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

Revision as of 21:08, 15 January 2015 editRationalobserver (talk | contribs)11,997 edits →Binksternet again: I agree in principle, but it's a pet peeve of mine when editors imply that a certain action is forbidden by policy, only to realize that it's in an essay or information page, but not a guideline or policy.← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 17:18, 24 December 2024 edit undoRemsense (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Page movers, New page reviewers, Template editors58,621 edits →Concern About a New Contributor
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 = 868		|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
			==Obvious sock threatening to take legal action==
	|format=%%i
			{{atop|1=VPN socking blocked. - ] <sub>]</sub> 01:41, 22 December 2024 (UTC)}}
	|age=36
			{{atop|result=IP 2409:40D6:0:0:0:0:0:0/32 range block has been blocked for 6 months. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 03:15, 18 December 2024 (UTC)}}
	|index=no
			] has been socking to edit a wide range of caste articles, especially those related to ]s . This range belongs to ] and has been socking using proxies and VPNs too. Many of which have been blocked. Now they are threatening to take legal action against me "{{tq|but how far we will remain silence their various optimistic reason which divert my mind to take an legal action against this two User}}" . - ] (]) 11:51, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
	|numberstart=826
	|archivenow={{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow}}
	|minarchthreads= 1
	|minkeepthreads= 4
	|maxarchsize= 700000
	|key=d85a96a0151d501b0ad3ba6060505c0c
	}} --><!--
			:Just as ignorant as he is known longtime abnormal activation and especially on those of ] article see his latest revision on ] you will get to urge why he have atrocity to disaggregating ] but pm serious node i dont mention him not a once but ypu can also consolidate this ] who dont know him either please have a eyes on him for a while ] (]) 12:06, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
	-----------------------------------------------------------
			:But wait a second as per ] i dont take his name either not even so dont even try to show your true culler midway cracker and admin can you please not i am currently ranged blocked as my network is Jio telecom which was largely user by various comers] (])
	New entries go down at the *BOTTOM* of the page, not here.
			::Please tell me there's a language issue at play here, and that the IP didn't mention ] and use a racist slur in the same sentence there... —''']''' (]) 12:26, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
	----------------------------------------------------------
			:::I think it's both. ] (]) 12:37, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
	As this page concerns INCIDENTS:
			:::Well, we linguists don't like anecdotal evidence, but I'll provide some: I (non-native speaker of English, with a linguistics PhD) had to look up all the potential candidates for a slur in that post, and when I did find one it's not one I'd ever heard. However, "crackers" is an insult in Hindi, so I'd say it is most likely a PA, just not the one an American English speaker might understand it as. --'']'' <small>] ]</small> 13:02, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
	Place the PAGENAME of the incident in the header.
			::::At least in the South, an American would recognize ] as a pejorative. '''<span style="font-family: Arial;">] <small>]</small></span>''' 13:19, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
	Otherwise, if the notice is about the actions of an individual across several pages, then place the USERNAME of the individual in the header.
			:::::Sure, but the IP user who used the word said they are in India, and their post contains various typical non-native speaker errors. ("culler" instead of "colour", for instance) --'']'' <small>] ]</small> 16:31, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
	----------------------------------------------------------
			:::::<small>Funny thing is you go far ''enough'' south it wraps back around again: ] - ] <sub>]</sub> 22:24, 17 December 2024 (UTC)</small>
	Do not place links in the section headers.
			* Observation: the IP just on the talk page of the ] article. It's peripheral, and the IP is pretty clearly involved. Is this a bad-faith edit by the IP, or should we just take their suggestion and extended-confirmed protect the page?... —''']''' (]) 12:54, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
	(Immediately UNDER the header is preferred).
			*:Is there a Dudi ]? Though I will note there is a lot of overlap between the "Indian Subcontinent" and "South Asian social strata" topic areas. —] ] <sup><small>] ]</small></sup> 21:59, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
	----------------------------------------------------------
			{{abot}}
	Entries may be refactored based on the above.
			*Noting that this person (Truthfindervert?) has taken to using VPNs. I’ve blocked a couple today. --] (]) 22:15, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
	---------------------------------------------------------- -->
			{{abot}}
	== Disruptive talkpage behaviour ==		== Disruptive editing and WP:TALKNO by ] ==
	{{archivetop|I've read this discussion and reviewed some (not all) of the talk pages in question. I have only a lay knowledge of Buddhism, and use the term "karma" much as most Westerners do, and don't have any stake in this.
			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 .
	I'm going to close this without an outcome. My reasons for this are: 1) having read a number of RW's post, though long and overly verbose, they seem generally to the point, though I am again not an expert on Buddhism; 2) Although he seems among the longest, the tendency to give long, quote-filled posts on these talk page appears to be shared; 3) Were I to make a formal close of the discussion below, it would likely be "no consensus", but I don't want to prejudice any future proceedings; and 4) RW has undertaken to be more careful on length and I AGF on his word.
			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 .
	That being said, if this persists, I encourage a refiling. I've had experience with editors who you can see on your watch list have just laid a few kilobytes down on talk AGAIN and it can be very trying. This is not being closed "on the merits", but more or less out of grace and second chances. No one becomes a polished Misplaced Pages editor in a day (if one did, I might take a hard look at sockpuppeting!) Polonius was an ass, but he was right on when he said "Brevity is the soul of wit". RW should remember that short posts are often more effective. The epee is often a more effective weapon than the broadsword. And I'm going to take Polonius's advice and shut up now.--] (]) 11:41, 14 January 2015 (UTC)}}
			<!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 15:20, 17 December 2024 (UTC)</small>
	===Walls of text===
	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)
			: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)
	:: 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)
			::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)
	::: 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)
			:{{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)
	::::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)
			::], this is not good to see. Don't rewrite or reformat other editor's signatures. There is no reason to be doing this unless you are trying to provoke the other editor. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 07:51, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
			::: For what it's worth, AnonMoos stated earlier that the changing of the signature was a unintentional technical issue, due to his use of some "non-standard tool" in accessing the internet . This seems plausible, as similar apparently unintentional changes to non-Ascii character data have happened in edits of his before (e.g. ). But if he knew of this issue, it's rather disappointing he let it happen again some days later . Equally disappointing is the extremely aggressive rhetoric and acerbic tone with which he has been escalating this essentially harmless, good-faith content dispute from the beginning. ] ] 10:25, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::I just can't fathom what tool they're using to get around the HTTPS requirement to edit Misplaced Pages securely. — <b>]:<sup>]</sup></b> 17:42, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::Should be impossible as it's required to even access the site in the first place according to ]]<sup>] </sup> 16:41, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::<strike>Looking at his talk page it's been going back to at least 2011]<sup>] </sup> 16:17, 19 December 2024 (UTC)</strike>
			:Guys, I do not deliberately set out to modify signatures, and when it happens, I am not usually aware of doing so. As I've already explained before in several places, since the December 2019 encryption protocol upgrade (NOT 2011!), the only way I can edit (or view) Misplaced Pages at all from home is by an indirect method which is not fully Unicode-compliant. To change this, I would have to get a completely different type of Internet connection, which would permanently disconnect my older computer, which I still use almost every day.
			:Meanwhile, this thread has been set up so I can't add a comment to it from home without affecting Unicode characters, so I was unable to reply here for 36 hours or so. If I'm silent in the future, it will be for the same reason. ] (]) 01:14, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
			::Misplaced Pages uses Unicode characters (] encoding). Anyone who cannot edit without corrupting such characters should '''not edit'''. ] (]) 03:47, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::Whatever, -- I was using them perfectly fine until December 2019, and still use them perfectly fine on public WiFi, but in December 2019 a requirement was imposed that you can't access Misplaced Pages '''at all''' unless you can handle encryption algorithms and protocols that weren't introduced until the mid-2010s. I have a 2012 web browser on my home computer that handles UTF-8 just fine, but 2012 simply wasn't good enough for the Misplaced Pages developers -- you had to have software that was almost up to date as of 2019, or you would be abruptly totally cut off. If you can drag up the relevant archive of Village Pump Technical, I and others complained at the time, but our concerns were not listened to or considered in any way. The basic attitude of the developers was that if you weren't running almost up-to-date software, then screw you, and if your computer is not capable of running almost up-to-date software, then double screw you! The change was announced for January 2020, but was actually implemented in mid-December 2019, apparently because they were so eager and anxious to start excluding people. It wasn't one of Misplaced Pages's finer moments. Since that time, I have had to use an indirect method to access Misplaced Pages from my home computer, and I don't feel particularly guilty about it (other people's obnoxious behaviors in 2019 have done away with most of the guilt I might feel)... ] (]) 20:59, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::...] was created in ''1994'', and became an official specification in '''2000''', not "mid-2010s". I'm not sure what 2012 web browser you're using, but if it's not able to handle HTTPS not being able to access Misplaced Pages with it is the least of your browsing concerns, given that 85-95% of the World Wide Web defaults to it now. Also I hate to think of how many security holes your ancient computer has. I'm going to be honest: with a brower setup that old it isn't safe for you to be on the web ''at all'', and the security hole that lets you access Misplaced Pages without using a secure connection should be fixed, because that is ''not'' working as intended and is - as mentioned - a security hole. - ] <sub>]</sub> 00:18, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::You unfortunately don't know what you're talking about. New ENCRYPTION ALGORITHM AND PROTOCOL METHODS have been introduced ''within'' HTTPS from time to time. I was using HTTPS perfectly happily until December 2019, when the developers arbitrarily ENCRYPTION ALGORITHM AND PROTOCOL REQUIREMENTS. ] (]) 00:57, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::And even leaving that aside, as Johnuniq mentions - if you can't edit without corrupting Unicode characters, and by your own admission you ''don't know when it happens'', you shouldn't be editing. - ] <sub>]</sub> 00:20, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::This is probably a reference to when Misplaced Pages started requiring TLS 1.2 (because earlier versions were deprecated). Anyone who was/is still on Windows XP at that point couldn't connect any more. ] (]) 01:29, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
			::I'm not talking about when the update happening, I'm talking about how you have known about this issue, and have been getting complainants about it since <strike>2011</strike>and are still not taking any steps to do anything about it. What kind of internet connection would not support your PC? What on earth are you even using? Dial-Up? Because that still is supported by even Windows 10. ]<sup>] </sup> 02:59, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			<strike>:::Also, how did you see me saying "this has happened since 2011" as me saying that the update happened in 2011? Can you clarify. ]<sup>] </sup> 03:07, 23 December 2024 (UTC) </strike>
			::::The problem didn't start in 2011, and I have no idea what you're referring to when you mention 2011. The problem started in December 2019 when the developers arbitrarily imposed new ENCRYPTION ALGORITHM AND PROTOCOL REQUIREMENTS... ] (]) 00:57, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::: Apologies. I was extremely tired when I wrote both above. I have striken the date parts. Rest of my comments still stand. ]<sup>] </sup> 01:06, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			===None of this matters===
			I don't care what tool this guy uses or what his excuse is. If he can't edit without screwing up people's sigs, then he must not edit. {{U|AnonMoos}} shouls consider himself on notice now that if one of his edits messes stuff up one more time, he'll be blocked until he can give assurance that he's come into the 21st century. ]] 18:05, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			:That's nice -- and also totally inaccurate. I ''was'' in the 21st century, and using 2012 tools, up until December 2019, when the developers pitchforked me backwards by arbitrarily imposing HTTPS ENCRYPTION ALGORITHM AND PROTOCOL REQUIREMENTS which my home computer hardware is not able to run. Notice that I had no problem complying with character-set handling -- the problem is with arbitrary ENCRYPTION ALGORITHM AND PROTOCOL REQUIREMENTS. ] (]) 00:48, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::The century imagery is irrelevant. You have been warned. ]] 03:14, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			::That was ''six years ago'', which is IMO about 3-4 years too long to keep using it as an excuse. Technology changes over time, so whatever this non-standard thing you think you need to do to edit here, it may be time to make a choice. ] (]) 00:56, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::As I said, to fix the problem, I would have to get a completely different type of Internet connection which would permanently disconnect my old computer, which I still use almost every single day. I would basically have to change my workflow and overall habits/methods of working because of an arbitrary decision by Misplaced Pages developers about encryption protocol updates. Anyway, when editing through public WiFi, I'm 100% Unicode compliant, and by exercising a little prudence, I can also avoid most problems when working from home. If I was constantly mangling Unicode right and left, there would have been a chorus of complaints long before now. But occasionally I can't anticipate a problem... ] (]) 01:06, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::And just to say for the third time: you're out of chances. "Occassionally" is too often. Once more is too often. And if and when that happens, your attitude of entitlement displayed here will pretty much ensure an indefinite block. ]] 03:14, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::If you have DSL or even DialUp. That still works with modern machines. ]<sup>] </sup> 01:08, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::Heck, ''I'' am on DSL (and have been since, if I recall right, 2008). I have no idea what sort of ancient Internet connection AnonMoos is claiming to be using, but it's clearly one that was already obsolete before this change he's still up in arms about six years later was made. - ] <sub>]</sub> 05:44, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			*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)
	::::: 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)
			== Disruptive editing by ] ==
	:::::: 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)
			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.
	: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)
			] (]) 20:52, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
	:: Those two editors haven't edited the article since 2011!
			:@]: 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)
	:: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Dzogchen&offset=&limit=500&action=history
			::MJL why and how did you pick out that one article over the many this IP has made recent changes to? The IP has been making disputed edits for months and has been reverted by a number of editors, not just Moroike. ] (]) 01:10, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::@]: I am not suggesting that the IP editor isn't being disruptive, but my point is that {{u|Moroike}} isn't making the situation better (using the example of that one article). You can see this by looking at <span class="plainlinks"></span> where {{gender:Moroike|he has|she has|they have}} mostly just reverted this editor without using a summary. &#8211;<span style="font-family:CG Times, times">]&thinsp;]<sup>]</sup></span> 18:02, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			::The IP's edits were removed a total of 13 times on the page regarding the capital city of ], ]. You can't let him continue engaging in further edit wars with other users besides Moroike, can you? ] (]) 17:24, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			Since this IP user won't stop and is stonewalling, either he/should be temporarily blocked, or all the pages he is POV pushing without sources, should be semi-protected, so that only registered users can edit them. ] (]) 21:37, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			:After he/she was blocked for 24 hours, this IP created an account as ] in order to evade the block and has resumed his/her POV pushing. ] (]) 16:51, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			== User engaged in edit warring to remove disputed content prior to consensus ==
	:: 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.
			{{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 -->
	:: 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)
			: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)
	* 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)
			::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 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)
			*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)
	===What Administrative Intervention?===
			*: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)
	] 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)
			*::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)
	: 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)
			*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)
	::::: 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)
			*: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.
	:: 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.
			:This is a report of edit warring to revert disputed content prior to a consensus being reached (there was no consensus prior to the reversion and there still is no consensus, as admitted by PSW themselves in that very dispute and In their latest revert message, no idea why now in this report they are trying to claim that there is suddenly consensus for removal).
			:This is not a report on the dispute itself, just to make that very clear since those involved are responding as if it is. ] (]) 18:41, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
			::You've still got this backward. You need to show a consensus to keep your content in the article, as everyone else has been telling you. ] is directly on point, and I'll quote it here: {{Tq|The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content.}} ] (]) 18:53, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::Thank you. I have tried to inform them of this many times and many ways. I do not know why they cannot wrap their head around the concept. Conceptually, it would be very problematic if we were required to retain every disputed content until consensus ruled it out. It wouldn't be workable. ] ] 19:02, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::Nobody is arguing WP:ONUS here...not in the dispute and not here in this report. The point is that the content is being removed prior to there being a consensus on if it should be removed.
			:::I was directly advised by admin Pbsouthwood that the removal of disputed content BEFORE any consensus has been reached is not allowed (save for specific situations, none of which apply to the disputed content) as this bypasses the consensus building process. ] is the talk page where I was advised this. This is echoed with the wording in WP:STONEWALLING and ]. Here is the direct quote from the latter, "To eliminate the risk of an edit war, do not revert away from the status quo ante bellum during a dispute discussion. Instead, add an appropriate tag indicating the text is disputed. For an article, many of the inline dispute tags are appropriate. For other pages, {{under discussion inline}} is good. Leave the status quo and the tag in place until the discussion concludes." ] (]) 19:58, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::{{tq|The point is that the content is being removed prior to there being a consensus on if it should be removed.}} <--- No. This is your problem. What you are saying here is incorrect. Policies say the opposite of this. You are not going to get support at ANI. In fact, the longer you keep going with this ] insistence that community practice is actually the opposite of what policies plainly say it is, the more likely it is you're going to find yourself blocked for disruption. Pbsouthwood didn't tell you this either (what he wrote doesn't match what you've been doing), and your initial question did not properly represent the situation at hand. But we can invite him here to see if he actually supports what you're doing here: {{ping|Pbsouthwood}}, what say you? ] (]) 20:06, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::This entire comment serves absolutely zero purpose whatsoever. You're parroting what others have already said with no supporting evidence. Along with throwing in an oddly included threat that is completely nonsensical and wholly unwarranted.
			:::::And while I could point out the myriad of ways your claim about what Pbsouthwood said was inaccurate, that would pretty much involve reposting his reply, which is a waste since anyone can already go to his talk page and read it themselves.
			:::::So at this point, if you need that admin to come here and tell you what they already said themselves, more power to you. Would save us all a ton of time to get an authoritative answer on this, especially with another admin holding the opposite view point, in spite of the specific policy wording. ] (]) 23:08, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::], there does not need to be an established consensus for the removal of content. ]. - ] <sub>]</sub> 01:28, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::I'm not the one insisting otherwise...this report only exists because an ]. And as I've posted in my previous replies, the wording in the policies clearly support that. Makes me question how many have actually bothered to really read these policies... ] (]) 02:22, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::::The other admin told you ''nothing'' about the removal of ], which is always appropriate. ]. - ] <sub>]</sub> 03:19, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::::# This report is not an extension of the dispute discussion for that article, if you want to involve yourself in that discussion, do so there, do not hijack this report.
			:::::::::# The disputed content is plainly not WP:SYNTH as I explain on the talk page in great length, with nobody thus far having provided valid examples as to how it is.
			:::::::::# If you are going to make the claim that any WP:SYNTH concerns warrant immediate reversion without consensus, please feel free to share the quote in the relevant policy that says this. I have not found any such wording and instead found that what is present matches up with what PBsouthwood informed me.
			:::::::::] (]) 17:17, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::] ] ] 02:05, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::At this point I say that my advice was given without a specific context, and without prejudice. I maintain that it is more collegial and polite to discuss a removal of unsourced but ''plausible'' content ''before'' removing it, as it can often avoid disputes of this kind, but it is not forbidden to arbitrarily delete content that an editor ''plausibly considers inappropriate provided the relevant reason is given''. It is always the responsibility of the person advocating inclusion to provide a reference when challenged, regardless of the process of challenge.
			:::::Some forms of synthesis are acceptable. If a conclusion is logically inevitable based on undisputed factual premises, or is a simple mathematical calculation, we routinely accept claims that may not be specifically stated in a source, but we may require the logic to be explained, as it may not be obvious to the reader.
			:::::At the risk of being ], I also refer readers to <s>]</s> <u>(looks like that essay has been expunged, try ])</u>. &middot; &middot; &middot; ] ]: 06:59, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::I think many of us used to the mess editors adding unsourced content can create would strongly oppose leaving in unsourced content just because it's plausible. The standard should instead be at a minimum that you believe the claim made is most likely correct and sourceable not simply that it's plausible. Although ultimately such discussions are a little silly anyway. If editors would just add sources rather than leaving it for someone else because they're claiming it's unlikely to be challenged or whatever, there would be a need for others to decide whether to query or remove unsourced content. ] (]) 09:56, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::I was suggesting tagging with citation needed while you wait a reasonable time for a response, but as we know some of us do not have the patience and just revert. It in not unheard of to know something, but not have a source handy at the time. What is obvious to one may be totally obscure to others. This is acceptable within policy and guidelines. You could start a RfC to have the guidelines changed, but I suspect it would not get through as being a bit bitey. Cheers, &middot; &middot; &middot; ] ]: 12:47, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::::Yes, what you say is true, that's absolutely an acceptable approach. But that's not really the problem at hand here. The bigger issue is that Sxbbetyy appears to be believe that the alternative approach - reverting per STATUSQUO or NOCONSENSUS - is somehow misconduct, and that's simply not true. They're not arguing about if your approach is valid, they're arguing that its ''compulsory'', and they're attempting to report a user for not following your possible approach, which is completely meritless. ] ] 17:31, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::::Please do not put words in my mouth. The only reason this report exists is because Peter Southwood advised that this was how I should proceed if the editor participating in this no-consensus reverting continued to do so and was unreceptive to further discussion. (Both are true by admission of PSW themselves). ] (]) 18:22, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::::::Yes, I've seen , but you presented the situation to them entirely in hypotheticals that lacks crucial context. You frame PSW as unwilling to engage in discussion but omit the fact that You accuse PSW of edit warring to keep their information in the article, but omit the fact that . I would think the near-unanimous rejection of this ANI report would indicate that this was not, in fact, a good thing to report. Best case scenario, this is archived with no action, but I'd be shocked if it didn't result in a ]. ] ] 18:44, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::::::I don't know why you are attempting to present the entire discussion on that talk page as some sort of proof that PSW was willing to engage in further discussion to halt the behavior this report is about. At no point whatsoever did PSW ever indicate anything like that; if they did this report wouldn't exist as the discussions on your talk page or Peter Southwood's page would have never needed to happen. Not to mention if you take the time to actually read the discussion, you see that most of it is on the specifics of the validity of the WP:SYNTH claim made by PSW, eventually culminating in PSW actually asserting that they will not stop change their position on this and then outright refusing to engage any further.
			:::::::::::And now you accuse me of edit warring by citing the entire recent edit history of the page...this isn't fooling anyone who actually bothers to read any of the revert messages and examine the timeline of when they occurred (talk about omitting "crucial context").
			:::::::::::Beyond just slandering my character, I don't really see what these kind of spurious claims accomplish. It wastes everyone's time, makes yourself look biased and hostile, and adds nothing to the conversation. Keep things civil please, I really shouldn't have to tell you of all people that basic expectation. ] (]) 02:38, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::::::::Wait...are you seriously trying to suggest that, even though you were the only one who reverted him every single time, he was edit warring and you weren't? ] ] 02:50, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::::::::If you are going to continue to twist words and make false claims immediately after being asked to keep things civil, maybe it would be best for all involved if you just moved on from this conversation. Sad that even has to be stated at this point, it should be a given. ] (]) 17:25, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::::::::::Yet another IDHT response where you try to baselessly chastize me rather than address anything anyone is saying to you. ] ] 18:14, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::::::::::What a choice to post this exact type reply to my last message... not to mention the sheer absurdity of it. To claim that I've never addressed anyone's points in my replies is so easily and visibly wrong (literally this entire topic is full of my detailed replies to people's concerns, including this very reply) that it's almost insulting to the rest of the people participating in this or to anyone who even chooses to read that message. It's as if you think nobody can see the rest of this discussion (or even the comments directly above it). ] (]) 11:52, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::Thank you for taking the time to respond and my apology for any inconvenience it may have caused. Ive tried to keep it as civil as possible, but there seems to be a very hostile air in this discussion by those with the dissenting opinion. As for how this situation is to be resolved, would it be appropriate to restore the currently disputed content with the appropriate tags (as it is sourced and was the statusquo on the page at the time of reversion)? Or is there something further that must be done here? I'm generally unfamiliar with how ANIs actually function. ] (]) 17:52, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
			:Have you considered starting an ]? The fact is that you made a ] addition to the article; someone else objected to it, which means you now ought to seek consensus ''for your addition''. As numerous people have told you, none of the relevant policies and guidelines (], ], ], etc) would allow you to make a recent addition the "default" the way you want, but more generally - the problem is that you're trying to dig through policy for something that will make your preferred version the default, allowing you to have it in the article without having to demonstrate consensus for it even in the face of challenges. Even if the policies and guidelines I listed ''were'' on your side this would still be a bad way to approach it. You have a conflict, your goal should be to resolve it by making consensus as clear as possible - figuring out what the crux of the dispute is and then, if you can't reach a compromise, holding an RFC to see where consensus lies. Also, I have to point out that just by a quick nose count of people who have weighed in on talk, I'm seeing a dispute that is now three-to-one against you. That ''is'' a consensus - not a massive one, maybe an RFC will pull in a bunch of people that say something else, but it doesn't make sense for you to keep demanding a consensus to remove something you added when there actually ''is'' such a consensus on talk. You've disagreed with their arguments but they're not obliged to ] you; ultimately if you think your arguments are so strong and theirs are so weak, the only real option for you at this point is to start an RFC and hope that you can demonstrate that there. --] (]) 04:10, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
			::As mentioned earlier in the discussion, this report is not an extension of the dispute on that article, nor is that what this report is about. Also, a RFC was already started for the topic about a week or so ago by PSW, but that occurred after he reverted the status quo, disputed content with discussion (repeatedly). As for the rest of your comment, Peter Southwood, an admin, has addressed what is the actual expectation. ] (]) 18:00, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::What? I never started an RfC. — ] (]; ]) 19:07, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::I just checked and on 12/9/24 at ] you said the following, "Thanks – just wanted to mention I requested comments from ] and ] about 2 weeks ago."
			::::Did that not actually happen? ] (]) 02:11, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::] is a specific process. Asking questions on a couple of Wikiprojects is not an RFC. ] (]) 02:22, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::That's fundamentally not what an RFC is. This is getting ridiculous... ] ] 03:03, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::It's almost like this is the very first time I've ever been involved in this kind of issue on Misplaced Pages before...seriously these kind of replies come off as rude and don't actually say anything meaningful or helpful. Ever since our conversation on your talk page you have made next to no real effort to engage in good faith and I find that highly disappointing to be coming from an admin. And my apology if I offended you at all at some point or if you have just "lost your patience" with me, but I don't see how that gives you the green flag to suddenly disregard ]. I certainly haven't, in spite of being on the receiving end of this. ] (]) 17:44, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::I haven't said anything uncivil, I just keep calling you out when you say something incorrect. ] ] 18:08, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::::], is a powerful force, I find it difficult to resist myself. ] (]) 18:10, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
			===Request for closure===
	:: 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.
			Despite its large size, the consensus here is quite clear. There's no misconduct here, just standard following of procedures of ] and ], which is perfectly acceptable. Not a single person has suggested taking any action towards PerfectSoundWhatver. Outside of a a potential IDHT BOOMERANG, there's nothing left to be done here. Can someone close this? ] ] 14:02, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
			:I second that. If there has been any edit-warring by any party that should be dealt with in the normal way. {{u|PerfectSoundWhatever}} has certainly done nothing wrong, and the OP will get blocked if they don't start listening to people pretty quickly. ] (]) 14:24, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
			::Exactly. And even that's probably unlikely, as most of the "edit warring" was singular reverts with days or weeks in between. It's far from a 3RR situation at least. ] ] 15:26, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
			:{{non-admin comment}} I don't think this conversation is going anywhere fast, other than seemingly coming to the conclusion that @] has done nothing wrong, which seems to be the opposite of what this ANI post was about. There's no edit warring here, and even if there was, it wouldn't be dealt with at this venue. Shut it down! ] (]) 16:48, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
			:In what way whatsoever is this editor's decision to revert the disputed content during the discussion "standard following of procedures of WP:STATUSQUO"? The literal first words that appear at that link are in bold and say, "'''Avoid reverting during discussion'''", followed by a detailed explanation of the actual proper procedure. And to make it very clear what it says, here is the literal first paragraph verbatim: "To eliminate the risk of an edit war, do not revert away from the '']'' '''during a dispute discussion'''. Instead, add an appropriate tag indicating the text is disputed. For an article, many of the ] are appropriate. For other pages, <code><nowiki>{{</nowiki>]<nowiki>}}</nowiki></code> is good. Leave the status quo and the tag in place until the discussion concludes." ] (]) 02:31, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			::In what way is ''that'' your read of the consensus in the discussion above? ] ] 02:49, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::In what world do you logically come to that conclusion from a message that consist of almost entirely the word for word quote of the procedures described in WP:STATUSQUO, that directly counters the claim you just made? Are you saying it is "against consensus" simply because it presents a viewpoint you don't like and don't want to address? I don't see another reason why you would again twist my words, to the point of lunacy. And this is, once again, despite the fact that all of what has been said is literally within view.
			:::Also, regarding the consensus. Out of everyone that has actually joined the discussion and all the messages sent (~90% of which are either from myself or you Serge), there have been only three people who have actually said anything in support of your interpretation of this. The rest either did not discuss the topic, did not express an opinion, or were Peter Southwood who supported the interpretation of WP:STATUSQUO as stated on its page. Seems like you're just trying to rush a end to the conversation to get the conclusion you want. ] (]) 15:02, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::I'm saying there has been no consensus for anything you're arguing here. Not a single person has supported action against PSW. ] ] 15:15, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::The status quo ante bellum that shouldn't be reverted from is the version ''without the new content''. ] (]) 15:16, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			{{abot}}
			== Mgtow definition ==
	{{cot}}
			{{atop|1=Editor was pointed to the talk page and then stopped editing. It looks like this was a case of ]. - ] <sub>]</sub> 03:45, 22 December 2024 (UTC)}}
			There are blatant lies in the wiki definition of "mgtow".
			The goal is accuracy, not "man bashing". ] (]) 14:48, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
			:@], you should discuss this at ]. This noticeboard is for conduct issues, not content issues. ]&nbsp;] 14:54, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
			:Nothing wrong with the definition of MGTOW. Maximum Gross Takeoff Weight is an internationally accepted and used term used by every airplane and airline in the world. ] ] 16:17, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
			::The cintent is incorrect. Mvto is NOT "misogynistic". There is no "hate" towards women, only avoidance. ] (]) 20:21, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
			:@], you were directed to the talkpage, which includes an FAQ on the term you keep trying to remove, along with extensive discussion. You should start there before just removing sourced content that you don't like. We'll leave aside the absence of required notifications to Black Kite and myself who have warned you for your conduct. '''<span style="font-family: Arial;">] <small>]</small></span>''' 17:41, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
			::Where do I find the talk page? ] (]) 20:21, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::@], I linked it for you in my comment above. ]&nbsp;] 20:27, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
			* Camarogue100's removal of material unfavorable to the subject with an edit summary of indicates to me that they are here to play games, not ]. Any more disruption should result in an immediate block IMO. —] (]) 20:33, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
	:: 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}}		{{abot}}
	:: ] (]) 09:40, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
			== Creating the need to make 400,000 unnecessary edits ==
	:: 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)
			Can we please dp something about editors who make unnecessary changes to widely-used modules, and then need to change 400,000 talk pages to get the same result we had before the change? Thanks to change from last week, which removed the parameter "living" from the bannershell, we now have more than 400,000 pages in ]. After the "cleanup" by ] (and perhaps others), we will have the exact same result as we had last week, no new functionality, no new categories, no improvement at all, but a lot of flooded watchlists.
	::::: Well even on this page, I'm taking care to keep my posts as short as I can. ] (]) 17:14, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
			I tried to get him to stop at ], to no avail. This isn't the first time, as you can see from that discussion. ] (]) 14:57, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
	::::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)
			:If you want to discuss {{tl|WikiProject banner shell}}, you should do so at ].
			:As for the size of the category, I have no plans to empty it, and was only going to update a few hundred more categories and templates. &nbsp;&nbsp;<b>~</b>&nbsp;<span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:16px;">] (] ⋅])</span>&nbsp; 15:02, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
			::You made nearly 2000 of such edits in the last few hours, and when asked to stop pointed me to a category with 400,000 entries. I have no way to know how many more you planned now or in future runs. Starting a discussion at the module would hardly stop you. ] (]) 15:10, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::"{{tq|when asked to stop pointed me to a category with 400,000 entries}}": incorrect. Since you wrongly thought I was making cosmetic edits, i.e. "{{tq|no change in output or categories}}", the category was to inform you that they are not cosmetic.
			:::Regarding a BRFA for the bulk of the category, that's looking more likely since the category appears to be neglected. &nbsp;&nbsp;<b>~</b>&nbsp;<span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:16px;">] (] ⋅])</span>&nbsp; 15:29, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::Unnecessary removing a synonym and then making thousands of edits to remove the hidden cat created by that unnecessary change is not really any better than making cosmetic edits, the end result is that nothing has changed for the affected pages at all. ] (]) 15:33, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::Not unnecessary. The Lua code is very complex and removing the need the support various settings makes the code both easier to read and maintain. As always, editors that don't want to see these edits can hide these by hiding the tag "talk banner shell conversion". ] (]) 12:32, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::It doesn´t look as if the specific code to have these synonyms was very complicated though, the argument that in some cases two synonyms were used on one page with conflicting values was more convincing. And the edits I complained about did ''not'' have that tag, so no, even if people knew about hiding that tag, it wouldn't have helped here at all. ] (]) 16:04, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
			:This was discussed in detail on ]. Ideally these edits would be done by an approved bot so they do not appear on people's watchlists. The main benefit is to merge the {{para|blp}} and {{para|living}} parameters. When both are in use, we find they often get conflicting values because one gets updated and the other does not. &mdash;&nbsp;Martin <small>(]&nbsp;·&nbsp;])</small> 17:25, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
			::Isn't it more logical to first have a bot cleanup the unwanted parameter, then remove it from the template, and only then start populating the cat with the somehow remaining or since added instances? In any case, this is a typical bot task and shouldn't be done with massive AWB runs. ] (]) 17:39, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::Yes, probably. But we have this mechanism already set up and I assumed {{ul|Cewbot}} would deal with these as part of its normal activities. Happy to look at other options - maybe discuss on template talk? &mdash;&nbsp;Martin <small>(]&nbsp;·&nbsp;])</small> 18:23, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::I don't know what this is about, but if the OP is correct, it is totally absurd to edit 400,000 talk pages for a tweak. Discussing at a template talk page monitored by those focused on the template would simply hide the issue. ] (]) 03:53, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::Edits like these should ''always'' be bots, so they can be filtered from watchlists. There are numerous other editors who have recently engaged in the mass additional of categories to articles which I had to ask them to stop as my watchlist was flooded. ]] 13:02, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
			* Is it just me or are talk pages like ] just perpetual ] issues where a very small number of editors (frequently 5 or less) make major changes that affect thousands of articles, all without involving the broader community through, at minimum, places like ]? ]]<sup>]</sup> 04:03, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
	::::: 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)
			*{{ping|Fram|Tom.Reding|Kanashimi|Primefac}} I got AWB working again. If cewbot would take time for making the changes, and if this needs attention soon, then should I file a request for that particular bot task? —usernamekiran ] 06:20, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:The robot is in operation... ] (]) 09:09, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			*::yay! —usernamekiran ] 16:04, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			:Meanwhile, the category has grown to over 800,000 pages. Perhaps next time an RfC to determine whether creating such a large cleanup task is warranted, would be better? ] (]) 16:34, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
	:::]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)
			] is making wholesale reverts of my edits in contravention to guidelines. ] (]) 19:17, 20 December 2024 (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)
			: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)
	: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)
			::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.
	:: ] 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)
			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 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
			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.
	::: {{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."}}
			WP could be sooo much better. ] (]) 02:02, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
	::: {{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"}}
			: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)
	::: {{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."}}
			::GO and read the guidelines. It does not need discussion. ] (]) 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. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>]</span> 02:18, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
			::Bear in mind this is WP and not social media. ] (]) 02:16, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
			::How do you get the impression that "I don't remember what policy says but I'm right so leave me alone". ] (]) 02:18, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::No. You brought this here. The ] is on ''you'' to explain how the guidelines justify your edits, not to say "go look it up". Also {{tqq|How do you get the impression that "I don't remember what policy says but I'm right so leave me alone"}} - because that's exactly what you said. - ] <sub>]</sub> 02:19, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::It's not unreasonable in many cases to link to a very specific passage of a guideline and expect an editor to understand its meaning as regards a pertinent dispute, but you can't just fail to clearly articulate your argument while also insisting it's vindicated somewhere within the full text of a guideline. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>]</span> 02:21, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
			:Content dispute. Bold edits were reverted; next step is discussion, probably at ]. If there is dispute over interpretation of the guideline you can consider leaving a pointer at ]. If there are any categories that shouldn't be used at all that can be discussed at ]. ] (]) 03:31, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
			::The content dispute could have been discussed on any of the talk pages. Yet it was brought here first. ] (]) 06:16, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::When a content dispute involves several pages it is often <small>though not always</small> best to centralize discussion. Misunderstanding ANIs purpose and bringing content disputes here is a common and understandable error; best just to point people at appropriate ] when that happens. ] (]) 06:53, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
	::: 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)		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)
	{{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)
			== Unblock request of Rereiw82wi2j ==
	: Glad to have your support in that sock puppetry thing, hopefully it will be the last we hear of the idea :).
			{{atop|1=Blocked, blocked, they're all blocked. - ] <sub>]</sub> 18:47, 21 December 2024 (UTC)}}
			The user {{u|Rereiw82wi2j}} was blocked for blanking talk page discussions. They were removing discussions they participated in with an now-vanished account, for the purpose of removing their username from the talk page(which isn't removed via a vanishing). I believe that per ] their vanishing needs to be reversed, am I correct? Do they need to be asked to resume using that account?(if they can) ] (]) 20:49, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
			:It seems to need reverting because with their previous account, they only edited one article/talk page and when asked what articles they wanted to edit with their new account, they just mention this same article. That violates the entire principle of a clean start account. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 23:00, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
			::Could we revoke TPA per ? ~ ] (]) 14:19, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
			::: I have revoked their talk page access and declined the unblock request. ] (]) 14:34, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::User has created another account {{u|Human82}}. ] (]) 15:39, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::Also now blocked. ]] 16:17, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::There's also ] now. ] (]) 16:32, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::Blocked by PhilKnight. ]] 16:36, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
			{{abot}}
			== User:ZanderAlbatraz1145 Civility and Content #2 ==
	: 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.
			*{{userlinks|ZanderAlbatraz1145}}
			This user has engaged in a lengthy display of disruption. Namely through incessant incivility I have noticed .
			Instances such as , , on , etc. Users such as {{Ping|Waxworker}} and {{Ping|Jon698}} can speak to their experiences, I'll outline mine.
	: 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.
			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 .
	: 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.
			This editor displays no interest in conducting themselves cordially or cooperatively on this website. ] 23:20, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
	: I am going to take especial care to be more concise in my posts in future.
			:I've given them a warning for canvassing: - ] <sub>]</sub> 04:08, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			: - ] <sub>]</sub> 05:36, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			::And they appear to be continuing editing while ignoring here. - ] <sub>]</sub> 05:39, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			== SPA ] back at it on ] ==
	: 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)
			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)
	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)
			:]? ] (]) 06:25, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
	: ] The only edit I have ever done on any of the articles under discussion is to fix one broken link in ]. You can check this by searching the article edit histories for my user name. ] (]) 00:52, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
			::{{duck}}. I'm sending this ]. - ] <sub>]</sub> 11:16, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
	: I '''Support''' a ban or at least severe restrictions to Robert Walker on his endless ranting on talk pages. My painful experience with him is that he focuses on the fringe (such as killer martian bugs) and ignore and deny the scientific references cited that contradict his assays and his blog. Calling him 'disruptive' is a generous term. He is a liability. Cheers, ] (]) 06:22, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
			:::, so might just be generic disruption. - ] <sub>]</sub> 22:47, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
			:What are you implying with regard to my username? My edit history has been limited to trying to correct two red flags that stood out so much that I followed the citations when I was searching these scientists who were in the news for censorship. It has been enlightening learning how wikipedia selectively chooses secondary sources but discourages the use of primary sources to help discriminate which secondary sources are credible.
			:For my two attempted contributions to Misplaced Pages, the two red flags were pretty dramatic to prompt me to check out the citations--Sunetra Gupta's article implied more than 1 in 1000 people in England died from Covid in spring 2020 in an effort to discredit her, which was trivially easy to google as untrue. I corrected that without really changing the overall narrative. The article for Martin Kulldorff...I would probably not have spent time looking at the sources or realized how unscientific Kulldorff's critics were had there not been such superfluous "Wikivoice" editorializing and synthesizing suggesting Kulldorff lied in an essay to the public. ] (]) 06:30, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
			::] are not to be used for anything but simple facts about a subject. They absolutely are not to be used {{tqq|to help discriminate which secondary sources are credible}} because that is ]. - ] <sub>]</sub> 08:57, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::Not sure why you felt the need to repeat what I said. Maybe I am the sock puppeteer! ] (]) 03:33, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			::What I am implying is that such a username in the context of an account pushing COVID-denialist rhetoric that flies in the face of the sources and Misplaced Pages policy is . Anyway, this editor continues to be a drain of editor time and attention. ]&nbsp;]] 14:58, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::Ah an absurd, convoluted, and contrived personal attack. Assuming anyone but you knew tiki torches were present at a political event where someone was killed, why would I choose my username based on that? Tikitorches provide light, warmth, and keep the mosquitos away. I guess its not surprising an editor named writ keeper attacks the editor rather than effectively debating the subject of the edit. ] (]) 03:28, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::Even if it was a personal attack, making one ''back'' isn't going to fly here. Knock it off. - ] <sub>]</sub> 04:04, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::], your edits are being examined at ANI. This is not a pleasant experience, I'll admit. So, it's best for you not to dig yourself into a hole. I know the instinct is to defend yourself but it doesn't help your situation to come out swinging. It's probably to your benefit to address any concerns that have been raised and say no more than that. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 04:30, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			== Persistent addition of unsourced content by 2601:243:CB00:7F10:0:0:0:0/64 ==
	:: Just to point out, ] continually hides my posts to ] and ] as spam. My suggestion there is that these articles say the same things that Encyclopedia Britannica says on the topic. How can that, just as a suggestion on a talk page, be spam? ] (]) 11:51, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
			{{Atop|Blocked for one month.--] (]) 14:52, 21 December 2024 (UTC)}}
	{{cot}}
			{{userlinks|2601:243:CB00:7F10:0:0:0:0/64}} - Keeps adding unsourced content to articles, hasn't responded to warnings, and continued after block expired. /64 has previously been blocked on December 8th for a week due to "Persistent unsourced genre changes", and 2 weeks on September 7th due to addition of unsourced content. Recent examples of addition of unsourced content: {{diff|The Iron Giant|prev|1264168891|1}}, {{diff|Joker (2019 film)|prev|1264169891|2}}, {{diff|Candyman (2021 film)|prev|1264170248|3}}, {{diff|Spirited (film)|prev|1264235847|4}}, {{diff|Sausage Party: Foodtopia|prev|1264237619|5}}. ] (]) 10:22, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
	:: His only basis for this is a threat made over a year ago by another editor (not an admin) in a talk page post, to remove all my content on planetary protection and concerns about colonization of Mars from the Mars section. There was no disciplinary action taken, he never took it to arbitration or to ANI but just made this threat and then acted on it out of his own initiative.
			{{Abot}}
			== Disruptive editing ] ==
	:: As for his claim that I am a fringe editor, it is just not true. He says this because I contributed some sections previously on backward contamination issues for a sample returned to Earth (similar to the quarantine measures taken for the first samples returned from the Moon). For an example of a high quality citation on the subject of backward contamination, see . There are two similar studies by the US National Research Council as well as numerous papers. It is also written into the Outer Space Treaty, that we have to act to prevent "adverse changes in the environment of the Earth resulting from the introduction of extraterrestrial matter" The topic is not fringe. ] (]) 11:51, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
	{{cob}}		{{atop
			| result = I've protected the page for 24 hours. @] and @] are both warned against edit warring, including during the course of this discussion. RR, HR, and .82 should follow ] processes. Further disruptive editing or edit warring after page protection expires will result in blocks. ] (]/]) 21:13, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
			}}
			] has been trying for about a month now to put across his own opinion about the party' infobox. An opinion which he cannot back up with any source whatsoever. Although it has been pointed out to him by both the user ] and me, continues the disruptive editing. Ιt is worth noting that although other users made the same "mistake", when the lack of sources to support the addition was pointed out to them, they accepted it and did not continue to try to pass on their own opinion.
	===Proposal: max 1,500 bytes a day for Robert Walker===
	Given this thread ] at his talkpage, I'm afraid that Robert M. is right, and Robert does not understand Wiki-policies, nor the concept of ], nor the (ir)relevance of his comments. Nevertheless, here's a concrete propsal: Robert is restricted to max 1,500 bytes a day at any given talk page on any given day, including his own. That's ca. 300 words; see . Subpages in userspace to "rehears" his comments are included; he can use Word to practice. If this doesn't work to at least stop the flood of comments, then the proposal of a topic-ban for Buddhism-, India- and Mars-related articles is the next step. ] -] 14:37, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
			https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Movement_for_Democracy_(Greece)#5/300
	:'''Appendix:''' with max three edits a day (room for corrections) at any given talkpage. ] -] 15:43, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
	====Support====
	* '''Support'''. This has been going long enough now. ] -] 14:37, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
	::Including the max of three edits a day at any given talkpage. ] -] 15:44, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
	*'''Support'''. FWIW - Yes, I *entirely* agree with the comments made above by ] - this has been going on long enough - hope this helps in some way - Enjoy! :) ] (]) 14:59, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
	**'''Comment''' - I am far from sure that this proposal is workable in its current form. Maybe a different proposal, like one comment per day on a topic, might be more workable? ] (]) 15:11, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
	:::That would still give him an unrestricted amount of space. The 1,500 might be supplemented with three edits a day (room for corrections) at any given talkpage. ] -] 15:32, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
	::::::'''Disagree''' - I respectfully and strongly disagree with one comment per day. It isn't the number of his posts but their length. A daily number limit, without a length limit, would result in even longer daily rants. ] (]) 16:05, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
	::::That might make sense. I also would suggest that the total number of characters not be necessarily seen as an absolute rule, as I can imagine, in some cases, a reasonable comment extending one or two characters beyond 1500, and I don't think it necessarily in our best interests to count every character of every edit to ensure it doesn't cross an absolute line.] (]) 15:40, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
	:::::Of course. ] -] 15:42, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
	* '''Support''' - Violation should be dealt with blocks, after 1-2 blocks and more, I will seek for more restrictions and if he still fails, then you know what to do next. ] (]) 15:27, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
	* '''Support'''. This was too much. ] (]) 15:33, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
	* '''Suppport''' - I had originally suggested a slightly less restrictive limit, but he doesn't recognize that this is a user-specific issue, and doesn't recognize that some sort of limit is (unfortunately) needed and does not have to be symmetric. I can read lengthy posts by Joshua Jonathan, and have difficulty reading lengthy posts by Robert Walker, and there are more of them by Robert Walker. He is a tedious poster, and something needs to be done. I will support a more draconian measure than I originally proposed in order to get consensus that his posts need to be controlled. ] (]) 16:03, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
	::'''Comment''' ] have you considered the possibility that my posts are harder to read than Joshua's because I propose that the articles continue to include details of certain topics in Buddhism that are hard for any Westerners unfamiliar with Buddhism, such as some details of karma, non self, nirvana etc, which are not part of our culture? (It would be the same the other way around for some of the topics in Christianity, e.g. Resurrection, or transubstantiation, or the ideas of the Trinity, for someone who has never encountered the religion in detail before.) His versions of the articles are easier for many to read, because they remove these details, but easier to read doesn't necessarily mean better. If that is not it, please explain so I can improve my style of writing. Most people say I write well. ] (]) 12:58, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
	:::"Karma and predestination" - now we're getting somewhere. See ] and ]. Karma and predestination etc may be relevant for Protestant Christians (though less relevant for Catholics, and irrelevant for atheists and non-Christians), and ''that'' may make it relevant for the "Karma in Buddhism" article. There must be reliable sources on that. ] -] 15:10, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
	::::Speaking strictly for myself, I find the nature of Robert Walker's comment above both obviously condescending and offensive. He seems to be indicating in it that, somehow, he and apparently possibly ''only'' he among all Westerners can understand concepts, and that there are no Westerners who have any knowledge of the topics. I am a Catholic of the west, although, honestly, I probably know a lot less about that than I do about Zoroastrianism and early Indo-European religions, because I studied those. I think the time may have come and gone for Robert Walker to realize (1) that there are a huge number of reference works related to religion, including Buddhism, and that most of that content is written by "experts" in that field, and (2) despite his rather obvious inherent suppositions to the contrary, they probably know and communicate the relevant information better than Robert himself, because they are published in their field, where he is not. ] (]) 22:28, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
	::::: ] - I have no knowledge of the details of this situation, but I know that it is against Misplaced Pages's "Assume Good Faith" requirement to go ahead with your conclusion about the post being condescending and offensive. Text-based communication is complex. You are required by Misplaced Pages policy to assume that the post was made with respectful intentions unless it is absolutely clearly a violation of that. It is not ok to act upon your own feeling of offense at some of the details and then assert that the post is condescending. You need to instead say "I could interpret this as condescending, but I will give you the benefit of the doubt that it wasn't intended that way." That is a requirement of the Assume Good Faith policy. ] (]) 07:52, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
	:::::: Thanks :) ] (]) 16:25, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
	::::: ] - the background to this is that Robert told me in talk page comments, "I have not edited in Buddhist-related discussion and have very little knowledge of Buddhism, other than that it is one of the world's major religions and has good ethical teachings". See . And, the subject is full of many technical terms such as dharmakaya, nirmanakaya, dharma, dukkha, anatta. Even terms many people know like karma and nirvana are in reality technical terms in Buddhism. Of course you will know, but how many people who know the word nirvana can explain in detail what it is about? If you don't know what these terms mean, then you won't know what the discussion is about. Just like any technical subject. Or e.g. maths, e.g. if I talk about the Reimann hypothesis to you, if you aren't a mathematician you won't have a clue what I'm talking about. Of course many Westerners are familiar with the terms including the other editors I was talking to. ] (]) 01:05, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
			https://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Greek_Rebel#Movement_for_Democracy
	::::: I have edited it to read instead "any Westerners unfamiliar with Buddhism". Sorry for any offence caused and it was not intended. ] (]) 01:40, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
			https://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Greek_Rebel#Disruptive_editing....again
	* '''Suppport''' - Per all the reasons discussed.]<sup>]</sup> 19:22, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
	*'''Support''' very creative solution. ] (]) 20:20, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
	*'''Support'''. I was actually going to "oppose" with a more fair solution, but then I remembered vaguely recalling an on-wiki conversation that either I had with the editor in question, or I read, and noticed this problem as well; this conversation happened over a year ago, so the fact that it is ''still'' happening is somewhat troubling to me. If it was me interacting with this editor, I think I gave up and moved on to other articles. So, since I personally know the problems these comments cause, I have to throw my vote for this "stricter-than-my-counter-proposal" version. ] (]) 23:14, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
	*'''Support''' I've been following this from the beginning and it appears to me that this is the only way to prevent these long talk page posts. I might be less supportive of this remedy if Robert Walker was editing the articles as well as providing opinions on the talk pages, but he's only providing lengthy opinions which are disruptive. ] (]) 01:03, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
	*'''Strong support''': This is a creative and potentially useful idea. Because I disfavor topic bans and discourage blocks other than short-term ones to limit disruption or calm tempers, I like to see other ways that disruptive and tendentious editors can be whacked with a cluebat. If it works here, it could be used in other cases where editors use tl;dr walls of text to intimidate and discourage other editors. I've seen restrictions of "one comment per article" used before, so why not this? ]<sup>]</sup> 22:04, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
	* '''Strong support''' to these or even tighter restrictions to Robert Walker, as his chronic ''walls of text'' in Mars-related articles are pure ] and the fact that this problem has persisted for more than one year is indicative of his ill ]. ] (]) 00:36, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
	*'''Support''' per evidence given so far. ] (]) 21:20, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
	====Oppose====
	* '''Oppose''' - Hmmm. Why is this even being posted here and how are other editors of articles on Buddhism supposed to know that this discussion is taking place? This is not about the length of Robert's comments (Jonathan is pretty good at posting walls of text himself, and Robert's comments have been getting shorter and more to the point), it is about trying to silence someone with a different point of view. If Robert had been praising Jonathan's edits rather than criticizing them, would we be having this discussion? Somehow I don't think so. Such a pity. ] (]) 02:03, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
	:::For your information: in that case I'd also have done my best (as I did for the past weeks) to explain to Robert why he should shorten his responses, and why he should ''discuss'' issues, instead of repeating his point of view. Also for your information: I'm also critical of the faults of editors with whom I am befriended, as some around here can testify. And I've been helping editors with points of view which I don't share, such as an editor with RSS-sympathies who I've been mentoring. So, be carefull when you start raising suspicions; you dont even have to ''assume'' good faith; you can actually ''take notice'' of good faith. ] -] 05:08, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
	*'''Oppose''' It may be a good idea but how the heck is this going to be enforced? Do we string the editor up by his beach balls if he posts 1,600 bytes? - ] (]) 02:37, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
	:*Yes this is going to work well. Everyone knows how to identify 1500-1600 bytes, they will see his message as they frequently check article talk(pages) and if they have any doubt, they can use this website http://www.wordcounter.net/ for clearing the doubts. ] (]) 04:42, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
	:::Thanks. I was just going to write the same. ] -] 04:48, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
			] (]) 19:15, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
	*'''Oppose''' My posts recently, here and elsewhere, have been short since I started the ANC, and I have said I will do my best to be concise, so this new proposal is not a result of continuing to do long posts. The main issue here surely is that I was in process of preparing a notice for DRN about his edits. Joshua Jonathan did major rewrites of mature articles in Buddhism starting on 10th October with Four Noble Truths . I first became aware of his activity when he rewrote Karma in Buddhism, in November . He warned me against taking any action against his edits long ago, saying if I did that, my actions would be likely to boomerang, see . Then he started this ANC soon after I started serious work on the notice. Then, he put forward this new proposal less than two hours after I told him I planned to mention a clear case of BRDR in the DRN notice (diff for his BRDR rewrite: ). There is a clear "take home" message here for me, that I should stop criticising this editor, or who knows what next might happen. Yes, you can say all of this is just coincidences, that he had no intention of stopping the DRN. Still, they are coincidences he created, after all, and whether that was his aim or not, it is natural that it would stop me. I see no future in attempting a DRN notice now, especially if this goes ahead, and most likely also even if it doesn't. ] (]) 07:01, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
			:This is a content dispute, not a conduct dispute. Since discussing the issue on article talk has not worked, please follow ] processes, such as seeking guidance at ] or ], or going to ]. ] (]/]) 19:50, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
	:*Don't be desperate because you are the one who caused this trouble, and now you are voting for yourself, how come? JJ never contributed on ], it was you who has made its talk(page) look unnecessarily lengthy. ] (]) 07:10, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
			::@] taking a look because I've been tagged. While there may be content elements to it I think this has gone into a behavioural issue, namely due to it being a user actively edit warring without providing sources but instead endlessly insisting on edits that are entirely ]. ] (]) 20:00, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
	:::], you are not victim of a conspiracy to silence you. Feel free to voice your critique at DRN! ] (]) 08:01, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
			::It is not a problem of content but of behaviour. His claim is original research, is his own conclusion and is not verified by any source. He knows it, has admitted it, and yet he insists on adding it. ] (]) 20:02, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
	:::: I don't know about protocol, how it is done, but surely I should be given a chance to put my own case? ] (]) 13:01, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
			(nac) ] is a moderately stable DAB page, with which I have been involved. I assume this dispute relates to ]. ] (]) 20:59, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
	:::: I've just edited my "oppose". Of course I have no way of knowing if it is intentional or a coincidence. It could easily all be coincidence - stranger things have happened. But - in the circumstances hopefully it is understandable that I see it as a clear stop message. This whole process is intimidating and scary, and even if the resolution doesn't go against me, who knows what would happen if I tried to take this to a DRN notice? As for doing a DRN notice with these restrictions, well, forget about it. I'm not going to attempt that. ] (]) 23:53, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
			{{abot}}
			== Sugar Bear returns with personal attacks ==
	:::: ] - in the case of the Karma article, again I agree my posts on the talk page there were lengthy and I've learnt that lesson. That is the only article I have tried to edit a bit. I did a few edits that I thought would be minor and uncontroversial back in early November I think it was. But they were immediately reverted. I did not attempt any more edits after that. Just discussed on the talk page. Those edits were not about Buddhist ideas particularly though the discussion on the talk page was. ] (]) 12:23, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
			{{atop|1=/24 blocked for two weeks. - ] <sub>]</sub> 01:36, 22 December 2024 (UTC)}}
	::::: What have you learned? You are still making huge posts. I had to hat them today here and you removed it. ] (]) 12:34, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
			*{{rangevandal|166.181.224.0/19}}
	:::::: Oh, I thought it was Joshua who did that. Okay. I will edit it and make it shorter. ] (]) 15:15, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
			*]
			Using the IP range ], Sugar Bear has returned to Misplaced Pages to disrupt film and music articles. After I recognized this fact and began reverting him, Sugar Bear began a campaign of personal attacks at my talk page, using the IP ]. Can we get a rangeblock?
	*'''Oppose''' I have read the talk page of ] and do not consider the posts of ] to be excessive or disruptive. The nature of the topic seems likely to provide extensive discussion. I note that ] is not a native English speaker. If he is not comfortable participating in such discussion because he finds reading English to be wearying then that's just too bad. If you can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen. ] (]) 08:16, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
	:*Whats the relevance? We have got a lot better things to do on talk page(s) than just reading the unnecessarily spammed nonsense of Robertinventor. JJ can understand what you have written and just like everyone of us, he is opposing Robertinventor's messages for appropriate reasons. How about you give up your busybody attitude? ] (]) 08:27, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
	:::Davidson, your comment ''"If he is not comfortable participating in such discussion because he finds reading English to be wearying"'' is misplaced. Please participate in a constructive way. ] -] 13:35, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
			There's a decade-plus history of this vandal attacking me, for instance his creation of the username ]. I can spot his contributions quite easily by now. ] (]) 22:35, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
	*'''Oppose:''' I'm sorry, but if you're going to allow an editor to edit, you need to also afford that editor unlimited talk space contributions. This may be a problem, but it's not really harming anyone, and a byte limit is absolutely the wrong solution. <span style="border:1px solid;background:#800080">]]]</span> 15:07, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
	:::So, what would your solution be? ] -] 15:13, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
	::::I'm not really seeing enough of a problem to warrant much of a solution. Just ignore him. <span style="border:1px solid;background:#800080">]]]</span> 15:29, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
			.I've blocked the current IP, I may not have time to properly investigate the range right now. '''<span style="font-family: Arial;">] <small>]</small></span>''' 22:39, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
	*'''Oppose:''' the standard solution for disruptive soap boxing is to block or ban the editor. Use that solution, as appropriate, rather than inventing a complex, new solution. ] <sup>]</sup> 15:14, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
	*::'''Comment''' - I am supporting this sanction in order to avoid the need to site-ban the editor. A topic-ban is not sufficient, because his disruptive soapbox posts have been an annoyance in both Buddhism and interplanetary exploration. If this sanction fails, he will wind up facing periodic blocks without knowing exactly how to avoid them, since he clearly does not have the mindset to figure out what is an appropriate talk page post, since he honestly seems to believe that longer is better. ] (]) 16:02, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
			::Past disruption from nearby IPs includes the following:
	*'''Oppose:''' A cursory overview of this topic shows that the proposal to limit the user's privileges is unfounded. The supporting reasons are full of assumptions of bad faith and speculation about the user's intentions. The Assume Good Faith policy requires treating these issues as situation where someone can learn to collaborate better and where you must assume they are trying to work for the good of Misplaced Pages and follow Misplaced Pages policies. It has not been shown that the user in question is acting in bad faith. Rather, the user appears to have been excessively verbose but is learning and making good-faith effort to improve and to focus on specific Misplaced Pages policies. It is absolutely unacceptable to reduce editors' privileges without a very high burden of evidence that they cannot and will not learn to improve or that they are truly acting in bad faith. This burden has not been met. It seems that he may have legitimate concerns about the articles, and it is not in Misplaced Pages's interests to discourage his participation. It is only in Misplaced Pages's interests to help him follow best-practices in manner of discourse, and he appears willing and interested in learning to improve in that regard. ] (]) 17:20, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
			::*] was blocked in 2018 and 2019.
	:::: Thanks :). Yes I assure you I'm acting in good faith and doing everything I can to be more concise. See also ] ] (]) 00:10, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
			::*] was blocked in 2018 for one month.
	::May I suggest that you make some sort of clear and identifiable effort to familiarize yourself with our existing policies and guidelines, or at least, a more visible effort than can be seen by your limited involvement here to date? So far as I can see, the only person who seems to be clearly not assuming good faith in this matter is you yourself, in jumping to conclusions about the motivations of others. There are several policies and guidelines relevant to editor conduct, including ], ], and I suppose in this case maybe even ]. There is, based on the evidence presented, rather clear reason to believe that Robert has a significant history of engaging in overlong discussion at relevant talk pages, and that at least to the time of this being brought there has been no real indication from Robert that such conduct is likely to change. So, therefore, this is both the reasonable place to raise concerns about editor conduct, and the place to seek remedies which the editors might not be willing to impose on themselves based on their counterproductive conduct. ] (]) 17:31, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
			::*] was blocked in 2020, identifying Sugar Bear.
			::*] was blocked twice in 2020 for personal attacks.
			::*] was rangeblocked in 2023 for three years. ] (]) 22:53, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
			::I've blocked the current /24 for two weeks, but I see a lot of potential for collateral damage for longer or broader blocks. '''<span style="font-family: Arial;">] <small>]</small></span>''' 22:59, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
	:::Comment: ''"...but is learning and making good-faith effort to improve and to focus on specific Misplaced Pages policies."''
			{{abot}}
	:::You are very incorrect. Robert Walkers attitude has persisted for a year or two. The question becomes not if there is good-faith, but his ]. Cheers, ] (]) 17:50, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
			== Comments by Locke Cole ==
	:::: My point is that others were assuming bad faith, and that is wrong — regardless of Robert's competence, we must assume good faith (the assumption of bad faith shows up in the way people above describe his behavior). I wasn't claiming anything about his competence in the past either, only that he exhibits effort here to learn and improve. ] (]) 05:08, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
			{{atop
			| result = No support for a block for either party, and filer is fine with closure. ] ] 16:56, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
			}}
			'''Involved''': {{userlinks|Locke Cole}}
	::::: ] - a day or two back I posted an ultra short version of my proposal that the Water on Mars and Life on Mars articles say the same thing as Encyclopedia Britannica in its habitability assessment ]. Will you permit me to post this as a separate section on ] for any other editors to read and comment on, now that I have trimmed it down to 696 characters? ] (]) 00:04, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
			So I honestly think we should both receive a (24 hr) block for our behavior, but bringing it here for that to happen. This started when I posted a list of "keep" votes with no rationale at ]. Comments made by Locke Cole in response to the list include:
			* {{tq|Sour grapes are over there, in case you're lost.}}
			::I replied to this with {{tq|What?? Voting on an AfD should be policy-based, not just "keep" or "he's too notable". I'm giving evidence to my claim that keep votes were given unnecessarily large amounts of weight when closing this. Yes, I left out the ones with evidence, because that wasn't the point of the list. Again, would you give weight to the five keep votes that just said "keep"? I believe this is the second time I've had to say this to you, but way to WP:ABF.}}
			* {{tq|Well, you're already violating WP:DRVPURPOSE #8 by casting WP:ASPERSIONS about other editors. Carry on, I look forward to seeing you blocked for being an idiot.}}
			::And I replied to this one with {{tq|Yes, I removed a comment after realizing it violated our aspersions policy. Do you have an issue with that? Feel free to take this to ANI if you want to continue, as it’s clogging up the DRV.}}
			This user has a long history of behavioral blocks, including '''six '''civility blocks over a span of nine years. Since this behavior clearly won't be getting better, bringing it here. It's up to y'all to decide if a BOOMERANG should happen, if we should both be blocked, or only one party gets the hammer. :) ]<sub>]</sub><sup>]</sup> 02:41, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
			:I'm not sure that the cited comments are in themselves enough to justify a block. I also note that LC has recently ]. Speaking from experience, I can state that when in deep mourning we are not always at our best. That said, I find LC's block log disturbing.-] (]) 02:52, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
	::::All the editors here who support this proposal have actual experience with Robert's lenghty posts, instead of a "cursory overview". To call their frustration with Robert's inability to contribute in a constructive way "full of assumptions of bad faith and speculation about the user's intentions" is misplaced, and dismissing ''their'' intentions. I don't doubt Robert's good intentions, but I have seen too much now of the actual results of his good intentions, just like many other editors here. Nevertheless, he deserves the chance to show improvement, and that's why I didn't propose a topic-ban, but a limitation. Otherwise, Jehochman may have made an uncomfortable but correct observation. ] -] 19:47, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
			::While I do get that, and I do respect that and am deeply sorry that happened to them, this behavior has been going on since late 2005, and includes an arbitration request, hence why I brought it directly here. Calling me an "idiot" was 100% an NPA vio, and having a personal loss shouldn't excuse that (also speaking from experience with the loss of my mother from ] in 2014). This is a rare case where I'll say that a block log should give you an idea of whether this behavior will continue. ]<sub>]</sub><sup>]</sup> 02:56, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::{{tqq|bolding policies I've added at the end}} - I'll just note that every one of the "policies" you linked to (bar ], where I'm pretty sure you wanted ]) goes to ]. Which is very useful and well-thought-out, and by all means should be used as a tool at AfD, but is not policy. It's an essay ''on'' policy. There's a difference. - ] <sub>]</sub> 03:42, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::Okay then, per that I've removed the list. The comments still stand though. ]<sub>]</sub><sup>]</sup> 03:57, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
			*So the OP wants themselves and the other party to receive blocks for incivility? Why don't you just stop being rude to each other? Change your own behavior. Opening this discussion is just drawing attention to a few comments that otherwise would have likely been forgotten. I don't see how this post helps the situation at all. Just do better. And if Locke Cole comes to this discussion, I pray this doesn't devolve into bickering. Let's all just get back to editing productively and not taking shots at each other. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 05:23, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:I don’t know, maybe I just thought it’d continue and brought it here, likely too early. Is it possible to close this? ]<sub>]</sub><sup>]</sup> 13:19, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
			:From what I read from the DRV, it definitely seemed like it got heated, but it definitely seemed to cool down. Trouts for sure, but I don't see why blocks are necessary. As for you, given that you're asking to be punished, you seem to recognize what you did wrong, and you pledge to not continue this behavior. Just change your password for a day or a week and change it back later; I don't think admin intervention is necessarily warranted. ] (]) 11:43, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
	:::::: I have not assumed that any of the supporters of the proposal are acting in bad faith in other respects. They may all be legitimately concerned about a legitimate problem. My critique is less about the situation (which I haven't studied well) but about the text in the supporters' justification notes. Some of the supporters of the proposal seem reasonable enough but others assert bad faith on the part of Robert Walker. The problem of verbosity and excessive editing etc. is not evidence of bad faith. I am merely clarifying that we should reject those support explanations that assume bad faith from Robert. Of course, a proposal getting a bunch of bad reasons for support doesn't make the proposal wrong. I independently don't think the proposal is the right approach, but I don't feel strongly as I'm not sure about all the details. Mostly, I want the supporters of the proposal to accept the burden of justifying their position without assuming bad faith from Robert. ] (]) 04:24, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
			::Though as actual admins above have mentioned, their block history is indeed concerning. ] (]) 11:50, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
			{{abot}}
			== ] ==
	*'''In case it's not clear by my sub-thread below...''' OPPOSE this amazingly un-wiki proposal. - <b>]</b> 07:15, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
			{{atop|result=Just officially closing this discussion as the account involved has been globally blocked. If an editor has Spore on your Watchlist and you see this occurring again, contact your local administrator. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 06:25, 24 December 2024 (UTC)}}
	*'''Weak oppose''' While I believe Robert is here to build an encyclopedia, don't even cover the span of a week. Robert, I sincerely hope that you make good on your pledge to be concise with your comments, and I also suggest that you make an effort to use the "Show Preview" button to avoid making large amounts of piecemeal edits. It would be regrettable to have to topic ban you or block you for what amounts to good-faith but disruptive editing. <b>] ]</b> 20:19, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
			This user made 500 edits to their user page which were all completely useless (] to inflate their edit count) and then once receiving extended-confirmed permissions vandalized ] by copypasting another article. Their user page shows them editing and counting to 500. ]] 04:52, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
	:: I'm going to use ] more in future for talk page posts. Note, last 100 edits are nearly all in my user space - or else on Dorje108's talk page for the draft of the DRN Notice. Preview button is of limited use for me. I find it easy to miss spellings, typos, typing completely the wrong word sometimes, repetition and other issues for the first save. I've always done lots of corrections of articles and posts here, on Quora, on Facebook and Science20. Then this requirement to write short posts adds to the issue. Constructing a sufficiently short post can take me a fair bit of editing over some period of time. User space drafts will help with the number of talk page history edits. I will still have many edits in my contribution history, but if they are in my user space, hopefully that is less disruptive to other editors. Have used this method with this post. ] (]) 21:33, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
			:It's a ], and I just reported to AIV. ] (]) 04:58, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
	===Discussion of proposal===
			::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-->
	Joshua Jonathan - if you wish to support this suggestion, you should agree to a similar restriction on yourself. You also often write voluminous amounts to talk pages. Which I don't complain about, I'm fine with it.
			:::There is a filter for this. Look at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Special:AbuseLog&wpSearchUser=International+Space+Station0&offset=20241222044736, "New account unusual activity" covers exactly this. ] (]) 05:22, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
			*This account has been globally blocked as an LTA so it shouldn't be an issue. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 05:25, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:At what point is it appropriate to selectively delete their hundreds of edits of nonsense from the page history?
			*:Or is that just something that isn't done? &ndash; ] (]) (]) 05:28, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
			*::If you are talking ], there is rarely a good reason for it's use at present. If instead you mean ] see ] and ]. ] (]) 05:33, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:::I've gone ahead and revdel'd the lot of them, as cut-and-pasting from other articles without proper attribution is copyvio and thus RD1able. Selective deletion (making the edits go away from the history) is probably not going to happen, if it's even technically possible for an article with almost *9500* revisions (I know ]!). - ] <sub>]</sub> 08:55, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
			{{abot}}
			== POV IP editor and 2024 Kobani clashes ==
	It is obviously unfair in a talk page discussion if I am restricted to 1500 bytes and in the same discussion, you can post for thousands of words. See for instance ]. Many pages of text there by Joshua Jonathan. I'm not the only verbose editor here. And in the conversation you just linked to, you wrote as many words as I did. ] (]) 15:11, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
			{{atop|1=Blocked. - ] <sub>]</sub> 21:36, 23 December 2024 (UTC)}}
	:Allow me to say that the above comment, in which someone seems to demand that another party propose sanctions on themselves because the person against whom sanctions are proposed, presumably, does not like being considered for sanctions, is yet another instance in which I have to say Robert Walker shows little if any understanding of the procedures here. Robert Walker is of course free to propose such restrictions himself, which would be the standard way to make such a proposal, and I guess Robert Walker is free to propose them, although under the circumstances I would definitely '''oppose''' such sanctions based on the lack of evidence to date and the rather obviously vindictive nature of the proposal. ] (]) 15:29, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
			This engages in BLP and POV pushing with things like this and this , and then edit warring and then makes personal attacks like this , in a source documenting casualties for all of December instead of the specific date, and then when he is reverted by another editor respond with . I believe this person is ] to build an encyclopedia, and also the ] article should potentially be given semi-protection status as it's part of the Syrian Civil War which has discretionary sanctions. Thanks. ] (]) 05:34, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
			:Oh also . ] (]) 05:55, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
			::{{an3|b|72 hours}} (]) and pages protected ] 13:15, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			{{abot}}
			== Promotional content about Elvenking (band) ==
	:: I'm not proposing this. I have no issues at all with long posts. It was a rhetorical question. Just saying that if I am restricted in this way and Joshua Jonathan is not it is an obviously biased decision, especially as he is verbose on the talk pages also, and does contentious edits rewriting mature articles with many large scale changes, sections removed, others rewritten, all done rapidly, which raise multiple issues to discuss. ] (]) 15:33, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
			{{atop
			| result = There does not appear to be an actionable COI here, just an avid fan. Content issues can be handled through the appropriate channels. {{ping|Elvenlegions}} please be mindful of musical notability and what Misplaced Pages is and isn't for. ] ] 17:03, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
			}}
	:::]. ] -] 15:36, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
	::::Robertinventor, Joshua Jonathan has made long posts because he was answering your very long posts, including yours. Otherwise he wouldn't had, see ] and find me some long posts if you can. ] (]) 16:03, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
			I noticed a consistent addition of promotional content about an apparently unencyclopedic band, namely ], with articles being also dedicated to each band member (eg.
	::::: Well, I'm doing short posts also now. See for instance my recent talk posts to ]. They are all similarly short. I've already said I am going to do my best to be concise in the future. And when I can't present everything in a short post, in future, I'll put it into my user space and link to it as material to back up the post, as I just did with ]. ] (]) 16:27, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
			] and ]) and their unsold discography, which also got a dedicated template ({{tl|Elvenking}}). I also noticed a weird pattern by ], which appears to be either a very big fan or in conflict of interests, as well as other accounts apparently created just to support the band (eg. ]).<span id="Est._2021:1734845816539:WikipediaFTTCLNAdministrators&apos;_noticeboard/Incidents" class="FTTCmt"> —&nbsp;] (] <b>·</b> ]) 05:36, 22 December 2024 (UTC)</span>
	:::::: Oh no ... ] (]) 17:54, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
	:::::::{{ping|RobertWalker}}, linking to long comments elsewhere simply because they are too long to meet the proposed restrictions would be seen by most everybody as a rather clear attempt to game the system as per ] and would probably just succeed in getting you in more trouble, not less. Please try to understand that the problem is the length and degree of detail, as well as sometimes the dubious relevancy, of some of the things you think need to be discussed. Trying to game the system would in no way be a productive response to that perceived problem. ] (]) 21:20, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
	:::::::: This was not a suggestion for a way around the proposal. It is just to show that I am already working on shortening the comments, this is one thing I ma doing. At any case the proposal is clear - if this goes ahead, I would not be permitted to put long posts into my user space and even in my own user space in draft edits of posts I'd be limited in the same way, he says I would have to do any drafts outside of wikipedia. ] (]) 05:49, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
			:I am indeed a big fan of the band and am trying to update the band's wikipedia information to make it as accurate as possible so people can learn about the band. I hope this helps support the band and also helps wikipedia readers and users who wish to learn more about the band. ] (]) 06:14, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
	{{od}} Obviously - if the decision goes ahead - then with this limit of 1500 characters a day, per talk page, including to my own talk page, and 3 edits a day per page, it will be impossible to submit a DRN notice about Joshua Jonathan's mature article rewrites, and will be impossible to communicate effectively with other editors here for collaboration with such a thing.
			:*If these musicians are not notable, you can always tag the articles CSD A7. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 07:42, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
			::Understood, Elvenlegions, but ]. If the band, nor its members, nor its discography qualify as notable under the ], then the band's fans will have to learn about it elsewhere. ] 07:51, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
			{{abot}}
			== Disruptive editor on ] ==
	The notice itself would be likely to take me over the daily threshold for that talk page, leaving no more words for that day to engage in discussion of it.
			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)
	] ] (]) 18:48, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
	::I can submit a DNR in just a few characters: "I don't like this ." Learn conciseness. ] (]) 20:18, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
	:::First, I think it would be very valuable if Robert learned that discussions can, and actually around here generally do, run for a week or more if there are serious issues regarding content or sources. Daily commentary, or responding at length to every question raised by anyone, can and sometimes does get perceived as overkill. Also, there are a number of other ways to include information available elsewhere than quoting it at length. Like Legacypac says above, links to elsewhere works as well. Also, honestly, it does seem to me that you still seem to think that others really want to see the very detailed comments you are in the habit of making. At this point, it should be clear to you that isn't the case. Learning to shorten your comments and concentrate on central points would very definitely be a step in the right direction. ] (]) 21:17, 8 January 2015 (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.
	{{od}}Context: Joshua Jonathan has been warning me against taking any action against him for a long time. ,. This particular proposal was put forward immediately after I pointed out a clear case of BRDR in his edit history which I told him I planned to put in the notice . I hope you can understand that it doesn't seem to me like an attempt to make me more effective at expressing my case in the DRN Notice against his edits. ] (]) 05:08, 9 January 2015 (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)
	:::He told you to drop the stick because none of us are perfect, if POV is the final agreement then go along with it or knock the doors of other article dispute boards, but they will probably ignore because people usually avoid reading your messages. ] (]) 05:52, 9 January 2015 (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)
	:Please be faithfull and present the fuller context of this "clear case of BRD" . This is exactly what shows the problem with you: Dorje has been ignoring (or simply doesn't understand) the concerns of other editors for three years, using the argument of ] as his last argument. I've explained this so many times now, that we're far over the limit of what is reasonable. Nevertheless, you think that he still has every right to simply reverse to his preferred version, further ignoring those concerns, meanwhile removing additional info, and requesting the discussion of the addition of this sourced info before adding it. No way! That's ], and you ]. ] -] 05:29, 9 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)
	::For God's sake, here we go again! Look at how long ''this'' thread is becoming. ] -] 05:32, 9 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...}} ===
	::: This is not the place to discuss the content dispute. But the diff shows clearly, that you did a major rewrite, not just adding new material, that Dorje reverted it to ask for discussion and that you reverted his revert and continued with your rewrites. And there was no prior talk page consensus to do this rewrite. For the extent of the changes, check the diff here: . This is what I said I would mention in the DRN notice, and immediately after, you then put forward this proposal. My posts here are short. ] (]) 05:35, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
			On October 22 2024, {{lu|Pillowdelight}} changed the genre list that has stood in place for years and has been a variation of the same variety of genres: Art pop, art rock, jazz, alternative rock, jazz rock, chamber pop and jazz pop. Across the biggest music sites, this is what the album is described as. The user changed it to Alt pop using a single irrelevant and unreliable source. The album is not described as such anywhere else. The user is going against the general consensus. Sources have now been added to the genre list and I don't feel as though that would mean I'm breaking any rules. The user is threatening to get another editor banned because they're uncooperative with how us other editors feel the genre list should look like. It's an album that has been categorized as rock by Pitchfork at the time of its release and was added to rock charts when released too.
	::::Robert, stop it! ''Three years'' of discussion. Three years!!! And you say "no prior decision"?!? Please '''S-T-O-P''' right now! ] -] 05:39, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
			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
	::::: Your major rewrites of mature articles in Buddhism started on 10th October with Four Noble Truths . I first became aware of your activity when you rewrote Karma in Buddhism, in November . ] (]) 06:28, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
	:::::: How it is relevant? ] (]) 06:35, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
	::::::: Joshua Jonathan said three years of discussion. But it wasn't like that. The major rewrites started in October. I became aware of them for Karma in Buddhism in November. And incidentally for his edits of Karma in Buddhism there was absolutely no prior talk page discussion. He had not done any prior edits of either. You can check that easily by searching the edit history for both the article (earliest edit by Joshua Jonathan 16th November 2014) and the talk page (earliest edit 25th November 2014) for his user name. ] (]) 18:35, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
			Thank you. ] (]) 19:32, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
	{{od}} I'd like to say one more thing. In some areas of Misplaced Pages long talk page posts are perfectly acceptable. See for instance ] where nobody even collapses any part of those long posts.
			:Why do people have to argue about what genre music is rather than just listening to it, and hopefully enjoying it? ] (]) 19:58, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
			::The genre list was fine and accurate and uncontroversial until this user decided to remove the entire thing. It's important that the genre list is accurate. People find albums through genres. There's other reasons as well. ] (]) 20:38, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::This is neither here nor there, but I thought albums are generally sorted in alphabetical order by band name or the musician's last name.
			:::Please, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, or my information is incomplete. ] (]) 22:28, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::I was trying to explain the important of listing genres accurately. If you go to a record store then yes, albums are listed in alphabetical order. But they're still put in categories of genres. ] (]) 22:43, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::If we were going to list musical genres "accurately," we wouldn't bother at all. Except in very broad strokes ("rock," "punk," "Baroque," etc), so many of these horribly subjective "genres" are made up by bored media writers and bands that hate the notion of being The Same As Everyone Else. Get ten people to listen to ten different tracks of heavy metal, and you won't get as many as a third of them agreeing on any of them on the doom/grudge/dark/death/Goth/Viking/sludge/*-grind/*-core/etc etc etc spectrum. Beyond that, arguing whether any given artist is "that genre" is ''very'' highly subjective. (Hell, I've sung Baroque, classical, folk, rock, ethnic, shape note, so many genres I can't readily count.) ] 15:12, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			== Bunch of racist IPs/account ==
	Also outside of wikipedia I do many long posts, far longer than the ones here, to Quora, to facebook, and to my Science20 articles. See for instance this long comment I made to one of my articles on Science20: . Or this long comment to David Brin's article: to which he replies "fun ruminiations" in his reply. There are many more on the web as long as this or longer - and nobody has any issues with them anywhere except here in the wikipedia sections on Mars and Buddhism.
			{{atop|1=Sent packing. - ] <sub>]</sub> 21:12, 22 December 2024 (UTC)}}
			Article: ]
			* {{user|GREEKMASTER7281}}
			* {{ip|112.202.57.150}}
			* {{ip|186.154.62.233}}
			] (]) 13:53, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
			:Named account indeffed, IPs blocked for 72 hours each. ]] 14:12, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
	This is not meant as an excuse for writing long posts here. But as a reason why it is understandable that I did them in the first place, and to please be patient with me as I do my best to adapt. It's not easy to write short posts when you are used to writing posts that run for sometimes many pages. Thanks! ] (]) 11:21, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
			{{abot}}
			== Urgent need for page protection on BLP ==
	My rule for the future is going to be that if I write a long post to either of these sections, I will shorten it, if appropriate put part of it into my user space, and if I can't find a way to do either of those, I simply won't post at all, leave it to another day when maybe I'll get an idea of a way to shorten it. Because it is obviously better not to post than to cause the aggravation that happens when I post a long post. ] (]) 11:34, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
			{{atop
			| result = Protection applies. Appears admin eyes are on the Talk page. ] ] 19:53, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
			}}
			There is currently a content dispute going on at ] involving allegations of a mental health crisis with mulitple IPs involved in a dispute over wether the information is reliable or not. A discussion is underway on the article's talkpage, but in the meantime there is revert warring taking place on the article. The page could really benefit from temporary semi protection. -- ] (]) 18:46, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
	===Ideas for shortening my talk page comments===
			:Looks like ] got it. ] (]) 19:15, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
			::{{reply to|DMacks}} Thanks! Yeah. I assume they will also need a third-party closer given the heated nature of the argument. -- ] (]) 19:27, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
			{{abot}}
			== Multiple users breaking 3RR on Gilman School article ==
	Hi, I've just been working on some ideas for shortening my comments. Have put a draft into my user space. If anyone is interested click here.
	]
	===]===
	] argues, among other things, that the imposition of this restriction would prevent him from discussing content issues at ]. It would not. The discussion of issues at DRN has two phases. The first is the request to initiate moderated dispute resolution. There is no reason that a request for dispute resolution or a response to such a request should exceed 1500 bytes. You can say what articles you want discussed and what issues you want discussed in 250 words. The second is the actual discussion, led by a volunteer moderator. That discussion is under control of the volunteer moderator, who can and often does hat irrelevant posts. The moderator can specify whether lengthy posts are permitted, or whether they will be hatted, or whether they will (after a warning) result in closing the dispute resolution as failed. (Anyway, technically, DRN is not a talk page, because it is in WP project space, not in WT space.) The argument that talk page restrictions would prevent him from participating in dispute resolution is mistaken. ] (]) 20:08, 9 January 2015 (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
	: Just look at the first dispute on that board: ]. The first summary in that dispute is 12,963 characters. And how can one talk to other wikipedia editors with a limit of 1500 characters a day on their talk pages and your own talk page and 3 edits a day?
			, , .
			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.
	* '''If this proposal doesn't go through''', I will stop and regroup and decide what to do next, but it will be some time before I do anything more if I do do anything, because this whole process is so scary. What might happen next if I keep going, especially since Joshua Jonathan warned me long ago that the process of taking action against his edits is likely to boomerang? . Presumably this is an example of what he warned me about.
	* '''If it does go through''', I won't attempt a DRN Notice. Don't see how that is possible. I will probably just log out of wikipedia at least for a fair while. ] (]) 21:08, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
	: ] (]) 22:14, 9 January 2015 (UTC)		] (])
			*E/C applied. ] ] 19:51, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
			::{{u|Counterfeit Purses}}, please be aware that the ] article was kept in a recent Articles for Deletion debate, so the consensus of the community is that he is notable. Edit warring to keep his name off the alumni list is a ''really bad idea''. ] (]) 20:14, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::@] No problem, I've already given up. I would argue that ] applies here, but there's no sense in pushing against the tide. If you're content to have the lede section of Gilman School include "prominent graduates including "alleged murderer Luigi Mangione", I guess that's fine. It seems to be an unusual thing to include and an obvious case of undue weight given to something that is in the news at the moment. Perhaps someone should start a Wikiproject to add famous murderers to the ledes of other schools? ] (]) 22:00, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::{{u|Counterfeit Purses}}, in my view, ] is among our most misunderstood policy documents. It begins {{tpq|In principle, all Misplaced Pages articles should contain up-to-date information. Editors are also encouraged to develop stand-alone articles on significant current events.}} I believe that Mangione is notable, the evolving article is acceptable, and his name belongs in the alumni list. Many, many "bad people" are listed as alumni in countless school articles, and it is not at all unusual. The only unusual thing here is that the lead of this particular school article lists alumni, and so I have removed them from the lead. ] (]) 01:07, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::I'm glad that misunderstanding WP:NOTNEWS is so common because I am going to continue to misunderstand it. I see that Liz Luigi Mangione from the lede before you removed the rest of the list. Acknowledging again that I have given up hope that Mangione will be removed from this article, let me ask you what you think the purpose of these alumni lists is? Including Mangione is an editorial decision. We don't include all notable alumni in these lists, so why should we include Mangione, and why now? It's too soon to know if he will have lasting relevance. ] (]) 04:22, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::{{tqq|We don't include all notable alumni in these lists}} Why not? If someone is Wikinotable and went to a Wikinotable school, then they belong in the "Notable alumni" section of that school's page, ] - ] <sub>]</sub> 04:28, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::@] I'm not saying "we shouldn't", I'm saying "we don't". We don't include every notable alumnus in these lists, nor should we because it would lead to long, unhelpful lists stuck in the middle of articles about the schools. ] (]) 04:49, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::::If an alumni list bloats an article, it can be split out. See ]. 11:29, 23 December 2024 (UTC) (Oops, signing) ] (]) 16:01, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::::Of course that's always an option, but what I am saying is that it isn't desirable to have every alumnus listed in an article for a school. Ideally, it would be a selection of alumni who have made significant achievements in their field. Otherwise, it's just trivia. Am I wrong? ] (]) 17:21, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::::::Yes. You're making a value judgment that some alumni (with articles, else they most definitely should not be included) are more notable than others. That is ]. ] (]) 20:05, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::::::Yes, that's called editorial judgment. Just like deciding not to include every known fact about something in an article. At some point, it is just trivia. Misplaced Pages is not a database. That info would probably be welcome over on Wikidata, which is a database. Alternatively, someone could just add ] (in this case). ] (]) 20:52, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::::::::And a new user, who doesn't understand categories and has no idea Wikidata exists, is relying on the list on the page. - ] <sub>]</sub> 21:35, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			== Persistent addition of unsourced content by 2600:480A:4A72:6000:0:0:0:0/64, yet again ==
	:::To cite the opening request for dispute resolution on ] as an example of how dispute resolution should be requested is cherrypicking. That opening request was excessively long. Look at the other threads on that noticeboard for better examples. I won't be surprised if ] fails due to the length of the discussion. ] (]) 15:46, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
			{{atop|1=Genre warrior sent packing. - ] <sub>]</sub> 02:42, 23 December 2024 (UTC)}}
			{{userlinks|2600:480A:4A72:6000:0:0:0:0/64}} - Keeps adding unsourced content to articles, hasn't responded to warnings, and continued the same behaviour immediately following the end of a 3 month block. See block log and the two previous ANI threads from September (], ]) related to this /64. Recent examples of addition of unsourced content: {{diff|You Could Be Born Again|prev|1264637321|1}}, {{diff|Kites are Fun|prev|1264637435|2}}, {{diff|Heaven/Earth|prev|1264641723|3}}, {{diff|Stars/Time/Bubbles/Love|prev|1264642096|4}}, {{diff|...Sing for Very Important People|prev|1264642646|5}}. ] (]) 20:33, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
			:I see the genre warriors are out today. Don't you realise how childish you are? (Not you, ].) ] (]) 20:37, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
			::I thought I was the only one who noticed how many were running rampant today. So exhausting. . . ] (]) 20:45, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::/64 blocked for six months. '''<span style="font-family: Arial;">] <small>]</small></span>''' 22:16, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
			{{abot}}
			== User:NoahBWill2002 ==
	::Just because someone used over 12K characters in describing a dispute doesn't mean that it is impossible to use fewer characters. If you stick to an outline and diffs of the problems, without adding editorial content, you should have no problem writing something short and accurate. Not that it matters, really, since as was pointed out above, DRN isn't part of the Talk space. Please also note that it appears to me that you were warned about ] because of your previous history of disruption, not because he is untouchable or because he would retaliate against you. ] (]) 03:19, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
			{{atop|1=NOTHERE blocked. - ] <sub>]</sub> 02:42, 23 December 2024 (UTC)}}
			*{{userlinks|NoahBWill2002}}
			It looks like there's a pretty severe ] issue with this user. Virtually every one of their edits has had to be reverted either for adding copyrighted content/, (), or . Lastly and indicates that they're unlikely to learn from any of this. <br>
			(As an aside, I just blocked them on Commons for uploading non-free files after warnings (and having copyright/the issue with their uploads explained them in detail) and uploading out-of-scope files after warnings.)<br>
			I think admin action is warranted here. ] (]) 22:09, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
			:I 100% agree with ] on this. ] appears completely unable to comprehend and/or follow some of the core rules of Misplaced Pages, especially ] and ], despite multiple editors trying to help them understand. The comment that Squirrel Conspiracy , followed by a series of blatant copyright violations, makes it abundantly clear that this editor is not going to change and is not here to build an encyclopedia. ] (]) 22:47, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
			::They have only had an account for a few days. It's seems rather soon to proclaim they are "not going to change". The images they were trying to add have been deleted from the Commons, let's see if they can find other ways to contribute to the project now that they can't promote their artwork here. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 23:09, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::Given ], I'm not sanguine about their intention to contribute productively. ] (]/]) 23:11, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::They added ] grossly inappropriate religious screed to ] on their third day of editing, then they responded to a warning about it with ]. I had hoped they would get the message but just today they made ] non-NPOV edit apparently based on their religious beliefs. Apart from religious edits, apparently the only other thing they've done is add self-produced fan art to a variety of articles. I'm willing to AGF while they learn what are acceptable edits here but I'd like to see some acknowledgement from them that they understand why all their edits so far have been unacceptable. (It would also show good faith if they would clean up the now-broken links in numerous articles now that their fan art has been deleted from Commons, rather than leaving it for other editors to do.) ] (]) 00:16, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::I have indefinitely blocked NoahBWill2002 as not here to build an encyclopedia. ] (]) 01:21, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			{{abot}}
			== Vandal encounter ==
	::::I agree. I would say that it is impossible to describe a dispute in 12000 characters, and that the opening request for ] is not a description of the dispute but a wall of text, comparable to those of the subject editor here. ] (]) 15:46, 11 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.
	::: When you say disruption - all that amounts to is writing too much in talk page posts. All my wikipedia edits have been good faith. I've always acted in accordance with BRD, have followed the wikipedia guidelines to the very best of my ability, and always discuss anything that seems to be significant edits on the talk pages first. That's true right back and including the Mars stuff which was all added in good faith and collaboratively - the accusations against me there were false. And in this particular dispute, then I was involved as a reader not an editor.
			diffs: </nowiki>] </nowiki>] </nowiki>] </nowiki>]
	::: With the boomerang - I was only back for a few days, mostly working on my DRN Notice. Then I did this one article talk page post, then WHAM ANC. Why didn't he bring it up earlier when I was writing more if that was the issue? Then, he brought this new resolution within two hours after I said to him that the notice will include a clear case of BRDR from his edit history. What is going to happen next if I continue with the notice? Do you not see how this is dead scary and intimidating?
			I would have put this at AIV, but I have no clue how to edit source. ] (]) 23:43, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
	::: Also, within this limit, how can I collaborate with other editors here, and respond to comments? Or even respond effectively on my own talk page? He wrote 7246 characters on my talk page today for instance, with 6,000 characters in the first 22 minutes. And when I talk to other editors, he often interrupts. I'd be totally helpless. ] (]) 15:20, 10 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)
	{{od}}
			::Ah, I see. Thank you! This has been noted for the future. Thank you, again! ] (]) 23:48, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
	I'm even willing to help Robert with posting a DRN; see ]. And you bet I posted 7246 characters: I thought I started to realize what's so important to Robert about "karma and predestination"; see ]. I even started to search for scholarly literature, to try to link this topic to reliable sources, instead of the ] approach of a list of "characteristics" and quotes.<br>
			:::You're welcome, Happy editing, Thanks, –]<sup>]</sup> 23:51, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
	Regarding a DRN: there are two RfC's (] & ]), and this ANI-thread, open. They first have to be closed. The one who opened the RfC's (and hardly hasn't participated in the discussion, Robert is taking all the heat), could be so kind to close them? ] -] 05:28, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
			== ] mass-creating articles for non-notable or nonexistent places ==
	: The old article had a section "Karma does not imply predestination" which you removed: along with many other sections, not sure why you are focusing on that particular one just now. I didn't write anything in the article and have said many times I don't want to help you write a new version, and I don't want to rewrite the old version. I don't want to be involved as an editor at all. All I'm asking for is a rollback and that you do the edits more slowly and discuss each edit first with the other editors of the pages. The many deleted sections are listed as one of eight issues in your rewrites in the draft notice. Another one of the main issues is the violation of ]. ], but this is not the place to discuss the content issues. You know that Dorje is an editor with less time for editing wikipedia than most - that is why I took on this DRN Notice in the first place as you can check from the conversation I had with him about it.
			{{atop
			| result = GDJackAttack1 has agreed to no further creation of the problematic articles. Extant ones being handled via usual channels. No further action needed here. ] ] 02:39, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			}}
			{{user|GDJackAttack1}} has been mass-creating stub articles for places such as insignificant residential subdivisions and other localities in Alabama and Maryland (]), islands in the Bahamas and Senegal (]), and other insignificant highways and airports around the world. None of these articles are sourced by anything that verifies notability, just databases and maps, which has resulted in at least one article being pointed out as a map misreading and therefore nonexistent community at ]. I can only speculate how many more of these places do not exist and if any of them are ]s.
	: Of course you felt you had good reason to post all those characters. As you will in the future when you post 6000 character responses to my 1500 character posts if this goes ahead. ] (]) 10:51, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
	::It is not a permanent restriction, it can be removed through the community agreement. ] (]) 12:48, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
			There are too many of these articles to send through AfD or PROD manually and there is really no point in draftifying them or converting the articles into redirects since we have little proof that these topics are notable or even exist at all. Their ] consists of nothing but notices of their articles being moved to the draftspace, AfD/PROD notices, and messages informing them to be more careful about article creation, yet they have seemingly ignored these messages and have persisted with spamming these stub articles for no clear reason. <span style="border-radius:9em;padding:0 5px;background:#3366cc">]&nbsp;]&nbsp;]</span> 01:13, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
	=== WP:AGF ===
			:I will stop creating these articles. ] (]) 01:27, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
	Ok, I'll bite, I just read through this series of threads, and I'm not seeing a whole lot of succinctness by most anyone involved.
			:I tagged one as '''CSD A7''' to see if that would work. ] ] 01:36, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			::{{replyto|Bgsu98}} Thank you, I also considered PROD-ing them all but I noticed you have so already. <span style="border-radius:9em;padding:0 5px;background:#3366cc">]&nbsp;]&nbsp;]</span> 02:20, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::I think I got all of the ones that that Maryland batch, but I’m sure there are more. ] ] 02:22, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			{{abot}}
			== User:Glenn103 ==
	That said, is there someone seriously suggesting that we should restrict how much an editor may edit in terms of counting characters? Because that's exactly what you are saying. A talk page is a Misplaced Pages page.
			{{userlinks|Glenn103}} has been mass creating unsourced stubs about Cyrillic letters, most of which have been draftified. They've also disruptively edited in the past, such as: <span style="white-space:nowrap"><span style="font-family:monospace">'''<nowiki>''']<nowiki>]]'''</nowiki>'''</span> (] • ])</span> 01:41, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			:Most of these pages don't even make any sense (eg.: ]). The user also ignores any notice about his articles being moved to draftspace by simply recreating duplicates of them (eg.: ] & ]). Immediate action may be needed. ] (] <b>·</b> ]) 07:38, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			::Given a uw-create4im with directions to come here, let's see what happens. - ] <sub>]</sub> 08:00, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::They've continued editing, this time adding infoboxes to the articles, so I don't think the warning worked... <span style="white-space:nowrap"><span style="font-family:monospace">'''<nowiki>''']<nowiki>]]'''</nowiki>'''</span> (] • ])</span> 08:10, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::I have blocked them from article space and page moves, and will leave note on talk page to come here. —&nbsp;]&nbsp;] 15:33, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			Honestly, this almost feels like trolling. Their basic procedure seems to be: pick a random Cyrillic letter. Combine it with a random diacritic. Write a short stub on the combination, saying effectively "this letter combination is not used anywhere." The occasional historical mentions ("this combination was used in such-and-such obscure Siberian language") are completely unsourced, of course. (Everything is unsourced.) ] (]) 04:43, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			:Excuse me for detracting from the report, but this was your 4th edit, your last edit was in January 2016... how have you found yourself here of all places?
	Has the editor been disruptive to the encyclopedia?
			:I mean you might have a point, but wow. &ndash; ] (]) (]) 04:57, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			Similar behavior to {{checkuser|PickleMan500}} and other socks puppeted by {{checkuser|Abrown1019}}, which also made tons of drafts on Cyrillic characters that cited few sources (and none with in-depth coverage). Most drafts have been ]'d, of course, so only those with admin perms can verify the deleted contribs. <small>Since these socks have been banned (]), I haven't notified them of this discussion.</small> ] (] '''·''' ]) 17:08, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			==TPA for 83.106.86.95==
	Or is this just (pardon my bluntness) whining because some people don't wish to be bothered to read what another ] editor has written on a talk page concerning edits to an article?
			{{atop|1=Done. - ] <sub>]</sub> 02:39, 23 December 2024 (UTC)}}
			{{userlinks|83.106.86.95}}
			Could someone revoke TPA for blocked IP, based on ? ] (]) 02:07, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
	Last I checked, we WANT editors to discuss on talk pages and not edit war through edit summaries.
			:Done and revdel'ed, thanks to JJMC89. ] (]) 02:23, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
	I'll make it simple: All of you, please try to be more concise when conveying yourself with others, it makes it more likely they will read what you say and engage with you in thoughtful discourse.
			{{abot}}
			== Can you please help? ==
	If ] issues start to rear an ugly head or three, then please feel free to come back and let the community know.
			] got moved from ] (because his middle name might not be John). But the talk page for this person is at ], and the talk page for the disambiguation page is at ]. I don't know what happened to the disambiguation page, and I don't know how to fix this. ] (]) 02:29, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			:{{done}} Couldn't be moved because the target page had to be deleted; its now fixed. As a note for the future, ] would be a better place for this, since it isn't an 'incident'. That said - ''was'' there a dab page at ] before? - ] <sub>]</sub> 02:38, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			::Thanks to everyone for resolving this. As to the place for this, at some point I was told that "if you're a new user you have no reason to post at ]" or something similar. I appreciate the help. ] (]) 05:28, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			:(edit conflict) I think that the disambiguation page's revisions were merged into the history of the moved page, if I'm reading ] correctly.
			:@], can you confirm what happened/fix this? &ndash; ] (]) (]) 02:39, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			::Actually, WAS that the intention (merging the histories)? I have no idea how this works.
			::Maybe The Bushranger already did all that needed to be done. &ndash; ] (]) (]) 02:46, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::(edited): There was a dab page with two entries. It is now a redirect from William Swainson to William John Swainson and the direction is now different. The full histories are (merged) restored and visible. PS: I have added a hat-note to the one other (far less notable) lawyer - ] - if there are many more entries to be dealt with then the (currently a redirect) page at ] could be reinstated/used. ] (]) 02:59, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::(nac) An intitle search turned up no other William Swainson, so I've tagged {{-r|William_Swainson_(disambiguation)}} (which has no significant history) for speedying under ]. ] (]) 06:52, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			== POVPushingTheTruth ==
	In the meantime, let's just go back to editing.
			{{atop|1=The truth may set you free, but ] will get you blocked. - ] <sub>]</sub> 05:30, 23 December 2024 (UTC)}}
			] is clearly NOTHERE. <span style="padding:2px 5px;border-radius:5px;font-family:Arial black;white-space:nowrap;vertical-align:-1px">] <span style=color:red>F</span> ]</span> 05:05, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			:Blocked. -- ] (])| <!--Template:Undated--><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added 05:09, 23 December 2024 (UTC)</small><sup>]</sup>
			{{abot}}
			== North Korean involvement in Russian-Ukraine war discussion ==
	I suggest that this thread be closed as a complete waste of everyone's time. Even a ] would seem to be a time waster here. - <b>]</b> 07:11, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
	{{archivebottom}}
			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.
	== Battlefield behavior in Canadian article; interaction ban? ==
			'''Key Points:'''
	*{{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''" ()
			# '''Prolonged Discussions and RfC Closure:'''
	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 :
			#* The RfC on North Korea's inclusion was conducted thoroughly, with a wide range of arguments presented by both sides.
	<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>
			#* 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.
	This is the same concern I noticed and addressed in my first note on the subject - in response to that said, in part:
			#* The close explicitly allowed for reevaluation if new battlefield events or sources emerged, but no substantial new evidence has invalidated the prior consensus.
	<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>
			# '''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:'''
	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.
			I respectfully request that administrators address the following issues:
	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)
			# Enforce the consensus reached in the closed RfC, as no new evidence significantly alters the previous conclusions.
	My interactions with the user began here:
			# Discourage editors from rehashing resolved discussions, particularly when arguments have been repeatedly addressed and dismissed.
	{{collapse top|WhisperToMe's note}}
			# 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.
	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
			Thank you for your attention to this matter.
	* See: "Antidiskriminator (talk) 08:36, 23 October 2014 (UTC)"
			UPDATE: I just noticed that North Korea was removed as a belligerent and added to the 'supported by' section, completely violating the consensus.
			] (]) 08:48, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			:Since this report isn't really about an incident and your request is directed towards admins, I think this complaint would be better placed at ] rather than ANI. It will also need more specifics, which articles, which edits, which editors. You'll need to provide that. I also question whether or not these are content standards that the community can't handle on their own. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 09:50, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			::I was going to post it at ] but it said: "'''This noticeboard is for issues affecting administrators generally – announcements, notifications, information, and other matters of''' ''general administrator interest.''
			::If your post is about a '''specific problem you have''' (a '''dispute''', user, help request, or other narrow issue needing an administrator), you should post it at the ''']''' (ANI) instead. Thank you."
			::I posted it on ANI beecause my specific problem was this dispute ] (]) 12:07, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::The original post in this thread appears to resemble LLM output. GPTzero confirms this impression, rating text as "99% probability AI generated". Using AI to generate ANI submissions is highly inappropriate. ] (]) 18:01, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::Even when a message appears to be AI-generated, I think it is worth considering whether or not it is pointing out an actual problem. I think editors might be ignoring the results of an RFC, I just don't think asking for administrators to monitor a subject area, without identifying specific articles, is a feasible solution. It does seem like, possibly, a point that could come up in a complaint at AE regarding the Ukraine CTOP area. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 19:55, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::I had a peek and it's a messy RfC and, as is generally the case with a messy RfC had a very involved closure message which seems to reflect that the closer felt constrained by the framing of the RfC. I didn't see any immediate indication in the edit history that anyone had tried to implement the RfC result and been rebuffed (although I might have missed it). So there's some smoke here but, I think, not a ton of fire. ] (]) 20:21, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::Liz, I don't disagree but I'm not at all convinced that use of AI is a positive contribution to CTOP areas. ] (]) 20:27, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::It was written with AI assistance. Not all AI. ai detectors aren’t considered reliable, because you can put the U.S. constitution through one and it says 100% AI generated. Regardless, whether it’s AI or not has nothing to do with the topic. It’s just that there’a been so many discussions and when I checked the info box it said ‘supported by”, violating the consensus of the RFC ] (]) 12:45, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::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)
			== Dispute Over Edits and Use of British Raj Sources ==
	It concerns this text that I made at (WhisperToMe (talk) 10:09, 18 October 2014 (UTC) ):
			{{Atop|Content dispute.--] (]) 15:00, 23 December 2024 (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? "
			Hello,
	Talk page discussions about the reply:
	* ]
	* ]
	I don't recall receiving any messages like that since October. Antidiskriminator also talked to the user here: ]
			I’m seeking administrator input regarding a dispute with @] over the content in the the "]" article. The editor removed significant content, citing ] as justification. Here are my concerns:
	On 2 November ] asked both of us (myself and Skookum) to let other people talk: ] and ]
			'''1. Misapplication of Policy''':
	In November a user reported that there were no issues on my end in that discussion: ]
			Sitush’s essays are not official Misplaced Pages policy. Content decisions should follow ], ], and ].
	"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)
			'''2. Dismissal of Reliable Sources''':
	::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.
			The removed content was based on ]-era sources, which are neutral and historically significant. The editor claims these are unreliable without specific evidence or discussion on the article’s talk page.
	::::::::::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)
	:::::::::::::::There is nothing weird in not wanting to take your word for anything, or in not accepting your personal knowledge. As I have tried to explain to you about a million times it is basic policy. We cite sources. What your karate teacher told you over lunch is not a source. Regardless of how knowledgeable he or she is. (I am not making this up, Skookum used something his karate teacher has told them regarding the preferred endonym of the Mi'kmaq people as an argument in a move discussion). I very rarely see you providing any written or online sources for your statements, much less pagenumbers which - yes can be a requirement if others are not otherwise able to find the source and verify it. I do assume good faith from you. What I dont assume from you anymore is competence. Especially social competence. By the way if people end up handing out interaction bans I wouldnt mind a mutual one with Skookum1 as well. Very rarely does anything good come from us crossing paths. ] 23:54, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
	::::::::::::::::{{ping|User:Maunus}} What page discussion are you referring to? ] (]) 01:32, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
	::::::::::::::::::I cant find the exact page right now, but it was somewhere in the loooong discussion that lead up to ] which took page at different talkpages, wikiproject pages and article discussions. It was a minor part of the great Indigenous Naming War between Skookum1 and Kwamikagami. I am pretty sure that he mentioned earlier that one of the "acquaintances" he mentioned that he had consulted and wished to use as support for his argument was a martial arts teacher. Meanwhile he never linked to any of the very good Mikmaq dictionaries and discussions about the nomenclature that are reliable published and available online. It is not the only time that I have argued with him and he has insisted that his knowledge from acquaintances and personal experience trumps reliably published sources. That has been the main source of frustration in interacting with Skookum1, that and his belligerence. Actually I share most of his political and cultural views, but nonetheless he tends to paint me as "cultural imperialist exploiting/insulting native people" in these discussions. He even does this with some of our Native American editors when they disagree with him.] 01:47, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
	:::::::::::::::::::{{ping|User:Maunus}} ]: "Point is about Duncan is one of my good friends in BC was raised there; he's Sikh, but lives now in Richmond; his life cannot be separated by arbitrary titling judgements made by someone in Texas who only knows about the place through books he's found so far. You sourced Kelowna but did you know to include West Kelowna, Peachland, Lake Country which are part of "Greater Kelowna". Of course not, because you have no idea where you're talking about. BTW the mayor of Lillooet I spoke about, his extended family is in Kelowna, I worked under his nephew (a film producer, now deceased) who lived in Burnaby; as with many IC families, they are not limited by the boundaries of Greater Vancouver, nor should your neophyte article be so limited; your opposition to the marge and the way you are doing it is obstructionist and your behaviour very questionable." - Do you mean something like this? ] (]) 16:18, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
	::::::::::::::::::::::Yes, exactly. Personal anecdotes offered as supporting evidence for arguments about how to write articles. And hostility and aspersions to those who point out that it is not a valid form of evidence or argumentation.] 16:23, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
	:::::::::::::::::::::::{{ping|User:Maunus}} ] says: "In Misplaced Pages, verifiability means that people reading and editing the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source. Misplaced Pages does not publish original research. Its content is determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of its editors. Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it." - What I want out of this discussion is not an interaction ban, but the Wikimedia community ''making it clear that published sources are the be-all-end-all on Misplaced Pages and that this is not a trivial point and it needs to be understood by '''everyone'''''. I had attempted to make this clear at ].
	:::::::::::::::::::::::*{{ping|User:0x0077BE}} had said: "Is anyone disagreeing with you (other than Skookum1) on the question of whether it would be OR to determine article titles or content based on personal experience? That's pretty much the definition of OR. I'm guessing it's not hard to find a consensus on that."
	:::::::::::::::::::::::*On that OR noticeboard page I referred to this statement by Skookum ]: "The Indo-Canadian experience and community you only know second-hand through your precious books; I'm personally interconnected to it and, as a long-standing BC editor who's contributed reams to Misplaced Pages about my home province, know what I'm talking about. YOU don't, no matter how many books or quotes your throw at me....or how many demands you make that *I* go find something to prove *my* case."
	:::::::::::::::::::::::The OR page does say "(This policy of no original research does not apply to talk pages.)" - But I feel when someone is trying to ''determine article content'', it should apply.
	:::::::::::::::::::::::I don't want this issue to slip away. I want it clarified. ] (]) 18:16, 8 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)
			'''3. Unilateral Edits and Dismissive Behavior''':
			Despite my attempts to discuss the matter constructively, the editor dismissed my concerns as "]" and warned me about sanctions under ] and ], discouraging collaboration.]
	::::::::::::::::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).
			'''Evidence''':
	::::::::::::::::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.
			'''Request for Administrative Action''':
	::*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.
			1. Review the removed content and the editor’s justification.
	::*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;
			2. Ensure that disputes are discussed on the article’s talk page.
	::*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.
			3. Address the editor’s dismissive tone to foster collaboration.
	::*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.
			4. Prevent further disruptive edits/vandalism by IP editors (which hasn't happened yet) And from Autoconfirmed users(e.g. @GrilledSeatJet , -) and even from Extended Autoconfirmed users(@]) by banning such editors and putting an extended protection on the Article which I have once put request ] for but it got denied and now the results are as follows.
	::*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.
			Thank you for your time and attention. I’m happy to provide further information if needed.
	::*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
			----Best Regards
			--- ] (]) 10:47, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
	::*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.
			{{Abot}}
			== Nothing to say about me really bot ==
	::*So here's "what", as far as I'm concerned:
			{{atop
	*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.
			| result = Locked {{nac}}. <span style="padding:2px 5px;border-radius:5px;font-family:Arial black;white-space:nowrap;vertical-align:-1px">] <span style=color:red>F</span> ]</span> 13:34, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			}}
			*{{vandal|WilhelminaBlosse}}
	::*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.
			Please delete the user page, block the bot and report to stewards for a global block, as per ]. Thank you! ] (]) 11:31, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
	::*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''
			{{abot}}
			== Concern About a New Contributor ==
	::*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.
			{{userlinks|Kriji Sehamati}}
			Dear Wikipedians,
	::*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.
			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.
	::*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 believe your experience could help address this situation effectively.
	::*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.
			Looking forward to your advice on how to proceed.
	::*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)
			Thankyou! ]] 15:21, 23 December 2024 (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)
			:"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.
	:When I ask for page cites, it's not an accusation that the other party is making something up. It's simply to satisfy a demand to verify content.
			: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.
	: An example of me asking for page cites: ] is a reference to () and a reversal of - In diff#639658193 I am using page cites to support my position and I think it's fair to ask the other party to do the same.
			:By the way is forum shopping. Stop that. ] (]) 16:06, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
	: ] (]) 22:46, 7 January 2015 (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.
	*'''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:
			::She seems to lack understanding of basic Misplaced Pages guidelines, particularly those related ] and ]. ]] 16:40, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
	::*''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.
			:::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)
	::*''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.''
			::::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:
	:*"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)
			:::: •
	::: By "Cite the source clearly and precisely (specifying page, section, or such divisions as may be appropriate)." it is demanding division citations. For a large book, that means page or, at minimum, chapter citations. ] (]) 22:57, 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;
			:::: •
			::::and many more
	**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)
			::::Thankyou! ]] 17:33, 23 December 2024 (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)
			:::::We wouldn't generally treat an AfD as vandalism. ] (]) 17:39, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::I understand your point about AfDs not generally being treated as vandalism. However, I noticed that the major contribution history of the user seems suspicious. ]] 17:42, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
	::], 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.
			:::::::Not from where anybody else is standing so far. I get that you're upset to have four articles of yours nominated for deletion, and if you have any evidence ''at all'' that you are being deliberately targeted by the other editor, then people will very much act on that. Please provide it. ] (]) 17:58, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::::I am here to contribute and edit articles in accordance with Misplaced Pages’s guidelines. However, today a new user targeted me and falsely blamed me for actions that are not accurate. I believe this is unfair and not in line with the collaborative nature of the platform. ]] 18:04, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
	::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.
			:::::::::Please provide evidence of this. ] (]) 18:06, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::::::Please check! ]] 18:07, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
	::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)
			:::::::::::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)
	:::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.
			::::::::::Honestly it looks like this user, rightly or wrongly, believes you have a conflict of interest and are acting on the basis of that assumption. I would suggest, if you don't have a CoI, talking to them about this and maybe asking why they've come to this conclusion. ] (]) 18:10, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::::::They have just started targeting my contributions, and I tried to inform her about the situation. However, she is acting as if she knows everything about Misplaced Pages and is dismissing my concerns. ]] 18:15, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
	:::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)
			{{od}}
	::::], 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)
			:{{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’ve defended you in the past, for the same reasons you articulate above - that you are dedicated, and knowledgable about B.C. history and geography. I identify with your pride in the place, and your love for its history. But what I’ve seen over the last two years or so very much seems to be a downward spiral towards anger and battleground mentality. It's a cycle - you work constructively on topics for a while, then find a contentious area, then find an opponent (or they find you), then all hell breaks loose. You have a tendency to fire point blank with both barrels when a shotgun isn’t even necessary. Then you are blocked, or quit. A few months later, the whole cycle repeats. Its bad for the content, its bad for editors caught in the melee, and, as you’ve said above, its bad for your health. And, sadly, it discourages people from working with you on the topics that could benefit from your knowledge. I’ve personally been on the edge several times of suggesting a big cleanup project to work on together, only to discover that you are so deeply embroiled in a talk-page war that I don’t even bother. Take this dispute, for instance. It may well be that I would agree with your position, if I was able to wade through all the interpersonal battling going on and get a handle on it. But I simply can’t. That would take up any bandwidth I have for editing, and then some. So I just don’t bother looking in to the disputes you find yourself in, even if they relate to topics that I have knowledge of, or access to knowledge of.
			*We need to stop focusing on the OP's calling this vandalism; it is not. I've changed the header to reflect that. That said, the new user's edits ''are'' problematic and merit scrutiny. As for the UPE stuff, I've removed that post from the OP's Talk page; it's nonsensical coming from a new user and does not merit a response.--] (]) 18:42, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			*It is, of course, not vandalism to nominate articles for AFD discussions as long as a legitimate deletion rationale is provided and the article hasn't just been discussed at a recent AFD. However, I don't think it's a good sign when a brand new editor claims to understand all of Misplaced Pages policies and whose first actions are to nominate articles at AFDs. They are almost never an actual new editor, especially when they know how to even set up an AFD or are familiar with using Twinkle on their first day of editing. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 19:34, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
	:The collaborative part of this project isn’t just a matter of working well with people you work well with; it’s also about finding common ground with people you don’t. (And if that common ground is really not attainable, seeking consensus for your position from your peers.) No one “wins” with these highly charged and adjective-laden talkpage and noticeboard spats. Except maybe the internet service providers. <span style="text-shadow: 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em #DDDDDD">] ]</span> 15:08, 9 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)
	:::You don't get it, TE: ''I'm not the one starting or maintaining these discussions''; all arise from his refusal to accept good faith about sources and facts and events that put the lie to, or dispute, the POV sources he's obsessing on; rather than address the sources I come up with, he disputes their validity, misquotes guidelines ("policies" he calls them) and has repeatedly sought to impugn my honesty and discredit what I have to say; ''I'm not the problem''. If more BCers took care for their own province's history pages it would help a lot; I find myself the lone soldier against a tide of POV b.s. and, frankly, bad writing full of TRIVIA and UNDUE on a topic very important, and also highly-charged, in BC history, past and present. As usual, I'm being made a pariah even when I'm not the perp. he has behaved in an AGF and anti-consensus way since his first appearance in Canadian articles-space re the Air India bombing on CANTALK; I'm not dishonest, as you know, and I do know my BC history; trying to inform him of other aspects of Chinese history in BC and sources where he can read up has gotten me only insults and rejections and overweening "do it now or I'll delete it" ultimatums and discussion board after discussion board attacks on me and the sources I'm trying to get him to ''read and learn from''. I really should pay attention to that meme around FB about "never argue with someone committed to misunderstanding you"...though that needs amending to "someone intent on misrepresenting anything you say". How much has he accomplished with his dozenz of incredibly long talkpage/board discussions othdr than to defray any energy I might have to work on the article itself?] (]) 06:39, 10 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)
	::::Fine, Skookum1, have it your way. No, I don't "get it" with this dispute, because, as I said above, the way you approach disputes discourages me from getting involved. I was trying to make some more general points about how your editing comes across. If you don't want to talk about the bigger picture, that's your right. But, as you can see below, there are people talking about blocking you, and I wouldn't be surprised, if not this time then the next, people start talking about indef blocks or bans. That's not something I want to see, but I really believe the only way it can be avoided is if you take a step back, and re-evaluate how you deal with opposition on Misplaced Pages. There will always be someone with whom you disagree, or some suite of articles that has fallen on hard times. There is almost unlimited opportunity for confrontation on this project. That isn't going to change. <span style="text-shadow: 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em #DDDDDD">] ]</span> 05:24, 12 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)
	:::::Apparently WhisperToMe isn't going to change, either, and his ongoing OR/SYNTH about what he ''claims'' WP:V means is only escalating with even more extrapolations about "requirements" that don't exist except in his own assertions/SYNTH claims about WP:V. I've toned down my language per about his latest escalation of his continuing and obstinate attempts to censor even talkpage comments describing issues/events that should be in that article; see also ] where his "walls of text" are way beyond the pale even beyond ''anything'' I've ever done; and yes "sophistry" is a very adequate and correct term to describe his ongoing and repetitive board-warrings and talkpage-bludgeonings; and bro, if other Canadian editors leave me to battle such tomfoolery on my own and see me get heated, that's the time to step in and provide Canadian-input and not see me get further baited and insulted; that would keep things frmo getting as far as they have here; same with that ridiculous campaign in previous ANIs to block me for having successfully RM'd most of the unnecessary and undiscussed moves that applied obsolete and often offensive names to Canada's native peoples; same with applying ], where there were a few "hostile closes" by the same admin who blocked me without consensus to do so while she had me blocked. I'm the one trying to be informative and responsible and being subjected to very clear anti-good faith comments and challenges and ''demands'' that talkpage discussions be page-cited and apparently need reflist templates. The same kind of hands-off-because-Skookum1 is there re ] was similarly unproductive. If we leave Canadian history to be ''commandeered'' by someone with a very clearly POV agenda/bias about our own history, more's the pity. But blaming me because nobody else will intervene isn't working either; there's a lot of issues with various articles that need dealing with, and someone being obstructionist ''and disruptive'' by board-warrning intstead of listening and discussing issues and granting good faith about what's in sources he's never heard of is t he real issue here. Making me the issue is AGF; the content and Misplaced Pages's NPOV should be the issue. .... and also violating guidelines by board-warring asserting false claims about what guidelines require ("policies" he calls them, which they're not).] (]) 03:33, 13 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)
	::I just lost at least a half hour of my life reading that massive wall of text, 90% by Skookum1. First of all, ] is policy and is not negotiable. No editor can say that they read the book six or eight years ago and later sold it, and cite it that way without page numbers. And then demand others buy the book. That is unacceptable. Every accusation that Skookum1 makes against other editors can be applied against Skookum1, ten times over. This editor has a lot to offer, but their combative attitude is way out of line. As is their longstanding habit of saying in 5000 words what can be better said in 100 words. It is wearying and disrespectful to other editors. Somehow, it must stop. ] ] 05:49, 10 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)
	:::Oh, you haven't seen all the ''other'' discussion board and talkpage rants by WMT huh? Too many to link, and he writes ''more than I do''. The combative attitude has been ''HIS'' from the very start, when he started demanding coverage of the Air India disaster on ] and persisted throughout his many talkpage attacks on me and ongoing AGF towards ''anything'' I say; the OR board discussion is ''entirely'' AGF and rankly NPA, and full of ] extrapolations on e.g. WP:V where the passage about page cites is ''ONLY'' about quotes from sources; it does not apply to talkpages; he even hunted out negative comments from others about me from the distant past; it's not ME who needs the cooling-of period; he hasn't done a ''thing'' with the mass of cites I came up with while he was expanding his attacks on me on the OR board and elsewhere; actions speak louder than words; and he's not working collaboratively and not treating me with respect. As for your put-down of my account of what I know to be in Morton, that's just more AGF and you should know better; I brought Morton up on the talkpage and when I put a tidbit from it on the article ''it was not a quote'' and so that bit from WP:V ''does not apply''. I also don't have a few dozen other books I used to have which are used on various pages; that I didn't page-cite them because they weren't quotes I was using them for is a further point. As for "ill-informed" being supposedly an NPA, that's just more ], and he clearly is ''NOT'' well-informed about BC history; his hostility to non pro-Chinese sources underscores the "prejudiced" views he has about non-Chinese in BC's history, as evinced by his ongoing hostility towards anythign that disputes the rank POV and 'bad facts' in the sources he prefers; he doesn't want to admit to the existence of anything in the way of his agenda and has posted ''dozens'' of long talkpage and discussion board "walls of text" which you are apparently unfamiliar with; I'm way too familiar with them.. That's not an NPA, that's a statement of fact.] (]) 06:29, 10 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)
	::::Thank you for the wall of text response that helps prove that what I said is true. Are you incapable of being concise? ] ] 06:48, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
			*:::::Dear @],
	'''Time for a wrap-up'''
			*:::::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.
	] provided a very insightful summary of the problem. No IBAN is going to solve the underlying problem, only an enforced time out for ]'s own health and sanity. Can an Admin rule on this? ] (]) 05:46, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
			*:::::Also, I am not against AfD; I am simply expressing my opinion. ]] 13:12, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
	:And who are you again? the guy who made false edit comments on the Ottawa shootings articles and conducted a POV censorship campaign there? that guy? Right.......but you are not involved with this article, only have a grudge against me for thwarting your attempts to POVize/censor the Ottawa article and pointing out the details of your suspicious-behaviour false edit comments.] (]) 06:29, 10 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)
	::Completely false accusations ] no supporting diffs. Thanks for so quickly confirming the point. ] (]) 06:44, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
			*:::::::Dear @],
	===Action is needed here post by Moonriddengirl===
			*:::::::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)
	'''At this point''' given the feedback of ], ], ], ], and ], I am concerned about pattern. (Sorry if I've missed anyone; please ping them on my behalf. There's a wall of text up there.) I am not only seeing ongoing but escalating hostility at ]. ] is continuing to assert that ] is violating ] by asking for page numbers to verify claims in spite of feedback from multiple people that this is a common burden we all share. He seems to be continuing to take the request for verification as attacks on his "credibility and honesty". The only claims of personal attacks I'm seeing from WhispertoMe ''is'' his request for specific verification, coupled with what seems to be a misunderstanding of what original research is: "am conducting "original research" as if I'm a liar. '''WHICH I AM *N*O*T*.''''" (There's a word of difference between "original research" and "hoax".)
			*::::::::One thing you need to understand immediately is you should never make another post that sounds vaguely like a legal threat, as you've just done above. ] That intonation is seriously not helping us decide who's right or wrong here. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>]</span> 13:27, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:::::::::Okay! ]] 13:35, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
	But there ''is'' ongoing hostility and incivility from Skookum1:
			*::::::::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)
	*"Time for you to take a modesty pill, apologize for being such a %@Q%@% about this business about page-cites "; "Get a grip on your ego and your POV"; "
			*:::::::::Dear @],
	*"why don't you get a grip on your ego and backtrack from setting yourself up as Supreme Inquisitor and Executioner and stop being so goddamned arrogant about you "saving an article." "Your behaviour and sophistry just gets deeper and deeper and uglier and uglier" "Intellectual flatulence, sophistry, and rule-happy wiki-copping arrogance and deletionism is all I see from you"
			*:::::::::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)
	*"If it matters so much to him let him read the book for himself isntead of being such a @#%@#%# about what it says that he just doesn't want to admit belongs in the article"
			*::::::::::Accusing another editor of potentially making legal threats is not much better, when there is no concrete evidence that they would do so. Being interested in articles about judges does not suffice. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>]</span> 13:32, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			*::::::::The page of Justice ], who had conducted over the Misplaced Pages vs. ANI court hearing, was also created by me. ]] 13:28, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
	For full disclosure: ] contacted me once via email over this issue, and I responded. This is where I offered to request mediation for him, although I emphasized my policy of discussing Misplaced Pages matters ''on'' Misplaced Pages; this contact was yesterday. I can share the text of my response if there is desire to see it, but can't share his letter without permission. That said, his idea of mediation (which I saw after that correspondence) is concerning to me, as it seems to be non-transparent and one-sided. He tells ]: "I'll write you privately to lay out what i see is wrong with teh article, as there's no point in doing it "in front of him" as he'll write another "100 page treatise, with footnotes, telling me why I am wrong""
			*:::::::::<del>State plainly what the implication you are making here is, because what I'm hearing is "I'm familiar with people who have hit Misplaced Pages with a mallet in court before, and I can make sure it happens again".</del> <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>]</span> 13:30, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			*::::::::::This is becoming a rabbit hole. I urge you not to pursue the rabbit further. ] (]) 13:33, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
	'''Whether you've been involved in this discussion before or not, If you could please indicate whether you support an interaction ban or other action, or no action at all, it would be very helpful.''' --] <sup>]</sup> 22:49, 10 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)
	'''Support Temp Block:''' This post is not going to make him like me, but since that ship sailed already, I'll go with blunt honesty. What I see here is a repeat of what I experienced first hand, confirmed by other editors. Skookum does excellent work in geography etc, until he picks an editor as a target and engages in war. This behavior then starts to hurt his health and he gets even more hostile blaming the other editor for his problems. It's not a regular content dispute or POV pushing, it's attitude, so a topic ban will not help and an interaction ban only becomes a burden on his chosen enemy and the Admin who has to enforce. The best solution for both the rest of the editors and Skookum1's own health is an enforced wikibreak. That seemed to help the last time, and hopefully will help him again. I wish him all happiness and good health, which I expect he will find easier on a Thai beach then battling on Misplaced Pages for a few days. ] (]) 07:26, 11 January 2015 (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)
	***Point of incidental information; I'm not in Thailand and haven't been since September; I got out, along with thousands of other people, because of the mounting anti-farang nature of the place and the daily murders and beatings of foreigners and scapegoating of same by the corrupt Thai police; the bloom is off the Thai rose; I'm in Cambodia now and glad of it.] (]) 08:11, 11 January 2015 (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)
	**'''Reply''' Seems to me, Legacypac, that that recent ANI about you and me ended with a promise to disengage and stay out of each other's way, provided I promise not to "out" you which I never intended to do anyway; ''you should not be in this discussion''' as a violation of that agreement and closer's orders; you should be blocked yourself for breaking that promise. You do not belong in this discussion, and have nothing to do with the topic, only nursing hostility towards me and now voicing it despite the ANI forbidding you to do so.] (]) 07:45, 11 January 2015 (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)
	===More Skookum Contributions===
			*: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)
	:I haven't seen your reply yet, but your claim that it's one-sided is rubbish; the campaign ''against me'' by WMT across dozens of talkpages and board discussions is AGF/NPA from start to finish, and it's funny-ironic that others here slam me for the volume of my posts when his are so much incredibly larger and persistently on-attack-mode ''when he's not working with the sources I came up with'' to improve the article while y'all were pontificating and condemning me here. His continuing AGF at the OR board is insulting and persistent; he's not interested in cooperation only in getting me out of his way. As for wanting to lay out the case of what's wrong with the article and what ''should'' be in it, there ''IS'' no point in doing it "in front of him" as he'll just post yet more ] sophistries and false claims/demands about ''his'' interpretation of guidelines that don't say what he claims they do and ''don't'' apply to talkpage (page-cites for mere descriptions of what's in a book/source). It's clear, and yes, him writing "a 100 page treatise, with footnotes, telling me why I am wrong and demanding that I read it" is a paraphrase from a book by ] and it fits him to a 't'; it had come up in discussions concerning the Chinaman articles where similar obfuscatory and obstructive POV behaviour as I am seeing from him was rife; no I don't have the page cite, the quote came from a UofT site reviewing the book, which is no longer online. It's clear you are not capable of being a mediator, my mistake for thinking you were rational and not as biased and judgmental as you have just shown yourself to be.] (]) 07:45, 11 January 2015 (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)
	::Bringing up my reactions to his ongoing AGF and very concerted and ongoing NPA towards me, which I consider his ''mass of rants'' criticizing me to be, as "uncivil" is pot-kettle-black; his whole treatment of me has been uncivil from the very start, over and over and over again, to the point of burying merge discussions and wallpapering his claims and source-incantations in at least 20 places...... ''his'' behaviour is uncivil, provocative and negative and is ''against guidelines'' but he's being let off the hook here while you vilify me. More proof that ANI is not logical or rational or neutral; you're being an enabler of his behaviour, you should really look at his contributinos in the last six weeks and see how much you're missed of what I've been subjected to; but he has opted out of edit summary stats so we can't look up hwo much talkpaging vs actual article content he's been doing; why he opted out of that is a very good question.] (]) 08:34, 11 January 2015 (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've moved your note, which you placed in the middle of mine. Please don't do this; it makes it confusing for others to follow. I have ''never'' concluded that the problem was one-sided, but have invited you to offer evidence otherwise - diffs. The only accusations you've ever made about personal attacks and incivility against him is his asking for specific citations to support your assertions. This is not a personal attack or a failure to assume good faith; this is policy. Readers and other editors must be able to verify for themselves that what you are saying is true; it's not because you lack credibility. It's the same standard we all face. That said, you really don't seem to understand how mediation works on Misplaced Pages. It does not take place behind closed doors: "The basic aim of mediation is to help Misplaced Pages editors to contribute willingly together by helping to resolve their good-faith disagreements over article content." (]). If you enter mediation through anyone, you will be contributing willingly together with ]. That's the way it works. Compromising with the other party and working with him is essential. --] <sup>]</sup> 13:16, 11 January 2015 (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)
	*'''Support interaction ban AND Topic ban for WMT''' An interaction ban is not possible unless there is a topic ban for WMT concerning Canadian/BC history; to exclude me from 20-odd articles that are related to the one in question, or from that article which is his ], so he'd like, is not viable. There's plenty of the rest of of the world he can take his pet "ethnicity-by-city" series of badly-written articles and busy himself elsewhere; he hasn't worked on that article in the last week though spending ''huge'' amounts of time continuing and not relenting in his ongoing AGF and patronizing demands such as "do you own the book" even though I've told him ''ten times at least'' that I sold it when I left Canada; efforts to get page-cites from the local histories he doesn't want to look up or admit to being valid re underway; but IMO once I have them t he nature of his ongoing AGF is he will continue to claim I'm making it up and fabricating them; that you tolerate or are blind to his excessive rule-mongering and, yes, sophistry and ongoing AGF towards me yet make ''me'' the bad guy here is another remind that ANI is a bearpit of negativity and contrariness and subjective, shallow, vindictive tyranny by people who ''do not know the material'' and have axes to grind; and too much power to go with their lack of knowledge or ''common decency''.
			*::::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)
	:*THAT is why I didn't file an ANI ''against him'' weeks ago; this place is futile and full of nasties and "bad logic" and you can't call a spade a spade if you're under criticism, but man can people ever amp up the AGF/NPA here with some regularity. He has tried to commandeer control of a ''very important AND controversial'' aspect of Canadian history for his own, even though he has no experience of Canadian Misplaced Pages content and even has challenged long-standing naming/usage conventions. It's not just the CCinBC article that he's BLUDGEONED his talkpage spews on, but several others, and has engaged in procedural warfare and ongoing harassment and criticism without every showing ''any'' sign of conciliation and ANY sign of good faith that, gee, goddam, Skookum1 might know what he's talking about and the sources he's mentioning are, duh, things I should really try to get hold of and learn from. Nope, he's recruiting "enemies" of mine to this ANI and continuing his AGF assertions and haughty claims about what he's accomplished on the OR page; yet here the dogpile effect is underway, and someone who's not even supposed to be engaged with me is calling for a block when he is in ''violation'' of an ANI governing our mutual conduct. That Cullen would whine about a whole half hour of his time trying to read my post makes me wonder if he should even be commenting, if he's so limited on time and so off-the-cuff hostile to me when WMT has posted ''far more than me'' on this page, on the OR board in the current discussion and another a while ago, and on a couple of dozen talkpages; I'm the one being "accosted" as DE puts it for around ''six weeks'' with ''his'' "walls of text".... a half hour? Lucky you. Of course I'm frustrated and getting irate about, being confronted daily with yet more condescending and patronizing challenges and demands, while the rest of you ignore that completely and come after ''me'' instead. I've said it before and I'll say it again, I'm not the problem, ''I'm his victim'' and the abusive AGF continues daily while ''nothing is done with the sources or pointers I have compiled for him'' while he's been busy attacking me.] (]) 08:01, 11 January 2015 (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 asked repeatedly because I wanted to check whether you had ''any'' books whatsoever in your possession which would help give verification to any of the arguments (there were multiple books discussed). If you do not have any books in your possession and there are no alternate ways of accessing them, you cannot cite from any of them and they cannot be used as arguments when trying to decide article content. ] (]) 14:29, 11 January 2015 (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)
	:::Sez you, according to your SYNTH of WP:V, which ''doesn't say that AT ALL''. WP:V ''does not apply to talkpage discussions''. I'm telling you about sources that I know have this or that in them, you go on a WAR about page-cites to refuse to acknowledge other sources than your own preferred type of sources - instead of reading up on BC history, starting with all those links I provided while you were here and on the OR board writing up your diatribes and SYNTH claims about WP:V. You are wrong, and in the wrong. Sounds like once I do get someone from back home to find page cites for various sources I've mentioned you will AGF them, claiming that since I don't have the book ''in my hands'' I can't be believed/trusted. That's '''AGF''' pure and simple and it's also abusing guidelines (which you describe, falsely, as "policies", a recurrent habit of those who love rule-mongering seen very often in such cases). You have apparenetly made ''no effort'' to explore the mass of cite-links I provided, the ones from nosracines.ca being ''all page-cites''. But here you are, holding forth that even talkpage discussions are to be censored if ]. That you would make this kind of argument at all ''instead of accepting good faith'' from someone who has read extensively in BC history and contributed loads of same to Misplaced Pages and has been trying to point you in the direction of content and sources that the article needs underscores your POVite nature about this topic, and your arrogant presumption that ''you'' decide what can even be discussed/raised on talkpage discussions. You are not interested in collaboration, only in censorship.] (]) 04:10, 12 January 2015 (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)
	'''Enough!''' I just to find this supposed sort of IBAN against me. Turns out this behavior is very common and occurs regularly back to 2009 - same complaints by editor after editor and same hostile responses. Between the editors who actually filed ANi's and 3RRs against him, and the many editors who chimed in saying they were attacked too, I could quickly put together a list of maybe 50 editors he has savaged, while crying he is their victim. If there is no temp ban I will start my own ANi about the latest personal attacks against me and it will include a greatest quotes section. The pattern is so clear, its painful. ] (]) 08:28, 11 January 2015 (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)
	*'''Reply''' ''you are in violation of the outcome of the last ANI'' which you seem to not have been able to find despite your hunt for hostile comments about me; I have plenty of supporters too, who tell me to ignore the b.s. and witchhunting perpetrated like you and those hostile and very often off-guideline arguments against me; you yourself have seen multiple 3RR and other violations; what where you're pointing the finger...it will come back to you and may have other repercussions for you that you should be mindful of.....] (]) 09:16, 11 January 2015 (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)
	**Honestly Skookum, how do you expect to defend yourself against a charge of consistently being combative with others by being combative with others? I really don't want to support calls for you to be blocked or topic banned or anything along those lines. It would help if you could help out by disengaging voluntarily. If other editors are the problem, that will then be much easier to see. ]] 04:26, 12 January 2015 (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)
	***Tell ya what, Resolute, why don't you help me improve the articles in question? see what I've been doing while this witchhunt has been going on....I've been being productive and doing research and improving articles while he's still making false, repetitive claims about what WP:V means; if I had more Canadian editors helping me with important matters on Canadian articles I wouldn't be being backed into a corner or being buried by "walls of b.s." on dozens of talkpages and now, again, in this witchhunt of an ANI. Many more sources and improvements could have been found but for the time this unhelpful and unproductive nonsense is going on; thte behaviour problem that ''WMT has'' is going unaddressed and I'm being set up for a block by a hostile interloper with a sketchy record of his own; see below about both what I've been doing and about the NPA/attack "votes" section and what's up with that. I'd really welcome help trying to digest and use all the cites/sources I've amassed, which WMT has ignored and apparently doesn't want to use or even ''look at''. I know (or think) you're an Albertan with not much interest in BC history, but please come across the Rockies, there's much to be done. Quite a few BC editors have long left Misplaced Pages because of ongoing absurdities and bureaucratic/procedural b.s. so more interest from ''people who know Canada'' and don't want to argue about what a given term means based on their exterior perspective and biased readings are asserting. Your help on content rather than criticism of my "behaviour" would be ''very productive''. Clearly none of my critics here have any intention of improving content, only in blocking me. Why? Well, good question, see below again and if you didn't witness the content war at the Ottawa shootings and Saint Jean-sur-Richelieu articles and talkpages, your help would have been good to to have there ''too''. I get along fine with people who aren't confrontational and rule-obsessed like WMT, or {{RPA}}... in fact that's the other thing I've been doing lately, guiding an older (84 years) contributor who's doing valuable local-history content; see my UCs.] (]) 05:19, 13 January 2015 (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)
	===Voting===
	This ANi has gone on too long for everyone's good. Decision time.<br>
	'''Propose:''' <u>Two week block for ] for ] behavior and personal attacks etc.</u> Please limit responses to a line or two, and vote '''Support''' or '''Oppose'''. Any other discussion/rants/walls of text will be moved to a section after this section to keep the poll on track and easy to follow. ] (]) 03:50, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
	*'''Oppose''' per Skookum1. ''']]''' 04:43, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
	*'''Oppose''' I see nothing that requires anybody to be blocked. ], ], ] 13:14, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
	*'''Support''' Both here and over at ], there is a consistent pattern of ] lack of ], coupled with a dose of ] with respect to ] and its reasons that may rise to a ] issue. Couple that with ]'s threats to take his ball and go home and it seems obvious. With 3 blocks in the last year all for ], ], maybe an indef is more appropriate. ] (]) 18:00, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
	*'''Support''' as one of the dozens of editors who have clashed with Skookum1 on thousands of talk pages, long overdue. — ] ] 03:29, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
	**'''Comment''' I see another uninvolved-but-personally biased editor has weighed in on this witchhunt; the "thousands of talkpages" is a typical exaggeration and belies the ''fact'' that I "won" 80% or more of the talkpages in question, which were reversions to long-standing consensus speedily-moved then virulently fought against reversion with board-warring and false claims about what guidelines say; None of the votes supporting this biased vote-call by someone with an axe-to-grind have anything to do with the article that precipitated this...and WMT's board-warring and false claims about WP:V ''ad nauseam'' remained unaddressed as also his obvious POV and attempt to censor/limit talkpage discussions by demanding page-cites for same need disciplining. I see my reply to Legacypac was ''redacted'' to a separate section ''again'' and that is ''against guidelines''...but then that's par for the course with his own record on articles and on talkpages. ANI draws contrarian and hostile "votes" when in fact this ANI Was started about ''mediation'' and this vote-call by a non-admin is out of order; I'm the one working on articles and sources while non-involved hostiles are seeking to have me blocked. Such is Misplaced Pages, and more's the pity. Nothing constructive will be accomplished by blocking me, that much is clear; and that applies especially to the topics/articles that are at the crux of this matter which ''none of them have anything to do with''.] (]) 07:47, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
	===Long addition inserted in the Voting area===
	*'''Oppose''' for obvious reasons; Legacypac is in violation of the ANI about him and me recently, that's one issue and his agenda here is clear, which has nothing to do with improving the encyclopedia. While this has been going on and WMT continues ''HIS'' disruptive board-warring about his assertions about what is "required" by WP:V, I've been the one actually working on the articles he's wanting me gone from and finding sources to enrich them. I'll link the previous ANI about Legacypac and must raise the question of his purpose here; which is clearly axe-grinding and revenge-mode hostility...and must reconsider my promise made at the end of that ANI. Here's what I've been doing while y'all are dogpiling on me here:
	:*]
	:*]
	:*]
	:*]
	:*, which he'd added a page-cite demand for {{tl|nofootnotes}} to, which I substituted {{tl|refimprove}} for, as other than one line that is in all four sources since provided;
	*because of the ongoing NPA harrassment here, in this mad place of resident contrarians, I have not had time to add to the Indo-Canadians article about ], nor write his article yet, here are sources found while the witchhunt here has been going on:
	:*
	:*
	:*Various other articles and improvements on other topics and some very non-confrontational and collaborative/fruitful discussions on various article talkpages.
	:*I'm the one actively researching sources and improving articles while continues to board-war over ''his'' claims about what WP:V requires, which it does not, continues; unaddressed and out of control. Blocking me when I'm the one actually ''working on articles'' and not expounding claiims about guideline-rules that ''don't exist'' is not constructive and IMO Legacypac is being deliberately disruptive here. Issues about his username continue to puzzle me, and his own record of disruptive behaviour makes his attack-posts here about me utterly hypocritical; but that's the nature of this place: hostility and hypocrisy. That a busy ''contributing editor'' who continues to create and improve articles should be blocked while the person obstructing those improvements is let to run free and go undisciplined is a complete absurdity. {{ping|User:Moonriddengirl}} you began this as an attempt to mediate or seek mediation; the result is that people with axes to grind ''who have nothing to do with the topic needing mediation'' are seeking to have me blocked ''for no good reason other than their own animosity towards me''. Legacypac's vote-call here is clearly NPA and hostile and not constructive in any way. WMT's claims about WP:V and his insistence that talkpage mentions of sources be page-cited are rubbish yet he's allowed to continue repeating and escalating his campaign to ''censor'' even talkpage discussions of t hings "in his way".] (]) 05:08, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
	:::* {{ping|Wifione}} you were the arbiter there, this is clearly a violation, so I'll now be blunt - I still don't understand why ] spends his days being confrontational here on ANI and in writing and POV edit-warring on anti-terrorism articles, and what kind of "professional writing" hes talking about, as he's not being very "professional here" and I have yet to see more than a very few edits on British Columbia articles from him. A ]; he disavows ever having heard of that organization but he works in American-oriented political articles all the time so that claim seems highly disingenuous, as even I've heard of them as have many other Canadians; whatever, if he doesn't want to respect the outcome of that ANI, neither will I so have raised the question of his motives/agenda here as his hostility towards me is his whole reason for being in this thread. How is his behaviour here contributing to improving the encyclopedia? its not, it's ''disruptive'' as he has been so often before on countless other articles as a good long look at his usercontributions will show. I'm the one working on BC history content, which WMT is trying to control/co-opt and which Legacypac has had ''nothing'' to do with.] (]) 05:01, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
	::There is no IBAN against me. You linked to a 3RR report where you said among other things:
	::(QUOTE from Skookum1: "2) I apologize to Legacypac and ] and will tone done my use of adjectives and emotional-response expletives (or acronyms thereof) in any future (unlikely) discussions with them, or when similarly confronted by aggressive/insulting or NPA/AGF posts/comments on my talkpage or in other article talkpages or edit comments. I'm old enough to know better but come from an upbringing where speaking your mind is expected, in whatever terms. I expect and hope that Inthefastlane can do the same, whether to do with making disparaging/insulting comments and maintain wiki-decorum in future.") (end of Quote from Skookum)
	::Do you want this ANi to drag on for weeks or you want to get on with your life? This kind of rant is not likely to help your case. ] (]) 05:18, 13 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)
	:::{{u|The Banner}} (and to explain the background a bit more for the closer) I understand that you really believe that eating organically produced food makes you healthier. But the science doesn't support that belief. Most of that is just due to the messiness of reality -- the variability of the food produced by any method, and the difficulty and expense of studying the effect of eating foods so barely different, in such a way that produces really definitive results. Based on WP's PAG, we just cannot make the kind of definitive statements you want to make, based on your belief. I am sorry you are so frustrated with that, and I am sorry that you have allowed your frustration to make you a disruptive presence in the organics articles. '''You really threw down the gauntlet when you refused to strike your personal attack and wrote "Why should I? You have already brought me to AN/I, so let us see how that ends up". In my view that leaves the community little choice but to pick the gauntlet up and topic ban you.''' ] (]) 15:42, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
	::::This is a very interesting statement that you make here. In fact you say that the scientific research is unreliable due to many factors that can not be taken into account when testing food ''due to the messiness of reality''. Still, you use it as a reason to remove sourced content. Why?
	::::I have many times asked for a proper reasoning about why ] is used on an article that is clear in the remit of agriculture. The answer was always health-claims. But unfortunately, the definition of "Health-claim" commonly used is rather fuzzy. And it is interesting to see that many so called "health-claims" are rejected due to the scientific research that you just called unreliable ''due to the messiness of reality''.
	::::It is also interesting that you now go into personal remarks about what you think I believe. Unfortunately, you are wrong in your line of thinking. Combined with the "gauntlet", I just see a failure of AGF. It would be rather spectacular when I get a topic ban due to the sourcing of unsourced text. <span style="border:1px solid green; padding:0 2px">]&nbsp;]</span> 17:01, 8 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 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 (what he below calls following him around). 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. The user below has shown a link to each of those blocks. 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. Below he is literally sticking his tongue out at me; at all of the disciplinary actions that have taken place previously. Childish but true. They have had no effect. Look at the overall product of his work, you will find single minded obnoxiousness. His path of destruction will continue until we do something serious. 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)
	::Everything from "Support banning this user completely" to the signature was added by Trackinfo; it's not that the siteban advocate failed to sign. Trackinfo, go to ] and underneath "User contributions" you'll see a section ''For The Banner (talk | block log | uploads | logs | filter log)'', or something like that; that's the easiest way to reach https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Special:Log/block&page=User%3AThe+Banner. ] (]) 02:40, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
	:Interesting, how many times are you going to ask for my complete removal, Trackinfo? You did it already several times and they all failed. Could you please be a bit more realistic and stop following me around? You have been warned before by an admin: and here . <span style="border:1px solid green; padding:0 2px">]&nbsp;]</span> 03:18, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
	::I have never asked for you to be banned completely in this forum before. On insignificant AfD and talk pages, yes. Now is the appropriate time, when others are also showing serious issues with your consistently bad attitude. Now is the time for someone with authority look at your overall negative body of work. They should look at your consistent incivility. Look below at your responses to Jytdog. That is a typical reaction from the Banner. His talk page is archived, 47 editions so far. Go to any one of them and you will probably find at least one other editor complaining about his edits, usually about deleting someone else's contributions, usually followed by uncivil conversation where Banner is always in the right (though he can be quite civil when his opponent retracts). His edits are constantly against the consensus of others involved with those same articles, but only one dominating personality can win those arguments, with Banner calling the other party on accusations of the techniques HE USES to bully his opponents. The concept is called ]. Look beyond this one case, this is a bad apple. And Banner; while I may not be bothering your daily activities, if you are not banned; each time you are brought back to ANI (and you will be, you've been here often) I'll be back urging your removal. The short message that you've never listened to, I'll say it here publicly: Clean up your act. More than 50 people offended by your "work" telling you that your deletions are improper, that you are obnoxious, uncivil, disruptive etc etc are not wrong. ] You are. ] (]) 22:40, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
	*'''Support indefinite topic ban'''. This editor has been persistently disrupted the organic food article with their disruptive ] behavior. ] (]) 22:40, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
	*'''Oppose''' The diffs demonstrated do not strike me as particularly astounding. The editor seems to be arguing against consensus in certain discussions, and the conduct represented do not strike me as particularly horrible or aggressive. One editor against five is in the minority and as long as they accept that consensus is against them, then that's fine. They are not disruptive. That's what has happened so far with what I garner. Additionally, people citing ] really need to point out -which- diff that's about. The ones presented do not make me remark that 'The Banner' is uncivil. Also, people citing 3RR edit warring violations need to cite reports where they actually reported them. ] (]) 22:48, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
	** {{U|Tutelary}} thanks for your comments. Based on what is presented here I see how you could say that, as I neglected to bring evidence of disruptive behavior to the articles themselves. Here is some (by far not all) evidence on that front:
	** with no edit note
	** (http://www.organicitsworthit.org)
	**
	** with edit note "no need for censorship of positive things"
	** and on same content
	** with edit note "Sorry, this relevant as the MEDRS-guys often claim that a difference is not significant when they remove sources not to their liking"
	** there are many many more of these. Basically as the editing community (what he calls "the MEDRS guys") works to keep the article neutral and accurate and well-sourced, Banner operates disruptively to try to keep non-neutral or badly sourced content in the article. His behavior has just devolved to disruption. I haven't even pulled in things from the other organics articles yet. Thanks for raising the question of editing behavior. ] (]) 16:32, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
	***No, Jytdog, my complaint is that you are NOT keeping the article neutral but overly negative by refusing information and sources. You are trying to win a content conflict not by addressing the stated concerns but by chasing away critical editors or in my case trying to topic ban me. <span style="border:1px solid green; padding:0 2px">]&nbsp;]</span> 23:08, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
	::::Actually I have been tolerating your disruptive editing and uncivil behavior. Again, you really threw down the gauntlet when you refused to strike your personal attack on Formerly and when he asked you to strike, wrote to him, "Why should I? You have already brought me to AN/I, so let us see how that ends up". You have lost your self control and are revelling in it. In my view that leaves the community little choice but to pick the gauntlet up and topic ban you. ] (]) 01:03, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
	:::::And again you are showing plain bad faith by assuming something that is not even close to the truth. <span style="border:1px solid green; padding:0 2px">]&nbsp;]</span> 12:57, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
	:::::::Not true? Difs.
	:::::::1) you again make personal attacks about whitewashing and
	:::::::2) you are directly asked to strike the accusation/personal attack by Formerly and again
	:::::::3) "Why should I? You have already brought me to AN/I, so let us see how that ends up"
	:::::::very true and backed by difs. and i have provided diffs above of disruptive Talk editing and disruptive article editing. its all there. I am not assuming anything. And with RfC/U gone, this forum is the only we can deal with your pattern of bad behavior. Again, you basically dared WP to take action against you instead of simply striking your personal attack and changing your behavior. I think it is time the community took action, since you cannot control yourself. ] (]) 13:14, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
	::::::::I was referring to your bad faith statement ''You have lost your self control and are revelling in it.'' And why are you not commenting about the part of research that is unreliable "due to the messiness of reality". Did you corner yourself with that statement? Come on, Jytdog, the only thing you want is to shut down a critical voice. Not because I am disruptive but because I am inconvenient. <span style="border:1px solid green; padding:0 2px">]&nbsp;]</span> 12:24, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
	::::::::::The diffs are there to see and I am describing your pattern of behavior. ] (]) 14:49, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
	:::::::::::The lack of self reflection on their behavior is more evidence that this topic ban needs to be placed. ] (]) 14:11, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
	::::::::::::And do you really think a topic ban will improve the article? Or is it just step one to scare away all other critical voices? Jytdog stated above that most scientific research is unreliable, still only scientific research more or less positive is shot down, not the scientific research that is more or less negative. <span style="border:1px solid green; padding:0 2px">]&nbsp;]</span> 13:58, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
	:::::::::::::The issue here is your behavior, not the article's content. ] (]) 14:28, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
	::::::::::::::No, the problem is the content and the use of different systems to measure notability of new info. <span style="border:1px solid green; padding:0 2px">]&nbsp;]</span> 23:08, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
	*'''Support''' a narrow (article specific) topic ban. Those advocating community bans here are among the first to resort to personal attacks, confess to collating "sh*t-sheets" and have atrocious AFD contribution records as immovable inclusionists. But the attitude here with regard to specific topic areas is problematic and ] has made a reasonable case for a topic ban, limited to those articles where there have been problems. But anything broader than that seems unwarranted. ''']<sup>]</sup>''' 08:38, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
	::I would define the topic as "organic food". Concretely that would be <s>],</s> ], and ]. Those are currently the articles about organic food where Banner has been acting disruptively. <u>I would also include ] as the same kinds of disputes have broken out there and that would be a place where Banner could easily carry on this behavior.</u> ] (]) 13:08, 13 January 2015 (UTC) (amended per below ] (]) 14:32, 13 January 2015 (UTC))
	:::Thanks for supplying evidence that this is just a case of silencing. In regards to ], I have never edited there so I don't know why you think I was disruptive there. My last two edits on ] were in July 2014, reverted by one Jytdog. Before that I have an edit in December 2013 and a few older, nearly all reverted. <span style="border:1px solid green; padding:0 2px">]&nbsp;]</span> 13:58, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
	::::That's a good point, that you have not edited the Organic food article. I amended the statement above. My apologies.] (]) 14:32, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
	:::::Well, we institute topic-bans to prevent disruption so including an article in a topic ban because someone ''"could easily"'' be disruptive there is unlikely to be supported. It's not something I would support anyway. ] looks similar - he has edited there, but not disruptively and not extensively. The problematic article would seem to be ]. ''']<sup>]</sup>''' 14:43, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
	::::::Some comments by The Banner mentioned here indicate the editor is trying to "defend" the topic in general, so I don't think discussing a topic ban outside of just the article is entirely out of the question. Considering the editor has had problems with similar behavior in the past based on their block logs and those comments they've made, someone could make a decent case that the behavior is likely to keep occurring in closely related topics. That's also partly because there are a few different organic related articles out there. I'd personally just look for broad topic ban on organic food, but if the narrow approach is pursued, a short leash approach should be taken through a very direct warning that more bans will follow if problem behaviors pop up in other related articles as part of the remedy. ] (]) 17:05, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
	:::::::And other articles/topics can always be added later if ]'s predictions prove accurate. If The Banner wants to prove him right and so migrates the same behaviour to other articles, he would only have himself to blame. ''']<sup>]</sup>''' 23:09, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
	::::::::Indeed. I'd just like to stress my main point there was that there's a history of this behavior not improving despite blocks already. A topic ban helps, but is a band-aid for a more widespread problem. Because of that, an admin warning would seem like a good minimum action besides a narrow topic ban in case the behavior isn't changed for the nth time. The behavior appears to be relatively widespread in addition to the very pointed examples for this article, so it seems like some ratcheting up is needed if these cycles of block/bans and going right back to the behavior issues afterwords continue. No one has really made a great case for wider community bans like you mentioned (nor do I think they are called for right now), but it does seem like there's enough to keep a short leash if this behavior keeps coming up in the future elsewhere. ] (]) 04:23, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
	::I think it is in WP's interest to ban him from the organic food topic, but even just a ban from ] would be an improvement. ] (]) 15:25, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
	:::A neutral article is in the interest of Misplaced Pages, not silencing a critical voice. <span style="border:1px solid green; padding:0 2px">]&nbsp;]</span> 23:08, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
			== Darkwarriorblake making aspersions ==
	== ] ==
			{{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)}}
	===User page===
			Postscript: Ah, someone just close this, I don't care any more. &nbsp;— ] <span style="color:#900">•</span> ] 22:56, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
	{{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)
	::Also, it doesn't matter whether the criticism was introduced with specific others in mind or not. Quoting from ] as to what's not allowed: "Material that can be viewed as attacking other editors, including the recording of perceived flaws." ] (]) 16:35, 9 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)
	*Just saw the "ping" of my user name. As I understand it, the language in question is . Yes this is obviously a guarded reference to my report at AN3, but given his past record at that board, and his being blocked based on a "list of diffs" at that board in the past, I'm not sure how anyone other than Winkelvi is harmed by drawing attention to it. ] (]) 15:18, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
	**It's not a question of harm, whether to others being attacked or to Winkelvi embarrassing himself: it's simply not allowed. His restoring the polemics is explicitly considered a form of ]. See link above to last month, when similar "anonymous" childish polemics on his user page were noticed and deleted by an admin. Also note Winkelvi's edit summaries: massive hypocrisy as he claims ]ership. ] (]) 15:34, 8 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.
	I never did get why the original POLEMIC complaint here did not rate compared to the previous POLEMIC referred to above that was removed. At least comes with a soothing nature illustration. Perhaps it's a defense against trouts? ] (]) 19:51, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
			'']'' is a widely acclaimed comedy film from 1983, which is also widely acknowledged to have problematic elements by modern standards, including a scene in which the villain of the piece, stuck in a gorilla costume, is locked in a cage with a real gorilla, which is implied to sexually penetrate him without his consent.
	===Bess Myerson===
	***OK. Putting aside this matter, I'd appreciate it if administrators could monitor ]. The article has been protected but there are still issues. ] (]) 18:10, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
	::::No doubt administrators have been monitoring it and the article for a couple of days now, ]. Yes, there are "issues". Not the least of which is your refusal to work cooperatively with and cease being uncivil toward me. -- <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> 18:21, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
	:::::OK, then it is a good thing they are there. Peace. ] (]) 18:40, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
	:::::By the way, to clarify: when I said there are "issues," I was referring to the copyright violations that you have said are present in the article. You said in a talk page post a few hours ago: ''Oh, and one more thing: interestingly, the Miss America webpage for Bess Myerson has content that identically matches and almost identically matches what's in the Myerson article here. I don't know when it was put in or who did it, but obviously, it will have reworded here considerably when the article is unlocked. Can't have any more copyvios and verbatim lifts of content from online sources than we already do, eh?'' You have not substantiated this very serious claim, by providing the name of the webpage and the text that was you say was duplicated, so that it can be fixed. Also you imply that there are other copyright issues that would also need to be addressed if they exist. I raised the issue a few hours ago and you have yet to address this issue. But yes, there are editor behavior issues, that is correct. ] (]) 19:37, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
	::::::Winkelvi has made 57 edits to the talk page of Bess Myerson and 117 edits to the article itself ''in just the last two days'', six of which have been explicit reverts. I believe that Winkelvi should take a long break from this article (and possibly others as well) or the community should separate him from the topic. His obsessive editing of the article and talk page has not improved it, only disrupted it. I attempted to address this problem on this talk page only to be told that my comments were "inappropriate" and that I was trolling and creating drama. Further, the editor has tried to make a number of false claims against Coretheapple to distract us from his problematic behavior, while at the same time, running to an admin's talk page to try and start a false RfC against Coretheapple. I'm wondering if this is a returning user with a cleanstart account, because this bad behavior seems very familiar. ] (]) 04:51, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
			The article states that ] demurred being cast in the role upon finding that out. for this claim is a ] on ], which contains the sentence
	{{od}}I have no idea why Viriditas believes his unsolicited opinion on my editing is relevant or why he thinks he knows what he's talking about in regard to any of the things he mentioned above, but he's getting so much wrong, it's nearly comical. Out of the blue (never having edited the Myerson article, that I can tell), he came to my talk page not once, not twice, but three times with claims that I was harassing Coretheapple. Which is totally incorrect. His edits to my talk page (where he admitted in the first comment, "I don't know what's going on between you and Coretheapple...") are found here ; ; . His comments were totally inappropriate and became harassment, in my opinion (as are his comments above, the more I think about them). As far as the RfC he referenced where I was asking for advice at an administrator's talk page, the RfC was to be about a content dispute, not Coretheapple. Lastly, his suggestion I am a sock is ridiculous and I'd really appreciate him striking the accusation above. What he's doing is, in my view, surreal drama. If there was truly an issue with my edits or alleged disruption at the Myerson article, I would have been blocked for it days ago. For whatever reason, it appears Viriditas is interested in seeing me sanctioned for something, anything he can come up with. And I have no idea why. Like I said, this is all out of the blue. And weird, if you ask me. -- <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> 05:12, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
			: ''Reportedly, Liddy was on board until he got to the part where Beeks .''
			Reportedly ''by whom'' is not mentioned, let alone is there a direct quotation from Liddy. Plus as can be seen the words "becomes a gorilla's mate" are linked to a very poor quality, hand-held video of the scene in question playing on a television. This alone should be enough to raise serious questions about the use of this "source" in a featured article.
			The content dispute began when I changed it like this () with the comment ''Don't mince words; the interaction between Beeks and the gorilla is rape played for laughs'':
	Addendum: Looking more closely at Viriditas' Misplaced Pages history raises more questions for me than gives answers. I was looking to see if he and I had ever really crossed paths in the past (possibly explaining his need to see me sanctioned). In so doing, I couldn't find anything where we had actually edited articles together previously, but I did find a VERY extensive block log that ranges from 2007 until September 2014. His longest block was three months for edit warring and disruptive editing. A one week block was for "feuding with another editor, persistently making unsubstantiated accusations, and other disruptive editing" (sounds not much different from what he's doing to me). Of the 12 blocks he's received in 7 1/2 years, the majority are for edit warring (what he's accusing me of), most are that coupled with disruptive editing, several are for behavior toward other editors. Considering this record and the drama that goes with it, I should not be surprised that he is coming at me in the fashion he is. Although I still don't know why he's decided to target me. -- <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> 05:43, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
			{{text diff|Liddy was interested in the offer until he learned that Beeks becomes the romantic partner of a gorilla.|Liddy was interested in the offer until he learned that Beeks is raped by a gorilla.}}
			This was reverted () by {{u|Darkwarriorblake}} with the comment ''not what the source says''.
	As mentioned to winkelvi directly on his talk page (although Im sure he will delete it ) An IP account does not indicate vandalism, nor should it. This is discrimination. If you feel that ever user of wikipedia should have a registered account then lobby wikipedia to change the rules and block all IP users. You shouldnt take it into your own hands to revert all changes by IP's because they are IP's . or fail to check their sources because they are IP's. Or generally mistreat users because they are IP's .You should treat IP's the same as registered users until there is an offcial wikipedia statement that says IP's should be treated in a different way to registered users. You shouldnt unilaterally impose your own predujiced policies. WInkelvi (see his contrib history / diffs) repeatedly picks on noob IP users and scares them away from wikipedia by his bullying / edit warring tactics. I find this unfair and disproportionate.] (]) 03:29, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
			After thinking about it a moment I came to the conclusion described above about the quality of the source, and decided that it was better out than in, which is what I should have done in the first place.()
	*'''Comment from new drive-by''': I was alerted to this discussion by a respectful and non-canvassing message left on my talk by WV, who I don't think I have met previously. I took a look at the Myerson article, and it seems to me that the resolution of this issue is pretty much what is happening: full protection of article, with all edits subject to broad consensus (not necessarily unanimity) until everyone has settled down and learns to work together. Seems that is the solution. I find that topic bans are not terribly useful or helpful, they just provide more fodder for drama. A grownup to monitor the dispute should settle this. I don't see much more than the usual spat between two editors who are both convinced that they are correct and are getting pissed off at each other. ]<sup>]</sup> 19:50, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
	::Two editors? You should look closer at that page and this discussion.I am an uninvolved editor, as is Viriditas, and the talk page shows WV at loggerheads with various editors. Since you were explicitly canvassed by Winkelvi your comments should not be considered even if they reflected reality. ] <small>(] • ])</small> 21:42, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
	::::I am discussing the original dispute between Coretheapple and WV. I've never met either of them before. The fact that one of them asked me to swing by does not negate my views. AGF. ]<sup>]</sup> 08:09, 15 January 2015 (UTC) ]<sup>]</sup> 08:09, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
	::At ] and in the article, it has been Winkelvi versus myself, ], ], ], ], and ]. ] (]) 22:31, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
	:::As I was named here, I guess I should respond. Mountanbw's, opposing of article bans on principle is not responsive to the issues at hand (and I hope will not be taken into account), if you oppose them on principle then get such bans stricken from policy. In the meantime, the User:WV's behavior will more than likely continue dragging the editing environment down and it is small limited actions such as this that can turn it around before it is too late. ] (]) 23:34, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
	::::I can respond as well. I dropped by the page a few days ago and made a lone post about the substance of the debate. From my perspective CoretheApple does appear correct that ] hosted Miss America contests, and there is good sourcing supporting that. I don't plan on getting involved other than to briefly share my take on the evidence though, evidence that hopefully helped resolve the contention. --] (]) 00:03, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
	:::WV "versus" NE Ent? Who knew? Certainly not me. I started discussing the edit after seeing this here thread (see ]) and it didn't seem terribly difficult to come to a resolution. If is what "versus" looks like I should find more "enemies." <small>]</small> 00:23, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
	::::Indeed, it's that it took AN/I involvement to get to that minor edit, that demonstrates the disruptive problem with the WV approach. ] (]) 01:13, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
			{{text diff|...was offered the role of corrupt official Clarence Beeks. Liddy was interested in the offer until he learned that Beeks becomes the romantic partner of a gorilla. Paul Gleason took the role;...|...was offered the role of corrupt official Clarence Beeks with Paul Gleason eventually taking the role;...}}
	::::I was referring to your opposing his via . Was I mistaken? Do you think there was plagiarism? That's the most important thing to come up on the talk page and, as far as I can see, not a single editor supported him in that. ] (]) 00:34, 14 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''
	:::::WV falsely accused me of being an SPA when I made some edits to the Mike Huckabee page that he didn't like, right after I started an account. That's why I dropped by the Bess Myerson page when seeing him involved in a controversy on it, I was curious to see if he treats everyone like he did me. Given my past history with him I don't think I should be voting on this. I'll admit I am not thrilled with his approach however, and that is putting it mildly. --] (]) 04:02, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
			That was reverted by Darkwarriorblake () with the comment ''Nothing wrong with Indiewire as a source, if there is I'd raise it at ]. Until then, there's a talk page for you to use per ]. Your comments sound agenda driven and therefore not Neutral.''
	:::: Wow. Looking at the link {{u|NE Ent}} provided above, I found one exchange that makes me question WV's ] -- or simply a willingness to be a rules-wanker: Classicfilms points out that Myerson is dead, & thus ] no longer applies, to which WV states "BLP articles remain BLPs and BLP policies and guidelines stay in place in regard to the article for up to two years". Uh, BLP means "Biography of a '''Living''' Person", & the exception WV quotes is for '''contentious''' content. Stating that a Jewish person encountered anti-Semitism in the 1940s is not contentious -- & was a very common occurrence. (BTW, it is generally accepted that African-Americans encountered prejudice in the 1940s, too.) -- ] (]) 01:17, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
	:::::Right. As noted by the diff's WV turns the uncontentious into the contentious - thus they need to reform or they will be regularly seen as incompetent or disruptive - the pedia does not need such contention over nothing - we have enough of the other kind. ] (]) 17:37, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
			This is where the reason for me to raise this at this board begins, because that's solidly an example of ]. It came on top of a revert which reintroduced a claim cited to a rumor in a blog post into a featured article, but that's really not my concern, because if the champions of the featured article process have decided that it's somehow acceptable for our "best" content then I'm just going to move on to something else rather than argue.
	===Topic ban===
	Winkelvi's obsession with Bess Myerson has led to him making hundreds of disruptive edits to the article and talk page in only a 48 hour period. This obsession has disrupted the topic area, created animosity among users, and led to him making numerous false allegations and accusations, including edit warring. Winkelvil's obsessive behavior, lack of good faith, and inability to recognize the views of others requires some time away from this topic to allow editors to work harmoniously again. Therefore, I propose a three month topic ban for this purpose. ] (]) 05:52, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
			There's one final back and forth which was enough to motivate me to post here. First, I reverted that revert (, my only time using the actual "Undo" button today), with this comment: ''a good source doesn't say "reportedly" (ie, spread a rumor), it specifies the origin of a fact. My only "agenda" is with a crap listicle being used as a reference, regardless of who published it. Take it to talk if you want to argue for the continued inclusion of a trash ref in a featured article, or source the claim properly yourself''.
	*'''Strong support''' as proposer. The disruption of ] is the worst I've seen in a while. Winkelvil lacks the core competency needed to edit and discuss in this topic area. He has wasted the valuable time of many editors and has taken zero responsibility for his role. A topic ban is the best solution at this time. ] (]) 08:31, 11 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 ]''
	:"Obesession"? What obsession? I was editing the article just as much as Coretheapple. Less, I'm pretty certain. Further, his claim that I have made 100s of disruptive edits at the article is absurd. Look at the ] article history, look at my edits there. 117 edits at the article, and very good edits to boot. Coretheapple has 152 edits at the same article Viriditas claims I'm "obsessed" with. The surreal nature of Viriditas' proposal and accusations against me boggles my mind. -- <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> 05:57, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
	::Your disruption was recently substantiated on the 3RR noticeboard, and the current talk page features it in spades. Further, several editors have repeatedly asked you to modify your behavior, including myself and Cullen, and your response in both cases was to tell us to fuck off, metaphorically speaking. Neither my behavior nor Coretheapple's, or anyone else's for that matter, is the problem here. ] (]) 07:44, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
			At this point it's gone firmly into the realm of knee-jerk reversions, because if Darkwarriorblake took the time to read the article which they've (is this ]? Kind of feels that way), they would get down to the ] section. Which says "some critics have praised the film while highlighting elements that they believe aged poorly, including racial language, the use of blackface, and the implied rape of Beeks by a gorilla", cited to articles in four major publications. Or, you know, even .
	* '''Support''' The false plagiarism claim, discussed on the talk page , is just the latest indication that this editor is disruptive to an extent that can no longer be tolerated. His attacks on Viriditas' character are par for the course. ] (]) 15:03, 11 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)
	* Oh God. I just reviewed the talk page, as I wanted to edit the article and it is fully protected. The discussion here is pinged. Normal discussion on that page has completely broken down, and this editor's utter absence of clue is appalling. '''Support''' topic ban, a permanent one. ] <small>(] • ])</small> 17:28, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
			:Hrrm, this seems a bit excessive.
	*'''Comment'''. I don't see anything here that needs to be handled at ANI. This topic went from alleged user page probblems and POLEMIC to "false" claims of plagiarism on the Myerson page. I see several editors here who don't like the way Winkelvi conducts themselves. Mind you, Winkelvi can be difficult at times, but this report is not even constructive.--] (]) 18:04, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
			:*I've added a second source for the claim. Really this should've been the first option rather than removing the content.
	::Why the scare quotes? It was a false report. ] <small>(] • ])</small> 18:13, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
			:*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.
	:::I was never really sure about that "polemic" claim, but the points that Viriditas makes are well-taken. He is not an editor of the article, does not claim previous interaction, and evidently became concerned after seeing the activity on the talk page. Ditto Figureofnine. I'm also wondering why you don't feel the plagiarism and copyvio claims were groundless, as they clearly were, and were disruptive and above all were total wastes of time. At the most there is ''one'' phrase in the article that might need tweaking. But his claiming, in an highly inflammatory manner, that "the Miss America webpage for Bess Myerson has content that identically matches and almost identically matches what's in the Myerson article" and that there were "copyvios and verbatim lifts of content from online sources" was jut plain false. If the false plagiarism/copyvio claims were the only problem I don't think we'd be here. ] (]) 18:29, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
			:*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 ].
	*<s>] indicates that WV does not get the ] thing and is unwilling to learn because they "know" the sources are wrong. I suggest they drop the ].</s> <small>]</small> 19:08, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
			:*The editor ignored WP: BRD when raised, and as an admin they should adhere to policy.
			:*The editor states that they are an admin on their page. Assuming this is true, the aggressiveness of their edits, hyper focus on the single area, and use of words like "crap listicle" seemed out of line with what I, personally, would expect from an admin on Misplaced Pages, certainly someone who has been so for nearly two decades. Perhaps the edit summary wasn't the place to have that discussion but, as stated, they weren't adhering to WP: BRD to start a discussion, and in the interim the article needed putting back to the status quo.
			:*I find accusations of OWNERSHIP often tend to come when people don't get their way. Which is fine. I have plenty of reversions on the page for people adding unsourced content and there are plenty of changes as well. I find someone removing sourced content and me putting the sourced content back to not ''really'' be something you can fling ownership at.
			:*Within the context of the film, Beeks does become the romantic partner of the gorilla, it seemed more appropriate and encylcopedic text than just saying 'rape', and neither source I've added says that either.
			:*Anyways, my edit history shows I'm a massive contributor and helper and it's nearly Xmas, and I don't feel like engaging with this any further, good luck Hex. ] (]) 20:27, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			::Of course you don't, having ignored the actual matter of your conduct that I'm raising here. Your comments about the content of the article are irrelevant. &nbsp;— ] <span style="color:#900">•</span> ] 20:43, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			*Hex's position is not wholly supported, although in the entire issue, their toolset is irrelevant. There was no incivility on either part, and an all-out edit war seems to have been averted.{{pb}}Fundamentally the change Hex wanted to make was pure OR; rape may have been intimated—or, as Hex themself admits, implied—but its never overtly stated and is a wholly loaded term. This is the interpretation of an editor, not of secondary sources. If there is a pron=blem with Indywire as a source—currently used in —take it to WP:RSN. If it's disputed that it's a high quality source per WP:FA?, then take it to WT:FAC. Accusations of OWNership are as unhelpful—and as much an aspersion—as accusations of agenda-led editing. In fact, for OWNership, Hex should read the relevant policy: here, it is WP:FAOWN, which not only allows for careful stewardship of featured material, but requires significant changes to the consensus version to be discussed on talk; I don't suppose there's any suggestion that introducing rape—particularly "played for laughs"—wouldn't be a significant addition.{{pb}}Really though, this is an overblown content dispute which should have started with ''one revert'' each, and ended on the talk page. --]'']''] 21:10, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:"Never overtly stated... 'played for laughs' be a significant addition" - with John Landis, the director. {{talk quote|One of the executives was deeply appalled by a man being sexually molested by a gorilla. And I said you know, it's a joke and it goes by very quickly. But the first preview was very successful and it all went away. ''''}}
			*:Feel free to amend the article on that basis. I'm certainly not interested in spending any more time on it. &nbsp;— ] <span style="color:#900">•</span> ] 22:48, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			===Followup===
	::I "get" ] just fine. As someone on the Autism Spectrum who sees the world differently than neurotypicals (such as those in this thread), I'm just seeing RS from a slightly different angle. And there's nothing wrong with that. -- <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> 19:13, 11 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.
	:::I am an old goat with bad eyes who sees the world even differently than you do. But I am bound by site policies and so are you. ] (]) 19:21, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
	::::I am an old goat with bad eyes as well. And I never said nor implied I'm not bound by policy. In fact, as someone on the Spectrum, I'm likely much more aware of the "rules" in relation to my behavior in Misplaced Pages as well as in life. That's a hallmark of those of us with ASD. We are honest, we are straightforward in our behavior, and we are rule followers who have a hard time fathoming why anyone wouldn't be. -- <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> 19:25, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
	:::::I have a hard time fathoming why you are giving us a self-serving description of your character. The only thing that matters is your behavior on the page. ] (]) 19:31, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
	::::::{{ec}}Because the only thing that makes sense to me regarding the treatment (behavior) I've been receiving and the accusations I've been subject of since I came to the Myerson article is that my motives and edits at the article as well as my comments on the article talk page have been completely misunderstood. If that's the case (and I believe it is), then explaining and asking for some understanding is warranted. Misplaced Pages editors aren't expected to androids that respond and behave in a canned manner, every one of us is a human being with a life story. It stands to reason that our life stories will color our editing as well as our interactions with other editors from time to time (or even more often than from time to time). The editors that don't fall into the typical category... are they to be dismissed and tossed aside and topic banned or should they be accepted and worked with in spite of their differences and the misunderstandings that may surround them? Sometimes I think Misplaced Pages editors get so wrapped up in editing and the various peripheral things surrounding their efforts that we forget everyone here is a real human being. What's more important, editors or edits? Remember, without editors there would be no edits. -- <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> 19:47, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
	:::::Winkelvil, you are not medically qualified to assess the mental states of other users, and even if you were, you would not be able to do it in this thread. Your comments about neurotypicals in this thread is so far over the line, that I think you should be indefinitely blocked until you are able to understand and recognize the problem. ] (]) 19:40, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
	::::::"]" is not a reference to "mental states", it's a common term used that references those not on the Autism Spectrum. Apparently, from your comments, it's obvious you know nothing about Autism. -- <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> 19:47, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
	:::::::Your medical claims couldn't be less relevant to this discussion. I am sure that there is a neurological explanation for much misconduct on Misplaced Pages. So what? ] <small>(] • ])</small> 19:58, 11 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. ]]
	:::::::It most certainly is a reference to a mental state, and you have no business assessing, diagnosing, or commenting on who is or who isn't neurotypical in this thread. The only business you have here is responding directly to the concerns about your behavior, which, as far as I can tell, you have ignored, denied, distracted from, and brushed off. Do not make any further comments about autism or neurotypicals in this thread. You seem to do so only to denigrate others and justify your bad behavior. It's not acceptable. ] (]) 20:04, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
			{{abot}}
	{{od}}All I'm seeing is more ignorance on what Autism is ("medical claims" is one example). I'm also seeing yet another misunderstanding regarding what I've said. Editors on the Spectrum are in Misplaced Pages, and it's time the neurotypical editors get used to it and start to understand what it means. Just like in the real world (which Misplaced Pages isn't). I will not be dictated to by a non-administrator regarding comments about ASDs in this thread or any other. It's not a verboten subject. Such demands are discriminatory and I hope someone with an influential Misplaced Pages voice takes notice. I will NOT be quiet about discrimination. Ever. I suggest all of you read ] as well as ] and . -- <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> 20:15, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
	:But Viriditas is correct. You gave made no substantive reply. You HAVE brushed off, ignored, denied and distracted from the issues evident to NE Ent, Viriditas and myself, as well as to involved editor Core. Your invoking a medical condition is in extremely poor taste, and Viriditas is correct that you are in no position to diagnose the medical state of other editors, who may well be struggling more than you claim to be but are not advertising it quite as flamboyantly as you do. ] <small>(] • ])</small> 20:29, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
			== Extremely Annoying situation ==
	::(@NE Ent). It's a bit more than that. The user does not appear to be reading sources, or has been reading them and not understanding them, and generally ignoring/disregarding/not grasping what is said to him. I had never previously encountered this person until he appeared on my user talk page a few days ago concerning my edit summary here. Ms. Myerson had suffered a bout of ovarian cancer, and someone had tagged it "When?" I looked at the reference at the end of the sentence, added when she had cancer, and said in my edit summary ''"Rather than tagging "when," more constructive to look at the footnoted article, which gives the date."'' Winkelvi went on my page to say as follows
			{{atop
	::<blockquote>Re: this edit and edit summary , it's actually more appropriate to put the content in the article than in a footnote. Casual readers or readers unfamiliar with Misplaced Pages goings-on-in-editing are unlikely to look at a footnote and will wonder the same as I: when? where?. We're here to inform readers not force them to look deeper for content that can just as easily be inserted in the body of the article. </blockquote>
			| result = Blocked for one week. ] (]/]) 01:03, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			}}
			I reverted by ]. They then times for it. One of these was for "being shovel shenanigans" which I took as a ] and informed them of it.
	::As you can see, I very clearly and explicitly did not call for text to be put in a footnote, and I did not do so. I simply said that the answer to the "when" question is in the footnoted source. There were two other replies, both misunderstandings on his part. At no time did he acknowledge error or misunderstanding, he just charged on, and as far as I know he believes to this day that he was in the right. What happened on my talk page is no big deal, but having this person hammer away on the article talk page and in the article itself and ] is disruptive. He blames this problem on everything and everybody except himself. Lamentably this editor's position seems to be that "that's the way he is," and I guess it's just our tough luck if he's disruptive. He is just a burden that we have to bear, and if we don't like it we can lump it. ] (]) 21:21, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
			The rest escapes words for me. See these discussions.
	Actually, looking harder I see there's an actual conflict between sources, which is I believe was the point WV was making. Obviously not a discussion for here. <small>]</small> 21:50, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
			]
	:Yes, but you see, the problem was that WV treated the situation as a zero-sum game, that he was "right" and the various obits describing her as host were wrong, and said on the page that "Myerson was never the show host" in the face of all the sources that were offered up. ] (]) 22:07, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
			] ]
	:NE Ent, I've worked on hundreds of articles. Sources tend to conflict everywhere, and I expect to find that problem in every article. It's not a real problem, because there are tried and true methods to determine how to best represent conflicting sources. For the most recent example of how ] and myself handled conflicting sources, see ]. The point is that one does not need to disrupt a topic area and engage in edit wars to deal with this. The exchange between Tryptofish and myself consisted of only several comments, with collaborative editing continuing unimpeded. The problem under discussion in this thread, is not concerned with such easy issues. We are discussing the behavioral problems of a user who lacks the competency to deal with conflicting sources. ] (]) 22:17, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
			they also used a ] to continue to irk me. I hesitated to bring this to ANI, since they seemed new, and I didn't want to bite, but enough is enough.
	*'''Support''' The editor, WV, has shown incompetence - and is an edit-warrior, and they should be embarrassed for the way they have handled themselves beginning with their attempt to censor the word "antisemitism" from the article, and the statement in their first talk-page comment: "I hope to get to looking further into the references and finding the answers" Here's good advice, don't edit, if you have not looked into the sources. Then their flat-out contradicting the sources that use the term "host" in a way the editor personally disagrees with and their false claims of plagiarism against other editors p , but most of all their utter inability to work with others. ] (]) 17:31, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
			] (]) 00:51, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
	* '''Oppose''' <s>I believe we're reaching</s> ''We have reached'' consensus on the "host" issue on the article talk page. <small>]</small> 02:52, 12 January 2015 (UTC) <small>]</small> 03:20, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
			{{abot}}
	:::::What? 100's of words and days of arguing, for that? And the "host" thing is only the latest. ] (]) 03:30, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
	::One down and how much to go? We still have WV opposing the passage concerning Myerson's experiences with anti-Semitism, partly because we don't know that the "No Jews" signs she saw were directed at her! I'm serious. ] (]) 03:41, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
			== IP vandalism ==
	* ''' Strong Support''' Repeated edit warring from ] and a complete disregard for other users. He does not appear to read sources, or revisions and just cares anout "winning". He does not understand the colaborative nature of wikipedia and is unwilling to concede academic points. I would ban him from the site for 10 days. ] (]) 03:02, 12 January 2015 (UTC){{spa|186.9.81.168}}
			{{atop
			| result = Blocked. {{nac}} <span style="padding:2px 5px;border-radius:5px;font-family:Arial black;white-space:nowrap;vertical-align:-1px">] <span style=color:red>F</span> ]</span> 03:53, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			}}
			This user: ] seems to be on a spree of Vandalism, which they are summarising in the edit summaries as 'reverting vandalism'. Example: ] <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 02:39, 24 December 2024 (UTC)</small><sup>]</sup>
	*'''Oppose''' Bbb23's analysis of Winkelvi and the scope of this topic ban is probably correct. ] (]) 03:07, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
	::What analysis? And what does it have to do with scope? ] (]) 17:43, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
			:including racist edits summarized as reverting racist texts. Example ] (]) 03:06, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
	* '''Comment''' I've unhatted the portion of this discussion in which Winkelvi gives essentially a "medical defense" for his conduct in the article. I agree that it is a distraction, but he really has nothing else to say, apart from attacking Viriditas. This discussion was hatted after Winkelvi made an appeal to BBB23, who is a participant in this discussion. Participants in discussions should not be moderating those very discussions to remove or hide material put there by the subject of the discussion. Winkelvi's response is very much relevant and that is his only response. ] <small>(] • ])</small> 16:36, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
			::The IP is already blocked. To OP: Consider reporting obvious vandalism like this at ]. &ndash; ] (]) (]) 03:34, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			{{abot}}
			== User Stationmanagerskidrow removing information on ] page ==
	::I agree that it's relevant. Whether it should be hatted or not is sort of a separate issue. Hatting does tend to "hide" material, and yes, it is used to hide irrelevant material. But when the irrelevant material is, essentially, the "case of the defense," then why hide it? It's a distraction, but that in itself is relevant, as it indicates how he behaves in talk page discussions. Winkelvi's response to this ANI report has been to smear Viritidas, who has never been in conflict with him so far as I know, and to bring this discussion to the attention of an editor he apparently is on good terms with. The hatted discussion, which was commenced by Winkelvi raising his medical condition, was in sum and substance an appeal for sympathy on the grounds that he has a medical situation of some kind. But what I find a bit illogical is that he claims to have done nothing wrong. If he has done nothing wrong, then what is the pertinence of his autism or whatever it is he claims to have? He wants to have it both ways. ] (]) 17:57, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
	*'''Oppose''' Draconian solutions do not work as a rule, and where the reasoning does not remotely support a Draconian solution, I invariably oppose such. Bbb23 is correct here. ] (]) 12:28, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
	::Have you been to the the Myerson talk page? An editor like this can exhaust other editors. This one reminds me of ]. Users like that need to clean up their act immediately or they can be immensely damaging to the project. Ultimately he had to be sitebanned. What's proposed here is mild, not Draconian. He claims to have a form of Autism and maybe he's telling the truth. But we're not neurological professionals and it's not fair to ask us to carry that kind of burden. I wouldn't even attempt to edit that page with Winkelvi active there. Life is too short. Bbb23 says Winkelvi is "difficult." That's easy for him to say. How about a little empathy for editors who have to cope with the Wondering55s and the Winkelvis? ] <small>(] • ])</small> 15:37, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
	::What's draconian about it? Calling it "draconian" does not make it so, and is not reasoning. The purpose of some time away from this topic, is so editor/and the Pedia may not wind up in more disruption. WV, edit warred, does not read sources or misrepresents sources; disputes that undoubted RS that contain the same things as other reliable sources should be followed, accuses other editors of plagiarism that is unsubstantiated, causes days of talk page back and forth over inserting an "a" before "host", when no one was opposed to an "a". Collect, it is your !vote that has provided no reasoning. ] (]) 17:12, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
	::I'm separating this subsection from the one above it, as it was brought by a different user and is totally unrelated. As for the topic ban, I didn't originate this ANI (and to be frank I am not sure I would have come here in the first place, as this is really cut out more for the old "RfC/U," now terminated, than for a drama board.) Anyway, once Viritidas, an uninvolved editor, started this, I had thought that the Bess Myerson talk page spoke for itself. But it's not reasonable to expect editors to wade through mountains of text. If we need diffs of disruption and edit warring, we can start with this user's revert-warring. . Now I raised this previously at ],(see ) and the result was page protection. Winkelvi viewed that as a vindication of his "good editing," to use his words. I can provide further examples of his "good editing," and I guess it's necessary because I can see Winkelvi only worsening if his behavior is not curbed. He has absolutely no understanding of the disruption that he has caused, as borne out by the exchange with ] on Drmies' talk page. ] (]) 18:03, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
	*'''Oppose''': Topic bans generally don't solve the problem and usually are just fodder for others to keep baiting and attacking the person so restricted. Full protection of the article, applying the principles of WP:BLP to it due to being about a person recently deceased, applying WP:RS and WP:V appropriately, and supervision by a highly respected admin who has the authority to institute immediate 24-48 hour blocks for bad behavior should do the trick. Most of the time, people's tempers simmer down and they figure out how to work in an appropriate way. If not, WP:ROPE applies to escalating behavior. See my additional comments above. ]<sup>]</sup> 19:57, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
	*'''Comment''': This is fairly common behavior for Winkelvi, aggressive edit-warring based on misreading of sources, picking-and-choosing what can be used for sources, and so on. So a TBAN here is just a silly band-aid. ] (]) 20:17, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
	*'''Support''' This is a fairly narrow topic-ban; hopefully it will motivate Winkelvi to reign in some of the issues that have been charitably described as "difficult." <b>] ]</b> 20:43, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
	*'''Comment'''. As if this couldn't get any stranger, Winkelvi has decided to take this puppy to 11 by claiming that the supporters of his topic ban are actually the problem because we're all supposedly autistic like himself, but we're hiding in the closet. According to Winkelvi, the problems he's encountering here are due to his detractors engaging in autistic-related behaviors. Can we get an indefinite block now, please? It's one thing to obsessively identify with your own personal neurodevelopmental disorder as the total measure of who you are, but it's quite another to start diagnosing other editors. ] (]) 02:09, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
	::And then there is his claim that "there is still a less than AGF attitude toward us" in this discussion. "Us" being people with autism.
	::That is outrageous on a number of levels. First, ''he'' raised the issue of his autism here as a defense for his bad behavior. Basically his position here has been "I haven't done anything wrong, but if I did it's not my fault." Second, the reaction to his statements about his autism, even among his supporters, is that they are diversionary and irrelevant - clearly far short of "not showing AGF" to autism sufferers, whatever that means. After finding his play for sympathy here didn't work, and started to backfire, he has "taken it on the road," canvassing all the editors who signed some kind of autism declaration, and attacking editors here for discriminating against him based on his self-identified medical condition (which nobody here knew about until he raised the issue, and view as a diversion). ] (]) 15:04, 14 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)
	*'''Comment''' Totally uninvolved editor. A topic ban is the last thing that should happen. Reading the talk page of the article and the edit history shows that there is a problem, not working together. This isnt all on Winkelvi, and some of the comments towards him show there is a war mentality tone on the talk page. Not enough to bring here, but its there. His edits dont appear to be that much of a problem, and he conducts himself well in a discussion. The page protection, forcing the editors to talk and agree, is probably enough. ] 17:04, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
			:User is now editing using ] ] (]) 03:34, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
	*Winkelvi recently posted on the talk page of a user he has canvassed, making reference to this discussion. Since he is posting on user talk pages in lieu of participating in this duscussion, I think this might be of interest:
	:<blockquote>. . . Even more egregious is one of those editors stating I am "self-identified" as having Asperger's -- in other words, I really don't have it and am lying to gain sympathy. That comment really hurt when I first read it, but then I had to chuckle, because editing in Misplaced Pages could never be important enough to tell such a story. But, truth be told, to say something like that is just a slap in the face of everyone on the Spectrum, everyone with special needs whose disability or "different-ability" isn't immediately obvious. That kind of thinking, plus the general feeling expressed among a number of those in the thread that being on the Spectrum = incompetence and editing with them is a "burden" and "waste of time", is truly bigoted against those with special needs. It's discrimination, plain and simple.</blockquote>
	:--] (]) 18:31, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
	::Well, hopefully WV is actually listening - several see WV individually as incompetent because of how they have acted, and would say the same about any editor. ] (]) 17:12, 15 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)
	===Canvassing===
	I happen to watchlist Buster7, with whom I have interacted many times, and what do I see but ] from WV, citing their shared signing of some kind of autism declaration, seeking "advice" and linking to the "topic ban" discussion. It is not, of course, canvassing, he points out. Perish the thought.
			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)
	In checking his contributions I see a slew of similarly worded posts seeking "advice" from other persons he has identified as sharing his alleged autism affliction. See also
			: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)
	Note this follow up note. No, not canvassing!
	Note that he completely misrepresents the character of the topic ban discussion. "Currently, there has been a discussion for a few days at AN/I regarding my ability to edit." It is a discussion of his behavior on one talk page, with a topic ban, not a block, proposed and discussed in the preceding section. The autism element was one that ''he'' introduced, and which I think is widely viewed, even by his supporters here, as totally diversionary and irrelevant. He is now exploiting that self-serving alleged medical issue in a sordid play for sympathy.
	I haven't much experience with ], but if we're going to allow this kind of notice to other editors I'd like to cherry-pick some editors I think might agree with me, ask them for "advice," and coincidentally alert them to this discussion with a skewed rendition of events (and a caveat that it is not canvassing, perish the thought). If it is not allowed, I think a block is in order. Either way I'd like to know if this is allowable. ] (]) 19:10, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
	:'''Explicit violation'''. Winkelvi violated the canvassing guideline with the sole intent of influencing the outcome of the discussion in his favor. He performed a mass posting consisting of a biased message against the participants in this discussion. Favoring one side, he contacted a partisan audience of people who he felt would be sympathetic to a decision favoring his desired outcome. ] (]) 19:23, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
	:Note, I have warned Winkelvi . If he does it again after receiving this warning, he could be subject to a block depending on admin discretion. I think the major problem that many of us have with Winkelvi isn't his personal struggles or mistakes, but the fact that he doesn't seem to learn from past errors and continues to repeat them. ]. ] (]) 19:40, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
	::Here's Winkelvi's response to your canvassing warning:. ] (]) 21:26, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
	::His referring to canvassing in his posts indicates that he is familiar with the rule already. So while this notice is appreciated I don't feel that it is necessary. Besides you can't "unring the bell," and his effort to skew this discussion through canvassing has already begun to work in his favor.. His canvassing has already gotten him <s>participation in his favor in two parts of</s> one active partisan weighing in on these discussions, and more on the way I'm sure. The only question, as I said previously, is whether this is a violation of the canvassing policy, in which case what are the consequences for Winkelvi, or whether our lying eyes deceive us on that point. If they do, I'm off on a trek for "advice." ] (]) 20:08, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
	*I swung by here due to WV's post. If that was canvassing, it's not the worst I've seen. I'd give it a 3 on a 1-10 scale. (minnow slap) I know we are supposed to just post a link with a simple FYI, but WP:CANVASS is really a flawed policy that tends to be used as a bludgeon more than a shield. Here, I see a frightened editor without a lot of friends who is digging a hole and having trouble not digging. I'm looking at the situation neutrally, and IMHO, it's time to just get back to the page in question and if there was a problem on this user's talk page. ]<sup>]</sup> 20:02, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
	Montanabw, you are not doing Winkelvi any favors by serving as Exhibit A for how effective his '''blatant canvassing''' has been. ] <small>(] • ])</small> 20:25, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
	:::WP:AGF here, buddy, I'm not your enemy. ]<sup>]</sup> 08:09, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
	:That may very well be, but Montanabw is an experienced editor and someone I greatly respect. We may disagree with her, but her points are worth considering. However, at least two editors have tried to approach Winkelvi in a friendly manner to help work this out (myself and Cullen), and we were both given the cold shoulder. ] (]) 20:33, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
	:::::And that is a concern, as both Viriditas and Cullen are experienced and reasonable editors. ]<sup>]</sup> 08:09, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
	::I could recruit a half dozen respected editors with the opposite position. That's why we have canvassing policy. Its purpose is to prevent consensus from being skewed just as Winkelvi is doing here. At best he is gaming the system. Canvassed input should be struck out and Winkelvi should be given an appropriate block. ] <small>(] • ])</small> 21:07, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
	::::::::WP:CANVASS doesn't preclude alerting interested editors of a relevant discussion, the ideal is to notify people on both sides and without stating a position at the notification. ]<sup>]</sup> 08:09, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
	::I don't know if the Wondering55 analogy that Figure made earlier is valid, as there are clear differences, but still I could go to the talk pages of all the editors who supported me on that editor and say, "Look at this ANI discussion. Does this remind you of the lengthy dispute we had with Wondering55 over the ]? Mind you, I'm not canvassing, not asking you to go over to the ANI discussion, and I am not contacting you because you are administrator. I am just wondering how to deal with this particular situation. Thanks in advance." (WV threw in the "administrator" language in his post on an administrator's talk page.) If that wording is OK, I'd like to know and I will act accordingly. I think it's canvassing, but maybe I'm wrong. However, if it is OK to "advertise" in this manner then I will do it too. But if it is canvassing, even a "three on a scale of 10" as one of the canvassed editors says, it needs to be dealt with. ] (]) 22:11, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
	===User name===
	In addition to the above problems, there is also an issue with the chosen user name, "Winkelvi", and the policy of ]. The name "Winkelvi" refers to the ], and is only used to refer to them. It is therefore curious that the user has chosen this name in violation of the user name policies. ] (]) 04:04, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
	:Isn't it a bit late in the day to be complaining about them after they've used this account name for two years? ] (]) 22:17, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
	::There's no statute of limitations on Misplaced Pages. I just found four-year old vandalism in an article; should I just leave it? How about a sock puppet who's been getting away with it for three years? Should we just let them keep doing it? Your argument proposes a time limit on bad behavior, but there isn't one. I find it strange that the user is editing as "Winkelvi", when that name is used exclusively to refer to two BLPs. Why is the user allowed to use this name? ] (]) 23:51, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
	:::I checked this and the second thing that comes up for theis username is his Misplaced Pages userpage. The twins are Winklevii with two ii's. ] (]) 02:13, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
	::::Er, check again, making sure you eliminate wikipedia.org in your search results. "Winkelvi" with one "i" is just as common and is used quite often by media sources. More importantly, such a search result establishes that the name "Winkelvi" was in use to refer to the twins before the user created his account here. ] (]) 03:12, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
	:::Wikievi shows About 3,930 results (0.41 seconds) Did you mean: Winklevii. Wikievii shows About 36,200 results (0.24 seconds) Including results for Winklevoss. So Google thinks the ii verson means the Winklevoss twins, but that the single i version to be a mistake or this not famous user. So I think the accusation is a stretch. If you really want to fight it, there is a special board for that. ] (]) 05:34, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
	::::No, actually Google thinks "Winkelvi" refers to the "winklevoss twins", as that terms shows up when you type "Winkelvi" and points to Winklevii. Clearly, the search results show that the term "Winkelvi" is widely used as a synonym. Further when you eliminate wikipedia.org from the search results, you find that "Winkelvi" was in wide usage ''before'' the account was created on Misplaced Pages. Since Misplaced Pages is ''not'' a bureaucracy, we don't need to use different "boards" to discuss this problem. The Misplaced Pages account name "Winkelvi" was created in April 2012, many years after the above sources had already used it and the term was in wide circulation as a synonym for "Winklevii" and "Winklevii" for obvious reasons (these alternate spellings are extremely common in English, for example, compare "Winkle-" and "Winkel-") ] (]) 06:07, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
	*Google makes clear that "Winkelvi" refers to the twins, and has been used in that sense thousands of times. I wasn't clear on that until I saw the Google search results. Of course he turns up high in the rankings. Misplaced Pages always does. I don't have enough experience with user names to know if it's permissable, but let's be clear on that. ] (]) 19:25, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
	*The WP:IMPERSONATE link says, "you should state clearly on your userpage that you are unrelated to the well-known person." I'd say if WV adds that disclaimer, end of problem. ]<sup>]</sup> 20:04, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
	**Montanabw, you are not doing Winkelvi any favors by misquoting policy as if that would help the discussion. The above clause only applies if "Winkelvi" is his name in real life. ] (]) 20:40, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
	:::::I disagree with your interpretation, and your tone is also not helpful to your own position, but this discussion is a side issue to the one above, I'm sure there is a better noticeboard for that concern than here. ]<sup>]</sup> 08:09, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
	:::My question is as it states, how it relates to your straw men is irrelevant. This extra section is classic ANI. One issue starts and is discussed then something else is pulled into the mix, then another and another until it gets to the point that everyone just gives up. Is their username related to the discussion about their behaviour? Somehow I don't think so, if you have a problem with Winklevi's username, raise it on ]. ] (]) 21:17, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
	::::{{like}} ]<sup>]</sup> 08:09, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
	== Harassment of editors by Earl King Jr. ==
	User ] continues to harass editors 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)
	:Yup. Since I ceased my involvement with Zeitgeist-related articles, Earl's ] behaviour seems to have got even worse - he now appears to be using ] as his own personal blog, where he endlessly promotes his conspiracy theory - that TZM is nothing more than a money-earning scheme concocted by Peter Joseph for profit (e.g. "He collects the donation to his pocket" - an entirely unsourced assertion of financial impropriety at minimum) . Anyone disagreeing (or even asking for evidence) is immediately labelled a sockpuppet or a TZM supporter. If only for the self-evident violations of WP:BLP policy that ensue from his characterisations of Joseph, he should probably be topic-banned. That will of course leave the problem of actual TZM supporters trying to spin the articles their way, but we've dealt with similar problems before, and I'm sure we can again - by adhering to Misplaced Pages policy, and following sources. ] (]) 22:11, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
	:Just notified the user with the subst:ANI-notice template ] (]) 22:55, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
	::It's a thorny problem, because Earl King Jr. has done a lot of hard work cleaning up the promotional content that has been systematically added to these articles. Removing EKJ from the equation would mean that these articles swiftly return to their original state as hagiographies and ] puff-pieces. There has been plenty of off-wiki canvassing like and , so let's not be too hasty to assume that EKJ is the bad guy, if reverting yet another IP making similar changes... ] (]) 21:42, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
	:::Do you consider it appropriate for Earl to continue to violate WP:BLP policy on the talk page? It was this behaviour (and the fact that nobody seems prepared to do anything about it) that led me to cease editing the article. ] (]) 00:51, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
	::::Honestly speaking AndyTheGrump, things improved after you left the article in my opinion and I think its fair to say that your participation and consequent leaving the article was your choice and if you are saying it was because of one editor disagreeing with you and what ever arguments you had, that was also your opinion but why equate that here with the current subject? The last time at ANI you also called me a 'little shit' and I asked for you to be blocked. I have noticed that you will exaggerate to the point of outright twisting things in these situations. I am not a part of your fan base. I am not using the article talk page as my personal blog Andy. Anyone curious about the article might go to the talk page and read my comments and look at the article page itself for my edits. My goal is neutral editing without pov on the article and trying be a critical thinking editor without defaming anyone on the talk page. The case that someone, SomeDifferentStuff is making here is that I am insulting to some I.P.'s somehow. Because of the call to arms/editing of the Zeitgeist Movement droves of people involved in Zeitgeist come to Misplaced Pages to try and make the article part of their information presentation. I have pointed that out on the talk page. SomeDifferentStuff has a long time editing relationship that is very akin to supporting the Zeitgeist Movements information as does TheDevilsAdvocate who he mentions and I think that is what is irking him most about my editing. I am not for or against it. If I have insulted anyone I am sorry. The article is now page protected for Admins editing only and that will slow down the single purpose editors and i.p.'s for a while. ] (]) 06:15, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
	:::::Your goal is clearly not 'neutral editing' - instead you seem to have an irrational hatred of what is an organisation of next to no real significance, around which you have built a half-baked conspiracy theory. Yes, we all know that TZM members have tried to spin the article their way - but the same thing happens regarding all sorts of Misplaced Pages content, and we don't fill other talk pages with the sort of nonsense you routinely trot out. It achieves precisely nothing beyond antagonising everyone who doesn't buy into your obsessions, and violates multiple Misplaced Pages policies in the process. And as for SomeDifferentStuff and TheDevilsAdvocate, I have no great admiration for either, but as long as they comply with Misplaced Pages policy ''they have as much right to contribute to the article as anyone else''. You '''do not''' have the right to decide who is or isn't allowed to take part, and '''you are not''' some sort of article gatekeeper, as much as you'd clearly like to be. And yes, I'd recommend that people take a look at Talk:Zeitgeist (film series), where you regularly pile abuse on anyone who doesn't buy into your warped viewpoint on this trivial little 'movement'. Frankly, I have to question the rationality of anyone who can build such an obsession around a failed technocratic millennialist cult. Were you perhaps once a member? ] (]) 06:48, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
	:::::Honestly, I think the following two diffs are all I need to offer in the way of a response: .--] <sub>] ]</sub> 06:56, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
	::::::...and the only appropriate response after reading those difs is a {{headshake}} combined with a {{palm-to-forehead-smack}}. Damn, seems like those templates ''should'' exist... :) --] ] ☮ღ☺ 08:04, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
	::::::Andy with your presentation above of intense labeling and name calling which is provocative and bullying and not reflective of my editing, I don't think your above edit merits a response beyond mentioning that. TheDevilsAdvocate, there was a debate on the talk page about Caps. It turned out that we capped Zeitgeist and left the rest uncapped for the reason that it is not a formal group as being a non profit, NGO, incorporated etc. Mostly it is an internet organization that is adhoc/informal. ] (]) 07:22, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
	:::::::Actually, ''as anyone reading the talk page can plainly see'', you decided all by yourself to ignore sources and apply your own personal standard here - motivated, as usual, by your enmity towards TZM. And who is the 'we' you refer to? There was no consensus for your edits - just you and a SPA trolling account using the page as a soapbox. ] (]) 07:30, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
	Andy with your presentation above of intense labeling and name calling which is provocative and bullying and not reflective of my editing, I don't think your above edit merits a response beyond mentioning that.] (]) 10:57, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
	:Evidently Earl would rather that people didn't look into his behaviour. The evidence is however available at ], and in Earl's edit summaries for the article and talk page. He routinely abuses anyone he considers to be a TZM supporter (which in his mind is anyone who doesn't buy into his conspiracy theory), he uses the talk page as a soapbox, he ignores sources and instead spins the article to suit his own agenda. And when this is pointed out, he calls it 'bullying'. Evidently though few people care. Possibly they think that TZM supporter's own past behaviour justifies this - I however think that Misplaced Pages should have consistent standards, and that the best response to POV-pushing is not to hand over control of an article to a POV-pusher from the other side. ] (]) 15:35, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
	:Here's another response: .--] <sub>] ]</sub> 18:00, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
	::Sorry Andy I will not be taking the bait. ''He routinely abuses anyone he considers to be a TZM supporter (which in his mind is anyone who doesn't buy into his conspiracy theory), he uses the talk page as a soapbox, he ignores sources and instead spins the article to suit his own agenda. And when this is pointed out, he calls it 'bullying'. Evidently though few people care.'' end quote AndyTheGrump. Lets not use the excuse that few people care. There are a parcel of neutral editors on the Zeitgeist pages that hold an overview that is basically neutral and report what the sources say. Making absurd accusations of 'conspiracy' stuff does not cut it and I have no idea what you are even talking about except that you try and make mince meat out of a tofu sandwich with that approach. Your derogatory approach to other editors is one explanation why your block record is longer than my arm. I won't show any more disdain than that right now. Oh by the way this is about my being hard on I.P.'s by the way so why are trying trying to throw as much sh*t against the wall as is possible? ] (]) 03:18, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
	:::Earl's bullying behaviour on the talk page is self-evident. As is his violation of Misplaced Pages BLP policy when he repeatedly promotes his entirely unverified conspiracy theories concerning Joseph supposedly inventing TZM for profit. Nobody has to take my word for it - the evidence is in plain sight. ] (]) 03:27, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
	::::*I suggest you start a new Ani then about that subject (this one is about how I interact with I.P.'s) and supply all the diffs and make a case. I think its a real pity injecting so much false drama into this current conversation like asking me if I am a former member of Zeitgeist that is now alienated. You said above that I am ''clearly not 'neutral editing''' and saying that ''you seem to have an irrational hatred of what is an organisation of next to no real significance, around which you have built a half-baked conspiracy theory.'' that is pretty strong rhetoric. I have no conspiracy bones to pick. You also said ''the nonsense you routinely trot out.'' Do you realize you are being insulting Andy? Does no one tell you to stop attacking other editors you disagree with? You say ''It achieves precisely nothing beyond antagonising everyone who doesn't buy into your obsessions''. Do I really have to put up with your mental health analysis? You say ''they have as much right to contribute to the article as anyone else''. You say ''You '''do not''' have the right to decide who is or isn't allowed to take part, and '''you are not''' some sort of article gatekeeper, as much as you'd clearly like to be.'' No, I don't want to be an article gatekeeper and am not and I do not really care who participates in the article as long as they are non pov and use cited material. And you say ''And yes, I'd recommend that people take a look at Talk:Zeitgeist (film series), where you regularly pile abuse on anyone who doesn't buy into your warped viewpoint on this trivial little 'movement'.'' My 'warped viewpoint'? that is pretty nasty. You also say ''Frankly, I have to question the rationality of anyone who can build such an obsession around a failed technocratic millennialist cult. Were you perhaps once a member?'' end quote.
	*I would like to make a request now for Andy The Grump to be blocked for uncivil behavior by making a mockery of a decent debate, attacking another editor that generally is supported by the neutral editors on the page in question and turning or trying to turn this into a battlefield and not what it was supposed to be, a request to see if I am too hard on I.P.'s on the article. ] (]) 04:01, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
	:*Technically, this discussion is about your overall treatment of other editors in this topic area. Just look at the heading and read the whole opening statement from SDS.--] <sub>] ]</sub> 04:26, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
	::So Earl is now arguing that I should be blocked for suggesting that people see for themselves how he has behaved on ], in a thread on his behaviour regarding the article. A novel suggestion, to say the least. ] (]) 04:37, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
	:::No I am not and that is just another example of your 'way' of misrepresenting things. I suggested before you did for others to go there and see what they think. I did not tell people how to think. I also am suggesting you be blocked for extreme attacking another editor with mental health comments about them, general attacks with no diffs about them etc. Zeitgeist is categorized in the conspiracy theory department. Your rhetorical flourish of putdowns is annoying and you just keep doing it over and over. Now you are putting words in my mouth. Bad form and I think you should be penalized. You are not debating you are flinging accusations and they are not supported.
	:::The Devils Advocate was blocked from editing conspiracy articles (Zeitgeist 911 Truther thing) a couple of times I am not saying he believes one way or another but he seems to have a stake in the article that is pro Zeitgeist Faq's material as does his editing partner SomeDifferentStuff. Together the two of them have brought me to Ani numerous times I think to make it easier for them to edit unencumbered. ] (]) 05:28, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
	::::How does "Zeitgeist is categorized in the conspiracy theory department" (whatever that is supposed to mean) justify you using an article talk page to make entirely unsubstantiated allegations that Peter Joseph concocted the Zeitgeist Movement for personal profit? A claim you have made repeatedly, both on the talk page previously discussed, and at ] before that was turned into a redirect? How does this entirely unsourced and unsubstantiated claim have any legitimate bearing on article content? What purpose do you think is served by making such claims?
	::::And incidentally, can you point to any Misplaced Pages policy that makes a contributor holding pro-Zeitgeist opinions (if that is indeed the case) a matter for ANI? You have entirely failed to provide evidence that either contributor has violated any policy or guideline - and indeed you seem not to have provided any evidence that anyone mentioned in this thread has done anything but disagreed with your attempts to spin the article for your own purposes. ] (]) 06:00, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
	:::::I have not spun the article to my own purposes and since you do not know me why are you saying that? I have used the information available on the subject to try and make a good article. I am not pro or con. I have asked questions and given information on the talk page and asked for ideas many times. I guess a look at the block log of TheDevilsAdvocate might indicate that he has had problems in the past editing 911 related articles since he was blocked from editing them before but I already said that and this article is a 911 conspiracy article. It is a fact that SomeDifferentStuff edits with TheDevilsAdvocate in a pro Zeitgeist way. Anyone curious can look at the article history or talk history. You are pretty extreme in your negative characterizing of my editing. I will leave it at that for now except to repeat that your battleground mentality is not appropriate. ] (]) 11:37, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
	:::::::The 'battleground mentality' being discussed here is of course Earl's, as evinced in his contribution history. His claims not to be "pro or con" are clearly and unambiguously contradicted by his negative depictions of Joseph, of the movement, and of anyone and everyone who disagrees with his agenda. ] (]) 15:37, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
	=== Zeitgeist topic ban proposal for user Earl King Jr. ===
	Earl's continued harassment of other editors, battleground behavior at anything ], and just plain general disruption needs to stop. This behavior has been going on for over a year; this is the '''THIRD ANI''' brought against him in less than 7 months and so far <u>the only response from Administrators has been to hope that the problem clears up on its own</u>; well it hasn't and it's very clear that it's not going to. Even if you don't think that a topic ban is in order, at the very least present a formal comment on how to deal with this type of disruption. It doesn't take a heightened sense of awareness to look at this edit history and see that Earl King Jr. is ]. -- ] (]) 12:48, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
	*'''Support.''' It is inevitable that as contentious a topic as the Zeitgeist Movement and Peter Joseph's related movies will result in conflict, flared tempers and the like (I've blown my top a few times myself). There are ways of dealing with that, however. What cannot be tolerated, if we are to adhere to appropriate encyclopaedic standards, are contributors who needlessly inflame the situation (and violate WP:BLP policy in the process) by using talk pages as a forum for conspiracy theories, and who invent entirely specious reasons to ignore sources, in order to pursue their own personal agenda. ] (]) 15:37, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
	*'''Support''' People can see my to get an idea of how persistent Earl's misconduct has been in this topic area.--] <sub>] ]</sub> 18:11, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
	* '''Oppose''', reluctantly. I sympathise with Somedifferentstuff's concerns, but across Zeitgeist as a whole I think EKJ's work is still a net positive. I would, however, support some kind of final warning, or a sanction which prevents "personalising" disagreements or the more adversarial approach. It would be difficult to strike a balance; when a topic is besieged by editors, often coordinated offsite. who are trying to promote the topic - which is happening here - it's easy for an established editor to see themselves as standing on the ramparts, sword in hand, fighting off the barbarians... If we stop EKJ editing, without addressing the broader problem (which is harder to fix), then the articles will be much worse. ] (]) 23:32, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
	::Addressing the 'broader problem' - which is TZM supporters refusing to accept Misplaced Pages policy regarding article content - would be a darned sight easier if Earl complied with policy himself. And yes, we know that TZM has engaged in offsite canvassing to try to spin the article. This isn't new. It isn't unique to TZM supporters for that matter either. ''We already have processes to deal with this'', and TZM members tend on the whole to be easier than many POV-warriors to deal with, given the complete inability of most of them to actually grasp how Misplaced Pages works (I'll refrain from making comparisons, but I'm sure we are all aware of parallel situations that have caused a whole heap more trouble). We don't need EKJ (or anyone else) reenacting the ] on talk pages to deal with what is actually in the grand scheme of things a fairly insignificant problem. Someone (i.e you Bobrayner?) less emotionally involved, and with a bit more sense of perspective, could do the job a whole lot better. And frankly, I have to suggest (though I'm sure that EKJ won't like it) that it might be better for Earl to find other topics to involve himself in. ] (]) 00:08, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
	::I fail to see how could be considered a net positive. He has been trying to downplay the existence of the movement for a while and to keep it that way. He's about the movement in sub-sections for the second movie and has been from the page. Earl went as far as the disruptive commentary of an anti-Zeitgeist SPA even as recognized the editor had ]. Any editor who does everything Earl has done and actually proclaims himself to be a neutral editor is clearly not someone who should be editing this page.--] <sub>] ]</sub> 06:59, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
	::I suspect the majority of outbursts from TZM supporters is because EKJ is ] them.—] (]) 09:58, 12 January 2015 (UTC) <s><small>Struck out sockpuppet. ] (]) 01:35, 15 January 2015 (UTC)</s> – ] (]) 07:39, 15 January 2015 (UTC)</small>
	* '''Support''' For serious ] and ] issues and blatant disregard for ], BRD, and DRN. ] (]) 23:38, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
	*'''No support''' Thanks for the kind and I think accurate words by User:Bobrayner. He is one of the neutral editors on the article I referenced before and there are only a few of them. As mentioned SomeDifferentStuff and TheDevilsAdvocate tandem edit with the socks and meats from here often and Andy apparently will say just about anything without providing any proof about his accusations. Peter Joseph sells DVD's of his movies which was all that was said by me, so so what? Regardless I hope Andy is blocked from editing Misplaced Pages for his methods of trash talking people last time calling me 'a little shit' and getting away with that. He contributed very little to the article in question, virtually nothing but seemed absorbed in battlefield drama on the talk page. For the most part I find the Zeitgeist people funny and the whole editing the article interesting. I have tried my best to make it a good article that is neutral and reflects good sourcing from reliable sources. It is a controversial subject which I have no personal stake in beyond finding it interesting. ] (]) 06:28, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
	*'''Oppose'''. All Earl is doing is keeping a bunch of POV pushing nonsense and fancruft out of the article. I don't even think this Zeigeist stuff is anything other than an internet meme and the author is just sitting back watching his giant troll evolve at the hands of some weak minded morons. Earl King doesn't deserve a topic ban for being a voice of sanity.--] 03:48, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
	::If that was all Earl was doing, we wouldn't be having this conversation. Thank you for making your opinion of Zeitgeist clear.—] (]) 00:55, 15 January 2015 (UTC)<s> <small>Struck out sockpuppet. ] (]) 01:35, 15 January 2015 (UTC)</s> – ] (]) 07:39, 15 January 2015 (UTC)</small>
	* '''Support''' As one of the targets of Earl King Jr.'s and , I was about to create an ANI about him myself when I stumbled onto this one. The only problem with banning him from ] is '''it isn't broad enough'''. His ] complex spreads to all topics related to Zeitgeist, The Zeitgeist Movement, The Venus Project, Resource Based Economy, and Peter Joseph. For example, and . Based on , Earl has been using wikipedia as a ] ever since he created his account in 2012. He is the subject of numerous edit war warnings, Dispute Resolution, and Administrator Notice boards every year. Earl King Jr. should be banned for the following reasons:
	# He is openly negatively biased against Zeitgeist related topics
	# He has a ] complex with these topics
	# He assumes bad faith and accuses people of being sock/meat puppets without evidence
	# He constantly reverts edits based only on his blind accusations of sock/meat puppetry.
	# He has a history of conflict regarding the topics he 'owns'.
	# His goal seems to be to slowly marginalize and undermine the topics he controls in order to not raise any red flags.
	:On ] Earl King Jr. can be seen repeatedly accusing people of being sock/meat puppetry, and sharing his clear negative bias of Zeitgeist related topics. His extremism is intent on making wikipedia worse when it comes to characterizing the topics he controls. Wiki articles with constant disagreement are known to be of lower quality. I've asked him to , and he only responds with his bias.—] (]) 08:53, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
	:The following are some comments from Earl King Jr.'s User Talk page history to demonstrate that he has been conflicting with people for a while. There were also many edit war warnings and dispute resolution notifications that I did not include:
	{{hidden begin
	| titlestyle = background:pink; text-align:center;
	| title = Comments from Earl King Jr.'s talk page history}}
	'''Personal Attacks & Accusations'''
	] Please refrain from ] other editors, as you have done repeatedly on ]. Comment on ''content'', not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please ] and keep this in mind while editing.
	:You may also want to familiarize yourself with the following articles:
	:* ]
	:* ]
	:* ] (one of Misplaced Pages's five pillars)
	:* ]
	–] (]) 10:42, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
	''' Religion in Cambodia '''
	First, I'm a far more experienced editor than you, so please don't make threats.
	Second, my edits are not controversial - you're the only one who objects.
	Third, Islam is not a major religion in Cambodia, nor isanimism - 95% of the population is Buddhist, and adding the others violayes the due weight policy.
	Finally, if you have concerns about my edits, take them to the article talk page.
	''' Warning '''
	Questioning people's motives is one thing, but questioning people's mental heath is a violation of our policy against person attacks. See ]. If you can't make a reasoned argument without resorting to ad hominem attacks, you'd best find a different hobby. Do again and you'll be reported to the admin noticeboard for possible suspension of editing privileges. --] (]) 14:30, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
	''' ''Ad hominem'' concern '''
	Hi, Earl. I'm posting here to explain a little more my twice-stated concern on article-talk pages that some of your contributions may appear to be character attacks (]). I'm posting here because this concern is not regarding any specific article's content.
	] advises: "Comment on content, not on the contributor." The following diffs include examples of contributor-focused dialog:
	*] – "…you are tendentious even in simple communication."
	*] – "…you are against any small consensus."
	*] – "You have proven a tendentious edit warring personage."
	I want to assume good faith in your reasons for editing Misplaced Pages, and I hope you do the same for me. Please note that while I once undid your change of the Venus Project's business status from nonprofit to profit, due to the change lacking a citation (])…once a citation was established, I've since undone another editor's change of its biz status back from profit to nonprofit, due to their change lacking citation (]). I hope this shows, in one small way, that I'm not trying to bring an agenda to my edits.
	Best, <span style="background-color:#bbcc99;">] (])</span> 00:15, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
	'''war'''
	I've tried reasoning with you like an adult. If you want war you're going to get it. Ites76 (talk) 03:46, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
	You obviously don't have anything better to do. Why don't you go and buy a playstation? Go out and make some friends maybe, if you're capable of giving a shit about anyone besides yourself. Ites76 (talk) 04:04, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
	'''Your false accusation of sock puppetry and meat puppetry at ANI'''
	]
	Hello. There is currently a discussion at ] regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. <!--Template:ANI-notice--> Thank you. ] (]) 02:07, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
	'''Trolling'''
	I need to speak to you personally, because you are trying your best to undermine a very serious effort to improve the Zeitgeist article. If you continue to interject and '''overtly troll my edits,''' be advised you are just making a fool of yourself. In the short term you may think it's funny to go against the grain to see ''just how far you can push me'' but you are being '''extremely immature.''' The idea is to improve the article in specific ways; so either improve the article, or at least contribute meaningfully about how the article could be improved, or do nothing i.e. concentrate your efforts elsewhere. You are a nuisance. ] (]) 08:28, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
	''' Earl King Jr. is a Anti- Peter Joseph & Anti-Zeitgeist Gatekeeper with Strong Bias in editing. '''
	In reference to Peter Joseph's Misplaced Pages entry, this editor continues to remove relevant data with respect to Joseph's Work based on bias and whim. This editor is not competent and works to control information - not expand it. ] (]) 20:07, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
	{{hidden end}}
	:—] (]) 09:33, 12 January 2015 (UTC) <s><small>Struck out sockpuppet. ] (]) 01:35, 15 January 2015 (UTC)</s> – ] (]) 07:39, 15 January 2015 (UTC)</small>
	:::IP 68.7.95.95, it's obvious you're a sock of a banned editor but even if your aren't you are a single purpose account and a POV pusher. If there is a topic ban needed here its one on your IP address.--] 14:14, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
	::::MONGO, your comment is irrelevant to this topic. And just like Earl King Jr., you are making accusations without evidence. Please familiarize yourself with ], ], ], and ].—] (]) 00:55, 15 January 2015 (UTC) <s><small>Struck out sockpuppet. ] (]) 01:35, 15 January 2015 (UTC)</s> – ] (]) 07:39, 15 January 2015 (UTC)</small>
	:::::MONGO's comment is very relevant - and quite insightful. 68.7.95.95 looks like a sock devoted to TZM and harassing Earl King Junior. Strangely enough, 68.7.95.95 also cites ]' attacks on EKJ as part of their case. Flowersforparis was banned for sockpuppetry on TZM pages. 68.7.95.95 geolocates to the same place as previous Flowersforparis socks. Now ''there's'' an interesting set of coïncidences. ] (]) 01:27, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
	::::::Sorry, I tried to continue this conversation on your user talk page but I cannot post there because it's semi-protected. Bobrayner, if you think the coincidence you mentioned is evidence of sock puppetry, then you should make an official report here: ]. Otherwise, please do not continue to modify my comments. Modifying other people's comments is against ]. Thanks. — Back on topic, the main issue here is that there are strong POVs both for and against Zeitgeist-y stuff, and anyone openly demonstrating such POVs, like Earl King Jr. being very anti-zeitgeist, clearly should not be editing those topics, that is ''unless'' he can demonstrate that he can behave according to ] and ]. As it stands currently, the behavior of Earl King Jr. (and anyone else with a strong POV on the topic) is not acceptable for building an encyclopedia.—] (]) 08:23, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
	*'''Oppose''' topic ban. Some number of cranks and conspiracy theorists want to use Misplaced Pages to promote their ideas. Earl's work makes this difficult. ] <sup>]</sup> 12:35, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
	::That may be true, but Earl is not the only editor on Misplaced Pages who can correct improper edits. The solution cannot be to allow Earl to continue his negative behavior. Something must be done.—] (]) 00:55, 15 January 2015 (UTC) <s><small>Struck out sockpuppet. ] (]) 01:35, 15 January 2015 (UTC)</s> – ] (]) 07:39, 15 January 2015 (UTC)</small>
	:::You're a single purpose account here solely to promote fancruft on this nonexistent movement.--] 00:59, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
	* '''Oppose''' Emotions run high in these topics, and a break is a good thing on occasion. Forced breaks and bans do little except to make the subject stew over the issue during the ban period. I have seen bans for less offensive behavior than described here; I have seen editors practically get away with Wikimurder and suffer no consequences. I would recommend all parties involved take a two week break while the article is fully protected. Give yourselves a little break, grab a cup of coffee or tea, take your dog (or cat, or ferret, or anole) for a long walk, and your significant other to dinner and a movie. Spread the Wikilove :-) ] (]) 14:57, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
	* '''Oppose''' From the outside looking in, I see two reasons why a topic ban for the user would be a bad idea. First, given that everyone involved is guilty the impression is that Earl Jr. disagrees with several editors and those editors all want him banned because they disagree with his edits. That isn't a valid reason. Second - and this is important - even if, theoretically speaking, the user's edits are problematic so are some of the edits he has reverted. Since it seems to be a one vs. many scenario, topic banning the one would allow the article to become skewed during that time. There will likely be poor edits both with and without a topic ban from multiple sides; this renders the topic ban ineffective in regard to improving the quality of the article, related articles and the site as a whole. It's frivolous, especially considering that compared to some of the years-long processes of talk page negotiation I've seen, what has transpired on the Zeitgeist talk page is nothing. The various editors involved need to try harder because they have not so far. ] (]) 04:00, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
	==Block-proposal for ] ==
	User:Enigmafay is a ] whose main motive appears to be to eliminate any negative views from the article ]. The disputed content concerns the allegation of sexual abuse against Satyananda Saraswati and his successor. see ]. This account was registered on 5 December 2014 and the user edit warred very first day to remove the disputed content , , , , , , . Then they did not edit for about 2 weeks and in the mean time, article was attacked by an army of new accounts resulting in article getting fully protected. Some of those new accounts are blocked now. I wouldn't be surprised if they are sock puppets of this user. I will also point out that another new user ] edit-warred to keep this content included. Before the full protection, disputed content was removed and an ]. RfC was also marred by the sock-farm. While it appeared form the RfC that most of the non-SPA users agreed to include the disputed content, a ] was done to quickly asses the consensus. Unfortunately for Enigmafay, the straw poll was closed before most of their friends could come and vote, following off-wiki canvassing at a facebook page. After the disputed material was finally included, this user restarted edit warring , , leading to one more . Article protected, the user went with . Now this user or someone from their group has started to re-open the straw poll and let all of them vote ().
	I think it has gone far enough and this user has been given enough ]. I propose therefore, that this user should be blocked or banned from editing WP, as they are clearly ].
	*Note 1: This report is about user and not about the content, so please avoid discussing content.
	*Note 2: In this report, I have solely focused on edits from the account User:Enigmafay, there are plethora of other SPA's who took part in this dispute and some of them could be sock accounts of this user. --<span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Kokonor;color:green">Vigyani</span><sub>]</sub><sup>]</sup> 02:31, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
	::This is becoming disturbing. ] (]) 02:43, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
	:::Agreed. Having read through the article history, talk page and seen the online petition, recent activity smacks of ]. --] (]) 04:46, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
	::::], just an avid fan, and it is not same as ]. ] (]) 04:50, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
	:::::True, I may have overreacted. Nevertheless, sometimes there isn't a bright line between the two when the fan takes on the guise of something closer to fanatical and deeply protective of their 'brand' (something which created a lot headaches in trying to further define COI policy relatively recently). I was thinking of COI in terms of applying to anyone in a relationship with the subject, and a reward system that isn't necessarily that of financial gain. (Okay, that's it. I've gone completely tangential, so it's time to stop editing for the day!) --] (]) 05:06, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
	* '''Support''' Overreaction? I don't think so. It's a clear case of ]. ] -] 07:42, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
	*'''Support block''' This is more disturbing than what I was thinking, rapidly accusing Joshua to be the Joshua of Facebook group is ridiculous. ] (]) 13:56, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
	*'''Support block''' per ]. In fact, this has escalated to ] and ] on a truly offensive scale. --] (]) 22:11, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
	*'''Support block''' per ] and evidence presented by <span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Kokonor;color:green">Vigyani</span>. ] (]) 22:43, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
	* '''Support block''' per ], which is enough, but the accusations are the icing. ] (])
	* '''Oppose''' This is a new user. He has been harassed too. He reacted in a predictable way, canvassing and edit warring. Why hasn't he been blocked for 24h till now? The last edit by him on the article was done 9 days ago and he has engaged in article talk page discussion. He should have been take to WP:3RR when he edit warred or WP:SPI for sock puppetry if that is the argument. --]<sup>]</sup> 16:20, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
	* '''Oppose''' All that we have here is an over-enthusiastic new user with strong convictions. {{U|AmritasyaPutra}} is right in that the user should have been given 3RR warning and taken to ]. It didn't happen either because the experienced users weren't paying attention or the admins protected the page soon enough. I would support a short-term block like that for AN3 so that the user takes the time to reflect, but not a permanent block. ] (]) 21:15, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
	* '''Oppose''' - I am new, and do not know the ropes, but if I am entitled to vote, I OPPOSE for the simple reason that there seems to be a personal attack going on against an opposing opinion, resulting in the person receiving this attack reacting and replying according to this. Whatever happened to an opposing opinion??how does one make a balanced decision if there is no opposition?
	: Opposition is a healthy thing, but being attacked and ganged upon because one 'dares'to express their opinion - is not demonstrating objectivity. What is the agenda here? For someone to express their own personal opinion on the Swami Satyananda Page? Is this not available to all to edit? In every debate there are two sides, and one should respect the other person's opinion, regardless if they disagree or agree. Each to his own, decisions are only made with a balance of opinions. Not 10 against 1. Not verbal attacks. Had EnigmaFay been confronted in a different way, would she have resorted to this poll?] (]) 18:31, 13 January 2015 (UTC)Have also added comments below as I later saw that this was the place for voting] (]) 18:31, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
	:* Wikipedians are not new to these kind of debates. There are well-developed policies and criteria by which such issues are decided. Unfortunately, ] and all of his/her friends have ignored these policies and made it a personal battle of wits. I estimate that the ''well-sourced'' content on allegations has been deleted ''over 20 times'' during the last month by these people, every instance of which is violative of Misplaced Pages policies. The user who initiated this content on the page has been driven away. Those of us that came to help were inundated with a barrage of posts, repeating the same point again and again that allegations have not been proven. Naturally, the Wikipedians are tired of this. So there is no point arguing that he/she has been victimized. ] and his/her friends should promise to learn the Misplaced Pages policies and abide by them. ] (]) 22:20, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
	::* Yes these users(and IPs) have contributed only on this particular page, but the bigger point is if Enigmafay is going to contribute neutrally, with these messages-- it doesn't seem like he or she is going to, you are correct that a temporary block would be fine but I don't see what are the basis, maybe a topic ban would be better choice. ] (])
	:::* Ban is fine with me. They are anyway not here to build encyclopedia. Their group is continuing the off-wiki canvassing (). --] 14:13, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
	=== Discussion ===
	<small>Section created by Kautilya3</small>
	* Above discussion is very sad and not good for Misplaced Pages. I think clearly there are two strong opinions and they should listen to each other.Since both sides are passionately arguing it would be very very unfair to ban anyone. User-Enigmafay has presented a POV and other two Editors theirs. Its not fair to just Ban any one. I think both sides just need to listen to each other and come to common ground.] (]) 12:32, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
	You are urging no discussion on content and yet you are discussing content. My purpose is keep the neutrality in that article, right now the article is being abused. Yes my friends don't know how to edit wikipedia, while the friends of other users, like Joshua, who have built their own facebook groups and are urging people in there to come here and take part in this attack against me, they know how to edit. We have watched their discussions on facebook, but I did not consider it wrong to urge your friends or anyone who is affected by a subject to come and "help". It so happens that this user has more friends in Misplaced Pages than I do, and some of them are admins. You are accusing me of personal attacks, while I am the one being constantly attacked, and my arguments are never discussed upon. The petition that was created is just to show you that this is not a "one user" issue. Everyone who puts their signature in that petition is well aware of the situation and responsible for their opinion. Banning me will not solve your problems because others will come in my place and the petition will go to the head of wikipedia. For more, read my edits in the discussion page of Swami Satyananda, where it appears that I am the only one who has written the greatest amounts of text, while the other editors only attack and do not argue. ] (]) 12:45, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
	* I do not see where I have discussed content in my OP. There is no proof that Joshua has a Facebook group which they are using for canvassing, so either you produce any proof or take back your statement. Accusing other users without proof is ]. In your case, there is sufficient proof of off-wiki canvassing. The petition and the face books group posts at . Relevant policy is ]. WP content is decided by policy arguments, not by show of hands which your petition to WP Head (don't know to whom petition refers as Head) is trying to achieve. --<span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Kokonor;color:green">Vigyani</span><sub>]</sub><sup>]</sup> 13:51, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
	::{{u|Enigmafay}}, Misplaced Pages is ]. The project is not up for grabs by deploying strong-arm tactics because you, or an entire army of friends/followers, ]. We are bound to follow ] regardless of our own POV or personal religious or political beliefs. You don't even seem to comprehend your own hypocrisy. If your guru was so predisposed to enlightenment and seeking knowledge, you and your petitioning friends are besmirching his memory by advocating the antithesis. Your entire M.O. revolves around suppression of thought and oppression of others. I sincerely hope you can find forgiveness for yourself for leading a ].
	::Tell me, have you actually thought this through? Let's say a large religious group decided to follow your methodology: what do you think would happen to the article? Not only would it be eradicated as promoting heathen ideology, every other religious group other than those who have embarked on stifling dissent would be eliminated from Misplaced Pages. The same applies to political philosophies, etc. --] (]) 22:43, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
	Reading through talk page comments, it seems like what is happening is a replay of what is an all-to-common experience on Misplaced Pages. Newer editors, who are unfamiliar with Misplaced Pages rules, are outraged by what they view as salacious and unfair commentary, they try to make edits and are quickly reverted. They, reasonably, become very frustrated and migrate to article and user talk pages to try and make their case. Veteran editors dismiss their complaints because the editors are not familiar with Misplaced Pages jargon, policies and standards. The new editors get more and more frustrated because they feel ignored and dismissed, like their views are unimportant. One of the regular WP editors, tired of the complaints, comes to AN/I and asks for the new editor/s to receive blocks because they find them annoying and disruptive.
	While the new editors, like Enigmafay, have been persistent, it also seems like their comments are ignored on the article talk page. A "straw poll" on whether to include a controversial section is run, the regular editors vote "for" and when a few editors start to raise objections, the poll is then closed and the verdict is rendered based on a handful of editor opinions. This gives the regular editors the guise that the subject was open for debate and a consensus reached when that is not what has happened.
	Personally, I think there are good reasons to include the controversial section about allegations of sexual abuse. But with subjects like this, where there are strong opinions, I frequently see new editors dismissed as advocates, adherents, fans, believers, etc. and once they are tagged with this label, it negates any opinion that might offer and the substance of their comments goes unaddressed. Enigmafay has raised some questions about the wording of a sensitive section which, in my opinion, have been ignored because she didn't use standard Misplaced Pages language and policy abbreviations. I don't believe editors should be blocked merely for holding a minority point of view and raising questions that go against the opinions of editors who have been here longer. <font face="Rage Italic" size="4" color="#800080">]</font> <sup><font face="Times New Roman" color="#006400">] ]</font></sup> 22:27, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
	:Article dispute is not the only cause. Claiming Joshua Jonathan to be the Joshua of some Facebook page is another thing to watch. It is harassment. ] (]) 02:34, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
	::Block proposal is not for holding a minority point of view and raising questions. Proposal is for personal attacks, canvassing. You don't need knowledge of Misplaced Pages language and policies to know that you should not be making personal attacks while especially you are arguing about exclusion of unproved allegations in an article. Coming to straw poll. Enigmafay was of it as soon as it was opened. , he closed the poll because seven days had passed, not because few editors start to raise objections. Enigmafay anyway got to , so there is no reason to make a fuss about it. This editor have made it clear that they represent an off-wiki group, which is anyway not allowed on WP. Each editor presents their own individual opinion. Regarding Enigmafay's opinion, I don't think those are ignored. I myself didn't participate in talk page so much, but their arguments have been given due weight. What I see is that consensus is against them, and they are unable to come in terms with that. There object is not with specific wording of the content, but with the entire section which they want to be removed from the article. <span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Kokonor;color:green">Vigyani</span><sub>]</sub><sup>]</sup> 04:35, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
	:: I would like to make a testimony. I have seen the facebook group and how they were planning and discussing on the wikipedia article. I also saw with my own eyes how the person discussing there admitted he was writing here. The group went "closed" and I can no longer access the text. So this is my unproven allegation. I cannot provide any evidence for it. But I can publish it as a testimony on various different websites so that I have published sources. It is after all very easy to publish yourself in the modern internet.
	:: You are allowing similar allegations, of brutal and vulgar nature, to be published on the main article of Swami Satyananda. Unproven and without evidence allegations, just because they have been published in various other websites of questionable quality.
	:: It would be fair on your part, since you allow all kinds of personal attacks and allegations on a MAIN ARTICLE to allow allegations on a talk page. Or do you have a different policy for content on the main articles and on talk pages? Do you need me to publish my allegations on different websites so that we have published material on them, before going public? Is that the problem? Because I could arrange that.
	:: So you are sensitive only when it comes to protecting the reputation of people that belong to your community but choose to turn a blind eye when it comes for persons who's biographies are included on this encyclopedia. I wish you would have the sensitivity to apply your policies and principles on the articles and not only selectively. Best regards. ] (]) 19:58, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
	:: The truth of the matter is that you are not proposing me for a block due to "personal attacks". You are proposing me because you do not want me to express my opinion on the article. You are merely trying to get rid of me because I am expressing the truth. But others WILL come in my place and prove you that it is wrong to include slander material based on the results of a Straw Poll. ] (]) 20:21, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
	::: {{Re|Enigmafay}} I suggest you voluntary declare not to edit the article for two weeks and make no edits to it even later without prior clear consensus on article talk page. If there was canvassing you will probably receive a block for some duration, you can familiarize with the policies and not repeat. I am writing so because I feel there was enough provocation and insult from other side too which had experienced editor who knew better how to handle it than stoning a newbie. (If you turn out to be a sock or fail to choose to exercise self-restraint, the community will need to ban you). Regards. --]<sup>]</sup> 16:20, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
	::::{{ping|AmritasyaPutra}} Can you provide any diffs where you think provocation happened (especially any diff by experienced editor)? I couldn't myself find any clear instance where provocation may have happened. But perhaps I overlooked. ] 06:40, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
	::::: The same article talk page section that was discussed on your user talk page yesterday for instance, it was a personal attack worthy of block. He was received as a disruption from beginning. He should have been given a due welcome/guidance, for example, like how Anna Frodesiak handled seemingly disruptive new editor SeshendraSarma yesterday. This section explains that he edit warred, canvassed, and is a sock, why is there no AN3 or SPI report? Why has he not been already blocked for a short period? It is unwise and undoubtedly provocative to heap all such criticism into one post in ANI page on a new editor. What is the response expected? If he is not a sock and a genuine new user he is inevitably going to scream not knowing how to respond, would you disagree Vigyani? The most important thing, the user has not edited the article for past 10 days. Why would you want to pursue a block at this point? Blocks should not be punitive, blocks should be preventative. --]<sup>]</sup> 07:26, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
	:::::: I was interested in finding any instance of provocation before filing this ANI. Whether filing ANI about new users can be considered provocation should be discussed separately. --] 12:01, 13 January 2015 (UTC)r
	::::::: Personal attack after ''filing'' is equally condemnable. No, I do not wish to discuss generically ''whether filing ANI about new users can be considered provocation''. Do you advocate punitive block? --]<sup>]</sup> 14:31, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
	::::::::Personal attacks at any time is condemnable. There is no doubt about that, NPA is WP guideline. Personal attacks is one of the reason, why this user has been brought to ANI. I don't advocate punitive blocks, and again that is obvious. In your original comment, you said ''there '''was''' enough provocation and insult from other side too''. It would naturally mean that this insult and provocation must be before this ANI and there are at least 2-3 such instances, justifying their reaction. From your 2nd comment: The article talk page section that was discussed on my user talk page contained personal attack is one the reason I collapsed that section. But you reverted me there. I don't think Enigamafy was received as a disruption from beginning, they were given patient hearing. But when after the consensus had emerged they stuck with their "allegations have not been proved in the court" tirade, it became disruptive. This sections (OP) doesn't say that they are a sock. A don't know why AN3 was not filled when they first edit warred, I reckon anyone didn't want to ''provoke'' them. But this is no reason another complaint at ANI can not be filled. I thought it was a standard to present all your points in the report, which you are calling as "unwise and undoubtedly provocative to heap all such criticism into one post in ANI page on a new editor", in that case should 2-3 different ANI complaints be made? Again I didn't see where have they screamed that they don't know how to respond, they are good at attacking fellow editors, assuming bad faith. Now coming to ''the most important thing'', I appreciate that they have not edited the article for 10 days (4 of which was due to full protection), but that was anyway not the main reason why this report was made. This report was made, because they are someone from their group created an online petition to decide content on WP. That is ]. I will be filing a SPI report as you requested above, I hope you will not call it a ''provocation'' -- ] 01:17, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
	I am new to Misplaced Pages, have been doing SY for a few years heard that his bio had been amended to include the allegations, went on to the Swami Satyananda page and had a look. The section about allegations of sexual abuse does not seem to be very impartial in accordance to the RC proceedings. I could state my point, and I tried to on the talk page, but my initial suggestion was deleted. In fact, I asked permission to make a suggestion. I have read the previous texts and it seems a private war is going on. Not objective, but subjective information is being thrown about. I do not understand the concept of this, - if this is so controversial and ignites reactions, why is this being discussed here? Why don't you take this off the board? Anyone reading your posts will see how this has become a personal issue. I am sure, if I state my opinion, which is rather impartial, and I am quite knowledgeable about the RC proceedings - the personal statements and the exhibits of which there are about 400, I will get abused. Is this what you strive to achieve - to make newbees fearful because obviously you have been here and know the ropes? Here, my first suggestion was deleted ! Hence I went in and restated it, but deleting one's suggestion does not make this an objective talk forum. I don't know how this all works, but I hope that the those who will make their opinion demonstrate impartiality on what is being suggested as an opinion. I understand that Enigmafay is retaliating to her being attacked for expressing an opposing opinion and very simply, one does not need to analyse whether this has occurred or not, one simply needs to read the posts, there for the taking. If I am entitled to vote, which I do not know if this is the case, I oppose the vote to ban EnigmaFay on the right of simply trying, not achieving, but trying to offer suggestions for the editing of the Misplaced Pages page ] (]) 18:15, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
	: {{Re|Vigyani}} The intent of my response is also obvious. I believe you understand. Instead of only collapsing attack you may also drop a gentle reminder to the editor to refrain from personal attack at the same time? It worsened and you may not hold me responsible for it. Not going to AN3 was probably a bad choice, I understand it has nothing to do with you or me, and bringing it here makes sense. Bringing SPI to ANI page is unhelpful, it should be at SPI like you intend to pursue. You have put a lot of words in my mouth in your response which I never said. --]<sup>]</sup> 02:57, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
	== Edit warring ] ==
	{{usercheck-short|Binksternet}} is edit warring at several articles concerning the substitution, or not, of the word "redistricted" in succession boxes, instead of showing the predecessor or successor listed at the pertaining congressional district lists. Binksternet claims that a consensus was established at ]. Subsequently a different RfC was opened at ] which is still open, but at which it was proposed to confirm that consensus for infoboxes does not apply to succession boxes, since they serve different purposes. The latter RfC is still open and, as has been pointed out to Binksternet and , under ]: "During a dispute, until a consensus is established to make a change, the status quo reigns." Nevertheless, Binksternet keeps reverting to his preferred version at , and , and after I made a single edit there. How should we proceed now? ] (]) 15:02, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
	:I concur with the above, he has continuously reverted my edits on this particular matter claiming that a consensus was established at ] when it most certainly was not. I do not believe he knows how to edit pages that involve politicians as he has not grasped that his edits are incorrect. ] (]) 15:44, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
	*'''Boomerang'''. This issue already has a working consensus which is found at ]. Kraxler is well aware of this fact, having it repeatedly pointed out to him at his own ] which you can see has failed to arrive at a new consensus. Kraxler has taken the bit in his teeth and assumed a consensus at the new RfC, going around and changing succession boxes to suit his viewpoint. ] (]) 16:46, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
	**Once again the user shows his total disregard for wikipedia by claiming a template shows consensus when it most certainly does not. The way the articles and pages have been laid out for countless years is fine, yet one editor called Binksternet wants to change it all. ] (]) 16:58, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
	:::Binksternet, I didn't change any succession boxes, , in the middle of an on-going discussion concerning the subject. As far as I can gather from ], all editors (except you), even those who disagree with my vote, agree on the fact that it is necessary to establish consensus for succession boxes, separately. The RfC has not been closed yet, so, under ], everything is supposed to remain as it has been for a long time prior to the discussion. ] (]) 17:31, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
	::::You are correct that that RfC has not yet closed with a new consensus, and that we should stick with the status quo until it changes, which is why your actions against the status quo are unsupported. With , you have apparently decided on a schizophrenic solution. You have determined that the reader should be told in the infobox succession box that ] has not been succeeded by another politician, that her district was subject to radical redistricting (all of which is correct), but in the identical succession boxes at the bottom of the page you wish to tell the reader that Ms. Lee has been supplanted by another politician, as if she has been voted out of office or resigned (which is not true). I cannot support any solution which pretends that succession boxes may be treated differently if depending on their page placement. ] (]) 17:47, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
	:::::The status quo is that a silly consensus has been established for infoboxes. I don't agree with it, but I respect it. The status quo is that all users agree that succession boxes are not infoboxes. FYI Infoboxes are supposed to tell you the history of the subject of the article, in this case the life of the politician. The politician is still sitting, having changed district numbers any number of times, so any reference to the district numbers is out of scope in the infobox. There should be only listed "US Representative from State X" and the total time of the tenure. In the case of currently sitting congressman there could be added "currently representing the Xth District". To split it up in the infobox is silly, and bloats the box unnecessarily. The succession box is supposed to tell you about the history of the office, and refers in its title to the pertaining list which shows clearly that the politician was preceded and succeeded in any district, as legally numbered, by somebody else. I suggest that you cease now to mix up apples and oranges. I have ]. In the meanwhile I urge you to refrain from further edit-warring. ] (]) 13:34, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
	::::::Binksternet still continues to edit war even after being told many times that the succession boxes at the '''bottom''' are different than the ones in the infobox. ] (]) 01:56, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
	:::::::TL565, you are looking at a boomerang as well, since to restart the edit warring, your revert going against {{u|Ohnoitsjamie}}. You and Kraxler are focusing your efforts on dividing the succession box into two kinds: one that is in the infobox and one that is a footer navbox at the bottom of the article. You and Kraxler have settled on the outlandish idea that one succession box can say one thing, while the other succession box can say another thing. The point you are not getting is that nonsensical succession by district after radical redistricting is still nonsense if it is high up in the article or low down in the article. The altitude of the nonsense does not make it more palatable. ] (]) 02:59, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
	::::::::Binksternet, you can keep saying it is nonsense all you want, but it does not change the fact that whatever was implemented to the infoboxes does not apply to the navbox in the bottom. By the way, it isn't any less nonsensical to have the box say "redistricted" over and over again. It defeats the purpose of the succession box in the first place. ] (]) 03:21, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
	:::::::::The edit war continues, now also at , although consensus remains that succession boxes are not infoboxes, and although a new RfC was opened, as linked aboved. Since Binksternet does not follow the guideline at ] "During a dispute, until a consensus is established to make a change, the status quo reigns.", I propose a 0RR restriction for Binksternet. <small><span class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 14:25, 10 January 2015 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned -->
	===Discussion of 0RR restriction for Binksternet===
	*I '''withdraw''' this proposal. Some commenters say that 0RR is too harsh, and that it would interfere with Binksternet's legitimite vandalism patrolling. Having given it some thought, I agree with these objections. The other commenters are, unfortunately, confusing content issues with behavior issues. It is irrelevant who is right or wrong, neither side can claim a right to edit-war because they think they are right and the other side is wrong. ] (]) 17:03, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
	As an editor with an extensive block log for edit warring and currently engaged in an edit war, the following is proposed: "] is prohibited to revert any edit on Misplaced Pages."
	* '''Support''' as proposer, per the above discussion. ] (]) 14:24, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
	* '''OPPOSE''' - Times change, redistricting is an example of that. ] understands that WP policy and procedures need to be flexible enough to adapt to changes in the ''real world''. "How its been done for years" is not a valid reason to not change or update how the project presents information. --] ] ☮ღ☺ 18:51, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
	*'''Oppose'''. This is too restrictive to be practical - and it is not clear from the above, that any restriction is merited anyway.--<span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva;font-size:10pt;color:#000000">] ]</span> 19:02, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
	*'''Oppose''' – I don't see this as anything like clear-cut enough for such a restriction. ] (]) 19:04, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
	* '''Support''' The fact that this user is as experienced as they are, yet continue to regularly edit war against standing consensus, tells me that they knowingly do this in complete disregard for policy. Maybe a short period with this restriction will help change their attitude, and it can be lifted at a later time when they agree to stop edit warring. ] (]) 19:13, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
	* '''Oppose''' A few editors who don't like Binksternet's position on infoboxes does not merit such an onerous restriction. <b>] ]</b> 21:19, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
	* '''Oppose''' – without understanding the issues in detail, it seems clear that Binksternet is a serious and conscientious editor involved in a two-sided disputed and working in good faith. This is more likely a boomerang situation. ] (]) 21:29, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
	*'''Oppose:''' Agree that boomerang applies here, and that this is a vindictive and frivolous complaint. No evidence was produced that Binksternet violated any of our policies or guidelines in letter or in spirit. ] (]) 22:28, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
	* '''Support''' per the above discussion. ] (]) 22:35, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
	*'''Oppose, of course'''. Thanks for the good faith from the majority here who believe I have the project's best intentions at heart. This retaliatory proposal by Kraxler appears to me to be an attempt to remove a strong argument from his path, to clear out a point of stiff opposition so that he can get his way in the dispute. That's not sufficient reason for 0RR proposals; they must clearly show that the encyclopedia needs to be protected against disruption. Kraxler might want to take another look at the behavior of TL565 and SleepCovo to see where the edit-warring disruption is coming from. <br>I make many thousands of edits to Misplaced Pages, 137k as of today. Some of my edits add extensive text to articles, or research to talk pages, while the majority by sheer quantity revolve around the reversions of faulty work from others, including the removal of vandalism and the issuing of warnings. There are lots of ways to help the wiki; in making so many thousands of reversions, my style is based on the idea that a house should not be built of bad lumber. I think my reversion work is constructive in the sense that bad work is cleared out so that good work can be made in its place. The wiki would not be helped if I were to be prevented from reverting. <br>I will abide by whatever consensus is determined in the current RfC about succession boxes. There is no need to protect the wiki from me. Rather, the focus should be on the behaviors of Kraxler, TL565 and SleepCovo who have not been respecting the existing consensus. ] (]) 02:15, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
	*'''Oppose''' per 'we don't impose sanctions to enable people to win content disputes'. ] (]) 03:00, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
	*'''Oppose''' - AndyTheGrump beat me to it. This looks too close to gaming for comfort. - ] (]) 03:04, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
	*'''Strongly Support''' per ]. Using consensus alone as an argument for reversion is ridiculous. Looks like a clear violation of the DRNC policy to me. Furthermore, Binkster lied about no more edit warring to get out of a block. This appears to be a repeat problem. --] (]) 03:08, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
	::You appear to be unfamiliar with what you are commenting about. ] (]) 03:58, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
	:::How so? I see what is going on. You are trying to count California officials who got redistricted as not having preceding candidates, apparently assuming if the borders were too heavily gerrymandered that the district no longer exists in its present form. Be that as it may, this would seem a departure from previous Misplaced Pages style, and I remain unconvinced that is an excuse for edit warring, harassing others with AN/I notices, or ignoring multiple users across multiple pages who disagree with you.
	:::It seems like you want to force your will regardless of consensus or discussion; and this is borne out by your prior history of edit warring. I actually agree somewhat with your position itself that gerrymandering can alter districts so much that keeping track of which candidates go where becomes an issue; but I don't think you're going about communicating your position with others in the right way. You ought to be focusing more on talk page discussion and less on reverting everyone who disagrees with you, and then falsely accusing them of being the ones edit warring, when you're the one departing from policy.
	:::Regardless of how distasteful you might find California gerrymandering to be, you should still be going about this through discussion with other users, not trying to use edit warring and harassment to force your views on others. I have less of a problem with your position than your tactics. --] (]) 08:31, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
	::::You are mistaken in your conjecture about my position on gerrymandering, which is actually a big "so what". I couldn't care less about it. However, now that redistricting is part of a politician's biography, I'm concerned that we prevent nonsensical navbox results.
	::::The past RfC on precedence/succession still stands as the applicable policy, which makes it the existing consensus. If there was a previous consensus related solely to navboxes then we wouldn't be here. So once again, my editing of politician's biographies in accordance with consensus. ] (]) 22:03, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
	:::::I read and nowhere does it say all redistricting links should be redirected to the ] like you were doing. I am still curious why you were insisting on redirecting all the redistricted links to the ]. The RfC you cited does not appear to justify edit warring for that purpose. --] (]) 05:50, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
	*'''20 mule team Oppose''' So somebody vandalizes an article and Bink isn't allowed to fix it? There is certainly some gaming going on here. Oh and consensus is a perfectly valid reason for a reversion. ]&#124;] 03:09, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
	*'''Strong oppose''' on the grounds of what looks to be borderline gaming. -- <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> 03:10, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
	*'''Oppose'''. Actually, most, if not the vast majority, of Binksternet's reverts don't seem to be in error. Planning such a ban would take away any small benefit that ''may'' be achieved here. ] (]) 05:13, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
	*] '''Oppose''', and boomerang the proposer. Good grief. ] (]) 05:21, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
	*'''Strong Oppose''' It is not even the first time that Kraxler's edits are ]. I find the reverts of Binksternet to be justified and we must also look at the edit history of , and , Binksternet and Ohnoitsjamie have restored the pre-edit conflict version per ]. It is Kraxler and TL565 who are ]. ] <small>(] • ] • ])</small> 05:26, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
	::OccultZone, since you ], I choose to ignore your accusing me of bad faith. I '''never''' edit-warred in 8 years on Misplaced Pages. And, I opened a new RfC to try to resolve the issue by reaching consensus, not by edit-warring. ] (]) 14:40, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
	:::No it was other way around and how it rationalizes your ]? That was long ago and in fact I have made 2x edits than you during this period. Lets remember that you were actually ] and ]. You were also warned for edit warring, now you claim that you have never edit warred? You think that how we would know just because you remove just every criticism and any notification of violation of policies such infringing copyrighted image from your talk page. Come on, you are beyond incompetence and gaming this system or just showing your ] to understand these simple things. If you want to continue replying, consider moving this to below discussion because this failed proposal must not look more boring. ] <small>(] • ] • ])</small> 16:36, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
	*'''Oppose''' as being stupid, punitive, and far more likely to harm the encyclopedia than improve it. ] ] 08:18, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
	*'''Oppose''' and suggest that the complainants see an Australian weapon. The Infobox Officeholder discussion was well attended, and not hidden in any way whatsoever. Those who perversely see Binksternet as a villain here are grossly errant. ] (]) 16:01, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
	*The proposal was '''Withdrawn.''' Please do not add anything here. ] (]) 13:17, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
	====Discussion====
	::Binksternet, How many times must it be said that the so called consensus you are referring to '''does not apply''' to the box in the bottom as it is not an '''infobox'''. You stubbornly stick to this claim and falsely accuse people of not respecting consensus when it is you who has not been respecting consensus. You are not immune from edit warring, so don't use how long you've been on here as an excuse. On the page ], you just made '''13 reverts.''' That more than enough violates the 3RR. ] (]) 02:56, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
	:::The RfC about infoboxes set the standard for succession boxes, as that was the topic of discussion, which you can clearly see in the name "''']'''". The name of the RfC did not limit the result to succession boxes that are up high rather than ones found down low, nor did the discussion. The RfC was more general than you think: it was about succession in the case of radical redistricting. Absent any other working rule about succession boxes that are found in the footer, the consensus reached in the "successor/predecessor" discussion applies. Why do you think Kraxler started a new RfC? To change the existing consensus. ] (]) 03:58, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
	::::Nope, I looked at ], and it only refers to '''infoboxes only.''' Navboxes or "Succession boxes" as Kraxler calls them, are completely different and no such consensus was reached. So stop using an unrelated consensus, which was dubious in the first place, to think that you are exempt from edit warring. If you are talking about https://en.wikipedia.org/Template_talk:Succession_box#RfC, then you are wrong. Collect started that RfC not Kraxler. ] (]) 04:20, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
	:::Regarding my 13 reverts at the ] article, if you really have a problem with those reverts then you will want to file a case against me at ]. When you write up the case, make sure to explain why long-term abuse IPs ], ], ], and ] are all blocked for '''''two years''''' after they touched that article, and why ] just got blocked yesterday. Explaining those will help you put your case across convincingly. ] (]) 06:44, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
	::OccultZone: You clearly do not even know the subject of what you are getting involved in. Binksternet is claiming a consensus on infoboxes applies to succession boxes at the bottom of the page. That is incorrect. There is a current discussion at https://en.wikipedia.org/Template_talk:Succession_box#RfC, which has not closed. I am only reverting back to the status quo until a decision is reached. It is Binksternet who changed it from the oringinal version. ] (]) 05:38, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
	:::I am very aware of it. Binksternet had made a edit on 2 December and he referred to ], it was closed a few months ago. This ] is still running and it is not in your favor. That's why there was no reason to edit war and by misrepresenting the consensus you are just ]. ] <small>(] • ] • ])</small> 05:57, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
	::::Give me a break! Did you even read my above posts? ] applies to '''infoboxes,''' not the box at the bottom of the page. That's why ] was created to have it applied to the succession boxes as well, which seems even to me. Don't make accusations unless you really know what the dispute is about. A ] is now taking place to change the '''infobox''' yet again. Do not confuse the infoboxes with the succession boxes at bottom of the page. ] (]) 06:17, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
	:::::Is there a rationale in stating same thing differently? ] <small>(] • ] • ])</small> 06:34, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
	::::::] and ] are two different templates. To claim that a consensus that applied to one template applies to the other is false. That's why ] was created, otherwise there wouldn't have been any point in creating it in the first place. I too was confused at first, but I think I explained the difference enough times already. ] (]) 06:48, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
	:::::::Manually it is incorrect to fill 2 different entries in same parameter on a same article, even if the actual template is different, the meaning is still same. ] <small>(] • ] • ])</small> 08:23, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
	::::::::Sorry but it isn't. As per ]:
	*'''Infoboxes''' are supposed to tell about the history of the subject of the article, in this case, the life of politician.
	*'''Succession boxes''' are supposed to tell you about the history of the '''office'''.
	And once again, ] would not have been created by the same user who created ] for the infobox if they were the same. ] (]) 08:37, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
	*'''Note''': I have created this section so that rest could be discussed here, above should be kept only for votes. ] <small>(] • ] • ])</small> 08:20, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
	{{od}}Just to explain what I see happening here. Binksternet appears to be changing the redistricting links in these infoboxes/succession boxes so that rather than going to previous California legislators who held the district in the past, the links saying "redistricted" go to the ] page instead.
	In essence what occurs is that the ] like the ] and ] has a long history of redrawing district boundaries to give advantage to certain politicians. In essence the politicians conspire to redraw the district boundaries regularly so the more established politicians always have favorable constituencies, even if this means changing the district boundaries every election or every other election.
	Binksternet seems to be redefining links which say "redistricting" so that instead of linking to California district legislators they go to the California redistricting commission's page. For example in Barbara Lee's case she represented the 9th congressional district of California while Jerry McNerney now represents the 9th district, Lee now represents the 13th district. McNerney is listed as 9th district now but actually the district had been numbered as the 11th district. Basically the California State Legislature plays fast and loose with district numbers and boundaries which makes it tough to tell which politicians preceded whom, especially since the district boundaries keep changing all over the place.
	In looking into this further I found the following policy section on infoboxes:
	] It was added by CBM in 2007.
	{{cquote|Where a politician was redistricted into a new district, you can use prior_term to indicate which district(s) he was in before. This saves space in the infobox by not generating a completely new office each time redistricting happens. If you do this, it is recommended that you list the person preceded when the subject first took office and the person succeeded when the subject last left office. Where the use of "same district number" is used for determining "predecessor" and "successor" in any office, but where the area is so altered as to make such a "predecessor" or "successor" of little or no biographical value, the word "redistricted" should be used rather than using names of officeholders whose connection is accidental by virtue of district number, but unrelated to any election contests between officeholders.}}
	Kraxler on the other hand points to policy on succession boxes, and that the community has not yet decided to adopt the infobox policy language when it comes to succession boxes:
	]
	So if I understand all of this correctly, both have policies they can point to, one on infoboxes, the other on succession boxes. Both actually are adhering to the infobox policy by including the word "redistricted" but Binksternet wants that link to go to the California Redistricting Commission's page, while others including Kraxler and TL565 think it should go to an actual politician's page. You can see the discussion going on about this at ] What really makes this all complicated is that if you check the pages in question, the succession boxes are apparently used WITHIN the infoboxes so both are being used.
	Binksternet, apparently unsatisfied with the RFC result on succession boxes, is just edit warring to change pages, including those with succession boxes. Now, why it's so important to Binkster that California Democrat politicians not be shown with past district candidates, and all the redistricted links go to the California Redistricting Commission instead of politican pages, is anyone's guess. Frankly I haven't figured it out. In retrospect maybe he just wants people to know more about the shady gerrymandering process going on in California, and that's why he wants the links to go to a page with info about redistricting?
	I do think such a decision should be made by the community, and the RFC vote seems perfectly split right now. I'm not convinced Binksternet should just be edit warring in some of these cases. The whole thing is very complicated though, I'm not sure present policy addresses where the redistricting links should direct to. And the RFC doesn't seem to have reached a consensus yet. I don't think this should be solved by edit warring and pasting edit warring notices everywhere though. --] (]) 21:10, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
	:Your insinuation is wrong—I'm not a political activist pushing a position. Such conjecture is unhelpful here. ] (]) 22:03, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
	::Perhaps, but you do seem very interested in having all of these links which say "redistricting" go to the ], and I'm not sure why that is. Care to elaborate? Personally I don't care one way or the other where they go, and happen to find the whole redistricting/gerrymandering process interesting just from a political perspective. I don't like it myself so wouldn't really care if the links go to a page critical of redistricting. I just think that change should be based on consensus, and it seems like you are trying to edit war to make the changes rather than communicating with those you disagree with. If I'm wrong about that please show otherwise. --] (]) 22:07, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
	:::Was there any consensus to differentiate these two parameters that are usually same? ] <small>(] • ] • ])</small> 00:13, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
	::::I'd like to know that also, everyone seems to agree that the word "redistricted" should be used but the controversy is apparently over where the link should go once you click the word "redistricted" on these pages. My guess is there's never been a vote on where the links should go, and I wonder whether there's even been much discussion on the topic. I hadn't looked into the controversy until I noticed it here on the noticeboard. Just from what I'm seeing, I really question whether the issue of where these redistricting links should go has been talked out so consensus could be reached. The infobox policy being referenced by Binksternet did not specify these redistricting links need to go to the ] that I saw, so I'm not convinced it justifies the controversial edits he's making. --] (]) 05:28, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
	::::I just checked the vote that Binksternet was referencing on the Barbara Lee revision history again. The vote can be seen . Doesn't look it identified where the redistricting links should direct to, and never even mentioned the destination of hyperlinks. I don't think it justifies Binksternet redirecting all the links to the ] - and I'm still curious why he is doing that. --] (]) 05:44, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
	:::::You are going off on a tangent here. Nobody has been arguing about what links may or may not go into the word "redistricted". Please stay on track. ] (]) 06:05, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
	===Proposal: Content issue===
	Since this is clearly a content issue, and since removing Binksternet's right of reverting is clearly absurd, I propose that ], which intends to resolve the issue, and which has been open since November 26, be given a wider audience to the relevant WikiProject(s) and also to anyone with relevant knowledge and editing history, and after a due amount of time, be carefully supervised and closed by an uninvolved admin. And barring a flaw in the RfC or its wording, the result being held up as the standard for the relevant succession boxes. If anyone has any proposed amendments or changes to this proposal, please voice them. Otherwise, I think this is possibly the only way to solve this issue. ] (]) 10:11, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
	:The discussion at ] was inconclusive, and IMO has become moot since a new effort was made to solve the problem, the issue of infoboxes and succession boxes, their similarities and their differences, is now being discussed at ]. ] (]) 14:18, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
	::Well then, try again? Or keep trying? I agree with Softlavender, this is a content issue, not an ANI issue. No admin action is warranted (certainly not your absurd proposal), and if this stays open, it's just going to continue its current course you're on, where you guys argue amongst yourselves with minimal input from others. As its a content issue, you need to discuss somewhere where people are looking to fix content issues. That's not here. ] ] 13:45, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
	:::You all are invited to comment at ]. I agree that content issues should be debated elsewhere, and it's being done. This whole discussion was opened to look into a violation of ] which is a behavior issue. Unfortunately, most commenters instantly get sidetracked, and try to analyze the content question. That's not what this thread was about. Just to recapitulate the facts: A certain consensus on infobox usage was established some months ago. On November 26, 2014, an RfC was opened to discuss whether this should, or not, apply to succession boxes. Opinions were divided, and the RfC is still open to date. 6 days later, on December 2, being aware of the open discussion, and trying to make a point, Binksternet changed succession boxes. That is IMO contrary to ]: "''During a dispute, until a '''consensus is established to make a change''', the status quo reigns.''" It's not "''until consensus is reached''", it's "''until consensus is reached '''to make a change'''''" While this exact question was being discussed, the status quo should have been maintained. It seems to be clear enough to me. Since almost all commenters did not comment on STATUSQUO, but right away commented on the merits of what was or was not the scope of the established content consensus, I agree that this thread won't go anywhere and it should be archived. I apologize to all those who feel their time was wasted here. ] (]) 15:19, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
	::::The RfC you started was to establish a new consensus, to change the old one. The old consensus was that listing succession in the case of radical redistricting was not useful. Since this discussion had a bearing on succession boxes inside infoboxes, it was the closest established guideline applicable to succession boxes outside of infoboxes. Misplaced Pages's normal practice is to see what is the closest applicable guideline, so it was abundantly clear which one that was. It was the working consensus, but you engaged in wiki-lawyering to remove common sense from the equation, to try and convince people that a biography could have conflicting information in its two succession boxes. That's why you got so little traction here with your complaint. ] (]) 05:24, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
	:::::Are you really still confused by the two templates? Succession boxes are '''not''' infoboxes. Nowhere in that consensus did it mention the succession box at the bottom. It specifically said: ''"Consensus is reasonably clear that successor or predecessor should not be used in '''infoboxes''' where significant redistricting has taken place."'' Yes, Kraxler opened a new RfC to establish a new consensus on '''infoboxes.''' Besides, if the consensus was so clear and it applies to succession boxes as well, then why did ] end up being inconclusive? I seriously don't know if you are still confused at this point or just stubbornly refuse see the difference between infoboxes and succession boxes. ] (]) 06:45, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
	:::::Regardless of what you believe about how that consensus applies to succession boxes as well, it does not give you the right to keep reverting multiple users who disagreed with you. ] (]) 07:02, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
	* In my opinion, neither Kraxler nor anyone else involved in this dispute should have opened or should be opening a new RfC while this ANI is in progress and while ] is still open. Both of these matters need to be cleared up first, by uninvolved admins. ] (]) 05:57, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
	:::RfCs may be opened at any time. The "relevant RfC" has become stale, and has a 99% chance of being closed as "no consensus". That alone is a reason to make a new effort to solve the problem by discussion, instead of edit-warring. That's what I do. I discuss, I do not edit-war. This ANI is not about content, it is about behavior. But I agree that uninvolved admins should clear up the RfC at Template talk:Succession box and this ANI. I suppose it's because of the holiday/vacation season that there are not many of them here around. We'll have to be patient. ] (]) 13:32, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
	===Binksternet again===
	Come on Binksternet! Now you are edit warring on this very page! How is Kraxler not allowed to withdraw and close his own proposal? You are unnecessarily reopening the proposal when he has clearly withdrawn from it. Who are you to undo his edit? To revert it and say he needs to ask somebody else to close it is completely ridiculous. ] (]) 07:28, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
	:Just like existing consensus for how to deal with succession in the case of redistricting, you apparently misunderstand who is allowed to close off a discussion using ]. It requires someone who is uninvolved, which rules out Kraxler. Kraxler's sour jabs in his summary cannot be accepted as an uninvolved evaluation. ] (]) 07:46, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
	::Kraxler is the original proposer and you are reopening the discussion after he withdrew from it and it was closed for a whole day. Now you are edit warring on this very page reverting it twice. You have no authority to make such an edit, so stop the nonsense! Take a look in the mirror before you talk about "sour jabs". ] (]) 08:02, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
	:::If you are not going to address the point of Kraxler not being allowed to use that template when he's involved, then there is no reason for me continuing to debate with you. ] (]) 08:07, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
	::::You are full of it! It is not up to you to change his edit. It is ridiculous to reopen the discussion he created and withdrew from in the first place. If the proposer withdraws from their own proposal, the discussion becomes pointless and should be closed immediately. Stop acting like you are some guideline enforcer. I'm starting to think the proposal wasn't so harsh after all. ] (]) 08:39, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
	*I think Binksternet has a point. Kraxler withdrew his proposal and then closed it because it started to boomerang on him. I don't think he's allowed to close it. I think an uninvolved admin has to do that. Not to mention the fact that the proposal is a subset of an overarching ANI that he started. It seems like Kraxler is trying to close that part of the ANI so that he can possibly avoid a boomerang. He certainly cannot close it while inserting a snipe at Binksternet and at the !voters. ] (]) 10:32, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
	::Then somebody needs to just close it already. Clearly no one wanted to be bothered by it, so why not let it be closed? Binksternet completely went out of his way to create an unnecessary new dispute just when it was dying down. If Kraxler was not allowed to withdraw and close his own proposal, then an uninvolved admin should have reverted it, as Binksternet is involved himself. It is pointless to reopen the discussion when the proposer has already withdrawn and wasn't getting much support. This is wasting everyone's time ] (]) 10:52, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
	:::According to ]: "There are no policies that directly dictate how to close a discussion." So, if Binksternet is asserting that policy prohibits Kraxler from closing his own AN/I report, then they should be expected to cite the relevant policy. ] (]) 16:10, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
	::::I linked to the instructions at ] but here is a quote taken from that page: "When used on a talk page this template '''should only be used by uninvolved editors or administrators''' in conjunction with the ] and relevant advice at ]. It should not be used by involved parties to end a discussion over the objections of other editors."
	::::(Emphasis in the original.) I trust that makes the issue clearer for everybody. ] (]) 22:46, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
	::::: How so? Is AN/I a talk page? ] (]) 19:07, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
	::::::It isn't an article page. Talk page guidelines apply to noticeboards. ] (]) 19:35, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
	:::::::Yes, discussions in general are to be closed by uninvolved parties, regardless of the avenue. ] ] 20:02, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
	:::::::: But, if ], why can't your close your own AN/I thread? Regardless, if this is the accepted norm, this should be written into a page with more clout than a template description, which is neither a guideline or policy. ] (]) 20:33, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
	:::::::: Maybe I missed it, but I don't see anything at ] about closing discussions. ] (]) 20:36, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
	:::::::::Read through ]. It's about discussions in general, it would apply to all venues, especially AN/ANI, which run effectively like a talk page discussion would... ] ] 20:43, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
	:::::::::: Okay, thanks. I see that it says, "Any ''uninvolved'' editor may close most discussions, not just admins", but again, ] is not a guideline or policy; it's an ''information page'', and it seems to me that if this is in fact an accepted expectation, which I agree that it is, this ought to be spelled out at a policy or guideline page. Don't you think? ] (]) 20:48, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
	:::::::::::Yes, its just uninvolved editors, not admin. That's why I just said "parties". (Though ] outlines what you are asking for in the context of Admin, at least.) Didn't realize CLOSE was not hard policy, I don't usually have to cite it to begin with, it's pretty generally accepted, taught, and followed on the project, as far as I've experienced, and I didn't see the "This is an Essay" tag on it, so I just assumed. Anyways, like I said, it's usually pretty well followed, but if this is a recurring problem, then yeah, I guess it could be stated exactly as a guideline (if its not already). It kinda seems kinda like common sense/good taste sort of thing though, to me, just like one shouldn't try to count their own votes in a popularity contest, you know? Its just asking for trouble. ] ] 20:57, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
	:::::::::::: I absolutely agree in principle, but it's a pet peeve of mine when editors imply that a certain action is forbidden by policy, only to realize that it's in an essay or information page, but not a guideline or policy. Also, I had no idea that once you open an AN/I thread you cannot close it even if you have a change of heart. Maybe that should be stated more clearly as a warning to anyone posting here. I think the whole boomerang thing is overplayed/gamed, and it would be nice if users could learn something here without fear of getting punished for their every mistake. It's like if you called the police in good-faith, then realized that because you were wrong about something you might get arrested instead. ] (]) 21:08, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
	== Extensive edit-warring, severe COI-violations and refusal to hear ==
	For a long time now, the article ] has been the subject of intense arguments. That people have different opinions is not a problem, but the user ] is violating a number of policies, and openly declaring he will continue to violate policies because he stand for the ]. The most immediate concern is his extensive edit warring at the article , , , , , , , . Even though several users have pointed this out on the talk page, Renejs declared he will continue to edit war because he is right. . Another problem related to the same user concerns ]. The user has self-identified as Rene Salm, one of the laymen who has published about this fringe theory (fringe is a non-derogatory sense, just indicating it is rejected by most scholars) and his Misplaced Pages account is an ] to try to make his theory seem more mainstream. At the talk page of the article, several users have tried to reason with Renejs and explain the policies of conflict of interest, gaining consensus, and abstaining from edit warring , are just two of several examples. Having tried to reason with Renejs for weeks (even though several others have done it much more and much better than me), I told him yesterday as a final warning that unless he starts to abide by Misplaced Pages rules, ANI would be the only option , ] agreed while ] proposed Renejs should self-revert and promise to start following the rules . That would have been preferable, so I waited an extra day, but as Renejs just continues as before, convinced that his is the ], there seem to be few remaining options. Last but not least, as CMT proponents always claim there is "conspiracy of Christians", I should point out that none of this is a comment on who actually ''is'' right or wrong, but on the never-ending policy violations by the SPA, especially coupled with his "promise" to continue to violate said policies.] (]) 22:39, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
	*I think we've got a really good basis for a topic ban here. ] (]) 22:41, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
	*'''Comment''' - Unfortunately, this is a case that was deeply botched by the outgoing Arbitration Committee in order to close in 2014, and they failed to impose the requested discretionary sanctions, which would permit the topic-ban by arbitration enforcement. ] (]) 23:30, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
	:: This is very much troubling. The most troubling diff is the January 2nd one where he says he will deliberately game the system by reverting to 3 times a day, opting that he has 'no other choice' to do such. This editor has been told repeatedly to stop, think, and listen and he seems to not think that they're actually saying that to him, or that it doesn't apply because he's right. A topic ban would be suitable, but I think that a 0RR restriction would be better; forcing him to not revert but discuss on talk page his changes, and try to get consensus for them would be better. That would negate all the reverting, and force him to present his changes on the talk page in an attempt to get consensus. ] (]) 23:33, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
	::: I'm not sure that is ''more'' troubling than the COI he rather clearly has on this topic. ] (]) 23:48, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
	:::: Yeah, but technically, you aren't disallowed from editing the page, only strongly discouraged. The diff represented means that he's willing to ], violate the spirit of the edit warring policy, and ignore all objections. ] (]) 23:54, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
	::::: I agree, I would never bring up a situation at ANI where a serious user had a COI, so what triggered the report was the extensive edit warring, the "promise" to continue and the refusal to hear. But I think the COI is a an additional problem in this context, as it adds another dimension to the problem with the SPA.] (]) 00:03, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
	*Reviewing this user's talk page history, it doesn't look good. The user seems to regularly use a claim to expertise as a justification for OR and discarding other editors' opinions (eg ). I'm not sure a TBAN is the right approach here - the problems seem more fundamental than related to a particular topic. ] (]) 00:32, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
	:*Having reviewed the editor's entire history , I don't know that he has ever really edited outside of the history of Jesus topic. His only apparent substantial editing in history was in regards to the ]/] articles, which was apparently the topic of his published work. A topic ban from ] would deal with all those problems, or, alternately, I suppose if we think of him as being basically an SPA on the topic of Jesus, a site ban might not be unreasonable. ] (]) 00:47, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
	Declaring their commitment to edit war to push their version of the ] is grounds for a 0RR restriction or a topic ban in my book. ] (]) 03:32, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
	::In my defense, I'd like to say that (1) I wasn't the first to revert (that honor goes to Mmeijeri) and so don't think I started the "edit war"; (2) I was by no means the only one to revert. The list is as follows (with descending number of reverts): Renejs -- 8, Bill the Cat 7 -- 5, Mmeijeri -- 2, Jeppiz -- 2, Gekritzl -- 2, T. M. Drew -- 1; (3) I've been a very active explainer of my reasons on the Talk page, very solicitous to listen to others and follow logic in this discussion, not emotion. I started the RfC section to get input as to why we should keep the Grant statement at the root of this whole bruhaha--I've simply acted according to logic: there IS no reason to keep the Grant quote because nobody's offered a reason, while very good reasons have been offered to the contrary! (4) I've been a big provider of new information, gathering, compiling, and uploading the reference section "Citations Demonstrating Scholarly Support for the CMT" (https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Christ_myth_theory#Citations_Demonstrating_Scholarly_Support_for_the_CMT); (5) I've tried to be cordial despite in-my-face insults like "Peddle your fantasies somewhere else", and Bill the Cat 7's claim of "consensus" without Gektrizl or myself included; (6) if you read the short explanations in the revert history, you'll see that I'm not focused on gaming the system but on the facts, using the words "provably false", "obviously false", etc. In fact, I think Gekritzl and myself are the only editors who have been 'content' oriented in this whole edit war, while all the other editors seem 'behavior' oriented and have forgotten that it should be about the facts. Here's the revert history with the explanations on the history page:
	::- Mmeijeri 12:14, 30 December 2014‎ (Undid revision 640174799 by Renejs (That's arguing with the source, we'd need a reliable source who says it's no longer tenable)
	::- Renejs 21:00, 30 December 2014 (This is fact, not argument (as the preceding section of this article makes clear). Harpur & Brodie have appeared as Jesus mythicists since Grant wrote!)
	::- Jeppiz 22:51, 30 December 2014‎ (No need to repeat what has already been said. The text makes it clear Grant said this in 1977, and those two authors have already been mentioned.)
	::- Renejs 00:07, 31 December 2014 (The problem is precisely that what Grant said is now incorrect. The whole paragraph on Grant should probably be deleted.)
	::- T. M. Drew 03:22, 31 December 2014‎ (Grant's assessment is correct, and this sentence is not needed.)
	::- Renejs 20:12, 31 December 2014‎ (The facts prove otherwise.)
	::- Bill the Cat 7 18:42, 1 January 2015‎ (This is getting tiresome. CMT is FRINGE.)
	::- Renejs 17:31, 2 January 2015 (Deletion of provably false statement.)
	::- Bill the Cat 7 17:48, 2 January 2015 (It is provable. Take it to the talk page. If you want references, let me know.‎)
	::- Renejs 18:31, 2 January 2015‎ (I'm got references supporting the CMT, too, and they'll be on the Talk page soon.)
	::- Bill the Cat 7 19:18, 2 January 2015‎ (Yes, it's fringe. Take it to the talk page and see a whole host of quotes stating that it's fringe.)
	::- Renejs 21:20, 2 January 2015 (Mmerjeri already asked you to please obtain a consensus first as per WP:BRD.)
	::- Bill the Cat 7 21:55, 2 January 2015‎ (I did. We do.)
	::- Gekritzl 22:08, 2 January 2015 (Not a fringe theory.)
	::- Jeppiz 22:21, 2 January 2015 (A large number of sources have been given for the cat, stop the POV-pushing.)
	::- Gekritzl 22:49, 2 January 2015 (A large number of sources are given supporting Jesus Myth theory, stop POV.)
	::- Mmeijeri 19:46, 5 January 2015‎ (This is edit-warring, you do not have a consensus for this change.)
	::- Renejs 20:10, 5 January 2015‎ (Obviously false statement is deleted (see Talk). Stop being obstructive and edit warring.)
	::- Bill the Cat 7 02:18, 6 January 2015‎ (Peddle your fantasies somewhere else.)
	::- Renejs 05:03, 6 January 2015‎ (Grant's "no serious scholar" statement is obviously obsolete, as everyone knows.)] (]) 05:36, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
	:::Grant's statement is actually true, if you read the entire quote...
	::::''To sum up, modern critical methods fail to support the Christ-myth theory. It has 'again and again been answered and annihilated by first-rank scholars'. In recent years 'no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non-historicity of Jesus'—'''''or at any rate very few''''', and they have not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant, evidence to the contrary. Michael Grant, Jesus: An Historian's Review of the Gospels (New York: Scribner, 1995) p. 200''
	:::Therefore, it is not obsolete. And it is certainly fringe, as ] (click on the Show link to see the list). Rather than fixing the quote as it appears in the current article, he instead is trying to promote the CMT while misrepresenting what virtually all scholars have concluded. So, I think a topic ban is appropriate. ] (]) 13:33, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
	::::One more note, because I don't wish to tire administrator's with this issue. . . You're moving the goalposts, Bill, and are now engaging in a bit of slight-of-hand. You know very well that those important additional words ("or at any rate very few") is not in the CMT article. So, all the reverts never go there. That's not what this is about. This is about the wiki article and what IT says (which is wrong today), not what Grant may or may not have said (misquoted or otherwise). The "status quo" wiki version everybody wants to reinstate (except me and Gekritzl) is:
	::''According to Grant, "modern critical methods fail to support the Christ-myth theory". He adds that ''''no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non-historicity of Jesus'''' and says that the idea has been "annihilated" by the best scholars because the mythicists "have not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant, evidence to the contrary".''
	::::Not even the date 1977 is given in the above (that's found in the reference tag), so it reads as if the above were still current today, almost 40 years later. The nuts and bolts of this revealing issue are straightforward. According to the wiki version, ] (one of the most prominent historians and theologians of his generation) asserted that "no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non-historicity of Jesus." (In fact, the quote ultimately wasn't by Grant himself--he was actually citing somebody else, as his footnote reveals.) Such an assertion has long been obsolete. Not one, not two, but at least three (and arguably more) "serious scholars" have now come forward and denied the historicity of Jesus. I duly brought up their names--Robert M. Price, Thomas Brodie, and Richard Carrier--all "Jesus mythicists" with Ph.D's in a relevant field. At this information, it appears that certain editors simply went ballistic. I provided a lengthy reference section of "Citations Demonstrating Scholarly Support for the CMT" (https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Christ_myth_theory#Citations_Demonstrating_Scholarly_Support_for_the_CMT) in order to show that, indeed, there are numerous scholars who support this view today. I also started an RfC section (on the CMT talk page) inviting editors to give any reason at all why Grant's assertion--as stated on the wiki page!--might still be true. Nobody did. That RfC section is still there, by the way.
	::::The whole point, for me, is the admission that today we have multiple "serious scholars" who deny the historicity of Jesus. That is indisputable, and the CMT page needs to reflect that, and not continue saying "no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non-historicity of Jesus." In short, ''we can not revert to status quo!'' That's why I insist on deleting that assertion--it's false! We're not talking here about a carefully worded retrospective sense, e.g., "Though in 1977 Robert Grant stated. . . today a number of scholars endorse the CMT." That's something else, which no one has yet proposed. Everybody, instead, is insisted on retaining Grant's ''false'' wording (without any additional words). That's the problem.
	::::This is (or should be) a simple issue. I'm maintaining that a single critical assertion in the CMT article is no longer true, and I can easily prove my point--and have done so repeatedly on the Talk page. Astonishingly, however, other editors have ignored verifiability and made this an issue of revert warring and COI.
	::::I'm certainly not the most important element here, and have other things to do than edit Misplaced Pages. But I think Misplaced Pages is on the line in a small way, and in a sense so is its legacy. I can imagine--maybe a century from now--people saying, "Oh yeah. . . Misplaced Pages. . . Wasn't that the early digital encylopedia which couldn't handle controversy? Instead of keeping to its stated philosophy of verification, it caved to internal pressures--mostly of a conservative nature. The Jesus issue is a case in point. As late as 2015 Misplaced Pages still insisted there wasn't a single serious scholar who disputed the historicity of Jesus. Of course, there were quite a few such scholars by then--and had been since the turn of the millennium, if not before. . ." ] (]) 17:52, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
	:::::"Quite a few" doesn't really mean anything. What's the percentage? ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 20:15, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
	::::::Whether Grant's claim is true (or even properly cited) doesn't matter. It doesn't even matter whether the quote should stay or go, that can be decided by the normal consensus process, including things like adding the "dubious - discuss" tag that cannot be removed without a consensus, and of course the various conflict resolution procedures. The point is that edit-warring is against the rules. Renejs has no special privileges that allow him to operate outside the rules that apply to everybody else. He cannot be allowed to impose his will unilaterally. He should self-revert, add a dubious tag and appeal to some conflict resolution board. If he refuses to abide by the rules, I think he should be blocked for 30 days to show him you cannot get away with blatant violations of the rules. That also gives the rest of the editors an opportunity to work out a solution. ] (]) 20:40, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
	::I've never heard of a "dubious-discuss" tag. You know, I'm pretty inexperienced at Misplaced Pages. . . And I don't wish to claim "special privileges." The fact that these accusations are being leveled against me indicates that I'm not getting a fair shake. . . After all, don't you remember that it was I who started the RfC precisely to get 'input' on the Grant statement? That doesn't sound like someone who wants to "impose will unilaterally." But you don't like the facts I'm bringing, so you want to ban me. I understand this perfectly.] (]) 06:05, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
	:::Not only do I not want to ban you, I'm bending over backwards to prevent that from happening. If you agree you aren't very familiar with Misplaced Pages policy, you shouldn't go around lecturing people about it and ignoring the many complaints about your policy violations by others who are familiar with it. You should now self-revert, declare your intention to abide by the rules, and be very hesitant to assume others are wrong if they say you are violating the rules. That may not be enough to prevent a block or even a ban, but it's your best shot. You are free to add a "dubious - discuss tag", or one of several NPOV tags. None of these can be removed without a consensus. If you don't know how to use them, you should spend some time googling and using the Misplaced Pages search function. ] (]) 09:01, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
	::::Listen to Martijn here, OK? If you aren't familiar with policies and guidelines, then you certainly shouldn't be trying to impose your admittedly flawed understanding of them, or adding templates you don't apparently completely understand the usage of. Also, honestly, if you want to reduce the chances of some sort of sanction being imposed, you might really want to read ] and have a good chance of getting some help there. ] (]) 19:34, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
	{{od}} Just like ], this report has absolutely nothing to do with which version is right or wrong. The report is based on Renejs's behavior: repeated edit-warring, explicit "promise" to continue to edit war, and violations of COI. Content-related issues are irrelevant and belong at the talk page of the article.] (]) 21:07, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
	:Itemizing the various proposals made of late to deal with this situation below. ] (]) 21:21, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
	::Good idea.] (]) 19:21, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
	===Proposed topic ban of Renejs===
	*Proposed and supported by me and Blackmane above. ] (]) 21:21, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
	*'''Support''' The user has shown beyond any reasonable doubt that he is on Misplaced Pages with the sole purpose to push his own POV, he has shown time and time again that he will edit war to do this, and he has vowed to continue the edit warring. I think that's enough, even without the rather blatant COI.] (]) 21:52, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
	*'''Support''' If he/she is here to build an encyclopedia, then he/she can edit other topics. If he/she is ], then he/she will go away, or breach the topic ban. If he/she learns to edit collaboratively, then in time the topic ban could be removed.--<span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva;font-size:10pt;color:#000000">] ]</span> 19:47, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
	*'''Oppose''' Edits by Renejs have been in good faith with supporting citations. ] (]) 15:41, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
	*'''Oppose''' I don't see enough in the diffs provided to support a topic ban at this point. ] appears more reasonable than some of the interpretations of his diffs suggest. I don't know much about this area, but in the diffs provided above, some of the content he wants to include appears more neutrally written than the current text. --] (]) 20:29, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
	:The complaint isn't about his views, it's about his edit-warring and other policy violations. He is not trying to win over people to his point of view, he is trying to force his views on the article and refusing to accept the status quo text until a new consensus has emerged. Edit-warring isn't an acceptable way to deal with a content dispute. ] (]) 23:02, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
	::Once again, you are falsely accusing, Mmeijeri. I am not trying to "force views on the article and refusing to accept the status quo text until a new consensus has emerged." There IS consensus on the Grant status quo version--it is false! Do you want a singing telegram informing you about this? EVERYONE has *already* agreed (even you, I'm sure). No one is contesting that there is at least one "serious scholar" today who espouses the CMT. No one challenges that ], ], or ] (at least one of these) is a "serious scholar." As a formality, I opened the RfC on the talk page precisely for this point (which is pretty obvious, anyway), merely for 'official' confirmation. In sum, then, there is no dispute regarding content here. Now, once Grant's statement is seen to be wrong today, then there is absolutely no reason for keeping this very serious (and easily proven) falsehood in the article. It needs to go immediately. (Once again, I caution that the Grant quote is not a historical statement 'from 1977,' nor does the status quo version have the words "or at least very few.")
	::I think that this whole discussion and arbitration was wrong-headed from the start and that there never was cause for arbitration, which has IMO been trumped up. Jeppiz and Mmeijeri keep insisting it's not about content but about behavior. However, it is about *content determining behavior* (at least, my behavior). It is against my principles to revert to a statement which EVERYONE (including myself) has already determined to be false. I consider Mmeijeri's insistence on such a revert grotesque. If Misplaced Pages insists on retaining statements which have already been *proven* false, then I would want nothing to do with the encyclopedia anyway and a ban would be welcome to me. BTW, I can say that this Grant statement is a very rare case. I doubt I would (or could) be so insistent on any other statement. So, let's get beyond this and put aside a statement which everyone agrees is false.
	::I'm afraid Mmeijeri's edits show rigidity and great difficulty "hearing" the other side. . . Once again, there has *already been consensus* that the status quo Grant statement is false (the RfC section simply confirmed the obvious). There is no voiced disagreement on this point. . . Thus, his insistence upon reverting to an obviously false statement is wrong-headed and ''could'' be interpreted as POV pushing--for it is not fact-based. Similarly for Jeppiz, John Carter, Bill the Cat 7, T. M. Drew, and the editors who refuse to part with a (cherished) statement by a well-known scholar from 1977--a statement that today is obviously invalid. Is such insistance not POV pushing?
	::Mmeijeri seems philosophically opposed (and strongly so) to a change made in an article before the discussion phase has ended. I think this is theoretically correct. But what he refuses to grasp is that *in this case* there is no discussion--the status quo statement has already been determined false by EVERYBODY! No one (not even Mmeijeri) contests this. Thus, BRD is not in force. That's already past. Now it's time to reject the statement (or update it by consensus!) and move on.] (]) 19:43, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
	:::There may be a consensus that the statement as currently quoted is false, but not that it needs to be removed.
	::::Say no more. . . This is the problem--right here! You've got two parts to that sentence, Mmeijeri, and they don't go together: (1) There may be a consensus that the statement as currently quoted is false; and (2) but not that it needs to be removed. I say this: For heaven's sake, if there's "a consensus that the statement as currently quoted is false," then it needs to go! That's my point. You don't need TWO consensuses, one for the determination of falsehood, and another for the deletion. Someone else could come along and object that there needs to be a 3rd consensus, etc. etc. All this is unnecessary and nowhere in the Wiki policy, AFAIK. Somebody does, however, need to take action on the fact that a seminal assertion is false. That action is important. After all, what benefit is it if people work to determine if statements are true or false, and then but everybody dithers and no one takes action?
	:::::You don't need a second or a third consensus, you need only one, but it's a consensus on the concrete change you intend to make. You can't just take a consensus on a related point and couple it with an argument that demonstrates to your own satisfaction that your proposed change is justified. You can try to make a Bold edit to that effect, but if someone reverts it, you can't revert that revert or otherwise reinsert your change without obtaining a consensus on the actual change, which might include an appeal to a conflict resolution board to obtain a consensus. It's a very simple system: you need a consensus for every specific change you make. You don't have to wait for it, you are encouraged to be bold, but once reverted you have to obtain a consensus first. As for the "dubious - discuss" tag, see ]. ] (]) 17:30, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
	::: By your own summary of the reverts there are at least four people who oppose the change, and you're the only one advocating it. The truth or falsehood of Grant's claim is irrelevant. We quote people saying false things all the time, as inevitably we must when we neutrally report on a debate where various sources disagree. Two sides that contradict each other cannot both be right, and yet we must neutrally report both. Also, even if there now was a consensus the line should be removed, that does not justify your earlier edit-warring. ] (]) 20:23, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
	::::Let me make this even clearer: you refuse to revert a change that four or five people oppose and only you support. Clearly, you do not have a consensus for your change, and therefore the status quo version should remain. Nevertheless you refuse to revert. That's edit-warring, even if you are right. The details of the case don't matter at all, this is a purely procedural issue. If you think five editors are ganging up on you to push a point of view, then you can add an NPOV tag, a "dubious - discuss" tag and appeal to one of our conflict resolution boards. Yet you refuse to do that, and insist on having things your way. ] (]) 20:54, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
	::::*'''Comment'''I just looked though the article in question and I think that ] has some concerns, which don't justify bad behavior but may mitigate it to some extent. First, the criticism section does read as though people who put forward Christ myth theories are not serious scholars, which doesn't match the list of people and theories discussed in the article. Second, many of the sections with different theories already contain criticisms, so the article does, at least superficially, come across as non-neutral. I think it would be good for the article for all of you to give it another go with ]. If ] would agree to exercise patients and follow policy, then this thread should be closed. If that doesn't work, then a topic ban or more might be the way to go. --] (]) 23:11, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
	::::I am certainly willing to work with others and exercise patience. But to do so we have to work together and listen to each other, not just make rules for others.] (]) 00:20, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
	:::::I'm afraid I don't quite understand your comment. First you say ''some concerns'' don't justify bad behavior but then you argue that in fact it does. I don't think this is the place to discuss the content, suffice to say that it's an article on a fringe theory and the articles mixes both serious scholars and conspiracy theorists, so it's true it could and should be approved. But I know of no Misplaced Pages policy that allow heavy edit warring because one is convinced one is right. In the absence of such a policy, I'm afraid I fail to see the point of the comment above.] (]) 23:23, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
	:::::*'''Comment''' The bottom line is that after reading through this, I think you guys ought to give it another shot to work together. ], from the his comments above and below appears to want to make it work. I may very well be wrong, but my gut tells me you might just be able to make it work. --] (]) 00:55, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
	::::::I've been very willing to work with Renejs the whole time, and I think the others are too. The problem is not that we disagree with him (although we do), the problem is that he insists on reinserting a change that others have repeatedly reverted and otherwise objected to. He needs to stop edit-warring and try to obtain a consensus for the change he is proposing. If necessary, he can appeal to a conflict resolution board. If you want to join in the actual content dispute, you are more than welcome to do so, but on the Talk page, not here. The complaint here is his wilfully going against the consensus on the basis of an argument that he himself finds satisfactory but others don't. We aren't asking that he should stop arguing his case, but that he should stop edit-warring. You are not suggesting that he can unilaterally force a controversial change on the article before a consensus has been reached, are you? ] (]) 17:16, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
	::::This is really not the place to introduce the *highly charged* and probably complex issue of whether the CMT is "fringe theory". That category tag has already been the target of edit warring (it is presently not on the article) and clearly no consensus has yet been attained there (e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Christ_myth_theory&diff=639175941&oldid=639175067). Look, this very interesting article is really going to require the best in us all to attain NPOV. We all have a point of view, but I'm willing to work with you guys, if you're willing to work with me!] (]) 00:20, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
	:::::Right, so do you agree to '''stop edit warring''', '''revert your latest edit warring''' and to '''remove the sections about yourself from the article'''? ] (]) 12:42, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
	:::I'm glad the admins have kept this discussion open. It's Jeppiz who was largely responsible for hauling me in front of the admins for POV ("The user has shown beyond any reasonable doubt that he is on Misplaced Pages with the sole purpose to push his own POV," above). But Jeppiz' own considerable POV is now finally coming through, as with his one-sided view of "fringe theory" just mentioned above. We all have POV! It's like a zebra's stripes. We just don't all have the same POV. But by working together, we cancel out each other's POV and produce an article which is (hopefully) NPOV and beyond the scope of any single user. That's the beauty of Misplaced Pages--when it's working. But for this to work, it's critical to keep editors of a variety of POV's on board. If a user like Jeppiz is on a crusade to eliminate people with opposing POV, then Wiki gets a weak, non-fact-based article like the current one on the CMT--outdated and skewed to the conservative side, as admin 'I am One of Many' has implied above: "''First, the criticism section does read as though people who put forward Christ myth theories are not serious scholars, which doesn't match the list of people and theories discussed in the article. Second, many of the sections with different theories already contain criticisms, so the article does, at least superficially, come across as non-neutral. I think it would be good for the article for all of you to give it another go with Renejs''." Speaking for myself, of course, I concur. This article needs me! We don't want crusaders chasing people away. . . I will be more specific--this article NEEDS my POV precisely to counter the POV of Jeppiz and a few others. Evidently, the article has lacked my POV for some time, because it leans to the right (as admin noted above) and is a decade or more behind the times. (We see it now: we're arguing about a Grant quote from 1977, and three-quarters of the "Further Reading" section is before 1950!)
	:::If Wiki wants NPOV articles on Jesus (which is obviously a very important topic) it must accommodate users with a variety of POVs. This is how the system works--one balances the other. Though I don't agree with your POV, Jeppiz, I'm still willing to work with you. In fact, I welcome your participation, knowing you will cancel me out and Wiki will benefit. But are you ready to work with me? That's the question. And, if not, which one of us should go out the door? Obviously, the one who is NOT willing to collaborate, the one who insists "my way or the highway". . .
	:::Specifically, I've already answered your edit warring charge. It takes at least two to do that, and I provided a list of edit warriors above (which includes you).
	:::I've also answered YOUR demand that I revert my last edit. This is a reversion to a proven false statement. Why would anyone want this? Insisting on a proven false statement from 1977 demonstrates a serious inability to live with the facts today. That's more than just POV. '''Inability to tolerate proven facts is a serious liability for an agressive Wiki editor like Jeppiz'''. I would suggest, that if Jeppiz cannot accept the facts that 'fringe theory' is still unresolved and that the Grant statement is categorically false, then HIS role and behavior pattern needs to be examined. (Incidentally, I have no such opinion regarding Mmeijeri, who seems to have the gift of pulling to the center from all sides. I just think he has a hangup on protocol.)
	:::As for the section on me in the article, if users think it should be it removed, then remove it! I will stay entirely away from that discussion, per COI. That doesn't interest me at all.] (]) 18:16, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
	::::::I see no reason for him to remove the sections about himself, in fact I think he should steer clear of them. ] (]) 17:18, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
	*'''Comment''' I should clarify my comment re the topic ban. It is not to remove Renejs completely from the article indefinitely. I would only support a fixed length topic ban with the intention that Renejs go edit something that isn't as close to his interest and learn the ropes. This is true of most topic bans. Stepping away for a period to gain experience does work wonders as long as the Tbanned editor recognises the opportunity. ] (]) 22:31, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
	*'''Support''' I have seen quite a bit of edit warring on the Christ Myth Theory page and a couple of others. This person is not here to build an encyclopedia, but to harass and edit war.--<span style="text-shadow:grey 0.125em 0.138em 0.118em; class=texhtml">] ]</span> 18:28, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
	*'''Support''' per TMDrew. ] (]) 02:36, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
	*'''Support''' as per my above comments on the matter. The editor does not seem that they wish to change their opinion on the subject. ] (]) 04:33, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
	*'''Oppose''' for now. Too drastic a measure to try first. I think Renejes persists in his behaviour because he is getting away with it: his edit has been on the page for over a week, even though at least four editors object to it. Giving him a final warning and blocking him for thirty days if he doesn't react could change all that. ] (]) 16:58, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
	*'''previously involved support''' This is a perpetual issue on this article, and we need to start being severe with those who are disrupting the process of building real consensus. ] (]) 19:17, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
	===Proposed 30 day block of Renejs===
	*Which Martin Meijering proposed above. ] (]) 21:21, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
	:My actual proposal is to give him one final chance to do the right thing. This probably involves having an administrator issue a final warning. ] (]) 21:24, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
	*'''Support''' Way too much cyber ink has been expended on what is a fairly run of the mill case of edit warring and refusing to accept consensus. Let's start here and if they don't learn their lesson we can always come back to the more serious sanctions. -] (]) 19:10, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
	===Proposed site ban of Renejs===
	*Suggested by me above, but not necessarily supported by me, who would prefer a topic ban if anything, based on his edit history showing him to be basically an SPA on the broad topic of the existence of Jesus.] (]) 21:21, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
	*'''Support''' per John Carter.--<span style="text-shadow:grey 0.125em 0.138em 0.118em; class=texhtml">] ]</span> 18:29, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
	*'''Support''' per John Carter. ] (]) 17:50, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
	*'''Oppose''' I see no reason for a site ban unless and until he misbehaves on other topics as well, which seems unlikely. ] (]) 17:00, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
	*'''Oppose''' Edits by Renejs have been in good faith with supporting citations. ] (]) 15:41, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
	::Excuse me, how is repeatedly inserting a change that no one else supports and several others object to acting in good faith? I agree we should not be contemplating a site ban now, but I don't understand how people can say that without also pointing out there do need to be sanctions, because this blatant edit-warring is unacceptable. ] (]) 16:23, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
	-------------
	This "wikihounding" of myself by user Martijn Meijering (Mmeijeri) has gone on long enough. I appeal to the administrators, whoever you are, to adhere to Misplaced Pages policy and not to invented "protocols" by Meijering or anyone else, especially when they don't understand Wiki policy themselves (see further). Meijering has now emerged as the main engineer of sanctions against me, continually forcing this issue. He says it's not about content (the Grant citation in the CMT article)--but it is--and he's getting weirder and weirder, writing things like "Whether Grant's statement is true is utterly irrelevant"(]) Such an attitude is astonishing when Misplaced Pages is about verifiability and getting statements as correct as possible. The critical 1977 Grant citation in the CMT article ("no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non-historicity of Jesus") is causing this brouhaha, though it has already been verified FALSE by everybody today!
	I have been hauled in front of arbitration for removing the above proven false statement by Grant. This is, however, entirely correct Wiki policy, especially when there is consensus--and there has been consensus (contrary to Meijering's obstinate insistence on the contrary)--because NOBODY thinks the Grant statement is any longer true (or that it has been for quite some time)! In Misplaced Pages one is supposed to remove clearly false material. When I first removed this assertion, I explained why--first in the brief edits, and then on the talk page. Because of resistance, I finally instituted an RfC section on the CMT talk page to confirm the (obvious) incorrectness of Grant's statement today. But Meijering, Jeppiz, and others still resisted, and they even hauled me in front of the admins for this. Meijering wants to go through some kind of arcane process and "try to obtain a consensus for the change he is proposing"--when, of course, we already have complete consensus. He writes: "If necessary, he can appeal to a conflict resolution board"--but these are all his own false protocol requirements.
	In fact, a statement doesn't even have to be provably false to be removed--just unsourced: "Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed" (https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Verifiability). What is Meijering going on and on about here! I am being wikihounded, plain and simple. . .
	Meijering writes that I cannot "unilaterally force a controversial change on the article before a consensus has been reached"--but, once again, no one doubts that a consensus HAS been reached. This is what he refuses to see. We're talking about removing information from an article which is simply and easily proven false. (At least three PhD's in the field now ascribe to the CMT, and at least one has since the 1970's--the New Testament scholar Fr. ]).
	Here is Meijeri's convoluted solution (?) to this matter, which he astonishingly considers "very simple": "You don't need a second or a third consensus, you need only one, but it's a consensus on the concrete change you intend to make. You can't just take a consensus on a related point and couple it with an argument that demonstrates to your own satisfaction that your proposed change is justified. You can try to make a Bold edit to that effect, but if someone reverts it, you can't revert that revert or otherwise reinsert your change without obtaining a consensus on the actual change, which might include an appeal to a conflict resolution board to obtain a consensus. It's a very simple system: you need a consensus for every specific change you make. You don't have to wait for it, you are encouraged to be bold, but once reverted you have to obtain a consensus first." Sounds pretty damn complex to me, especially when we're dealing with a statement by Grant which the consensus has already determined to be untenable.
	Meijering makes such a big deal about Misplaced Pages policy when he himself doesn't understand it, as in his misinterpreting RfC policy (]--scroll to bottom). He continues to imperiously foist his OWN requirements for FALSE 'protocol' on me. The only reason I can see for this is presumably to attain compliance of behavior or even a topic ban. This is tantamount to censorship of the users which, of course, amounts to censorship of Misplaced Pages (POV).
	Finally, Meijering and Jeppiz come out with one ridiculous assertion after another. Here are a few:
	--Meijering: "The details of the case don't matter at all, this is a purely procedural issue."
	-- Meijering: "Whether Grant's statement is true is utterly irrelevant" (])
	--Meijering: "Whether Grant's claim is true (or even properly cited) doesn't matter. It doesn't even matter whether the quote should stay or go. . ."
	--Jeppiz: "this report has absolutely nothing to do with which version is right or wrong."
	I rest my case and probably deserve a Barnstar. I'm being wikihounded and appeal to the admins to deliver a severe warning (at the very least) against Meijering and Jeppiz concerning their aggressive and unjustifiable behavior. It would be a most serious matter if any of the admins allowed themselves to be swayed by a wikihound like Meijering, one who is an active, aggressive, and controlling editor who is apparently closely patrolling the Jesus pages on Misplaced Pages.] (]) 16:45, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
	:Four or five editors have reverted Renejs's edit, only he has supported it, yet he keeps reinserting it and it is still on the page. It's crystal clear that there is no consensus for his change. Also, I'm calling for the lightest possible sanction: a final warning telling him to revert his controversial change until there is a consensus for that specific change, as opposed to some related issue he thinks is decisive. If he refuses, I'm calling for a thirty day block.
	:I'm starting to wonder whether it was a mistake to bring this to the general section as opposed to the edit-warring / 3RR subsection. There is a clear violation of 3RR, which I thought was intended as a bright line. Can some administrator step in and take action? Is there anything we still need to wait for? A controversial change has been edit-warred into the article by a single SPA with a COI, over the objections of four or five other editors, and it has remained there for at least a week or so. I'm not sure why people are voting on the various proposed sanctions, especially the involved editors (myself included), since I thought this wasn't a vote. Are we waiting for some kind of quorum of administrators to weigh in? ] (]) 18:36, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
	::I think ] might be applicable here. The longer he refuses to revert himself, the stronger the case against him gets. ] (]) 18:40, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
	:I would like to add that Meijering (user Mmeijeri) has been accused of bullying in the past:
	https://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Mmeijeri#Me.2C_.22constantly_mentioning_other_editors_by_name.22. ] (]) 18:37, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
	::FYI: The user making that accusation (Homni) is a sock puppet of PennySeven and has been blocked indefinitely. ] (]) 18:39, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
	You were still bullying.
	And I see that you yourself have refused to self-revert, heatedly saying "don't lecture me! . . . I don't have to undo my revert". See: https://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Mmeijeri#Fractional_Reserve_Banking
	You're evidently a hypocrite too.
	:There as here I was insisting on a consensus for a controversial change. So, no, I did not have to self-revert. The reason you do have to self-revert in this case is because in your case the sequence was: bold edit by Renejs (fine), reverted by someone else (fine), reinserted by Renejs (edit-warring, several times in fact). You are not supposed to reinsert a bold change that has been reverted by someone else before obtaining a consensus. You are welcome to make a Bold change, and everybody else is welcome to revert it if they don't like it. ] (]) 19:09, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
	And what about your history of obstinately refusing to "get the point"? (https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Disruptive_editing#Failure_or_refusal_to_.22get_the_point.22) See: https://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Mmeijeri#Second_WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT_note . Here the user even said "we are all going of die of old age on this." See also: https://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Mmeijeri#Comment_from_PirateButtercup
	And I see you've resisted changes to the Grant quote before: https://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Mmeijeri#Second_WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT_note
	] (]) 18:59, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
	*'''Oppose''' Conceding some commonsense exceptions, we don't usually start with the nuclear option when dealing with a problem editor. -] (]) 19:12, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
	*'''oppose''' no evidence of problem editing outside the area. They are currently a ]. give them some ]. ] (]) 19:18, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
	== Removal of two edit summaries ==
	I'm sorry to trouble you with something so silly, but an editor left two uncivil edit summaries and . I have no interest in asking this editor to provide evidence of "Wikihounding", I just don't like seeing my good name smeared. Would it be possible to remove these ridiculous edit summaries? Thanks a lot. ] (]) 05:20, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
	:What's silly is the edit-warring you two are engaged in. ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 05:35, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
	:Yeah. No, those edit summaries are not disruptive enough to warrant removal. Also, even though Alansohn owns New Jersey, they are not allowed to make spurious charges of wikihounding (ie., harassment): {{U|Alansohn}}, put up or shut up please. If you're being hounded, make the case--and doing it in edit summaries for mainspace article edits is in poor taste. Thank you. ] (]) 03:19, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
	::I've started a discussion at ] so that consensus can be reached, and disputes like these avoided. Thank you. ] (]) 16:22, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
	===Wikihounding by ]===
	] has been belligerently and brazenly trying to create a confrontation with me, running here to WP:ANI for any perceived slight and hoping to exact his pound of flesh. Of late, he has started trying to pick fights over a series of articles I have edited, choosing articles I have edited and then making an edit to the same article over a topic that he has edit warred about before usually related to his misunderstanding of ] though any topic will do for a fight. In the edits he complains about above I called him out for Wikihounding, hoping that this would send an effective message, which has apparently failed. ] is defined as '''"singling out of one or more editors, and joining discussions on multiple pages or topics they may edit or multiple debates where they contribute, in order to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work. This is with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance or distress to the other editor. Wikihounding usually involves following the target from place to place on Misplaced Pages."'''
	:1) The Wikihounding above relates to ] where I edited and he followed , plus a series of two more tit-for-tat edits. Magnolia677 had never previously edited this article.
	:2) Tonight he was at it again. at the article for ], and he followed at , over an issue he has previously edit warred about.
	:3) This is not new. I edited the article for ] a month ago , followed minutes later by four minutes later. Magnolia677 had never edited this article before.
	I'd be happy to provide many further such examples. I don't know what Magnolia677 is trying to accomplish through this pattern of abuse, but an interaction ban would be most helpful. ] (]) 05:23, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
	:::I had a small problem earlier with Magnolia677 involving an edit war. It was an article on a town in NJ and I replaced the older statewide map that showed a pushpin with the location of the city in the state. I replaced it with the newer map showing the town's borders. These newer maps have become the standard for geography articles. --] (]) 06:04, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
	::::Thanks for the reminder of ] and his edit war over the use of pushpin maps for counties. Magnolia677 seems to be trying to right wrongs and avenge grievances related to his past history as ] and seems to be ] too often, choosing to perpetuate a general pattern of disruptive behavior. ] (]) 18:01, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
	== ], ] and ] violations by ] continue ==
	''See also, earlier report: ]
	High visibility article ] has been marred by disruption for months by fringe nationalists. Some of the accounts were ], therefore, caution is in order. The last on the scene is ], an account created 2014-08-19 specifically for ]. (Ping @ ] who keeps track of it.)
	Only a few weeks earlier, User:E-960 was reported to ANI by ] for abuse of editing privileges (see above) and on the same day warned by ] for violations of 3RR. ] warned him again . His notorious abuse of editing privileges therefore, prompted me to ] as soon as his bullying extended to ] where a slew of socks operated earlier. User:E-960 went berserk as a result of my report, which makes me think that he might be a sock of someone other than the ones mentioned, and therefore feels immune to the outcome of the report. Also, because he wasn't sanctioned earlier, his bullying got really extreme this time: with repeat attacks on my talk page, massive, abusive ] in ], lying through one's teeth, belittling editors who warn him of possible consequences, (ping @ ]), misrepresenting facts, outright vulgarity, and defacing talkpage posts whenever possible. Please do something, because this is simply unbearable. Thanks, ] ] 19:22, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
	:Er, I'm not keeping track of anything here. After a brief look at the diffs, there may well be grounds for admin action here, although the tone of your request is also concerning. You may request discretionary sanctions per ] and ], if you make a request at ] and the other editor has previously been alerted as described at ]. If not, you can alert them now and request sanctions if any problems reoccur. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 19:49, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
	::::Thanks {{u|Sandstein}}. Please explain. Should I file a request for discretionary sanctions even before this report is addressed? I'm still waiting for the results of my CheckUser request. E-960 is new account with only a handful of edits, all of them in the area of WP:ARBEE. It might be a sleeper account for edit warring elsewhere, i.e. with ] and others. I'm not sure whether to wait for feedback. Much obliged, ] ] 21:44, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
	::::::That's up to you. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 22:39, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
	:*'''I'd like to say something in my defense.''' All I did was update a couple of images on the Poland page in the Military and Transportation sections (just better pics of same subject matter, no major changes) and fixed one of the "stats" in the Infobox. Right away, user Poeticbent reverted '''all''' my edits. These were not major alterations that caused POV or Undue Weight. When a strong debate ensued, user Poeticbent started to link me to past sockpuppet cases and filed a Checkuser request where I was openly accused of homophobia, vandalism, promoting my hometown (not sure how I did that, when I only added a picture of a train, an airplane and a military vehicle) and sockpuppetry linked to 3 past cases. I'd like to say that false accusations are also a form of personal attacks. I'm sick of "senior" edits who protect their their past edits, or bully new editors even when the material like the "stats" I fixed were previously incorrect! --] (]) 20:12, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
	:::*This is one of the problems in WP; new users are not joining the Misplaced Pages project or dropping out; one cause of that are "senior" editors who squat on articles and challenge even the most basic updates made by new users! The changes I made, were in no way controversial in nature! This is Misplaced Pages, right? Change is part of the process. --] (]) 20:44, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
	:::And here's a selection of quotes from the most recent posts by ] (re: Poland): , , , So much for a "debate". ] ] 22:26, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
	{{outdent}}Stop being a bully, why did you just now insert your comment before mine at '''21:44, 9 January 2015 (UTC)'''??? How about following Wiki etiquette, if i wrote a statement don't write yours in front of it, but add it in the order in which it was written? Form the start your behavior has been directed at instigating other users, and then trying to get them blocked. What you just did now is a perfect example you belittling and instigating new users. --] (]) 22:37, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
	I'd like to endorse this report - E-960's standard conduct seems to be to abuse editors who disagree with him or her in fairly extreme terms and accuse them of forming some kind of conspiracy of which he or she is the victim, and there's a clear Polish nationalist element to this (the issue I reported here a couple of weeks ago included E-960 edit warring to preserve the supposed "native name" for the Allies of World War II in the article on the topic). This is classic WP:ARBEE type conduct, and is entirely unhelpful. There are more examples of this at ] and ] (also Poland-related in that the change to the infobox under discussion included the removal of Poland from it). E-960 has been repeatedly asked to moderate their language, but seemingly with no effect. ] (]) 06:23, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
	:(That said, I see no reason why this has to be address through the cumbersome AE process: I think that its entirely within the scope of responses from an uninvolved admin given it boils down to gross and sustained incivility and POV pushing) ] (]) 09:22, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
	*I am also a little annoyed at the tone of this request, the diffs given are much tamer than the accusations you have levelled. Also I would caution you against labelling E-960's edits as "homophobic" unless the checkuser results turn up positive, as it is an extremely unnecessary and serious accusation. That being said, I also hold serious reservations about E-960's behaviour since the last ANI thread; he has shown little to no behavioural improvements and seems to have a combative attitude that is not compatible with this project's aims. &mdash;] 11:00, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
	{{outdent}}What is happening here is a deliberate attack agains my profile. This is down right malicious to accuse me of being a Polish nationalist, because I changed a couple of images on the Poland page (same subject matter only better quality pics) '''How is that at all controversial? (see the talk page of what I actually debated)''' These "senior" editors are simply protecting their past edits and trying to use underhand methods of trying to get a new user blocked by throwing labels at me… user Poeticbent and Nick-D already called me a '''"nationalist", "homophobe", "sockpuppet" and "liar"'''. When is this going to stop? I will remind everyone that user Nick-D is the editor who objected the use of the word '''"Genecide"''' in the WWII ], opting for a more ambiguous term "mass killings" '''(and my past disagreement with him last month was also due to his efforts to remove/sanitize another WWII related article)!''' If not for new users like myself, Misplaced Pages would be a collection of "established" editors who push their views on the entire WP, and with the Misplaced Pages scandal which included paid editors, government agencies, and special interest groups/individual pushing POV, you should not simply take the word or accusations of these "established" editor, '''but look at the actual facts on the ] page of what was debated in this case.''' If I started to lose my temper '''I can apologize''', but this should in no way suggest that I accept the bullying tactics of these "senior" editors. --] (]) 11:23, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
	{{outdent}}
	This is exactly, how the manipulations by User:E-960 (during his WP:ARBEE wars) have been performed from day one; a textbook situation where the culprit would not stop the abuse even if confronted by his victims but instead, would accuse them of being the "real" abusers. User:E-960 keeps on edit-warring while trying to defend himself: '', , , , and on-and-on ... all brand new violations.'' His blanket reverts – coupled with more personal attacks – go on while he writes his defense. But here's where it gets more tricky: User:E-960 claims he only inserts "better quality pics" while, for example, replacing a major Polish seaport in ] with a private company in ] (home-base of Globetrotter1918, see below). BTW, I never called User:E-960 a ''homophobe''. I spoke of homophobia only in defining the interaction between two accounts suspected of sockpuppetry of which ''the first one'' (!) – a sock master with grisly history – belonged to a homophobe. The second one being investigated (User:E-960, see below), was the subject of my inquiry. Please read the quote from my SPI report:
	;Interaction between {{u|Globetrotter1918}} and {{u|E-960}}
	# Globetrotter1918 removes the photo of the ] with a summary: ''homosexual propagande'' (sic)
	# E-960 makes exactly the same edit by removing the Pride Parade but this time, removing also the founder of ]. The user seems to be learning fast how to better game the system, and this time around, adds a convoluted and dishonest edit summary to diffuse the suspicion of sockpuppetry. ''(end of quote)''<br>
	;]
	''...see how far he's willing to go for revenge.'', , <br>
	Meanwhile, the E-960 abuse goes on even as we discuss his case. Please note, I'm not a professional investigator. It took me days to compile the report against {{u|Globetrotter1918}} a.k.a. {{u|Retrone}} a.k.a. {{u|Germania Breslau}} ... all of whom edit-warred in WP:ARBEE for months across several projects, not one, promoting extreme-right politics. E-960 is new on the scene. He seems to know way more about Misplaced Pages than a new user would. It might be a throw-away account trying to do as much damage as possible in minimum time just to have it memorialized in the article edit history. I've seen it before. ] ] 18:25, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
	]
	]
	::*These accusations are a nonsense. This is the image of the Port of Szczecin that I replaced… why? '''Because it shows a highway overpass in the foreground not a port''', and the port is only mentioned in a list, not discussed in depth. I replaced it with the image of a high speed train, because this item is discussed at length in the article. Also, only images of the train in the Wroclaw train station are available for use in Wiki Commons, others are not of good quality , so it should not be interpreted that I'm promoting a town just cause I used this image. This is absurd... how is this proof of "nationalist" leaning or suckpuppety on my part? Also, what does user Poeticbent even mean by the term '''"Interaction"''', I never interacted with those sock puppets, and I'm not one. --] (]) 10:33, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
	{{outdent}} @ ] and ]. Could I request the closure of this incident, the above mentioned ] did not yield any definitive evidence of me being connected to past sockpuppets. '''Also, in the CheckUser discussion Poeticbent (who checked my IP's location) did state that my address is in a different location than the past sockpuppets, who were from the city of Wrocław.''' Thus, proving that I'm NOT a sockpuppet! As I stated earlier, I'm willing to apologize to the Wiki Community for losing my temper in this debate. But, I would also like to see user Poeticbent receive a warning for personal attacks against me and for reverting en masse edits made to the Poland page, by assuming that every new editor is somehow connected to a past sockpuppet, especially in edits that were in no way controversial in nature. --] (]) 21:40, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
	:E-960, I have already commented on your talk page that I'm not particularly concerned by whether you are a sock, but I am concerned as to your behaviour even as the sole contributor editing from your account. Despite my issuing after ] behaviour and ] as to the character of Poeticbent (which were met with further assumptions as the motives of anyone who didn't ']' with you), you continued your unabashed diatribes on the ] page.
	:As regards it being impossible for you to be a sock because you live in another city: I've lived in a lot of places, and not all in Australia, much less the city I currently reside in in Australia. It's the editing pattern and tone that is more likely to set off regular editors as feeling that your behaviour is reminiscent of a previous blocked editor. It's not unusual for regulars to be justifiably unsettled when a relatively new user with little experience charges at articles that have been edit-warred over many times over the years. At this point I'm still only hearing remonstrations from you and a desire for punitive actions against someone you've decided is a ] editor, despite your having said that you are prepared to apologise to the Misplaced Pages community. I'm sorry, but that strikes me as being an ingenuous attempt at any form of apology. --] (]) 04:45, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
	@ ] , User Poeticbent accused me of '''nationalism, homophobia, sockpuppetry and lying'''. What I edited was in '''no way connected''' to the edit warring issues regarding the city of Wrocław from the past. That alone proves I'm, NOT the sockpuppet. BTW: I made edits back on October 24th (see Talk Page) they war '''all''' reverted by User Poeticbent. And guess what I just left it at that and did not make a battle out of it. Now, I won't back down when a "senior" user keeps reverts any and all edits. Even when they are not controversial in any way. User Poeticbent is not acting in good faith towards other editors accusing everyone of being a sockpuppet, and then mischaracterizing the issue. As noted above my edits are not all that controversial either. '''Finally, why didn't the other "senior" editors who regularly edit the Poland page, also disagree with my edits, and voice their disapproval on the talk page, why no one else thinks that my edits may be related to a sockpuppet?''' These reverts are only being pushed by user Poeticbent. --] (]) 05:42, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
	* Follow up including Who's Who, at ] ] ] 18:04, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
	== ] ==
	{{archivetop|Issue cleared up. ] (]) 21:06, 13 January 2015 (UTC)}}
	{{userlinks|Ashburnian}} has been doing some long-term edit-warring on {{pagelinks|Dick Black (politician)}} for quite some time - in fact, he's been an SPA.for most of last year, removing well-sourced controversies about Black. Negotiating at isn't going anywhere, and he's already violated 3RR today ( ). A preventative block would be much appreciated. Thanks, ] (]) 05:43, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
	:I originally removed large portions of information before learning the rules for editing a page. Since then I have only removed poorly sourced, contentious materials that violate BPL Guidelines. Also, 3RR rules do not appear to apply in this case. In any event, the issue now is mainly resolved as someone has found another reliable source for the quotation. ] (]) 05:51, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
	:: Ashburnian seems to be correct here. When is Mother Jones a proper source... Let me check some sources and see what comes up... Mother Jones is known for these pieces. I think context is being lost and ] violations are exempt. Ashburnian may have a reason to act in such a fashion. ] (]) 06:07, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
	:::As noted in BLPN, some sources about the spousal rape claim . This hardly constitutes a BLP issue, and doesn't justify edit warring. --] (]) 06:13, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
	:::: with this edit. The problem was the out of context quote which made it seem like Black was endorsing rape - he was not. Mother Jones was the source, but it took me all of a minute to find the source at High Beam - in full. I posted the relevant section ] for readers to examine my faithfulness of the edits. ] means being neutral and this often means ignoring what Huffington Post, Mother Jones and other poor sources pull to further an agenda. In this case, the use of the quote has very different implications and meaning than what the original context and comment said. Ashburnian was right that the source was a problem and having 2 poor sources and 1 source which was not the origin was an issue. Now its verified and corrected. Other issues may exist, but one is down. ] (]) 06:26, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
	:::::Fair enough, I'm retracting this for now. --] (]) 06:28, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
	:::::: Thanks. I know you meant well, but so did Ashburnian. Disruption is disruption, but in cases like this, I just decided to make sure it was resolved without blocks. I gave Ashburnian some advice about finding the original quote and checking context - it will go a long ways to resolving issues of this nature in the future. ] (]) 06:34, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
	:::Chris, Ashburnian never mentioned context, and instead made wild accusations and implied I had made up a citation. While I don't think blocking Ashburnian is worthwhile, it is unfair to say they had a reason to act in such a fashion. It turns out the context was lost by the Scotland on Sunday writer (which is the reference MJ used), and I can't imagine anyone would have considered it to be a unreliable source beforehand. I've learnt I need to get a high beam account. ] (]) 06:37, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
	::::Haminoon, I did not mean to imply you had made up a citation. I was arguing that you were citing a source that did not provide any proof that the quote they were giving was accurate and was, in fact, given. The Mother Jones article did not provide any source information or context, and when I spoke to Senator Black he did not recall giving that quote. That is why I was so determined to have it removed. I believed that Mother Jones made up the citation. I apologize for any offense I may have given you.] (]) 06:53, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
	:::::Ashburnian, you write "''... when I spoke to Senator Black he did not recall ...''". You might want to consider your participation in the ] article if you're close enough to the Senator to be able to discuss its content with him. At a minimum, it puts you at risk of ], and it is possibly a ]. ] (]) 00:21, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
	:::: I am the coordinator for ], but you can sign up at ]! This sort of thing happens all the time on political articles. I liken it to Telephone tag, where bias and context get lost in the process. All editors can be involved with good faith, but sources, all which can seem reliable and accurate, muddy our relationships. A grain of salt with every story and care about sources with a discernible agenda or bias is always a good thing. Also - Mother Jones is not really reliable, like Breitbart - the (mis)use of quotes being the chief reason for the conflict here. ] (]) 06:48, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
	:::::Major kudos to {{U|ChrisGualtieri}} for finding the original source of the quote In full context, which is very different from how an extract from that source was spun. Whenever a BLP relies on a controversial two or three sentence quote extract posted on an advocacy website, it is always advisable to look for a more lengthy extract placing the "juicy" quote in context. ''Mother Jones'' is sometimes reliable, but not in this particular case. ] ] 07:02, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
	::::: Thanks ChrisGualtieri and Ashburnian. ] (]) 07:19, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
	{{archivebottom}}
	== Proposed Topic Bans - ] ==
	{{checkuser|1=Раціональне анархіст}} Registered 2014-11-03
	] has nominated 33 articles for deletion in 67 days. See <br>
	:5 have closed as "Speedy Keep"<br>
	:7 have closed as "Keep"<br>
	:1 has closed as "No Consensus"<br>
	:1 has closed as "Wrong Venue"<br>
	:1 has closed as "Too Soon to Relist"<br>
	:1 has closed as "Redirect"<br>
	:1 has closed as "Speedy Delete"<br>
	:0 have clased as "Delete"<br>
	:16 have not closed yet<br>
	] has received multiple comments/warnings regarding AfDs
	<br>'''List of AfD Nominations'''<br>
	<small>
	:*]
	:*]
	:*]
	:*] - '''Note''':2nd nomination only 2 weeks after 1st ended with Speedy Keep
	:*] '''Note''':Full disclosure - closed by ban nominator
	:*]
	:*]
	:*]
	:*]
	:*]
	:*]
	:*]
	:*]
	:*]
	:*]
	:*]
	:*]
	:*]
	:*] - '''Note''':"The result was keep. WP:SNOW"
	:*]
	:*]
	:*]
	:*]
	:*]
	:*]
	:*]
	:*]
	:*]
	:*]
	:*]
	:*]
	:*] - '''Note''': "The result was Speedy keep and close of an unnecessary AFD."
	:*] - '''Note''': ] edited article from "gay romantic comedy film" to "pornographic film" 1 minute after nominating
	</small>
	This activity has been disruptive by needlessly adding to the backlog of AfDs. It suggests a strong likelihood that it will continue if not addressed. It also suggests a lack of understanding ] and ] that ] can improve.<br>
	'''It is therefor proposed that:'''<br>
	:'''] be banned from nominating at Articles for Deletion for a period of time to be determined by consensus. (Prop #1)'''<br>
	:'''] be banned from editing articles about or related to pornography for a period of time to be determined by consensus. (Prop #2)'''<br>
	Respectfully submitted,<br>
	] 23:28, 10 January 2015 (UTC)<br>
	*'''Support #1''' for 30 days, as nominator. '''Support #2''' for 30 days, as nominator. ] 23:28, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
	*'''Support banning from AfD''' I have seen several of these AfDs and I have seen several users complain about анархіст's apparent lack of effort in nominating articles. He does not give a reason and the only common factor seems to be they are all related to porn. Given the low quality of the nominations and the failure to respond to criticism I support this topic ban. He is just wasting peoples time at AfD. I don't see the need to ban him from pornography related articles talk pages at this time. ] 00:52, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
	*'''Support''' The editor appears to miss the point of ]. They don't seem to like the fact that articles about porn films exist. Thus, ] applies as well. ]&#124;] 02:27, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
	**Meant to mention ] mentality is being demonstrated by this editor as well. ]&#124;] 02:48, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
	*'''Support''' Both 1 and 2 - There's already backlog issues and transclusion issues with AFD and piling these on certainly isn't helping, As for 2 - I'm getting the feeling if we ban <S>her</S> them from AFDing for 30 days <s>she'll</s> they'll simply move on to PORNBIO articles and cause more headaches with something or other, It's great <s>she</s> they wants to help but nominating the amount <s>she</s> they has in a short span of time is IMHO disruptive and certainly isn't helpful at all. –]<sup>]</sup> 03:07, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
	::"Her"? Did I have a sex-change operation when I wasn't watching? Anyway, nobody's going to say ''anything'' about the ''good'' AfDs I've submitted, because it looks like selective tunnel-vision has commenced over the porn AfDs and the ''one'' thread in PornBio are going to be ''all'' that people see - because why ''not'' assume '''bad faith''' and assert I've got nothing better to do than head over to PornBio?] 08:24, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
	:::Whoops my apologies I assumed you were a female for some reason, I've struck/reworded. –]<sup>]</sup> 17:39, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
	:::Thank you {{ping|Раціональне анархіст}} for participating in this discussion. I should start by saying the pornography ban is meant to be secondary to the AfD issue. And if the information I've provided above is not representative of your contributions I apologize. I have relied on the wmflabs afdstats tool (). It appears to say that of the 33 nominations you submitted to AfD, only one resulted in a deletion. And that the most recent 5 that have been closed, all resulted in "Speedy Keep" or "Keep". If you could link to the other "''good'' Afds" you mentioned above, I'm sure that would resolve this quickly. I would be happy to withdraw these proposals then. ] 10:05, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
	::::Well, I've been participating in AfD discussions and noms for about three weeks, with little if any prior to my ] article being nominated by someone else (given that Lars is still pending itself, it's not surprising to me that most of my Afds are still unresolved as well). The easiest thing to do for a broad overview would be to start on the 1st or the 2nd, and just scan down for "pax" or "анархіст" for a broad sampling. You'll easily see that porn Afds were at most half of those submitted, and considerably less than half of the ''discussion''.
	::::The seemingly damning list up there reads: ''"Раціональне анархіст has received multiple '''comments'''/warnings regarding AfDs...."
	::::- In other words, the list apparently (I have not exhaustively examined it) appears to contain every AfD with a ''comment'' (I presume "comment" means ''any'' reply or vote up or down) including those speedy deleted per my nomination (Hello! "Swedish" college! More on you later.) This is a far cry from maintaining that I have been ''warned'' in most of those or even more than a few. Let's take the first one on the list:
	::::My first AfD was ], a threadbare article that managed to survive after a editor sourced material from Chinese-language sources. Voting was light (most likely because the topic was dull), and it could have easily gone the other way. Nobody was angry or ripped me. (IMO it's still a junk stub of an extremely minor event; half the cities in the US Midwest probably have worse homecoming riots in the history books after a particularly bad season-ending beat.)
	::::My first vote on a porn topic (Dec. 25) was ]; the vote was in favor of the eventual result (deletion). The nominator of that Afd was Redban, a user who shortly thereafter managed to get himself banned for one or more reasons. That was on the 25th; of the half-dozen Afds I contributed to that day, it was the only porn topic. The majority of my votes were cast in favor of the eventual decision.
	::::On December 26, I made votes on ten AfD topics on the 26th (no porn). (Note: I'm not accounting for relisted AfD original dates, just as they appear on the log lists as of this moment.) On the 27th, I again made votes or comments on ten AfD topics (no porn); people had a good laugh over the ]. Only a few votes over the New Years break; no porn.
	::::On the 30th, the ] Afd was relisted, and I voted for deletion on the 3rd after the topic was well enjoined. During the AfD, I was accused by the apparent porn SPA Rebecca1990 of being a sockpuppet of Redban, a charge she would make by my count at least four times in four different places.
	::::On January 2 (under the now-known-to-me-erroneous assumption that porn was ''mainly'' unwelcome here given the two prior deletions) I submitted two porn topics for AfD. ], which was closed as a too-soon (but not before Rebecca ran another sock-puppet insinuation), and ], which was speedily kept after another editor (in response to the AfD) contributed superior sources and I withdrew it. I voted on four other topics that day.
	::::On January 3, I participated in nine subjects, one of which was porn (my AfD; it was kept).
	::::On January 4, I participated in thirteen subjects, four of which were porn AfDs (all bios) I submitted. Of them one was speedily kept and the other three remain unclosed. (It should be noted that there were several porn or GLBT-themed Afds that day that I did ''not'' participate in but easily could have, perhaps tipping the scales.)
	::::On January 5, I participated in nine subjects, no porn.
	::::On January 6, I participated in eight subjects, no porn.
	::::On January 7, I participated in four subjects, no porn. The ] saga continues (I should get around to G11'ing that again, as I did back on the 2nd to zorch the second iteration).
	::::On January 8 (reminder that I'm going by current log dates, not original listing dates), I participate in twelve topics with one porn AfD (not currently closed).
	::::On January 9, I participated in 17 topics, with two film AfDs (both speedily kept, with the same closer giving me a piece of his mind.).
	::::On January 10, I participated in eight topics with two nominations (one porn, one not; both currently open).
	::::It should be clear from this that not only am I not (despite some grouchy commentary in the Lars AfD) a SPA anti-porn crusader, but the subject doesn't command my attention more than peripherally. So, it's that's what you've ''heard,'' ...the empirical evidence suggests otherwise wherever one cares to look ) <small><span class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 12:25, 11 January 2015‎ </span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned -->
	:::::{{ping|Раціональне анархіст}} It's not about porn and its not a personal vendetta by anyone. It is rather, about any topic you unintentionally misjudge. Notable to only China or Punjab is perfectly fine. Notable in non-English languages is perfectly fine. Even being a poorly sourced, weak stub article is fine, as Misplaced Pages is a ] and admits to being ].
	::::: Care must be taken to make evaluations as thoroughly as possible to see if something poorly presented might be otherwise improvable through regular editing. Deletion is the last resort... not the first. Perceived issues with tone or style or sourcing are often ] and simply being terse or ] is not a valid deletion rationale.
	:::::No one slapped a warning notice on you talk pages, and the phrase "multiple cautions" is not limited to only what is said at AFDs, and can include any time someone has urged you on your talk page to use proper due diligence.
	:::::And sorry, but in looking over many of your more recent non-porn-related deletion nominations, I feel even stronger that your lack of ] even after those repeated cautions, and your unintentional repeated errors are indeed harmful to Misplaced Pages. Gaining CLUE could eliminate errors... and until you gain such, you could simply slow your roll.
	::::: Lastly, I believe most of your nominations could be be ], as such closes would be both defensible and for the good of the project. And while it may not seem "fair", openly discussing a temporary topic ban is far better than being blocked. You could even volunteer to willingly step back from nominating AFDs for a while, and so avoid a possible mandatory ban. ''']''' '']'' 12:57, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
	*'''Support''' both proposals. Worth noting is that the bad AfD nominations are ''not'' limited to porn topics. The editor needs to learn what to do ] nominating articles for deletion. Poorly researched nominations are disruptive and clog the already backlogged AfD process. ] ] 04:16, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
	*'''Support both''' Borderline ]. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 10:28, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
	*'''Support both''', and as he has already received multiple cautions, I urge that the editor seek or be given a ]. His apparent lack of understanding of ], the instructions of ], and the meaning of ], has indeed created unnecessary work for others to the point of becoming ]. His ] do not over-rule policy and guidelines, but I would hope that with a bit of temperance he could eventually become one of Misplaced Pages's finest contributors. ''']''' '']'' 11:59, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
	*'''Support both'''. I warned user Раціональне анархіст earlier, did not help. No improvement in behavior. <span class="unicode" style="white-space:nowrap;">]<span style="display:inline-block; margin-bottom:-0.3em; vertical-align:-0.4em; line-height:1.2em; font-size:85%; text-align:left;">]<br/><abbr class="abbr" title="intermediate level of English" {{#if:|lang="{{{3}}}"}}><small>(en-2)</small></abbr></span></span> 17:14, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
	::You mean - That did not appear to me to be a "warning", and I don't think anyone else would have reasonably determined it to be so either; rather it appeared to be an attempt at intimidation be an editor with poor grammar who, rather than using a standard warning template, had simply placed the scary word "Blocked" as a section-header on my TP. Of course it took me only moments to determine that I was not actually blocked.] 19:19, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
	:::My post is: "''You mass reporting porn articles to AfD, such behavior is often taken for action against Misplaced Pages. Recently: 20 December 2014 - User:Redban has been indefinite blocked for the same behavior than you''" - word "blocked" refers to User:Redban, who behaved like you and has been blocked. <span class="unicode" style="white-space:nowrap;">]<span style="display:inline-block; margin-bottom:-0.3em; vertical-align:-0.4em; line-height:1.2em; font-size:85%; text-align:left;">]<br/><abbr class="abbr" title="intermediate level of English" {{#if:|lang="{{{3}}}"}}><small>(en-2)</small></abbr></span></span> 20:02, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
	::::{{u|Раціональне анархіст|PAX}}... please understand that editors do not have to use "official" talk page ] when offering a courteous caution or for their advice given in efforts to mitigate disruption. ''']''' '']'' 21:28, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
	*'''Support both''' These Afd nominations have been plainly bad ones and he has generally picked every page where he couldn't find very popular weblinks. ] (]) 18:14, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
	:*It appears more that in his deletion nominations he simply did not try... and this behavior sadly continued even after he was cautioned and advised of applicable policy and guideline. ''']''' '']'' 21:19, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
	*'''Support the first, oppose the second''' (for now) - there is ongoing discussion about the relevance, application and scope of ] and we have had editors both nominating articles due to particular interpretations of that guideline and opposing nominations for deletion due to particular interpretations of that guideline. It's an area where the editor in question has shown some interest but the list of problematic AFDs provided above demonstrates that the issue with AFDs isn't limited to pornography, nor are his interests in pornography singularly managed by way of AFD. They are not sufficiently connected (in my mind) so that a topic ban from one automatically justifies a topic ban from the other. For the record, he and I seem to strongly disagree on interpretations of PORNBIO but ongoing debate on that subject is important. ''']<sup>]</sup>''' 01:39, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
	*'''Support first, neutral on second''': I've witnessed the ]-type behavior at AFD. I haven't been involved with the porn stuff and have no interest in delving into it so I'm neutral on the second. ] (]) 23:31, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
	*'''Support'''. This editor has blatantly refused advice, refused to change their ], and evidently sees fit that they continue to be overt that ] to build an encylopedia. ] (]) 04:35, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
	*'''Support first, no comment on second'''. I'm not involved in and don't care about porn stuff, but such a bad nomination record at AfD suggests that he doesn't understand how the system works, so taking time off to participate in others' AfDs and learn the policies behind it would be beneficial. ]'']'' 20:54, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
	*'''Support both''' Clear time-wasting disruption in AfD. Regarding the porn stuff, I fail to see how it would be a loss to the project if said user steered clear of those articles as well given prior history. <b>] ]</b> 21:01, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
	*'''Support First''' Way to many bad nominations. ] 04:38, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
	== Admin intervention needed for Jackthomas321 ==
	{{Archive top|result=Jackthomas321 indefinitely blocked.--] (]) 22:50, 11 January 2015 (UTC)}}
	Admin guidance need with regard to user {{U|Jackthomas321}} who has a prior history of assuming bad faith of other editors . User recently accused {{U|Krimuk90}} of being a member of a , simply because Krimuk tried , specifically the excessive attention Jack was giving to the various politicians who spoke out in favor of ]. From my perspective it came off as highly promotional.
	I about his attack on Krimuk, and I thought that my subsequent responses in the discussion helped him to understand the matter. Later, , which . He and in an edit summary, although I'm not convinced his explanation is genuine, given his propensity to sling insults like, "", "" " Oh, and there was in August 2014. It's a cringe inducing must-read.
	Most recently Jack has accused {{U|TheRedPenOfDoom}} and myself of being paid to remove second week and third week box office gross content from ], a claim that is entirely emotionally motivated, not rationally motivated. We were in the process of discussing the matter, and I was actually starting to reconsider my stance when Jack jumped right to personal attacks. User is now resorting to that runs completely against ] and ]. I don't think it gets more clear that this user has serious, perhaps insurmountable difficulty understanding the "community" aspect of community, which is best exemplified by this comment: "" Thanks, ] (]) 00:33, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
	:In that last diff, this editor goes beyond personal attacks to physical threats: " ... but it actually would be a ''hard punch on his face'' if the wrong person is in front of me & making such silly arguments ...", I think a line has been crossed. Administrators? ] ] 09:06, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
	::...and "''I know ur response will be "I am telling admin to block user Jack". I don't give a shit. I've been blocked before. I will never stop punching wrong people''" sounds very problematic too. ] 09:36, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
	:::''we are here to collaborate with other editors'' This sentence is the joke of the day. I will tell u the meaning of "not co-operating/dictatorship' which is exactly u guys are doing. ''A User added completely valid stuff on the film page , u named it 'fancruft' & deleted it. When he added again, u named it 'fancruft' & deleted again. Then when i brought up the issue on the , ] & ] are giving me the most silliest excuses imaginable for 'why we will not add it.' '' This is the meaning of 'not co-operating'. Bottomline is.. wiki editors do not allow certain things to be added if it doesn't meet their hidden/cunning agendas. Cyphoidbomb, regarding your complaint here on Admin's page, that's another joke. It further proves my claims. The topic of discussion here is "deleting film records for no reason." But here, ''You are talking about the way i talked several months ago for which i have already been blocked before. & also instead of talking about adding records, you guys are talking about "it would be punch on his face if someone makes such silly arguments with me" This further proves that, "you guys have no intention in doing the right thing" & u resort to meaningless comments & excuses. ] (]) 10:05, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
	::::The purpose of a block is to prevent the behavior from happening again. You didn't seem to learn from your previous block, since once again, you are ''requiring'' us to address your significant problems with incivility. We would otherwise be having a normal discussion with disparate opinions, if the discussion hadn't been derailed by your quick, irrational temper. A smart person, which you have no shyness of claiming to be, might notice that the common variable in the unpleasantness you've experienced over the months...is you. There is no dictatorship. One user, TRPoD, had a strong reaction to the content you were adding, I expressed an opinion that unless the content was noteworthy, (and it may have been), then it probably shouldn't be included. You've mushed two different users' different opinions into a conspiracy pudding, and then worked yourself up into a red hot lather about it. And now there are multiple confused ideas in your head that I simply do not have the time or energy to go down the list to correct. ] (]) 10:43, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
	:::::Cyphoidbomb, Please spare me from this alleged ''polite talk''. You & TRPoD clearly pushed the matter sideways stating "It(2nd&3rd week records) will not be added on wiki". & When i've shown proof that they are added on wiki at several places, user TRPoD again pushed the matter sideways(ignoring it altogether). If someone raised a valid point, what should u do? You must say "You have made a valid point. Sorry for the inconvenience. We will add it immediately". That's called polite conversation. Instead of that you said ''(1) I don't see the value of listing the collections.... (2) Stop wagging your angry little finger..... its an apples-to-oranges comparison (2)lots of crappy fancruft articles that need to be cleaned up... (3)start your own fanpage website off Misplaced Pages and you can primp and fluff all of the movies you want to (4)Nobody cares about week by week updates except for fanboiz....and many more'' (when infact it wasn't week-by-week updates, they were records created which were added in many other film pages too, which i have shown). When you have no sense in how to talk politely, then do not expect it from others. Your comments clearly shows that "I do not care about those records. I will not add it". I being a smart man can sense the intentions when somebody is saying something. Since your intentions were wrong(which is... i will not add it), i made accusations. I am on the right side of the conversation & u guys are on the wrong side. I don't care what u think/perceive about me. Finally, if anyone in their right mind, reads the whole conversation on , then they will know that you two guys dismissed adding records in each of their comments. And my 2nd last on the talk page which starts with ''I am not here for a conversation....'' shows all evidence of my claims. ] (]) 11:45, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
	::::::It's not a matter of "right" and "wrong" sides, it's a matter of being able to work collaboratively with others, ''especially'' when you disagree with their editorial judgements. If Jack Thomas is not willing to make a immediate, significant adjustment to their behavior, admin sanctions are appropriate here. <small>]</small> 12:08, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
	:::::::I guess u can't understand english. I have made it clear that... conversation proves that they are the ones who are not co-operating & not doing the right thing. I've done everything right from my side. I added records on PK film page & when deleted repeatedly, i brought it up on Talk page with valid points, but they said "they will not add it". In english, that is called "NON COOPERATION". If editing Wiki ''Is not a matter of "right" and "wrong" '' then there is no meaning for anything in life, let alone a conversation. You make such statements which makes me think "Do these people even have brains?" ''"Right" & ''wrong'' is the only important thing in every aspect of life. When one can't identify what is right & wrong, its not possible to do any work, let alone editing wikipedia. Even after my accusations, the accused haven't shown any signs whatsoever to do the right thing & Instead they resorted to putting the blame on me & asking some admin to block me, when the right thing to do is.. to block them. If i start deleting everything on wikipedia from this moment, just because i don't feel its important to me, is it not wrong? Who should be blocked? People who are deleting or people who are questioning them? What a bunch of Pathetic people. Looks like they will never learn to become better. Go, Do whatever pleases you. ] (]) 14:43, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
	:::::::: 1) I initially misunderstood what you were complaining about, because I only glossed over your note. Sloppy on my part. I should have read it more clearly, and I apologize. I chalk that up as a natural human resistance to someone I'd already experienced as being quick to anger, being irrational, and having a propensity of this film. This is why my response reads "If nothing noteworthy happened in the second and third weeks, I don't see the value of listing the collections." Record breaking would be noteworthy, ignoring for a moment the rampant corruption that makes verification of record-breaking in Indian cinema very difficult, or even the disparities with PK's Rentrak-blessed box office figures as detailed in from The Telegraph.)
	::::::::2) You, unaware that I had misinterpreted your comment, because you too were hastily reading, built a cognitive wall and jumped right to your own conclusions: "I don't buy a thing you said... Nobody is a fool here...people are hell bent on trying to delete records of this film every day."
	::::::::3) By your third post, you were warming up the personal attacks. "That page has so many records mentioned that it puts you two into shame for trying to delete records on this page."
	::::::::4) By your fourth post, you were well into the personal attacks, and the train was derailed. "You people are paid to do such illegal acts." " Its just like every other website with corrupted regular editors" At this point we had a new focus for our attention, your anger. ] (]) 19:39, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
	I've blocked this user indefinitely. Previous blocks are mentioned by editors above but I didn't see any in the logs. ] (]) 22:45, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
	:{{edit conflict}}Blocks were on IPs, predating their creating a registered account. <small>]</small> 22:56, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
	{{Archive bottom}}
	:'''Note''': ] and others, looking at Jackthomas321's previous IPs, including , I don't see where he was blocked before this indefinite block. ] (]) 08:44, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
	::{{U|Flyer22}} Maybe we have a sock operator? I'm open for ideas. My first thought while sparring with him was that it might be ], but the behavior didn't quite match. Although I do have a faint memory of Wiki-senetor bragging about how smart he is. (Rolling eyes). ] (]) 09:08, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
	:::Now socking. {{u|Cyphoidbomb}}, can you or another admin tidy up? --] <sup>]</sup> 16:30, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
	::::I would love to, {{ping|NeilN}}, but I am not an admin. My RfA was a failure. {{P|10}} Thanks for opening old wounds, dude! {{P|22}} ] (]) 16:41, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
	:::::{{ping|Cyphoidbomb}} Ack. Oops, sorry. --] <sup>]</sup> 16:43, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
	== Harassment ==
	{{archive top|I have given details of a voluntary solution as the last posting to this section. If either ] or ] do not want to accept the voluntary restrictions placed upon them, then they are to inform me on my talk page and I will open a new narrowly focused ANI so that the community can decide what to do. There is also one involuntary constraint: If either of them bring an ANI against the other in future neither of them is to refer to perceived wrongdoings of the other before the closure time of this ANI. -- ] (]) 15:51, 13 January 2015 (UTC)}}
	'''This issue:''' An ANI was filed against me by ]. This was the fourth ANI Legacypac has filed against me, all previous ones being unactioned. In this most recent ANI I received my first block ever, for 36 hours, not due to anything LP brought up in the ANI (], ] and others commented that, after reviewing my comments, there was nothing egregious), but because of my exceptionally dismissive treatment of the ANI itself ("evasiveness"), for which I take full responsibility; indeed, I lodged no appeal of the block. (I blamed my sheer exhaustion at defending myself from ANIs that go nowhere but I accept that is no excuse for not giving a thorough treatment to each ANI LegacyPac files against me and to fail to do so is disruptive.)
	Immediately after the above occurred, LegacyPac began reviewing pages I had created on topics on which he has never previously edited, leaving notes on my Talk page. In response, ] had to pull Legacypac's rights as a reviewer. Though Legacypac was now under caution not to directly contact me, he was apparently undeterred as I began receiving a flurry of notifications from Legacypac that every recent page I'd authored he was now patrolling: (screen cap: | diffs: , ). Again, all of these were on broad subject areas on which he has no past edit history.
	'''Background:''' My edits on these articles are unimpeachable so I don't really care about ] in itself. The issue of the above described "needling" becomes specifically problematic for me in view of a long and ongoing pattern of persistence that indicates an intent to carry a grudge to the bitter end for anyone who has disagreed with LegacyPac in an article related to ], which is why I'm raising it. LegacyPac, who has recently finished a one-year topic ban on BLP imposed by ], has exhibited a specific ''modus operandi'' with respect to his interaction with both myself and other editors, ''to wit'' -<Br>
	*'''(1)''' after a ] over his objections, began to repeatedly denounce me as an "Iranian" "anti-American," the aggressively chilling effect of which motivated me to completely disengage from topics related to ISIL several months ago and remove a nationality userbox from my userspace., <span style="font-size:78%"></span>
	*'''(2)''' requested Rollback rights and, on being denied them, surreptitiously - albeit unsuccessfully - began lobbying to have my own rollback rights pulled (IOW without pinging me)
	*'''(3)''' consistently leaves aggressive and threatening notes in his edit summaries or talk discussions impugning the GF of other editors and threatening to barrage them with ANIs, such as this one where he tells ] ''revert utter nonsense edit by user pushing some agenda'' or here where he threatens ''I will report you'' to the same editor, , or in one of his many recent ANI filings where he described ] as ''"this editor can't read english"'' , or when last week he blasted a new editor with whom he was recently in an edit conflict ''Are you a child? your writing contains child like mistakes'' & , or here where he threatens that he will try to get ] de-admined with the note ''"You lost to other editors on the Chinese vics name and lost to other editors on Suspects ... Perhaps Drmies should not be an Admin anymore. How do we arrange that?'' , or here where he dramatically declares his edits are to defend WP against "terrorists" who have infiltrated it (he's also used the term "pro-terrorist" in his past ANI filings which, suggests to me, he is ] but is rather here to defend mom, baseball and apple pie)
	*'''(4)''' routinely edits against consensus to make ]s in a very destructive way, requiring substantial editor time to clean-up the pieces ('''''' here he moved the entire page "2014 Military Intervention against ISIL" ] , '''''' here he unilaterally blanked the entire page Siege of Kobanî; ] had to revert his unilateral decision to remove all sourced content, '''''' he unilaterally moved the page ] (see: ) even though a discussion about that move (that, in fact, he initiated) was ongoing and no one had registered a !vote in support of such a move. (see: ]). He left the parting shot "Iran leads no one." before taking this action. Another editor had to undo it, '''''' other examples not listed here for sake of brevity.
	'''Note:''' This is not a question of an IBAN as (a) the issues are not limited to me but are indicative of a demonstrable style of intercourse with other editors, and, (b) I have had no contact with Legacypac, of my own volition, for several months until - briefly - last week in ANI. (While I have no plans to interact with him again, since he's now indicated his intent to follow me around mainspace, at this point the only possible way I can guarantee I'd have no interaction with him in the future is if I deleted my account. Out of a preponderance of caution, however, I will file a request for ].) ]]] 09:48, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
	*'''Comment''': I currently have issues with {{U|Legacypac}}'s New Page Patrolling and may shortly be asking him to do something less demanding, such as vandal patrol instead. He provides an earlier explanation to {{U|PBS}} at ] but he is clearly trying to patrol new pages with far too little experience and ostensibly not having first read ] and the tutorial at ]. --] (]) 10:51, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
	::], while LegacyPac's explanation to PBS that he simply came upon the five articles I created in the routine course of new page patrolling is certainly possible, I find it a little improbable that he randomly stumbled upon 5 articles I'd authored within a space of 3 minutes on the same day his ANI against me was closed, particularly as all five of them were several weeks old so were not showing anywhere near the top of the New Page Feed. (Honestly, I would find it improbable that he'd randomly encounter even one, let alone five.) If I am mistaken, and this is something that is quite likely to happen, then I of course would ask to close this ANI as a non-issue and apologize for any implication or accusation contained within it. ]]] 11:19, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
	'''Reply:''' Ping {{U|Bishonen}}. {{U|Kudpung}} happy to discuss your concerns on my talkpage. ] (]) 11:07, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
	:] Please fix the link above which I have marked as "''wrong link''" (please provide proper diffs) -- ] (]) 11:25, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
	::{{ping|Legacypac}}, as far as your page patrolling is concerned there's not much to discuss , all you need to do is read the instructions you were pointed to and patrol accordingly. As far as the rest of the claims against you are concerned, I'll wait for more input from other editors. --] (]) 11:33, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
	:::Thanks for noticing, I've updated and corrected. ]]] 12:00, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
	::::] summing up the ], ANI (]) said among other things "{{green|OK, now I've reviewed this thread, as requested by DocumentError. Something that stands out here (and also in posts made on other pages during this, timewise, quite brief ANI) is DocumentError's persistent and quite specific accusations against Legacypac and dancing around repeated requests to substantiate them. They either ignore requests for diffs or specifics or bat them away with rebuffs such as "I don't understand - are you asking me to file an ANI against you?… this is an ANI about me",... Also, it seems no amount of pleading will persuade DE to provide diffs, ...I will not spend the best years of my life reading those . Provide diffs which include your quoted text in all cases and provide diffs for specific accusations (not just section).
	::::I notice that in your first accusation, Bishonen's review and the date of your block (8 January 2015) was after the text which you have yet again misquoted (26 November 2014), so why are you bringing up something which Bishonen has already reviewed? As to the rest please strike anything which pre-dates your block as you had a chance at the last ANI to bring all those accusations up if you had thought them relevant. That I think leaves the new page patrolling which I think is a legitimate area for concern.
	::::I suggest that you do not ask for a rename as that in itself is not a new start, and the problems with new starts is that you have to keep away from areas which you have previously been involved. It also means that if Legacypac were to act in bad faith then Legacypac has the defence that I did not know that the new name was the old DocumentError. -- ] (]) 12:02, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
	:::::''please strike anything which pre-dates your block'' ? That's ridiculous. There's no wikilegal <s>statue</s> ''statute'' of limitations on documenting problematic behavior. DocumentError was blocked for not providing diffs; clearly an efficacious block as they're now doing so. <small>]</small> 12:17, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
	:::::: I agree. It is patently absurd for an editor to be blocked for failing to provide diffs on one occasion, then be criticised for providing diffs on the next occasion. ] <sub>]</sub> 12:28, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
	:::::::] I was asking for diffs what makes you think I was not? -- ] (]) 12:31, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
	::::::::You're asking DocumentError to strike the diffs he was blocked for not providing earlier. ] <sub>]</sub> 12:49, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
	:::::::::No I am saying that if DocumentError insists on re-presenting the same complaints, then DocumentError should have taken heed of the block and presented them as diffs. However as Bishonen has already dealt with these complaints I do not think they need to be examined again, and doing so can be see as trying to ], so I suggest that those old complaints from before the close of the recent ANI are struck out and AFAICT that just leaves the page patrolling issue. -- ] (]) 13:33, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
	::::::::::If I may diagree with the greatest respect and deference; I don't want to put words in Bish's mouth, but my understanding, when she said "I will not spend the best years of my life reading those" was that she had not read them (due to my linking to sections instead of diffs for which she wisely blocked me for 36 hours and which I have here corrected).
	::::::::::Second, 9 of the 13 diffs you've requested be struck were not actually included in LP's ANI against me.
	::::::::::Third, as I noted, these are presented for purposes of context only for the benefit of editors who are not familiar with the details of the background, as I was previously blocked for not providing detailed of background (thank you for teaching me how to link to archived diffs so I don't make that same error). This is why I labeled them "background" and the issue being raised "this issue." My block-free record and history clear of disputes with other editors was something I was very proud of and it was very painful to see that erased forever. If these explanations do not makes sense and, in trying to "CYA" (CMA?), I have gone too far in the other direction I will make whatever changes directed. My obeisance is total and the preceding explanation is not an attempt to challenge you but simply a clarification in case of misunderstanding created by my own inferior ability at explanation. ]]] 15:08, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
	:::::PBS, thank you, you are correct. There are two instances where I linked to sections instead of diffs. I will have those corrected and edited within the next 10 minutes. '''Edit:''' the two instances of links to sections instead of diffs have been corrected; in these cases they were archived discussions and I'm not 100% sure how to link to diffs within a sigmabot archived discussion, but I think I did it correctly - if I did not, please give me a heads-up. Thanks. '''Edit2:''' I added two more diff links and struck the corresponding section links as requested. I think that's everything. Sorry for my technical issues. ]]] 12:24, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
	:::::] summary below belies what you say and if for example we now take your first allegation for which you have now provided a link the link does not support you summary of "{{green| began to repeatedly denounce me as an "Iranian" "anti-American,"}}" an accurate quote is {{green|... was editing from a clear pro-Iran, anti-American POV and did engage in forum shopping"}} No "Iranian" there (or in the rest of the diff) and you would have had to had produced multiple diffs for the "repeatedly" accusation. -- ] (]) 11:54, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
	A bit of explanation. When I tried NewPagePatrol I had read (what I now realize today) is only some of the instructions (which are spread across various pages I now learn). Seeing the massive 90+ day general que I set the filters to Unpatrolled+Created by Blocked Users and started from the oldest ones thinking that such pages have a somewhat higher chance of being junk/vandalism etc. and I'd be less likely to offend some new well meaning editor if I made a mistake since the editors are (I thought long-term/indef) blocked anyway. Because I was working from a much much smaller pool, and DocumentError was currently blocked but evidently had some of the oldest unreviewed pages, it is easy to see how I inadvertently encountered his pages. The two I looked earlier, I just green checked since they were 10 times better developed then most of the new pages and had obviously had experienced editor attention already. ] (]) 12:21, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
	**], can we hear you say that you will make an attempt to ''not'' ''appear'' to be hounding DocumentError? ] (]) 17:06, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
	:::Of course, I've been avoiding him for months because I find his behavior unpleasant. The last ANi was launched because he butted into another ANi thread, and started making inciting comments to other editors about me in various locations as detailed in that ANi. ] (]) 19:17, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
	*Legacypac did indeed call for my mop, a year and a half ago. On the one hand, I am not sure how that old business relates to the present case. On the other, it is of course true that Legacypac should be blocked indefinitely for being wrong (but I'm pleased that DocumentError brought it up, since now I know that they're good). Also, I am very happy that experienced <s>masochists</s> admins like PBS and Bishonen are here to read through the court files; when they have done so, I will gladly sign off on whatever version of "non-actionable; will you please learn to get along like big kids should" they endorse. ] (]) 14:34, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
	:::I confirm I made an ill advised comment in a content dispute when I had a lot less experience and I still regret that. I hope Drmies is not holding a grudge because I recognize him to be a good admin and I don't think we have ever tangled since. ] (]) 19:17, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
	*'''Comment''', Whatever happens PLEASE can involved parties make interventions that aim to reduce the drama within and around ISIL related topics. ] please can you edit in a way that reduces drama on ISIL related pages. You are raising issue with Legacypac. Why are you pinging other editors all around? You have done this before and a fair objection was raised on the grounds of ]. I previously got in contact with you on your talk page as one of five editors that you pinged on PBS's talk page regarding your allegations of Legacypac's "toxicity". I was the only editor to respond: making note of Legacypac's good faith edits which after I justifiably objected to them, were quickly removed. I raised content with you in the context of another comment of yours where you had spoken of a ~"poisonous" atmosphere in ISIL related discussions. You spoke of 'I made a conscious choice to stay away from ISIL-related topics several months ago after being called an "anti-Semite," "anti-American," "radical anti-American," "pro-terrorist," "cyber-terrorist," "raving anti-American terrorist nutjob," "raghead," "liberal," etc. by a tightly coordinated duo of editors.' You were asked to justify these claims. You speak of Legacypac holding a grudge and of hounding but seriously. Any AN/I can go both ways and at any time you were brought to AN/I you were entitled to argue your case. I do not think that you are entitled to fan flames by inviting editors left right and centre to discussions with claims of wrong. You mentioned two editors that apparently had made all the cited remarks which, on there own, would be worth of an AN/I. Instead you raise issue on behalf of other editors who, from your account, are familiar with AN/I.
	:Any genuine accusation of Legacypac's activities can, of course, be looked into. I raised my own comment in the last AN/I and elsewhere and I believe that Legacypac has given consideration to this content. Overall I can comment that I have seen Legacypac face great hostility at times in his efforts to defend against disruptive editing on various wiki pages and that his approach has often, but not always IMO, been exemplary. Comments made have been factually based. ]] 15:36, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
	::{{Userlinks|GregKaye}} You said "please can you edit in a way that reduces drama on ISIL related pages" - as you know I have not edited any ISIL-related page in 3 months and, during the time I did, was never cautioned regarding any "drama." So I don't know what your request is in reference to or what it has to do with the issue of patrolling ] and other pages. To your other point, many editors have commented on the "toxicity" of the ISIL pages right now. That's not a secret. I don't know what this has to do with Legacypac as he was never mentioned in the conversation you're referencing, nor do I understand what it has to do with the issue of patrolling ] and other pages. You broached these same points in LP's ANI against me in identical verbiage and I similarly expressed my confusion. I'm sorry I can't help you. ]]] 16:46, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
	::: ] Simply that you have gone to editor's talk pages making IMO provocative usages of words like ] and ] and have made uncited accusations. I am asking you to consider these issues. Please do not canvass. Feel free to raise your own arguments and points as needed. If you see wrong done in regard to such issues as misrepresentation then raise issue. Please support efforts to reduce drama on the page. You have made some fair edits but I have regarded your word use as being prone to incitement. I have asked Legacypac to consider issues and ask you to do the same. ]] 17:29, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
	:::: {{Userlinks|GregKaye}}, every "accusation" I've made in this ANI is supported by a diff, as shown above. Diffs are indicated by purple numbers inside brackets. You raised the same question in LP's ANI against me. All other editors, with the lone exception of you and editor "23.27.252.213", disputed that characterization with John Smith the Gamer observing that my "accusations" were supported by diffs and firmly stating "he did not make unsubstantiated personal attacks." (all linked at the top) In light of the strong consensus against the idea that I ever made "unsubstantiated attacks," it would be warmly appreciated if you and 23.27.252.213 reconsidered your decision to shop that claim. Best wishes - ]]] 17:54, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
	::::This is another extraordinary claim unsupported by diffs. Start with the closing admin's comments. ] (]) 19:17, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
	So DocumentError is here, where DocumentError has lived, for months, on their own, and many unrelated issues, with many, many words, I'm sure all of which were wise and sincere, to suggest that now that they are back from their block, which happened because they were here a lot, and they got tired, we should block someone who came here a lot, for making them tired. Is that right? If so, there are probably other ways to solve this. Off the absolute top of my head, there's ''"not coming here a lot"'' - but I'm sure there are other solutions, too. <span style="font-family:Arial;font-weight:bold;color:#000;">]&thinsp;]</span> 15:59, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
	::Just a minor point of correction, prior to last week, the week in which LP filed an ANI against me (which was found non-actionable, like the many previous ones he's filed against me), I had not been at ANI since October 3 (and the only reason I was here then was to respond to one of the various ANIs Legacypac had filed against me ). So I'm not sure it's technically correct to say I've lived at ANI "for months, on " and been raising "many unrelated issues, with many, many words" considering I haven't visited ANI for 4 months have posted zero words to it in that time. Other editors party to this ANI may have been more frequent visitors to this section of WP. Thanks - ]]] 16:46, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
	:::That's a fair correction, and I apologise. However, it would be true to say that the only reason I recognise your username at all is from your posts here, and that's interesting in itself, I think. You have been prolific here, and not always for the right reasons. Congratulations if you are staying away now. --<span style="font-family:Arial;font-weight:bold;color:#000;">]&thinsp;]</span> 17:06, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
	::::No hard feelings, but I think you may have me confused with a different editor. I joined WP in November 2013, my first post to ANI was 1 September 2014 and my last post (prior to last week) was, as mentioned, one month later on 3 October 2014, with the exception of 4 short comments over 48 hours in November in this thread to which I was not party but providing uninvolved comments. ]]] 17:54, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
	There seems to be confusion over why DocumentError was blocked. I understood it was for his behavior in making unsubstantiated accusations, but over here he says So he comes off the block and makes more unsubstantiated allegations but with better diffs. Since he believes he only made a technical violation, clearly the block did not have the desired effect of modifying his behavior.
	'''Question:''' In the last ANi you were asked to provide diffs for the extraordinary claim you were called an "anti-Semite," <s>"anti-American,"</s> "radical anti-American," "pro-terrorist," "cyber-terrorist," "raving anti-American terrorist nutjob," "raghead," "liberal," etc. by a tightly coordinated <u>duo of editors</u>.' It appears, based on the context and timing, that you believe I was one of those two editors because you level some of these accusations directly at me in the ANi. Before anyone worries about a frustrated innapropriate comment I made in April 2013 to an Admin I disagreed with in a content dispute, or an old BLP topic ban served without a whisper of an issue or anything else unrelated to my or our interaction, how about helping us all find where any editor called you these atrociously inappropriate names (other then the anti-American comment about your editing style which was discussed). That is actionable, the rest is noise. ] (]) 19:17, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
	:'''Comment (Want no part in the ANI)''' I have kept away from DocumentError after they pretty much stopped editing any ISIL related articles and I really want no part of this ANI but considering that they accused editors during their time on ISIL articles of calling them that and I was an editor who DocError accused of other things like canvassing, I would like to see those diffs because I did not do any of that. - ]&nbsp;<span style="font-size:85%">(])</span> 22:04, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
	'''Comment''' Is it only me that thinks a two-way IBAN would stop this nonsense once and for all? Neither editor is exactly covering themselves with glory here. ] 20:24, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
	::::], I hope that it is. IBANs provide no resolution to actual issues and instead may hamper any possibility for resolution to be achieved. There is no reason why these two competent editors cannot work well together if that is needed and if Misplaced Pages guidelines are followed this could happen. These editors have not been involved in the editing of similar article topics for a while but, if editors are in contact, rules should apply. ]] 07:40, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
	*I've been through the diffs DocumentError provides in the complaint above, and it seems clear that he hasn't got the message from his 36 hour block. Specific issues:
	:*Background point 1 - DocumentError characterises as ''repeatedly denounce me as an "Iranian" "anti-American."'' The actual quote is ''editing from a clear pro-Iran, anti-American POV''. So not only is it misquoted, I'm pretty sure that doesn't amount to denouncing repeatedly.
	:*Background point 3 - objects to the summary on , ''revert utter nonsense edit by user pushing some agenda''. The summary might not be the most civil out there, but the edit he was reverting was very clear vandalism, and very likely POV-pushing vandalism at that. Some might think the summary justified in this case. Note that he also .
	:*Background point 3 - DocumentError still doesn't seem to know how to find a diff correctly. There is some complaint about , which covers more than 17 hours of changes at ]. Not very useful.
	:*Background point 3 - DocumentError objects to and , only one of which is Legacypac's edits because DocumentError still can't produce an accurate diff. As much as we might feel sympathy for the poor, new editor who was 'blasted', it's worth noting that he has since been indeffed as a . Not such a poor, new user, after all.
	:*Background point 3 - the difference with Drmies is now approaching two years old and this is starting to look a lot like throwing mud to see what will stick.
	:*Background point 3 - once again accuses Legacypac of using the term 'pro-terrorist', complete with a .
	:*Background point 4a - ''here he moved the entire page "2014 Military Intervention against ISIL" even though a move discussion on that very topic had just opened two hours before '' - this is outrageously misleading, verging on completely false. The first link is to a diff of Legacypac moving the page on October 6; the second to a move discussion which ran from 11 August to 31 August, in which the debate was between including 'American' or 'United States' in the title.
	:*Background point 4b - ''he unilaterally blanked the entire page Siege of Kobanî; Kkj11210 had to revert his unilateral decision to remove all sourced content''. However, even a cursory glance through the page history at the time shows this was part of a useful attempt to sort out two pages about the same subject and not intended as vandalism. Again, we're throwing mud to see what sticks.
	:*Background point 4c - the dispute about the article name seems pretty ridiculous, but nonetheless the move has since gained consensus and the current article title reflects what Legacypac did back in October.
	:I'd suggest a somewhat longer block is now appropriate. ] (]) 03:58, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
	::Thank you ] for your appraisal. -- ] (]) 11:54, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
	:::I note that, according to ], the user is 'grounded by their parents from using the computer.' It's a little hard to know how literally to take this, since the user page also went through 'retired' and 'semi-retired' versions earlier the same day that template was posted. It always seems, to me, tricky to know how to handle these situations; closing this with no action seems to serve as encouragement, while advocating sanctions against the user seems like grave-dancing. Suggestions? ] (]) 05:50, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
	<s>::::While looking up the when faced with possible sanctions (a retirement that lasted less then 2 minutes and consisted of doing over 1000 edits that month) I found where an already blocked IP did say some very , but not at all like he claims two editors on ISIL said though. If he really is a kid, I don't know what to say. It's not fun being on the receiving end of his unsubstantiated attacks. If he acts like this in school I bet he's a punching bag. ] (]) 08:50, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
	::::How about an Admin closes this as follows (an idea anyway):
	::::* 24 hour block so it gets recorded in his block log for future reference
	::::*Clear statement that the accusations against me in this ANi and the last one were found to be largely unsubstantiated and that he should never launch another unsubstantiated ANi again if he wants to continue editing on Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 09:04, 13 January 2015 (UTC)</s>
	{{od}}
	:See this ] (closed 8 January 2015).
	I am closing this ANI. It was initially brought by DocumentError because while DocumentError was temporarily blocked Legacypac placed on DocumentError's talk page (while LP knew that DE was blocked) which could be seen as harassment, particularly as there was a lack of good faith between these two editors. Legacypac has explained that they were autogenerated by the "New Page feed tool" and that it was carelessness and not maliciousness that caused Legacypac to review new pages created by DocumentError. I have weighed the issue and I am satisfied that if one assumes good faith then Legacypac's explanation that the interaction was due to carelessness is acceptable (for the details see ). So there is no point in taking further administrative action over the careless use of this tool. However Legacypac if you are careless in future with additional tools and privileges expect further administrative action (fool me once shame shame on you, try to fool me again and its "malleting" time.<sup>To use British Army slang</sup>)
	] the recent posting which starts "While looking up the..." was unnecessary and inflammatory and indeed could read as a personal attack. It also undermines your defence that you actions during DocumentError's block was just due to carelessness. Although I am closing this ANI, I expect you as a sign of good will to strike thorough you two most recent postings to this section with the time stamps of 08:50 and 09:04, 13 January 2015 as they do more harm than good.
	] this ANI has to an extent boomeranged on you. The chief reason for this is that you have totally ignored the block placed on you by Bishonen and repeated similar allegations in a similar way, particularly in linking to huge slabs of previous ANIs and not the precise diffs you were asked to do in future by Bishonen. Now assuming good faith and that this was because you did not ", and now I have given you a detailed explanation of how to do this (see ), you will have no excuse in future for not providing accurate diffs of talk page conversations. This does not however excuse you for misquoting what someone else has written (as I and GoldenRing) have detailed in this ANI (you must re-read and quote what a person wrote not what you remember them as writing as the two may differ -- eg "pro-Iran" and "Iranian" are not one and the same thing). As GoldenRing has detailed, all your additional accusations against Legacypac did not warren the time to read through them. Remember that administrators are volunteers and usually they have other things they would rather be doing. Wasting their time with voluminous complaints will not endear you to them (also remember the parable of the Peter and the Wolf). In this case, if you had just raised Legacypac's carelessness/maliciousness while you were blocked the ANI would have been focused on that, a resolution would have been quickly found and this ANI would not have boomeranged on you.
	If either of you bring an ANI against the other in future neither of you are to refer to perceived wrongdoings of the other before the closure time of this ANI. If you do then expect administrative action.
	As Legacypac already has a voluntary interaction ban with DocumentError I expect that to continue (including no interaction with semi-automated processes), Likewise I would expect DocumentError to respect the interaction ban and not make edits like . I would also advise DocumentError to continue to stay away from the pages covered by the ] for the next six moths, to reduce the likelihood of needing to breach the voluntary interaction ban. Either party may ask another editor to act as a go between to request of the other that the voluntary interaction ban is lifted once they feel that it is no longer serving a useful purpose.
	Both editors are to leave a message on my talk page within 24 hours of their next edit on Misplaced Pages to inform me if they agree to all these voluntary conditions on which I close this ANI. If either party does not agree then I will bring an ANI to allow the community to decide what to do.
	-- ] (]) 15:51, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
	{{archive bottom}}
	== Disruptive editing, POV Pushing, User attacks after last warning, Editwarring. ==
	The user ] is disruptively editing wikipedia.
	===Last Edit War Warnings===
	https://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Gsfelipe94/Archive_1
	https://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Gsfelipe94
	===Edit wars after last warning===
	*https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=2014_Copa_do_Brasil&action=history (shows no intent to resolve dispute)
	*https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=UFC_Fight_Night:_Machida_vs._Dollaway&diff=prev&oldid=639013191 (POV pushing with user attack)
	===User attack warnings===
	*https://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Gsfelipe94/Archive_1
	*https://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Gsfelipe94
	===User attacks after last warning===
	*https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=UFC_182&diff=prev&oldid=641979120
	*https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=UFC_Fight_Night:_Machida_vs._Dollaway&diff=prev&oldid=639013191
	This user has ignored warnings and will probably continue to ignore warnings. This user needs to know that their pattern of editing is unacceptable. I'm also only showing edits that I have found after the first "last warnings". There are probably others before then.
	===Statements from other users===
	*I've been a victim of a personal attack from ] and I feel that a 14 day block would be the right amount of time for him to rethink his actions and learn how to be a better peer to his fellow Wikipedians. An indef block would not be necessary as his contributions to Misplaced Pages have been useful. However, a block over a period of time should spark him to learn better etiquette when in diagreement with fellow Wikipedians and not resort to personal attacks and disruptive edits. ] (]) 19:35, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
	===See also===
	*'''] '''
	"Disruptive editors sometimes attempt to evade ] by using several practices when disrupting articles:
	* Their (disruptive) edits occur over a long period of time; in this case, no single edit may be clearly disruptive, but the overall pattern is disruptive.
	* Their edits often avoid gross breaches of ], by refraining from ], while still interfering with civil and collaborative editing meant to improve the article.
	* Their edits remain limited to a small number of pages that very few people watch.
	Nonetheless, such disruptive editing violates site policy."
	Please leave a talkback on my talk page if you wish for me to respond. ] (]) 15:56, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
	:Didn't post anything here, but all of my current statements are on ]'s talk page. Thanks. ] (]) 15:57, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
	==IP adding unsourced material and blanking warnings==
	{{archivetop|Blocked. IP is clearly ]. As usual, too much talk here before actually doing anything about it. --] (]) 04:21, 14 January 2015 (UTC) Block extended to 3 months and Bozo indeffed. I wanted to stop the spree quickly so I didn;t see the post by {{U|EdJohnston}} while I was doing it. --] (]) 05:15, 14 January 2015 (UTC)}}
	*{{userlinks|174.4.163.53}}
	:* Noticed editor when changed ] through the whole page into ], unsourced. . When checked edits, reverting some and was thinking of warning him I found only a barnstar on their page (?). That was weird, considering that a lot of their edits were incorrect and . Notice . I know that people may remove things from their pages, however the admins reading this entry have to know that he was notified last warning twice. Ip has long history of warnings for disruptive edits and unsourced additions, also possibly evading a previous block, according to {{U|Salvidrim!}}, notice edit summary ; What is bothered me that they edit very narrow topics and add lots of unsourced material that sometime is difficult to chech for other editors. ] (]) 09:50, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
	It's all good, I'm just adding enlightenment to Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 11:20, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
	:Let's see what the others say. ] (]) 12:12, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
	::He's right about the word origin, but that's insufficient. He would need to demonstrate that the preponderance of sources call him "John the Messenger". And note that users whose avowed goal is to eddycate wikipedians usually end up learning a hard lesson themselves. ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 13:50, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
	:*However he is not called in English ''John the Messenger''. In the Encyclopedia Britannica the entry is calling him <sup>Saint</sup> John '''the Apostle'''. Apostle is a term from from Ancient Greek ἀπόστολος (apóstolos, ''one sent forth, apostle''). This is however the English Wiki, not the Ancient Greek. <ref>{{cite web|url=http://global.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/305163/Saint-John-the-Apostle|title=Saint-John-the-Apostle|publisher=global.britannica.com|accessdate=}}</ref> Ip changed ''John the Apostle'' to ''John the Messenger'' in the WHOLE ARTICLE, every single time mentioned. ] (]) 14:29, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
	:::What ] said. If sourced, then "Messenger" is certainly worth mentioning, but otherwise Misplaced Pages calls him by what he is most commonly known, and searched, by. My dealings with this editor have extended as far as his insistence on adding ] to ]. The editor has blanked messages on his talk page, and doesn't appear incline to discuss. --<font color="green">]</font> <sup>]</sup> 16:52, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
	:::*That is one reason I mentioned editor has blanked messages on his talk page, - because he removed them without response. ] (]) 17:58, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
	::::*He's allowed to do that. ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 18:10, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
	:::::I know. But it is difficult to dicuss things when the only reaction is just blaninkg the page. ] (]) 19:21, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
	:::* I belive {{U|Ian.thomson}} {{U|Escape Orbit}} and {{U|JudeccaXIII}} also had some similar issues whith these edits. ] (]) 14:49, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
	::*I'm surprised he's not trying to rename Jesus Christ to Jesus the Anointed. ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 18:13, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
	::Sigh, and he changed divinity to ... godhead? And nobody noticed it. ] (]) 19:28, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
	::Well, that is from Middle English godhede, "godhood". Hardly the most commonly known word. ] (]) 19:32, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
	{{reflist-talk}}
	:::] is the relevant article, Hafspajen. ] (]) 23:52, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
	:::* Yes it is, a valid '''article''', Nyttend. But as an expression, nobody would write '''godhead''' instead of '''divinity''' per ], throughout a whole article, replacing divinity with godhead everywhere - the same as you wouldn't call ] for ''John the Messenger'', or Jesus principally known as philosopher - and such. ] is also a valid article. The set of words "divine", "divinely", "free will" and "chaos" are better than "godly", "God", "choice" and "confusion". They are better because they are both more common in readings on this type of topic and more academic. Ip changed ( no sources) ORIGINAL: '' ] - various theorized meanings such as "the host of angels," or an indication of God as a being with many aspects and manifestations'' (that was the original) INTO:''] (Gods) - various theorized meanings such as "the host of angels," or an indication of God as a being with multiple persons or aspects''. This '''sounds''' Ok, but, Elohim is not '''Gods'''. It is till one God. There are aspects of it. Not multiple persons, but multiple manifestations of one and the same thing. I find this - floating around adding this and that in a rather amateurish way - well. You have to have some basic knowledge about the subject when editing. If you don't really grasp it fully and still go on without sources, that causes a lot of trouble for other editors who has to make the cleanup. I believe they have been warned already like five times, + 2 final warnings. Nothing happened, no discussion, nothing, just blanking the page and going on exactly the same way. ] (]) 00:16, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
	::::* And I think discussion made {{U|Salvidrim!}} note sockpuppet in the edit summary ; ] (]) 00:36, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
	:::::*Not questioning your position, Hafspajen; I just thought you were unfamiliar with the term in current usage. ] (]) 02:05, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
	:::::::*OK, thanks, Nyttend. {{smiley}} ] (]) 16:04, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
	*'''Recommend a short block''' - The IP's reply "It's all good, I'm just adding enlightenment to Misplaced Pages" shows a disregard for consensus and the opinions of other editors. Controversial edits should be discussed, but the comment appears to be a refusal to discuss. ] (]) 04:13, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
	I'm willing to discuss anything, sure you Moderators can give my IP a short block, but do not think again that I will not discuss. Encyclopedia Britannica is supposed to be secular, right? So why does it use Apostle rather than Messenger? Very odd. As Misplaced Pages is secular, so I think Apostle should be shown to be Messenger across Misplaced Pages as some articles do this already, such as]. It's just a suggestion that we get the language modern. Jesus (the) Anointed sounds like a great idea, but it's much more commonly known that Christ means Anointed, funny that you say that but I know that's a long shot, so first I am just suggesting it being known that Apostle means Messenger. ] (]) 07:07, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
	:::::* Prophet and messenger (or ]) are two terms frequently used in Islam - but not in Christianity. ] (]) 15:37, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
	:Your habit of not using edit summaries on your edits until you are reverting them, and your blanking of talk page messages without response, does not indicate a willingness to explain or discuss your edits. If you want other editors to understand what you are changing, and why, then please use the edit summary. They often help misunderstandings be avoided from the start.
	:To answer your question; Misplaced Pages uses ] because it is the ] most likely to be used by readers looking for information about him. If you think it is possible that ] may be used then you should create a redirect. --<font color="green">]</font> <sup>]</sup> 13:57, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
	::*Here we , revert with no discussion to godhead instead of divinity, while discussing at ANI. Did you ever read ]? ], ]? Do you understand how Misplaced Pages is edited? is just messing around. ] and ] are a tricky things. More and better people get lost in it. If you don't have your notions crystal clear you should quit editing the topic. I might even suggest that this is a case of :User not here to build an ] in accordance with Misplaced Pages's principles, using ] as a method. ] (]) 13:33, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
	::::And what exactly do you mean by: ''Encyclopedia Britannica is supposed to be secular'' ...? Are you about to turn Misplaced Pages into a non-secular encyclopedia? ] (]) 14:55, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
	::::* ]. Philosophy and religion is the examination of the central themes and concepts involved in religious traditions, involving all the main areas of philosophy: metaphysics, epistemology, logic, ethics and value theory, law, sociology, politics, history, an investigation into the religious significance of historical events as studied primarily in analytic departments of philosophy and religious studies. We can't jump all over this. ] (]) 15:02, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
	::::::This IP was for abusing multiple accounts, and is named in ]. The original ANI was ]. I am considering the wisdom of an indefinite block of Bozo33 and three months for the IP. The rationale would be disruptive editing and abusing multiple accounts. For more on the disruption see the November ANI. ] (]) 04:16, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
	{{archivebottom}}
	== User RGloucester ==
	{{archivetop|Given RGloucester has been blocked and unblocked, there seems nothing left to do in this thread. I am closing this even though I have recused re RGloucester, as this thread seems moot.--] (]) 23:09, 13 January 2015 (UTC)}}
	Could an uninvolved administrator look at
	* https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion/Je_suis_Charlie&diff=642062250&oldid=642060442 foreshadowed disruption
	* https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:RGloucester&diff=642118044&oldid=642100445 response to polite request not to disrupt (I provided diff and link to procedure), refusal to discuss, personal attack
	* https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:RGloucester&diff=642186013&oldid=642184525 refusal to discuss personal attacks (I provided two diffs and link to policy)
	I have reluctantly disregarded {{u|RGloucester}}'s request regarding their user talk page (the latest quite polite) and again posted to it, informing them of this discussion as required.
	: of that post just in case they again just delete the section from their user page. ] (]) 22:29, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
	:: . ] (]) 23:10, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
	RGloucester is an extremely productive editor, with multiple barnstars. But in my opinion that is all the more reason they should not be encouraged to defy procedures and policies, as there is a real risk that others will copy this behaviour. ] (]) 22:17, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
	:As someone who was involved voting and giving my after opinions I just want to say that RGloucester should be more careful with AfDs. I can name at least three that were Snow Kept in the last week or so and this desire to keep re-nominating things until they are deleted is not good. - ] (]) 22:23, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
	::To be fair here I also want to add that there are plenty of things that should get deleted that just happen but with things unfolding so fast at times I feel it would be best to wait for the dust to settle first. - ] (]) 22:34, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
	::], can you provide links to these three? ] (]) 23:34, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
	: I tend have also a problem with this user. Look at his attitude at his user talk page ] and past RM discussions, ], ], and ]. --] (]) 22:31, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
	::He's the one primarily responsible for getting the ] page deleted and redirected . . . took several attempts but eventually he got it done. ] (]) 22:41, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
	:::That's not quite accurate, IMO. He may have got what he wanted in the end, and it may have been the right result, but his conduct was poor and he made a proper balls-up of it. It was left to other editors to tidy up after him and actually achieve the redirect. I can't see what he's actually done wrong in this case, though. He's entitled to ban people from his user page, even unreasonably, if he wants. He's also entitled to wait a month a re-nominate the article for deletion (although failure is probably assured). ] (]) 23:31, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
	::::''He's entitled to ban people from his user page, even unreasonably, if he wants.'' I seriously question this. ]s belong to the project like any other page. We should not unreasonably edit them, but a ] in particular should normally be open to any editor in good standing to use in according to the guidelines. And many of our procedures including ANI itself assume this. ] (]) 23:58, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
	::::: Still though if a user bans you from their talk-page and you continue it is generally seen as harassment. Even if it is for good intentions the user still has the evidence that they told you to keep away. - ] (]) 00:14, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
	::::::I hope I haven't stepped over the line into ]. Sobering thought. I had a look at ] and think I'm within both the letter and spirit of it, but it's a bit tricky and something to bear in mind, certainly. ] (]) 00:29, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
	:::::::No but now you are aware of it, normally when it comes to user's talk-pages and they tell you to stay off and you continue the admin looking at the issue takes it down as evidence. There are exceptions to this (Such as they talk about you on their talk-page after warning you to stay away ect...) that I am sure are here somewhere but best be careful. - ] (]) 00:28, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
	::::::::Perhaps in hindsight I should have come here after the first warning, rather than attempting to discuss the personal attack. If I were acting as an admin I would dismiss that first warning as invalid just because of the personal attack, but it's a line call. The third edit was of course required in order to start this section. I'm not intending for there to be a fourth unless I'm again forced to do so by procedures, as I might be if we end up at ARBCOM for example, and would have been had RfC/U still been an option and we'd taken it. ] (]) 00:37, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
	:::There was some evidence of many past similar incidents even before I cam here, but I have not researched this thoroughly as it's obviously not helpful for me to try to discuss any of it further on their talk page. Links to other similar incidents appreciated, that will save a lot of time. More please.
	:::And much of this strikes at the heart of ] and of cooperative editing generally, in my opinion. Not good at all. ] (]) 23:04, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
	::::], another ] keep with the "must be deleted" attitude. - ] (]) 23:11, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
	*''''Uninvolved Editor Comment''' I looked through the diffs and my assessment is RGloucester is doing nothing wrong. He is perfectly free to nominate the article for deletion in a month, and to say he plans to do that is fine. I don't agree with him though, rather a redirect would be very appropriate right now. ] (]) 22:53, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
	::Perhaps not, but I tend to agree with George Ho this editor has definite pluses and minuses. Were RFC/U not fairly moribund, I'd suggest that. I don't think there is much doubt that RGloucester can rub people the wrong way.--] (]) 23:08, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
	:::] appears to have been abolished, but required that a second editor first take up the specific issue of the RfC on the user's talk page. Which is still a good idea IMO. Or has that been done already? It's a bit hard to tell when they don't archive or reply to discussions they don't like. Anyone feel like dredging through the page history? Or (best) can someone who was there on a previous discussion provide diffs? ] (]) 23:26, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
	::::Not really. I suggest eventually RGloucester will take care of himself. Either he'll improve his tone or, given the prominent political issues he involves himself in, he'll win up as an ArbCom party and have his contributions dissected. I don't see anything short of that really working, he's got a fan club.--] (]) 23:33, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
	:::::No, RGlouster will not ''take care of himself''. To ''improve his tone'' requires feedback from somebody. To ''wind up as an ArbCom Party'' requires action from somebody. If enough of us remain silent, it's Misplaced Pages that will change rather than RGlouster.
	:::::But that's not to say you have to be the one to take the action or even give the feedback. If that's not your thing, fine. Just please don't discourage others who otherwise might. ] (]) 00:45, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
	::::::I think that's a bit harsh. We basically agree. I can't act as an admin regarding RGloucester as I am involved and I take the position that a recused admin should avoid being a complainant if it can possibly be avoided. I don't think I'm discouraging anyone. As for RGloucester improving himself, well, I grant your point, but I prefer more gentle phrasings.--] (]) 03:01, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
	:::::::We will see. Giving RGoucester a free hand to abuse the AfD process and to ignore WP:NPA doesn't seem to me to be a good direction, but I seem to be the only one interested in any action, and of course I can't do it unilaterally. ] (]) 04:28, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
	::::::::Nor can I, and I really didn't like the way he acted on the Russia/Ukraine disputes. But if he winds up before ArbCom, and given his taste for high-profile current event issues, that is likely to happen one of these days, I will certainly enter a detailed statement re battlefield behavior.--] (]) 12:12, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
	::This only addresses one of the several issues I raised, and that one inaccurately. It wasn't just the threat of repeated AfD nominations until one succeeds in obtaining merge and redirect, a tactic that seems to have worked in the past. The fundamental issue was that even the first nomination was in violation of the clear instructions on the AfD page. It wasn't a request for deletion at all, but for merge and redirect.
	::And there are other issues... did you intend the comment that they are ''doing nothing wrong'' to apply to all of them? ] (]) 23:17, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
	:Part of the issue that we have a lot of articles that are being created on current events that fail ]/] which we are having problems enforcing, and RG has been very much on top of trying to stop these from growing out of control. We have Wikinews for articles on current events. The attitude is a bit of an issue, but far beyond ANI action here - proposing that they will renom within a month is by no means a sign of disruption unless this was like the 3rd or 4th attempt. --] (]) 23:40, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
	::So you think that there should be some limit to the number of times? That's been suggested many times and always failed to gain consensus.
	::But the issue with this one was that even the first nomination breached the AfD instructions. To renominate even once when this has been pointed out is disruptive, in my opinion.
	::And even if my initial complaint wasn't valid (I still think it was, but even if...) that's no excuse for a personal attack. ] (]) 00:20, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
	A month down the track is a pretty reasonable time frame to seek a new consensus. RG could have said it better than "ensure it is deleted and merged, as is necessary". RG does need to tone it down. He has a tendency to get riled up easily. ] (]) 00:32, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
	:Agree that ''A month down the track is a pretty reasonable time frame to seek a new consensus'', that's not the issue, and as I've said above, none of the many attempts to set a guideline limiting renominations more severely have been within a ball park of consensus.
	:And we seem to have a consensus that ''RG does need to tone it down''. So... how?
	:Several people above say they've read the diffs I gave. I'd ask you to read this slightly different one (it's my edit not the reversion) https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:RGloucester&diff=prev&oldid=642100445 and note the wording ''please do not renominate that article, as you have foreshadowed, '''unless you have new reasons for deletion''' (as opposed to merge)'' (my new emphasis). Was that unreasonable? ] (]) 01:00, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
	PS Much of the discussion above doesn't really belong in ANI.
	What I'm after here is an uninvolved admin to have a look at the diffs I gave. Or have I missed it? ] (]) 02:09, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
	::You are missing something. Various editors have confirmed it. Sorry. ] (]) 03:27, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
	:::You're right, I now see at least one uninvolved admin who has commented, and there's no interest in any action. As I say above, I can't do anything about this unilaterally. ] (]) 04:28, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
	*'''Comment''' This could be a sign of ] as well as attempting to ] consensus and the refusal to accept community consensus. If this is a pattern, then I can very much see see the editor being blocked for ] ] (]) 04:31, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
	:*'''Comment''' RGloucester is an editor who takes an extreme position against articles about news topics, especially crimes. I believe that the editor is acting in good faith, but all too often makes the mistake of substituting their individual perception of what this project ''should'' be for what our actual consensus view of the project actually is. When combined with a strident and dogmatic tendency to insist that "what I say is indisputably correct, and all the foolish people who oppose me are terribly wrong", the potential for conflict is very high. I urge moderation while expecting that my advice may well be discounted. ] ] 08:12, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
	::*Good summary. I wish I thought ''moderation'' would help, but I actually think it's part of the problem. ] (]) 22:25, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
	* I've blocked {{u|RGloucester}} for 24 hours for the personal attack noted in the block message. ] <sup>]</sup> 15:44, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
	:: RGloucester has been unblocked after discussion. {{u|Andrewa}}, please refrain from posting on their talk page, and please refrain from using the word "ridiculous" with regard to other editors' comments. No comment should be ridiculed. If an editor is wrong, they should be refuted or corrected. Thank you. I think we are done here. ] <sup>]</sup> 18:47, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
	:::I will comply with these two requests.
	:::May I however ask whether the intention of the second is to prevent me from using ANI or ARBCOM, or similar procedures requiring notification on a user's talk page, if RGloucester is involved? That is the result if I am unable to post to their user talk page. Or is there some way around this? ] (]) 19:06, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
	::::Hopefully you won't need to exercise those exemptions. This is not any sort of formal ban, just a request that since they don't like you, that you not appear on their talk page needlessly. ] <sup>]</sup> 21:27, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
	:::::I hope I won't too! In fact I have already said above that I posted on their user talk page with great reluctance, that I was unsure whether my second post there (there have only been three) was a good idea or whether I should in hindsight have come straight here after the response to the first, and that I very much hoped not to post there again, so I'm a little surprised that you thought the request even necessary. That's not a complaint, if in doubt best to talk it out (most of the time).
	:::::I do take your point that my language escalated the situation. I regret this. But I also note that several other editors supported what I said, that I was commenting on the contribution not the contributor (just as you tell a child that what they did was bad, not that they are bad), and that others (not me) have expressed the opinion that an eventual escalation was likely and even desirable. And I think that this last point has been to some extent confirmed by the reaction to the block.
	:::::Thanks for you attention to this matter. Again as I said above, I had concluded that no action was likely. And it has not been a pleasant experience for either of us.
	:::::There is much I admire about RGloucester. In my opinion the sad thing is that they have been allowed to flaunt procedures and policies for so long. That has not been good for anyone, in my opinion, and is the main reason it has now escalated so rapidly and sadly. I think there is a lesson there. But I'm sure not everyone will agree with me on that. ] (]) 22:02, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
	{{archivebottom}}
	== User:Sayerslle ==
	{{archive top|result=Not COI.--v/r - ]] 17:11, 13 January 2015 (UTC)}}
	] has conflict of interest in ]. ] (]) 16:28, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
	: what are you talking about? what conflict of interest? I am adding RS material to an article and being met with a form of censorship. There is a report in the independent, I think is relevant and notable to this mans biography. what conflict of interest ffs? ] (]) 16:34, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
	::Reporting IP user is engaging in edit warring, and deems a COI exists if an editor is Christian or a member of of the EU- which is neither here, nor there. Boomerang, anyone? ] (]) 16:56, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
	:::Yup. The IP seems to think that being 'possibly Christian' creates a conflict of interest. Just plain nuts. Block the IP on competence grounds as well as for edit-warring... ] (]) 17:05, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
	{{archive bottom}}
	== Continual abuse and harassment by {{U|John Carter}} ==
	{{archive top|result=This matter is being handled in ArbCom, no need to use AI to influence that process. <b>] ]</b> 18:35, 13 January 2015 (UTC)}}
	I am requesting that an interaction ban be imposed between {{U|John Carter}} and myself. John has been mounting a continuous campaign of Stalking , Harassment and unsupported allegations against me for the past two months on an almost daily basis.
	There has been a certain amount of sniping in the past, but this started in earnest with John posting so-called “circumstantial evidence” on a talk page of a recent Arbitration case on 21st November, purporting to indicate that I have access to non-public information regarding ], and therefore that I have some sort of undeclared interest in that organisation.
	In fact I have no such interest, and the “evidence” does not remotely establish that I have. Presumably this was the conclusion that the Arbitrators came to as well. Despite that, John continues to repeat the allegations at frequent intervals. Sometimes it seems that almost every time I have posted on Misplaced Pages since then, John has chimed in with an offensive comment almost immediately. I have tried discussing matters politely, and made a direct request on his Talk page, but all to no avail. The following diffs are just a sample.
	The whole style and tone of John's comments (not just towards me, but to numerous other users also) seems to me to be incompatible with the collaborative and collegiate nature that Misplaced Pages aspires to.
	And recently {{U|Legacypac}} has joined in with the harassment and unsupported allegations.
	Would an interaction ban be appropriate for this user also, or would a warning be more suitable given that this behaviour has only just started? ] (]) 17:25, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
	Only an idiot would say that noting that someone has pointedly and consistently refused to ever adequately respond to questions regarding COI is problematic. Despite the very limited nature of his responses to the question of his possible COI, most recently at ], he persists in misrepresentational overstatement of his very limited denial in an attempt to avoid dealing with the substantive matter of the nature of his allegiance with Landmark. This seems to me to be just a continuation of the dubiously defensible dishonest, incompetent, personal attacks which this editor has recently engaged in at ], and, frankly, seems to be very possibly grounds for sanctions against him. And, yes, the fact that I have suggested such sanctions against him at the ARCA page is to my eyes the very likely reason for him continuing to raise this issue, because as is evident from his comments there he seems to be possibly losing the fight to keep the puffery version of the relevant article extant, and I have raised concerns regarding the ongoing misconduct of DaveApter in recent days at ]. ] (]) 17:34, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
	:Unless you have evidence of a COI and are willing to post it (bearing in mind the outing policy) implying/stating/inferring someone is editing with a COI constitutes a personal attack, so either put up or shut up about it. Although I think DaveApter is overstating the 'harrassment' somewhat as the majority of the diffs above are from an Arb case in which both he and John participated, and a request for clarification he started. Bit cheeky to complain someone isnt editing objectively then run to ANI when they respond to it... ] (]) 17:52, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
	The vast majority of Diffs produced by Dave are in the context of ArbCom related postings. As such, they were already directly evaluated by the committee and clerks. Since there was no sanction from them regarding them, I think it would be unwise for us to put them here. Further, using comments on an ArbCom case as the basis for an IBan seems completely inappropriate. As this larger issue is currently at ] I suggest that this is a form of forum shopping, and trying to use ANI to win at a dispute. I would strongly suggest a boomerang, except that this conduct is already being evaluated at AE. ] (]) 17:57, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
	{{archive bottom}}
	Actually, it is not being handled at AE, but relates to an ongoing request for clarification/amendment. The ArbCom ruling in effect at the time of this writing, which seems to be at this time not changing, does not offer any discretionary sanctions for AE to apply. On that basis, I think that there may be cause to reopen this thread until and unless the ArbCom does decide to authorize discretionary sanctions in this topic area. ] (]) 21:59, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
	===Proposed sanctions against ]===
	The ArbCom has apparently declined imposition of discretionary sanctions. That however does not rule out the possibility of community imposed sanctions, and I believe DaveApter may well have at this point merited consideration of such. I also note that Gaijin42 has more or less supported boomerang consideration here himself. It is worth noting that DaveApter is a long-standing POV pusher on the subject of Landmark education, but that in his most recent rather ridiculous commentary, currently at ] his dishonest and incompetent personal attacks there on a comparatively new editor here in the English wikipedia, ], have led to that editor indicating his early retirement from the project. I cannot see any reasonable basis for an editor who has so persistently engaged in such incompetent, irrational behavior to be allowed to cause further damage to the project with his unacceptable conduct, including his incompetent allegations against others. I propose sanctions against him, and, honestly, under the circumstances, considering his misconduct has gotten to the point of costing us a newish and potentially very valuable editor, I think stronger rather than weaker ones are probably worth considering. ] (]) 15:11, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
	::It is perfectly acceptable to discuss COI issues on talk pages, we are encouraged to do that before going to the COIN board. Community sanctions are definitely in order for his strong POV pushing and abuse of process. We need to put together a proper case. ] (]) 16:07, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
	:::Such a case would include his refusal to adequately address matters of possible COI, most recently at the ] page already linked to, and ] in the "Possible late, admittedly circumstantial evidence" section and the following "final comment" on this subject by DaveApter in the "For the avoidance of doubt," which I believe any reasonable reader would realize does not in any way reasonably address all the possible variant forms of COI which might be involved. His refusal to address those concerns adequately, and his subsequent misrepresentations of such comments as indicating that they are sufficient, are in no way suggestive that the individual involved is acting in accord with wikipedia policies and guidelines. Personally, in light of the recent, rather ridiculous, ARCA request, and the longstanding refusal to address matters of COI in a reasonable and adequate way regarding this topic, I myself think a topic ban might be reasonable, but I acknowledge that as one of the recent targets of his irrational vituperation I am probably less than objective in determining the strength of sanctions which might be called for. ] (]) 17:04, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
	:It is also worth noting that DaveApter has himself made unsupported suggestions on talk pages that others have some sort of COI (aimed at among others). It is thus very strange that he would characterize this as harassment. DaveApter is also aware that the apparent existence of a COI on his part has been repeatedly noted over the years, including by those called in to comment. John Carter is hardly the first to broach the subject, and for this reason DaveApter's attempt to make this unresolved issue out to be harassment also seems strange at this point. ] <sup>]</sup> 18:27, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
	Especially considering the posts from the Dutch admins&beuros at ] that confirm DA's complete misrepresentation of what happened at the Dutch wiki, I am inclined to '''support a 1 year topic ban for DA on Landmark Worldwide'''. I would also suggest an IBan to stop the accusations against Theobald and others, but as he has retired, that seems moot. ] (]) 19:14, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
	For dragging me to my first involvement at ArbComm complaining ] on the Landmark article and implying I be stopped from editing it - the only solution is to impose DaveApter's own rules on DaveApter and topic ban him. He has VERY strong POV issues, while at that point I'd only discussed how ] to the article. ] (]) 21:19, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
	:I would support either an indefinite topic ban or a topic ban of one year. ] (]) 15:37, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
	===Before we lose sight of the Wood for the Trees===
	So this thread is apparently not closed after all?
	In case anyone coming freshly to this discussion is tempted to be deflected by the misdirection in the section above, I would like to recap that the focus of my request here is the harassment of myself by John Carter, for which I have provided a clear description above, and ample evidence in the form of sixteen diffs.
	Contrary to what has been assumed or suggested above, this harassment was not the subject of the recent Arbcom case, nor was it the subject of the Request for clarification which I made in good faith. Neither is it an attempt to influence the discussion of that request.
	All I want is for the hounding and personal attacks to cease.
	The latest attack is on the Landmark Worldwide Talk Page, where John says
	:"''You have also, repeatedly, pointedly refused to address the issues of whether you are related to individuals who are or have been employees. It is also, of course, possible that, given your habit of rigorous definition, you might be a contracter assigned to Landmark, but not employed by them directly, or perhaps in some way some sort of shareholder, particularly if you were an employee under an early version of the organization.''"
	None of this is true; there is not a shred of evidence to support it; and in fact I have already dealt with most of those points previously.
	Every time I issue a statement to clarify the position, John or his collaborators demand a different form of words and I have lost patience with responding to them.
	The essence of the situation was clearly stated by {{ping|Only in death}} above when he said:
	:"''implying/stating/inferring someone is editing with a COI constitutes a personal attack, so either put up or shut up about it.''"
	By way of background, the following points are relevant:
	#The Arbcom case in question ] was opened in October and closed on 29th December. The case was requested by {{U|Astynax}}, and no findings of fact were made against any of the three parties he named, nor were any sanctions imposed on any of them.
	#In my case specifically, no findings or sanctions were even drafted, and one of the Arbitrators even stated: "''I did not include Apter in proposed sanctions because I didn't think the evidence presented warranted it.''" .
	#{{U|John Carter}} was not a party in the case, but he did comment extensively on talk pages of the case with a clear thrust of attempting to influence the Arbitrators in the direction of sanctioning the named parties. Clearly they did not find his arguments persuasive.
	If any action is required of me, please indicate what it is. Thank you. ] (]) 11:17, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
	:The evidence of your rather obvious problem regarding COI is to be found in the multiple links from other people which seriously indicate that you have been told repeatedly by several people that you have a conflict of interest, and the evidence on the project talk page in the sections I linked to both indicates that you have had access to non-public information on the company, which is seriously problematic, and that you have at no point ever adequately responded to questions regarding the rather obvious COI problems you have repeatedly been advised of by several people. Also, I note that this seems to be an attempt at misdirection regarding the non-COI problems of your gross, dishonest slurs against a new editor to the topic which resulted in that editor retiring, which is the primary reason the section above was started, despite your rather obvious attempts at misdirection to avoid dealing with that issue in much the same way you have consistently sought to avoid dealing reasonably with the COI concerns which have been expressed editors. ] (]) 15:35, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
	::What is it that you don't understand about the distinction between '''allegation''' and '''evidence'''? As I have stated on at least three occasions, I have '''no''' knowledge of Landmark affairs beyond what is in the public domain, and the diffs that you provided in your initial accusation do not remotely prove that I have. Yet you continue to assert this over and over again as though it were an established fact.
	::Furthermore, will you please stop filling this thread up with spurious counter-accusations against me, and confine the discussion here to the clear and unambiguous charges that I have brought here and the substantial evidence that I have provided to support them. If you do wish to make accusations of policy violations by me, please open up a new thread, state clearly and concisely what they are, and provide the evidence. I will respond in that thread as appropriate. Thank you. ] (]) 16:36, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
	:::You have, as I linked to above, provided evidence that you have had access to information which is not publicly available, although, acknowledging your attempt at possible misdirection, I am unsure whether it is in the public domain. On that basis, I have to say that there is no reason to suspect you of perhaps even further dishonesty than can already be found in your fraudulent allegations which led to the retiremement of Theobald Tiger. You have also tendentiously and insistently thrown out counter-allegations while at the same time rather obnoxiously and obviously refusing to directly and adequately respond to questions regarding your COI. You were asked in the arbcom a direct question, and it is worth noticing that for all your comments above you have still refused to directly respond to that question. ] (]) 17:18, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
	:::#Your first diff shows me saying that "''About 90% of Landmark's customers never participate in any assisting activity at all''". Their website states (or did, I haven't checked lately) that under 10% of their customers participate in their assisting programs, and that under 1% or them are actively involved at any given time. So that's public knowledge.
	:::#Your second diff was to my making a critique of some speculative calculations contributed by some previous editor. I took the numbers they had provided at face value and pointed out the logical flaws in their reasoning.
	:::#Your third diff was to my discussion on the talk page giving a speculative reality check calculation for a claim that Landmark programs had been "instrumental in raising millions of dollars for charities". It was based on published figures on Landmark's site and plausible assumptions.
	:::#The fourth diff was a debate with another editor over whether his assumed figures were more reasonable than my assumed figures in the previous calculation.
	:::#Your next sentence related to an exchange which was nothing to do with me, and you later admitted that you had misremembered a discussion with some completely different editor. ] (]) 20:03, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
	== Copyvio tag on ] ==
	An IP blanked the ] article and placed a copyvio notice on it. I've looked at the source the IP provided and couldn't find the violation (it has little content) and the IP didn't list it at ] as per the instructions. Although the notice says only an admin, copyright clerk, or OTRS can remove it, I've restored the article to its former state per ]. Bringing this here in case I've screwed up (troutings accepted). --] <sup>]</sup> 00:55, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
	:I would just ignore it, without a source pinpointing what material is contested there is no way of knowing. - ] (]) 01:05, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
	::The purported source was . --] <sup>]</sup> 01:08, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
	:::Im not seeing anything either copy/pasted or by other means. - ] (]) 01:16, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
	== DanVsFan181 ==
	Continuing with the same "Dan Vs. is coming to Cartoon Network" hoax on various pages. First it was through various roving IPs, but now it's through a user account. He/she has been doing this for a while now, refuses to stop no matter what we tell him, and this kind of behavior has resulted in certain pages having to be protected. Also, he/she is a sockpuppet of Gabucho181. This person simply won't stop till he/she gets what he/she wants. ] (]) 02:52, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
	== EEng of questionable civility ==
	{{archive top|result=Blocked {{user|EEng}} for 48 hours. <small>] &#x007C; ] &#x007C; ]</small> 17:50, 14 January 2015 (UTC)}}
	*{{User|EEng}}
	*The relevant page: {{Pagelinks|Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Seth Andrews}}.
	I am not seeking eradication of point of view or saying it is particularly wrong (we are of opposite opinion). My problem is that EEng seems to be ] everyone who does not agree with his position and in my opinion engaged in at least one ]. I'm not requesting specific action, just some eyes and opinions. ] <small><sup>(] - ])</sup></small> 04:25, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
	:I can sympathize with your perspective, as he can get to me as well, but I don't see anything actionable here. Of course, if you could show a disturbing pattern across multiple AfD's, you might have something more substantial to work with. Otherwise, this should probably be closed. ] (]) 05:00, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
	::This comment piqued my interest - more below. ]<sup>TT</sup>(]) 12:52, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
	:My take, after reading all of his contributions to that AfD: EEng has a very edgy and humorous style. Not everyone appreciates humor on Misplaced Pages; not to mention his particular brand of it. He is not, in my opinion, ''deliberately'' antagonizing anyone or engaging in personal attack; just trying to get people to understand and follow Misplaced Pages notability policies. He certainly hasn't used any foul language. In reality all of his points have merit, and the article is enormously and grossly self-cited, which raises all kinds of red flags. ] (]) 05:18, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
	::I mostly agree, however, in addition to this style, EEng is often very blunt, and yet he can still draw blood, and that can upset users. ] (]) 05:23, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
	::: ] applies at this point. Every response gets its own retort and published interviews in media like ''American Atheist Magazine'' get lost in the noise it generates. It is not civil and it is not productive to the process. ] (]) 06:12, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
	*I would love to kick EEng who can be unnecessarily aggressive, but given the lack of awareness in the ''keep'' votes at that AfD, I would say that EEng is being a model editor, and is patiently trying to explain what AfD is all about, albeit without success. @Zero Serenity: When wanting an article to be kept, the procedure is to find ] that are ''independent'' of the subject and which demonstrate ]. The AfD closer should ignore any votes which consist merely of naming another article. ] (]) 06:40, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
	:I'm familiar with the AFD discussion. I opened up with "This isn't my problem." ] <small><sup>(] - ])</sup></small> 16:34, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
	*Viritidas mentioned that EEng's behaviour on its own wouldn't be a problem, unless there was a pattern of such behaviour. Glancing at the history of this board, I see EEng does seem to have an inherent ability to wind people up at a number of places, leading to reports here in just the last year about his behaviour at ] (] - the second time leading to a block for name calling), ] and ]. Looking at the discussions, I generally get the impression that the community does agree there is an issue with EEng's behaviour, but it hadn't reached the point of any sanction. Looking further at the different underlying disputes, it seems that EEng generally is presenting valid arguments, but the lack of flexibility and the manner that he's presenting them that is leading to the issues. <p> We have to remember that we are a community here and that collaboration is an important part of how we build this encyclopedia. EEng's dismissive manner certainly doesn't foster that spirit of collaboration. I'm not suggesting any sanction should be put in place here at the moment, but I do think that EEng should carefully consider how he presents himself in discussions, lest he end up being removed from them. Personally, I'll be putting EEng's talk page on my watchlist. ]<sup>TT</sup>(]) 12:52, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
	* I removed cruft and some pointy stuff from {{user|EEng}}. Play nice. <small>] &#x007C; ] &#x007C; ]</small> 17:50, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
	* Blocked {{user|EEng}} for 48 hours for continued incidents. Past block history led to a longer block than normal. <small>] &#x007C; ] &#x007C; ]</small> 20:25, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
	{{archive bottom}}
	=== Inappropriate blocking of EEng? ===
	{{CUE}} {{NAO}} Okay, I'm looking though all of this, and I don't see anything that warranted a block. Violations of ] do not condone a block. I don't see any ] violations. Yes, I see the linking to non-existent policy page where the title contains vulgar terms (] violation at best, but since policy pages are ALLCAPS, not convinced). EEng only reverted twice, which is not '''more than three times''' per ]. So, can someone please explain why a seasoned editor who has been here almost seven years and has more than 18K edits with almost 7K of them in article space has been blocked? I'm especially concerned by the fact that the block was made despite {{Noping|Viriditas|Softlavender|Johnuniq|Worm That Turned}} opposing or suggesting no sanctions against the user; not to mention, the fact the blocking admin has labeled themselves as {{Tl|Semi-retired}} despite {{UserContribs3|Seicer|100|their contributions}} showing over 100 edits and ] showing plenty of activity in the last two weeks.
	I'm not petitioning for {{U|EEng}}'s unblock at this time, as they apparently don't care based on their talk page comments; I'm just requesting some understanding of the reasons that led up to the block so I don't find myself in the same boat at some point and a review of the block to see if it was in fact appropriate and warranted despite seemingly being against what I would assess as consensus in the above discussion to not take an action. — <span class="nowrap">&#123;&#123;U&#124;]&#125;&#125; <sup>(] • ] • ])</sup></span> 15:21, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
	:Technical 13, you seem to be labouring under a number of misapprehensions. For example, ] is sufficient for a block and 3RR is a bright line, not an entitlement. Violations of CIVIL can lead to a block, NPA is not "required" - for example if there is a pattern of said incivility. A "Semi-retired" label is down to an individual's personal preference. The block was '''Not Inappropriate''', given the circumstances. I notice you haven't actually started a discussion on the blocking admin's talk page, not made them aware of this thread and ignored a response from an uninvolved admin at EEng's talk page. Colour me unimpressed. ]<sup>TT</sup>(]) 15:34, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
	:* Fair enough on point one, I don't see a pattern of a lack of CIVILity to the point of DISRUPTION on point two, point three is your opinion (which I respect), for point four notification was not required considering this a continuation of the discussion they were already involved in. On point five, I didn't ignore the response, I just hadn't seen it until after I had spent half an hour researching and reviewing to see if I could figure it out on my own and avoid this toxic drama board all together, I failed and as such posted my request for clarification and understanding. Thank you. — <span class="nowrap">&#123;&#123;U&#124;]&#125;&#125; <sup>(] • ] • ])</sup></span> 18:40, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
	: Three administrators have reviewed it so far - who found no issue with the block. You and a handful of others are obsessing over the block, which is what, the fourth for the user in a short time period? And then obsessing over my semi-retirement and my lack of experience? (Despite having been an administrator for years.) Just let him serve out his block like everyone else. This is my one and only comment on this. <small>] &#x007C; ] &#x007C; ]</small> 15:30, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
	:* I'm hardly obsessing with anything (except the fact it is my birthday, the fact I won a T-shirt and I think that is cool, and I'm going to go have some fun tonight). I've never claimed you had a lack of experience, I'm just wondering if coming back full bore and blocking regulars for expressing their opinions (in a not outrageous or disruptive way) was appropriate. Read my comment more carefully please, I am not asking for the block to be lifted, I'm just asking for an improved understanding since my two years active hear have shown me that the way I was brought up, what I see as reasonable, and what I think is logical and should be the general consensus is usually fairly far from what the community agrees upon. — <span class="nowrap">&#123;&#123;U&#124;]&#125;&#125; <sup>(] • ] • ])</sup></span> 18:40, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
	:I agree with Worm. I probably wouldn't have made the block, but plenty of ANI regulars have accused me of enabling known disruptors, so this is a double-edged sword. But I do not believe the block was inappropriate, and I also believe that there is too much wikilawyering going on on the talk page. I visited that joint because Ritchie suggested that I, a well-known softie, could lift the block and I thought I gave EEng the opportunity to give me a good reason to lift it. Instead, I get some stuff about "I didn't know I had to check a box" or whatever, but no acknowledgment whatsoever of, for instance, the edit warring. Snarkiness never helps, by the way. ] (]) 15:41, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
	:* What this says to me is there are multiple admins and editors who would not have made this block. While those same people can understand why the block was made, not everyone can. I'm one of those that can't understand it, and am asking for clarification for my own personal wikigrowth. I agree there is a little too much wikilawyering on the talk page, and I agree that EEng missed ]. — <span class="nowrap">&#123;&#123;U&#124;]&#125;&#125; <sup>(] • ] • ])</sup></span> 18:40, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
	::*Ha. Yes. Well. Eh... Consider how different this discussion would be if the block were for two weeks, or indefinite. This discussion starts of with "inappropriate" as a key word, and I think you see that no one thinks it inappropriate, though they may think it strict. Again, I would have unblocked as "time served" if EEng had pushed the right buttons--the buttons we want everyone to push in an unblock request. ] (]) 18:49, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
	== ] ==
	Coventry-based IP address using the ] page as a ] and ], albeit with incoherent rantings which suggest either a machine translation or mental health issues, both of which fail ]. Has also made a fake talk page archive (]) to fill with verses from the Koran, in a possible tag team with an editor in Algeria.
	Possible sock puppetry or meat puppetry too with ]. The IP gave a welcome address to the user on his talk page. Look at these diffs which show their material:
	https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Charlie_Hebdo/Archive_2&diff=prev&oldid=642320277
	https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Charlie_Hebdo&diff=642290717&oldid=642235439
	] (]) 05:07, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
	:Should mention that the fake archive was deleted by Anthony Appleyard and is only visible to admins. ] (]) 22:30, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
	==Subject recruitment==
	{{archive top|1=Resolution in process via {{u|EpochFail}}. Thank you to everyone who raised this and took the appropriate steps to steer the study back to the correct processes. -- ] (]) 20:35, 15 January 2015 (UTC)}}
	I have just discovered . I suspect it is not ok, but I would appreciate if other users could have a look and give an opinion. I particularly do not like the fact that confidentiality is guaranteed and that the phone and the e-mail are published. I do not think the general subject recruitment procedures were followed either, but unfortunately they are rarely followed in general.--] (]) 19:33, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
	: If they wish to have an interview from Misplaced Pages editors and be willing to compensate for such, I suspect they might want to do it off site. However I don't think there's a specific rule disallowing it--Maybe WP:PROMO since it's advertising such an interview and offering money to do it. ] (]) 19:50, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
	:If I remember correctly, "projects" of this kind need to be cleared by WMF. Of course, there's nothing to stop any editor from taking them up on their offer, but the lack of privacy protection is concerning. ] (]) 22:22, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
	::I've contacted Halfak (WMF) vi the wikimedia-research irc channel; he's looking into it. <small>]</small> 23:20, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
	::(EC) Agreed. I've reached out to the editor and her collaborator ]. If they respond positively, I'll be working with them to get the study documented and discussed before they continue. Please let me know if the researcher continues to post recruitment messages without linking to study documentation. --<span style="display:inline-block;padding:0 .25em;border:1px solid #999;box-shadow:.1em .1em .1em rgba(0,0,0,.5);border-radius:3px;">]</span> (] &bull; ]) 23:22, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
	::Just to make it clear, I'm ] in my staff role at the WMF. --<span style="display:inline-block;padding:0 .25em;border:1px solid #999;box-shadow:.1em .1em .1em rgba(0,0,0,.5);border-radius:3px;">]</span> (] &bull; ]) 23:24, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
	:::{{to|EpochFail}} - I apologize for the misstep. There is a research page which has been created at ], but this was not communicated in the text. I'll make sure to insert that page and hold back until we can make sure everything is done properly. Apologies again, and thanks for the heads up. ] (]) 23:57, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
	::{{to|Blackmane}} What "lack of privacy protection"? The fact that they cannot guarantee the security of your email client or the security of email while it is in transit? ] (]) 23:27, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
	:FWIW ] is my ] and . He missed a couple of protocol steps this time, but I'll vouch for the fact that he's an actual researcher working on an actual NSF-funded and IRB-vetted research project, and not some nefarious weirdo. I'll work with him and {{U|EpochFail}} to make sure everything gets properly filed, declared, and reviewed. And yes, email is indeed not a secure means of communication ;) Cheers, - ''']''' ] ] 01:16, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
	:::{{to|CombatWombat42}} I'm pretty sure no one guarantees the protection of electronic data in transit, but you've obviously interpreted it in some weird way. The way I saw it was that any information ''received'' (not ''in transit'') is not secured or protected in any way, shape or form as one normally expects. ] (]) 02:18, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
	::::Some pedantic asides:
	::::*That just looks like a generic disclaimer on the use of email; which is not really worth worrying about, as the risk of email interception is rather low, and other risks to your information are (relatively) bigger.
	::::*Many organisations ''do'' guarantee the protection of electronic data in transit, although not for use-cases like this.
	::::*Without positively identifying the person behind an email address, or making a robust connection between the email address and the wikipedia account, fretting about insecure mail clients is like worrying that when you step out into traffic and get hit by a bus tomorrow, ''maybe the bus will have rusty bodywork and you'll catch tetanus''.
	::::I'm sure there are procedural concerns that need smoothing out, but I'm not going to lose sleep over technical infosec risks here. ] (]) 02:41, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
	: Thanks to all involved, it is good to hear that the matter is being resolved.--] (]) 06:58, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
	{{archive bottom}}
	== 71.52.147.147 ==
	{{user|71.52.147.147}} has been adding incorrect distributors to articles about animated shorts, and is not responding to any talk page comments. They are currently adding RKO as a distributor of Warner Bros. shorts; previously they were doing things like adding ] (founded 1946) to films distributed by ] in the 1930s, and adding MGM to 1930s films distributed by ] (MGM bought UA in 1981, but previously they were unconnected). ] (]) 01:32, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
	== Binksternet Abuse ==
	I gave up on Wiki after getting trolled by Binksternet over the Robert Palmer page. Today, out of nowhere, I received a post on my talk page saying that he and someone else had been blocked, blah blah. I responded to the user that posted it and within two hours, Binksternet posted on my talk page accusing me of using a "San Diego IP" to "post to myself". I want this editor to leave me alone. I have not posted anything since being blocked - I no longer have any interest in Wiki because of it, and I'm damned sorry no one, no matter how much discussion, will block him. Please tell him to stop contacting me. This guy is apparently completely insane, and Wiki allows him to be. I choose not to be part of this.
	<small><span class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 02:48, 15 January 2015 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
	:I find the suspicion that the IP is you not implausible given that both of you have tried to perpetrate the same hoax. Please retract your ]. –] (] &sdot; ]) 02:54, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
	::IT IS NOT ME! I had no idea there was a "hoax" to begin with. You all stick together tho.] (]) 02:59, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
	:::For those just tuning in, the hoax is that Robert Palmer was dating someone named Geraldine Edwards at the time of his death, rather than Mary Ambrose which is what all the newspapers reported. Another story is that Geraldine Edwards was the inspiration for the groupie character Penny Lane in Cameron's movie ''Almost Famous'', but that person is actually Pennie Trumbull who lives in Oregon.
	:::Zabadu, let me give you the benefit of the doubt. I can imagine a scenario where you have unknowingly perpetrated the hoax but you are not the originator of it. If that's the case, I should not accuse you of being the same person as the San Diego IPs, but you would still be guilty of perpetrating a hoax. The problem with the hoax is that there are no reliable sources to back it up, only extremely poor sources. And the reliable sources contradict the hoax, so the discerning editor would have caught that.
	:::Here's more background, which I have not yet shared with anyone; it provides the possibility that you unknowingly perpetrated the hoax. The San Diego person, whoever it is, has posted extensive hoax material on various online discussion boards, and you might have seen some of these in a search window. For instance there is:
	:::* which flatly tells the reader that the Penny Lane inspiration is Pennie Trumbull. But if you scroll down to the reader comments, you get somebody named Wheels saying that Geraldine Edwards was also the inspiration. Comment on September 29, 2012. You also get somebody named Julian Wray who says the same thing. Comment on October 24, 2012. There's also Laurie who says the same thing on July 23, 2013.
	:::*, an article about groupies. Some readers argue about Geraldine Edwards, one named Paul insisting she was the inspiration for Penny Lane while the other named Lacebra cuts holes in the assertion.
	:::* published a story about Clapton's women. The blog says that Geraldine Edwards was the inspiration for the Penny Lane groupie character. Lacebra shows up in the reader comments to debunk the blog.
	:::* asserts Geraldine Edwards was the inspiration for Penny Lane.
	:::* hosts a bunch of trolling questions about Geraldine Edwards with regard to the Penny Lane character, Eric Clapton, and Robert Palmer. The unsigned reader answers are the same hoax nonsense scraped from discussion boards.
	::::*A telling question on Answers.com is the following: It looks like the question was asked and answered by the same person using two different handles. The same account asked multiple trolling questions about Geraldine Edwards, and putting down Mary Ambrose.
	:::* published a report about Robert Palmer's burial, saying his partner at the time was Mary Ambrose. Down in the reader comments, various people say that the article is wrong, that Geraldine Edwards was Palmer's girlfriend. No references are supplied. The comments are dated November 23, 2010; January 10, 2011; and November 27, 2011. Another nasty commenter pretends to be the brother of Mary Ambrose and pours vinegar on the Palmer/Ambrose relationship: August 16, 2011.
	:::* has something about Robert Palmer. Down in the reader comments, someone says Geraldine Edwards was his girlfriend: January 5, 2011.
	:::* about Robert Palmer's money. A reader from "Southern California" says that Geraldine Edwards was the girlfriend of Palmer. Comment made roughly November 2010.
	:::* about meeting Robert Palmer. Three very extensive reader comments, using different names but writing in the same style, assert that Geraldine Edwards was the girlfriend of Robert Palmer. The comments were made on February 9, 2011; September 15, 2011; and October 1, 2011.
	:::* is one of those gossip sites that scrapes the web to come up with uncontrolled nonsense. It says Geraldine Edwards was the girlfriend of Robert Palmer at his death.
	:::* talks about Palmer. A bunch of reader comments say that Geraldine Edwards was the girlfriend of Robert Palmer. They all assert they knew Palmer. One places the connection in Coronado, near San Diego. Another commenter says he's from San Diego, and he diminishes the role of Mary Ambrose in Palmer's life. This page is the mother lode of fool's gold.
	:::* has an article about Palmer. One user comment attempts to correct the encyclopedia by saying that Geraldine Edwards was Palmer's girlfriend. It pooh-poohs the Ambrose/Palmer relationship.
	:::* has a biography of Palmer. A reader comment tries to say that Geraldine Edwards was his girlfriend. Misplaced Pages is said by Bellazon to be their source, then the reader says go look again at Misplaced Pages as it has been changed. The comment was made on March 12, 2011, in response to the original July 2010 post. In the intervening time, {{u|Hhfjbaker}} made to the biography on February 21, 2011, citing no sources. This was probably an unknowing perpetration of the hoax.
	:::* is similar to Answers.com in that trolling questions can be asked and answered by the same person using a different log in. In this case two different accounts were used to answer the question by a third account. All of the accounts were used just once, for this question.
	:::* scraped Misplaced Pages for its Robert Palmer biography, and they got the hoax version.
	:::* also appears to have scraped Misplaced Pages when the hoax was up.
	:::* includes someone going on and on about Geraldine Edwards, dishing Ambrose, writing in the same style as other hoaxer entries. The comment was made on January 6, 2011.
	:::* announces Palmer's death. Someone from San Diego says on December 23, 2010, that Geraldine Edwards and not Mary Ambrose was Palmer's last girlfriend. Another commenter from San Diego agrees on January 15, 2011. A non-hoaxer pastes a news clip about Mary Ambrose being the final girlfriend. A third account from San Diego follows that on July 1, 2011, by slamming Ambrose and pumping up Geraldine Edwards. On this discussion board, there are multiple editors from various places, but only San Diego ones push the Geraldine hoax.
	:::* carried a Robert Palmer obit. A supposed reader from Del Mar (near San Diego) says that Geraldine Edwards was the final girlfriend of Palmer. January 20, 2011.
	:::* announces Palmer's death. A reader says on November 3, 2010, that Geraldine Edwards was his final girlfriend, and he puts Ambrose down.
	:::* talks about Robert Palmer on November 20, 2013. He says Geraldine Edwards was the final girlfriend of Palmer. The Misplaced Pages article at that time , not having been corrected yet by me. You can see the two supporting citations are baloney. .
	:::That's just a taste of the madness. Someone from San Diego is obviously going to great lengths to perpetrate a hoax, using a wide variety of fora to make comments, poisoning the well against the reliable sources. It's astonishing how obsessive this effort is.
	:::If Zabadu is not from San Diego then I apologize. ] (]) 05:26, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
	:::: I'm going to go out and say it, but Binksternet certainly seems to have researched this matter and found a hoax. The existence of the hoax should be noted on the talk page to assist in removing insertions. If it is particularly persistent, an invisible comment within the article might be warranted. ] (]) 05:52, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
	::::: You have ''got'' to be kidding me. This hoax is still going on? Maybe the right action is page protection. ] (]) 06:44, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
	::::::Good idea, Chris. I put up an informative entry at ]. Ninja, I don't think we need page protection as I am now alerted to this stuff. I will certainly request protection if needed. ] (]) 07:23, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
	:::::::For the very last time, I AM NOT the San Diego IP Binksternet claims I am. Feel free to block me, as I will NEVER edit Wiki again because of the abuse I have received. I DO NOT CARE about Robert Palmer enough to wage all these wars. He was a singer and that's it. If someone wants to bicker about the details of his death, go for it - I don't care! I'm tired of being dragged into the middle of it. I haven't posted since I was blocked last time. I received an email telling me I had a message on my page. I responded to that person asking who they were and that I saw NO evidence of what they said. Next thing I know, Binksternet shows up and it's on and I have warnings all over my page. The warnings are unfounded and unfair, yet Binksternet wins again. Block me. And show me proof that a Sacramento girl is posting from San Diego. I can barely make a diff, yet supposedly I'm posting from different cities. Whatever. I do not want to be involved in this scuffle. Please leave me out of it.] (]) 18:41, 15 January 2015 (UTC)20mi
	50km
	IP Address: 108.211.81.131
	Country: United States
	City: West Sacramento
	Latitude: 38.6667
	Longitude: -121.6293
	] (]) 19:21, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
	::::::::And HERE Binksternet - have MY ip address.
	:::::::::I apologize and I am going to remove my warning from your talk page. ] (]) 20:20, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
	::::::::::It would be nice if all the other editors would do the same. I am being punished for things I DID NOT DO.] (]) 21:03, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
	== User Bladesmulti ==
	On 13 January, I deleted the sentence "Hinduism is the fast-growing religion in Ghana" from the ] article because the cited sources did not support it (). I immediately started a explaining the rationale for my edit. The next day {{User|Bladesmulti}} undid my revision (). I have attempted to resolve the conflict with Bladesmulti on the talk page, but to no avail. On multiple occasions (), Bladesmulti has deleted block quotations from my post, claiming they are "violating copyrights" even after I properly sourced them. I suspect Bladesmulti is trying to edit my posts because he cannot respond to them.
	Bladesmulti has and does not appear to want to resolve the dispute through discussion. For the record, Bladesmulti is well-known by other editors working on the "Growth of religion" article. Last year, ] for removing sourced content and replacing reliable sources with unreliable ones. (I would encourage all administrators replying to this incident to skim through that discussion to acquaint themselves with Bladesmulti's editing history.) Bladesmulti's ''modus operandi'' seems to be (1) insert questionable content that fits his/her agenda, replacing citations that don't support agenda with those that do; (2) undue any revisions of his/her edits by other editors; (3) stall discussion on the talk page with baseless accusations, garbled English, red herrings, and ad hominems; (4) threaten persistent critics with a comical air of authority. --] (]) 05:47, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
	::] is a case of ]. He has a tendency of ] and considering every disagreement as an attack.
	::He don't even know what is ] and he tries to base his argument on a ] table that was finally removed in a matter of 3-4 months by other user. He first posted about this article dispute on ], hardly 4 hours ago, as he assumed one of the citation might not be reliable, and in fact that wasn't needed because he had not yet discussed the credibility of the author on talk page. After my response, he assumed that "''he is a reliable scholar''", thus contradicting the above ]. He cannot understand that ripping off long paragraphs from weblinks that are subject to copyright is also a violation of ]. ] (]) 06:06, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
	::::If there is a CIR issue here, it seems to me to be with Bladesmulti, who apparently hasn't read ], and apparently confuses not being familiar with the workings of Misplaced Pages with a lack of competence. ] (]) 06:18, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
	:::::There is no need of extended quotation if weblink/access is available. ] (]) 06:23, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
	::::::Possibly it isn't ''needed'' - but that doesn't mean that fair use doesn't apply. Fair use quotations are never ''absolutely necessary'' - the original is ''always'' available. Nevertheless, they are permitted. I think the IP is reasonable in assuming that your summary blanking was motivated by you not wanting to actually address the underlying issue - of sources which contradicted material you wanted included in the article. ] (]) 06:30, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
	:::::::I had only reverted, not that I had inserted it first. Fair use doesn't apply here because the quote was extensive and the same amount of quotes have been removed before for violating copyrights on talk pages, it is nothing new. ] (]) 06:37, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
	::::::::I will leave it to others to decide whether 59 words from a 436-page book (the second quotation - I can't access the source for the first) constitutes 'extensive' quotation, beyond the limits of fair use. And please explain why you didn't adress the underlying issue. ] (]) 06:49, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
	::::::::: See , 96 words and 636 characters. I didn't had to discuss about them as they weren't good enough for including with these information, nor I had shown any support for the previous 2 citations. I had suggested 3 other citations where the pointed information can be found. ] (]) 07:02, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
	::::::::::That word count is from the ''introduction'', not the complete source - the words quoted don't even appear in the introduction. And no, you don't get to summarily dismiss sources because you don't like them. And as you are ''already aware'', one of the 'other sources' you cited was a Misplaced Pages mirror. It is self-evident that you were using a bogus copyright claims and unusable sources to avoid discussing legitimate sources. ] (]) 07:10, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
	:::::::::::For the pointed information, and not for extending the section, something that IP never talked about. Find me a diff where I am only talking about copyright violation and ignoring the rest of discussion? ] (]) 07:20, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
	::::::::::::The talk page thread is available for everyone to see: You have done nothing but summarily dismiss the quoted sources (which had previously been used as citations for the disputed text, I note), and offer up new sources (including a Misplaced Pages mirror) which supported your preferred version. You entirely failed to address the issue that the previously cited sources '''had been cited for one thing, when they in fact said something else''. All the while throwing threats about supposed 'copyright violations' around, in what I think any reasonable person will see as an attempt at intimidation. Fortunately, the IP has had the guts to face you down, and bring your abusive behaviour to the attention of the rest of us. ] (]) 07:30, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
	:::::::::::::I don't have to formally express agreement for every word at least when the discussion is mostly about the pointed statement that is missing, instead I moved to other argument. I did not removed his argument, but only removed the ripped off content. ] (]) 07:50, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
	:The removal of what appears to me to be a reasonable level of attributed direct quotation of sources for discussion looks questionable to say the least. ] describes 'fair use' copying to talk pages, and I think that the edits in question would fall within such terms. ] (]) 06:03, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
	:See also this thread at WP:RSN: ] (]) 06:13, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
	::If weblink is available, there is still any need to copy extended quotations to the talk page? It says ''Extensive quotation of copyrighted text is prohibited.'' ] (]) 06:27, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
	:::Congratulations, you've won the cherry-picker of the week award - now read the rest, where it says "Although quoting involves copying of another's work without permission, it is generally considered one of the uses permitted under fair use in the United States. However, just as with fair-use images, fair-use quotation has limitations: The copied material should not comprise a ''substantial portion'' of the work being quoted, and a longer quotation should not be used where a shorter quotation would express the same information" and so on... You don't get to use supposed copyright violations as an excuse to avoid actually addressing the underlying issue, which is self-evidently what was going on there. ] (]) 06:36, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
	::::That is an essay, policy is ] and ], at first there was no need to rip off when he was only copying from the accessible weblinks. ] (]) 07:21, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
	:::::Are you actually ''trying'' to look incompetent, or just hoping to bluster your way out of this? Misplaced Pages:NOFULLTEXT says not to copy the ''full text of primary sources'' to Misplaced Pages - it is utterly irrelevant. And Misplaced Pages:NFCCP (which relates more to non-textual media than text) likewise clearly explains when fair use is appropriate. And cut out the crap about a supposed 'rip off' - it is obvious that wasn't the intent behind the quotations, and your resort to an entirely unjustified personal attack isn't going to convince anyone otherwise. ] (]) 07:37, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
	::::::You are actually looking incompetent, you are claiming that my intention was to avoid argument by pointing copyright infringement, when I had actually replied and progressed with the discussion. He hadn't used ''short sentences'' nor he was attributing to actual author at first, he had ripped off the paragraphs from the copyrighted content, at this situation a link was enough. ] (]) 07:49, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
	*More copyright violation: clearly rips off http://theconversation.com/croc-attacks-a-new-website-with-bite-20671 ] (]) 07:52, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
	:* also rips off http://theconversation.com/croc-attacks-a-new-website-with-bite-20671 ] (]) 07:53, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
	:* has ripped off http://www.evolutionnews.org/2009/09/dawkins_vs_armstrong025171.html ] (]) 08:00, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
	:::Your refusal to address the point that the sources had previously been misused and actually said something else is visible in plain sight on the talk page. Trawling through posts from the same IP address 9 months ago isn't going to distract from that. ] (]) 08:02, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
	::::I assumed that I wasn't the one to insert it and I had seen no recent change about it, when it was pointed once again, I just replaced the citation. Only more discussion could help and I am fine with that. ] (]) 08:08, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
	:::::Who originally added the material is irrelevant. The point is that the sources cited actually said something else - and that you refused to discuss this. And yes, discussion is the way to go. As it was when the IP first pointed out the problem. ] (]) 08:21, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
	::::::Here's a simplified guide to copyright: ]. The actual policy page is ]. It says that copying copyright text into Misplaced Pages articles or talk pages is not okay. It's a copyright violation. ] states that using properly attributed short quotations from sources is okay, if it meets all the non-free content criterion. Note that there must be no free equivalent; therefore, prose should not be pasted onto the article talk page if there is a live website that can be offered as a link. --] (]) 14:44, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
	:::::::If policy is actually that even brief quotations cannot be copied to talk pages for discussion if the material is available from a website (an interpretation that I've not seen before), it probably needs to be clarified. Though I'm not sure that from a copyright perspective, the 'live website' criteria is actually that relevant. 'Free use' relates to the legitimate degree to which text can be copied in attributed quotations when discussing the content, and accessibility of the source doesn't appear to come into it. ] (]) 19:57, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
	== Three-way edit warring on ] ==
	There is some heated edit warring going on at ]. Some are trying to expand the background section despite vocal opposition (e.g. {{u|PuffinSoc}}, {{u|Yug}}); others are trying to remove it entirely despite vocal opposition (e.g. {{u|Abductive}}, {{u|MoorNextDoor}}, and {{u|Gamebuster19901‎}}, who immediately after I reported both PuffinSoc and MoorNextDoor for editwarring). I'm one of those stuck in the middle, accused by both sides of pushing an agenda (even of racism).
	Very little productive discussion is happening on the talk page—just lots of rehashed accusations and ear-plugging. There has already been at least one block for edit warring, and I suspect there will be more, despite warnings. I have little faith this issue will clear itself up, except through attrition. Any advice? ]&nbsp;] 06:01, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
	::I've had very limited involvement on that article so I'll take a look. Earlier there was another post asking for more eyes, still a good idea. ] (]) 06:41, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
	::: I don't think it's a "more eyes" issue, as the editors on both extremes don't appear to be interested in discussion. This is not to say that nobody is discussing—plenty are, but the number of disruptive editors is overwhelming. ]&nbsp;] 07:29, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
	::::Note: Curly, you are also part of the conflict as you keep sensationalist externally-sourced statements, quickly remove summary of well established wikipedia articles and pre-attacks societal facts such suburbs tension (2005, 2007) from where the attackers come from as we know. You thus tie the hands of good will editors. 3 people complained about your hard line reading of WP:SYNTH, and I mainly left for this reason. You are part of the edition war. Now, Curly is also right : we have trouble getting something done on the background section of this article due to edit add/remove. A starting solution suggested was : the ideological background is done; 2. the socio-economical background should focus on the attackers and their livehood, NOT on "Muslims in france" which is an unfair association; 3. may be better to write out of the article space. Note2: I do not wish to get involved with this article page/talk page. ] ] 08:54, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
	::::: '''Notes'''
	:::::* Who are the "three editors" who complained about my "hard line" on WP:SYNTH? The only one I interacted with was you, after you added paragraph after paragraph of uncited OR that you refused to cite, going as far as to leave hidden comments that ''citations were not needed''.
	:::::* No matter how many times I ask, you will not tell us what is supposed to be "sensationalist" about any piece of text I've added.
	:::::* I've done nothing to tie your hands—I've informed you that you ''must'' add citations to your textual additions, and you've stated that you ''will do no such thing'', because the sources are in the articles linked to. I'm not the only one who's told you that's flagrantly in violation of ].
	::::: ]&nbsp;] 09:04, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
	:Maybe worth having this page under the 1RR restrictions for the time-being, and alert all the people listed above to this fact. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 08:43, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
	:: My only concern with that is the number of editors involved—each can make a single revert, and it would still result in toppling dominoes of reverts. ]&nbsp;] 09:05, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
	:::Having just looked at the article, and the disputed 'background' section, I have to agree with the suggestion that there was ] going on - material was being added based on citations to sources saying nothing about the killings (see some of the material removed in these edits ). It ''isn't'' Misplaced Pages contributors job to compile such material, we leave that to the sources we cite. ] (]) 09:19, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
	:::: ]: For clarity, is the paragraph below what you refer to when you say SYNTH is going on? It's been moved in and out of the "Muslims in France" by editors other than myself, and was added independently of the other material. ]&nbsp;] 11:24, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
	::As I posted to talk page, the background Muslims in France section is not appropriate for this article.] (]) 09:24, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
	(Involved editor) Not only is the material Curly Turkey wants in the article very obvious original research and inappropriate for the article, but there's also a very clear talkpage consensus to that effect. It's quarter past stick-dropping time. ] (]) 10:10, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
	: Formerip is the very involved editor who and now of OR: Here's the supposed "obvious" racist OR:
	:: Since the 1960s, the ] such as France and Germany has been growing. By the time of the shooting, the ] had surpassed 5&nbsp;million,<ref name="CBC 8 January 2015">{{cite news|title = Analysis: France even more fractured after the Charlie Hebdo rampage|first=Don|last= Murray|publisher=CBC News|date=8 January 2015|accessdate=9 January 2015|url=http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/france-even-more-fractured-after-the-charlie-hebdo-rampage-1.2893262}}</ref> which was the largest Muslim population in the ].<ref>{{cite news |url= http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/11/world/europe/french-muslims-worry-about-backlash-after-charlie-hebdo-attack.html?_r=1 |title= After Terrorist Attacks, Many French Muslims Wonder: What Now? |publisher=New York Times|date= 10 January 2015 |accessdate= 13 January 2015 }}</ref> While most French Muslims abide by the values of the country, ] and the ] of 1954–62 remain in the memories of many French of Algerian descent, many of whom feel their ethnic background has excluded them from mainstream French society. A ] enshrines secularism, or ''{{lang|fr|laïcité}}'', in French public life; ]s, ]s, and other ostentatious symbols have been ]; this runs counter to Muslim traditions of the public display of their faith, and is undergoing court challenges.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://time.com/3659241/paris-terror-attack-muslim-islam/|title=Why There’s Tension Between France and Its Muslim Population|website=Time.com|accessdate=12 January 2015}}</ref>
	:: {{Reflist}}
	: All three sources are from major newssources and are specifically about the ''Charlie Hebdo'' shootings.
	:# Where's the OR?
	:# Where's the racism?
	:# Assuming I were to "drop the stick", how would that solve the problem between the other two groups (who want either much more or much less)?
	: ]&nbsp;] 11:20, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
	::I already answered the first two questions on my talkpage. As to the third, I'm not sure there is a genuine issue, because no other editor seems as attached as you to this specific content (I can't actually identify another editor who is not opposed to it, although maybe I am missing someone). So your dropping the stick would at least allow the other editors to discuss the content that isn't OR. ] (]) 11:41, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
	::: Please don't dodge: demonstrate to the folk at ANI that the above is OR racism. Insinuations don't count. ]&nbsp;] 11:48, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
	:::: I'm not dodging anything. Any editors who want to know what I said will easily be able to find my talkpage. ] (]) 11:53, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
	::::: In other words, you refuse to back up your allegations. For obvious reasons. ]&nbsp;] 11:58, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
	:::::: No, my reasons are on my talkpage. If you wish, we can discuss them further there. But, in the context of this thread, it would be a distraction. ] (]) 12:03, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
	::::::: Right, so a hit & run personal attack. ]&nbsp;] 12:17, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
	:::::::: No, but if you see it that way then you do. ] (]) 12:19, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
	:::::::::Upon consideration, I think Curly Turkey needs to let this slide. The comment is in an edit summary and talks about the content. Aside from the involved parties, nobody could reasonable interpret this as a personal attack because they wouldn't know who it was targeting (hence not personal). ] <sup>]</sup> 15:02, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
	:The percentage of Muslims in France is irrelevant, and only bloats the article with useless information. If you want, you can make an article about French Muslims, but it does not belong in the Charlie hebdo article.] (]) 14:36, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
	::This page isn't for discussion of content. If you have a disagreement, (1) stop reverting, (2) start an RFC, (3) abide by the results. It's that simple. ] <sup>]</sup> 14:58, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
	::: ]: per your comment, I the content in this discussion that wasn't related to solving the three-way editwarring issue. Formerip has now it . I've disengaged from the other editwars, and I don't want to get involved in another. At the same time, I want to bring the focus back to the topic issue, which has now been buried (fillibustered?) in content issues. What do you suggest? ]&nbsp;] 20:40, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
	:::: Curly Turkey, the main thing here is that you've misidentified the central issue, which is that there's an overwhelming consensus against the content you wanted to add, but you won't give up. That's it. Have you noticed how there's been no more edit-warring on the page since you stopped doing it? There's your solution. ] (]) 20:55, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
	== User:Akmalzhon ==
	Hi! ] has been engaging in disruptive editing for some reason. See his . He's also been on the Uzbek Misplaced Pages for no reason. If he continues to engage in disruptive editing, I think he should be blocked. ] <sup>]</sup> 06:16, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
	: Warned the user.--] (]) 08:05, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
	:: Thank you! ] <sup>]</sup> 08:30, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
	== ] wrongly recreated ==
	] was deleted by PROD a few months ago yet it has just been recreated by the same editor as before. The same issues apply to new version - almost identical to old version.--] (]) 07:57, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
	:A PROD can be contested by anyone for any reason, I believe, even the original author. So a recreation is really a way of contesting it, and I don't think the author has done anything wrong. I think the appropriate thing to do now is AFD, and if that results in deletion only then can it not be recreated in the same form and would be eligible for speedy deletion G4 if it was. (Can you tell I've been reading all the pages about deletion?) ] (]) 08:18, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
	::{{like}} Good reading of the guidelines. — ] ] 11:09, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
	:::AfD is the correct procedure here, I think. The claim in the lead to have worked for the BBC and several national newspapers easily clears it from CSD, and the PROD has been de-facto contested. Let me see if I can salvage it. A quick search online reveals she has clashed swords with ], so I like her already. ] ] ] 11:33, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
	::::Yes, after those disgraceful comments about the nurse infected with ebola, anyone who dislikes Katie Hopkins is a friend of mine! ] (]) 12:19, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
	:: AFD now underway - ] --] (]) 12:07, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
	== Auto archiving on Talk page ==
	Hello,
			== Insults ==
	I hope I'm on the right spot to requesting administrators help of a issues with the configuration on the auto archiving.
	I tried to set up the auto archiving via MiszaBot on this , unfortunately it did not work as assumed. I've had created an Archive_1, but used an self-provided ]. However, after that abortive attempt of myself, I requested an advanced Wiki-User, namely (]&nbsp;]) but he also failed to fix that issues but could move the archived Talk from Archive12 into Archive1. There's now an Archive1 and Archive_1, which is not directly accessible. However, HoHum recommend to request help from an admin. Our conversation can be recognized ] with some possible steps of resovling the problem (only feasible as admin). Many thanks in advance. Regards ] (]) 16:39, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
			I'd like to report an incident related to ]. A person under IP already accused me of being "obsessed". Now someone (possibly the same person) . Please also see . I guess we can always agree to disagree with other people, but this is going a bit too far. Thank you. ] (]) 09:30, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
	== Unequal treatment of some brands articles and harassment ==
			: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)
	Hello, I'll try to respect the rules of ANI, so to read how to process. I open a new section to get the help (or not...) of some fair administrators. I am a PhD. I never have any dispute with anyone, only the facts and figures interest me. All my peers assess my analysis as fair and relevant. But I am harassed by some users : Urbanoc, Vrac, Warren Whyte. Yet all what I write is true, but on the contrary, they attack some brands articles like Renault, Citroen, removing some contents that are allowed in some others articles, like the Volkswagen one. So they have an arbitrary behaviour, they use bad faith arguments and it is an unequal treatment between some brands and some others. It is necessary to explain to some users that they must stop harassing me, and saying that I am uncivil whereas I am never uncivil. All the proofs that I present are some obvious acts of some unequal treatments between some brands of the automotive industry for example. They previously attacked me here, but suddenly their complain has disappeared. I ask that some administrators intervene to solve the problem. These people never accept any compromise. So they systematically remove some contents that are allowed in the other articles. They remove only the positive information, what is a proof of their arbitrary. They behave as a connected team, one begins to erase some contents and then the others continue. The question is : '''why do you tolerate this behaviour ?''' Why some astonishing denigrating contents are in some article with no reference, but they don't ask any proofs and they re-establish this inconsistent and denigrating content ? Why removing some contents in Renault and Citroen, but not exactly the same in VW, like some awards from exactly the same magazine ? Why saying that the official USA car of the year Motor Trend award is a minor 'one magazine award only', whereas a very little award from the 'Performance car UK' magazine is added by in an other article ? I will complete this request later, to show that there are many obvious evidences of some unequal treatments between some companies. '''I have already posted some proofs in the past''', but the text has been removed, '''following their request not mine'''. And please, tell them to stop taking the excuse that I am uncivil. I never write to these people and I would like to be quiet, but as they attack some articles and not some others, and as they erase all my texts that are fair and true, I am obliged to denounce these behaviours. Their bad faith is obvious : if I had some awards in an article, they say that it is promotion (but I don't invent these awards voted by many journalists), but there are many awards in the "concurrence" articles and then they accuse no promotion in this case. Notice that these people harass me from a Misplaced Pages account. So implicitly they do that in the name of Misplaced Pages whatever the GCU are. One more reason to explain them to stop this behaviour. I am a PhD with high levels skills for the abstraction and the organisation, so I can make some propositions to define the structure, order of paragraphs and the information that are allowed in '''ALL the articles of the same domain'''. Then all these arbitrary attacks would not happen again, because the rules would be clear and not fuzzy and let to the arbitrary of a few belligerent people. Regards. ] (]) 16:39, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
			:Hello @Ratnahastin,
	: Previous discussion at ]. --] (]) 16:56, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
			:To start with I should admit that I am sorry for all the inconvenience that I may have caused as a result of my actions. It was never my intention to take people’s time or skew the conversation in a certain way. I appreciate the core idea to contribute the thoughts to the Wiki and share it borne in mind the overall rules and policies of this program.
			:I understand your fears about the AI utilities you have mentioned on your site. Even when I was using AI for the grammar check or, for instance, to elaborate on some point in the text, I saw to my mismanagement that over the process we probably confused the readers and repeated the same information and thoughts, which I would never wish to happen again. From now on I will ensure that in the future the input which I provide to wikipedia fits the Misplaced Pages standard and is more personal. I will also not write walls of text and will not make assertations that do not have substantiated evidence in sources.
			:As for subjects that concern the Raj and the sources from this period and the discussions we have had it seems that I have gone too far in demanding clarification for the same thing. That being the case, with the understanding that the consensus will be acknowledged, I shall not be inclined to reopen this discussion unless new substantiated evidence is produced. I don’t want to prolong the conversation or bring any more stress.
			:I will strive to learn from my experience to be more productive in my interactions going forward. If there are other limitations or additional rules to which I have to stick to, I will receive them with pleasure.
			:In the same respect, let me specially apologize for the inconvenience and thank all of you for bearing with us. That was why I wanted to remind all of us that we can and should keep collectively improving Misplaced Pages as a resource. <span style="font-family:Georgia,serif; color:#FF4500; font-size:120%; font-weight:bold;">]</span> 13:31, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			::This comment also has a typical LLM feel and contains meaningless statements such as "I understand your fears about the AI utilities you have mentioned on your site" and differs substantially from , although GPTzero said this is human input. - ] (]) 13:38, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::It seems human in that it contains some composition and grammar errors that I don’t think an LLM would produce. <span style="position: relative; top: -0.5em;">꧁</span>]<span style="position: relative; top: -0.5em;">꧂</span> 13:56, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::Thanks for the reply sir, I can't explain how frustrated I'm feeling from this morning which this user made me experience <span style="font-family:Georgia,serif; color:#FF4500; font-size:120%; font-weight:bold;">]</span> 14:02, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::The time when I messaged Vikram banafar I was casual not formal and second of all your saying doesn't prove anything "and differs substantially from your usual (non-AI) writing style" that's a straight up false accusation and utter nonsensical point and 3rd point being that GPTzero stated that this is a human input then that's an human input end of the question. <span style="font-family:Georgia,serif; color:#FF4500; font-size:120%; font-weight:bold;">]</span> 14:01, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::No it's really not the end of the story if GPTZero says "likely human". In fact I'd actively discourage people depending on tools like GPTZero in favour of their human senses ] than yet another computer program. And, frankly, what you're hearing from people here is we'd rather your casual, human, flaws-and-all style of writing over ChatGPT output "formal" report templates. They are doing the opposite of what you're looking for and have become disruptive. ] (]) 14:05, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::Man you still wanna do this? @] also says this doesn't seems AI generated to him and he used his actual "Human senses" to lean that way <span style="font-family:Georgia,serif; color:#FF4500; font-size:120%; font-weight:bold;">]</span> 14:10, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::Admitting that you have used AI for writing your comments and then saying that you have not used AI is not going to help your case. - ] (]) 14:36, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::You know what I think this is getting to the ] point. Having to tell somebody to have the basic respect of other editors to not subject them to text-walls of chatGPT garbage over and over again is a disruptive distraction from what we should all be doing. ] (]) 14:38, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::::This ain't getting anywhere <span style="font-family:Georgia,serif; color:#FF4500; font-size:120%; font-weight:bold;">]</span> 14:59, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::I really don't understand the problem. Cuz I literally also said many where that yes I used AI but for expanding and grammar correction <span style="font-family:Georgia,serif; color:#FF4500; font-size:120%; font-weight:bold;">]</span> 14:54, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::If this combative approach is your "casual" style, perhaps your use of AI and its over the top politeness was an attempt to mask it. In any case, I think you are ] but for caste glorification given your obsession with a certain sub-caste. - ] (]) 14:33, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::im not obsessed with a certain subcaste but am sure is obsessed with British Raj sources. <span style="font-family:Georgia,serif; color:#FF4500; font-size:120%; font-weight:bold;">]</span> 14:56, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::I don't think that's better. ] (]) 15:44, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			== Potential vandal trying to start edit war on the page for Frisch's. ==
	No admin deigned to get involved the last time this came up so I won't respond to this IP's comments other than to refer anyone who is interested to the previous ANI discussion referenced above. ] (]) 20:52, 15 January 2015 (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-->
	== Muhammad Buhari ==
			:Courtesy link ]. ] (]) 17:02, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
	Hello!
	I'm a new WP user who already managed to get into a bit of trouble (WP:LEGALACTION). I came across this article on ] as I'm currently writing my thesis on democracy in West Africa. So I found the page seriously lacked reliable and neutral information about Nigeria's democratic history. I've tried to improve the page by adding a series of sources meant to balance the overtly positive tone of that page, not in tune with the requirements of Misplaced Pages. Other pages concerning Nigeria' history (see ]) present a more balanced and don't shy away from chronicling certain darker episodes from their past so I thought I could do the same with Buhari's page.
	Unfortunately, my editing work and the sources added were promptly reversed by an IP address who immediately accused me of working for the opposition and for using libelous and defamatory information. As for my sources, even if they present a more rounded approach to the legacy, life and rule of Buhari, they are by no means libelous.
	I've used two New York Times articles from the 1980s, 1 source from the BBC from 2014, reports from Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International, the text of the decrees passed by Buhari and then the 5 biggest Nigerian newspapers.
	After a brief exchange on the talk page, in which I tried to explain my case and start a constructive debate with the users who had already broken the 3-revert rule, I was told that Buhari's lawyers have mounted legal proceedings against the "libelous edits". After panicking for a bit, I found that any legal threats must be reported on this page (WP:LEGALACTION). So here I am :)
	] (]) 17:11, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
	: I blocked the IP for a week for legal threats (this is a static IP, and I do not see much sense in a longer block, but everybody is welcome to extend the block), and fully protected the article for three days since I see a full-scale edit warring there. Please continue discussing at the talk page.--] (]) 17:33, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
			== ] inaccurate edit summaries ==
	== Edit warring and possible sockpuppetry on Charleston, South Carolina ==
	An edit war between {{user|Scsu76}} and {{ip|128.23.195.159}} appears to have been ongoing for several weeks at {{la|Charleston, South Carolina}} as well as in a few related articles. I came across it this week and made some reverts myself, and eventually submitted a report at ] which resulted in a 24 hours block on the named user. As I couldn't get engagement in discussion at the user's talk page, I also started an RfC at ] and notified two related WikiProjects.
			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)
	Today, a new account {{user|Ellis1960}} and the IP continued their edit war. As a result, I have now semi-protected the three articles:
	*{{la|Charleston, South Carolina}}
	*{{la|North Charleston, South Carolina}}
	*{{la|Goose Creek, South Carolina}}
			== ] Semi-Protection ==
	As I was involved in a couple reverts myself, I would prefer to get additional eyes on this. --- ] <small>(] • ])</small> - 17:18, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
	:<small>Note: All three identified users above have been notified of this discussion. --- ] <small>(] • ])</small> - 17:23, 15 January 2015 (UTC)</small>
	:*I'm the admin who blocked ] for 3RR violation per . It does appear that ] has no purpose on Misplaced Pages except to continue the revert campaign launched by Scsu76. So semiprotection looks to be a reasonable step, though ideally a different admin would have done it. To observe the proprieties I suggest filing this at SPI, even though the result looks obvious. ] (]) 18:48, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
	:*: I blocked the user for 48h for a clear continuationb of the edit-warring pattern. The protection looks justified to me, <s>though I am not sure I would start outright with 2 weeks.</s>--] (]) 20:40, 15 January 2015 (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)
	== Disruptively clueless: 82.131.225.97 ==
			:Ask at ] ] ] 16:28, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
	{{user|82.131.225.97}} - Brand new IP. Number of edits: 10. Number of constructive edits: 0. Attempts to communicate via editsums and user talk unsuccessful. I am at 3RR and no one else is around to revert this idiot. Request an admin to put them out of our misery, at least temporarily, and to revert their latest damage. Thanks. &#8213;]&nbsp;] 20:13, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

---

Latest revision as of 17:18, 24 December 2024

Noticeboard for reporting incidents to administrators

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

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents Shortcuts

• WP:ANI
• WP:AN/I

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

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

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

---

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

Start a new discussion Centralized discussion

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

Noticeboard archives

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

Obvious sock threatening to take legal action

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

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

---

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Disruptive editing and WP:TALKNO by User:AnonMoos

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

None of this matters

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• 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)

Disruptive editing by User talk:185.146.112.192

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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)

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

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Request for closure

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mgtow definition

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Creating the need to make 400,000 unnecessary edits

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

User:Augmented Seventh

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

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

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

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

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

Hopefully, this is easily resolved.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Unblock request of Rereiw82wi2j

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

User:ZanderAlbatraz1145 Civility and Content #2

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SPA User:Tikitorch2 back at it on Martin Kulldorff

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

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

Disruptive editing Movement for Democracy

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

diff1 diff2

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sugar Bear returns with personal attacks

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

Past disruption from nearby IPs includes the following:

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

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

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

Comments by Locke Cole

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

User talk:International Space Station0

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

POV IP editor and 2024 Kobani clashes

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

Promotional content about Elvenking (band)

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

Disruptive editor on When the Pawn...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bunch of racist IPs/account

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

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

---

Article: Anti-Turkish sentiment

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

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

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

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

Urgent need for page protection on BLP

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

Multiple users breaking 3RR on Gilman School article

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

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

Awshort (talk)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

User:NoahBWill2002

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Vandal encounter

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

diffs:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

User:Glenn103

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

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

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

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

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

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

Excuse me for detracting from the report, but this was your 4th edit, your last edit was in January 2016... how have you found yourself here of all places?

I mean you might have a point, but wow. – 2804:F1...57:88CF (::/32) (talk) 04:57, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

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)

TPA for 83.106.86.95

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

Can you please help?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

POVPushingTheTruth

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

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

---

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

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

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

North Korean involvement in Russian-Ukraine war discussion

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

Key Points:

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

Request for Administrative Action:

I respectfully request that administrators address the following issues:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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)

Dispute Over Edits and Use of British Raj Sources

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

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

---

Hello,

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

1. Misapplication of Policy:

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

2. Dismissal of Reliable Sources:

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

3. Unilateral Edits and Dismissive Behavior:

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

Evidence:

Diff of my original version

Diff of their first edit

Diff of their second edit

Ratnahastin talk page

Request for Administrative Action:

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

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

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

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

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

---

Best Regards

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

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

Nothing to say about me really bot

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

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

---

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

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

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

Concern About a New Contributor

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

Dear Wikipedians,

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

I believe your experience could help address this situation effectively.

Looking forward to your advice on how to proceed.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

•

•

•

•

and many more

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  It seems that she is not new to Misplaced Pages and might be operating multiple accounts. It appears she has an issue with one of my contributions, as she created her account just 15 days ago, yet she already has a good understanding of tools like Twinkle and AfD procedures. This level of familiarity suggests prior experience on the platform. I am now requesting her account to be blocked as I am completely disturbed by her repeated allegations and disruptive behavior. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 11:32, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

  I am now genuinely confused—if all my contributions are not good, then why am I even here? Were the experienced editors who reviewed and approved these pages also mistaken? A newcomer, who joined just recently, is now disrupting and questioning the validity of all the work that has been carefully reviewed and maintained by experienced contributors. This situation is deeply discouraging. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 11:58, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

  Please resolve this situation—either block her for her disruptive behavior. How can i continue working under such constant targeting and stress ? 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 12:00, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

  User:S-Aura, you seem to be making unsupported personal attacks against User:Kriji Sehamati. You should provide specific evidence of wrongdoing, including diffs, or your arguments here will fall on deaf ears (and bring consequences for you). Meanwhile, as a filer on ANI, you have brought all your own edits to close scrutiny by the community. You may have to face that smart people disagree, and this is how we sort disagreements out on English Misplaced Pages. You are not required to edit, but we encourage you to do so. Nobody is going to block Kriji Sehamati at this point, because you've given us no reason to do so. BusterD (talk) 12:01, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

  Meanwhile, in the last few minutes S-Aura has disruptively created a second thread about this exact issue on this same board, which was reverted by another editor. This is intentional disruption. BusterD (talk) 12:07, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

  As to the question "Why am I here?", poets and artists have been trying to answer this question for eons. Epistemology is outside the scope of this board, but there are articles about it. Show up to edit if you want to, but expect disagreement from time to time. (That's actually a sound answer to any epistemology question as well.) BusterD (talk) 12:16, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

  Dear @BusterD,

  It means I have been proven wrong, and that user’s contributions have been more focused on me, which is quite insufficient to catch someone’s lie that she is pretending to be new, when in fact she is old.

  Also, I am not against AfD; I am simply expressing my opinion. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 13:12, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

  Could you please rephrase your point here? I don't understand. While it's okay to be suspicious that this editor is somehow socking or doing something else deceptive due to the familiarity, it seems unacceptable to deliberately accuse them of such repeatedly without firmer evidence. Remsense ‥ 论 13:19, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

  Dear @Remsense,

  I am not engaged in paid activities on Misplaced Pages, and she claimed that I am connected with the subject, who is a judge, lawyer, etc. You all should understand that this is not a trivial matter; justice is a very respected position. Making such allegations can escalate court cases. I would like to remind you of the Misplaced Pages vs. ANI case. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 13:24, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

  One thing you need to understand immediately is you should never make another post that sounds vaguely like a legal threat, as you've just done above. Seriously. That intonation is seriously not helping us decide who's right or wrong here. Remsense ‥ 论 13:27, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

  Okay! 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 13:35, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

  I will caution you that this is tiptoeing right up to the edge of WP:NLT and you'd be advised to avoid making legal threats. Simonm223 (talk) 13:28, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

  Dear @Simonm223,

  I am merely showing that she can potentially do something inappropriate. I am following the guidelines and not making any legal threats. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 13:31, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

  Accusing another editor of potentially making legal threats is not much better, when there is no concrete evidence that they would do so. Being interested in articles about judges does not suffice. Remsense ‥ 论 13:32, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

  The page of Justice Subramonium Prasad, who had conducted over the Misplaced Pages vs. ANI court hearing, was also created by me. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 13:28, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

  State plainly what the implication you are making here is, because what I'm hearing is "I'm familiar with people who have hit Misplaced Pages with a mallet in court before, and I can make sure it happens again". Remsense ‥ 论 13:30, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

  This is becoming a rabbit hole. I urge you not to pursue the rabbit further. BusterD (talk) 13:33, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

  Good call, I'll retract the above. Remsense ‥ 论 13:34, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

  No, that is not what I am implying. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 13:33, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

  No one has said your contributions are not good. However, it should be noted that a draft being accepted at AfC or a new page having been patrolled does not guarantee greater scrutiny would not result in a valid AfD nomination. That said, echoing others here it's clear something problematic is up with this user's behavior. Remsense ‥ 论 12:02, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

  You can't both criticize someone for lack understanding of basic Misplaced Pages guidelines, particularly those related WP:GNG and WP:NPOL, and then argue that she is too familiar with the platform to be a newcomer for knowing how to file an AfD. I wouldn't be surprised if most people here knew how to file an AfD before knowing all 14 notability guidelines by heart. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 12:59, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

  There are detailed instructions on filing an AfD that can be found by googling "how can I get a Misplaced Pages page deleted" - if somebody had some personal reason for wanting to have pages removed it doesn't strain credibility to think that's why they created a WP account and that they just followed the very clear instructions on the appropriate pages.

  In fact that might explain why some of the AfD filings were reasonable and some were, on their face, incorrectly filed. If you looked up the AfD process but not criteria that is the likely outcome. That's why I find the "new user files AfDs must be a sock" idea here somewhat uncompelling. Simonm223 (talk) 13:04, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

• I believe we're entering boomerang territory at this point. Opinions? BusterD (talk) 13:35, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

  I think OP is upset that a cluster of their articles were put up at AfD. This in itself is understandable, but while there's reason to think there might be mischief by Kriji Sehamati, we don't have any real evidence of it. We either need the OP to make it clearer what misconduct, if any, has occurred, or they need to drop the stick. Remsense ‥ 论 13:37, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

  The OP has been intentionally disruptive (by creating a new ANI thread which was reverted), and this thread is going nowhere. IMHO, there's nothing ANI can do here. Everything I'm reading about should be resolved at the page talk and user talk level, in my opinion. The AfDs are underway. If dispute resolution is needed, fine. Nobody is harming S-Aura. S-Aura can't come crying to ANI (or four random user talk pages like mine) anytime someone merely disagrees with them. BusterD (talk) 14:08, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

  I'd have said close with trout for all if not for creating the second thread at AN/I. Based on that I'd say the OP should be formally cautioned against such antics in the future. Simonm223 (talk) 14:10, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

  I should have added that I largely hold with Remsense in their position. BusterD (talk) 14:15, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

  User:Kriji Sehamati‬ is definitely a sock puppet on Misplaced Pages, but we don’t have any evidence because understanding Misplaced Pages’s AfD process so quickly can be a bit challenging. I have no problem with AfD regarding my contributions, and it’s a good thing that experienced contributors are giving their feedback. If you believe that the kriji is 100% correct and her activity is not suspicious, then this discussion should be closed. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 14:27, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

  You need to stop insisting this is definitely the case if you don't have any evidence for it, period. Remsense ‥ 论 14:28, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

  S-Aura, how did you make the determination User:Kriji Sehamati‬ is definitely a sock puppet on Misplaced Pages? Please share your process. That's a personal attack, and requires proof to prevent you from being in violation of WP:NOPERSONALATTACKS. I've looked at the AfDs and they seem reasonable to me. When you've provided strong sources the article is being kept. So far the jury is out on the others. Both of you seem to be writing articles about obscure living persons who wouldn't normally (by my cursory reading) have a Misplaced Pages article about them because reliable sourcing is not readily found. When I see that, I must suspect COI or undeclared unpaid editing here, but nobody's admitting to it. BusterD (talk) 15:05, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

  S-Aura's continuing to issue personal attacks makes it more difficult for us to just close this (without some form of consequence for the editor making unproven personal attacks after they've been warned repeatedly). BusterD (talk) 15:08, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

  I have made a level-four user talk page warning for the personal attack. FYI. We've been very nice about this up 'til now, but we need to stop being so kind. Doing foolish things has real world consequences. BusterD (talk) 15:17, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

• Both editors' apparent use of AI is certainly disruptive. If it continues, it should lead to blocks. C F A 15:10, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

  No personal hate intended, but I just found this and thought it would be worth checking. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 16:49, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

  It would be nice if you could explain the significance for those who do not speak Hausa. Remsense ‥ 论 16:51, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

  She had made contributions to pages in other languages a few months ago. I am attaching her contributions link. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 16:59, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

  How does this constitute evidence of sockpuppetry if we aren't to know what exactly happened? There's a reason we don't just automatically block anybody who is blocked on another language wiki, and I looked through the edits some and didn't find anything outrageous that made it past the language barrier. Remsense ‥ 论 17:01, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

  I agree that it’s important to ensure we have solid evidence before making conclusions. I appreciate your perspective on not automatically blocking users based on blocks from other language wikis. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 17:17, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

  Please don't reply to me or others using ChatGPT. It is flat-out rude. Remsense ‥ 论 17:18, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

• Support BOOMERANG - I've been uninvoled and have mainly just been watching the back-and-forths, but the personal attacks and VESTED mindset, such as "questioning the validity of all the work that has been carefully reviewed and maintained by experienced contributors", concerns me. Not sure for how long, but I don't think anything longer than a months is appropriate given the circumstances. E_F 15:47, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Darkwarriorblake making aspersions

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

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

---

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

−

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

+

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

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

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

−

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

+

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hrrm, this seems a bit excessive.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Followup

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

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

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

Extremely Annoying situation

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

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

---

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

The rest escapes words for me. See these discussions.

on my page

On theirs

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

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

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

IP vandalism

Blocked. (non-admin closure) C F A 03:53, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

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

---

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

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

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

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

User Stationmanagerskidrow removing information on Radio Skid Row page

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

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

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

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

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

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

Insults

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

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

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

Nlkyair012 and LLM chatbots

• Nlkyair012

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

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

Hello @Ratnahastin,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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)

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

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)

Category:

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards