mind that the wider issues of editor conduct in the topic area are currently being examined at arbitration, albeit at a pace that a giant slot would find sedate). Happy to answer any specific questions, but otherwise I feel it's best for the original admin to make their statement and then get out of the way. ] &#124; ] 01:30, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
*:I've seen more people trying to call me out for my comments elsewhere regarding the topic than I've done anything to say that any particular person has an account on another website and is using it to disrupt. And you've blocked me for this before. And when I asked (on IRC) how to notify ''anyone'' of misconduct privately I got chewed out by someone who said I'm toxic and need to be banned.—] (]) 01:34, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
*::I blocked you for restoring unsupported allegation after I asked you not to, but I can see why you'd make the connection (I honestly didn't). It's not because I hate you (at least you're polite), but because I'm doing what I believe is best for the project. Anyway, the issue is the relevance of these allegations to Misplaced Pages. I can't go over to Reddit, Twitter, 8chan, etc, etc, and start blocking people for violating CIV or BLP or anything else. Nor could I get away with blocking people on Misplaced Pages because they were rude to you on another website (though as you've seen, I've taken an absolute zero-tolerance approach to dealing with harassment when it has come on to Misplaced Pages) so making the allegation on the wiki doesn't help anything. ] &#124; ] 01:47, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
*:::But we should be able to say something like what happened with OverlordQ the other day.—] (]) 02:59, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
* There are a few aspects with the way in which this sanction was imposed which are not ideal. Firstly, the administrator who imposed this sanction ({{u|HJ Mitchell}}) has essentially asked the Committee to ban Ryulong from the project on the case workshop page. Secondly, this action was then logged at the proposed decision case page as "information" (but ultimately, by suggesting the committee take this into consideration, it is evidence being submitted at a time when evidence submissions were closed). Thirdly, the 'disruption' being prevented by this measure is unlikely to outweigh the discussion and drama that this appeal will generate as it can be seen as an attempt to pre-empt the decision he invites the Committee to come to (given that this was the natural consequence of taking this action just a few days before a proposed decision was to be posted and at a time when both evidence and workshop phases have formally closed). While it is commendable that HJ Mitchell has made a statement early on here and pledged to stay out of the way of whatever is decided here, I do think it would be more useful for the project if he takes the initiative to reduce the duration of the restriction until the committee's final decision is posted at ] (rather than force the committee to actively supersede the sanction in the circumstances I've just described). That is better than leaving it to us to amend or overturn the restriction, or to leave this added complication to the arbitration decision - either of which is unhelpful. Given the inherent difficulties with arbcom taking a quick and robust action in response to harassment (if it is occurring, or in terms of BOOMERANG if it is not), there is probably room for relaxing the restriction too. Finally, the assertion about Ryulong made by ] is unhelpful in my opinion, as he (misleadingly) links to a proposal made in a workshop, and omits the fact that ] revoked any "threat" of sanction. ] (]) 10:48, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
:::: {{ping|Ncmvocalist}} - ] is the right link. ] (]) 15:51, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
:::::{{ping|ChrisGualtieri}} Yes, not sure why you used the ] link at the top of the discussion. ] (]) 17:37, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
:::::: It was a simple mistake. I somehow got that from searching the ArbCom case and just didn't see it pulled from the workshop part. I didn't notice it until you pointed it out. ] (]) 17:39, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
*:Yes, I contributed to the workshop page as an outside party and suggested such sanctions (against multiple parties on both sides) as I thought the evidence presented by others showed were merited. That doesn't make me a party to the dispute, which is itself rather ridiculous in my opinion. And the "in my opinion mild" comment was a simple factual statement—I felt that all my actions arising from ] yesterday (which I took after investigating a plea for more admins at AN) were mild because I deliberately looked at the narrow issue of the complaints and editors' conduct on that board rather than the wider issues with the topic area and took the mildest action I felt would address would address the immediate problem, precisely to ''avoid'' circumventing the arbitration case. But I see nothing improper in notifying ArbCom of (yes, mild) sanctions against parties in a case, especially since the sanctions may affect those parties' contributions to the case. The arbs can do as they please with the information; I'm sure even if they thought I was advocating for further action against any party (I wasn't, but for argument's sake...), they're intelligent enough to evaluate the situation for themselves and if they felt I'd acted improperly, I'm sure they wouldn't hesitate to make their displeasure known.<p>Your suggestion of reducing the duration to the end of the case, though, is very reasonable, and I will enact that now and adjust the log accordingly. I will also inform ArbCom; feel free to accuse me of acting improperly again. After that, I can think of a great many things that would benefit more from my attention than this thread, so I won't be returning to it unless somebody pings me with a specific question. Once again I will of course abide by whatever the community decides, and this reduction is not intended to make this discussion moot. ] &#124; ] 14:48, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
*::Even though I have the benefit of having seen you admin many times previously and this sanctioned user being both harassed, and sanctioned for his conduct, the appeal comes down to the circumstances visible by just any person; that's the context in which I noted those three items. Yes, I also noticed the plea for more admins at AN, and it is an all too common scenario where an action might be needed or anyway taken before the case is finalised <small>(in this particular instance the amount of disruption or drama caused by leaving things as they were for just a little longer is in doubt as I said, but I am not persuaded to go further than that now).</small> The usual reason a case is with Arbcom after all is because the community did not sort the overall problem adequately and/or in time, so the decision will take all of that into account. An unpleasant feeling is generated when avoidable complications are added to a case involving users who have contributed usefully in some ways, but have not done so in others; it can unintentionally or otherwise prejudice the outcome both for the users and the project, even with the most brightest arbs ever. <p>While you might not take issue with your actions being amended/overturned by admins in the community or arbs, I regret to note that not all sanction-imposing or sanction-enforcing administrators appear to share that value in practice. Historically, some arbs have avoided piping up over their displeasure so that the admin is not slighted or to provide silent encouragement. This does appear to becoming less of a frequency thankfully, but it is certainly not outlawed currently and does involve arbs and users taking extra time on that matter. Overall, for the reasons I just said and others I haven't, once a case is at final phase, I think the project benefits more when admins avoid situations where a question may be raised over whether they have acted improperly or not, and to avoid a dilemma arising as to whether and how the sanction dealt with in the final decision (unless unavoidable) or displeasure should be expressed. In any event, this is just background to address some of the matters you raise here; take from it what you will. Thank you for your assistance and the approach you have adopted as a sanction imposing/enforcing administrator during this appeal; I hope others learn from it also. ] (]) 17:32, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
* The change to ] really needs tweaking. If an editor with an anonymous name (say, Abcdef) on Misplaced Pages is behaving in a disruptive way, and linking to what their account (also called Abcdef) on, say, Reddit, is doing, then there is no OUTING issue. If, of course, their account on an external site is under their real name, then that's a separate matter. ] 12:34, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
*:I agree, and would be supportive of changes to the policy. I don't think it is consistent with the community's view as it currently stands. ] (]) 12:46, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
* I guess I really don't understand how this sanction could raise this big a stink. It basically reads "stop trying to link people to off-site accounts", which is a rule everyone already should be following. ] (]) 20:43, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

The situation at present appears to be that Misplaced Pages considers the absolutely anonymity of its accounts to be more important than the their egregiously bad behavior on other sites -- even behavior dedicated, as in this case, to intentionally causing harm to a Wikipedian. Let’s remember, for those of you not following along at home:
* A group of supporters of a fringe movement openly have coordinated to silence their Misplaced Pages critics and to take control over the process of revising pages concerning their movement and those it seeks to target.
* Ryulong is a priority target of these attacks
* One tactic planned by the attackers is to broadcast derogatory information and innuendo against their targets, making their continued participation in Misplaced Pages infeasible and/or securing their dismissal from employment. Ryulong has been subjected to particularly harsh treatment because his attackers believe him to be gay and Jewish; when he asked for financial help in an emergency on a non-Misplaced Pages site, the critics literally smelled blood in the water.
* Relentless offsite attacks, both anti-Semitic and homophobic, have been a particular feature of the campaign against this editor.
* Current policy makes it possible for a Wikipedian opponent to go to another site and post repeated, scurrilous attacks on a named Wikipedian with impunity, and to use that site to recruit new SPAs and to canvass for additional opponents. The victim, on the other hand, must scrupulously refrain from mentioning these attacks on Misplaced Pages -- even in Misplaced Pages's administrative and quasi-judicial functions such as ANI and ArbCom.
* The waters are further (but characteristically) clouded by loud appeals for sanctions on grounds that are irrelevant, absurd, or not germane -- such as here, where Ryulong is denounced for having appealed too promptly. Had he waited, of course, the editor would have complained that the matter was stale.
This gives the appearance that Misplaced Pages prizes the strict anonymity of its editors more highly than fairness, propriety or decency, and further advantages those who coordinate their wikipedia activities offsite. In fact, the coordination visible here was only identified because the offsite proponents wanted to flaunt it: had they used different names offsite, used the telephone or email to plan their attacks, and contacted the victim’s friends and employer privately rather than through a Web site, they would have gained the effect for which they had striven without the possibility of censure.
However, they did not even take elementary precautions, and now Ryulong, having elliptically complained of this appalling treatment, is further sanctioned for that complaint. This is a very regrettable way to reward long, if sometimes controversial, service to the project.
I write this most reluctantly as (a) I am topic-banned from GamerGate, which is a subtext here (as, it seems, in much of ANI these days), but which I have taken care not to otherwise allude to, and (b) I no longer contribute to Misplaced Pages, as its behavior is something I cannot countenance. But the alternative here is to remain silent, which would be invidious, or to discuss this offsite: the proper place for technical discussion of internal enforcement is not a journal or a newspaper, but here. I thank you for this indulgence. ] (]) 20:54, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
:Did you just imply that because Ryulong has been targetted off-site that anyone who finds faults with his behavior on Misplaced Pages must surely be A) an off-site harasser and B) anti-semitic? ] (]) 21:05, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

::No. ] (]) 21:21, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

:If you're topic-banned, why are you commenting on this? ] (]) 21:16, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

::"Remaining silent in the face of injustice is the same as supporting it.'' -- Nelson Mandela. ] (]) 21:21, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
:::Yeah I don't think Nelson Mandela was topic banned though. If we're going after "personal attacks" on your personal site you've admitted to owning you've called people defending to Keep the Cultural Marxism article "an infection" . So that's calling ME an infection, as well on your linked twitter account that this was part of a "lobbying campaign" to Jimmy Wales . You were previously topic banned for exactly this, stop accusing people out of nowhere, if you keep saying that criticism of Ryulong is part of an antisemitic and homophobe conspiracy you will probably get site wide banned sooner or later ] (]) 07:00, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

* While there is no question that Ryulong has been under attack off-site, I'm not convinced that there is any great injustice in the sanction here since these matters have little to do with productive editing. As ] says, it is "a rule everyone already should be following". Given that, {{ping|HJ Mitchell}}, what do you think about extending this sanction to additional parties, specifically ] and ], or others? I'm seeing a lot of discussion of Ryulong's offsite activities here and elsewhere, and I don't see how that contributes to productive editing either, especially if one party is specifically prohibited from discussing them while other parties repeatedly feel the need to bring them up. ] <small>(])</small> 18:03, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
:: My intention in commenting about others was showing that people have done the same they claimed on others, just on admitted accounts. Not my intention to ever do this on talk pages as disruptive discussion though, consider it a one-off, I'll stop now ] (]) 02:18, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
:::Works for me. Thank you. ] <small>(])</small> 03:29, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
**No objection here. I agree completely that, as a general rule, it should apply to everyone by default. ] &#124; ] 18:14, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
***{{replyto|Gamaliel}} and {{replyto|HJ Mitchell}}; I think each of those additional parties have played their part, and it needs to be logged under general sanctions in the event that this persists. As to form, it can be a formal caution, or a restriction on the exact same terms as now-imposed on Ryulong. Once this has been done, there is nothing further needed under this appeal. ] (]) 14:06, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

I have no idea why we're looking the other way when an editor has been stirring shit up on KiA for '''months''', canvassing discussions, harassing editors or asking others to do so. I also have no idea why, given the '''obvious''' connection between the two accounts, we're forced to first pretend there's no connection between the two and when Ryulong (justifiably) gets upset that this constant obnoxious hectoring we sanction ''them'' instead of the person doing the shit stirring. If I wasn't involved I would indef loganmac '''right now'''. I implore uninvolved administrators to pull their heads out of their ass and treat this situation as though we're not deliberately trying to be as dumb as possible. ] (]) 13:32, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
:I've considered it, but I don't think there's enough evidence of on-wiki misconduct to make an indef stick, and the community has historically not supported on-wiki sanctions for off-wiki conduct, with a few exceptions for outing, most of which were handled by ArbCom. I don't think anyone is pretending that the two aren't the same person, but there's very little we can do about it, and repeatedly bringing it up in unrelated discussions on Misplaced Pages is unhelpful, which is the reason I imposed the restriction. ] &#124; ] 14:33, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
::There are literally dozens of posts riling up thousands of KiA members about Ryulong or the Gamergate topic area, an area we '''know''' to be rife with canvassing and outside involvement from 8chan and KiA. It's bizarre that we have an editor here responsible for the vast majority of the wikipedia related posts on KiA in a topic area that is at Arbcom largely because of disruption from the same sources (or gamgergaters more broadly) and we don't see that as impinging upon on wiki-conduct. What's unhelpful is that we continue to look the other way in service of...what, exactly? The fig leaf of an underscore? The need for some positive connection made on wiki (which has been provided by the devil's advocate and others on the arbcom case)? The tacit admission (in a discussion with PresN on the same case) that the accounts are basically the same? Do we need to wait for them to take umbrage at another editor and dig shit up about them on reddit? What's the point where we decide that this is intolerable '''as a community'''? ] (]) 14:59, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
:::I'm not unsympathetic, but making a block you fully expect would b overturned at ANI is at best poor form and, given that the subject is a party to an arbitration case, desysopping would not e out of he question. I quite like my admin bit—it means I can block the obvious trolls, even if I'm continually frustrated at what the community considers obvious. But admins are servants of the community; if we were as much of a law unto ourselves as in the popular meme, I'd have indef'd almost everyone who's been significantly involved with that article and deleted and salted it. Feel free to start a new subsection, though, or try to change policy in the appropriate fora—maybe this ridiculous "controversy" has given the community a greater appetite for the removal of tendentious editors though less messy means. ] &#124; ] 15:59, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
::::I understand that, and I appreciate the fact that any admin looking at this situation faces the same general problem. ] (]) 16:37, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
:::::We don't need an indef—a topic ban can be imposed by any uninvolved admin and that would do the job as far as enwiki is concerned. ] (]) 23:28, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

===Proposal for a 2 way IBAN (+gentleman's agreement) for ] and ]===
{{hat|This is a silly argument about an even sillier dispute (between two people who should know better) within a sillier still "controversy" that has already sucked in far too much admin time. Ryulong/Auerbachkeller ''please'' for everyone's sake (including your own), give each other a wide berth—I don't care who started it. Everyone else, please move on and find a nice, no-controversial article to work on. Thank you. ] &#124; ] 02:34, 7 January 2015 (UTC)}}
I brought this idea up a week or so ago at ], after which both editors were given warnings about their interactions. . I would like to repropose the IBAN because it is still the case that nothing good ever happens when these two editors interact. However, I think an IBAN should only be put in place if the two editors can make a gentleman's agreement to stop talking about eachother off-site as well, mostly because so much of their dispute is in relation to offsite behavior. ] (]) 23:04, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

:An excellent suggestion. I hope that ] and ] respond to it, but if they do not and still continue to argue about matters that have nothing to do with productive article editing, then we should impose this IBAN upon them. ] <small>(])</small> 03:29, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

::{{replyto|Bosstopher}} and {{replyto|Gamaliel}} personally, I'm not convinced that this is going to change the state of disruption caused by these two interacting on any page in Misplaced Pages. Even prior to the edits by them at this noticeboard for this appeal, their interactions have been problematic. That said, the inability to enforce sanctions for breaches of any gentleman's agreement will bring all of us back here again in due course though under this proposal. So the only part of this proposal that could realistically go anywhere is an on-site mutual interaction ban; given the pending PD, a formal request for enforcement probably won't help, but I note as a reminder that any admin can impose this sanction under general sanctions - at least until the final decision is made. For clarity, I confirm I would endorse such an action. ] (]) 14:06, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
:::Yes, a gentlemen's agreement is unenforceable, but we can't force the mto stop being rude about each other elsewhere on the Internet. If they would both agree to declare a truce in this rather ridiculous spat, it would benefit everyone (except the manufacturers of headache pills!). ] &#124; ] 14:30, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
::::It would probably benefit the project more if we topic banned Ryulong from GG-related articles/discussions and made it a one-way interaction ban on-wiki for Auerbach. He's going to write his articles anyway, so why give him the ability to dig for fodder by goading Ryulong? Meanwhile, nothing Ryulong does in this topic benefits us whatsoever, and every interaction he has with the topic is a net negative. While I'm hoping Arbcom does it for us, how much more disruption are we willing to take? Hasn't his rope run out yet? ] (]) 14:40, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
:::::Since the matter is at ArbCom, it's up to ArbCom to evaluate wider misconduct. Perhaps you should post on the proposed decision talk page to courage them to get their finger out? At this point, the delay means the case is causing more problems than it has thus far solved. ] &#124; ] 15:59, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
::::::Proposed decision is due on Wednesday, so the delay isn't really terrible. We don't have to wait on them to act, though. After all, if we can steamroll in community sanctions in less than a day, we can act after 2+ months to topic ban one of the most disruptive actors in the space, no? ] (]) 16:06, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
:::::::] is open to anyone who wants to post evidence to make a case for such a topic ban. ] <small>(])</small> 21:50, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
::::::::I haven't even edited the article in two months. How am I disrupting the topic space in that manner?—] (]) 03:26, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
:For the record, I talked to Auerbach a day or two ago and he said he was gonna avoid talking further about Ryulong.--] <sub>] ]</sub> 21:43, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Not needed. Auerbachkeller only responds when Ryulong writes something. If Ryulong simply stops mentioning Auerbach, there is no problem. --] (]) 00:03, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
:I did not mention him at all in this thread but he came anyway. I did not mention him in the arbitration case page sections and he came anyway. He instigates each time.—] (]) 03:25, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
:That does not appear to be consistent with what happened in the section above. ] <small>(])</small> 04:41, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
::It appears Auerbachkeller is reacting to what Ryulong wrote off-wiki. He noted the same thing happened to him off-wiki as Ryulong. Ryulong then made it a WP issue and personal. The sanction is enough and Ryulong should stop complaining on-wiki about his off-wiki problems. It's not helping. A two-way IBAN that allows one party to bring complaints that the other can't respond is unworkable especially when the IBAN would need to include off-wiki statements. --] (]) 06:58, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
:::Excuse me? I did not make it a Misplaced Pages issue. Auerbach came to Misplaced Pages because he did not like a sentence I had wrote about someone criticizing something he wrote and has been here since to insert himself into any and all discussions that happen to involve me. I do not go out of my way to find shit he's done. It comes to me regardless because he's famous and I'm nobody.—] (]) 20:15, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
::::Given that you view this to be the case, would you welcome the solution proposed above? It would stop all the grievances you've listed. ] (]) 21:43, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
:::And Ryulong is reacting to what Loganmac and others have written off-wiki. What you have written applies in the opposite way as well. But since no one on either side seems willing to "simply stop", here we are. ] <small>(])</small> 23:34, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
{{hab}}

== ] ==
{{archivetop|There is no account compromise as far as can be seen. Closing this is as no action needed. The bickering can carry on elsewhere. ] (]) 22:09, 5 January 2015 (UTC)}}
It looks to me like somebody has taken over this account; look at tonight's edit history of the userpage. --] &#124; ] 03:21, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
:Not likely. The voice is definitely WPPilot's. See for a nice summary of the problem, and see ]. ] (]) 03:42, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
:::For BMK to call anyone a Diva is a joke. {{unsigned|WPPilot|05:24, January 4, 2015}}
::::You really should have read ] before commenting. ] (]) 06:08, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

::It's not compromised. This is the grand finale of his behavior in the past 24 hours. He's upset, make that furious, that other editors believe some of his photos should not be the lead images in several highly viewed articles. As I told him yesterday, we understand he has several FPs and kudos for that. But that doesn't make ''every'' photo of his superior to other ones. He keeps mentioning that's he's a professional photographer and that his work is published in various outlets. I don't doubt that. But that has nothing to do with replacing images that are superior to his. He has replaced lead images on articles such as ], ], ], ], ], ], etc., some of which are FPs, with the reasoning his photos are more recent. Several editors have told him at various talk pages that consensus is against him replacing these photos. He's taken this ''very'' personally and lashed out at several of us. In the past 24 hours, we've been called , , , and after he couldn't have his way at ], he left on my talk page. (for unaware users, "fruitcake" is derogatory slang for a gay male, like myself) There's also , though it's not directed at anyone specific. He keeps insulting my photography skills even though I freely admit I'm an amateur and that my photos are not the ones being judged on these talk pages. He's been warned twice about NPA. He says he doesn't , but he's still editing even after saying he's done/retiring. His meltdown may also have something to do with what's happening at Commons. ] ] 04:24, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
::Now he's his photo from an active FP discussion that wasn't going his way. I'm not going to fix it as I'll probably be attacked, but someone else should properly close that nomination. ] ] 05:06, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

It is about a gang land mentality that has prevailed, and all of these users have participated and 24 hours of non stop BS from them. I could care less if a picture is used as a lead. I update photos that I feel need updating. This has turned into a lynch mob, and I am far from having a "Meltdown", I am just making sure that the gang has nothing to go after me for anymore. It has consumed a day and a half and I need my time back. Both BMK as well as APK deal in the same space, on the edge of cyber bulling there way to a consensus in minutes, issuing a judgment and executing it on the spot. He is correct in that I just don't care anymore, why should I, this has become a joke. A consensus is never reached in a hour, on anything and this is a lynch mob mentality that I don't need to deal with, I am sure that another aerial photographer will someday contribute photos the site, AgnosticPreachersKid can get his pilots license real quick to cover for now! I am over defending myself. ]<span style="border:1px solid black;">'''&nbsp;]&nbsp;'''</span> 05:24, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

:He's now his lead image from a highly viewed GA, ], without replacing it with the original photo. ( with ] with the edit summary "shitty photo, BMK of APK can get a better one") I assume he thinks other editors are responsible for fixing his mess. ] ] 05:43, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
::No I fixed it, I just assumed by your continued comments that my pictures are not welcome here. ]<span style="border:1px solid black;">'''&nbsp;]&nbsp;'''</span> 05:54, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
:::Removing your photo is fine with me, but you need to replace it with the previous image and not just leave the job for other editors. ] ] 05:56, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
::::I have replaced it with the aerial image that was there before WPPilot removed it, as it is a better representation of Manhattan. ] (]) 05:58, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
::::No I don't, BMK was right there to get it done, nice job, you two make a great tag team.]<span style="border:1px solid black;">'''&nbsp;]&nbsp;'''</span> 05:57, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
:::::You certainly will not believe this, because you're enjoying your snit too much, but such decisions are made -- at least by me -- strictly on the basis of function and quality. Your aerial photograph of a small strip of the West Side along with a strip of the Hudson River does not represent Manhattan well at all. The original photo of midtown to lower Manhattan does. You might note that while I removed your picture of the two South Ferry ferry buildings from the ] article, because the image did not actual feature that building (the Governors Island ferry building was in the foreground), I left it in the ] article, and, in fact, madre changes to feature it. That's because it made sense there, but not inthe other article. ] (]) 06:03, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
::::::I might also add -- though, again, you will not believe me, I'm sure -- that there have been many occasions where I have taken pictures of a building, taken pains select the best one, to crop it and adjust it for best visibility, uploaded it, and then discovered that someone else's image was better. '''''Every single time that has happened''''', I have used the other person's image, because '''''my''''' only concern is to improve articles and make them as good as they can be. I only wish that was '''''your''''' concern as well, and not inserting your images whether or not they were improvements on what is there. ] (]) 06:06, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
:::::::BMK, I just don't care anymore, and will not contribute aerial photos, to the site. I really could care less what it is you do, where you do it and what you do it with. ]<span style="border:1px solid black;">'''&nbsp;]&nbsp;'''</span> 06:07, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
::::::::You keep saying that, but you drop little hate-bombs on my talk page. Either stay or go, but don't stick arouind if you're not going to contribute and plan on doing nothing by kvetching. ] (]) 06:16, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
::Your wrong in your assertion that I do not find better images, if they exist in Commons and use them. I really could care less about MY images, it is about "kiazen" or the need to always improve. You have already said your trying to have me banned, as a diva, and you think my photos suck, so why are you even talking to me? ]<span style="border:1px solid black;">'''&nbsp;]&nbsp;'''</span> 06:10, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
:::I never said your photos suck, many of them are quite good. I've said that they're at times not as good as the image you're replacing, and that doesn't seem to concern you. That's not just my take, a number of editors have seen yourbehavior in exactly the same way. ] (]) 06:16, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

::::Might I add that a year ago, or so when we first interacted you felt a photo of a street lamp as well as a road and sign were far better depictions of the Santa Ana Mountain's then a aerial photo of the Santa Ana Mountain's, right? I just wanted a day to greave for my pet of 20 years today, rather then dealing all day with this BS. Its been a really really hard day. ]<span style="border:1px solid black;">'''&nbsp;]&nbsp;'''</span> 06:13, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
:::::And might I add that you're totally incorrect, that it didn't happen that way, and that this being Misplaced Pages, everyone can '''''see for themselves''''' that it didn't happen that way by going . Why are you making up this stuff? ] (]) 06:19, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
::::::Your correct, " I'd also strongly urge BMK to dial the inflammatory rhetoric down several notches" was one of the editors comments, and the last comment was "was wondering how the photo of San Mateo Canyon Wilderness, southern Santa Ana Mountains, from April 2007 was considered a better graphical image of these mountains then the photo that WPPilot took. That photo seems to show the whole range, and the photo "San Mateo Canyon Wilderness, southern Santa Ana Mountains, April 2007" yet the 2007 photo is on the page and mine never made your cut. ]<span style="border:1px solid black;">'''&nbsp;]&nbsp;'''</span> 06:24, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
::::::::There's no need for you to try and spin the discussion, since it's all there for anyone who wants to read it. ] (]) 06:38, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Jersey_City,_New_Jersey#Lead_Image_for_the_page you really are making me sick. I have to go now. ]<span style="border:1px solid black;">'''&nbsp;]&nbsp;'''</span> 06:39, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
*Comment - Placing an image of a ] on the talk page of an user who identifies as being gay is totally unacceptable, and you should apologize. Your rationale for doing so, ''"It is the holiday season"'', doesn't really strike me as being sincere either, especially under the circumstances.]] 15:47, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

===Some assistance please===
Can someone please go to ] and straighten out the mess that WPP is making of it? He opened the request for comments about the two lead images, but now he's gotten pissed off and has decided to take his ball and go home. That includes removing his image from the page, even though it's the focus of the discussion, removing some of his comments after they've been responded to and posting childish things about me. I tried to fix the thread, but WPP keeps reverting me, just as he keeps posting messages on my talk page after I asked him not to.<p>Oh, and you might check the similar threads at ], ] and on the Wikiproject talk page to see if he's doing the same thing there. ] (]) 09:03, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
:It looks like NeilN has restored the Manhattan discussion, as long as WPP doesn't revert him again. WPP removed an RfC tag from the NYC Project talk page, but that seems to be all he's done there. ] (]) 09:09, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
::Spoke too soon, WPP reverted NeilN again. Oh well. ] (]) 09:10, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
:::WPP has restored the thread, minus the childish comments, but with his own comments struck through, and did the same on the NYC Project talk page, so I guess there's no action needed, ] (]) 09:23, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
*my comments are facts, this user makes me feel sick. ]<span style="border:1px solid black;">'''&nbsp;]&nbsp;'''</span> 09:45, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
**Be that as it may, I was thinking more along the lines of , , , , and . ] (]) 09:57, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
***Not to mention and from ] ] (]) 10:01, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
*You say that I make you sick, you say all these really childish things about me ("All hail the Grand Poobah of Misplaced Pages" - really?!), you say you're sick of Misplaced Pages and you're going to leave the site... and then you go and from ] where I removed your image because it didn't feature the slips of the Staten Island Ferry terminal, which are in the background, but the slips of the Governors Island ferry, which are in the foreground. I '''''specifically''''' brought to your attention above that I kept and even featured that image in the ] article, and yet you felt compelled to revert my removal from the other article, despite the '''''very specific''''' reason I gave, knowing that it would bring you into conflict with me again.<p>So, what the hell is going on here? Why are you (apparently) stirring the pot, when you say that you're sick of the whole thing? ] (]) 10:27, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
**And why, for that matter, did you on ]? You had struck-through the caption of your photo, the locus of the dispute, and replaced it with "(Please do not use)". The caption "Aerial photo #2" was not one of your comments, and was therefore not yours to strike out, and the plea to not use the photo should be in the discussion, not in the photo caption. (Although since you've already licensed the image when you uploaded it to Commons, there's really very little you could do about it if other editors decide that it should be used.) These changes were mere housekeeping, and yet you blindly reverted them. ] (]) 10:40, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
*I am sick as your random lack of logic, and willingness to make war, it is unhealthy. Your a brick, and just as think as one. I don't care what you do, just do it without me involved. As with before, if you contribute/control a Wiki, I will avoid it like the plague. ]<span style="border:1px solid black;">'''&nbsp;]&nbsp;'''</span> 16:15, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
**My logic is hardly "random": good pictures should replace less good pictures, not the other way around, regardless of who took them. Seems quite clear and rational to me. ] (]) 19:24, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
There's, uh, quite a bit going on here, and I'd lay odds that these issues will in one or another form find their way back to ANI eventually; but if one thing emerges clearly it is that WPPilot is in full control of his account and OrangeMike's original concern may be laid to rest. Perhaps closure is the best resolution at this point? ] (]) 00:59, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
{{archivebottom}}

== Disruptive talkpage behaviour ==

For the past couple of weeks, ] (aka Robertinventor) has been filling several talkpages with walls of text, in response to my clean-up of ] and ] (details below):
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
I've explained my changes extensively at the the talkpages, and they were supported by others I've also offered to Robert to go through those edits again . Nevertheless, Robert doesn't want to discuss these changes as listed at the talkpages, he doesn't want to edit those articles , and he also doesn't want to pursue a DRN . He's now started to do the same for ]. Enough is enough; see also ] and ]. Some adminstartor-intervention would be highly welcome here. ] -] 19:05, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
:I agree with Joshua Jonathan.]<sup>]</sup> 19:23, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

:: I'd like to point out there is a long term content dispute underway between two groups of wikipedians here, with about equal numbers on both sides. I am currently in the process of getting material together for a posting to the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard for help on the matter. See ]. These conversations are in connection with this dispute. Joshua Jonathan has recently rewritten three mature articles, making huge changes, removing many sections, changing the weight and focus of the articles and raising multiple issues - with hardly any prior discussion (none at all in case of ]). When you do something like that you shouldn't be too surprised if at some point you get responses on the talk pages of the articles you edited, by editors who don't agree with your changes. As for myself all I have done is write to the talk pages, and have not done any disruptive editing, indeed not edited these articles at all except to fix one broken link. I'm involved as a reader who was dismayed to find a favourite mature article on Buddhism here, as I saw it, ruined by his edits. ] (]) 20:04, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

::: RW's efforts could benefit with brevity and calm abiding to bring the perceived groups into the wikipedia readers benefit. ] (]) 20:23, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

::::Robert, you could start with discussing those topics in a serious way at those talkpages. DRN is welcome, and I'll say the same there: you're welcome to discuss those changes at the talkpages. As for the ] page: to call the a "mature article" is exemplary for your kind of responses. ] -] 21:28, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

::::: Joshua, I would call this the previous mature article: . Look at the edit history. Up until then it had only minor edits mostly, with + or 0 a few hundred, usually just +- a few characters. After that it has many edits by you, with + or - thousands of characters common. And, all the major edits of over +-1,000 chars are by you, and most of the edits are by you. See . Clearly was a mature article and many editors had a chance to review it over a period of some years before. The version you just posted is your own version of it mid edit after your first swathe of edits of the article in the summer. ] (]) 22:21, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

:::::: To be clear, Jonathan did not clean up the articles ] and ]. He re-wrote them to suit his own point of view. Robert Walker has been pointing out the flaws in Jonathan's application of the Misplaced Pages guidelines, as well as his selective use of sources. Robert has presented a good summary of the problem here: https://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Dorje108#Attempt_at_filling_out_the_content_dispute_notice.
:::::: I have also presented a summary of the problem here: https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Buddhism#Recent_re-writes_of_key_concepts.
:::::: I realize that this is a difficult topic to evaluate, and that there is a lot of material to sort through, but I urge the administrators to carefully review Jonathan's edits, his stated reasons for the edits, and his responses when he is challenged on those edits. I think you will find that Jonathan's edits are arbitrary and heavily biased, and he shows a distinct lack of respect for the views of other editors or for sources that he disagrees with. (Note that Jonathan has made similarly destructive edits to the article ].) Best regards, ] (]) 23:20, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
{{od}}
Basically Robert and Dorje108 exhibit ownership behavior. In their minds they can edit an article all they want, but noone else is allowed to. This is problematic since they stuff Buddhism articles with nonacademic contemporary Buddhist teachers, which mirrors their low understanding of Buddhism. Joshua Jonathan, on the other hand, uses academic sources. ]<sup>]</sup> 04:14, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

:: Victoria, I haven't edited any of these articles except to fix one broken url. And Dorje hasn't done any contentious editing at all, when Joshua Jonathan rewrote the articles then he just stopped editing them. It is Joshua Jonathan who shows ownership behaviour e.g. recently reversing ]'s edit of ] when he tried to restore some of the deleted sections for section by section discussion. And use of BRDR instead of BRD when Dorje tried to reverse his bold edits of Four Noble Truths. That's "ownership behaviour" surely. ] (]) 09:26, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

:Dorje's style of editing, by piling-up quotes, has been criticised for three years already , almost since the start of his wiki-career, but without a change of habit. says it all:
::''"The overuse of quotations (]) was described as the basic issue of this article by @] in . Since then about 50 additional quotes have been added.<br>
::''I have inserted an over-quotation tag because "using too many quotes is incompatible with the ] writing style" (]) JimRenge 10:13, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
:To call cleaning-up this style of writing "destructive" is understandable from the point of view of Dorje, but is not a correct desription or response. The correct response would be to finally take serious these criticisms, after three years.
:Regarding Robert, the only thing he wants is to restore Dorje's versions, with the overuse of quotations. The "mature" version of the Dzogchen-article he's referring to has mainly been filled by two blocked users, ] and ].
:] -] 04:47, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

:: Those two editors haven't edited the article since 2011!

:: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Dzogchen&offset=&limit=500&action=history

:: And BTW though I know nothing about these particular authors, just to say, that a user is blocked from wikipedia doesn't mean that all their contributions to wikipedia have to be reversed. As I understand it, a user can be blocked due to conduct on a particular issue, while doing good work in other sections or may have done good work in the past before they became problematical. Also, if all their edits are problematical, then they would be reversed after they are blocked, I believe.

:: The previous mature article (going back to 2011) is the result of work by ], ], ], ], and quite a few others with minor contributions.] (]) 09:56, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

* Dorje it is not an issue. Main issue is that Robertinventor writes way tooo much on the talk(pages) and if you don't respond, he will still write rather in a rude tone. 95% of the material in those messages is just irrelevant. ] (]) 07:56, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
:I agree, the underlying content dispute, Dorjes editing style etc. may be discussed at DR/DRN. We should focus on ]s disruptive talk page behavior. ] (]) 09:50, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

===What Administrative Intervention?===
] has said that some sort of administrative intervention is requested. What sort of action is he requesting? The continuing problem with ] is that he posts lengthy rants about content disputes, and their length makes it difficult to determine what if anything he is particularly requesting. One possibility, although I have never seen it done in Misplaced Pages, would be restrictions on his use of talk pages. (Maybe it has been done. I just don't recall it being done.) If the suggestion is being made that he be limited to posting 500 words to any given talk page on an given day, and that he be blocked if he continues posting lengthy rants, I would '''Support''' that action. I see that he has finally agreed that he is willing to go to ]. ] (]) 04:25, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
: Even on DRN he will write irrelevant text. I would suggest formal warning that he should keep his messages relevant. ] (]) 07:56, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
:::*'''Comment''' - I would not support a formal warning unless it is accompanied by some specific warning about a block. Several of us have already warned him, without formality. (If it he is just formally warned, but not told what is being warned about, he will start ranting about how Misplaced Pages is unfair.) I would also not support a formal warning that he will be blocked if his talk page posts are not relevant. He obviously doesn't have a mental concept of what is and is not relevant, so that a formal warning to keep his posts relevant would not provide him with a basis to keep his posts relevant. He needs an objective criterion to avoid flooding the talk pages with walls of text, and relevance is subjective. Either the warning should be about length, or someone needs to find some creative sanction. ] (]) 15:44, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

::::: Robert, all my posts to wikipedia article talk pages are relevant. As you say relevance is subjective, but if you are puzzled about why I posted something and ask about it I can say why. Nobody has ever said of any post that it wasn't relevant as far as I can remember, might have but if so it is rare, though they have complained about length. My main issue is using too many words and tendency for repetition, and posting too often. I deal with that by making the post as short as I can in the first place, by editing it further after I post it, by looking out for repetitions and removing them, by collapsing sections of longer posts - and then finally - by posting less often. I put a lot of work into this! ] (]) 17:07, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

:: Robert, it is because he has made so many changes, so quickly, that there has been so much to discuss on the talk pages. See ]. All that talk is with the aim of improving the articles. And it is because this talk page discussion is getting us nowhere that I am now preparing a Dispute Resolution Noticeboard notice. I want to do it carefully, so am spending some days working on it to get it just right. And '''Joshua Jonathan himself writes way more than 500 words a day on the talk pages'''. If it is a rule for me, it should be a rule for other editors in the same dispute on the same talk page.

:: I am aware of the issue of writing too much on talk pages and deal with it by pausing for a day or two after a longer post to make sure that other editors have time to read it and get up to date with the discussion, and by collapsing sections of my posts that are of interest to perhaps only one other reader, and by keeping my posts as short as I can. After posting I often re-edit my posts for brevity as well. You can surely see that I am trying very hard to deal with this issue.

{{cot}}

:: I don't do this on my own talk page, however. I think one can set the rules for ones own talk page, and I encourage other editors to write as much as they feel is necessary to make their point on my own talk page, which they do sometimes. Similarly in the case of Dorje's talk page, he has no issues with the length of my posts to his page. While if I post to your talk page, I know I have to be succint. So with individual talk page I think it is surely a matter of individual preference there. On other talk pages, I have no issues at all myself with the length of other editor's posts, rather, prefer a lengthy post so you can have a clear idea of what they are talking about, so long as it is to the point. But understand that other editors prefer posts to be short, and deal with that as best I can.
{{cob}}
:: ] (]) 09:40, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

:: What would a formal warning look like exactly? If a formal warning is the same as a regular warning, just containing more official sounding words, I consider it nonsense - it doesn't warn any better than another warning. If it's the same as a regular warning, but given out by someone who has the admin bit set, I also consider it nonsense. The admin bit doesn't convey the power to warn more formally. If it's something else, what is it? ] (]) 15:51, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
::::I think that I agree with ] that a "formal warning" doesn't have any meaning as such. What I was proposing wasn't a formal warning, but a specialized type of ban against lengthy rants, which, to be sure, I haven't seen used before, but would be less draconian than topic-banning him from the areas where his rants are disruptive. Anything that is merely a warning is merely a warning. He has been cautioned many times, and yet another caution doesn't really seem constructive. ] (]) 17:08, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
::::RW: You wrote: "You can surely see that I am trying very hard to deal with this issue ." No, I can't see that. ] (]) 17:08, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

::::: Well even on this page, I'm taking care to keep my posts as short as I can. ] (]) 17:14, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

::::RW: You continue to seem to think that a longer post is clearer. Typically a one-paragraph or two-paragraph post is clearer than a one-sentence or two-sentence post. A full-page post isn't clearer than a two-paragraph post, at least not when you are ranting for a full page. ] (]) 17:08, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

::::: Well I find it the other way around for many posts, I wish other editors would write in more detail and not leave us guessing about what they are saying. E.g. Joshua Jonathan's short one sentence explanations in his clean up summary here ] - they are indeed short but they are so short you have no idea what most of them mean. Same is true of many talk page comments. And BTW they are not "rants". As I understand it, to "rant" you have to be angry, or overpowered by some extreme emotion, and I am not angry when I write these long posts. Am just writing clearly and calmly expressing what needs to be said as best I can. In other situations, e.g. facebook, or email, or on Quora, I post similarly long discussion posts, indeed often do posts that continue for many pages, far longer than any posts here, and it is no problem at all, others like my posts, and others also do long posts like me. Seems to be a particular thing about wikipedia that long posts are less welcome here for some reason. I don't really understand why that is. ] (]) 17:14, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

:::]s/]s postings of lengthy monologues on talk pages may be interpreted as disruption, derailing attempts to achieve a consensus and wasting his fellow editors time.
:::He has received comments, advice and warnings from several editors (examples: , , , , , , :, , ), however he continues to add walls of text to talk pages. These rants exhaust the other editors' patience.
:::I agree with ]: I would '''Support''' restrictions that limit Robertinventor to posting 500 words to any given talk page on an given day (or 2000 words to any given TP in 30 days?) and blocks, if he continues posting lengthy rants. Yes, he needs an objective criterion, a quantitative criterion would be helpful. ] (]) 16:30, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

:::: Would you support the same restriction on yourself and on Joshua Jonathan and the other editors on the same talk pages? Joshua Jonathan also writes huge amounts of text sometimes (which I'm not complaining about). All my talk page posts are good faith and with aim to improve wikipedia. And I have never, ever, engaged in any form of disruptive editing. (While Joshua Jonathan, the one making this complaint, arguably does engage in disruptive editing with his use of BRDR instead of BRD and large scale rewrites of the articles) ] (]) 16:59, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

:::: Anyway I've said my say, probably anything else will be repetition, will take a break from all this until about the same time tomorrow, see what has come of it then, got other things to do. I found that's a good way to help reduce the number of posts, to just not check wikipedia so often. ] (]) 17:54, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

{{od}}I'm a little late to this party, but I support some kind of restriction or action on RobertWalker/Inventor. I'd look at whether either a block or a topic ban for a few weeks or months would be in order. As someone who started out as an outside observer but now having been drawn into the discussion, what I am seeing is a lot of drama on a number of Buddhism articles that seems to stem from individuals with ] or ] views attempting to insert the same into assorted articles, often via sockpuppet and meatpuppet accounts that attempt to overwhelm mainstream editors. I think the this RobertWalker/Inventor character needs a SPI opened also. ]<sup>]</sup> 21:43, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
:I have no reason to think that he has engaged in sock-puppetry. I do not understand the details of the Buddhism content disputes except that they involve reliability of sources. He has in the recent past engaged in behavior that some other editors have seen as attempting to canvass me, but I ignored it. I don't see any administrative issue except overly long postings at talk pages. Anyone who wants to file an SPI can do so, but I see no need to cast aspersions about sock-puppetry. ] (]) 21:00, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

:: ] Okay just to clear up a point, I haven't done any editing of any of the articles under discussion, except to fix one broken link in the ] article. I got involved as a reader rather than as an editor. In this debate am arguing for the case to roll back to the previous mature articles before the recent edits by Joshua Jonathan and his friends. If you look at the edit history of the articles, nearly all the recent edits are by Joshua Jonathan, assisted by VictoriaGrayson and Jim Renge. And there has never been any suggestion by anyone of meat or sock puppetry in any of the debates to date. ] (]) 22:33, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

::: ], I never attempted to canvas you. I was just asking for advice about procedures to deal with issues for user conduct, as of all the editors I have had contact with on wikipedia, you were the one who seems to know most about how to deal with user conduct issues, and because we were at a loss about what to do next. Was not asking for any kind of opinion on the debate - we were already doing that as a RfC on the Buddhism project talk page. That was just clumsiness on my part, that I didn't make it clear enough in my first post on your talk page, why I was asking for your help. You can check my motivation for the post on your talk page here: ] where I say

::: {{quote|"Dorje, on reflection I've been wondering if we have a case for a rollback based on user conduct for Joshua Jonathan. I don't know if we do but thought I might ask Robert McClennon. He has given me good advice in the past on user policy in Misplaced Pages."}}

::: {{quote|"Hi Dorje, okay I'll think it over. I might just mention it to Robert McClenon, ask if we have a case for a rollback and what wikipedia user guidelines etc are for such sudden large scale changes in an article. Purely as a matter of user conduct, seemed to me we might possibly be some kind of case for action of some sort. If so I wouldn't just go ahead, but would refer back here with the findings, and see if you want to take it any further, whatever he says"}}

::: {{quote| "Dorje, not done anything yet, am going to give it another day or two, but then I think I will ask him. Because - seems to me this must be something comes up a fair bit. The most popular articles in wikipedia - they must get enthusiastic editors who try to rewrite the entire article and remove most of the content, quite often. So must be a fair bit of experience in how to handle this sort of situation to draw on. So - well I'll follow this up soon."}}

::: As you see there is no discussion at all of any thought of canvassing you or asking you for a third opinion. And we had already started the RfC which was dealing with that side of things. ] (]) 22:44, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
{{od}}
Sock-puppetry would be the last thing I'd suspect from Robert W. I'm pretty sure it wouldn't even come up in his mind.<br> Nevertheless, I also think that a restriction is necessary. See also ], and , with the following edit-summary: ''"SPAMING his ideas and blog again"''.<br>
The best thing Robert can do is simply stop editing at Misplaced Pages. Sorry for you, Robert, to say so, but that is, honestly, what I think. I'm pretty sure your intentions are good, and I guess we would get along quite well if we were neighbors (I saw your picture at your blog, and I love the long hair and the beard). But as for Misplaced Pages, it might be better for you, and your peace of mind, if you simply don't use it anymore - no editing, and even no reading, so you won't get tempted to step in again. I don't think there's life at Mars, but there sure is life outside of the Wiki-bubble. All the best (sincerely!), ] -] 05:09, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

: Glad to have your support in that sock puppetry thing, hopefully it will be the last we hear of the idea :).

: As I say in that discussion - there has never been any disciplinary action taken against me. That editor is hiding my posts on the Life on Mars and Water on Mars talk pages out of a private decision to do so.

: I have objected to that as I don't think he has the right to hide my posts to the talk pages in this way.

: And as I say there, all I suggest in my post, and in all the posts that he hid, is that Misplaced Pages should say the same thing that Encyclopedia Britannica says on the topic. Whether you agree with that point or not, it surely is not spam, and a reason to hide my post from the talk page, that I suggest that Misplaced Pages says the same thing as Encyclopedia Britannica. I haven't tried to edit the articles. Just want to bring it up as a point for consideration for other editors of the pages to look at and debate.

: I am going to take especial care to be more concise in my posts in future.

: Also just to be clear, I'm not advocating any disciplinary action against you for your behaviour at this point. Just preparing a notice for the DRN to ask for advice. Then we can see what happens after that. ] (]) 10:35, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

I regret to say that based on my own limited involvement with Robert Walker I can say I have little reason to believe he has much of a grasp of wikipedia policies and guidelines. His wall-of-words editing style makes it an effort to go through everything he decides to posts. And, as per part of my previous involvement with him, in which he advocated for multiple basically redundant quotations, even though they actually added little of value to the understanding of the concept involved and greatly increased the length of the page, that I would have to agree his understanding of content guidelines and possibly conduct guidelines is poor at best. I am, admittedly slowly, trying to get together some encyclopedic reference sources and lists of their content, and that might help a lot. It also might help a great deatl if Robert were to review the content of existing encyclopedic articles on topics, which so far as I have seen rarely if ever have content of the type he prefers. I am not sure that anything other than a warning can be given to him here, but do think it would be not unreasonable to perhaps raise concerns regarding his editing habits if they continue in like fashion in the future. ] (]) 14:50, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

== Off-wiki legal threats? ==

A new editor contacted me on my talk page stating that they had been the target of a legal threat by the subject of an article - I'm not sure for what, as they didn't go into the specifics, but the editor had added a critical statement and an incomplete AfD nomination, and then removed the addition after being contacted by the subject, apparently. I've got no opinion on the addition other than that it seems that it wasn't sourced correctly, or whether the article should be sent to AfD, but is there anything that we can and/or should do about this? The editor has indicated that they do not feel comfortable editing further. ]'']'' 21:17, 4 January 2015 (UTC) <small>(Sorry for not including any links or notifications or anything, but I really don't know what to do here with respects to privacy, etc. Also, I'm not watching, ping me if anything important comes up.)</small>
: This is similar to what happened at ], where the subject was personally attempting to sue Misplaced Pages editors. One person used their real name while editing and they were personally named in said lawsuit. However, said lawsuit was dismissed. For specifics, ] was nominated for deletion by ] and was subsequently threatened for lawsuit by the subject and ultimately decided not to continue the afd even though it was misnominated. Additionally, it seems that This is very troubling. ] (]) 21:58, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
::I'm actually not sure if the legal threat was related to the AfD or not, actually, as I removed the tag first per protocol (it was redlinked). Thanks for notifying, by the way. ]'']'' 00:32, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
::So apparently proper procedure is to be ignored. Cool.... ]'']'' 19:49, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
:In the interest of factual correctness: the Yank Barry suit was not dismissed (an action of the court) but withdrawn (an action of the person filing the suit.) And more than one editor who edited under recognizable names was sued. --] (]) 20:34, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
::Hi, this is the editor in question, ]. It's the AfD nomination they want to sue me for. But as other editors who have now been editing the page have noted, the page has some issues, so I don't think it was out of line for me to nominate it (and the irony is that I didn't nominate it correctly). Just to be safe, I sent an e-mail to legal at wikimedia outlining the situation and asking for advice. I have not been formally sued as of yet, but still want to have my ducks in a row if it comes to that. ] (]) 01:31, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
:::Okay, if you emailed legal, I guess that's the best we can do for now...sorry that nobody else seems interested in helping. ]'']'' 23:30, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
*I'll work on cleaning the page. Hopefully Ms Jackson won't threaten me with a lawsuit. ]]
*I've cleaned the promotional prose out of the article. I'm going to post a light warning on the talk page for the original editor since this does give off the impression that it was done by a paid editor. If he is then that's fine as long as he openly states this on his user page. I see that he says freelance writer, but if he's a paid editor then he needs to write that as well - freelance writer is a bit too vague. In any case, I have found enough to where Jackson would pass notability guidelines so it's in no danger of deletion. It's just that the knee jerk reaction by whomever talked to ] really bothers me- it's really poor form for someone to threaten to sue someone because the page was temporarily tagged (incompletely) for deletion and it's even poorer form for them to further threaten the person because they posted a negative review. (sighs) If I do get a nastygram then I'll send it to legal as well. I wish people wouldn't do this- it can often backfire ala the Streisand Effect and they get the type of attention they were trying to sue in order to avoid. ]] 09:57, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

== Repeated improper use of ] by ] ==

Following several improper uses of rollback (], ], ], and ], to name just a few instances) – used to revert non-vandalism edits – I ] {{u|IPadPerson}} against using the feature inappropriately. (IPadPerson responded by grouping my message with various notices and removing ] from her talk page.) Following more rollback violations (such as ] and ]), I left a ] on her talk page, explaining in further detail why rollback should not be used to revert good-faith contributions. (She immediately removed the message, leaving the aggressive edit summary, ])

Improper rollback has continued ] and ]. User has made it very clear that she does not wish to take advice from other editors, follow guidelines for her account's special privileges, or assume good faith with editors who are clearly not vandalizing the project, and I therefore propose that her rollback privileges be revoked. –''''']''''' (] / ]) 04:24, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
:This seems to be a pretty clear abuse of the rollback right and tacit refusal to explain it. Barring some extraordinary explanation, the rollback flag should be revoked.- ]] 04:41, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
:Looking back at their contrib history, it definitely looks like blatant abuse of the tool. They seem to be trying to keep under the radar by using Twinkle at the moment, but agree that the flag should be revoked. ] (]) 04:44, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

:Just thought I'd point out she did restore your message (minus your sig/date) here if that's of any help here, Also I should point out she (and I) was taken here back in May over our behaviour with Twinkle and she was subsequently blocked by {{u|Drmies}} –] <sup>]</sup> 04:46, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
::That ANI is troubling, to say the least. So is the fact that IPadPerson was . Perhaps a topic ban from using Twinkle should be considered as well. <strike>I don't believe here is the place for that, though, and I'm not familiar with that process.</strike> ] –''''']''''' (] / ]) 04:58, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
:::To be fair tho I wouldn't of thought those giving rollbacker rights would dig through ANI at all?, Personally I think a topic-ban's the only way to go judging by above and below... –] <sup>]</sup> 05:16, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
::::I see where you're coming from, but you would think an admin would have reviewed her block log, saw a block for incivility and personal attacks corresponding with an ANI thread, and looked that up. Oh well. –''''']''''' (] / ]) 05:31, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
:::::I absolutely agree the Block Log should've been checked (I assumed they were but perhaps not), Meh who knows {{p|grin}} –] <sup>]</sup> 05:39, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
:Very clear abuse of rollback, also seems to, in some respects, not want to communicate with other editors.]] 05:28, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
User does has a history of issues: see , , and . ''']'''</span> 05:07, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
*Unless they come up with a really good explanation I'll remove the rollback right once they've had a chance to respond, but it looks like they aren't active at the moment. With regard to a ban from using Twinkle, just noting that a topic ban (ie from mentioning Twinkle as well) might be a but too much, probably more useful to discuss a ban from using either all of Twinkle or just the rollback feature. <b>]</b> (] • ] • ]) 05:47, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
:*I would personally suggest a '''topic ban from ''all'' Twinkle functions''' (she also abuses it to leave inaccurate warnings and 4ims in inappropriate circumstances) and a '''civility restriction''' on top of that. I'd also stick a requirement somewhere in there that all reversions should be explained with an edit summary (barring obvious vandalism?). –''''']''''' (] / ]) 06:28, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
:*Clarification for {{u|Callanecc}}: By "topic ban", I don't mean mentioning Twinkle, I mean using it. –''''']''''' (] / ]) 08:24, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
::*I could be wrong, but don't think Twinkle can be revoked from accounts. When IPadPerson was previously brought to ANI last year for misuse of Twinkle, it was suggested that it be revoked from her account. At least back then, it couldn't be revoked from accounts. ] (] / ])</b> 18:12, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
:::*Twinkle cannot be manually uninstalled, but a ban can be placed on using it and she can be blocked if she violates that ban. –''''']''''' (] / ]) 18:40, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
:But at Rollback, you can't use an edit summary other than "Reverted edits by XXX to last revision by YYY". If a rollback removal is really necessary, I would be cool with that. ] (]) 20:12, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
::<s>It's your use of Twinkle that's the issue ...Not the ] tool ..... –] <sup>]</sup> 21:32, 5 January 2015 (UTC)</s>
:::Actually, it ''is'' their use of Rollback that kicked this off. Rollback is only to be used for blatant vandalism not to revert good faith edits. ] (]) 22:05, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
::::Bugger you're right! {{p|grin}} .... Have absolutely no idea why I thought it was just Twinkle ... I'm obviously away with the fairies {{p|grin}}. –] <sup>]</sup> 23:18, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

::{{tq|But at Rollback, you can't use an edit summary other than "Reverted edits by XXX to last revision by YYY".}} Am I missing something here? That is why I and several other editors agree that your rollback should be revoked, since you are too willing to use it on reversions that require a proper edit summary. –''''']''''' (] / ]) 00:59, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
*I've removed the rollback permission as IPadPerson clearly doesn't understand when it can and cannot be used per ], it can requested again at ] linking to this section and with an explanation of when rollback can and cannot be used. <b>]</b> (] • ] • ]) 01:20, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

===Proposed topic ban from Twinkle===
Now that standard rollback has been removed from IPadPerson's account, what do others think of a potential Twinkle ban? At ], {{u|Drmies}} wrote, {{tq|apparently we can't pull Twinkle, and a topic ban for it seems like a lot of work; we'll just consider a block, since such abuse is highly disruptive}}. The ban may be a lot of work, but the disruption has clearly continued. Thoughts? –''''']''''' (] / ]) 02:32, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
*This has come up once or twice in various venues. I wish we ''could'' pull Twinkle. ] (]) 05:11, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
* I've had positive experiences with IPadPerson's use of Twinkle at ], a problematic article that has been repeatedly semi-protected due to vandalism and BLP violations. She has demonstrated competence and good judgment there. I'm not saying that her judgment of when to use the rollback user right is sound, but her use of Twinkle has been helpful. ] (]) 02:32, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

==Blocked vandal under new account==
User {{userlinks|Legitgrifer2}} is clearly not here to contribute positively. ] (]) 04:56, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
:] might get a faster response. Cheers, ]'']'' 05:55, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
::I've indefblocked them: only edits are two edits to game articles which are obvious vandalism, with a username that reads as "legit griefer" -- ] (]) 12:49, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
:::Oh! And I've just noticed {{userlinks|Legitgrifer}}... -- ] (]) 12:56, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

== Hits hits ==
{{Archive top|result=I've blocked Hit hits for 3 months for a resumption in edit-warring shortly after the user's last block. <b>] ]</b> 17:18, 6 January 2015 (UTC) |status=Resolved}}
{{user|Hits hits}} keeps edit warring with Legobot and with me, (but mostly with Legobot) over an RfC that expired in late December. At ] between early and late November there was some discussion about how to organize episode segments because of a disparity with how various reliable sources were reporting the information. Some 11-minute episodes segments were paired into half-hour episodes, some were not. User Hits hits wanted to pair the episodes, other users did not want to, since many 11-minute episode segments aired individually on different days.

As the RfC unfolded, Hits hits resorted to ] and to attempt to sway the discussion per his POV. The RfC expired, but wasn't closed properly. There is a pending request at ]. Though we struck out the sock comments, it's unclear to me whether or not ''any'' of Hits hits' comments should even be considered, but I'll leave that for the admins.

Since then, Hits hits keeps attempting to re-open the RfC by pasting back the expired RfC template, which of course Legobot keeps removing because the RfC has expired and Legobot is software. His additions: . Based on his past behavior with sock/meatpuppetry, and his persistence to try to force the RfC template into this discussion again (without, oh, I dunno, ''asking an admin what to do'' or ''asking for help at ]''), it seems clear that he's only interested in asserting his worldview. At some point I warned him to stop edit warring with the bot, which he . This was followed by a note from {{u|Ponyo}}, which Hits hits . The user isn't demonstrating appropriate behavior for community editing. ] (]) 05:03, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Addendum: Yet of the RfC template after it was removed by Dcbanners. Followed by to reorder episodes, which was rejected by myself and AmaryllisGardener, but which was restored by Hits hits and ] (]) 17:22, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

I was only adding this template because I didn't realize we had come to a which keeps on being ] (]) 17:25, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
: Any more edits faintly resembling edit-warring will result in a different type of template being added to your talk page, whereas the "duration" parameter of that template will be considerably longer than it was previously. <b>] ]</b> 21:47, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
::It certainly isn't a very auspicious start to their recent unblock. I have a feeling they're a younger editor who could use a gentler touch, but the edit-warring needs to stop pronto.--]<sup>]</sup> 00:14, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
{{archivebottom}}

== Linatrix - removal of speedy deletion tag on promotional article ==

] is aggressively and repeatedly removing a speedy deletion tag from ] and related pages he/she's created. He/she also recreated ] within minutes after it had been speedily deleted. ]]] 09:53, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
:I have issued a warning to ] that such behaviour is disruptive. -- ] (]) 17:36, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

== New User - Needs Guidance? ==
{{Archive top|result=I have issued a ISIL general sanctions notice to ]. I do not think that anything else is needed -- ] (]) 17:07, 6 January 2015 (UTC)}}
Ran into a new user (5 days in) who did a into the ISIL article that has a bunch of issues. I and explained my concerns there. They kept complaining on my talk page and reverted me.

Based on the behavior, including of taking group names out of ] and suggesting my , I suspect this is a child (or maybe an ESL person), but obviously can't tell for sure. A little admin guidance from someone else would be appreciated as they assume I am difficult to work with right off. {{Userlinks|Update stormtrooper}} Thanks. ] (]) 10:08, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
:Since you're (inexplicably) a regular at ANI, you should know it is not AGF and a serious breach of ] that could serve no purpose other than to inflame a discussion to tell another editor things like ''"Are you a child?"'' and ''"your writing contains child like mistakes and your maturity level seems childlike."'' ] This seems to be your M.O. in dealing with the content disputes you almost daily seem to find yourself entangled in with other editors on the ] topic; you have previously and repeatedly been cautioned by ] and others. <Del>You also failed to notify ] you were dragging him here (I took care of that for you).</del> (''Correction it appears you did bury ] a notice inside his Teahouse invite without creating a separate header.)'' Recommend one-year topic ban applied on Legacypac per ] in consideration of the dozen or so second chances he's already received. ]]] 10:16, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
::(edit conflict) DocumentError - considering the two reports above this one are yours? I most certainly notified the new user with my . ] (]) 10:32, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
:::The difference in our reports is that mine are efforts to protect the encyclopedia by ferreting out people inserting articles to promote their Facebook page. Yours is (as usual) simply alerting us to the latest personal wrong you believe you have suffered as a result of your combative interaction style on a topic already under discretionary sanctions. ]]] 10:38, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
::::Sigh, this is why I've intentionally avoided all contact with this user for months and continue to avoid any interaction with him. He seems still frustrated he failed to get sanctions on me months ago. That discussion is done from my point of view . Anyway, I was just looking for an Admin to give some friendly help to a newbie that will help get them editing Misplaced Pages in a productive way. ] (]) 10:58, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
:::::Forgive me as I don't have the best grasp of English idioms, but I believe there's one that goes something like "a bull in a china shop" which you may find explains why you so regularly find yourself in these dramatic entanglements. ]]] 11:10, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
*Is there any chance you two could stop bickering and leave this report for an admin to evaluate? ] (]) 12:31, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
:<small>(And, DocumentError, do not change or move my comment - it's addressed to both of you and I'll place it wherever *I* choose ] (]) 12:38, 5 January 2015 (UTC))</small>
::Squinge is referring to this GF edit I made to place her comment into alignment with the above discussion between LP and myself , instead of dangling outside the discussion to which she was referring. Squinge, you're correct - it is certainly your right to slap a comment any old place you want on this page. I thought you had made a formatting error and was attempting to lend a friendly hand. I will ensure I keep my hands to myself in the future. ]]] 12:51, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
:::<small>OK, I recognize you meant it as good faith help and I apologize for my snarky response (but the bickering between the two of you does not really engender happiness and smiles). But for the record, you were actually technically incorrect in placing my comment as a direct reply to you as that's not what it was, but I accept it was meant well. ] (]) 13:18, 5 January 2015 (UTC)</small>
::::Apology accepted. ]]] 13:29, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
I have no interest in interacting with the user. Thanks. ] (]) 12:52, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
{{Archive bottom}}

== Vitina/Vitia ==
{{Archive top|result=] moved the page to its former title as requested.|status=Resolved}}
I need an administrator to sort out this mess. We had an article titled "]" about a town in ]. Titles of Kosovo towns are very controversial because they all have two name: Serbian and Albanian. "Vitina" is Serbian name of the town, and Albanian name is "Viti". The article was located at "Vitina", and "Viti" was a disambiguation page. But, ] moved "Viti" to "Viti References" , so "Viti" was left as a redirect to "Viti References". Then, he replaced the content of "Viti" with the content of the article "Vitina" . Now, there are two identical articles, "]" and "]". "Viti" should be deleted, and "Viti References" should be moved back to "Viti". I can't do this without administrators. ] (]) 11:45, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
:Its really close to the Albanian border and the article says there are very few Serbs there. Just asking? ] (]) 12:18, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
::{{ping|Legacypac}} Asking what? I don't see any question. ] (]) 12:40, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
:::Sorry my comment was caught in a posting error. I was asking if the Albanian name was the common name, but I think the answer is pretty clear it should be. ] (]) 12:54, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

:Since TheBloodyAlboz05's entire userpage is just the black eagle, I assume - given this disruptive edit - he/she is only here to engage in anti-Serbian rhetoric and POV pushing. ]]] 12:21, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

:{{comment}} An admin should delete ] under G6 and then move ] back to ] without leaving a redirect. It doesn't seem like a reference to ] is the ] of the name "Viti", though, so ] should be kept as a disambiguation page. ] (]) 14:10, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

* ] , ] Kosovo's total population is estimated between 1.9 and 2.2 million with the following ethnic composition: Albanians 92%, Serbs 4%, Bosniaks and Gorans 2%, Turks 1%, Roma 1% .
official language : Albanian - And you Kosovo municipalities and cities have been appointed in Serbian SHAME <small><span class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 15:19, 5 January 2015 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
::This isn't a ''whose is bigger'' contest. ]]] 15:28, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
:::{{ping|TheBloodyAlboz05|Legacypac}}This is not a place to discuss the name of the town. Feel free to make a ] at the talk page. I will be glad to participate. There is a proper way to rename articles, and creating two identical articles is certainly not the proper way. So, please, take your arguments about Serbs, Albanians, etc. to ]. This is a pure technical issue for an administrator to fix the mess made by the user who created a duplicate article. ] (]) 15:58, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
:::]. I agree with Epicgenius's solution.] (]) 21:52, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
{{Archive bottom}}

== Martinvl ==
{{Archive top|result=Talk page and email access removed by {{U|JamesBWatson}}. <span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]]]</span><sub>]</sub> 14:05, 6 January 2015 (UTC)|status=Resolved}}
{{Userlinks|Martinvl}}

Martinvl has been indefinitely blocked since 28 October 2013 for disruptive editing. Whilst blocked, Martinvl has continued to use the email functionality inappropriately to suggest changes to articles on his watchlist and to lobby against other editors see ]. Martinvl has been warned previously this is inappropriate but has continued to do so, most recently this weekend . At {{U|Nick-D}}'s suggestion I am requesting an uninvolved admin to review and consider whether access to email/talk should be revoked for this editor. <span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]]]</span><sub>]</sub> 12:32, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
* '''Comment''' ] has requested the opportunity to explain his side of the story to the reviewing admin ]. ]]] 15:24, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

is another example (from June 2014) where Martinvl appears to have e-mailed an editor soliciting changes to an article while blocked. The clearest diff for his using e-mail "to lobby against other editors" is probably ; this edit was discussed in the section WCM notes.

The major problem with this sort of incident is that, because we can't read the e-mails and are never likely to, we can only go on what it looks like. It looks very much like Martin has been evading his block by trying the solicit others to make edits for him. That's certainly strongly implied by both conversations. Based on what we've seen - and noting that we haven't seen Martin's response - IMO there's a good reason to remove access to the e-mail facility to prevent block evasion through proxying. '']'' <small>'']''</small> 18:55, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

I've edited the title to remove the template (so history links will work, etc.). Revert if that's a problem. ] (]) 19:09, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
:No problem at all, thanks. <span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]]]</span><sub>]</sub> 23:13, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

:Martinvl does appear to have been misusing his continued access to Misplaced Pages's email functionality and his talk page. As well as the two examples of miss-use of emails given above (both attempts to recruit ]s), he has also sent inappropriate emails to myself concerning Wee Curry Monster (as discussed at ]) and what may have been a similar type of email to {{user|JamesBWatson}} as noted in ]. In addition, he has used his talk page to solicit edits to an article on his behalf at ]. Given what took place in ] there is no likelihood of his indefinite block being lifted in the foreseeable future, and so he doesn't have a clear need for access to his talk page to prepare for an being unblocked. As such, I would recommend that an uninvolved admin turn off Martinvl's access to the email functionality and his talk page. ] (]) 10:36, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

:: Martinvl's emails to me have been mentioned, so I will give a little background about them. Martin posted on his user talk page an "edited version" of one of his emails to me. It gave links to content of web pages which he says proves that he was remote from the location of an IP address at the time that the IP address was used for edits that were attributed to him. How far that proves, as Martin suggests, that he did not make those edits has been disputed, and I do not wish to get involved in the dispute. In another email he explains his reason for contacting me. Martin has not published that email, so I will respect confidentiality and not give details, but it was a result of hints and innuendos made in an investigation I was concerned with, in which other editors were making veiled accusations against someone not named in the investigation. Martinvl believed that the unnamed person was him, and posted information to me to defend himself against the accusations. As far as I was concerned, no accusation had been made against him, so there was no allegation to defend himself against, so the emails seemed to me to be pointless. The comments were along the line of "someone is doing something, and we all know who it is, don't we?" Personally, I had no idea who it was until I received Martin's first email to me, but even if I had known, there would have been no question of taking any action on the basis of such innuendo and veiled hints. Also, the things that someone (perhaps Martin) was accused of had no relevance to the investigation I was taking part in. I therefore regarded Martin's emails as being of no relevance to anything, so I declined to do anything about them. However, now that it has become apparent that he has been emailing numerous editors, his emails to me take on a different complexion, being in effect a part of a prolonged campaign of lobbying and canvassing.

:: It is perfectly clear that Martin has been attempting to get others to edit as proxies for him, evading his block. In my opinion it is even more significant that he has been evading not only the block, but also a topic ban. Martin's disruptive editing in relation to appeals against that topic ban was to a large extent instrumental in leading to the block. Martin is clearly intelligent enough to be fully aware that he is using emails to evade both the block and the topic ban. I concur with ] that "an uninvolved admin turn off Martinvl's access to the email functionality and his talk page", and I shall do so. (I do not regard myself as "involved". My only connection with any of this was, as I have attempted to indicate above, an attempt by Martin to involve me, which I refused to accept. The only thing I did, in fact, was to post explanations on his talk page of the fact that I was refusing to get involved.) <small>''The editor who uses the pseudonym''</small> "]" (]) 11:40, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
{{Archive bottom}}

== Sneaky vandals ==
{{archive top|result=Both blocked by ]. Thanks. --] 14:50, 5 January 2015 (UTC)}}
{{user|Davey Beals}} and {{user|Top The Ball}} appear to be closely linked accounts engaging in subtle (and not so subtle) vandalism. I'm not sure if there are any other related accounts that need to be looked at. --] 13:58, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
:SerakofVulkan is probably referring to this edit my revert on ]. It is no different to this edit from an editor who has not been summoned to appear here. I wish to state that all I saw was information being removed by an anon which normally prompts an automatic revert, that was all. I am sorry if it was inappropriate. I didn't really read the content. --] (]) 14:05, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
::{{diff|Financial endowment|prev|640429281|This}} and {{diff|Jack Smith (cricket coach)|prev|640430763|this}} were more what I had in mind. Compare that second one with ] and the current version of ] to see what I'm getting at.--] 14:10, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
:::There appears to be common interest in ] and ] and the accounts are barely a few days old each. I would guess it is the same editor. Concerning my own initial re-insertion. My reasoning is the same as what is claimed by Davey Beals. I reverted an IP doing random blanking, but I couldn't understand a single word of the implied context, now neither. All mumbo jumbo. --] (]) 14:13, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
:::{{ec}}See also {{oldid|Jack Smith (manager)|640690309|this Top The Ball edit}}. --] 14:14, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
Davey Beals and Top The Ball are now tag-team reverting on the Ellie Harrison article. --] 14:17, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

There is nothing too terribly subtle about edit, which reintroduces random meaningless content ''and'' includes a ] against another editor (me). <font color="green">]</font><font color="green" size="5px"></font><sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub> 14:20, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
:And now Top the Ball is reverting my recent edits. --] 14:27, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
::Yes I am, and I will revert them again as they are all vandalism. ] (]) 14:32, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
Revdel on {{diff|User talk:Davey Beals|prev|641091686|this edit summary}} would be nice, thanks. --] 14:38, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
{{archive bottom}}

== Block evasion of ], is anyone interested? ==

{{user links|László Vazulvonal of Stockholm}} was blocked on ''02:50, 1 January 2015'' for disruptive editing, but this editor is evading his block by using the static IP . The IP 213.114.147.52 was blocked in the past: also for being "László Vazulvonal of Stockholm editing logged out" . '''He is adding unsourced infromation to biograhies of living people''' (e.g, ) ] (]) 15:25, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
:Yes, that's interesting, thank you for reporting. ] has blocked the IP. ] &#124; ] 15:28, 5 January 2015 (UTC).
::Yes, an anonymous editor presumably the same person as above, left an identical message on my talk page, and it seems obvious to me so I reblocked László for a fortnight and hard-blocked the IP to match. ] &#124; ] 15:35, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

:There appears to be some serious ] problems. ] (]) 21:42, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

== Overall disruptive user ==
{{archive top|Editor blocked indefinitely for religious- and ethnically-motivated harassment by {{u|Floquenbeam}}, and ] deleted as a copyright violation. ]] 14:57, 7 January 2015 (UTC)}}
] has been overall disruptive. Seems to be engaged in making personal attacks,- violating ] and other types of ].

With the a clear Pro-Christian agenda and Anti-Hindu agenda,- this user has been engaged in insulting other editors throughout these years and engaged in making many other types of disruptive changes to different articles. It includes ']', where the user has edit-warred for a long time and even after the detailed discussion, user seems to be lacking ] to understand our writing standards. Eventually removed my comment from the discussion for no actual reason.

Like all articles and images of this user have been deleted, whether the subject of the article was non-notable or the article was violating copyrights. One of the article(]) still remains, that I had nominated for deletion. It had been ripped off from wesleydegreecollege.com/aboutus.htm. Even the current version is violating copyrights. While the 3 votes are in favor of deletion, I would recommend a quick deletion because it is still violating copyrights. ] (]) 16:12, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
:I've also given him . By the way, Blades, do we happen to be the same person? I just bring it up, before somebody else does. ] -] 16:17, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Insert ref for {{userlinks|Johnmylove}}<br />
{{u|Johnmylove}}, please can you present some kind of indication that you are not here just to push various religiously oriented POVs. On a personal level I would advise you to turn to your own religious teaching about treatment of others such as the good Samaritan and the like and on topics on not judging etc. should they apply.

] <s>you will also need to place a notice of this AN/i on Johnmylove's talk page.</s> ]] 18:59, 5 January 2015 (UTC) struck text just before this date stamp ]] 19:23, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
:Have you actually seen the user' talk history? I already had, right after I had started this section.
:After so many warnings about the violation of copyrights, infringement is still largely visible, like whole article has been copied from the link that I have suggested above. ] (]) 00:01, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

*Was recently warned by ] to refrain from making such comments on contributors. Some of the recent examples of the same disruptive attitude..

::Claims about me that:
:''He added Vulgar criticism against Christian and Jesus pages...''
:''notorious for adding anti christian statements on Christian pages...''
:''I have just removed them, as those were added recently by him....''

::Recent changes:

:''Seem to me like heathen, Indian pagan, Indian stone worshipper, elephant worshipper, mischief.''
:''Who cares what a Hindoo thinks!''
] (]) 15:55, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

:Nice guy. ] -] 16:44, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

::I just took alook at his contributions-list: ''"Sitush is a Hindu Fundamentalist, a garbage community of sort and Jobless man who edits Misplaced Pages pages 24 hours without any work, and there is constant attack on Pages related to Christians of India by him. Mind your own business!"''
::Not a nice guy at all. ] -] 16:50, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

*After a while, long term low grade chronic bigotry becomes worse than high intensity acute bigotry. Blocked indef. If he wants to try to convince someone he's going to stop criticizing other editors based on their perceived religion and ethnicity, he can do it inside an unblock template. --] (]) 16:51, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
::Thanks Floq. ] (]) 17:01, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
{{archive bottom}}

== Sock circus on ANEW ==

Look at ], all these proxies are operated by one person who is repeating the same nonsensical argument. ] (]) 17:47, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
:Why wont Admins take action against Blades and the IP for edit warring here? It's AN/I for goodness sake, surely users can expect Admins to stop this sort of thing here!!! THREE exclamation points. -] (]) 18:29, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
::Action against me? Well, I am reverting changes that were made by a banned user. Evidence at . ] (]) 18:31, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
::::That isn't evidence, it's speculation. -] (]) 18:37, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
:::::Looks like this is all very new for you. Anyways that's how the evidence work for ], have you ever opened even one? Of course you haven't. ] (]) 18:41, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
:::Banned editors have no right to edit and all their edits are subject to removal without any other reason required. That sort of policy enforcement is easily excludable from EW concerns. ] (]) 18:34, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
::::Regarding the statement by Bladesmulti the person making the complaint stated '''all these proxies are operated by one person''' so I am quite sure they were not calling for actions against you.--] (]) 18:37, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
:::::Bladesmulti made the complaint, and Roxy the dog said "Why wont Admins take action against Blades and the IP for edit warring here?" Pretty sure they were calling for action against Blades. ] (]) 20:09, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
::::::We have an IP who doesn't understand IP, and so has multiple copies of himself creating multiple copies. Translation: An unregistered editor at multiple addresses doesn't understand intellectual property and so copies illegally. ] (]) 21:45, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

==German Guatemalan==
{{archive top|result=Blocked by NawlinWiki for abusing multiple accounts. ] (]) 22:30, 5 January 2015 (UTC)}}
An editor is behaving badly at ] where he is editwarring to change the population figure with an unreliable source using socks and rape threats and homosexual slurs in Spanish. The obvious socks are: {{user|Madrid, Oxford y Munich}}, {{ip|186.151.43.31 }}, {{ip|190.148.81.67}}{{user|Genova, Paris y Helsinky}}. The threat is I have tried reasoning with them at my talkpage in Spanish but there is clearly no reasoning to be had.] 20:36, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

:the {{user|Genova, Paris y Helsinky}} account seems to be globally-locked. ] (]) 20:40, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

:And see also ]. ] (]) 20:42, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
{{archive bottom}}

== Disruptive Editor ==

] is engaging in vandalism, to wit: (a) created four bizarre pages in the last 24 hours that had to be speedily deleted, one of which was deleted as a blatant ], namely ], ], ], ], (b) made a strange insertion regarding the latter ] bio she/he created into ] (diff ), (c) relabeled the 2003 horror film "Red Riding Hood" as a documentary (diff ), (d) under the article ] added nonsensical text (diff ). ]]] 21:03, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

:Added . -- ] (]) 02:15, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

== Edward Snowden vandal ==
{{archive top|1=Vandal blocked by Bishonen. Article protected by Black Kite. -- ] (]) 02:16, 6 January 2015 (UTC)}}
Hey, a vandal operating from the following IPs has taken a liking to vandalizing {{articlelinks|Edward Snowden}}. The IPs he's used so far are 163.41.76.107, 163.41.77.42 and 163.41.77.70. Might be in need of a rangeblock (I don't know which template to use here, a pointer for that would be appreciated). --] (]) 22:51, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
* I've semi-protected the article, that should sort the problem out. ] 23:23, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
::Good call BK. I've blocked the small range 163.41.76.0/23 for a week, as they've been doing other nonsense. ] &#124; ] 00:06, 6 January 2015 (UTC).
{{archive bottom}}

== User:Farsidan - Inflammatory remarks ==

] has made some inflammatory remarks against certain users on Misplaced Pages, as one can see and on his talk page (wrote a response to a user, but on his own talk page, claiming that the Iranian government will track them). Please take any necessary action. Thank you. ] (]) 23:22, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
* I've final-warned them, a block will follow if they continue. ] 23:27, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
::Thank you. ] (]) 00:10, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

== Unfortunate User Conduct ==

{{Userlinks|DocumentError}}

I've been biting my tongue but there is only so much that a person can take. I've avoided this unpleasant user for months and wish they would leave me alone. I've previously been very clear I wish to have no interaction with them and asked that they stay away. Without going into older misconduct, here is the activity over the last day or so.

'''Wild unsubstantiated accusations''' - often edited and reedited over each other
#
# asking for 1 year topic ban
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
Stalking and Canvassing editors I'm currently interacting with
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
Reordering my comments out of sequence and reverting an attempt to hat his off topic attacks
#
#

I'm not looking to engage in a debate and may choose not to respond to anything he says in this thread after I start it. I just want to put this activity out there rather then let him continue to spread unsubstantiated allegations about me. Happy New Year. ] (]) 03:22, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
: It doesn't seem that bad to me. I guess you could ask for an interaction ban if you wanted. ] (]) 08:43, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
::Thanks for taking the time to read through all those ]. The monthly ANI he files against me usually averages 20-40 raw diffs, most of which tend to just be random comments culled from my edit history (like in junior high when you double-space your book report to plus-up the page count). ]]] 09:12, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

(inserted) '''Question:''' Can you provide diffs to the monthly ANi for evaluation (just the 3 last months will do, but feel free to provide more months). ] (]) 03:00, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

:Oh boy, here we go. So ... I have had zero interaction with LegacyPAC (LP) for months until today when, as an uninvolved editor, I commented on one of the numerous ANIs he has filed against ''other editors'' to make the ] observation that LP had savaged this editor with comments like ''"Are you a child?"'' and ''"your writing contains child like mistakes and your maturity level seems childlike"'' before he dragged the unfortunate newbie to ANI.
:After I made that observation, LP went to Requests for Permissions (!?) to ] itself constituted a personal attack. Of course he didn't ping me when he started accusing me there, as he should have (my interjection into that sans-ping thread about me is one of the things he has characterized above as "stalking" him). ] declined to give LP rollback permissions and archived his attacks against me at RfP, apparently prompting him to come here and file the fourth of the many ANIs he's hit me with (none of which have gone anywhere).
:If anyone has specific questions about any ''specific'' diff above, don't hesitate to ping me, but I'm frankly exhausted at having to periodically spend hours pounding out defenses to these as he's clearly using the ANI as some kind-of cudgel to warn editors not to "cross" him. ], ], ], and countless other editors have been on the receiving (or observing) end of LegacyPAC's aggressive style of interaction and I hope will endorse my reasoning in not continuing to devote time to replying to these walls of text. LP has recently come off a one-year topic ban imposed by ] for similarly whirling dervish behavior and dealing with his drama just isn't on my to-do list for today. ]]] 08:55, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
:*Minor correction: I just closed that thread; the BLP ban was imposed by {{U|Salvio giuliano}}. Carry on, ] (]) 15:35, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
::*bigger correction - the BLPBAN was imposed in May 2013 and served out with zero incident during or since related to BLPs. ] (]) 17:07, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
::I think it may be worth having a look into {{U|Legacypac}}'s behaviour at ] certain people at certain times when at the same time allegations against them have been made. Though i will add that ] ]] 09:38, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
:::Can someone explicitly remind me where I had a negative interaction with Legacypac? I've definitely ''observed'' some pretty inappropriate behaviour, and I evidently voted in favour of the topic ban, but I don't remember a direct interaction with Legacypac that was overtly negative. ] ] 11:09, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
::::I apologize, I actually meant ] (I get the two of you confused as you have similar rainbow sigs). Technically you have "been on the ... observing end of LegacyPAC's aggressive style of interaction," as you noted here that ''I've seen Legacypac get away with these sorts of things far too often. They should consider themselves lucky it's not a lengthy block, to be honest.'' but, TBH, I didn't mean to invoke you at all and was thinking of a different editor entirely. My apologies again, feel free to strike your name from my comment, as well as this entire note, if you like. ]]] 11:59, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
:::There has been a ridiculous amount of arguing, minor personal attacks and accusations of sockpuppetry by so many people against so many others that I have completely lost track on ]. Accusations of breaking policy are thrown by editors and called harassment/personal attacks which are responded likewise recursively ("his accusation of a personal attack is a personal attack"). Ridiculous amounts of ANIs for one talk page. 9356 words of argument over the question of POV in the title with arguments still going on about whether we should have a NPOV template in the article header. Pretty much every single WP:(insert something here) policy referred to which may or may not be playing policies off against each other. This isn't aimed particularly at any user or users. Is there some way we can get some kind of mediation to deal with the loss of good faith between pretty much everyone and pretty much everyone else which won't just make things worse? ] (]) 10:05, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
::::Just for the record, I stopped editing ISIL articles three months ago after LegacyPac denounced me as an "Iranian anti-American" terrorist after which my userpage started being vandalized by IP editors threatening to "nuke" me (here and etc. ). (Amusingly, my rather muted objection to LP calling me an "anti-American" is among the diffs he's listed above in his ANI against me ...). So this issue stems from my decision to make a BOOMERANG point about 5 ANIs up as an uninvolved editor and not anything related to the slow car wreck at the ISIL articles. I've been full-time on ] since self-extricating from the ISIL mess. ]]] 10:24, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

(inserted) '''Question:''' I never called you a terrorist at the linked page - or anywhere that I recall - so can you provide a correct link to my alleged calling you a terrorist? ] (]) 03:00, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

]]] As you know I recently got in contact with you privately which was really in response to your reference to the "poisonous atmosphere" at ISIL and to another comment that you made in regard to toxicity. Honestly, if you make uncited and unreferenced remarks such as this I don't think that you should find it surprising that issues are brought to administration. In one comment you say "A lot of us are at our wit's end". Who? How? Please, if you want to make accusation about an editor, collect your references and present. I see inference from you regarding the supposed conduct of Legacypac on other users pages. What efforts have you made to address issues directly? I have looked through ] and through history of deleted content and see no record of any confrontation of an accusation of being called "anti-American" or anything else. If you make an accusation you have to support. There are enough battles going on in the world without unnecessary conflict here. Please edit directly, deal with problems directly and don't canvass. While we don't agree on all issues, the things that I have generally seen Legacypac write have been justified. Where are your justifications?
The last presentation of your talk page with a large content of input by admin {{u|PBS}} is found ]] 14:46, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
:'''''#1''''' All the diffs you've requested have always been included above, including the one to LP calling me an anti-American . Diffs are indicated by numbers in brackets, or purple text to show a wikilink. Let me know if you are still having trouble finding anything and I'll be happy to post them to your Talk page to avoid any unnecessary scrutiny you might face as this brings the subject back into the ISIL topic area ].
:'''''#2''''' I'd strongly advise you visit LP's diffs he's labeled as "canvassing" before staking your flag in them as they are just random links to an edit discussion in which I was participating about the name of a Serbian town (the article's primary author is on my watchlist as ]). Like many of LP's "diffs" they are just random pulls from my edit history that don't relate to the salacious headers he's assigned ("Stalking," "Canvassing," etc.) I guess he thinks if he throws out enough random diffs an Admin will just assume guilt by volume of paper without clicking on them. (see also ]'s comment above) If you now feel it's appropriate to remove your comment, I have no problem if you also delete mine. No hard feelings. Best - ]]] 14:50, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
::]]]:
::'''''#1''''' (note: this is not the first issue as I have presented but within the sequence of your response) I have asked, please, if you have accusations please give a direct presentation of diffs. Please don't just point to threads as if to say that there is something over there. It doesn't carry favour.
::'''''#2''''' In the listing of diffs entitled stalking and canvassing I consider the third and seventh diff to be very clear cases of canvassing. Some of the other cases I also think may well fit a description of stalking. You have mentioned supposedly salacious headers:"Stalking," "Canvassing," etc. You have used the uncited slurs "poisonous" and "toxic". Please take some perspective and some responsibility. For the good of the editing environment such uncited representations of other editors and other editing activities have to stop. Please either substantiate what you say or say nothing.
::'''''#3''''' repeating: You stated, "A lot of us are at our wit's end". Who? How?
::'''''#4''''' repeating: What efforts have you made to address issues directly? ...
::'''''issue''''', the thing that I am now most incensed about is that, after you raised contention of Legacypac rearranging comments you then edited my AN/I edit so as to cause the last paragraph of my text to slip into the tail of the paragraph above. This was the text that presented the strongest content that I presented: "The last presentation of your talk page with a large content of input by admin {{u|PBS}} is found ''''''" I find it appalling that you accuse an editor of an activity and then do the same in an important Misplaced Pages location.
::]] 18:57, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
:::Yeah, I consider another editor using terms like "cyber-terrorist," "your edits are childlike" and "anti-American" to describe other editors to be "poisonous and toxic." I stand by that. ]]] 21:51, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
::::The first ref shows a lot of conflict both ways. Legacypac makes the uncited accusation "DocumentErrors edits from a clear pro-Iran, anti-American POV". I would personally like to see those accusations either justified or struck. There was no use of I think and this was stating opinion as fact.
::::The second ref shows Legacypac to either have communicated in blatant insensitive error asking an editor, who had come to his/her page to challenge a edit, with the question "are you a child?" or had been directly rude.
::::The third ref includes the text "Cyber-terrorists" which acted as a link to a thread now located at: in which "Pakistan based IP User:175.110.139.126" was banned for 6 months by Bishonen.
::::This is on one side. On the other side ] you have pretty much ignored most of the issues I have raised. Please give response. ]] 23:11, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
I don't want to waste a lot of space refuting his rants, so I'll point to a simple case - easy to see - were he says above "LegacyPac denounced me as an "Iranian anti-American" terrorist " but at the link you will see I never referred to him as a terrorist (there or anywhere). But DocumentError goes on to say at the link "If I had more time at the moment I would file a separate ANI about this as you've already been cautioned about race-baiting, LP, more times than I can possibly count. " which is an outright fabrication and we've never seen that ANi yet.'''The actual exchange, (note the poisoning of another editor against me) was:'''<div class="boilerplate" style="background-color: lightyellow; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted #aaa;">
:::I understand from DocError that Legacypac has had his way with DocError in scaring him away from editing certain pages by screaming and threatening him and whatever other aggressive interaction and unilateral editing style. If that would be true, we would seem to have in Legacypac an editor that basically threatens Misplaced Pages. --Corriebertus (talk) 10:18, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
:::::DocumentErrors <u>edits from a clear pro-Iran, anti-American POV</u> and did engage in forum shopping, but his efforts to push the Iran intervention in Iraq over the American-led one were largely unsuccessful. I'll go so far to say that DocumentError specializes in error - I and quite a few other editors have spent far to much time refuting his erroneous accusations. I ignore him and yet he continues to HOUND me damaging my reputation (which is my job, thank-you very much). Legacypac (talk) 19:53, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
</div>
{{collapse top|Comment inserted by another editor}}
::::::Thanks for denouncing me as "anti-American" (whatever that means) once again. I imagine we're just two more comments away from you declaring that I'm "pro-terrorist" and a "cyber-terrorist" as you've accused other editors who have disagreed with you. (here and elsewhere ) ]]] 21:29, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
::::True, ]. This latest ANI is the result of me sticking up for a new editor whom he'd been ripping into. ]]] 21:51, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
{{collapse bottom}}
And earlier in that discussion: "I think at this point Legacypac and @DocumentError: could benefit from a self imposed two way IBAN. ...-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 19:53, 24 November 2014 (UTC)" which I replied I was operating under such a self imposed IBAN, which I've continued to do until yesterday when I responded to DocumentError's breaking into a thread where I was seeking some friendly assistance for a new editor. He then proceeded comment on me on various talk pages as detailed above. I want the wild accusations and misrepresentations about me to stop - I've refuted them over and over but they just keep coming from his keypad. I have no idea what value this editor sees in stirring up trouble. I've lived to the self imposed IBAN. He has not. ] (]) 17:43, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

:Legacypac you initial edit was "{{green|No one threatened DocumentError, but he was editing from a clear pro-Iran, anti-American POV and did engage in forum shopping, but his efforts to push the Iran intervention in Iraq over the American-led one were largely unsuccessful. ...}}" See the wording was different from that you posted here. Did you change it subsequently and before another replied? -- ] (]) 18:18, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
::Yes, I before anyone replied. ] (]) 18:25, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
:::More error above - Gregkeye is not the subject of an ISIL topic ban. ] (]) 19:10, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

'''Question''' for DocumentError here you say that unnamed (but possibly you mean me) editor(s) called you ''"an anti-Semite, anti-American, radical anti-American, pro-terrorist, cyber-terrorist, raving anti-American terrorist nutjob, raghead, liberal, etc. "'' and you added specific terms through a series of edits, like you found more of them. This is a very serious charge against whichever editor you are referring to. Can you specify which editor you think made these comments about you and can you provide diffs where these very specific statements are directed at you? ] (]) 19:23, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
===Propose a Community IBAN===
Since a voluntary interaction ban between ] and ] either has fallen apart or was never in place, and since these two editors keep coming back to attack each other, it is time to impose a community ] on them. The usual ] should apply, but we should note (since one editor tried recently to ] around a ban) that filing a ] or ] thread against the other editor is a ban violation, not a ban exception. ] (]) 20:41, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
*'''Support''' as proponent who is tired of this feuding. ] (]) 20:41, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
:::I appreciate the sentiment - I'm here only because the unfounded accusations are way out of hand. If some editor actually called DocumentError a "raving anti-American terrorist nutjob" they should be dealt with. If in fact no editor said that, he should be sanctioned. My post here is not an attempt to bicker but done under ] ] (]) 20:54, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
* '''Comment''' I appreciate the sentiment, I'd just note that prior to yesterday I had no interaction with Legacypac for 3 months; I have avoided him religiously for the sake of my own sanity. I happened to be in ANI yesterday and saw him using yet another new editor as his personal chew toy and made the mistake of sticking up for the guy after LP was ripping into him with ''"Are you a child?" and "your writing contains child like mistakes and your maturity level seems childlike."'' . The savaging that's ensued was what I got out of it. As I told ] I don't plan to make that mistake again. When LP begins his daily ANIs again tomorrow against a new editor I'll just bite my lip and keep walking. ]]] 21:35, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

<s>'''Question''': Why did DocumentError just in the middle of my comment in a way that makes my comment quite unclear now ? ] (]) 21:42, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
:I believe the fact that the comment was indented but the second was not. This may have led him to believe that they were not intended to be connected and that the correct way to respond to the first would be to indent more. ] (]) 21:52, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
:Unless you sign your name in the middle of your comment and again at the end, I didn't insert it into the "middle" of your comment. Perhaps ] can take a look at it. ]]] 21:54, 6 January 2015 (UTC)</s>
:::Edited for clarity. The copied text now has a yellow background and the inserted text is in a collapse box. -- ] (]) 02:35, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
*'''Oppose for now''', I don't see how this situation can work in the current situation. Personally I need to work trough the diffs to see what Legacypac is supposed to have done wrong. I do not think that it is right to put a sanction on an editor's record without there being evidence to support it. How would it work in the ISIL editing environment if two present editors can't communicate? ]] 21:55, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' I don't know if an interaction ban would be beneficial or not, but I do not think this would stop there from being another ANI revolving around ] as I feel that there has been a loss of good faith. I'd rather not see just an interaction ban (or lack thereof), rather I'd prefer to see an attempt to find the cause(s) of the problem and solve it, with or without interaction bans. ] (]) 22:16, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
::I agree with you but, just to clarify, however, I do not edit in that or any ISIL-related topic, nor have I for at least a few months as a personal choice (not as a result of a topic ban as I have a flawless disciplinary record unlike two other editors in this ANI). ]]] 22:21, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
:::I shall also clarify, then. I did not mean to imply that any particularly user may be to blame, including yourself and Legacypac. The perceived loss of good faith causes a loss of good faith, which needs to be addressed especially in light of an ] on Requested Moves expiring on 7 January. I assume the "other two users" refers to Gregkaye and Legacypac? ] (]) 22:47, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
::::Understood. As to your second question I was avoiding outing anyone, but I do need to apologize as I thought Gregkaye had received a block from ] the other day (]) but it appears his block log is clear, so that must have been a misread by me. ]]] 00:20, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
*This is "" all over again. ] — ] 23:26, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

===Gaming ANI / Counter-Proposal===
'''Background:''' Legacypac, in his most recent ANI against me, lists 21 diffs without explanation, giving each a broad header like "canvassing" etc. I didn't go through these one by one due to sheer volume; ] did and said "they didn't seem that bad to me" (above). I did check a few out though. This diff he describes as "canvassing" is a move discussion about an article on a town in Serbia - the active ] - I was participating in as the article's main author ]). Many diffs similarly appear to simply be random points from my edit history he's pulled out to "plump up" the ANI, presumably to make it look as salacious as possible through sheer volume of "paper." This appears to be a rather blatant case of ]. I further note that my supposed status as an "Iranian" "anti-American" , which is one of LP's charges against me in this thread, is not an issue ANI exists to address.<BR>

'''Counter-Proposal:''' As a counter-proposal to the IBAN, I suggest Legacypac receive a topic ban on ANI reports about me. As I've mentioned elsewhere, this is the latest in a string of ANIs he's hit me with , all of which have been dismissed and I would welcome the respite from having to devote my time to these. (I believe ], ] and ] have commented in previous ANIs and may be able to add perspective.) I would not object to such a topic ban allowing him to file "proxy" ANIs against me via a second autoconfirmed editor (even just one level of vetting will, I think, trim these to a more manageable level). ]]] 22:11, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
::::] You are not owning up to any of your behaviours in this. Even the reverence you gave to cyber-terrorism above was linked to an apparently gainfully delivered AN/I case by Legacypac. The people you have summoned are {{Userlinks|Supreme Deliciousness}} {{Userlinks|Signedzzz}} {{Userlinks|GB fan}} ]] 23:46, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
:::::Greg - I need to again ask you to group your comments together (ideally using a single indent below the main topic proposal) instead of splashing them all over the page out of date order and pushing them above those of editors who have previously weighed-in. I appreciate you feel a sense of urgency in what you have to say and are frustrated at my lack of reply, but the reason I'm not responding is because this shotgun syntax is ''extremely'' difficult for me to follow. This thread shouldn't look like a Jackson Pollock painting. Please just take a minute to follow the sequence. ]]] 00:07, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
::::::] It would be helpful if you gave straightforward responses to questions and statements at relevant points in the text. Pings help. ]] 05:21, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
: I'm trying to avoid getting too involved in this. I dutifully read through the linked diffs, saw they weren't egregious, and said so. I'm not too sure what I can contribute beyond that. Maybe a bit of advice? Stop accusing each other of wrong-doing and go back to ignoring each other. If you're both incapable of that, then agree to a voluntary interaction ban. This endless bickering will not end well. ] (]) 23:02, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

*I think Legacypac should be banned from Misplaced Pages. Very disruptive editor that forces his pov into articles without consensus.--] (]) 22:59, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
::I think that both editors at this point should be given a 48 hour - one week ban to think about things. I have seen DocumentError make valued contributions when I have seen them and know that Legacypac has made strong contribution to ISIL. They both have broken guidelines. An IBAN will achieve nothing as far as real change is concerned. Both have got to see that rules need to be followed. DocumentError has broken numerous guidelines as especially noted on his/her deleted content from talk page. Legacypac, from edits that I saw, was acting with an occasionally exhibited abrasive side that s/he would be advised, I think, to curb. I would like to see DocumentError respond to the issues that I have raised above and for Legacypac to justify his/her statement "DocumentErrors edits from a clear pro-Iran, anti-American POV" ]] 23:17, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
:::I do not think that the bans need necessarily be in proportion as, by referencing DocumentError's talk page, I think that here is the greater wrong. However, I also think that there are valid issues raised that Legacypac too would do well to think through and, arguably, some time out may help. ]] 23:33, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
:::''''

*'''I reject the claim that DocumentError is "Stalking and Canvassing" me.''' Having a quick glance over this, it is clear that this is a complex issue with a long history. As I do not have the time to fully consider the points here, I will not be able to contribute fully. However, I have to say that it is not for Legacypac to determine whether I am being stalked or canvassed.

:Regarding Documenterrors comment on my talk page, I need to say the following to put my concluding sentence in context. The last few days have been the most difficult for me. I have literally had a miserable week (maybe more) at Misplaced Pages. As a new editor who's account is 30 days old, I have had to face 4 accusations of sock puppetry and 1 of being a duck. These accusations I feel are linked to my unwelcome work on the ISIL page. Add to this, the constant undermining which, I felt I was being subjected to on that page, I was seriously considering quitting Misplaced Pages. The great relief I felt on seeing Documenterrors heading above his comment ("have faith", he said) on my talk page, provided some calm to my state of mind which I felt I was loosing at the point. It was a relief to know I was not the only one to think the atmosphere there was poisonous as per my definition on the reply to his message. At a point where I was loosing faith, the comment by Documenterror was a very generous act. It is for this reason that I do ask the other editors to give due consideration for this one kind act.

:Correction added after: Even though Decumenterror did not canvass in my case, Legacypac can raise his concern if canvassing is taking place. I withdraw my assertion above that it is not for him to determine if I am being canvassed.

:03:07, 7 January 2015 ] (]) 03:36, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
::Thanks, and it's always my pleasure to try and assist new editors. ]]] 03:55, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
Just by chance, I remember Documenterror defending me a while back when I was a new editor getting accused of sockpuppetry. I was waiting to see if Legacypac would answer Documenterror's reasonable question about his accusations that started this thread; no surprise, he still refuses. is Legacypac's latest report against me, from a couple of days ago: notice how, when I am forced to respond to his false accusations, he immediately shifts the goalposts ("missed a word"), refuses to explain anything, and finally claims that "Everything else is explained above", and accuses ''me'' of "harrassment". So, no surprise. ] (]) 04:21, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

:*] FYI the association between you as a sockpuppet account that appeared on my page has been linked by {{u|NeilN}} with an "IP who's been harassing Bish"/ {{u|Bishonen}} I don't know why you associate the sockpuppet activity to your work at ] and not to your contributions to ] that you recently asked me to join.
::Without prior contact, DocumentError arrived at your page to say, "From one "cyber-terrorist" to another, until you've been denounced as "anti-American," you've only just sampled the ISIL topics. I self-extricated from the ISIL mess as a result of the poisonous atmosphere. Good luck."
::No mentioned of accusation has here been made to current editors as being cyber-terrorists. Legacypac had said "don't disparage the efforts of the many editors who have struggled to write a high profile article while cyber-terrorists come to wikipedia to push a POV." with reference being made to a Pakistani IP. ]] 04:56, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
:::{{U|Gregkaye}} I consider it linked to the ISIL page because 2 of the 3 accusers who gave examples with their accusation, it was regarding an edit or discussion on the ISIL page. Eeven though I had decided to limit my input here, I am compelled to respond at great expense to myself to what I think is a concerted effort to pick on an editor as part of a bigger issue of controlling the ISIL page. I feel this way because of Gregkayes post above mine and Legacypacs post about commenting on said editor, that he is anti-american/pro-iranian. These strong statement will be explained later in my post.

:::Firstly, I will continue to defend DocumentError's contact with me. I believe that when you are able to do an act of kindness, it becomes your moral obligation to do so. I believe therefore, that not only was it appropriate for him to contact me but that it was necessary. I feel we need to do more for new editors to encourage them to stay and not to scare them off. Moving on, I can not judge Documenterro's intentions but the nature of his response suggested he was providing his support to a new user who he felt was given a hard time. This behaviour of aiding new editors seems to be a running theme as reflected via the comment by the other new editors expression of support.

:::Also I think I know why DocumentError said from one cyber-terrorist to another. It has been suggested that there are a lot of POV pushers around the ISIL related pages and a lot of effort has been taken to block "cyber terrorists". I am not sure if it was implied that the above 2 are mutually inclusive but that is the impression I got. I do not think someone should be labelled a cyber-terrorist with such great ease. That is a serious accusation to make and one I feel is on par with accusing someone of rape or child sexual molestation. The word is all together loaded and should not be used against a fellow banned editor unless someone is judged by a court of law to be guilty of cyber-terrorism and that information is fed back to Misplaced Pages. I think at Misplaced Pages we are here for one purpose only and that is to compile the sum of human knowledge and not to decide over the internet whether someone is a cyber terrorist or not. I too found this comment offensive and I also felt it was aimed at me.

:::I am surprised to see Legacypac comment on his allegation of said editor as anti-american or pro-iranian. I think that it is time for me to call a spade, a spade. I feel that, with all honesty legacypac is guilty of the same thing he accuses Documenterror of, because I think that his work on the ISIL page is barn door pro-american. I think his attempts to stop anyone with an opposing opinion to his, from contacting me demonstrates this case even further and illustrates his attempts to censor information. To declare such heavy statements (which are my opinion btw), I must give my reasoning for feeling this way. I hope I do not get banned for this post or get in trouble as I am doing this in good faith and with a view to improving the encyclopaedia. The ISIL article's lead constitutes what I feel to be propaganda. The content of the lead is very good. However it's arrangement and the narrative that it conveys, seem to reflect heavily and is in line with America's narrative of the issue. I will further explain:

:::*The US's insistence on not using their name (I mean Islamic State/IS), the media's insistence on not using the name, the arab nations insistence on not using the name, the Muslim scholars insistence of not using the name, has resulted in a total misunderstanding and misapplication, of due and undue weight and NPOV policy playing a role in how prominently the name should appear in the lead. The correct way to apply this policy in my view here is, to decide how prominently the criticism of the name feature in the article and in the lead. The difference between the two interpretation is important and because it has been mixed together so badly, it has taken me a good deal of time to distinguish them.

:::*The narritive in the lead without question is pro-american. The official name is mentioned in the 4th line. Compare this to the use of the word Da'ish (Daesh) which is mentioned immediately after the first sentence. This name America is trying to incorporate in their narrative in tackling this conflict and they wish it to be the new name/standard term for the group as part of their multi-pronged approach to the conflict. They use the name as it is a considered a pejorative. This is alluded to partly by John Kerry at the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, a transcript of which you may read here ]. I know this is PO but the use of the name is better described in secondary sources anyway

:::Since this is an encyclopaedia, information should be compiled in line with wiki policy and not to help any particular nation or group of nations agenda. My attempts to address this narrative was met with resistance, one that was most severe. My impression was that it was seen as more important not to give any legitimacy to ISIL than to follow wiki policy on neutrality. The state of affairs with that page makes me very sad and my attempts to tackle the issue, were met with what I think are allegations such as "I think you may be here to defend ISIL".


:::Whilst I think the involved editors both past and present have acted in good faith, I think they have got carried away with their attempts to combine wiki policy and guidelines with an attempt to de-legitimize ISIL which is not the purpose of an encyclopaedia. It is for the reasons I have highlighted, that I feel Legacypac edits from a pro-american standpoint which when met with concerns, even if discussed at length on the discussion page, is met with stiff and perpetual resistance. In this effort of his, I feel that he is aided by Gregkaye; both of whome I feel form a duopoly that exert undeserved pseudo-control over the page. I would compare the relationship to the multiple-editor ownership described in ], where Legacypac in my view is the dominant editor who is then consistently defended and supported by Gregkeye. For example my attempt to undo his pov lead-tag removal (which was not allowed to be removed as per pov-lead policy) on the ISIL article was, immediatley answered by a reaction which I felt was the start of an edit war. As expected Gregkaye, in my opinion was there to provide and bolster legacypac's position as the dominant controller of the page. Seeing the situation had turned "poisonous", I then started contemplating on whether I should quite Misplaced Pages all together.

:::All that I have stated here is my opinion but I believe it is an opinion that is based on reflection of policy which I have spent about 40 to 50 hours studying this week. I have also reflected at length on my concerns about the ISIL page to see if they are merited when looking at policy. I would like to state to the other editors that this post in not a reactionary one. From the moment I started writing it to the moment I have reached here, it has took me a total of 5 hours to state my concerns in a way that I felt was appropriate and proportionate. No single event that took place was in itself something that made me think something sinister was going on. However when combining all the various things that have happened together, the picture that was painted was a troubling one.

:::I do think though that his intentions have been good. The work he has put into that page deserve credit and he has done it with good faith. But with all the stuff in the news and the atrocities etc, it can be easy to let a particular narrative slip in (whether consciously or subconsciously), as it may look to be of benefit and worth. However the goals of the encyclopaedia can only be met by following policy and giving every editor an equal say in a conversation. As a new editor, I feel I have jumped at the deepest end of the pool. I ask all other editors here to give consideration to my points. I will off course respect any decisions in terms of penalty to myself as a result of this comment here. ] (]) 10:54, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
::], in the ANI you linked, Legacypac alleged you were illiterate in the English language ("''this editor can't read english''" ) . Having observed some of your great copyediting work on the ] and ] articles I just wanted to say I think your English is excellent and flawless in case you felt at all deterred by that comment. Keep up the great copyediting work. ]]] 11:02, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
:::can't read English is not a reference to inability in the language but to inability or refusal to understand. ] (]) 16:27, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
::::Thanks, ]]]. In the , ] claims I have been "pushing" a "similar point" in the article, but he point-blank refuses to give any further clues. I wonder what POV I am being accused of. ] (]) 18:30, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

I am extremely sorry about what I have written about you both. You have both taught me a lot about wikipedia in such a short time and I am grateful. However I found that it was incredibly difficult, no actually it was impossible to contribute on that page even with discussion. As I mentioned to you both on the ISIL talk page, nearer the end of my conversation there, I dreaded to even think about editing the article. I do not think I should be made to feel that way by anyone, ever. Contrast this to the Israel page which is under active arbitration remedies, where I found editors were a lot more considerate to other editors opinions even in the midst of a difficult conversation about inserting into the lead that israel is the longest military occupier in modern history. I have been in at least 2 other disputes in addition to this which have resolved amicably with me and the other editors working the situation out amongst ourselves. So it was a surprise to find that it was impossible to do anything on the ISIL page. 11:12, 7 January 2015 (UTC) ] (]) 11:18, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
::This is not a content dispute, this is a discussion of DocumentError's conduct. The issues Mbcap brings up have been addressed elsewhere. ] (]) 16:27, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

===More Questions===

'''Question 3''' can DocumentError explain how summoning editors that have crossed with me to this ANI is not a breach of Canvessing? <br>
'''Question 4:''' this ANi deals with false disruptive allegations. Instead of substantiating the allegations, DocumentError has made more allegations and sought sanctions against me. Will he substantiate his allegations or not? If no one cares if he says inappropriate crap I'll drop the ANi and walk away. I'll just use the RPA tag instead and/or ignore him again. Easy. Not worth my time or effort to deal with a person so full of drama and error. ] (]) 23:27, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
:Great - thank you! I'm pinging ], because it appears she was online recently, to ask her to review this thread with the suggestion it be closed/archived since we've both indicated we'll go back to ignoring each other. ]]] 23:45, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
::I'm sorry, I was indeed recently online, but I haven't followed this, and I don't have time to deal with it now. Even just reading the thread and all the diffs in it would take longer than I can spare; I'm about to go to bed. You suggest it's easy to close and archive it because you both agree to ignore each other, but it doesn't look quite that simple to me, so I'm not willing to close without having a proper read first. Legacypak's last comment can be taken in a different way (as simply indicating that he's very frustrated). ] &#124; ] 00:00, 7 January 2015 (UTC).
:::No problem! ]]] 00:11, 7 January 2015 (UlTC)
:LP, you said I didn't "substantiate" the "false allegations" I made. The majority of your diffs are just random caps from my edit history you've dropped in here to plump-up your ANI, which is why I've characterized this as a blatant case of ]. But there are 2 or 3 cases of actual accusations I've made. Your first diff, for instance, . In it I said you had told another editor ]''"Are you a child? your writing contains child like mistakes and your maturity level seems childlike."'' Here is the "substantiation" that you said ''"Are you a child? your writing contains child like mistakes and your maturity level seems childlike."'' Now it's my turn to question: were you really not aware you said that? Or was the point of this ANI just to throw some stuff against the wall to see if you could get it to stick? ]]] 01:03, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
@Gregkeye - my comment that he edits from a pro-Iran anti-American POV was made several months back and justified by the various actions he was taking at the time to push Iran into articles about the America-led group actions against ISIL. (later insert for clarity-see the rest of that post where I clearly said why). This is not something I am bringing here, he is entitled to hold whatever views he wants. I only brought it up to show how he was misquoting me right here. He self identifies as being from Iran on his talk page and I don't view Iranians or Americans or any other nationality badly. I live in the most multicultural part of Canada where I have a United Nations of friends. My own home is cross cultural, multi and mixed ethnicity and multi-citizenship. There are many Muslims and Christians in my extended family. Hence I take GREAT exception to anyone throwing around allegations that suggest I have acted in a racist manner because that is completely outside my personal belief system. Per my Question above I would like to see diffs for where anyone called him the nasty names he claims Wikipedians (evidently me) are using about him so we can run such nasty people off the site. Beyond that, I am going back to ignoring him. ] (]) 00:41, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
:The only thing I've ever claimed ''you'' said is that you've called me, on multiple occasions, an "Iranian" "Anti-American." (''including as recently as today - your 19:53 post in this very ANI'') LP - TTBOMK people of Iranian ancestry are allowed on WP and one's ethnicity doesn't make one "anti-American" (nor is being "pro-America" a prereq for contributing to WP). (And, for anyone who is still reading this, here is where ].) Now, to your other question, yes there are IP editors in the past who have called me things like "a shithole" that should be "nuked" but I haven't brought that up in this ANI - because this is ''your'' ANI against ''me''. ''You'' brought that up here. Why? If you ''really'' want to help, what would be ''most'' helpful is if you just stopped calling me names, if you stopped calling other editors names, and if you stopped calling other editors "terrorists." ]]] 01:08, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

'''Question:''' Near the bottom of ] you said today in response to ] saying you were hounding "I can also see that LP has filed an astonishing ''two dozen ANIs in the last 8 months'' since his topic ban was lifted (100% regarding content disputes on ISIL topics), the overwhelming majority of which have resulted in no action, on top of numerous, frivolous SPI actions and direct threats of ANIs against (usually new) editors. I can see a pattern of intense intimidation being applied against new editors and a long history of tendentious edits when all else fails, including unilateral page moves and editing against RfC...." Can you provide links to the very specific number of 2 dozen ANis so that we can evaluate your statements about the number and result of such ANi's? Secondly, can you provide links to the numerous SPI actions so we can evaluate the frivolousness of those actions and results? The last SPI I filed resulted in several new socks of globally banned ] being banned. I don't remember what happened on the previous one. ] (]) 01:42, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
:'''Answer:''' You asked ''"can you provide links to the numerous SPI actions so we can evaluate the frivolousness of those actions and results."'' I don't understand - are you asking me to file an ANI against you? The topic of this sub-thread is '''Gaming ANI / Counter-Proposal'''. You came in here with a specific complaint demanding diffs. I provided them. You went silent and moved onto something else not contained in your original ANI and demanded diffs. You got 'em. You then went silent on that and have moved onto this latest demand for diffs on still an entirely different topic. This has, as per MO, gone from an ANI into a madcap fishing expedition. Are you going to offer an explanation ]? Third request. ]]] 02:17, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

::The diffs provided are examples, as you throw out more accusations I'm requesting you substantiate them. I've added a new heading to clarify where the next questions start. Please answer the question with diffs. ] (]) 03:00, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
:::Legacypac, this is an ANI about me. And I've asked you to substantiate the accusations you made about me ] (namely that I'm "stalking" editors with whom you interact). Are you going to do that or not? ]]] 03:09, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

I hope I now understand what you keep asking. "Stalking and Canvassing editors I'm currently interacting with" means a) Stalking me AND b) Canvassing other editors. I did not suggest you are stalking other editors. Sorry if that was unclear. Now answer the questions. ] (]) 04:44, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
:'''Comment''' ] I got in contact with you in context that you had made comment with wording "poisonous" and "toxic" with the thinking that, if you were able to edit with a more positive approach, your contributions might have a genuinely beneficial effect. I also wanted to broach things to try to understand your perspectives re the criticisms mentioned. There has been a notable amount of argumentatively presented content at talk:ISIL IMO which, if anything, needs to be discouraged and defused. I view your approaches here as incitement of a type that will encourage or otherwise justify a continuation or even an escalation of an argumentative approach. PLEASE consider this. PLEASE can all editors drop approaches that may be taken as incitement. Some of us want to get on with editing and will welcome inputs from non argumentative editors who come for genuine debate. ]] 05:56, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
*'''PROPOSAL:''' When AN/I is too long, people get tired of both. ]]] stated that he no longer edits the article, so impose a topic ban on him alone so the arguments can stop. Also impose a CBAN on both so they no longer interact. ] (]) 12:37, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
::What article? While I appreciate 23.27.252.213 materializing to call for my head and Greg making this ANI one of his first major contributions after his return from his latest block, as I've noted repeatedly, I haven't edited any ISIL-related article for more than 3 months (due to total lack of interest and because I've been busy improving ] for a GA nom). That said, I concede it would definitely be ... ''interesting'' ... to impose a topic ban on someone who isn't involved in a topic. ]]] 13:39, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
:"Now answer the questions."??? LP, this isn't ]. As many other editors have observed in this thread, you'll find people tend not to respond favorably to these types of barked interrogatories. With all due respect, this may be the genesis of these dramatic entanglements in which you frequently seem to find yourself. Anyway, this is an ANI about ''me''. And I've asked you to substantiate the accusations you made about me vis a vis the misinformation in the original formatting of your ANI. Were you trying to ] the ANI by ]? What are your thoughts about Ninjarobotpirate's determination that he saw "nothing egregious" in any of the diffs you provided? Is being "Iranian" or an "Anti-American" , as you've repeatedly denounced me for being , a violation of our guidelines? Thanks. ]]] 13:11, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

===Wrap-up===
I came to ANi in accordance with the guidance at ] to discuss:
# '''Wild unsubstantiated accusations''' - often edited and reedited over each other
# '''Stalking of me'''
# '''Canvassing''' of other editors
# '''Messing with my comments'''

In the course of this ANi I've provided diffs to support my complaints and asked specific '''Questions'''. In response DocumentError has:<br>
a) made additional unsubstantiated accusations.<br>
b) Canvassed right here by pinging editors from a list he appears to keep of editors that may not like something I've done<br>
c) Messed with my comments right in this thread which ] fixed.<br>
d) failed to actually answer most of my '''Questions''' about things he has said or done.<br>
e) failed to provide diffs that actually support his wild accusations.<br>
f) failed to answer reasonable questions posed by other editors to him.<br>

DocumentError can't answer the '''Questions''' because he can't provide evidence that does not exist. He's had a fair chance, his accusations have been heard by the Wikiworld, and he has made plenty of other responses. Time to cut off debate. I'd rather not see this circus go on for days. I want to be left in peace.

This is a user conduct issue, not a content dispute. Topic bans are not a relevant remedy. Yes, I can be abrasive. No I don't tolerate game playing and refusal to follow policy. Yes I've taken people to ANi, 3RR etc, but I don't think I abuse those processes. Yup I recently got a SPA IP from Pakistan banned for what I later called cyber-terrorism (editing in a way that was exclusively promoting the biggest baddest terrorist group in the world right now). If someone wants to call for sanctions against me they will need much better evidence then DocumentError has provided.

'''Proposed Resolution:''' ''For making unsubstantiated personal attacks, DocumentError be prohibited from posting any comment about Legacypac anywhere on Misplaced Pages indefinitely''

If that happens, I'll very happily go back to ignoring his existence. Thank-you for reading and Happy New Year. ] (]) 17:30, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
*'''SUPPORT''' - First, that's not asking for too much and shouldn't need an ANI. Second, ] presented a good case. ] (]) 17:44, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

*'''Oppose any proposal by parties, drama makers, or the like''' Just close this darn thing, no action taken. Too long, too convoluted, too much 'he said she said' and frankly, too much drama. If there's some unambiguous proof that someone needs to be sanctioned, then that should be stated but otherwise, close this darn thing. ] (]) 20:23, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

== Anonymous editor who only vandalises and trolls ==

My eye has fallen on ], who has been editing here for a year, and has contributions which are almost exclusively apologism for racism, although they're now branching out into transphobia. The entire user history is of interest, but these diffs are the most striking: , , , , . I propose a block per ]. ] (]) 09:00, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

: {{ping|AlexTiefling}} That's an IP address, the best we can do is short 24-36 hour blocks when they begin to vandalise or cause disruption. These can be requested via the usual method at ]. If there's any evidence that the same person is using more than one IP address, across one or more ranges, then we could look at a range-block, but that would be unusual for low level vandalism that should be reverted and ignored. ] (]) 12:11, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

::Some IPs are relatively stable. There's no reason it cant be blocked for longer if it appears that this is the only user on the IP. ] <sup>]</sup> 12:21, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

:::This was my thought. It's a pretty consistent pattern. ] (]) 12:30, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

:::Static IPs can be blocked for longer, but the IP in question is a dynamic Verizon IP address from their fibre broadband service, which always runs the risk of it being reassigned to someone else wishing to edit anonymously through that IP. It would need to be blocked, realistically, for 12 months or longer, to prevent even a small amount of vandalism. I suspect if you look through the rest of the range (96.224.0.0-96.255.255.255) then the same person will have been considerably busier vandalising, but short of blocking the whole range, they'll have been vandalising across far too large a range of IPs far to slowly to really worry too much about it. Revert and ignore is the sensible option here. ] (]) 15:15, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
: I would be very wary of calling this editor a vandal and a troll. They may hold unpopular opinions and not be particularly good at editing here, but the user has been warned only twice with two very unhelpful templates. Maybe instead of running to ANI, discuss with the editor what they are doing wrong. Also you are obligated to notify the user that you have posted here. ] (]) 23:25, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
:: Agree with CW42. Further, the last of the "most striking" diffs, , doesn't seem racist, transphobic, or anything-ist. (It's unnecessary, and if done it needs a period, but it's OK.) It's definitely not vandalism, and its trollery is unobvious to say the least. It's not obvious to me that this person is an asset to WP, but the same thing could be said for thousands of people. Let's not further dilute the meanings of "vandalism" or "troll" (let alone use either for "putting in odds and ends with which we disagree"). -- ] (]) 15:46, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

== Battlefield behavior in Canadian article; interaction ban? ==

*{{user5|Skookum1}}
*{{user5|WhisperToMe}}
I am not involved directly in this dispute. I found it in October 2014 following up on Skookum1's concerns of copyright violation in the article ] (my ). I found no evidence of copyright problems but was shocked by the hostile tone I found Skookum1 taking with WhisperToMe.
{{collapse top|explanation of concerns}}
From that thread on that date alone: "your complete ignorance of the subject matter"; "half-informed comments"; "your presumptiveness"; "arrogant rubbish"; "your speciousness, and your arrogance, in these matters, is breathtaking." (All still visible at ].) WhisperToMe subsequently requested my assistance with ongoing incivility (see ], including some examples of edits that concerned him; also ])). Particularly concerned to find he had left '''in article space''', I wrote on Skookum1's talk page urging him to calm the discussion down and work towards dispute resolution, or I would be seeking an interaction ban. (See the conversation in context as of this writing .) The situation is not improved: "Here I am trying to educate the woefully uninformed." (); "Maybe "someone" will take the time to read actual sources other than his own personal preference for ethno-focussed history and ''LEARN SOMETHING'' instead of treating me like I was a liar. I am not; and he's just ill-informed ''and prejudiced''" ()

Skookum1 claims the incivility is mutual, but the only example I've found cited of incivility from WhisperToMe is in his requiring verification of Skookum's perspective. To :
<blockquote>"I want verifiability and proof what you're saying' is AGF and NPA at the same time, as you're implying I'm lying (which is what your ethno-drivel sources do all the time, when not saying things out of pure ignorance of the reality); you have a responsibility to believe a senior editor who's been around here half your short life and who has read more on his province's history, and written more Misplaced Pages content on "Chinese in BC" than you apparently like to be blissfully ignorant of - or are too caught up in their own incestuous ivory tower to actually explore the province and read the local histories (not all of them written by "white" people and dismissable as such, as they are wont to do,even though those local histories are generally ''very'' flattering towards Chinese in their respective areas).</blockquote>
This is the same concern I noticed and addressed in my first note on the subject - in response to that said, in part:
<blockquote>I am at least three times your age, an experienced Wikipedian of long-standing, and very knowledgeable about my home province ''which you are NOT''.... Who are you to say? You're a "Young Adult" (codeword for "late teenager") who just discovered this subject and now make pronouncements on it as if you were an expert to the point you can "assure" me of anything.</blockquote>

WhisperToMe has recently filed a request for intervention at ] (]) which may or may not be derailed by this battlefield behavior, although I note that Skookum1 has produced some sources, perhaps in response to that thread. I considered waiting in case that was revolved, but I think that the battlefield behavior (even , he attacked WhisperToMe) is once again escalating and in any case has gone on long enough.
{{collapse bottom}}
Unless somebody has any other ideas for how to stop this, '''I'd like to propose an interaction ban'''. A limited duration may be enough to do it - perhaps until the core issue is settled by others - but I think the behavior here is toxic, a violation of ] and especially ]. Skookum1 undoubtedly will feel that this interaction ban should be mutual; I think a mutual interaction ban would be better than ''no'' interaction ban, but would suggest a one-way interaction ban restricting Skookum1 from engaging WhisperToMe unless there is significant evidence that WhisperToMe has been incivil ''beyond'' his requesting verification of his Canadian elder. Skookum1 has voiced his concerns about this article; if he withdraws from the conversation, perhaps ''others'' can see it through.

This is out of my usual area (copyright), but I really can't stand by and not try to do something when I see a situation like this. I believe that fights of this sort can and do wreak havoc on Misplaced Pages. I think it needs to stop. --] <sup>]</sup> 12:50, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
:If I might register a non-administrative opinion. First, I appreciate ] attempting to assist an editor who feels accosted. Many editors of all stripes lately seem unwilling to do that because of the pain and suffering it usually entails with no reward. That said, I think ] is simply expressing natural frustration at a proposal that seems to be pushed at a more rapid rate than is perhaps advisable. WTM and Skookum appear to be the only two editors active on this topic which seems to be the genesis of conflict. Instead of an IBAN, I would personally volunteer to involve myself in this article to increase the range of voices, if the discussion could be restarted in the form of a new and fresh proposal and the previous 3 sections archived. That might be unconventional but an IBAN should really be avoided in this case if at all possible IMO as it would leave the article derelict of editors. ]]] 13:28, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
::I wouldn't mind a new proposal. Perhaps the reason why I have been pushing strongly first for a rename, and then a split, is because . , and ] - My guess on why this behavior is this way has to do with ]. I first started ]. After he suggested making a ] I started it, and the interaction went south. I had the impression he thought the content from other parts of the province was neglected, so I would make one to collect the rest of the info, but he saw it as preventing a merge/page move he felt should take place. I was seeing as "I started the article on the subject I want to write about, and you can write about the subject you want to write about here, so we both can be happy". In retrospect I should have made a userspace draft as such a thing is easily reversible and not on the mainspace. ] (]) 14:14, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

My interactions with the user began here:
{{collapse top|WhisperToMe's note}}
]

For full disclosure: There was one edit in October I made where I was criticized by ], in ] (background is in the first post about Air India) - He argued that I had made an error in conduct
* See: "Antidiskriminator (talk) 08:36, 23 October 2014 (UTC)"

It concerns this text that I made at (WhisperToMe (talk) 10:09, 18 October 2014 (UTC) ):
"Oops. I didn't mean to imply that I'm of Indian heritage. I'm not of Indian heritage. Nonetheless, I have a revelation that you may be interested in. Let's discuss a lovely thing called WP:GNG. Let's review what it says.
"If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list."
So what do we have? "

Talk page discussions about the reply:
* ]
* ]
I don't recall receiving any messages like that since October. Antidiskriminator also talked to the user here: ]

On 2 November ] asked both of us (myself and Skookum) to let other people talk: ] and ]

In November a user reported that there were no issues on my end in that discussion: ]

"Comment 4: Skookum1's behaviour here has been pretty awful. Skookum1 should review WP:CIVIL and take it seriously. I commend WhisperToMe for keeping remarkably calm in the face of Skookum1's provocations, and for not being drawn into the cesspool of personal attacks and obscenities. We really don't need that in Misplaced Pages. Ground Zero | t 13:59, 14 November 2014 (UTC)"
{{collapse bottom}}
I haven't received any other feedback about my conduct.
] (]) 14:06, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

::My past interactions with Skookum1 were not so positive and in line with the behavior quoted above. He went to the wall saying nasty things to defend an erroneous news report about a birth name at ], a position overturned by other editors in a RfC. A one way interaction ban may be justified. ] (]) 18:07, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
::I've only had positive experiences with ] and I don't see anything here that's really terrible. But as I said, I'm happy to become active in this thread as a third voice if both parties think that would be helpful and a fresh start to whatever the major edit question going on here could be proffered via a new section and the closing/archiving of all previous discussions. ]]] 23:20, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
::::If it's okay, Document, would it be alright if you commented on the following views from me? These are my observations on the matter.
{{collapse top|WhisperToMe's observations}}
::::* Everyone comes in with a set of knowledge, and some people do know more about a subject than others. Misplaced Pages is very clear that verifiability is an important cornerstone, and so even if you know something, you have to present evidence (as per ]). The requirement for exact page cites/chapter cites is not instruction creep, and it's not a trivial/unimportant detail. It's meant to protect the encyclopedia from mistakes. Everyone makes mistakes, and I don't want to be caught in a "you think you know but it just ain't so" situation. It's also why ''possession of the works you are citing from'' is very important, so you can go back and double-check what they say. Especially after the ] there is a reason to strongly emphasize "these are the sources I have, here are the page numbers, this is what the text says" versus "this is who I am" and trying to use that as leverage in a discussion
::::** Somebody else brought that up here: ] "Per Kwami, also I want to see reliable sources that establish that one usage is now more common or preferred over another - we can't simply take Skookum1s word for that, that is not how wikipedia works." (from ]) - I think this point needs to be ''strongly reinforced''. {{ping|User:Maunus}}
::::* Many replies are way too long. The personal tone and length makes them unpleasant to read, and I think this discourages other people from participating in the discussions. I think people said nothing to try to make it go away, but I think the best thing to do now is to address it.
::::** I think I have ''my own problem'' with making "lists of sources" too long, so a trick I have decided to do from now on is hatting the lists of sources/concerned edits so people aren't scared by the length of the reply.
::::* When you edit a super-local topic, many readers/fellow editors won't be from the area. Things that seem obvious to you are in fact not obvious. It means having patience with people not from the area, and taking extra effort to cite your sources to verify what you know.
::::* It is necessary to see all editors as equals, even those who are new and not from your area, even those of a different age.
{{collapse bottom}}
::::What do you think of these comments? ] (]) 07:22, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
:::::I think I've had plenty of patience with you, despite your ongoing impatience and imperious judgment-mongering and very often rephrasing/distorting what I said; as has the even more uninformed person on . When I mention other wikipedia articles, or events I know from my own readings ''on talkpages'' demanding page-cites rather than simple book cites is ''NOT'' called for by ]; I've given plenty of talkpage "here, go read this" recommendations and instead seeking help combating me.....he doesn't see me as an equal, but as an ''enemy''. I think your comments are just more of teh same; you rejected me as a local informant ''right off the bat'' and there's another OR/ANI in the archives about that....and this is not a "super-local topic", this is a general history of a major Canadian province, with much more depth and breadth than he understands... or is even willing to give some t hought to, instead treating all I say with AGF and an implicit NPA. And Maunus, Maunus is a fierce Skookum1 hater see ]; his comments there should have seen him banned for life, instead here you are resarching what others ahve said about me ''instead of researching the topic'' as I have been doing while you have been ranting about me...to try and rfield the very sources you're ''too preoccupied with opposing me'' to deign to look for.] (]) 07:50, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
:::::::::I am not a "fierceSkookum1 hater" I am a colleague who has found it very hard to collaborate with you for the same reasons WhispertoME is mentioning. 1. Your idea that your personal knowledge and identity has any relevance or validity as leverage in discussions or as a source of information for articles. 2. Your egocentered, abrasive and agressive argumentation style, and your extreme longwinded rambling answers. Yes I have had my temper flare up in our discussions with you and said rude things, but not an ounce ruder than you have treated myselkf and others, and not an ounce ruder than you have deserved. You are an angry mastodon to be sure, but one with extremely thin skin - you like to give out thrashings left and right, but act like an offended 4 year old when someone gives you back. Whenever you have decided to stick to the point, argue based on sources and rational argumentation, and follow basic policy I have had no problem with you. That has not been as often as I would have wished, but it has happened on several occasions.] 08:07, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
::::::::::given the amount of time this hornswoggle ANI has already taken, I'm not going to bother to do dig up your various explicit hostilities abut me, or the ANI you launched which was full of lies I did not bother responding to but did comment later when it was archived, and saw that reversed; that ANI, groundless and NPA as it was, was closed "no result". That "angry mastodon" comment is far worse than my "linguistics cabal" caution which earned me a block warning; you say rude things all the time, and distort things I and others have said; and in the case of BC history and geography, the idea that my knowledge has " relevance or validity" is poppycock; I've been trying to ''help'' and ''educate'' him and pointing him at things he should be reading and providing examples of things that put the lie to gaffes and simplistic distortions/generalizations in his selection of academia and political writings. He's been the one rejecting me, not wanting to listen to me, instead seeking support to silence or negate me, or as with recruiting you here, to denounce me. ''INSTEAD'' of researching content/sources as I have been doing while all his ranting, and this ANI, has been going on.

::::::::::I know the material, know what sources have what in them, even if I can't provide page-cites (which aren't needed on talkpage discussions though he's behaving as if they were), and have a concern that "fair" coverage of "white" British Columbians is not being provided by those sources, or his selections from them. He's the one more concerned with opposing the very person he could learn much from; the article is a pastiche of TRIVIA and UNDUE and sometimes even what amounts to SPAM; but he doesn't know the province or its milieu, only what he reads in academia and what he's looking for to bolster his line of thinking. But these are wasted words on you, you don't see that he's doing the same "walls of text" and BLUDGEONing behaviour I so regularly get accused of and that nearly anything he comments about me or to me is AGF/NPA as if, to quote you, "we can't simply take Skookum1s word for that" in our own uncalled for AGF/NPA campaign to block all those the RMs on all those speedies hat Kwami pulled without discussion and proceeded to tooth-and-nail any attempt to revert them to their stable and wiki-consistent forms they had had for so long..... on BC history and geogrpahy, I'm the "go-to guy" for resources and clarifications; here I'm being treated as a liar and "not to be believed".] (]) 08:29, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

:::::::::], in response to your request for a comment from me let me say that I understand and empathize with your frustration. However, I think that when you have two editors with diametrically opposed editorial viewpoints editing in a single niche article in which no other editors are active, this is a situation that often develops after a protracted period (and it seems this has been a slow devolution that's occurred over a period of time). I don't know anything about you, but you seem like a fine editor. I have edited on a couple of occasions with Skookum1 and have had nothing but a pleasant experience at those times, even though (IIRC) we were on the opposite ends of a content debate.
:::::::::I don't believe either you or ] has done anything that can't be chalked up to the natural evolution of human emotions and interaction in this circumstance. Taking a holistic view with all that under consideration I just don't believe there's anything here that can't be addressed through a fresh start supported by the introduction of one or two additional GF editors into this article to provide a greater diversity of viewpoints. The only thing I can say at this point is that, again, I am happy to provide myself as one of those viewpoints if the two of you think that is an advisable path forward (if so, someone please leave a message on my Talk page as I'm unlikely to check this thread again). The topic of this article is not one in which I have any interest at all so I probably could be effectively neutral. Again, these are just my drive-by observations and they might be wrong (maybe massively so). ]]] 10:46, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
:::::::::*], I appreciate your feedback here, particularly as I'm concerned that this may turn into yet another filibuster, but I would ask you: do you think that hidden, personal comments about other editors are appropriate in article space, such as ? --] (]) 11:59, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
:::::::::::<del>To be honest, ], I didn't see that comment until you posted it just now. That said, I don't find it that egregious. It was certainly a pointed remark, but within a holistic view of the evolution of the Talk page, I didn't think it was really outrageous. Skookum1 seems frustrated by repeated calls for the presentation of RS in Talk, while WTP is frustrated by Skookum1's expression of his frustration. IMO, neither editor is really at fault, this is just one of the daily conflicts of life. That said, you seem better informed generally of the situation than I am so if there was a more sinister subtext which I did not pick-up on I, of course, trust your judgment. As I noted below, my original comment was really just a drive-by observation and should not be taken with any more gravity or import than that. If it was not helpful, I apologize.</del> ]]] 12:09, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
::::::::::::::], I believe feedback is always helpful, especially in cases where people may be reluctant to wade in. Although I disagree with you about the egregiousness of bringing personal disputes into article space, I appreciate your opinion. :) --] <sup>]</sup> 12:26, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::Sorry, Moonriddengirl, I was multi-tasking and didn't notice the edit in question was in article space as opposed to talk space. I strike my comment (without prejudice to either editor). ]]] 12:48, 7 January 2015 (UTC)


::::::::::::::::That's not quite right, DocumentError; I name RS ''all the time'', including many accepted as valid on various other pages about "content WMT doesn't know or care about " or just doesn't want to admit could be real. His interpretation of RS and V is that ''page-cites'' are "required", which as per my other comment about that below, is ''NOT'' what WP:V or WP:RS say; he's extrapolating and projecting ]age with his personal "synth" of what he claims the guideline says ''but doesn't'', and then being all wiki-cop about it saying he'll delete anything that doesn't have a page cite. WTF? Who's he to be so high-handed ''about things he doesn't know about'' when he's only just begun to be even ''aware'' of BC history, never mind its social geography and the political complexities he's wading into (and I don't mean ethno-history, I mean the presence of Chinese and Indo-Canadians prominent in BC politics...and crime/gangs). Good judgment and "knowledge of the field" are "required" and all that stuff has to be "handled with care"; I added certain "notables" to the page yesterday that are in need of doing for a long time, but as witnessed by the ongoing "weird" activity at ] and ] it's an area I'm averse to getting much involved with; and re the Chinese, it's rather strange that given the role of the tongs and the history of the opium/heroin trade in Vancouver that's not in the article, but then it's not in any of he sources he uses which avoid so much while conflating and distorting much else (actually I recall one "new history" article which discussed white women being found in opium dens in China, deconstructing it to denounce Victorian values of course).

::::::::::::::::I've read dozens of those things, and the "tone" is always the same; and egregious historical and geographic gaffes are regularly made in the same breath as very judgement and negative generalizations about evil ol' whiteman. Want to build a POV article? Use only POV sources/passages and fight like hell to get anyone in your way off your back, and despite "his frustration at my frustration" it's ''HIM'' that's been conducting an ongoing campaign to discredit me and/or rally others to his cause; especially my "enemies" it seems, with out-of-context nastiness being trumped up here from the distant past to "build his case"; his agenda being to get me out of his way, perpetrate the POV fork he wants so it conforms to ''his'' parameters of "ethnicity-by-city", a cause which he went at when I pointed out no otehrs existed in Canada other than the Jews-in-Montreal one and certain very specific others; he created maybe 10 articles all in one day, throwing up quotes and formatting them so they were more than stubs, but they're just placeholders; ] was an obvious POV fork of ] but I changed it to Ontario, because of Markham and other places; same as I changed his "Vancouver-limited" Indo-Canadians title to "in teh Lower Mainland" because of the very prominent Indo-Canadian community in Abbotsford-Mission, just outside the GVRD boundaries, which he thinks somehow is in isolation from Surrey, only 10-15 miles away.....he argued and argued and, to prevent me from changing ''taht'' tittle to "in British Columbia" as I'd done with this one, as Indo-Canadian society and history in BC are not limited by region boundaries, and his notions of what "urban" and "rural" mean in BC is taht of a distant person with a greasy spyglass.

::::::::::::::::The merge discussion on that he stonewalled to the point where even the RfC person he called in couldn't make sense of it, so we have a pair of POV forks caused by him there, and here, and he went at them without even ''looking'' at what else in teh way of Canadian content there is; he's on an agenda, and says plainly on his talkpkage, and he doesn't want anyone in his way. He's shown no sign of being respectful or admitting I might know what I'm talking about, instead launches tirades and loud demands about '''''page-cites''''' where they're not even required and claims I'm not providing RS because I don't have the books handy to give page-cites; which you, DocumentError, were perhaps misled by something he said ''about what I said but did not'', as he has so often done in talkpage after talkpage and discussion board after discussion board. Again, I point to RS all the time, he gets anal and demanding and impatient about page-cites, when he ''knows'' I'm even farther from British Columbia at present and can't "comply" with his Borg-like demands.

::::::::::::::::Despite his supposedly soft speech, his actions are aggressive and negative and ''not productive''; he wants a big stick to drive me away....from watching out for my own province's/country's history from misportrayals by well-meaning but uninformed people who've ''never been there'' and only ''just'' started writing articles about it...apparently scanning for sound-bite type content, and any old bit of trivia or community-bulletin board content..while being completely hostile to the idea that others might know of content that should be on there... and point him to places he could learn about that; instead he comes here, calls in RfC, and alleges indirectly and otherwise that I'm dishonest and 'not to be trusted'. I'm no fool, I see the campaign and know it for what it is, and have seen this kind of thing before, whether from ethno-agendists like him or from political interlopers like on ], and ]...and oh yes, ] and ] where he'll find others like him ready to come here and denounce me but where ''they lost'' their attempts to POVize and censor content; which is his agenda here, ''plain and simple''. Other than that obvious fact, as a review of what he has added and waht he has fought off or denounced or challenged clearly demonstrates, he's exhibiting very obvious WP:OWN behaviour and seems determined to have "sole authorship" and ''does not want to cooperate with an experienced Wikipedian who's already contributed LOTS in thie particular topic-area''....and is tired of being harassed and insulted, and needs his pills and some dinner...sorr this was so long it was only meant to be about RS, but this is not a simplistic matter despite the simplistic arguments and misrepresenations being made about me, adn about the content. Has he gone and read any of t he cites I added to the CCinBC talkpage yet? No, I'll be he's writing up another 100-word essay, with footnotes, just like ]'s juicy quote about such behaviour when you tell someone of thtat background he's wrong; he can't admit he's wrong he'd lose face; he'd rather shame and denounce the person telling him he's wrong, and demand that they be punished for making him feel bad. I need my dinner...and to remember to say away from this hell-hole tomorrow, this procedural war has been going on for weeks, and doesn't look like it's giong to stop. Instead of reading, and ordering books if he's so damned interested in the topic (instead of only reviews of them...maybe he can find some Coles Notes too, to help him out so he doesn't actually have t o buy a book), and ''LEARNING'' he's here battling somebody into the ground who is the ''very person'' who could teach him a lot....but hey he has a degree and I'm just some angry old white guy with no degree (though I do have eight years of post-sec, just no walking papers), and he's learned to speak softly and ask others to use ''their'' big stick. I know a lot about my province's history and care about how it's portrayed a whole lot. To me he's a an "ethno-cultural imperialist" fond of revisionist and revanchist sources. ] (]) 13:40, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::Sorry, ]. I stand duly corrected. That was poor wording on my part. I meant only to reference your note below that page cites for talk page discussions on material unlikely to be challenged are not customary or necessary. ]]] 13:52, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
{{collapse top|WhisperToMe's statements on sourcing}}
:::{{ping|User:DocumentError}} {{ping|User:Skookum1}} When I said page cites are needed, I didn't mean that every single thing you say on a talk page has to have cite. What I meant was: If you want to challenge what a source says, if you argue that a source is incorrect, you need to provide a better source to challenge it (with page numbers and text, as access to the source is important), and/or a source that directly contradicts the claims made by the first source. The principle reason why I asked for sources is that I was told the existing sources I was using (such as Paul Yee) were wrong. Example: "" and "" I wanted verification that this is indeed the case. If there is no verification that the sources are flawed and the sources qualify as "reliable sources" on Misplaced Pages, then I feel they cannot be challenged. I feel that if I cite from a source, the source should not be second-guessed ''unless'' evidence comes out from another source showing that it did make a mistake. For example, the historical mistakes in '']'' (and the ones carried over to '']'') are documented in later books and this how the community knows it's a flawed source.
:::AFAIK is different from a source occasionally making a minor error in fact (this happens in RSes and I knew this from reviews of ]): Example: ]. I was able to check the Misplaced Pages page to see that the war indeed started years later, so I figured Shibao Guo may have made an error in fact there
:::I had been told that all of the sources I am using are wrong and I should use other ones without being given the exact page/article citations proving the sources I'm using are wrong (]). That is putting an inappropriate burden on me. ] is clear on who has the burden of proving content.
:::] (]) 18:37, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
{{collapse bottom}}

*'''Comments''' I don't have time today for all this gabble; re ''"I haven't received any other feedback about my conduct"'', he seems to have forgotten {{ping|User:Themightquill}}'s advice that while my "tone" is questionable, 9 times out of 10 (or more) I'm right about the materials and information I bring forward; over and over and over again.
{{collapse top|Skookum1's reply}}
::*Legacypac is a "hostile" who edit-warred and used false and/or misleading edit comments on his POV and censoring manipulations of the Ottawa page, which I delisted because of the stress and because others had come forward who recognized the issues I raised so that Legacypac and others like him in the "terrorism claque" do not have free rein to use such events to advance the "terror agenda".

::*DocumentError echoes what you will hear from editors aplenty, that I work well with others ''who work well with others''. {{ping|User:Floydian}}, {{ping|User:Skeezix}}, {{ping|User:Carrite}}, {{ping|User:CLippert}}, {{ping|User:Mindmatrix}}, {{ping|User:CambridgeBayWeather}}, {{ping|User:VolcanoGuy}}, and various others can attest to the scale of my contributions; even {{ping|User:GroundZero}} and {{ping|User:Resolute}}, who have been at times at odds with me, will attest to my knowledge and dedication and that I ''don't make things up'' as WMT is constantly impugning about me. Moonriddengirl, you say you were shocked by my tone, but you were a late-comer to the ongoing ''''''MASS''''' of talkpage and discussion board wall-papering of forumshopping to try to stop me from everything from correcting the name of ], including his "war" over that term alleging it was right because some non-Canadian source is so out of touch that they use that instead of "Indo-Canadians". ''Then'' he went to war over ''that'', and wanted to merge it to ], and his "walls of cites" and original research analysis of things he's selectively looked have kiboshed merge discussions and RMs alike. He's right, it started with him being confrontational about the Air India bombing supposedly not being covered, and ''ordering'' "us" to do it, just as he ''demanded'' "I want an answer immediately" in his latest talkboard attack on me at the OR board, '''''which I consider a rank NPA/AGF alleging that I'm lying'''''.

::*So that, Moonridden girl, is UNCIVIL, as is constantly warring with me on nearly anything I say, including pointing him to resources that, rather than go look for them, or read the other related Misplaced Pages articles (he POV-forked big-time on the creation of CCinBC, but he has a stated agenda of building a global "ethnicity-by-city" series of titles, and titles that don't fit that model he just doesn't want in his way; despite the existence of ] and other articles already covering "Chinese in Vancouver"; also a term he went to war about, even bringing it to the CANTALK page disputing that it's a global term so "Greater Vancouver" isn't needed; a long-dead issue.

::*It seems that I can't tell him about something I know without him demanding a page-cite because he doesn't believe me; and wants others to take action that he can continue to ] his stable of articles; he wants me out of his way. But of all Wikipedians, I'd venture, I'm the one most "up" on BC history and geography and as many know, I built a lot of the content and category structure for those areas in BC, and I also made sure that Chinese content was on town/region/gold rush et al. articles; so it's not like I'm trying to oppose Chinese Canadian history, as is the other thing his ongoing attacks on my subtextually assert, but rather trying to see that it gets dealt with fairly; and not written as an ethno-politics bulletin board or tract. His sources are biased and have huge numbers of bad geographic and historical gaffes and "false statements", which is a problem of that particular school of "thought" (soapboxing); he rejects the idea that there are things that are out there that he doesn't know of yet, nor did his oh-so-hoity-toity academic sources.

::*The idea that a bulldozering OWNership artist's battleground behaviour on ''nearly anything'' would lead to ''me'' having an interaction ban re BC history or geography articles is absurd; he knows little about BC, has never been there, knows none of the rest of the province's historical and social context other than his snippets of cites (he can't possibly have read them ''ALL'', given he posts dozens at a time), and rather than researching and learning, he's waging war. Here's what I say: interaction ban, fine, but to me that means a topic ban for ''him'' and he can go to some other country and continue his "ethnicity by city" agenda there; the article is a mess, full of TRIVIA and UNDUE and bad writing and POVism....and because of his warring and procedural games, now including this one though Moonriddengirl started it, I haven't had time to add to the non-WMT content on that article re gold rush history and smalltowns in the Interior and more; it's all the stuff he, and his sources, don't know about and given his behaviour don't ''want'' to know about, as it's in the way of the ethno-bias they advance;

::*his ] demand that page-cites be provided - which is an extenuation of the citation guidelines and rule-mongering; that simple book-cites aren't enough for him ''because I can't be believed'' is plain and simple AGF and a vulgar NPA not just insinuating that I am a liar, which is a gross insult given my years here and teh begrudging respect I've earned, even from those who don't like my straight-talking style, about my scope of knowledge and of the resources out there. Being treated as he has been doing ''since day one'' is what is UNCIVIL, Moonriddengirl, and his behaviour on ''all'' titles he's started is plainly OWN and nothing but.

::*That I might see a topic ban on an area of my ''own province's'' history I know very well because of the battleground and OWN and POV behaviour of someone in another country working from biased and/or faulty sources is ludicrous; he needs to cool his jets, stop being so frigging demanding and impatient and re things like demanding page-cites, cool it with the anal OCD behaviour. He's creating articles and dart-boarding them with ethno-trivia so rapidly they're pastiches and too many to watch all at once; how he finds the time to write his discussion page diatribes against me I don't know; the impatience of the young, plus their incredulity and hostility towards thsoe who know more than them, or who tell them things they don't want to hear, is an ongoing problem in Misplaced Pages, and older, well-informed editors like myself should not have to deal with "I don't believe you" and cite-demands and discussion-board warring. Wiki-copping by someone who ''doesn't even know the material'' and clearly has no respect or good faith in another, long-established Wikipedian, from the topic-turf he's only so recently invaded, is what is disruptive; ''not me''. Is throwing up his anti-Skookum1 tirades helping improve the article or the encyclopedia? No.

::*why is he warring with me when he hasn't even begun to look at the vast array of sources out there I pointed him to? I looked up his user contributions and it seems he has opted out of the edit summary tools; so I can't see what percentage of his contributions are talkpage contributions vs actual work on articles. I'm betting 60-40 or 70-30, from what I've seen. Here I am, another hour of my day taken up with yet more procedure and yet more walls-of-cite distortions/whining by the very person who's been so difficult and confrontational to deal with, and condescending too; so much wrong with his behaviour I'm ''AGHAST'' that he's an admin.

::*his combativeness and ongoing disruptive and hostile and OWN behaviour should go to RFA as I think he should ''not'' continue to have admin powers, as he clearly has little good judgement and

::*as one of the authors I cited, who I know personally, re the content commented when I showed him the CCinBC talkpage, ''"Hmmm. Well, I think I have a copy of Dan's dissertation. What is this guy's beef exactly? He's not exactly coherent..."'' (he's referring to Dan Marshall's ''Claiming the Land'' PhD dissertation which broke new ground in BC historiography (he's a protege of ] of ''The Resettlement of British Columbia'') which I brought up to oppose some ''bad content'' form WMT's "academic but inaccurate" sources about there being only 300 Chinese gold miners at t he start; the first boatload, yes, but hundreds of boats made the trip in the next months; within a month Victoria had gone from 300 people to 30,000, about a thid of them Chinese - according to Marshall; but not according to the badly-written sources that WMT seems as infallible. I'll actually be able to page-cite Marshall, as it sounds like Don (Hauka) is going to email me a digital form of it; I'll consult Dan and see if it's copyrighted or if it's citable online; and what reviews there are about it. Last night I went through the first three pages of BC books on nosracines.ca and linked on Talk:CCinBC books found that a search for "Chinese" will get results; he'll complain I didn't format the links properly, no doubt, even though it's talkpage and not article. the page of the ] has lots more. But he's not reading them ''or even trying to look'', he's writing lengthy talkpage attacks/complaints instead and being .... as frustratingly stubborn as always. "Doesn't work well with others" and has no ] for a person who could be very helpful in his studies, including I've suggested book-translation projects for him, since he's suddenly so very now interested in BC, but instead he attacks me again....and others like you, Moonriddengirl, see only the surface and the result of ongoing and both arrogant and misinformed/biased warring on content and on talkpages.

::*So here's "what", as far as I'm concerned:
*he should be told to cooperate with others knowledgeable about the topic area he's coopted for his empire-building and treat them with good faith; and not demand page-cites and other OCD crap which is utterly AGF, just as his forum-shopping and discussion board diatribes are implicitly NPA, and ''NOT'' CIVIL in the slightest; obstinate and disruptive in "soft speech" is often far more UNCIVIL than plain old "you're a jackass" rudeness; it is uncooperative in the extreme and not the way to write a balanced, informed article; rather the opposite.

::*He should spend time reading more BC history, outside of his narrow-field ethno-history sources, before adding much more to the article, which needs massive revision, as do his other opuses on Indo-Canadians and other ethnicity-articles he's started, "staking out turf" on peoples and places he doesn't have any direct experience of.

::*If he doesn't want to change his aggressive and obstructionary and actually defamatory attitude and actions towards me, and doesn't broaden his view of BC history outside the narrow ethno-bias he's been cultivating, and his particular geo-bias t hat he'd ''like'' to have (to fulfill his OWN agenda), then if there's an interaction ban, the very simple way to accomplish that without cutting me off from BC history and society articles is ''for him to find somewhere else on the planet to go appropriate and pontificate and edit-war about''

::*How much otherwise productive time has been taken up by ongoing procedural board-talk since he first showed up on CANTALK making demands and insinuations a few months ago? Way too many. If I could see his edit summary, it would be I'm sure very telling as to where he spends his time when on Misplaced Pages.

::*his articles need "eyes on", they're random assemblages of found trivia, and credulous rendering of quoted material out of context, and without any effort to represent or understand "the other side of the story" and he makes no effort to listen to advice. ''NONE AT ALL'' including Themightyquill's comments about me generally being right despite my tone.
:If this ANI is going to take up days of people arriving to denounce me for making poor little WMT feel bad (and how do you think ''I feel'', hm?), then despite my efforts and goodwill, if this results in a "bad call" that trashes me while shoring up a (to me) very irresponsible, rude and juvenile-in-attitude/behaviour edit, it may be time for me to leave Misplaced Pages for the seventh or eighth time; I always get asked back, or find myself "coming back in" because of POV manipulations, often, of native content/vandalism problems. Have a look at the star/badge section of my Userpage re that, just because WMT doesn't want to RESPECT me (as in ] which needs to be rewritten) doesn't mean that others don't respect me so much that they ask me to come back and/or not go away.

::*he wants to drive me away, even get me blocked perhaps; I was pondering pointing to the OR board underway as an ANI myself, on NPA/AGF and other grounds, but internet service here in Cambodia is spotty so I was offline yesterday; and that I am regularly painted as the bad guy, just as MRG has started out with here, makes me shy away from using procedure to deal with problematic behaviour of this kind; and no wonder, given how much of my life, time and blood pressure aggressive attack ANIs have cost me this last few years; how much I could have contributed in the way of content and ongoing edits/maintenance instead of having to deal with obstructionism and ignorance is incalculable.
{{collapsebottom}}

::*I know my stuff, and have been trying to educate him; he's been rude in response, and procedurally and talkpage combative and NPA towards me; and yet it's ''me'' that's the attack-point in this ANI. MRG, you don't know the material (all of why I say what I say about him), just as he doesn't know BC history/geography or the full range of sources and reality/facts out there that he doesn't have a clue about; and apparently wants to remain as clueless as his "academic" sources are, even though there's sources aplenty that put the lie to the silly and biassed claims/statements that they so often make/allege.

::*I have no more time for this today; how many hours of my life is his nonsense towards me going to take? the young have time to waste, it seems, but the old (I turned 59 two months ago) find time is precious and want to put it to good use; and we all (old folks) find it disturbing that the young are so disespectful...and so ignorant about the past, or what others who are older than them have to say. ] has various passages but none, as yet, about "wiki-elders" such as myself (another editor I'm working with is 84); just as there is an oingonig discussion about female editors in Misplaced Pages, there needs to be one about older Wikipediasn and the barriers to ''them'', male or female, which include having to deal with "walls of b.s." procedure/talkpage/guideline warring like WMT is so clearly full-time at doing.] (]) 04:06, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

::::Skookum, I will attest to your knowledge and dedication, and that I have never believed you would "make something up". However, I would argue that you often do not handle conflict well and are generally better off when left to your own devices. That, alas, is not always possible here. Where you say you work well with others who work well with others, that is really just a fancy way of saying you rarely are opposed by those editors. And, other than the sentence I was mentioned in, I won't even pretend that I read that giant wall of text. Summary style man, not blog style. That said, nothing I say here should be viewed as commentary on this dispute, or on WMT, as I have not paid attention to this dispute at all. In that regard, I must trust Moonriddengirl's assessments. In any case, I wish {{u|DocumentError}} good luck with their offer of attempting to resolve this dispute. ]] 04:31, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
:::::The intense irony of ''"Summary style man, not blog style"'' is what you shoudl be telling WMT; would you like a list of all the places where his ongoing blather and "walls of cites" have sought to ] merge discussions, RMs, and ''other'' ANI/OR board "discussions" with yet more "walls of text" ''even longer than I have been blocked and threatened with bans over''. yet here again, pot-kettle-black. And at issue is the history of my own province being overrun by an agenda-ist who doesn't know the history-at-large, is on a POV bias-campaign and looks for POV material in POV sources, and carpet-bombs any discussion, and regularly makes overt implications that I am a liar; he's committing NPA/AGF with ''each and every one'' of his "walls of text"; all the while not following the leads I provide for him, instead demanding page cites ''RIGHT NOW'' (even though I'd told him my last few days were in life-crisis; others here know I have high blood pressure and that other withdrawals form Misplaced Pages were because of similar stressful combativeness by POV/OR artists on the Ottawa shootings article, ], and the "Kwami War" which I'm sure you remember, as others here must. And if you can't be bothered to read "walls of text" and so don't even read ''his'' walls of text either......then whatever I have said you have blithely passed over once again. But yes, while you say nobody disputes me that's not true; and many collaborate with me on various topics and respect my knowledge of hsitory/geography/sources and don't throw up board discussion after talkpage discussion after board discussion after talkpage discussion time and over again, instead of acknowledging that he doesn't know twaddle about what he's posting up POV content and TRIVIA and UNDUE about and might actually learn something from a real live British Columbian. But nope, Skookum1 is the bad guy, once again, for getting frustrated by somebody else's disruptive and obstructionist behaviour.....] (]) 06:54, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
::::::As I said, my comment here does not reflect on the dispute that brought everyone to ANI because I have not paid attention to it. But you pinged me here in the expectation that I would act entirely in your defence. Instead, I gave my truthful view of both the defence you were asking for (which I agree with and support) and your argument that you work well with others (which I don't necessarily agree with). But in terms of your "intense irony", you know I have suggested in the past that your wall of text debate style is often counterproductive. If you have finally found an opponent as verbose as you, then I hope you at least begin to understand how difficult it is to parse. And if your opponent is that verbose, then I would suggest they need to keep the very same thing in mind - people don't read walls of text. They just become background noise that drowns out salient points. ]] 20:26, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

*'''Comment''' I can't the particular latest invocation by him of ] and he claims that it's not ] to demand page-cites as per that guideline; in fact is ''is'' instruction creep, as his position does not appear in that guideline and appears to be an extraplation/combination of its first two paragraphs:
::*''All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing a citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution.

::*''Attribute all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. Cite the source clearly and precisely (specifying page, section, or such divisions as may be appropriate). The citation must clearly support the material as presented in the article. See Citing sources for details of how to do this.''
:*"The burden to demonstrate verifiability...is satisfied by providing a citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution." is plain and simple and can refer to a book cite without page-cites as we often see around Misplaced Pages. The next paragraph is in reference ''only'' to "all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged" - yet I have field no quotations, and the only person challenging what I know to on other wikipedia pages, and in cites and sources I point to, is ''him''. Demanding page-cites so demandingly for ''talkpage discussions'' is ''NOT IN THE GUIDELINE''.] (]) 08:01, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' because of an edit conflict with Maunus, I lost the place this bit was meant to go into:
**Since you're researching anything negative about me that you can find - rather like your habit of looking for anything in your ethno-history sources that's negative about European/British-ancestry and only adding ''that'' - and are trying to recruit people who might have something to say about me in the hopes you can get me blocked and out of your bulldozing way, why not ]. Of cousre, you don't want positive input about me....anything but huh? I've pinged some of them, but can't go around asking for comment myself directly; seems to me I deserve a barnstar for "speaking truth to ignorance" something like the "speaking truth to power" which {{ping|User:Viriditas}} gave me in relation to keeping Legacypac and his ilk from the POVism/censoring of the Ottawa shootings article;

**My position about this ANI is what it has been since my first reply; that it is misplaced and the wrong person being accused of being at fault for the "battlefield" conduct he's been waging against me. His researching others' negative comments about me, some very old, is very clearly a personal attack, and "not fair" - but then neither are his preferences in sources and content, ''either''.] (]) 08:13, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
*'''comment to MRG'' in your exposition you say "his requiring verification of Skookum's perspective" but give your head a shake; verification with page-cites is NOT called for by ANY guideline, and it's not "perspective" I've been providing, but examples of events and articles and resources he needs to read to ''broaden HIS perspective''. The only "perspective" I have is that NPOV is not served by his articles, and that they are effectively POV forks, and badly-written ones, albeit with massive cite-farms and link-farms that he cannot possibly have read; among so much else that he doesn't know about. He's also pushing above for a POV fork split ''again'' after that was already shot down by RM/consensus over a month ago; his agenda is "ethnicity-by-city" but frankly he doesn't even understand the boundaries and geography of the city ("Vancouver" meaening in his world the ]/] (either or both apply internationally; even Whistler is written of as though it were part of Greater Vancouver which it is expressly ''not'') and dosn't 'get" that Chinese history and society in BC is not defined by the city's boundaries, or that of its formal "metropolitan" area the GVRD/Metro Vancouver; the informal "metropolitan" are includes the ]; My "perspective" is frm someone who knows his province's history and geography, and also what else is out there on Misplaced Pages already, which he ignored when he started hias POV forking and OR thesis-writing.] (]) 08:41, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

::], in response to your note above that I am a latecomer, this is true. I do not say that WhisperToMe hasn't been a problem; I say ''if he is'' that you need to resolve this problem differently, if you are to be involved in resolving it. My efforts to get you to moderate your tone and use proper dispute resolution have unfortunately not succeeded. You indicate that some of the people who have issues with your behavior above are combative or have disagreed with you in the past - so far as I know, you and I have never disagreed, and I am not in the habit of attacking people. Even if he is doing something wrong, it doesn't give you license to attack him, with fresh comments (not stale) like "he's just ill-informed ''and prejudiced''" (from the 6th; diff in my opening note above; emphasis in original). Moreover, it's ineffective. Demonstrably in this case, your tone has become the focal point, and it will impede your efforts to demonstrate why you feel he is a problem.

::A topic ban is not reasonable unless there is consensus that what he's doing is inappropriate and, after being advised of this consensus, he refuses to stop. At this point, such consensus doesn't seem possible because of the battlefield behavior.

::As a side note, you are perhaps incorrectly remembering what he said at ]. He didn't say "I want an answer immediately." In full, he said, "] but based on the last post I feel that I want feedback immediately.]" It was not directed at you, but disclosing that he had tried and switched methods of ]. He is not demanding an immediate answer of you, but requesting quick feedback on your dispute. --] <sup>]</sup> 12:23, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
:::ah, yes, that discussion where he says things about me but didn't notify me, and very wrong things I must add, also; behind my back, and pointedly so, and all of a kind with his many attempts to find others to confront me so he can have a free hand to OWN the article. IMO your interpretation of that line is just enablement, approving of his discussion-board warring ad nauseam. Dispute resolution? - I've been too busy responding to his many attacks and sundry absurdities -and also amassing online resources for him and others to use (hopefully others, because someone with more sophistication and open-mindedness to come along would be just great right about now) which, of course, he's not going to look at because he migth have to admit his biases and POV/biased sources aren't infallible. And re that comment, yes, he's impatient in the extreme, apparently has lots of time; I'm trying to survive in a foreign country and am in ill-health and dire circumstnaces yet here I am, ''because I care about my province's history'' and I care very much about people using Misplaced Pages for soapboxes and POVism of ''any kind''. He wants me t o spend ''my time'' to fulfill his to-me-anal demands for page-cites, claiming guidelines say what they do not...and acting like both a propagandist and info-warrior intent not on reality, but with his own assumed authority over what's right adn wrong in Misplaced Pages and his imperious and ''very'' impatient demands that things be found ''right now''. Pages have sat for years with unref and refimprove tags; he wants them two hours later. Rude and impatient and demanding; and mis-stating things I've said, even back to my face on certain talkpage posts which I'm not going to spend ''yet another hour'' finding and diffing.

:::Please shut this down, it can go nowhere constructively and is taking up valuable time (and some of my health and remaining precious time); his demands for page-cites on talkpages and articles alike are "too much" given his deletionist/hostile nature to what his own choice of sources/quotes build as "their case". An interaction ban can only mean one thing: a topic ban for him that thanks him for his contributions to BC and Canadian ethno-content, but suggests he take his "ethnicity-by-city" self-authored series of articles to some other country where he might actually know about the place a little bit before launching into a war with one of its reisdents, denouncing him and impunging he's a liar and waging procedural war against. Enough already; he should learn to work with me, learn to not challenge ''every damned thing I say'' and give credit wherre credit is due; 50 years of readings, and now 9 years on Misplaced Pages,and over 85,000 edits, and respected as a resource "go-to guy" for where sources are for BC, and about BC history in general. I'm not talking from an "original research" personal-testimony angle, but from someone extremely well-read in the field he's only just got his toes wet; he's not respectful and this ongoing war is what is UNCIVIL....IMO he needs a week off to discipline him and bring him to heel, because without that he will feel vindicated as to this kidn of conduct; he's happy to take up other peoples' time with his demands, his impatience is also an expression of that lack of respect for others. The AGF/NPA from him has been ongoing since our first interaction; he escalates it, takes it to forum after forum, and continues to "wall of text" in response to neaerly anything. I'd rather be working on that artidle and others; not having to keep him from succeeding in getting me gone, which by now is his very evident true agenda. If you don't like what a messenger is saying...shoot him...or rather, get someone else to so you can pretend innocence. And ''never'' admit you're wrong, that would be tantamount to shame, no? I've seen it all before, here and in Misplaced Pages and in the news/propaganda forums and blogs out there, including the pretentiously righteous and those who demand rules be followed. "You must comply", quoth ]. If he's not putting thsoe sourcers I amassed while all this is going on into the article, but preparing another diatribe against me, actions speak louder than words; he doesn't want to learn, he doesn't want anyone else to edit "his" article....] (]) 14:04, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
::::], he did notify you - he told you at ] that he did, and he gave you the link: . It was observing that notice on your talkpage through my watchlist that drew me to look in on how the situation was going. I understand that you may have overlooked it, but it's there and it was posted immediately after the NORN discussion was opened. I'm very sorry to hear about your poor health, but I cannot in good conscience withdraw this request. Even the tone of your comment here concerns me, as it seems to view his behavior entirely in a negative (and in one point demonstrably untrue) light. :( It remains ]. If I felt that you would put aside your obviously strong personal feelings about this user and work out the problem in a collegial manner ("civilly, calmly, and in a spirit of cooperation"), I'd be happy to. --] <sup>]</sup> 15:01, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

== How to deal with well-meaning user adding large chunks of illegible text in highly visible article? ==

The new user ] is editing the highly visible article ] quite extensively. I believe the user is well-meaning, but some edits have been entirely in the form of unsubstantiated personal opinions (''in 1980 ,The city "Ville De Montreal got cheap and stop investing and keeping this beautiful tradition.Less christmas decoration means less shopping, means less spirit.'') (''Theres alot of Gay people that enjoy this neighborhood its very open and respected.'') (''the neighborhood is verry vibrant with bars,clubs,restaurents,late night places,parks,festivals,Tam Tams every Sunday at Mont-Royal.'') , (''Students complain about tuition fees they should complain about this'') and so on. The other problem, already evident in those examples, is that the user writes very poor English. I'm not a native speaker myself and I don't think we should be too strict, but I fear this is too much. Some further examples ''Its also the area for artistic studios and gallery bistro cafes are verry popular here.'' <br> ''The Area aslo Part of the Biggest LGBT community in Canada and in The province of Quebec, There is 2 a Main streets s-Cathrine Ouest and Amherst'' <br> ''Montreal Is the most expansive of all canada and does not tolerate fees cheap for a day.'' <br> ''For 10$ is a day pas very ridiculous when you compare with other cities like Ottawa,Vancouver,Halifax,New york,Detroit,Boston and Toronto''.<br> I don't know quite how to deal with this. I've reverted these edits because of the above reasons (strong personal opinions and improper English) and I've informed the user , but it just goes on. I do think the user has good intentions.] (]) 13:27, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
:This is all just original research and, judging by the slightly off grammar, a slight ] issue. Hopefully, they'll respond to talk page messages and respond here too. Otherwise, a brief block for disruption may need to be levied. ] (]) 23:51, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
*Give them a little time to respond. If they don't, impose a block with the reason of block. They can then explain their behaviour. ] (]) 12:33, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

== Heavy long term abuse by sock army. ==

For several months already, articles related to Uzbeks and to Tajiks have been under attack by a never-ending list of socks of a nationalist Uzbek. This time he calls himself ] and is again performing exactly the same kind of nationalist vandalism in infoboxes (inflating Uzbeks and deleting Tajiks) , that he has already been doing under the names of ], ], ], ], and ]. As per ], I dare say that] is also the same user. This has been going on for several months, and temporary protections and blocks do not really help as the user just continues to create new socks to repeat the same nationalist POV.] (]) 13:47, 6 January 2015 (UTC)


You are wrong at all I'm O.Turani an Uzbek from Afghanistan and all my edits are based on sources. I don't have any relation or contact with above mentioned users. It's better to say there is anti-Uzbek army probably origins from Iran vandalizing Uzbek Identity.
] (]) 14:05, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Absurdity, it you misbehave. I always on sources refer. You in my opinion HistoryOfIran? Tell me what relation has to Tajiks of Al-Biruni, Al-Khwarezmi and other great scientists? Yours faithfully KanishkaKagan ] (]) 14:12, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
*Jeppiz, are you aware of ]? I recommend you go and file a case there, as that will help establish who is a sock and who isn't. Feel free to ask for help on my talk page if you need it :) ] ] 14:52, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
::], that's what I usually do (asking for as SPI]] but I took it here as it gets very tiresome to file requests and when the socks are banned, the user already has a few new socks ready to continue. It's an example of how a dedicated puppetmaster can impose his POV by creating enough socks. Creating an account takes much shorter time than filing an SPI, so those trying to keep tracks of the socks have to spend more than the puppetmaster does. I think it's a bit of a flaw in Misplaced Pages, actually. As I said, this has been going on for months on several uzbek-related articles. And it's not just keeping track of this user there, he also has "delightful" surprises like this one for people disagreeing .] (]) 15:11, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
::*Correct; however, do they usually target the same articles over and over, or are they different each time? If it's the former, then you can file a RFPP request citing the sockpuppetry. Also, if CUs are able to confirm the accounts, then rangeblocks of the underlying IPs ''might'' be able to be applied. ] ] 15:14, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
::::I filed an RFPP last time and it helped for a short time. However, the puppetmaster has around ten articles they target long term. PP is helpful against occasional vandals but does not do much against a dedicated puppet-master who carry on for months.] (]) 15:39, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
::::*If the master keeps coming back to the same articles over and over, particularly if BLP comes into play, then I think you have a good case for very long term protection, maybe even indefinite, if you present the evidence of how long the abuse has gone on for, and how quickly it started again after the previous protection(s) ended. ] ] 16:52, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

*'''Update''' As a case in point, here is yet another account that obviously is the same user (performing exactly the same actions again, and accusing all others of "vandalism"). , . It's clear that the user has a large number of low-activity socks. Honestly, what can we do? RFPP is no good as the user has a very large number of socks (here is just a small list of some of those blocked, but note that several socks of the same user is not include). The sockmaster can quite happily revert four times, as he's currently doing, with some of the socks, and normal users undoing it would risk being blocked for 3RR. Even if some of the socks are banned, it's obvious there are a large number out there.] (]) 16:57, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Do you really pay attention to my references? For example I believe is Uzbek I have reason for this claim and provided reference about him to prove that he was Uzbek. 1rst his tribe is called Barlas, and Barlas is one of 92 tribes of Uzbeks. 2nd eveyone knows that his birth place is located in current Uzbekistan kish city, currently all the population of this city is native Uzbeks. Besides according to his own notes we can understand that his language was Uzbek dialect of Turkic language. So please do vandalize Uzbek historical figures.
] (]) 17:15, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
:], I said I wasn't sure about you. As for the others, I have absolutely no doubt that ] and ] are just the current socks of ] as they are performing exactly the same actions with the same words and the same summaries as the already blocked socks ], ], ], and ].] (]) 19:51, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
{{checkuser needed}} ] <sup>]</sup> 16:58, 6 January 2015 (UTC)


Best thing to do is to get the complete list up on an SPI so that we have a record that we can refer to next time. Then we can evaluate the pattern and decide if any further action (like protection) is needed, and a CU can determine whether rangelocks are plausible and so on. ] &#124; ] 21:14, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
: O.Turani has been blocked before for sockpuppeting. (See ]) They have also repeatedly added unsourced claims that certain historical figures are Uzbeks to the Uzbek article. (See ]) O.Turani did post saying that a source supported their claim that several Timurids were Uzbeks,, but the source directly contradicts that claim, say the Timurids were "rivals and opponents of the Uzbeks. In spite of this,O.Turani has repeatedly added claims that the Timurids were Uzbeks. just like the blocked sockpuppets listed above. ] (]) 00:35, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

I have full respect to your idea but in case you want to write about others identity and history you should reall be careful. You should rely on sources that these people provide to you. I claim that Temurid are Uzbek because their origin is barlas tribe and Barlas is one of 92 tribes of Uzbeks. ] states that Temurid and Uzbeks were rival, well it doesn't prove that they were not Uzbeks. Uzbek nation has big diversity by it's 92 tribe, in the past there was contests with each others. I give you a different example, the ] and ] was rival to each other do you consider the Medians non Iranian? The important issue here is the name of tribe which is Barlas if you ask from any Uzbek he/she states that Barlas and is Uzbek tribe. Besides we all know Mirza Abdul Qadir Bidel he is considered as Uzbek why? Because he is belong to Barlas tribe too. So I suggest you to be logical and do not try to conserve the facts.
Also I'd like to say, whatever you try, generate violence, vandalize Uzbeks identity and history you will not achieve anything because Temurirds are Uzbeks and Vandalism cannot damage this fact. if you are considering sock users, then I'd like say that real sock is
]. Because he directly reverts my edits without discussing my references on talk page. You can check his edits on Uzbeks and Tajiks page. <small><span class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 05:22, 7 January 2015 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

] <sup>]</sup> 4:25, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

== ], edit warring, and user talk page violations by The Banner ==

This post is a request for a simple warning to the title editor on the subject of edit warring, civility, and adherence to ], and that he be required to remove material added to his user Talk page stating his intent to disregard ] and expressing a negative view of other editors in apparent violation of the user Talk page guidelines.

On the article ], The Banner repeatedly restored material to the lede that had been removed by other editors, who had offered the explanations that it was poorly sourced and covered material not addressed in the body of the article as required by ]. The material was repeatedly restored with the explanations:
* That the removal of the material in question was ""
* In response to a request that he discuss his concerns on the Talk page, he reverts again stating that the editor (myself) making this request was engaging in ""
* Reaching his third reversion and unable to continue, he finally comes to the Talk page and again accuses me of "".

This event seen in isolation is certainly not the largest behavior issue of the month at Misplaced Pages, and I probably did not help the situation by failing to recognize that an edit described by The Banner in his edit summary as a reversion actually contained new citations. But it is troubling in the context provided by his user page, which
* States that he intends to pursue his individual ideas about what is best for the encyclopedia . As I understand it, this is a violation of ]
* Features a picture of an individual being run over by a truck, with the caption "Unconventional but effective support for Wikipedians involved in the War against Vandalism, POV-pushing, Spamming and bad faith edits". Overall the page expresses a lack of confidence in other editors with respect to their good faith and / or competence and reinforces the previous comment about ignoring ].

I respectfully request a simple warning regarding adherence to ], ] and that he be required to remove material stating his intent to disregard ] from his user page. With respect to my own behavior in this incident, I'll stipulate that it was not by any means perfect, and that I undertook 3 reversions in 24 hours for what I believe to be the first time in my career as an editor here. I'll do better in the future. ] (]) 16:20, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
:It would be far better when a large bunch of editors start looking at what is really happing at the article ]. To my opinion the article is hopelessly POV and unnecessary vague and negative due to the constant removal of anything positive. The article is victim of misusing of ], that is used to remove everything what can remotely seen as a health claim, like the chemical contents of an item. Even when you publish a statement sourced by an item published by an university or agricultural college, it can be removed as being in conflict with WP:MEDRS (while organic food is about agriculture, not about health or healthcare).
:The article is completely ring fenced and there are always a few people at hand to step in and help out. The consensus Formely 98 is not a real one, just one of a good organised and very loud group. The many discussions on the talkpage are proof of that.
:In fact, in this case it is ] who is POV-pushing and removing a sentence that is backed up by three sources. And he removed it without an explanation but with a warning that I could be blocked. That warning is what is very friendly described as "unfriendly behaviour", I have saved him the word starting with a "b" and containing a "y". This AN/I discussion seems the reflection of an editor not winning the discussion on arguments... <span style="border:1px solid green; padding:0 2px">]&nbsp;]</span> 17:28, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

::Banner became frustrated a long while ago in the organics articles, that other editors (Like me) insist that health claims about food need sources that comply with ], and he has taken to personal attacks about "whitewashing" etc for quite a while. He has been asked many times to stop. Difs of his disruptive comments:

::*
::*
::*
::*
::*
::*
::*
::*

::It just goes on and on (there are many more of these). I've just been letting it go as I have had enough of drama boards. But Banner to strike Banner's last personal attack of which Banner , writing "Why should I? You have already brought me to AN/I, so let us see how that ends up". Since he seems unable to contribute constructively to the topic anymore, '''I suggest a topic ban for him. ''' ] (]) 00:40, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
:::And this fits perfectly in the way the people operate there. This is not trying to discuss things, this is plain bullying. <span style="border:1px solid green; padding:0 2px">]&nbsp;]</span> 01:51, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
::::In fact, just give me that topic ban. I accept it. The only thing it proves is the moral bankruptcy of the CABAL operating at ], who do not care about the encyclopaedia. Too bad they sacrifice a potential good article to their own ideas and refuse to start meaningful discussions, bu know how to waive with policies, guidelines and essays to bully everybody away. Is six months enough for your vindication? <span style="border:1px solid green; padding:0 2px">]&nbsp;]</span> 02:21, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
:::::{{u|The Banner}} on the chance that your opening words were not meant in irony: if you will agree to voluntarily stay away from the organics topic I will withdraw my recommendation and we can avoid more drama. Do tell. ] (]) 07:00, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
::I am not frustrated about MEDRS, I am frustrated about the misuse of MEDRS to remove everything that is positive, making this article overly negative and vague. <span style="border:1px solid green; padding:0 2px">]&nbsp;]</span> 04:17, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

*'''Support topic ban.''' The Banner has been edit warring on this page in the past (though never quite crossing 3RR ) and warned about it . The main issue appears to be that the editor is very reluctant to go to the talk page as multiple reverts seem to occur first when a dispute arises rather than going to the talk page once a dispute is apparent. These edit summaries demonstrate the main incident I've been involved in:
:#Myself asking for discussion on newly added content without a source: "removing per WP:STATUSQUO. If it's going to be included, continue to discuss and reach consensus on the talk page on an appropriate source and proposed content relevant to the source."
:#Reverted. My response: "Multiple users have pointed out issues with the sourcing of the content on the talk page. Please join the conversation rather than edit war."
:#"Reverted. My response: Again, please join the discussion on the talk page if you feel strongly per WP:BRD. We need a source, not reverts here."
:So, that was three times I had to ask for talk page discussion where everyone else was at least while The Banner kept reverting. This was awhile ago, but it looks like this pointy behavior is continuing. Looking at the user's block logs for things like edit warring, disruptive editing, and battleground mentality, they should know better, but it doesn't seem like past history or more current warnings have helped in this article either. ] (]) 02:09, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

*'''Support topic ban''' The Banner has already blown off all requests to revert or remove personal attacks, and seems unable to operate per ] and ]. I no longer think a warning will suffice. ] (]) 03:13, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

*'''Support topic ban''' as well as a block. Editors should be given a second chance but not when they are not going to change and keep doing the same thing after being blocked. ] (]) 12:30, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
**] that you got yourself blocked, mr. IP. <span style="border:1px solid green; padding:0 2px">]&nbsp;]</span> 15:34, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
*'''Support Topic Ban''' As constant violation of ], ], and ] is unacceptable.] (]) 18:33, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
*'''Support banning this user completely''' This editor has an overall detrimental effect on Misplaced Pages. I have had a lengthy series of interactions with this user. In general he has been the least ], the least collegial individual I have met in my 7 years on Misplaced Pages. He is a mass editor, primarily interested in inserting his ], his censorship, executed by his deletion of content. His constant tactic is to attack his accusers. I have collected a legacy of his hostile interactions with other users, which when I had it as part of my sandbox he successfully had deleted. So I have a lengthy page off line documenting at least 38 hostile interactions with other editors. Just let me know how to post that for your reading enjoyment. His favorite targets are relative novice editors. He is an excellent wikilawyer. He knows his tools, his intimidation tactics have scared most of them go away--many have gone away permanently as in, they have stopped editing for wikipedia. I wasn't intimidated and spent weeks trying to protect content he was trying to delete. While I was successful 100% of the time in AfD debates-which shows the standards of work I deal with and shows how misguided he is. He still succeeded in speedy deletions, changing tactics before I could jump in and ultimately he succeeded in attacking me. He found a friendly admin to tell me to back off, which I courteously did.

The Banner has been blocked already 10 times that I can find. I don't have administrative tools to make this search easy--this has taken a lot of labor. I've only gone back a few years out of a lengthy history: 23 April 2014, 8 April 2014, 29 March 2014, 11 October 2013, 5 April 2013, 15 April 2012, 5 December 2011, 10 November 2011, 9 November 2011, 19 July 2011 What were the reasons? Disruptive editing, 3RR, Personal attacks or harassment.

The main message is: He has been given multiple second chances. Lightweight punishments keep getting suggested. He does not learn from them. Look at the overall product of his work, you will find single minded obnoxiousness. He is the worst form of cyber bully and wikipedia does not need this as a representative. Reporting of the facts of his actions should not be regarded as a personal attack. ] (]) 19:00, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

== Template edit affects hundreds of articles, but nobody cares ==
{{Archive top|this crisis has fortunately been averted. Some useful discussion is starting, but ANI is not the place for it. ] (]) 17:41, 6 January 2015 (UTC)}}
About 27 hours ago, a seemingly minor change to ], that clearly was not properly discussed or investigated beforehand, resulted in compliance with ] being removed, affecting hundreds and possibly thousands of articles that use {{tl|Episode list}}. After I noticed the problem I reactivated the edit request and asked that it be reverted but nobody has done so. {{u|Edokter}} made the change but, while he's edited Misplaced Pages since I asked, he hasn't come near the discussion. {{u|Technical 13}} was also involved but he is reluctant to modify the code, even though the fix is a simple reversion of . I've looked at the edit histories of all of the editors listed in {{cl|Misplaced Pages template editors}} and nobody seems to be around so I thought I'd ask for help here. This is not the first time this change has been made. Edokter made essentially the same change back in 2012, but it was eventually reverted. The change results in a space being added between text and references contrary to WP:REFPUNCT, and was done instead of making a to a single article. An example of the problem caused is shown below:
{| class="wikitable plainrowheaders" style="width:30%;"
|-
! scope="col" | Title
{{Episode list/sublist|List of NCIS episodes
|Title = Episode Title
|RTitle = <ref>episode reference</ref>
}}
|}
{{reflist talk}}
An in-article example can be seen ]. It's a simple problem that has wide-ranging effects ({{tl|Episode list}} is used in more than 6,000 articles) with a simple fix but nobody seems interested. I'd fix it myself but, silly me, I've never asked for template editor permission. --] (]) 16:31, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
:I've reverted that change. I'm sure Edokter would have done so on request. &mdash;&nbsp;Martin <small>(]&nbsp;·&nbsp;])</small> 16:47, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
::Thanks. I'm sure Edokter would have reverted too. He did last time. --] (]) 17:04, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
:::It didn't entirely slip my attention, but I considered the 'impact' to be minor enough not to revert immediately. Sertainly not worth a thread here. Your concern ''has'' come up in the initial proposal, which made me hesitate, but as both Technical13 and voidxor deemed the issue as minor, I went ahead. Now... what ''is'' the impact? A space before a ref... that is hardly worth the attention. How many more uses require the space that the initial edit catered for? <code style="white-space:nowrap">-- ]]] {&#123;]&#125;}</code> 17:20, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
* Since I've been summoned... {{Diff|List of South Park episodes|641217443|641036524|This is a hack}} and should be avoided at all costs. As I mentioned on the talk page, the proper solution would be for the spaces to be added when RTitle doesn't start with <code>"<ref"</code>. I know this can be done in Lua, I'm just not exactly sure how it can be done. I'm uncomfortable with Lua, and generally avoid making any edits to Lua modules unless they are my own code that I thoroughly tested in the sandbox first. Yes, this even applies to edits that are a {{Tq|simple reversion}}. On that note, I'm not sure there is anything left to see here, and I would think it appropriate for an uninvolved editor to close this section as such. — <span class="nowrap">&#123;&#123;U&#124;]&#125;&#125; <sup>(] • ] • ])</sup></span> 17:17, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
** The nbsp's are a hack, but using {{para|RTitle}} is not; The "R" stand for "raw", basically meaning BYOM (bring your own markup). Sure we could use some logic to see if there's a {{tag|ref|o}} tag, but there are potential so many other scenarios that demand special treatment. In essense, {{para|Title}} and {{para|RTitle}} should not even be used together. Perhaps a {{para|TitleRef}} parameter is more appropriate? <code style="white-space:nowrap">-- ]]] {&#123;]&#125;}</code> 17:28, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
{{Archive bottom}}

== User:Andcarr ==

User:Andcarr has restarted babysitting the ] article again and is deleting any content that he has not added himself. He apears ''only'' to edit this article, yet he has accused me of adding PR to the article. Please can he be stopped, at least from editing this article? ] (]) 16:33, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

:Actually User:Saskia2309 also appears to be babysitting this article, it may be better to look at protection for the article - ] (]) 16:51, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

:: I'd say there a definite case of ] going on. I just tried to remove a ] from the BLP, and I got {{diff2|641270705|reverted}}. Annoyingly, there's also an accusation of COI in the edit summary when I was merely trying to follow ], as I linked in my {{diff2|641269838|own summary}}. ] (]) 17:52, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
:: And Saska2309 made a similar accusation against Bleaney in {{diff2|641269111|this personal attack}}. It seems we've got a pair of POV-pushers owning an article on a person they don't like. ] (]) 18:10, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
::: He is also using the Daily Mail as a blp source now {{diff|David Ross (businessman)|641271858|641270705}} ] (]) 18:18, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
:::: Andcarr has reverted the article at least four times today. I gave him a warning for edit warring. If he keeps this up, we'll have to take it to ]. I'm guessing that he's not going to let anyone else edit this article but Saskia2309. ] (]) 19:24, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
::::: {{user|Andcarr}} blocked for 24h by {{u|Nyttend}}. Going off the history and user talk comments, expect resumption of disruption in 24h + 1m. - ] (]) 00:46, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
He has a confirmed block evasion (]) extending his block to 48 hours. Also, with {{Diff|Talk:David Ross (businessman)|next|641470609|this edit}} ] just inadvertently admitted to block evasion. <span style="color: blue">--</span> ] <sup><span style="font-size:80%">⋠]⋡</span></sup> 20:31, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

== ] ==
{{discussion top|result=Drop the ]. ] <sup>]</sup> 21:01, 6 January 2015 (UTC)}}
This thread was archived, but having noticed that the problem with unexplained reverts by this user was not restricted to recent times but has been going on for years, I added a statement to that effect. Someone complained that no-one would see it on the archive page so I thought I would un-archive it.

--original post begins--


This user appears to do very little except revert people's edits, and as far as I can see they never leave an informative edit summary. I challenged them recently to explain why they undid two of my edits {{diff|User talk:Denisarona|prev|640242928|1}}, and they responded by undoing a third edit for no reason whatsoever {{diff|Hyperforeignism|prev|640248417|2}}. They then removed the talk page discussion. {{diff|User talk:Denisarona|prev|640254085|3}} They further removed a warning to use edit summaries, making a personal attack as they did so. {{diff|User talk:Denisarona|prev|640254813|4}}

This kind of behaviour is immensely damaging to Misplaced Pages. I hope someone will take steps to discourage it. ] (]) 16:25, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
:Most complaints of this sort are by vandals annoyed at being caught, so let me start by saying that 200.83.101.225 appears to be in the right. Denisarona, what is the matter with this person's edits? Why must you treat as vandalism that clearly improves a header, for example? Even if 200.83.101.225 were a banned user's sock, you wouldn't be justified in reverting an obvious improvement. Why must you {{diff||640248417||insert a quotation}} when it's been properly paraphrased? Remember that our fair use standards prohibit the incorporation of nonfree content when it can be adequately replaced with free material, and this IP had replaced it. Do not again insert an unfairly used nonfree quote. ] (]) 16:38, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

::It's disappointing that this user did not have the courtesy to respond here. There's virtually no community pressure or disincentive to encourage people not to behave as he did, and people who revert for no reason, to the detriment of the encyclopaedia, are very frequently encountered. For as long as they are tolerated with as little action as this case was, they'll continue to disrupt the encyclopaedia. ] (]) 18:27, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
:::Where did you notify the user about this discussion? ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 23:10, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
::::I've just notified them in case no one else did (could not see where) ] (]) 04:21, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
--original post ends--
:::::I notified them when I posted this report. They attempted to remove the notification but only removed my auto-added signature.. The original notification is still there, just a little up the page from the second one. I am adding to this report now because I was sure I had experienced inappropriate reverting from this user on numerous occasions and I just chanced on another set, from two years ago: , , , . Note the false accusation of vandalism in the last one. So this is a long term problem with this user. Again, I hope someone will take steps to discourage such destructive behaviour. ] (]) 13:06, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

At this point, I don't think that there is a satisfactory solution to this whole multithread mess. The "Best Known For IP Editor" is acting like a jerk. Kww and Jehochman are acting like jerks. The IP's enemies are all acting like jerks. This situation has even managed to make Drmies act like a jerk <small>(I'm acting like a jerk too, but that has nothing to do with this particular issue)</small>. And now here it is again at ANI, Misplaced Pages's Jerk Central. Yngvadottir is pretty much the only obvious non-jerk exception (maybe also Ritchie333, I didn't take detailed notes and have only a vague recollection), and for her trouble and willingness to try to help, now half the people involved think she's a jerk. Expecting anyone uninvolved to wade into this mess and make it better is not realistic.

There are legitimate issues here - the IP does have a valid point - but it is literally impossible to solve them now, there's too much water under the bridge. So while "Drop the WP:STICK" is condescending, it's basically true. Best Known For IP Editor, because of the way you've traditionally dealt with conflict in the past, you are not going to get satisfaction here, even if in this case you're right (or, much more accurately, partially right). --] (]) 21:50, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
:Why only partially right? And where did Drmies act like a jerk? I didn't see it. And what do you think should be done about a user who has, over many years, pointlessly been undoing good edits? Remember that it's obviously not just my good edits he's undone - trying to make this all about me is misguided. ] (]) 22:40, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

: My dear Floquenbeam, I fear that we have become a circle of jerks. Let's return to writing articles instead of continuing this...exercise. ] <sup>]</sup> 23:35, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
::People who pointlessly undo good edits are stopping people from writing articles.] (]) 23:49, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
{{discussion bottom}}

== He claims to be the Father of Wikipedians ==

*{{User|Saadkhan12345}}
Edit-warred with me and other users(with two in the past week) at ], violated 3RR many times and . Filing an ] a month ago, storming the archive after it was closed , he stopped edit-warring during the case, but as it got closed, and failing to get me blocked, and failing in tries to influence many administrators .e.g. ] he has started edit-warring again. He has a history of mismanagement and faulty editing. Created hundreds of about Pakistani constituencies, and ignored warnings and pieces of advice on his ]. I have made the article ] a good article, but this user has just spoiled its history and my SPI archives. Today violating ], he called me "''''''" while replying to my post at the article's talk. Currently, he is under 3RR there, and I am considering reporting him for edit-warring too. I am here to ask for the advice of administrators. Please guide me. <span style="border:2px solid #000;background:#000">]]</span> 20:46, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
:Complete history of edit warring at the article:
:*
:*] (])]
:*
:*
:*
:*
:*
:*
:*] (])]
:*] (]) to last revision by Saadkhan12345.]
:*
:*
:*
:*] (]) yea I am.]
:*] (]) wheres your consensus]
::And is how he wants to achieve consensus. <span style="border:2px solid #000;background:#000">]]</span> 21:28, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
:::Look bro...you see when I say bro dont take it personal. I say "my son" to my cousins and family members. I didnt know you were going to take it personal so sorry for that. On the other hand, Im glad you have opened up here. First of all, the only so called editors that I have "edit warred" on the article Zarb-e-Azb was you, TheSawTooth and your friend "TopGun" . Its no secret that you enjoy his support. And I didn't storm the archive but it was closed and I was busy for a while and the fact that your clearly said to me "accuse the other user of socketpptry" is a clear violation. You were trying to recruit editors to influence decisions on wikipedia (Admin Mike V closed the SPI and so I wantd to discuss it with him). BTW ''And so failing in tries to influence '''many''' administrators .e.g. User talk:Mike V#Heyyyyyyyyy'', well Mike V is not many but one user whom closed the SPI. This guy is busy posting "warning template" onto users pages violating ] without following the rules himself. With a clear look on the Operation Zarb-e-Azb article and the fact that he stated above 'I have made the article ] a good article" is a violation of ]. I don't have to further prove. Just look at the article. How his permission is needed to do just about anything and that's since June.] (]) 21:32, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
::::::::Also the above point where hes making fun of my way of reaching consensus well like I mentioned on SPI:
"So there was this edit war on the article ] from November 2 with User:Faizan. We tried to sort it out on the articles talk page and also on users talk pages. But consensus was in no sight, and so therefore I opened a DR/N . I did notify so and but User:Faizan ignored the notice (he made contributions to wiki while DR/N was open)." To me after all of this, he didnt seemd to be interested in reaching consensus but simply extending the dispute till I give up.] (]) 21:50, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
::I think admins should notice the following: In trying to solve the dispute, I think you should notice the User:Faizan resorted to using IPs to avoid sanctions and block and extending the dispute till I give up by ignoring DR/N and enjoying support of his friends to manipulate decisions . It would be wise to notice that User:Faizan still using the very same old tactic of keeping the article the same and mostly ignoring what I say (like the DR/N above). I hope you understand that the wikipedia way of reaching consensus with him on the very same article (he claims to be the owner of) is hopeless and so by ignoring all means to reach a consensus has left me no choice. ] (]) 07:18, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
:::Can the Admin also notice: On the November 25, 2014 I wrote on the article talk page to get consensus on removal of ISIS from infobox and stated my reason . As you can see no one refused/replied raising concerns. After removing ISIS from infobox on 4 January (more than a month later) Faizan warns me saying " If you don't elucidate your recent removal of IS from the infobox, it may be considered for revert pre-consensus." I dont like this stuff man. I want to work peacefully with him.] (]) 08:21, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

== Re-opening SPI of Derwick Associates activity ==

Greetings all,

I believe there is need to review the closed SPIs into the Derwick Associates pages.
In light of recent findings it is safe to assume the original suspected sock masters of each investigation are not correct. Nonetheless there is substantial evidence that several of the users named in the overall investigations are connected. Below are these previous SPIs:
*https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/FergusM1970
*https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Majogomezsz

Despite the overwhelming behavioral evidence (no edit overlap, the same edits being made, similar edit summary wording between several accounts, an abundance of single-purpose accounts, etc) and even a CheckUser discovery that some of the accounts were linked, the admin believed the accounts were not linked. They also stated that its not fair to assume someone with a differing view is necessarily being paid to make edits. But given that Fergus has openly admitted he was a paid advocate for Derwick (https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive867#Full_disclosure) and that he was hired by a PR firm (https://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:FergusM1970) we now know beyond a shadow of a doubt that Derwick hired at least one PR agency to protect its image.

There is a ton of behavioral evidence to suggest many of these accounts are linked. IP addressed might be harder to prove but a simple VPN is not that hard to set up. If I were running a PR firm that was contracted out by a very large and wealthy, albeit legally troubled, company to protect its online image including on Misplaced Pages, I would invest in a VPN. Its troubling that no one can consider this; I use them for personal reasons sometime.

I am willing to contribute any needed evidence to support my claims here, but I hope the knowledge that Derwick paid for a PR firm to edit this page is enough evidence to perk others interest in this incident. ] (]) 02:15, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
:Just so you know, I put <nowiki>{{subst:ANI-notice}}</nowiki> on ]. <span style="color: blue">--</span> ] <sup><span style="font-size:80%">⋠]⋡</span></sup> 02:30, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

== Harrassment by {{User|Scarface1812}} ==

Repeated replacing of User sub-page content with a copy of Users own deleted page. , , , . Note that I took no part in the Mfd of the users page but have taken part in Mfds of other similar user pages (which this user has contributed to) which have been deleted. ] <sup>(] ])</sup> 09:12, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Harrasment, let me laught... who do this before.... you and other wiki bullies who don't have anything else to do...

In the past you attacked my work on supercentenarians saying it is a user page...

What's yours?

I don't like to play like that... but some person makes me play as you did. {{unsigned|Scarface1812|09:18, 7 January 2015}}

:This editor had also recreated their user page after it was deleted following an . The user page was deleted again after I tagged it for speedy deletion (speedy deletion tag notice: ). ] (]) 13:46, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

== Raheja Developers ==

I'm writing here because there are still ongoing disputes with the page for ]. This was previously brought to ] because of edits made to the article for ] as well as the company page, but didn't really get any attention from anyone that wasn't already involved with the whole scenario.

Long story short, back in ] ] came on to BLP/N to say that someone was adding defamatory content to the article for Navin Raheja. () I went to the article and saw where the user (]) had been adding things that came across as having a specific viewpoint, but I also saw where the article was incredibly promotional. () After doing some cleaning and some small discussion on the article's ] with ] I figured that Raheja didn't have any true coverage outside of the company itself. The controversies are about the company but once you took that away you have some appointments that aren't really notable per Misplaced Pages's guidelines and some minor coverage of him- nothing that would really show he merits his own article. ()

I posted on ANI about my concerns with COI in either direction (positive and negative) and nobody responded in general other than Leoaugust, who stated that any negative bias on his part was unintentional and that he'd wanted to include the stuff about the legal issues because it was in the media and he wanted the page to encompass everything about the company. During this time I was also talking to Bhaskargupta269 ] where I flat out asked him if he was a paid editor, which he said he wasn't. ] had been trying to talk to Bhaskargupta269 on ] and explain why the edits were seen as promotional, which at first Bhaskargupta269 seemed to understand.

However there have still been promotional edits and edit warring on the article. Recently there have been repeated attempts to remove anything negative about the company from the article under various claims , , and so on. This has been done by a series of editors that have made a large amount of edits to Raheja related articles and various promotional type articles and after one of the editors (]) scrubbed the article of any negative coverage, Bhaskargupta269 came back on and re-added various promotional content that had been in the article earlier on. () I also note that there have been similar articles made for another of the Rahejas, ].

I've opened up a ] to see if this is a case of meatpuppetry or sockpuppetry, but at the very least this looks like it's a case of someone hiring paid editors to make articles for them and scrub articles of any negative coverage. ] on ] talk page by ] makes me even more concerned that this is a case of organized paid editing and if this is so, then I'm concerned that it's a case of paid editors possibly trying to hide that they are paid editors or at least hide their conflict of interest.

I know that this may not necessarily be the right place for this since there is an SPI open, but this is getting slightly too large to be done just at SPI (and isn't really a BLP/N issue alone) and that there seem to be more people coming out of the woodwork just makes me want to have some other admins and editors keep their eye on the page. One of the major complaints from the people trying to remove the negative content seems to be that the information is defamatory, negative, or is spam. ]] 09:27, 7 January 2015 (UTC)


== Continued Disruptive Editing and ] ==
{{discussion top|result=No action. ] <sup>]</sup> 12:03, 7 January 2015 (UTC)}}
] (]) reported by ] (])


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


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


The content dispute began when I changed it like this () with the comment ''Don't mince words; the interaction between Beeks and the gorilla is rape played for laughs'':
He is still editing other people's edits. and
{{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.}}


He called another IP editor a troll (that IP is a troll,). This is ]. This was reverted () by {{u|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.()
] needs to be blocked for 24 hours and asked to confirm that he will not continue his disruptive editing and ] for which he has been blocked. ] (]) 11:52, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
{{discussion bottom}}


{{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;...}}
== Closing without explanation or closing comment ==
{{discussion top|result= My closure of the prior complaint as "No action" is self-explanatory. No action was required because the complaint didn't substantiate the need for a block. This IP is pushing the boundaries of ] and should now stop. ] <sup>]</sup> 14:11, 7 January 2015 (UTC)}}


My accompanying comment was ''(a) That was the source's voice, not Liddy's. It's called a euphemism. Demonstrable by how it links to a clip of the scene in which a man is raped by a gorilla. (b) Source says "reportedly" for this claim, without evidence. Poor quality source. Removing claim''
IP editors feel discriminated against. Anonymous editors with an anonymous handle can ask a question to ] <sup>]</sup> on his talk page but IP editors cannot. Why? If Misplaced Pages ask everyone to use their real names to make them accountable, then we will all comply. Until then do not use double standards.


That was reverted by Darkwarriorblake () with the comment ''Nothing wrong with Indiewire as a source, if there is I'd raise it at ]. Until then, there's a talk page for you to use per ]. Your comments sound agenda driven and therefore not Neutral.''
In any case, ] <sup>]</sup>, why did you close this ] without action and without explanation or closing comment? and is it OK for me to edit other people's edits and call you a troll because I don't like your action or what you say to me? ] (]) 12:18, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
:You were complaining about someone adding a simple comma to someone else's comment on their talk page, and calling an IP who you yourself admitted is a troll a troll, and you honestly think someone is going to be blocked over that? Why don't you do something constructive like helping us to build an encyclopedia rather than wasting people's time here? ] (]) 12:37, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
::] You misread my comment and I see why. I was quoting him saying "that IP is a troll". My mistake. I did not say that IP was a troll. I don't think he is. I am doing something constructive. That editor was blocked for editing other people's comments. He has not changed. he can delete another person's comment but cannot change it. Get it?. I am being constructive by reporting him. That's part of building an encyclopedia. ] (]) 12:43, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
:::<strike>Yes, I get it - but it's only a comma! P-123 was never going to be blocked for a comma! ] (]) 13:04, 7 January 2015 (UTC)</strike><small> (No, never mind. ] (]) 13:17, 7 January 2015 (UTC))</small>
::::I am glad you retracted your nonsense comment. Please refrain from making up your own wikipedia policy. It is not constructive. ] (]) 14:02, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
:::::IP-hopping is likewise not constructive. ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 14:04, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
*'''RESOLVED''': I '''withdraw''' my complaint because P-123 showed that he now understands why he was previously blocked by PBS and reverted his edit of the other person's comment . He also removed his personal attack ] . This can be closed after ] <sup>]</sup> responds to my question. Thanks. ] (]) 12:54, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
{{discussion bottom}}


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.
== Harassment continues from Beyond My Ken ==


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''.
I have had a series of really bad interactions with the above named user, and was even banned for answering a question, from a 3rd user as he had claimed he request that I not post to his talk page, something I did not do, but he did not like my reply so he went running to a admin and had me blocked for 24 hours, and was told by 2 admins to leave me alone. So his reply was to review every file I have contributed, mostly in commons but many that are here, and he has renamed them and recat'ed then all on the basis that, as the user put it "we have a positive duty to rename files which are inaccurately named", it would appear that is his idea of a "Wide Birth" and he is clearly doing everything he can to annoy and antagonize me. PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE place a LIFETIME INTERACTION BAN upon him as I want nothing to do with him, have tried in the past, he was told to leave me alone and he renames every file I have based upon this "we have a positive duty to rename files which are inaccurately named". Please get his to stop or I am done here. --]<span style="border:1px solid black;">'''&nbsp;]&nbsp;'''</span> 13:17, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
:Do you have an example or two of a renamed file? ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 13:21, 7 January 2015 (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 ]''
https://commons.wikimedia.org/search/?title=File:Manhattan_Island_Ferry_Terminals_photo_D_Ramey_Logan.jpg&action=history
https://commons.wikimedia.org/search/?


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 .
--]<span style="border:1px solid black;">'''&nbsp;]&nbsp;'''</span> 13:25, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
::In the first link, I see that he pluralized the word "terminal". I don't understand what alteration the second link refers to. ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 13:31, 7 January 2015 (UTC)


So anyhow regardless of whether the Indiewire source is deemed suitable or not, I'm just wondering what the feeling here is about someone making goofy assertions on the record that another editor has "an agenda" (what agenda could it be?) and may not be emotionally stable, which really doesn't feel like ] at all. &nbsp;— ] <span style="color:#900">•</span> ] 20:03, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
After being TOLD to just leave it alone by ] (I don't see the convo in the archives but I have posted to her page a request as well) ‎he went about, modifying a whole series of my files changing names modifying cats and sent the last 2 days doing it to any file he could find, that I had contributed and is modifying them. My concern is the users willingness to create conflict, intentionally, in spite of being told not to, then adding to this buy editing my contributions, during the ban he obtained upon with is claim that I was not being nice in a reply to a third party. ]<span style="border:1px solid black;">'''&nbsp;]&nbsp;'''</span> 13:42, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
:Hrrm, this seems a bit excessive.
:*I've added a second source for the claim. Really this should've been the first option rather than removing the content.
:*The first summary was, as stated, "Don't mince words; the interaction between Beeks and the gorilla is rape played for laughs". "Rape played for laughs" is a loaded comment and not something said in the article or the source text, so it's a personal opinion, it's not neutral, it's agenda-driven.
:*When this was reverted, the editor just removed the content entirely claiming IndieWire was unreliable. There is, as far as I'm aware, nothing wrong with Indiewire. I've since found a second source, the Telegraph, which is reliable per ].
:*The editor ignored WP: BRD when raised, and as an admin they should adhere to policy.
:*The editor states that they are an admin on their page. Assuming this is true, the aggressiveness of their edits, hyper focus on the single area, and use of words like "crap listicle" seemed out of line with what I, personally, would expect from an admin on Misplaced Pages, certainly someone who has been so for nearly two decades. Perhaps the edit summary wasn't the place to have that discussion but, as stated, they weren't adhering to WP: BRD to start a discussion, and in the interim the article needed putting back to the status quo.
:*I find accusations of OWNERSHIP often tend to come when people don't get their way. Which is fine. I have plenty of reversions on the page for people adding unsourced content and there are plenty of changes as well. I find someone removing sourced content and me putting the sourced content back to not ''really'' be something you can fling ownership at.
:*Within the context of the film, Beeks does become the romantic partner of the gorilla, it seemed more appropriate and encylcopedic text than just saying 'rape', and neither source I've added says that either.
:*Anyways, my edit history shows I'm a massive contributor and helper and it's nearly Xmas, and I don't feel like engaging with this any further, good luck Hex. ] (]) 20:27, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
::Of course you don't, having ignored the actual matter of your conduct that I'm raising here. Your comments about the content of the article are irrelevant. &nbsp;— ] <span style="color:#900">•</span> ] 20:43, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
*Hex's position is not wholly supported, although in the entire issue, their toolset is irrelevant. There was no incivility on either part, and an all-out edit war seems to have been averted.{{pb}}Fundamentally the change Hex wanted to make was pure OR; rape may have been intimated—or, as Hex themself admits, implied—but its never overtly stated and is a wholly loaded term. This is the interpretation of an editor, not of secondary sources. If there is a pron=blem with Indywire as a source—currently used in —take it to WP:RSN. If it's disputed that it's a high quality source per WP:FA?, then take it to WT:FAC. Accusations of OWNership are as unhelpful—and as much an aspersion—as accusations of agenda-led editing. In fact, for OWNership, Hex should read the relevant policy: here, it is WP:FAOWN, which not only allows for careful stewardship of featured material, but requires significant changes to the consensus version to be discussed on talk; I don't suppose there's any suggestion that introducing rape—particularly "played for laughs"—wouldn't be a significant addition.{{pb}}Really though, this is an overblown content dispute which should have started with ''one revert'' each, and ended on the talk page. --]'']''] 21:10, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
*:"Never overtly stated... 'played for laughs' be a significant addition" - with John Landis, the director. {{talk quote|One of the executives was deeply appalled by a man being sexually molested by a gorilla. And I said you know, it's a joke and it goes by very quickly. But the first preview was very successful and it all went away. ''''}}
*:Feel free to amend the article on that basis. I'm certainly not interested in spending any more time on it. &nbsp;— ] <span style="color:#900">•</span> ] 22:48, 23 December 2024 (UTC)


===Followup===
Seems like a commons issue to me, based on the provided link. ] (]) 13:47, 7 January 2015 (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.
:The file rename is permitted by policy; see ] point 5. The categorisation is likewise appropriate; Commons would be mostly useless if users couldn't add categories to others' uploads. Please note that we have no jurisdiction over Commons; complaints about Commons edits go to ], although your links here are nowhere near sufficient for any sanctions. ] (]) 14:10, 7 January 2015 (UTC)


While we're on the subject, recites that {{tq|Prior to his departure from the FBI in 1962, Liddy sought admission to various bars.}} I'm curious to know whether this is meant to imply that Liddy had a , and whether this could have had any bearing on the whole gorilla romantic partner situation. ]]
*I've warned both editors on Commons, and I warned both here the other day. If this continues, I'm liable to block the person responsible on either or both wikis. Clearly they need to leave each other alone on both projects and find something else to do. ] &#124; ] 15:31, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
{{abot}}


== User Stationmanagerskidrow removing information on ] page ==
*], you won't see conversations on your page in any archives unless you archive the page yourself. (Frankly, leaving stuff on your page would be simpler; you're only creating difficulties for yourself by blanking everything.) But blanked posts can be found in the , which functions as a kind of archive. 's the post from me that I think you meant; it was more about not posting on BMK's page, and about expressing my regret that you felt your uploaded aerial photos weren't appreciated; I'm sure they are, and I've seen BMK say so too. But the claim that you weren't being nice was true. I can't find where BMK edited anything of yours during your block, which would have been tactless; I think you may be mistaken about that. BMK's contributions list for the period is very long, though — he edits a lot — so it's possible I may have missed it. Please give diffs for the edits you complain of, or if you have trouble with diffs, at least give the time or the article or file name or something. (But see ].) He didn't edit anything you had started on Commons during those 24 hours, either. (Apart from the fact that you were never blocked on Commons.) In that instance, you complain of something that didn't happen.


:I do understand that you're generally angry, and feel generally unappreciated, and then mistakes like that can happen. I hope you'll be able to realize that your contributions ''are'' valued, and will feel better about contributing to Misplaced Pages (and to Commons, which is a separate project). It often happens that users are initially uncomfortable with the ''very'' collaborative nature of Misplaced Pages, and protest about their edits and uploads being changed by others. It's human, and I actually don't think it helps to throw ] at them when they feel bad. But I hope you get used to it, WP. BMK is trying to improve matters in good faith. ], I have no complaint of you, but please try to be as tactful as possible, as new users are sensitive. ] &#124; ] 15:47, 7 January 2015 (UTC).
::Bishonen's comments are on the mark. They echo, in some measure, comments I have made elsewhere to WPP. WPP however has been an editor for 5 years, with more than 7,500 edits to his credit, and he has had a good deal of time to accommodate himself to the collaborative nature of the encyclopedia. Here's hoping that recent events, and Bishonen's comments, will help that process along. ] (]) 16:16, 7 January 2015 (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)
== Flagging a legal threat ==


:User is now editing using ] ] (]) 03:34, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
] has removed content from the ] article, claiming to be acting on behalf of the company and making the unhelpfully threatening edit summary of . Per ] I have raised this here. --] (]) 17:16, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
:Before the admins indef the user, be sure the user's complaints are without merit. ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 17:17, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
::] may also apply in this case. However, we should allow the user to comment here first. '''] &ndash; ] &ndash; ]''' 17:21, 7 January 2015 (UTC)


:The merit of the edits are irrelevant - the threats are obviously designed to create a chilling effect where the editor should be attempting to seek consensus instead. That's the whole point of ]. Blocked. <span style="color:red; font-size: smaller; font-weight: bold;">§]</span><sup>]</sup> 17:22, 7 January 2015 (UTC) ::This is a content dispute and the article is being actively edited by many different editors. However, no discussion about the disagreements has occurred on the article talk page which is where this discussion should be happening. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 04:37, 24 December 2024 (UTC)


That article probably should be speedied as an A7 for not containing any assertions of notability; which obscures that Stationmanagerskidrow appears to have been edit warring on it with an undisclosed COI, and presumably was ]ing as , and if so violated 3RR as well. It's probably best for me not to take administrative action here tonight as I won't be around later/tomorrow to deal with any followups, but something should be done here beyond just saying "take it to the talk page." ]] <small><sup>Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!</sup></small> 06:22, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
== Copyvio reverts being called edit warring ==
:The page was longer, but sourced (all but?) soley to the station's site and it's been trimmed down to what it is now. Given the repeated edit-warring by IPs I've semi-protected the page for two days for now. - ] <sub>]</sub> 07:59, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
::] and ] message added . I'm just about to make myself thoroughly ] by seeing what I can do about the ] article. ] (]) 🦘 09:11, 24 December 2024 (UTC)


== Insults ==
A normally gf editor has inserted text from source at {{la|Uterine cancer}}. I reverted, the editor ] with the way I did it, reintroducing close paraphrasing of the copyrighted text and now accuses me of edit warring. Can an admin please intervene before this gets any uglier? ] <small>]</small> 17:34, 7 January 2015 (UTC)


== Legal Threat at ] ==


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)
In cleaning the ] article of publications that do not exist (ISBN numbers and publisher were non-existent) and of sources that did not match up to the sentence/paragraph, I ran into an unfortunate incident - that escalated after the article was ].
:Hello, Psychloppos. What action are you seeking to happen here? <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 09:42, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
::I have no idea which actions are warranted here. Maybe an admin could leave a message to this IP and this registered user and remind them that they should ] ? It would also be nice to remind them about ] and ]. Saying that I am "fuelled by an unhealthy obsession" or questioning my sanity do not seem to respect those guidelines. ] (]) 09:52, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
==Nlkyair012 and LLM chatbots ==
*{{Noping|Nlkyair012}}
This editor has been constantly using AI chatbots to respond and write messages. They are a single purpose account for glorifying the ] caste using unreliable ] era sources, I and several other experienced editors have taken time and effort to respond to their endless queries and ] generated using ChatGPT. They have posted AI generated walls of text on multiple noticeboards such as ] and ] and including here , accusing me of vandalism.


Despite my repeated requests and even a final warning to them (including a request by {{ping|ActivelyDisinterested}}) they are still continuing to do it. Their messages are repeating the same argument again and again and are frankly just ] that bring up fictitious guidelines or misrepresent the existing ones. Several editors have told them that Raj era sources are not reliable yet they continue to ask for more evidence on why that is the case based on AI generated claims of supposed academic value or neutrality. This is getting very disruptive and taking up valuable contributor time to respond to their endless AI responses which take a few seconds to generate. I have alerted them about ] and ], I would appreciate it if someone could enforce a restriction on this user from at minimum caste area. - ] (]) 13:07, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
Seph Lawless contacted me via Facebook with what I perceive as a legal threat. I emailed OTRS about this; shortly after, one of the edits under ] by ] (a fake account created by I presume Seph Lawless) involved some sensitive and personal information. It was scrubbed by ].


:Hello @Ratnahastin,
On Facebook, Seth Lawless wrote:
:To start with I should admit that I am sorry for all the inconvenience that I may have caused as a result of my actions. It was never my intention to take people’s time or skew the conversation in a certain way. I appreciate the core idea to contribute the thoughts to the Wiki and share it borne in mind the overall rules and policies of this program.
:I understand your fears about the AI utilities you have mentioned on your site. Even when I was using AI for the grammar check or, for instance, to elaborate on some point in the text, I saw to my mismanagement that over the process we probably confused the readers and repeated the same information and thoughts, which I would never wish to happen again. From now on I will ensure that in the future the input which I provide to wikipedia fits the Misplaced Pages standard and is more personal. I will also not write walls of text and will not make assertations that do not have substantiated evidence in sources.
:As for subjects that concern the Raj and the sources from this period and the discussions we have had it seems that I have gone too far in demanding clarification for the same thing. That being the case, with the understanding that the consensus will be acknowledged, I shall not be inclined to reopen this discussion unless new substantiated evidence is produced. I don’t want to prolong the conversation or bring any more stress.
:I will strive to learn from my experience to be more productive in my interactions going forward. If there are other limitations or additional rules to which I have to stick to, I will receive them with pleasure.
:In the same respect, let me specially apologize for the inconvenience and thank all of you for bearing with us. That was why I wanted to remind all of us that we can and should keep collectively improving Misplaced Pages as a resource. <span style="font-family:Georgia,serif; color:#FF4500; font-size:120%; font-weight:bold;">]</span> 13:31, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
::This comment also has a typical LLM feel and contains meaningless statements such as "I understand your fears about the AI utilities you have mentioned on your site" and differs substantially from , although GPTzero said this is human input. - ] (]) 13:38, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
:::It seems human in that it contains some composition and grammar errors that I don’t think an LLM would produce. <span style="position: relative; top: -0.5em;">꧁</span>]<span style="position: relative; top: -0.5em;">꧂</span> 13:56, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
::::Thanks for the reply sir, I can't explain how frustrated I'm feeling from this morning which this user made me experience <span style="font-family:Georgia,serif; color:#FF4500; font-size:120%; font-weight:bold;">]</span> 14:02, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
:::The time when I messaged Vikram banafar I was casual not formal and second of all your saying doesn't prove anything "and differs substantially from your usual (non-AI) writing style" that's a straight up false accusation and utter nonsensical point and 3rd point being that GPTzero stated that this is a human input then that's an human input end of the question. <span style="font-family:Georgia,serif; color:#FF4500; font-size:120%; font-weight:bold;">]</span> 14:01, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
::::No it's really not the end of the story if GPTZero says "likely human". In fact I'd actively discourage people depending on tools like GPTZero in favour of their human senses ] than yet another computer program. And, frankly, what you're hearing from people here is we'd rather your casual, human, flaws-and-all style of writing over ChatGPT output "formal" report templates. They are doing the opposite of what you're looking for and have become disruptive. ] (]) 14:05, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::Man you still wanna do this? @] also says this doesn't seems AI generated to him and he used his actual "Human senses" to lean that way <span style="font-family:Georgia,serif; color:#FF4500; font-size:120%; font-weight:bold;">]</span> 14:10, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::Admitting that you have used AI for writing your comments and then saying that you have not used AI is not going to help your case. - ] (]) 14:36, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::You know what I think this is getting to the ] point. Having to tell somebody to have the basic respect of other editors to not subject them to text-walls of chatGPT garbage over and over again is a disruptive distraction from what we should all be doing. ] (]) 14:38, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::This ain't getting anywhere <span style="font-family:Georgia,serif; color:#FF4500; font-size:120%; font-weight:bold;">]</span> 14:59, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::I really don't understand the problem. Cuz I literally also said many where that yes I used AI but for expanding and grammar correction <span style="font-family:Georgia,serif; color:#FF4500; font-size:120%; font-weight:bold;">]</span> 14:54, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
::::If this combative approach is your "casual" style, perhaps your use of AI and its over the top politeness was an attempt to mask it. In any case, I think you are ] but for caste glorification given your obsession with a certain sub-caste. - ] (]) 14:33, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::im not obsessed with a certain subcaste but am sure is obsessed with British Raj sources. <span style="font-family:Georgia,serif; color:#FF4500; font-size:120%; font-weight:bold;">]</span> 14:56, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::I don't think that's better. ] (]) 15:44, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
::If we just temporarily put aside the AI-generated comments, can Nlkyair012 accept the view of experienced editors on Raj era sources and not push any viewpoint on a particulary caste? Because, to be honest, editors who have done this in the past usually end up indefinitely blocked. There is a low tolderance here for "caste warriors". <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 19:27, 24 December 2024 (UTC)


== Potential vandal trying to start edit war on the page for Frisch's. ==
* Seph Lawless 1/16 11:50am ;Sherman...we know what you have been doing for awhile. I was nice to you even knowing all along what you were doing. Don't mistake my kindness for weakness. Undo everything you did to the page. Your revisions will just be removed. The writer of the page is a journalist form the daily news and they tracked your ip address. You will remove your revisions and move on with your life and face the consequences of your actions. I'm giving you one last chance.
{{atop|1=Page protected, and now this admin is flashing back to his youth going to Frisch's Big Boy in ]. - ] <sub>]</sub> 22:37, 24 December 2024 (UTC)}}
This user keeps using IP addresses in order to revert creditable information about who makes their tartar sauce. Please look into this user. IP Addresses used were 67.80.16.30, 66.117.211.82, and 216.24.107.180. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 15:17, 24 December 2024 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->


:Courtesy link ]. ] (]) 17:02, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
* Sherman Cahal 1/6, 11:50am ; (thumbs up)
:<del>This sounds a '''lot''' like the same edit warrer I dealt with on ], down to the false accusations of vandalism, removal of sourced information, and apparent use of proxies (all the IPs geolocate to different places). I wouldn't be surprised if this is the same person.</del> I've asked RFPP to intervene. ] &#124; ] 21:05, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
::NVM, checked MaxMind for geolocation and they all are in the same general area. ] &#124; ] 21:08, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
{{abot}}


== ] inaccurate edit summaries ==
* Seph Lawless 1/6, 11:53am ; I don't want to cooperate with the detectives in North Randall like I'm supposed too by turning people in to the police as part of my plea bargain.


* Sherman Cahal 1/6, 11:54am ; You are more than welcome to contest the deletion of your page.


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)
* Seph Lawless 1/6, 11:58am ; It's not that the writer is taking care of that but you clearly removed stories not in accordance with wiki. The guy is a wiki administer that added that last story from Vice. We let you take out the Nikon comment months ago and you were quite until a day after meeting me. You will change it all back now or you will be arrested. i promise you.


== Lil Dicky Semi-Protection ==
* Sherman Cahal 1/6, 11:59am ; Oh good. Thanks for telling me that. I'm an administrator and it's nice to know there was a conflict of interest.
{{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)
* Seph Lawless 1/6, 12:03pm ; Then you should know that we did that add that story. Sherman I don't think you realize the consequences. You have one hour. You are blocked. We know everything about your family. I recognized you as soon as you walked in that mall. We will be watching. I'm so sorry.
{{abot}}


== Request for Review of Neutrality and Repeated Actions ==
At this point, I looked at the revision history of the article and came across ], a paid editor for the New York Daily News. He identified himself as such ]. These issues have continued with blocked calls from his cellular phone, traced to Joseph Merendez, that threaten action if I do not revert the page. He also wrote , which I'm not sure indicates physical harm or not.
{{Atop|This complaint has no merit and does not require administrative intervention.--] (]) 18:08, 24 December 2024 (UTC)}}


Dear admin,
I can provide screencaps and links to relevant information via email or other secure channels. A FYI - my name is Sherman Cahal, represented on Misplaced Pages as seicer. It's been years since I was heavily involved in the backend of WP and much has changed - so I'm not sure what the proper channel is anymore. Any assistance would be much appreciated. Thanks. <small>] &#x007C; ] &#x007C; ]</small> 17:34, 7 January 2015 (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.
== ] and polemics, again ==
{{user|Winkelvi}} is using his User page to criticize, without naming him, ], with whom he is an edit-war over on ], currently discussed on ]. Winkelvi has used his user page to criticize other (unnamed) editors, in violation of ], one month ago over an incident reported ], and was told, here, this was a violation, and an admin reverted his User page. Seeing the new attack, I reverted it twice, making sure the edit history was clear as to the reason. Winkelvi insists on keeping the attack. At this point, I leave it to admins. ] (]) 17:52, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
:Untrue. My comments in my user space are not now and never have been directed toward any one editor. ] is, in my opinion, using the AN3 report to attack me there and here as well as harass me at my User Page by editing it not once, but twice (the second time after I told him to stop). This report and his edit warring at my User Page is about retaliation and trying to create drama in my direction, nothing more. Choor Monster wants to see me blocked and punished, plain and simple. -- <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">]</span> ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">] ]</span> 17:57, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
::POLEMIC applies regardless if it is directed at one editor or a group. ] 18:06, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
Diff added: , note that the problematic language is more than just the words currently at-issue (ie, bolded by the diff). The words which were added during the ] dispute are the one's I can confidently identify with the dispute. I presume the other attack language was added over some other incident, but I have no interest in tracking this nonsense down. ] (]) 18:15, 7 January 2015 (UTC)


Thank you for your attention to this issue. Please feel free to reach out if further clarification is needed.
== Unauthorized bot ==
Hazar ] (]) 17:45, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
:@], whether the NPOV tag is needed or not should first be discussed on the article's talk page. Also, see the large notice at the top of this page: you are required to notify the editor you are reporting. ]&nbsp;] 17:53, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
::The editor is also called Psychloppos, not Psycholoppos. I have notified them for the OP. &ndash; ] (]) (]) 17:59, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
:I wouldn't give a chatbot-written thread the time of day. HS, ]. —] ] <sup><small>] ]</small></sup> 18:05, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
{{Abot}}


== Disruptive behavior from IP ==
* {{iplinks|198.102.153.2}}
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)
IP is making edits that reorder template parameters, with frequency up to 8 pages per minute. Fortunately it doesn't appear to be vandalism, at least at first sight. ''] ~ ]'' 20:26, 7 January 2015 (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)
== Harassment of editors by Earl King Jr. ==


:"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)
User ] continues to harass editors that disagree with him at ]. His new m.o. is to revert IP's and make the very uncivil claim that they are some kind of "puppet" instead of actually following WP protocol (]) --- Just as problematic is that when a user recently called him out on his behavior -- he simply deleted the message with no response. --- User:] brought 2 separate ANI's against him awhile back and eventually left the article all-together out of what I perceived as frustration (the ANI diffs are available). He continues to harass both myself and User:] and with over 80% of his edit history somehow related to Zeitgeist it is very clear to me that he is ]. As far as I can tell, the main reason he's gotten away with his behavior for so long is because most editors couldn't care less about this content. I ask that you please take the time and look into this. Thx. -- ] (]) 21:30, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
::It is misleading to remove any mentions of it being unofficial. Boeing has never made a "777-200LRF", no aftermarket conversion has ever been offered under that name, nor has the FAA or any other regulatory agency ever certified such an aircraft. To pass such a designation off as official is by definition misleading and misinformation. Likewise, to continuously do so after you have been told to stop by multiple people and falsely claiming that others support your arguments is by definition disruptive. - ] <sub>]</sub><span style="color:#6B8E23">\</span><sup>]</sup> 20:06, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
::Of note is the fact that this is not the first time the IP has claimed to have Fnlayson's support. ] not to assume support without a specific statement, yet it seems they've also ignored that. - ] <sub>]</sub><span style="color:#6B8E23">\</span><sup>]</sup> 20:23, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Its not misinformation as here are the sources which use "777-200LRF", including GE Capital Aviation (the engine supplier for most Boeing 777) and Leeham News (to avoid confusion with the upcoming 777-8F). ] (]) 21:06, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
::::I have asked you for sources from either Boeing or the FAA, yet you still either refuse to do so or (more likely) cannot because they don't exist. Only Boeing and the FAA can designate factory-built Boeing aircraft. Airlines and misinformed news websites have no authority to do so, and any alternative names they use are purely unofficial and should not have anything more than a single brief mention in the appropriate article section. Your ] to get that after numerous people have told you is disruptive. - ] <sub>]</sub><span style="color:#6B8E23">\</span><sup>]</sup> 22:14, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
:Relevant range is {{rangevandal|24.206.64.0/20}}, in case somebody needs it. ] &#124; ] 21:02, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
*Semiprotected ] for two days. - ] <sub>]</sub> 22:33, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 16:30, 25 December 2024

Noticeboard for reporting incidents to administrators
Noticeboards
Misplaced Pages's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General
Articles and content
Page handling
User conduct
Other
Category:Misplaced Pages noticeboards
    Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents Shortcuts

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

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

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

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

    Disruptive editing and WP:TALKNO by User:AnonMoos

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    None of this matters

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

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

    Disruptive editing by User talk:185.146.112.192

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Request for closure

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

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

    Creating the need to make 400,000 unnecessary edits

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

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

    If you want to discuss {{WikiProject banner shell}}, you should do so at Template talk:WikiProject banner shell.
    As for the size of the category, I have no plans to empty it, and was only going to update a few hundred more categories and templates.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  15:02, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
    You made nearly 2000 of such edits in the last few hours, and when asked to stop pointed me to a category with 400,000 entries. I have no way to know how many more you planned now or in future runs. Starting a discussion at the module would hardly stop you. Fram (talk) 15:10, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
    "when asked to stop pointed me to a category with 400,000 entries": incorrect. Since you wrongly thought I was making cosmetic edits, i.e. "no change in output or categories", the category was to inform you that they are not cosmetic.
    Regarding a BRFA for the bulk of the category, that's looking more likely since the category appears to be neglected.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  15:29, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
    Unnecessary removing a synonym and then making thousands of edits to remove the hidden cat created by that unnecessary change is not really any better than making cosmetic edits, the end result is that nothing has changed for the affected pages at all. Fram (talk) 15:33, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
    Not unnecessary. The Lua code is very complex and removing the need the support various settings makes the code both easier to read and maintain. As always, editors that don't want to see these edits can hide these by hiding the tag "talk banner shell conversion". Gonnym (talk) 12:32, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
    It doesn´t look as if the specific code to have these synonyms was very complicated though, the argument that in some cases two synonyms were used on one page with conflicting values was more convincing. And the edits I complained about did not have that tag, so no, even if people knew about hiding that tag, it wouldn't have helped here at all. Fram (talk) 16:04, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
    This was discussed in detail on Template talk:WikiProject banner shell. Ideally these edits would be done by an approved bot so they do not appear on people's watchlists. The main benefit is to merge the |blp= and |living= parameters. When both are in use, we find they often get conflicting values because one gets updated and the other does not. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:25, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
    Isn't it more logical to first have a bot cleanup the unwanted parameter, then remove it from the template, and only then start populating the cat with the somehow remaining or since added instances? In any case, this is a typical bot task and shouldn't be done with massive AWB runs. Fram (talk) 17:39, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
    Yes, probably. But we have this mechanism already set up and I assumed Cewbot would deal with these as part of its normal activities. Happy to look at other options - maybe discuss on template talk? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:23, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
    I don't know what this is about, but if the OP is correct, it is totally absurd to edit 400,000 talk pages for a tweak. Discussing at a template talk page monitored by those focused on the template would simply hide the issue. Johnuniq (talk) 03:53, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
    Edits like these should always be bots, so they can be filtered from watchlists. There are numerous other editors who have recently engaged in the mass additional of categories to articles which I had to ask them to stop as my watchlist was flooded. GiantSnowman 13:02, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
    Hiding bot edits from watchlists is not a viable option for many editors, since it also hides any non-bot edits that predate the bot edit (phab:T11790, 2007, unassigned). Users AnomieBOT, Cluebot III, Lowercase sigmabot III, Citation bot, et al edit with such high frequency that hiding their edits leads to an unacceptable proportion of watchlist items not appearing. (Also, Citation bot's edits should usually be reviewed, since it has a non-negligible error rate and its activators typically don't review its output, exceptions noted.)The code for maintaining two aliases for one parameter cannot possibly be so complex as to warrant a half million edits. If one of the two "must" undergo deprecation, bundle it into Cewbot's task. If the values don't match, have the banner shell template populate a mismatch category.In general, if a decision is made to start treating as an error some phenomenon that has previously not been a problem, and that decision generates a maintenance category with tens or hundreds of thousands of members, it is a bad decision and the characterisation of the phenomenon as "erroneous" should be reversed.At minimum, any newly instanced maintenance task scoped to over a hundred thousand pages should come before the community for approval at a central venue. Folly Mox (talk) 15:19, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
    Also, like, if only one of |blp= and |living= gets updated, shouldn't the net result be pretty obvious? Valid updates should really only go one direction. Folly Mox (talk) 15:24, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
    Meanwhile, the category has grown to over 800,000 pages. Perhaps next time an RfC to determine whether creating such a large cleanup task is warranted, would be better? Fram (talk) 16:34, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
    @Fram: this is logical. We should also make it a policy (or at least a guideline), something along the lines "if change would lead to edits/updating more than XYZ pages, a consensus should be achieved on a venue with a lot of visibility". Like Silver seren mentioned above, sometimes a formal consensus/discussion takes place, but it happens on obscure talk pages. —usernamekiran (talk) 14:01, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

    User:Augmented Seventh

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    User:ZanderAlbatraz1145 Civility and Content #2

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

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

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

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

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

    SPA User:Tikitorch2 back at it on Martin Kulldorff

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

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

    User talk:International Space Station0

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

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

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

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

    Disruptive editor on When the Pawn...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Multiple users breaking 3RR on Gilman School article

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

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

    Awshort (talk)

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

    Vandal encounter

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

    diffs:

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

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

    User:Glenn103

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

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

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

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

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

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

    North Korean involvement in Russian-Ukraine war discussion

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

    Key Points:

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

    Request for Administrative Action:

    I respectfully request that administrators address the following issues:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Concern About a New Contributor

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

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

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

    Dear Wikipedians,

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

    I believe your experience could help address this situation effectively.

    Looking forward to your advice on how to proceed.

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

    "Vandalize" is a very loaded word here with a specific meaning. As far as I can tell, what they've done is nominate 4 articles for deletion, and your response has been to accuse them of vandalism, ignoring dispute resolution procedures and making personal attacks – none of which I can see at a glance through their contributions.
    Perhaps if you supplied evidence of this behaviour, someone would be able to help? If your issue is that they've nominated 4 articles of which you are a major contributor and are doing so by going through your contributions in order to find articles to nominate for deletion with specious reasons, then this board would be the place to come. If not, then making your arguments for keeping the articles on the AfDs in question would be your best bet.
    By the way is forum shopping. Stop that. 81.2.123.64 (talk) 16:06, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
    (ec) This is an odd one. As S-Aura failed to provide diffs, I looked at Kriji Sehamati's contribution history. New account (9 Dec) began editing today, created two drafts and made a bunch of edits to those. Then began adding COI tags to articles S-Aura wrote, nominated those articles for deletion, and then left a possible UPE template on S-Aura's talk page. Really seems to be something weird going on here between those two. (In addition to opening this ANI thread, S-Aura asked for help with basically the same message on the talk pages of Ipigott, Ryan shell, CFA, and BusterD, and S-Aura opened same complaint at AN.) Schazjmd (talk) 16:06, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
    I am concerned that User:Kriji_Sehamati’s actions, including unjustified deletion nominations and spamming, are disruptive and violate Misplaced Pages’s guidelines.
    She seems to lack understanding of basic Misplaced Pages guidelines, particularly those related WP:GNG and WP:NPOL. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 16:40, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
    You were asked to provide diffs. You did, almost, here but then reverted yourself. Those diffs (well, the ones before those diffs) are just the other user nominating articles for deletion (which is allowed) or tagging them for what they believe to be conflict of interest edits (which is also allowed).
    Please provide some actual evidence that the other user is engaging in chronic, intractable behaviour, rather than just not editing how you would like them to. 81.2.123.64 (talk) 17:21, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
    Here are some diffs highlighting her problematic edits. However, I believe that many of her contributions may be in violation of Misplaced Pages’s guidelines. It appears she has specifically targeted me and added the COI tag multiple times to the same page. I would appreciate it if you could review her actions more thoroughly:
    •
    •
    •
    •
    and many more
    Thankyou! 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 17:33, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
    We wouldn't generally treat an AfD as vandalism. Simonm223 (talk) 17:39, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
    I understand your point about AfDs not generally being treated as vandalism. However, I noticed that the major contribution history of the user seems suspicious. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 17:42, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
    Not from where anybody else is standing so far. I get that you're upset to have four articles of yours nominated for deletion, and if you have any evidence at all that you are being deliberately targeted by the other editor, then people will very much act on that. Please provide it. 81.2.123.64 (talk) 17:58, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
    I am here to contribute and edit articles in accordance with Misplaced Pages’s guidelines. However, today a new user targeted me and falsely blamed me for actions that are not accurate. I believe this is unfair and not in line with the collaborative nature of the platform. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 18:04, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
    Please provide evidence of this. 81.2.123.64 (talk) 18:06, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
    Please check! 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 18:07, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
    The articles that have been nominated for deletion discussion have been reviewed by experienced contributors. These discussions involve articles about judges and lawyers, under WP:NPOL, a valid criterion according to Misplaced Pages’s guidelines. Therefore, the deletion decision was made after carefully reviewing these articles. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 18:11, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
    Honestly it looks like this user, rightly or wrongly, believes you have a conflict of interest and are acting on the basis of that assumption. I would suggest, if you don't have a CoI, talking to them about this and maybe asking why they've come to this conclusion. Simonm223 (talk) 18:10, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
    They have just started targeting my contributions, and I tried to inform her about the situation. However, she is acting as if she knows everything about Misplaced Pages and is dismissing my concerns. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 18:15, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
    @Kriji Sehamati: hasn't edited since their AfD spree earlier today, let's wait and see what their response here is when they return to editing. Schazjmd (talk) 18:16, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
    • We need to stop focusing on the OP's calling this vandalism; it is not. I've changed the header to reflect that. That said, the new user's edits are problematic and merit scrutiny. As for the UPE stuff, I've removed that post from the OP's Talk page; it's nonsensical coming from a new user and does not merit a response.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:42, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
    • It is, of course, not vandalism to nominate articles for AFD discussions as long as a legitimate deletion rationale is provided and the article hasn't just been discussed at a recent AFD. However, I don't think it's a good sign when a brand new editor claims to understand all of Misplaced Pages policies and whose first actions are to nominate articles at AFDs. They are almost never an actual new editor, especially when they know how to even set up an AFD or are familiar with using Twinkle on their first day of editing. Liz 19:34, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
      It seems that she is not new to Misplaced Pages and might be operating multiple accounts. It appears she has an issue with one of my contributions, as she created her account just 15 days ago, yet she already has a good understanding of tools like Twinkle and AfD procedures. This level of familiarity suggests prior experience on the platform. I am now requesting her account to be blocked as I am completely disturbed by her repeated allegations and disruptive behavior. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 11:32, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
      I am now genuinely confused—if all my contributions are not good, then why am I even here? Were the experienced editors who reviewed and approved these pages also mistaken? A newcomer, who joined just recently, is now disrupting and questioning the validity of all the work that has been carefully reviewed and maintained by experienced contributors. This situation is deeply discouraging. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 11:58, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
      Please resolve this situation—either block her for her disruptive behavior. How can i continue working under such constant targeting and stress ? 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 12:00, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
      User:S-Aura, you seem to be making unsupported personal attacks against User:Kriji Sehamati. You should provide specific evidence of wrongdoing, including diffs, or your arguments here will fall on deaf ears (and bring consequences for you). Meanwhile, as a filer on ANI, you have brought all your own edits to close scrutiny by the community. You may have to face that smart people disagree, and this is how we sort disagreements out on English Misplaced Pages. You are not required to edit, but we encourage you to do so. Nobody is going to block Kriji Sehamati at this point, because you've given us no reason to do so. BusterD (talk) 12:01, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
      Meanwhile, in the last few minutes S-Aura has disruptively created a second thread about this exact issue on this same board, which was reverted by another editor. This is intentional disruption. BusterD (talk) 12:07, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
      As to the question "Why am I here?", poets and artists have been trying to answer this question for eons. Epistemology is outside the scope of this board, but there are articles about it. Show up to edit if you want to, but expect disagreement from time to time. (That's actually a sound answer to any epistemology question as well.) BusterD (talk) 12:16, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
      Dear @BusterD,
      It means I have been proven wrong, and that user’s contributions have been more focused on me, which is quite insufficient to catch someone’s lie that she is pretending to be new, when in fact she is old.
      Also, I am not against AfD; I am simply expressing my opinion. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 13:12, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
      Could you please rephrase your point here? I don't understand. While it's okay to be suspicious that this editor is somehow socking or doing something else deceptive due to the familiarity, it seems unacceptable to deliberately accuse them of such repeatedly without firmer evidence. Remsense ‥ 论 13:19, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
      Dear @Remsense,
      I am not engaged in paid activities on Misplaced Pages, and she claimed that I am connected with the subject, who is a judge, lawyer, etc. You all should understand that this is not a trivial matter; justice is a very respected position. Making such allegations can escalate court cases. I would like to remind you of the Misplaced Pages vs. ANI case. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 13:24, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
      One thing you need to understand immediately is you should never make another post that sounds vaguely like a legal threat, as you've just done above. Seriously. That intonation is seriously not helping us decide who's right or wrong here. Remsense ‥ 论 13:27, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
      Okay! 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 13:35, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
      I will caution you that this is tiptoeing right up to the edge of WP:NLT and you'd be advised to avoid making legal threats. Simonm223 (talk) 13:28, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
      Dear @Simonm223,
      I am merely showing that she can potentially do something inappropriate. I am following the guidelines and not making any legal threats. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 13:31, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
      Accusing another editor of potentially making legal threats is not much better, when there is no concrete evidence that they would do so. Being interested in articles about judges does not suffice. Remsense ‥ 论 13:32, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
      The page of Justice Subramonium Prasad, who had conducted over the Misplaced Pages vs. ANI court hearing, was also created by me. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 13:28, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
      State plainly what the implication you are making here is, because what I'm hearing is "I'm familiar with people who have hit Misplaced Pages with a mallet in court before, and I can make sure it happens again". Remsense ‥ 论 13:30, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
      This is becoming a rabbit hole. I urge you not to pursue the rabbit further. BusterD (talk) 13:33, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
      Good call, I'll retract the above. Remsense ‥ 论 13:34, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
      No, that is not what I am implying. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 13:33, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
      No one has said your contributions are not good. However, it should be noted that a draft being accepted at AfC or a new page having been patrolled does not guarantee greater scrutiny would not result in a valid AfD nomination. That said, echoing others here it's clear something problematic is up with this user's behavior. Remsense ‥ 论 12:02, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
      You can't both criticize someone for lack understanding of basic Misplaced Pages guidelines, particularly those related WP:GNG and WP:NPOL, and then argue that she is too familiar with the platform to be a newcomer for knowing how to file an AfD. I wouldn't be surprised if most people here knew how to file an AfD before knowing all 14 notability guidelines by heart. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 12:59, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
      There are detailed instructions on filing an AfD that can be found by googling "how can I get a Misplaced Pages page deleted" - if somebody had some personal reason for wanting to have pages removed it doesn't strain credibility to think that's why they created a WP account and that they just followed the very clear instructions on the appropriate pages.
      In fact that might explain why some of the AfD filings were reasonable and some were, on their face, incorrectly filed. If you looked up the AfD process but not criteria that is the likely outcome. That's why I find the "new user files AfDs must be a sock" idea here somewhat uncompelling. Simonm223 (talk) 13:04, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
    • I believe we're entering boomerang territory at this point. Opinions? BusterD (talk) 13:35, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
      I think OP is upset that a cluster of their articles were put up at AfD. This in itself is understandable, but while there's reason to think there might be mischief by Kriji Sehamati, we don't have any real evidence of it. We either need the OP to make it clearer what misconduct, if any, has occurred, or they need to drop the stick. Remsense ‥ 论 13:37, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
      The OP has been intentionally disruptive (by creating a new ANI thread which was reverted), and this thread is going nowhere. IMHO, there's nothing ANI can do here. Everything I'm reading about should be resolved at the page talk and user talk level, in my opinion. The AfDs are underway. If dispute resolution is needed, fine. Nobody is harming S-Aura. S-Aura can't come crying to ANI (or four random user talk pages like mine) anytime someone merely disagrees with them. BusterD (talk) 14:08, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
      I'd have said close with trout for all if not for creating the second thread at AN/I. Based on that I'd say the OP should be formally cautioned against such antics in the future. Simonm223 (talk) 14:10, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
      I should have added that I largely hold with Remsense in their position. BusterD (talk) 14:15, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
      User:Kriji Sehamati‬ is definitely a sock puppet on Misplaced Pages, but we don’t have any evidence because understanding Misplaced Pages’s AfD process so quickly can be a bit challenging. I have no problem with AfD regarding my contributions, and it’s a good thing that experienced contributors are giving their feedback. If you believe that the kriji is 100% correct and her activity is not suspicious, then this discussion should be closed. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 14:27, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
      You need to stop insisting this is definitely the case if you don't have any evidence for it, period. Remsense ‥ 论 14:28, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
      S-Aura, how did you make the determination User:Kriji Sehamati‬ is definitely a sock puppet on Misplaced Pages? Please share your process. That's a personal attack, and requires proof to prevent you from being in violation of WP:NOPERSONALATTACKS. I've looked at the AfDs and they seem reasonable to me. When you've provided strong sources the article is being kept. So far the jury is out on the others. Both of you seem to be writing articles about obscure living persons who wouldn't normally (by my cursory reading) have a Misplaced Pages article about them because reliable sourcing is not readily found. When I see that, I must suspect COI or undeclared unpaid editing here, but nobody's admitting to it. BusterD (talk) 15:05, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
      S-Aura's continuing to issue personal attacks makes it more difficult for us to just close this (without some form of consequence for the editor making unproven personal attacks after they've been warned repeatedly). BusterD (talk) 15:08, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
      I have made a level-four user talk page warning for the personal attack. FYI. We've been very nice about this up 'til now, but we need to stop being so kind. Doing foolish things has real world consequences. BusterD (talk) 15:17, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
    • Both editors' apparent use of AI is certainly disruptive. If it continues, it should lead to blocks. C F A 15:10, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
      No personal hate intended, but I just found this and thought it would be worth checking. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 16:49, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
      It would be nice if you could explain the significance for those who do not speak Hausa. Remsense ‥ 论 16:51, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
      She had made contributions to pages in other languages a few months ago. I am attaching her contributions link. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 16:59, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
      How does this constitute evidence of sockpuppetry if we aren't to know what exactly happened? There's a reason we don't just automatically block anybody who is blocked on another language wiki, and I looked through the edits some and didn't find anything outrageous that made it past the language barrier. Remsense ‥ 论 17:01, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
      I agree that it’s important to ensure we have solid evidence before making conclusions. I appreciate your perspective on not automatically blocking users based on blocks from other language wikis. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 17:17, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
      Please don't reply to me or others using ChatGPT. It is flat-out rude. Remsense ‥ 论 17:18, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
    • Support BOOMERANG - I've been uninvoled and have mainly just been watching the back-and-forths, but the personal attacks and VESTED mindset, such as "questioning the validity of all the work that has been carefully reviewed and maintained by experienced contributors", concerns me. Not sure for how long, but I don't think anything longer than a months is appropriate given the circumstances. EF 15:47, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
    • This whole thread, but especially the 16:49, 24 December 2024 (UTC) comment, feels like the OP is just throwing literally everything at the wall to see what sticks. But, worse, what is being thrown at the wall lacks any significant body of evidence to support. I note that a personal attack warning has been given for the continued unfounded accusations being presented, which I think is a good move. I don't support a block at this point, although if I was the OP I would withdraw this complaint and/or drop the stick and walk away from this topic as a matter of urgency to avoid continuing to make the situation worse. Daniel (talk) 17:41, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Darkwarriorblake making aspersions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Followup

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

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

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

    User Stationmanagerskidrow removing information on Radio Skid Row page

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

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

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

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

    Insults

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

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

    Nlkyair012 and LLM chatbots

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    User:Nadeem asghar khan inaccurate edit summaries

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

    Lil Dicky Semi-Protection

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

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

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

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

    Request for Review of Neutrality and Repeated Actions

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Disruptive behavior from IP

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

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

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