Misplaced Pages

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

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 03:57, 8 February 2015 editJeffro77 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers31,570 edits →User:73.11.72.255← Previous edit Latest revision as of 15:24, 25 December 2024 edit undoFolly Mox (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users14,082 edits →Creating the need to make 400,000 unnecessary edits: ReplyTags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit Advanced mobile edit Reply 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Short description|Noticeboard for reporting incidents to administrators}}<noinclude><!-- Inside the noinclude, because this page is transcluded.-->{{/Header}}</noinclude>{{clear}}
{{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 = 872 |counter = 1174
|algo = old(36h) |algo = old(72h)
|key = 740a8315fa94aa42eb96fbc48a163504d444ec0297a671adeb246c17b137931c
|key = 95f2c40e2e81e8b5dbf1fc65d4152915
|archive = Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive%(counter)d |archive = Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive%(counter)d
|headerlevel=2
}}
}}
{{stack end}}
<!-- <!--
NEW ENTRIES GO AT THE BOTTOM OF THE PAGE NOT HERE
{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveThis
NEW ENTRIES GO AT THE BOTTOM OF THE PAGE NOT HERE
|header={{Administrators' noticeboard navbox all}}
NEW ENTRIES GO AT THE BOTTOM OF THE PAGE NOT HERE-->
|archiveprefix=Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive
== Disruptive editing and WP:TALKNO by ] ==
|format=%%i
|age=36
|index=no
|numberstart=826
|archivenow={{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow}}
|minarchthreads= 1
|minkeepthreads= 4
|maxarchsize= 700000
|key=d85a96a0151d501b0ad3ba6060505c0c
}} --><!--
-----------------------------------------------------------
New entries go down at the *BOTTOM* of the page, not here.
----------------------------------------------------------
As this page concerns INCIDENTS:
Place the PAGENAME of the incident in the header.
Otherwise, if the notice is about the actions of an individual across several pages, then place the USERNAME of the individual in the header.
----------------------------------------------------------
Do not place links in the section headers.
(Immediately UNDER the header is preferred).
----------------------------------------------------------
Entries may be refactored based on the above.
---------------------------------------------------------- -->


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 .
== Conduct of ] ==
{{archive top|result=Closure is easily attained: there is nothing here for an admin to do. I have looked at a number of diffs and find that none of them cross any kind of civility boundary. The discussion may well be interminable, and while there may be a few avenues to resolve that (RfC, dispute resolution, etc.), ANI is not one of them. If anything, this appears to be a content issue which needs to be handled by content editors, and a pointed RfC, or a series of them, may well be the only way forward--RfCs are typically set up for a limited time frame, and if discussions get out of hand an admin could step in and hat excessive content, judge insults, etc. Good luck to you all. ] (]) 23:16, 7 February 2015 (UTC)}}
This user is a published author, who has made some valuable contributions at ]. However, I am concerned about his conduct towards myself and others.


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 .
I joined the discussion last August, partly because of , arguing from authority against other authors and implying they were not "aware of these pressure forces". This was refuted by from the sources. Since then, I have seen an ongoing pattern of incivility towards anyone who disagrees with him. To highlight just a few examples:<br>
<!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 15:20, 17 December 2024 (UTC)</small>
: Claim that different numerical results are, "comparing what different sources say about precisely the same question".<br>
: Dismissal of reasoned review of evidence as 'intuition', 'speculation', and 'protestation' (previously ).<br>
: Claim that source "supports what I've been arguing all along." (.)<br>
: Refusal to listen to another user, "at this point yours would seem to be a minority view. Does anyone else oppose my adding this new subsection?"


: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)
Finally, I for specific evidence of verifiability for one of his claims and was not satisfied with his . He has already been asked and
::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)
to refer to ]. He proposes insertion of a that looks to me like ], but he only seems to .
:::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)
I've had enough of arguing with him. Please evaluate his conduct and take any steps necessary to protect the community. ] (]) 13:57, 26 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)
:Doug McLean is a cited author in the article. In his published works he also criticises a standard introductory approach to the subject, and for many months now has been trying to push his minority PoV on the article. He has a clear conflict of interest, and to his credit has avoided editing himself but has confined himself to the talk page. However the discussions became interminable and sometimes less than gentlemanly, and I joined the debate to help manage them. That succeeded partially, though they now fill at least two archives,] and ], as well as ]. Despite there, and again , the excessive pedantry . I should like to propose a voluntary topic ban for say six months, both to give us all a breather and to give Doug a chance to learn more constructive approaches to editing Misplaced Pages. &mdash; Cheers, ] (]) 16:57, 26 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)
::::::Think it's time to draft up a formal proposal at this point? ]<sup>] </sup> 18:29, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::I don't think that's necessary. The key isn't formally deciding the criterion for blocking (because that's obvious to everyone) but rather detecting the next incident. Best way to do that for everyone gathered here to watchlist ]. Sooner or later, futher trouble will show up there. ]] 21:31, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
::::If you have DSL or even DialUp. That still works with modern machines. ]<sup>] </sup> 01:08, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::Heck, ''I'' am on DSL (and have been since, if I recall right, 2008). I have no idea what sort of ancient Internet connection AnonMoos is claiming to be using, but it's clearly one that was already obsolete before this change he's still up in arms about six years later was made. - ] <sub>]</sub> 05:44, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::Not to mention it would STILL be supported these days. It's literally right there when you click wifi/network settings in Windows 10. ]<sup>] </sup> 18:20, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
*The response by AnonMoos to feedback about this problem is bizarre. I don't really care what the excuse or the history behind it. If you are unwilling to edit Misplaced Pages using tools that work in 2024 then you should stop editing. The behavior is completely unnecessary and it seems like you don't understand the disruption. ] (]) 14:45, 24 December 2024 (UTC)


* AnonMoos hasn't really explained in any detail what their technical limitations are. They don't have to, but we can't really give advice otherwise. If as others have suggested their computer can't negotiate TLS 1.2, I'm surprised that they're able to use any websites at all from that computer. Requiring TLS 1.2 is not controversial; Misplaced Pages wasn't doing anything unusual in dropping TLS 1.0/1.1 around that time. ] ] 15:02, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
::*'''Support'''. I certainly need a break from this endless conflict. It would be much easier for me just to remove the article from my watchlist, but I don't think that's the right thing to do. ] (]) 07:57, 29 January 2015 (UTC)


*If it's that much of a problem for his computer, go and buy a new computer. It would certainly be better than whining about how Misplaced Pages broke his ability to edit without screwing things up for other users.] (]) 07:06, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
I participated in the discussion in question, often re-reading Doug McLean's and others' comments several times in order to better understand them, so I am quite familiar with the issue. There were/are disagreements among the editors including myself. In my view, at the times when the discussion began to border on incivility it was not Doug McLean who was being uncivil. While the administrators are welcome to wade through the walls of text on the Talk page, I don't think there's anything actionable there at least as far as Doug McLean's behavior. And I don't think bringing this up in AN/I is conducive towards building consensus. ] (]) 12:48, 27 January 2015 (UTC)


:Meh. None of ''this'' matters. Signatures sometimes get accidentally fucked up. This is an encyclopedia, not a forum, and this signature thing is not a real disruption to the creation of encyclopedic content. <span style="position: relative; top: -0.5em;">꧁</span>]<span style="position: relative; top: -0.5em;">꧂</span> 07:21, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
:], after some pause for thought, I can perhaps understand why you don't see it. Doug is very knowledgeable, eloquent and persuasive. He would never sink to the level of calling someone a "dilettante" (as someone else did). But no amount of careful wording can hide the underlying message, "you're wrong" that has been consistently levelled against others, regardless of what the evidence says. No doubt some of the mistakes that have been alleged were in fact wrong. We all make mistakes. I know I've made some, and I've corrected myself where I can. There's nothing wrong with that, as long as we're willing to learn.
::While true, it's still a violation of ], and if it's accidentally changing characters in signatures, who knows what ''else'' it might be doing that isn't getting caught or reported? - ] <sub>]</sub> 07:27, 25 December 2024 (UTC)


== Disruptive editing by ] ==
:You were rightly offended by the other incident, and chose to report it, as you are entitled. Personally I found that event far less distressing than the remainder of the last six months. Perhaps this helps you understand how I feel about this situation. If you do have any unresolved concerns about another editor's conduct, you should raise it with them, with evidence, in the appropriate place. If you have unresolved content issues, they should of course be raised on the article talk page. ] (]) 20:41, 27 January 2015 (UTC); edited 22:12, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
{{atop|1=IP blocked 24 hours, and then ] and created an account to evade the block, which has now been indef'd. - ] <sub>]</sub> 22:43, 24 December 2024 (UTC)}}
::As a participant in one of the most recent discussions, I have found Doug a bit verbose and maybe hard to get on the same page with, but definitely nothing actionable at AN/I. Sometimes debates go over-long. I think things have mostly been handled in a responsible way. That said, I haven't been over to that page in the last few months - I'll look at where things have gone since then and comment again if possible. That said, it's not at all unreasonable for people with a disagreement to be negative about one anothers' positions. Obviously he thinks we're wrong; we think he's wrong! I kinda wonder if any remaining content disputes might actually be best resolved with a conference call between the primaries or something, if that's feasible. ] <sup>(] · ])</sup> 15:20, 30 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.
:::{{re|0x0077BE}} I can't agree that things were handled in a responsible way. To give a relevant example, at one point we were , "If ] and ] think The Statement is true for some control volume other than the infinitely tall sliver, they need to tell us specifically what control volume that is and provide citable sources for their assertion."


:::I don't think I made any such assertion (see my link to "evidence" above). Did you? ] (]) 10:40, 31 January 2015 (UTC) ] (]) 20:52, 18 December 2024 (UTC)


:@]: It looks like you both are ] on ].<sup class="plainlinks"></sup> That's not particularly helpful, so you should try to have a discussion on the ] as to whether you should include the ] name for the article in the lead/infobox. &#8211;<span style="font-family:CG Times, times">]&thinsp;]<sup>]</sup></span> 20:33, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
;Time to make a decision and close this now
::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)
Another editor is attempting to restart the endless discussion, see . please can somebody at least give us some closure here? &mdash; Cheers, ] (]) 12:04, 6 February 2015 (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)
:<s>For reference, the conduct of that IP user was previously reported . Still today, he continues to make groundless allegations that I'm both biased and wanting to impose ''my'' understanding of the topic on society. ] may be applicable in that case.</s>
::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)
:For this issue, shall we assume consensus for the suggested voluntary ban unless we hear otherwise? ] (]) 17:48, 6 February 2015 (UTC); edited 22:04, 6 February 2015 (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)
::I think that would be discourteous if not invidious. Doug McLean has not been back since I posted this incident, effectively operating the voluntary ban himself for now. I think he deserves closure on our allegations as much as we do. The IP editor is a different problem and (as you may have noticed) I am still trying a less formal approach with them. It is not helpful to have both issues hanging over the same discussion at the same time. &mdash; Cheers, ] (]) 20:03, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
{{abot}}
:::Sorry for misreading the intent of the diff being linked above. I was trying to highlight the fact there are unrelated conduct issues there. I have struck my paragraph which is, of course, irrelevant here.


== User engaged in edit warring to remove disputed content prior to consensus ==
:::I agree it would be better for all concerned to have closure on this. ] (]) 22:04, 6 February 2015 (UTC); edited 08:24, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
{{atop|There's nothing actionable in this content dispute, except perhaps trouting the original poster for failing to assume good faith and hounding friendly admins when they try to help. Longtime user ] (4.5 yrs, over 5K edits) has made several assertions based on their clear misunderstanding of social norms. In this discussion they've failed to notify the subject (they actually failed to use the subject's name in the OP), they've failed to bring any diffs, they failed to sign their post, and over and over they seem to have failed to assume good faith of their fellow editors. A number of editors including several admins have attempted to talk Sxbbetyy down. Nobody in this discussion seems to agree with Sxbbetyy on the merits, yet Sxbbetyy keeps circling back to their own personal interpretation of policy. The discussion at ], where Sxbbetyy refuses to listen to the admin they asked, gives another example of the problem. Sxbbetyy is reminded that creating a post on ANI puts all their own behaviors up for examination. ] (]) 15:46, 23 December 2024 (UTC)}}
{{archive bottom}}


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 -->
== Malik-Shah I ==
: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)
Qara xan keeps removing sourced information! it is really getting annoying now and i am surprised that no one have seen it yet. In the ] article, he keeps removing the Seljuq statesman ] out of mention during the campaign of the Seljuq ruler ] in Caucasus in 1064, when the source I added clearly says that he took part in the campaign;
::That is actually no longer the content that is being disputed. If you look at the that got reverted on the article you can see the current version. I had made edits to it precisely because of valid WP:NPOV concerns brought to my attention by PSW. However, their dispute with the content remains with the claim that is is synthesis rather than any other concern. Which they have been thus far unable to obtain a consensus on. ] (]) 17:27, 19 December 2024 (UTC)


*I have some pretty serious ] concerns about the topic starter here. They came to me for help (no idea how/why me, I have no connection to this dispute) and I repeatedly told them I didn't see any misconduct, and then they started attacking ''me'' when I refused to agree with them. And now this. This is a very simple content dispute, with a very simple ] outcome. I've told them this. It's a disappointing time sink on a rather trivial content dispute. ] ] 00:52, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
'''Alp Arslān was quick to resume his military activity. In Rabīʿ I, 456/February-March, 1064, he undertook a campaign in the northwest which resulted in significant gains at the expense of Byzantine Armenia; Neẓām-al-molk and the sultan’s son, Malekšāh, operated separately during part of the campaign, each taking a string of fortresses. They rejoined the sultan to take Sepīd Šahr and Ānī.'''
*:At no point was he "attacked". I defended myself after he became hostile with me (as anyone can read in our convo, I stated multiple times that I would leave and did not want to be a burden if they didn't want to engage with this, but he made no such objections and continued). Eventually he just became outright hostile and refused to explain their points any further, devolving the conversation into them repeating themselves over and over, its all there to read on his talk page. As for why I contacted him, I wanted to ensure I chose impartially so I just randomly looked at the currently active admins at the time and he was the first one I found. ] (]) 18:23, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
*::The discussion is , if anyone wants to look. The "attack" I'm referring to you is your accusation that I responded to you in bad faith. I was not involved in the dispute, have no stance on it, and had no pre-conceived notions about either of you - what in the world would my motivations be for "bad faith responses"? It doesn't make any sense. You simply didn't get the response you wanted, and proceeded to badger me on it. Did I get vaguely irritated when I volunteered my time to review and comment on a dispute I had no stance or interest in, only to get all sorts of ] responses on it? Yeah, sure, but who wouldn't? ] ] 18:44, 19 December 2024 (UTC)


*I'm here from my input at the 3rd opinion request. This is nothing more than a trivial content dispute, I see no reason for this to be at ANI. I somewhat agree with the claim of ], it becomes more susceptible to incorrect information, and from my analysis it seemed like the claim in the disputed content was completely wrong. Two different sources, from two different time periods. My $0.02: The claim of stonewalling is ridiculous, there was ample good-faith discussion based on existing policy and guidelines. This editor does not ], it appears that he claims that editors disagreeing are acting in bad faith. From him to administrator Sergecross73: {{tq|"I'm not wasting time engaging with you if you aren't going to speak with me in good faith."}} It seems that he roots his argument based on the editor who removed it rather than the content itself. Very unfortunate waste of time. —&nbsp;] ] 15:31, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
And when Qara xan runs out of words, he suddenly keeps accusing me of being uncivil (or ignores me and continues his reverting). I seriously don't know what to do anymore. I have created over 320 articles and expanded even many more, and tried to expand the Malik-Shah I article too, but sadly he is stopping my progress. By the way, I have notified him about this. --] (]) 16:22, 30 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)
:At best this is a content dispute as it ]. No eidts have been carried out in the alst week so this also is quite stale. Best option would be to take it to the talk page to discuss or seek ]. ] (])(]) 18:24, 30 January 2015 (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.
::Hi, Amortias. That user HistoryofIran is a liar. Just take a look on ]. --] 19:59, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
*: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.
Take it to the talk page? I have already done that, and as i said, when Qara xan runs out of words, he suddenly keeps accusing me of being uncivil, or ignores me and continues his reverting. So I don't think that would work. A admin told me this would be the best place to fix this problem. --] (]) 19:05, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
:This is a report of edit warring to revert disputed content prior to a consensus being reached (there was no consensus prior to the reversion and there still is no consensus, as admitted by PSW themselves in that very dispute and In their latest revert message, no idea why now in this report they are trying to claim that there is suddenly consensus for removal).
:This is not a report on the dispute itself, just to make that very clear since those involved are responding as if it is. ] (]) 18:41, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
::You've still got this backward. You need to show a consensus to keep your content in the article, as everyone else has been telling you. ] is directly on point, and I'll quote it here: {{Tq|The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content.}} ] (]) 18:53, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Thank you. I have tried to inform them of this many times and many ways. I do not know why they cannot wrap their head around the concept. Conceptually, it would be very problematic if we were required to retain every disputed content until consensus ruled it out. It wouldn't be workable. ] ] 19:02, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Nobody is arguing WP:ONUS here...not in the dispute and not here in this report. The point is that the content is being removed prior to there being a consensus on if it should be removed.
:::I was directly advised by admin Pbsouthwood that the removal of disputed content BEFORE any consensus has been reached is not allowed (save for specific situations, none of which apply to the disputed content) as this bypasses the consensus building process. ] is the talk page where I was advised this. This is echoed with the wording in WP:STONEWALLING and ]. Here is the direct quote from the latter, "To eliminate the risk of an edit war, do not revert away from the status quo ante bellum during a dispute discussion. Instead, add an appropriate tag indicating the text is disputed. For an article, many of the inline dispute tags are appropriate. For other pages, {{under discussion inline}} is good. Leave the status quo and the tag in place until the discussion concludes." ] (]) 19:58, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
::::{{tq|The point is that the content is being removed prior to there being a consensus on if it should be removed.}} <--- No. This is your problem. What you are saying here is incorrect. Policies say the opposite of this. You are not going to get support at ANI. In fact, the longer you keep going with this ] insistence that community practice is actually the opposite of what policies plainly say it is, the more likely it is you're going to find yourself blocked for disruption. Pbsouthwood didn't tell you this either (what he wrote doesn't match what you've been doing), and your initial question did not properly represent the situation at hand. But we can invite him here to see if he actually supports what you're doing here: {{ping|Pbsouthwood}}, what say you? ] (]) 20:06, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::This entire comment serves absolutely zero purpose whatsoever. You're parroting what others have already said with no supporting evidence. Along with throwing in an oddly included threat that is completely nonsensical and wholly unwarranted.
:::::And while I could point out the myriad of ways your claim about what Pbsouthwood said was inaccurate, that would pretty much involve reposting his reply, which is a waste since anyone can already go to his talk page and read it themselves.
:::::So at this point, if you need that admin to come here and tell you what they already said themselves, more power to you. Would save us all a ton of time to get an authoritative answer on this, especially with another admin holding the opposite view point, in spite of the specific policy wording. ] (]) 23:08, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::], there does not need to be an established consensus for the removal of content. ]. - ] <sub>]</sub> 01:28, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::I'm not the one insisting otherwise...this report only exists because an ]. And as I've posted in my previous replies, the wording in the policies clearly support that. Makes me question how many have actually bothered to really read these policies... ] (]) 02:22, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::The other admin told you ''nothing'' about the removal of ], which is always appropriate. ]. - ] <sub>]</sub> 03:19, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::# This report is not an extension of the dispute discussion for that article, if you want to involve yourself in that discussion, do so there, do not hijack this report.
:::::::::# The disputed content is plainly not WP:SYNTH as I explain on the talk page in great length, with nobody thus far having provided valid examples as to how it is.
:::::::::# If you are going to make the claim that any WP:SYNTH concerns warrant immediate reversion without consensus, please feel free to share the quote in the relevant policy that says this. I have not found any such wording and instead found that what is present matches up with what PBsouthwood informed me.
:::::::::] (]) 17:17, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::] ] ] 02:05, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::At this point I say that my advice was given without a specific context, and without prejudice. I maintain that it is more collegial and polite to discuss a removal of unsourced but ''plausible'' content ''before'' removing it, as it can often avoid disputes of this kind, but it is not forbidden to arbitrarily delete content that an editor ''plausibly considers inappropriate provided the relevant reason is given''. It is always the responsibility of the person advocating inclusion to provide a reference when challenged, regardless of the process of challenge.
:::::Some forms of synthesis are acceptable. If a conclusion is logically inevitable based on undisputed factual premises, or is a simple mathematical calculation, we routinely accept claims that may not be specifically stated in a source, but we may require the logic to be explained, as it may not be obvious to the reader.
:::::At the risk of being ], I also refer readers to <s>]</s> <u>(looks like that essay has been expunged, try ])</u>. &middot; &middot; &middot; ] ]: 06:59, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::I think many of us used to the mess editors adding unsourced content can create would strongly oppose leaving in unsourced content just because it's plausible. The standard should instead be at a minimum that you believe the claim made is most likely correct and sourceable not simply that it's plausible. Although ultimately such discussions are a little silly anyway. If editors would just add sources rather than leaving it for someone else because they're claiming it's unlikely to be challenged or whatever, there would be a need for others to decide whether to query or remove unsourced content. ] (]) 09:56, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::I was suggesting tagging with citation needed while you wait a reasonable time for a response, but as we know some of us do not have the patience and just revert. It in not unheard of to know something, but not have a source handy at the time. What is obvious to one may be totally obscure to others. This is acceptable within policy and guidelines. You could start a RfC to have the guidelines changed, but I suspect it would not get through as being a bit bitey. Cheers, &middot; &middot; &middot; ] ]: 12:47, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::Yes, what you say is true, that's absolutely an acceptable approach. But that's not really the problem at hand here. The bigger issue is that Sxbbetyy appears to be believe that the alternative approach - reverting per STATUSQUO or NOCONSENSUS - is somehow misconduct, and that's simply not true. They're not arguing about if your approach is valid, they're arguing that its ''compulsory'', and they're attempting to report a user for not following your possible approach, which is completely meritless. ] ] 17:31, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::Please do not put words in my mouth. The only reason this report exists is because Peter Southwood advised that this was how I should proceed if the editor participating in this no-consensus reverting continued to do so and was unreceptive to further discussion. (Both are true by admission of PSW themselves). ] (]) 18:22, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::Yes, I've seen , but you presented the situation to them entirely in hypotheticals that lacks crucial context. You frame PSW as unwilling to engage in discussion but omit the fact that You accuse PSW of edit warring to keep their information in the article, but omit the fact that . I would think the near-unanimous rejection of this ANI report would indicate that this was not, in fact, a good thing to report. Best case scenario, this is archived with no action, but I'd be shocked if it didn't result in a ]. ] ] 18:44, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::I don't know why you are attempting to present the entire discussion on that talk page as some sort of proof that PSW was willing to engage in further discussion to halt the behavior this report is about. At no point whatsoever did PSW ever indicate anything like that; if they did this report wouldn't exist as the discussions on your talk page or Peter Southwood's page would have never needed to happen. Not to mention if you take the time to actually read the discussion, you see that most of it is on the specifics of the validity of the WP:SYNTH claim made by PSW, eventually culminating in PSW actually asserting that they will not stop change their position on this and then outright refusing to engage any further.
:::::::::::And now you accuse me of edit warring by citing the entire recent edit history of the page...this isn't fooling anyone who actually bothers to read any of the revert messages and examine the timeline of when they occurred (talk about omitting "crucial context").
:::::::::::Beyond just slandering my character, I don't really see what these kind of spurious claims accomplish. It wastes everyone's time, makes yourself look biased and hostile, and adds nothing to the conversation. Keep things civil please, I really shouldn't have to tell you of all people that basic expectation. ] (]) 02:38, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::Wait...are you seriously trying to suggest that, even though you were the only one who reverted him every single time, he was edit warring and you weren't? ] ] 02:50, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::If you are going to continue to twist words and make false claims immediately after being asked to keep things civil, maybe it would be best for all involved if you just moved on from this conversation. Sad that even has to be stated at this point, it should be a given. ] (]) 17:25, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::::Yet another IDHT response where you try to baselessly chastize me rather than address anything anyone is saying to you. ] ] 18:14, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::What a choice to post this exact type reply to my last message... not to mention the sheer absurdity of it. To claim that I've never addressed anyone's points in my replies is so easily and visibly wrong (literally this entire topic is full of my detailed replies to people's concerns, including this very reply) that it's almost insulting to the rest of the people participating in this or to anyone who even chooses to read that message. It's as if you think nobody can see the rest of this discussion (or even the comments directly above it). ] (]) 11:52, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::Thank you for taking the time to respond and my apology for any inconvenience it may have caused. Ive tried to keep it as civil as possible, but there seems to be a very hostile air in this discussion by those with the dissenting opinion. As for how this situation is to be resolved, would it be appropriate to restore the currently disputed content with the appropriate tags (as it is sourced and was the statusquo on the page at the time of reversion)? Or is there something further that must be done here? I'm generally unfamiliar with how ANIs actually function. ] (]) 17:52, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
:Have you considered starting an ]? The fact is that you made a ] addition to the article; someone else objected to it, which means you now ought to seek consensus ''for your addition''. As numerous people have told you, none of the relevant policies and guidelines (], ], ], etc) would allow you to make a recent addition the "default" the way you want, but more generally - the problem is that you're trying to dig through policy for something that will make your preferred version the default, allowing you to have it in the article without having to demonstrate consensus for it even in the face of challenges. Even if the policies and guidelines I listed ''were'' on your side this would still be a bad way to approach it. You have a conflict, your goal should be to resolve it by making consensus as clear as possible - figuring out what the crux of the dispute is and then, if you can't reach a compromise, holding an RFC to see where consensus lies. Also, I have to point out that just by a quick nose count of people who have weighed in on talk, I'm seeing a dispute that is now three-to-one against you. That ''is'' a consensus - not a massive one, maybe an RFC will pull in a bunch of people that say something else, but it doesn't make sense for you to keep demanding a consensus to remove something you added when there actually ''is'' such a consensus on talk. You've disagreed with their arguments but they're not obliged to ] you; ultimately if you think your arguments are so strong and theirs are so weak, the only real option for you at this point is to start an RFC and hope that you can demonstrate that there. --] (]) 04:10, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
::As mentioned earlier in the discussion, this report is not an extension of the dispute on that article, nor is that what this report is about. Also, a RFC was already started for the topic about a week or so ago by PSW, but that occurred after he reverted the status quo, disputed content with discussion (repeatedly). As for the rest of your comment, Peter Southwood, an admin, has addressed what is the actual expectation. ] (]) 18:00, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
:::What? I never started an RfC. — ] (]; ]) 19:07, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
::::I just checked and on 12/9/24 at ] you said the following, "Thanks – just wanted to mention I requested comments from ] and ] about 2 weeks ago."
::::Did that not actually happen? ] (]) 02:11, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::] is a specific process. Asking questions on a couple of Wikiprojects is not an RFC. ] (]) 02:22, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::That's fundamentally not what an RFC is. This is getting ridiculous... ] ] 03:03, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::It's almost like this is the very first time I've ever been involved in this kind of issue on Misplaced Pages before...seriously these kind of replies come off as rude and don't actually say anything meaningful or helpful. Ever since our conversation on your talk page you have made next to no real effort to engage in good faith and I find that highly disappointing to be coming from an admin. And my apology if I offended you at all at some point or if you have just "lost your patience" with me, but I don't see how that gives you the green flag to suddenly disregard ]. I certainly haven't, in spite of being on the receiving end of this. ] (]) 17:44, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::I haven't said anything uncivil, I just keep calling you out when you say something incorrect. ] ] 18:08, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::], is a powerful force, I find it difficult to resist myself. ] (]) 18:10, 21 December 2024 (UTC)


===Request for closure===
:{{reply to|HistoryofIran}} Actually, a lot of your comments can be taken as uncivil. For example:
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)
{{talkquote|if you randomly accuse me of vandalism '''(you probably don't even know its meaning)'''|HistoryofIran|}}
: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)
{{talkquote|Take a look on Al-Mu'tadid FOR EXAMPLE '''(writing it with caps lock so you actually read the word properly)'''.|HistoryofIran}}
::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)
{{talkquote|'''Or maybe because you speak a very broken and confusing form of English.'''|HistoryofIran}}
:{{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)
{{talkquote| I don't know the Misplaced Pages rules well? '''that is coming from you? don't make me laugh'''.|HistoryofIran}}
: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)
{{talkquote|didn't i already tell you that i had to convert it? '''is your English that bad? if so, then please leave the English Misplaced Pages, because you are making it hard for everyone here when you simply revert stuff and then don't understand a word of what others say.'''|HistoryofIran}}
*I've bolded all the statements I consider offensive, and this is only from one of your discussions.... <span style="color: blue">--</span> ] <sup><span style="font-size:80%">]</span></sup> 20:49, 30 January 2015 (UTC) ::In what way is ''that'' your read of the consensus in the discussion above? ] ] 02:49, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
:::In what world do you logically come to that conclusion from a message that consist of almost entirely the word for word quote of the procedures described in WP:STATUSQUO, that directly counters the claim you just made? Are you saying it is "against consensus" simply because it presents a viewpoint you don't like and don't want to address? I don't see another reason why you would again twist my words, to the point of lunacy. And this is, once again, despite the fact that all of what has been said is literally within view.
:::Also, regarding the consensus. Out of everyone that has actually joined the discussion and all the messages sent (~90% of which are either from myself or you Serge), there have been only three people who have actually said anything in support of your interpretation of this. The rest either did not discuss the topic, did not express an opinion, or were Peter Southwood who supported the interpretation of WP:STATUSQUO as stated on its page. Seems like you're just trying to rush a end to the conversation to get the conclusion you want. ] (]) 15:02, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
::::I'm saying there has been no consensus for anything you're arguing here. Not a single person has supported action against PSW. ] ] 15:15, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
::::The status quo ante bellum that shouldn't be reverted from is the version ''without the new content''. ] (]) 15:16, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
{{abot}}


== Creating the need to make 400,000 unnecessary edits ==
I'm sorry, but how is it uncivil when I tell him his English makes it harder for himself and me to fix the problem? seriously, you should read some of the stuff he writes and how he responds. About the caps lock thing, there are actually many times where he doesn't really want to properly read what I write (which can be quite irritating when I am trying to solve a dispute and he does such things like that, like he didn't even care). Yes, he don't know the meaning of the word "vandalism", or else he wouldn't randomly accuse of me being one in order to avoid discussing with me. About the Misplaced Pages rules, there are actually many cases where he breaks the rules, yet tells me and other users to learn about them, which is quite irritating and I am not the only person he has done that to. I think the problem is that the way I write can be easily misunderstood. Of course, I never mean to be rude or something like that. If it is really that easily misunderstood-able, I will write in a different way. But even if wrote in a different way I would probably still randomly accused of being uncivil, as it is not the first time Qara xan have done that and I am not the only one he has done that to (here is a example ). Anyway, now with that problem hopefully fixed, can we get back to the main subject? --] (]) 21:20, 30 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.
I'm sorry, but will this issue be taking up? --] (]) 22:22, 2 February 2015 (UTC)


Anyone? i thought this was where you could fix such issues? --] (]) 13:08, 5 February 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)
:If you want to discuss {{tl|WikiProject banner shell}}, you should do so at ].
:As for the size of the category, I have no plans to empty it, and was only going to update a few hundred more categories and templates. &nbsp;&nbsp;<b>~</b>&nbsp;<span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:16px;">] (] ⋅])</span>&nbsp; 15:02, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
::You made nearly 2000 of such edits in the last few hours, and when asked to stop pointed me to a category with 400,000 entries. I have no way to know how many more you planned now or in future runs. Starting a discussion at the module would hardly stop you. ] (]) 15:10, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
:::"{{tq|when asked to stop pointed me to a category with 400,000 entries}}": incorrect. Since you wrongly thought I was making cosmetic edits, i.e. "{{tq|no change in output or categories}}", the category was to inform you that they are not cosmetic.
:::Regarding a BRFA for the bulk of the category, that's looking more likely since the category appears to be neglected. &nbsp;&nbsp;<b>~</b>&nbsp;<span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:16px;">] (] ⋅])</span>&nbsp; 15:29, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
::::Unnecessary removing a synonym and then making thousands of edits to remove the hidden cat created by that unnecessary change is not really any better than making cosmetic edits, the end result is that nothing has changed for the affected pages at all. ] (]) 15:33, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::Not unnecessary. The Lua code is very complex and removing the need the support various settings makes the code both easier to read and maintain. As always, editors that don't want to see these edits can hide these by hiding the tag "talk banner shell conversion". ] (]) 12:32, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::It doesn´t look as if the specific code to have these synonyms was very complicated though, the argument that in some cases two synonyms were used on one page with conflicting values was more convincing. And the edits I complained about did ''not'' have that tag, so no, even if people knew about hiding that tag, it wouldn't have helped here at all. ] (]) 16:04, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
:This was discussed in detail on ]. Ideally these edits would be done by an approved bot so they do not appear on people's watchlists. The main benefit is to merge the {{para|blp}} and {{para|living}} parameters. When both are in use, we find they often get conflicting values because one gets updated and the other does not. &mdash;&nbsp;Martin <small>(]&nbsp;·&nbsp;])</small> 17:25, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
::Isn't it more logical to first have a bot cleanup the unwanted parameter, then remove it from the template, and only then start populating the cat with the somehow remaining or since added instances? In any case, this is a typical bot task and shouldn't be done with massive AWB runs. ] (]) 17:39, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Yes, probably. But we have this mechanism already set up and I assumed {{ul|Cewbot}} would deal with these as part of its normal activities. Happy to look at other options - maybe discuss on template talk? &mdash;&nbsp;Martin <small>(]&nbsp;·&nbsp;])</small> 18:23, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
::::I don't know what this is about, but if the OP is correct, it is totally absurd to edit 400,000 talk pages for a tweak. Discussing at a template talk page monitored by those focused on the template would simply hide the issue. ] (]) 03:53, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::Edits like these should ''always'' be bots, so they can be filtered from watchlists. There are numerous other editors who have recently engaged in the mass additional of categories to articles which I had to ask them to stop as my watchlist was flooded. ]] 13:02, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
::Hiding bot edits from watchlists is not a viable option for many editors, since it also hides any non-bot edits that predate the bot edit (], 2007, unassigned). Users ], ], ], ], {{lang|la|et al}} edit with such high frequency that hiding their edits leads to an unacceptable proportion of watchlist items not appearing. {{Small|(Also, Citation bot's edits should usually be reviewed, since it has a non-negligible error rate and its activators typically don't review its output, exceptions noted.)}}{{pb}}The code for maintaining two aliases for one parameter cannot possibly be so complex as to warrant a half million edits. If one of the two "''must''" undergo deprecation, bundle it into Cewbot's task. If the values don't match, have the banner shell template populate a mismatch category.{{pb}}In general, if a decision is made to start treating as an error some phenomenon that has previously not been a problem, and that decision generates a maintenance category with tens or hundreds of thousands of members, it is a bad decision and the characterisation of the phenomenon as "erroneous" should be reversed.{{pb}}At minimum, any newly instanced maintenance task scoped to over a hundred thousand pages should come before the community for approval at a central venue. ] (]) 15:19, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
:::{{Small|Also, like, if only one of {{para|blp}} and {{para|living}} {{tqq|gets updated}}, shouldn't the net result be pretty obvious? Valid updates should really only go one direction. ] (]) 15:24, 25 December 2024 (UTC)}}


:{{stale-small|Stale: It seems that everyone is ignoring this as a 'simple' content dispute.}} <span style="color: blue">--</span> ] <sup><span style="font-size:80%">]</span></sup> 23:03, 5 February 2015 (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)
*{{ping|Fram|Tom.Reding|Kanashimi|Primefac}} I got AWB working again. If cewbot would take time for making the changes, and if this needs attention soon, then should I file a request for that particular bot task? —usernamekiran ] 06:20, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
*:The robot is in operation... ] (]) 09:09, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
*::yay! —usernamekiran ] 16:04, 24 December 2024 (UTC)


:Meanwhile, the category has grown to over 800,000 pages. Perhaps next time an RfC to determine whether creating such a large cleanup task is warranted, would be better? ] (]) 16:34, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
I don't get it, what should I do then? --] (]) 21:31, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
:{{re|Fram}} this is logical. We should also make it a policy (or at least a guideline), something along the lines "if change would lead to edits/updating more than XYZ pages, a consensus should be achieved on a venue with a lot of visibility". Like {{u|Silver seren}} mentioned above, sometimes a formal consensus/discussion takes place, but it happens on obscure talk pages. —usernamekiran ] 14:01, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
:{{ping|HistoryofIran}} if you think the issue is still outgoing, then you should probably open an ] on an affected talk page. <span style="color: blue">--</span> ] <sup><span style="font-size:80%">]</span></sup> 18:19, 7 February 2015 (UTC)


== ] ==
Alright, thanks. --] (]) 02:23, 8 February 2015 (UTC)


== Chaheel Riens (that's me) and Ghmyrtle being accused of both being the same user - sockpuppets. ==


] is making wholesale reverts of my edits in contravention to guidelines. ] (]) 19:17, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
There was a bit of an editing brouhaha over at ], and an IP editor seems to have now registered under the name of Richie bedfellows.
:You're removing demographic categories and templates by blanking them out; irreligion still deals with religion no matter your argument. That's definitely not compliant with ] and clearly vandalism. There's no action to take here except that you need to stop removing these categories and templates. <span style="font-family: Roboto;">''']''' <span style="color:#00008B">•</span> <small>''(])''</small></span> 19:42, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
::And you are now '''required''' to cite how your edits meet ]; spamming it in edit summaries is not discussion. <span style="font-family: Roboto;">''']''' <span style="color:#00008B">•</span> <small>''(])''</small></span> 19:47, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
::::While doing routine vandal patrol, I came across what seemed to be a hasty and massive removal of content, being done in a very directed and personal manner.
::::After looking at the persistent removal, and communicating, I restored the well-drawn categories.
::::Hopefully, this is easily resolved.
:::] (]) 20:40, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
::::43*, do not continue to revert these category removals without discussing them first. - ] <sub>]</sub> 22:48, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::THere is nothing to discuss. The guidelines are clear. What needs to be done is editors need to be familiar with the cat guidelines. We don't discuss whether the sky is blue do we? ] (]) 02:05, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
::::THey are not well drawn, it was not hasty, it was not massive, and it was not "personal". It was directed because they all had the same issue. ] (]) 02:07, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Editors should not blindly revert. They should be '''required''' to understand the guideleines. ] (]) 02:08, 21 December 2024 (UTC)


I gave up editing because there were too many problems that the wiki communtity is not sorting out. One of them is treating anon editors as second class wikicitizens.
During the exchange he has accused GhMyrtle and myself of being the same editor twice in different edits.


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 objected to this each time and gave him the chance to redact - his response is here, however, he invites me to not ''"be waiting around for the weekend to finish, my friend"'' - so I'm not.
Both involved editors informed. ] (]) 21:07, 30 January 2015 (UTC)


I can't remember the specific category guideline for the edits I did but is the undoing editors need to look it up. Categorisation is something that a lot of editor do not understand. Go and put a notice on WikkiProoject Categorisation and you will fing that there is support for my edits.
:{{ping|Richie bedfellows}} {{tq|''I have plenty of legitimate reasons for suspicion.''}} Please do share these reasons, as accusations of sockpuppetry are serious, and not showing any kind of support behind them is concidered ], and can get you blocked. ]. Please take care. <span style="color: blue">--</span> ] <sup><span style="font-size:80%">]</span></sup> 22:22, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
::He's posted provocatively on my talk page again, exactly one minute after doing so on his own page - inviting {{ping|Orduin}} to message him, whereupon he will reveal his suspicions. I've replied, asking him to post here instead. His reply seems to suggest that he thinks Orduin is watching his talkpage (which may be the case - but also may not). ] (]) 09:44, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
:::Looking deeper, it seems that Richie and the IP editor are not the same - Richie was just duplicating the errors made by said IP editor, so I've struck that particular comment. ] (]) 10:29, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
This is getting to me, as the user has yet to supply us with his evidence, and seems to be . <span style="color: blue">--</span> ] <sup><span style="font-size:80%">]</span></sup> 20:14, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
:Personal attacks too - inviting me (twice) to stick my head up my arse. ] (]) 14:00, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
::Hmm, that 'special' comment was added by an IP editor, but it could have been by the same person, but logged out. I the comment.
::It does not seem to fit in with the later comment added by Richie bedfellows. <span style="color: blue">--</span> ] <sup><span style="font-size:80%">]</span></sup> 18:05, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
:::Actually, given the latest posts on your talk page, the editor in question has pretty much confirmed that it is him editing while logged out. This also casts doubt on the previous IP edits to the Casuals page, which are not only similar in tone, but geolocate to the same region. That (somewhat ironically) suggests that Richie is in fact a long time sock puppet himself. ] (]) 10:12, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
::::Either he's stupid enough to do so. Or he did it accidentally. Whatever it is, you cannot know for sure without a CheckUser, so there's no point accusing. They might IPs in the same region but who's to say Richie's related. I'm just giving Richie the benefit of doubt. And tone's is something which only experts in linguistics can comprehend, definitely not us. The accusation was of course a grave offense. I believe his failure in providing evidence and not showing up here is of great concern. --]</font> <sub><span style="color:orange;font-family:Trajan Pro, Optima">«] § ]»</span></sub> 13:10, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
:::::Fair point - I was just drawing attention to the fact that the duck test - if applied - would be more likely to pass Richie and the IP addresses, than GHMyrtle and myself. ] (]) 13:30, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
Transcluding the discussion on my page here. <span style="color: blue">--</span> ] <sup><span style="font-size:80%">]</span></sup> 21:57, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
{{collapse top|1= Click for things from my talk page. <span style="color: blue">--</span> ] <sup><span style="font-size:80%">]</span></sup>}}{{User talk:Orduin}}{{collapse bottom}}
Backtracking about what, exactly? You seem to be under some misapprehension here. As much as you would clearly love this to be something else, this has now become nothing more than a slightly inconvenient, mildly amusing sideshow to the real issue for me... Which is unreferenced, personal subjective opinion, purposely undermining long standing appropriately cited contributions. Given the behaviour from both user-pages and the pattern of events, I made the accusation(which i still stand by). I then told you to do your worst after you 'gave' me the weekend to think about it before issuing me with a 'warning'. Unfortunately, you then decided to undermine the whole 'procedure' when hijacking Orduin's talk page with the kind of bizarre, semi-relevant self posturing that only serves to turn the whole thing into an absurdity . Now, obviously seeing as I'm a big believer in 'if a big mouth has something to say, let them speak', I simply ran with it. I have no qualms about 'showing up here' and presenting my evidence. If, as I have stated already, the accusations turn out to be unsubstantiated, then i'll also have no qualms over retracting the accusation before appropriately editing the posts in question. I'll then (if allowed) get back to the real issue. Also, Just for clarification, i may well have responded to Gymrtle over this issue then logged out before noticing the edit, then reverted the page without logging back in. There was no malicious intention.,] (]) 09:14, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
:The article itself is a completely different issue that has no bearing to this particular topic. You may edit there to your hearts content, provided said edits meet Misplaced Pages's standards. The issue here is one of repeated accusations of sock puppetry, and then a refusal to prevent evidence when requested. ] (]) 10:18, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
I haven't refused to to pre(s)ent anything of the sort. As i have already explained, Orduin gave me the choice of submitting the evidence either here or on on his talk page. You chose to hijack that page and i simply went along for the ride.


WP could be sooo much better. ] (]) 02:02, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
Hi Orduin. here is the evidence as leading to my suspicions as requested.
The following conversation took place between myself and Grmytle: https://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Ghmyrtle#Casual_.28subculture.29_.E2.80.8E


: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)
In between this conversation there were also intermittent contributions from Chaheel over on his talk page here: https://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Chaheel_Riens
::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)


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)
This conversation above also ran along side intermittent changes from Chaheel here. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Casual_%28subculture%29&action=history


== User:ZanderAlbatraz1145 Civility and Content #2 ==
This is presented this way because I am no longer able to access the 'highlighted comparison' changes. My suspicions were then felt to be unsubstantiated when Ghmrtle informed me he was now happy with the wording here: I wasn't "arguing a point about someone else not bothering to cite some dubious info". I was removing words which you added that made no sense. You've now come up with a better wording. Thank you. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:05, 29 January 2015 (UTC) Then proceeded to argue Chaheel's subsequent change here: Your wording said, in effect, that something else happened before something that happened at the same time. It didn't make any sense at all. And, you ought to be aware that accusing two editors of being the same person is accusing them of sockpuppetry - which is a serious allegation. You might like to withdraw it. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:39, 29 January 2015 (UTC)This seemed strange to me at the time simply because he had now started to argue previous points already covered with Chaeel's exact same points after telling me he was happy with the wording just moments before.
*{{userlinks|ZanderAlbatraz1145}}
I had no choice here but to highlight the whole conversation with Ghmyrtle simply because of the sheer amount of changes since the exchange and the highlighted changes from Chaheel are no longer obvious in their availability. <small><span class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 15:41, 7 February 2015 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
This user has engaged in a lengthy display of disruption. Namely through incessant incivility I have noticed .
:Obviously, my comment that "Your wording said, in effect, that something else happened before something that happened at the same time. It didn't make any sense at all...." was a response to RB's comment that "They made sense right from the start." It was not a comment on any of CR's edits. ] (]) 16:01, 7 February 2015 (UTC)


Instances such as , , on , etc. Users such as {{Ping|Waxworker}} and {{Ping|Jon698}} can speak to their experiences, I'll outline mine.
==Block evasion by Claudia McHenry?==
Hello,
I'm ] and i'm a user on Misplaced Pages, and was blocked out of nowhere by ] on some block evasion grounds.


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 .
Several days ago, i forgot to log in to my account when i made an edit adding the birthday to the ] page, and found that the IP address that my son usually edits from was blocked. It strikes me as strange that this block was put on the IP out of nowhere, so instead i have to edit from my appartment to ask the an/i to review the block on the IP address. I don't care about my account and there's no point blocking this IP as i'm moving march second to Vancouver.
Please review the block on the address, or explain where the block evasion accusation originates. Was there a user formerly known as Claudia McHenry that was an unruly user years ago?
Thanks.
] (]) 22:55, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
:Its going to be difficult to review an IP block wihtout knowing the IP address. Could you provide further info. Also its a bad idea to come to ] and admit to being a blocked account socking via an IP. Unless the block also involved the talk page of the IP address you would have been able to appeal the block there. ] (])(]) 23:01, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
::To me this idea that someone who accidentally doesn't log in can then be blocked, and then later accused of being a sockpuppet evading a block, smacks of the same sort of backwards logic and everyone-is-a-criminal mentality that lets police arrest people for resisting arrest (when no other crime is evident). The details of the block are not difficult to find in ]'s log (date January 23). In any case, the chronology appears to be: (1) {{user|199.101.61.190}} edits ] to add the day and month of birth, but without sources, and is immediately reverted (with an edit summary indicating that the reverter treated the edit as a good faith one, but unhelpful); (2) Ponyo blocks the IP for no obvious reason with the edit summary "block evasion"; (3) {{user|Claudia McHenry}} logs in, and politely asks Ponyo what the block was for; (4) Ponyo makes the block on the IP permanent, blocks Claudia, and prevents Claudia from appealing the block by using the setting that prevents her from editing her talk page. Unless I am missing something major, this seems like a gross overreaction on Ponyo's part. Maybe Ponyo can come here and explain? —] (]) 23:27, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Again, i'm sorry if i broke a rule by not logging in before editing that page. Serg, the guy who edits from the IP accoutn usually says his edits were undone or something like that.
Also if i'm breaking a rule by posting here, i appolojize deeply.
] (]) 23:45, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
:::Clearly you are missing something DE and you should not use terms like "gross overreaction" (I have not seen P overreact to anything in all the years of their adminship) until you have "all" the facts. Ponyo has been working with SPI reports and checkusers for months now and this could well be related to that work. ]&#124;] 23:49, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
::::I agree with DE. Color me skeptical. See below. ] (]) 23:53, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
::::{{tq|you should not use terms like "gross overreaction" ... until you have "all" the facts.}} Sheesh. DE said "<u>Unless I am missing something major</u>, this <u>seems like</u> a gross overreaction", thus hedging and softening his statement not one but <u>two different ways</u>. Seems like MarnetteD's objection to the use of gross overreaction was an overreaction, if perhaps not a gross one. MHO. &#8213;]&nbsp;] 00:00, 1 February 2015 (UTC)


This editor displays no interest in conducting themselves cordially or cooperatively on this website. ] 23:20, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Support unblock''' per the above. I have the same problem, as many of the IPs used by my mobile device are connected with known, long-time abuse accounts who use proxy IPs offered by my provider. ] (]) 23:53, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
:I've given them a warning for canvassing: - ] <sub>]</sub> 04:08, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
::*Really. This is an almost laughable case of jumping the gun. This thread needs to have "all the facts" and a reply from Ponyo before any decision is made on the block. ]&#124;] 23:57, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
: - ] <sub>]</sub> 05:36, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
I travvle a wholel ot so if i seem to jump accross the map, it's because i attend different sociological events including talks, as well as i'm currently in the process of moving to Vancouver so i can get better care for my mesothelioma. So if people see me on bad Ip's, then you know why. I'll do my best to remember to log in from now on if that's the issue.
::And they appear to be continuing editing while ignoring here. - ] <sub>]</sub> 05:39, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
] (]) 00:02, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
:::This feels par for the course for Zander frankly. As noted with the bit about Zander reverting after an explicit edit summary saying not to and there being two days worth of me saying that edit would be made and they made no objections until the move was made. They disengaged from discussion but only re-engaged when the situation changed to their disliking. ] 02:07, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
:Please use spellcheck before saving your comments. ] (]) 00:25, 1 February 2015 (UTC)


== SPA ] back at it on ] ==
Ok, I’ll do that from now on, apologies
I’m sure that ponyo’s a good person and I have nothing at all against them, nor do I wish to attack them in any way. I only want to know why they are charging me for a murder I did not commit.


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


:]? ] (]) 06:25, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
Claudia
::{{duck}}. I'm sending this ]. - ] <sub>]</sub> 11:16, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
] (]) 04:22, 1 February 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)


== ] ==
I've attempted to contact Ponyo several times to ask him/her the reason for this block, and my post on his/her page gets promptly deleted and i get promptly blocked. I then sent an e-mail to their account using the e-mail this user function, no response, and it's been one week, which is plenty of time to get back to me. If something was truely wrong then i think Ponyo would have explained it or would be willing to explain it to me.
{{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)}}
Instead, i question, the question is deleted, i get blocked and have to go accross town to have any chance of defending myself, it's madness is what it is.
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 really hope Ponyo replies to this or is at least willing to leave a message on my account's talk page with an explanation, else i be unblocked or at least the 199 IP be unblocked.
I'd highly recommend that if people suspect any bad activity that they first notify the user of this activity and how they came to that conclusion before they even think about blocking and speedy-deleting it.
Even with 34 years of studying psychology and sociology behind me i still don't understand how this could be considered benefitial to Misplaced Pages in any way. Again, i don't think Ponyo's a bad person, i just want to know why he/she screams bloody murder when i did nothing wrong to my knowledge. I admitted my mistake to Ponyo and that should be enough. End with a "don't do i again please" then move on, not "block her," then move on and hope that this goes away.
I came here with the intent to help Misplaced Pages, and help it i shall, I'd like to follow the rules while doing it and if problems arise, i want a chance to address them before any punishment of any kind is dished out. That's all i ask Ponyo, you're a good person, but you made a mistake.
Sorry if i seem angry in this post, it isn't intended to be any form of attack, i'm just stating things from my point of view that's all.
Good night, i have a long day tomorrow and won't be able to reply for a while after, i'm going to be away untill the 8th, so won't be able to reply back untill then. Thank you guies for your help.


:It's a ], and I just reported to AIV. ] (]) 04:58, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
PS, don't edit when you're using a smaller touch screen and you have big hands, it's a nightmare to correct.
Claudia
] (]) 06:07, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
:In case ] didn't see the notification from the name-dropping earlier in this thread, I've left a note on their talk page asking for their input here. @]: I agree with you that we should not unblock before making more of an effort to get all of the facts. And probably my "gross overreaction" was not a sufficient assumption of good faith: what I should have said was that we are no doubt missing some important piece of information, because if we look only at the evidence we already have then this has the appearance of a gross overreaction, but that seems unlikely given Ponyo's history of working the sockpuppet beat. However, until we see the evidence we should assume Claudia's good faith as well. —] (]) 21:29, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
::Hello all. Sorry for the late reply, I've been sick since Thursday and only logged on briefly to put up a wikibreak template as I won't be able to get back to regular editing for at least another 2 - 3 days. In an abundance of caution I have emailed {{U|Callanecc}} a detailed explanation of the evidence behind the block in order to avoid any possible privacy breaches. That being said, I have absolutely no doubt that "Claudia" is indeed a sock of a LTA account and that you are all being trolled. The messages from the 209.202.5.171 IP are textbook to many posted previously by the same sockmaster. It's striking that a mother with "34 years of studying psychology and sociology" displays the same blatant grammar and spelling errors as their blocked "son" as well as the many other personas they've used in the past couple of years to try to get around the block. The master account has been referred to BASC many times in the past - they know the path to a potential unblock if they want to pursue it. --]<sup>]</sup> 22:01, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
:::That may be so. But I am far more concerned with the lack of responsiveness, the appeal to secret evidence, the lack of non-admin oversight, and the transparency of blocking rationale, than I am with the effort made by one individual to resume editing. I have seen far too many false accusations made against users with trumped up, or in some cases, zero or invented evidence, to make a case, rather than actual evidence that the community can look at. This need to invoke secrecy, to claim that one is guilty before being proven innocent, sets a terrible precedent. ] should be the guiding principle, with ] our method. ] (]) 23:47, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
::::There is a reason checkuser evidence is not publicy available. If we arent able or willing to trust the judgements that the users who can review this information make with regards to it then there are n awful lot of people who claim they arent socks who we are going to have unblock. CU evidence is one of those things that is given access to people who have shown suitable judgement and consensus for the tools by the community and on that basis I thik some level of trust has to be offered to those who can use it and the decisions they make from it. ] (])(]) 23:53, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
:::::Thank you for the newbie, wet behind the ears response, but I know how CU works. However, I will once again reiterate, the slow response to this user's request, the appeal to secret evidence, and the notion that the average editor cannot be trusted to comprehend a simple argument for keeping a user blocked, is and remains a serious problem. This authoritarian approach runs counter to the operation of a free society, to just application of laws, and to democratic oversight and transparency. As such, I do not agree with them or their application, no matter what the given rationale continues to be; time and time again, I have seen this kind of power corrupt "trusted" people, and evidence can be used to block the innocent, both intentionally and unintentionally. You may embrace this kind of unjust system, but I do not. There was no harm in unblocking this user, and a case could have been made that did not reveal "secret" information to restore the block. There is more harm in your chosen approach than there is benefit. ] (]) 00:05, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
{{od}} This rhetoric is all good and well and I wish the world online and off was more in line with these sentiments. But I would have thought that someone who is not a newbie would certainly have encountered ] before now. I accept the except Ponyo's explanation of why they could not respond before today and I would hope that you are not suggesting that P made up an illness. The bottom line is what do you think is going to happen now. Ponyo is not going to be blocked. Unblocks are not going to be handed out to any IPs involved. The system here is not going to change based on this thread. It should be noted that editing is ]. As the person in question is, no doubt, enjoying all this fuss I would suggest that the thread be closed. ]&#124;] 00:51, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
:MarnetteD, it would help greatly if you would read what you link, as NOTDEMOCRACY has nothing to do with this discussion. I apologize if the phrase "democratic oversight" confused you, but you seem to have evaded my points (and those of two other editors) and launched into a litany of red herrings. I already made my points, and your response is extremely unhelpful. Why should Claudia remain blocked? If your answer is, "it's a secret and we can't tell you", then I will say again, that's unacceptable. ] (]) 01:06, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
::Ponyo doesn't want to tell you who the sockmaster is, because then you will know the geographic location of the sockkmaster. Named accounts are not linked to IPs to protect the privacy of the account holder. This protection of privacy is extended to everyone, even to long-term sockmasters and LTAs. -- ] (]) 01:25, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
:::Like MarnetteD, I accept Ponyo's explanation (and the fact that there are reasons not to put certain kinds of sockpuppet investigation information in public places). As an unblock looks unlikely and there is no other administrative action to be taken, I think this thread is ready to be closed. —] (]) 01:27, 3 February 2015 (UTC)


::Would it be possible to put up some kind of filter to alert for this? Something that…say…catches when more than 25 edits are made in a single space (user space for example) or something that would trip if the edits added less than 5 characters consistently? <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 05:15, 22 December 2024 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
*I've looked at the evidence from Ponyo and I'm comfortable that the Claudia McHenry account and the 209 IP address are being used by an LTA sock master. As Diannaa says there's not a lot of information that I can give due to the privacy implications, especially because I'm not completely aware of how much information the sock master has released themselves. <b>]</b> (] • ] • ]) 01:45, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
:::There is a filter for this. Look at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Special:AbuseLog&wpSearchUser=International+Space+Station0&offset=20241222044736, "New account unusual activity" covers exactly this. ] (]) 05:22, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
:*Thanks. I've never been interested in any private information, so that's a misunderstanding on the part of editors up above. What I'm railing against is the misuse of CU, either intentionally or unintentionally, and the "trust us, we're experts" line that non-CU's and non-admins are routinely spoon fed. I've seen editors falsely accused of being sockpuppets, and in my own case, I was falsely accused of being a sockpuppet by an admin on Wikinews who blocked me during a content dispute where he was involved, and then attempted to fabricate sockpuppetry evidence to keep the block in place. So I hope you understand that I am skeptical of so-called "trusted" members of the community, and I think that we need more safeguards in place to protect the accused. The burden is on those accusing Claudia, and if that burden can only be met in private, without community review, then I'm afraid this process is flawed and subject to abuse. ] (]) 02:09, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
*This account has been globally blocked as an LTA so it shouldn't be an issue. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 05:25, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
*:At what point is it appropriate to selectively delete their hundreds of edits of nonsense from the page history?
*:Or is that just something that isn't done? &ndash; ] (]) (]) 05:28, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
*::If you are talking ], there is rarely a good reason for it's use at present. If instead you mean ] see ] and ]. ] (]) 05:33, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::I've gone ahead and revdel'd the lot of them, as cut-and-pasting from other articles without proper attribution is copyvio and thus RD1able. Selective deletion (making the edits go away from the history) is probably not going to happen, if it's even technically possible for an article with almost *9500* revisions (I know ]!). - ] <sub>]</sub> 08:55, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
{{abot}}


== Disruptive editor on ] ==
Sorry I haven’t been able to post, lately, I had a few meetings and I have to fly out again today.
I don’t want to start a bunch of Drama; I want any drama over this to end. I’m only asking for a chance to be able to defend myself from these accusations here which quite frankly came out of nowhere and are unfounded.
Even if you at least grant me talk-page access then I’ll at least be able to contest the claims made against me when I’m finished with my meetings.
I don’t expect a full unblock in the near future if some crazy person is going around creating accounts and causing problems here and my account is linked to it, but I do expect to be able to defend myself. It certainly wouldn’t look good for Misplaced Pages if people can just be blocked because of secret/invisible and probably non-existent evidence that nobody has the right to know of for reasons and not be able to defend themselves from these accusations.
Now if you guise don’t mind I have a 6:00 AM flight to Toronto to catch so I won’t be able to respond for a bit. Have a good day.


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)
] (]) 11:07, 4 February 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.
:: I would say that the admins unblock 209.202.4.xxx-206.202.5.xxx. Let's give some rope, I mean seriously. Ponyo, Callanecc and Dianaa are very respectable and sensible admins. I'm sure they would always give a correct judgement. Here, I believe a bit of rope is necessary. Even if we get trolled, how far would she get? We have ClueBot NG and 100s of editors patrolling edit filters and RC. She might hang herself with '''all that rope''' but atleast the community will not (can not) be blamed. --]</font> <sub><span style="color:orange;font-family:Trajan Pro, Optima">«] § ]»</span></sub> 13:21, 4 February 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)
::: And good work, Viriditas. Your arguments were really interesting to read. MarnetteD, do not rush this up, please, this thread is quite a serious issue. Ponyo, your explanation might be correct but then there's reasonable doubt. --]</font> <sub><span style="color:orange;font-family:Trajan Pro, Optima">«] § ]»</span></sub> 13:24, 4 February 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)
::::No, we will not be unblocking a confirmed sock account of a LTA sockmaster in order to give them "rope". They can appeal to BASC, the information has already been provided to them. Only another Checkuser, or an admin in consultation with a checkuser, can undo a blocked account or IP address. Another Checkuser, Callanecc, has already reviewed the evidence and endorsed the block. There is nothing left to do here except close this section and ] this sockmaster the attention they continue to receive. If Viriditas or others have concerns regarding the Foundations Privacy Policy then the discussion needs to be had . If anyone believes that there has been an abuse of checkuser tools, the ].--]<sup>]</sup> 19:45, 4 February 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)
:::::There's no way for the majority of the community to know if any misuse has occurred, that's the point. What if an error was made? Let me give you a brief example using myself: within the last year or so, I've edited Misplaced Pages from two sets of IP addresses, one, my static home address, and two, a dynamic set of IPs used by my mobile device(s). If I try to edit using my mobile device without logging in, many times I'll get a message saying that my IP address has been blocked for being used by a LTA account. Now, obviously, I'm not that person, and that particular set of IPs is probably used by tens of thousands of people. But would the average CU distinguish between these things, if let's say, I was a new user? Little things like that make me very skeptical of the current process. ] (]) 08:28, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
::::Here's the page for what is considered acceptable sources {{lw|Acceptable sources}}.
::::::Yes it's very likely that CheckUsers would notice, even if the ] is identical (which on a mobile range is less likely than normal) accounts with no edits are only blocked if it is sure that they are the same, which there are ways to tell with I ]. If it's not definite that they are the same, they're usually left unblocked (ROPE) and kept an eye on them. <b>]</b> (] • ] • ]) 08:39, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
::::''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.''
:::::::Callanecc, what does the phrase, "checkuser is not magic pixie dust" mean to you? ] (]) 08:56, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
::::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.
::::::::There are of course times when the data isn't clear, which is when that particular phrase is used, and hence when blocks aren't handed out. There are also times (usually the case) when CheckUser data is helpful and indicates links between accounts. <b>]</b> (] • ] • ]) 09:14, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
::::''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.''
::::::::: I don't get how are we giving attention to Claudia. We've blocked the Tor network completely, not to mention random IP autoblocks here and there and ofc the most reputed proxies are blocked too. Fine, but how about granting the IPBlockExempt right to Claudia and put her on some admin's to-do? Is it that hard? Well, not possible? Need BASC approval? But then think of all that BASC drama (it clearly says ~6 weeks and we know it's never less that that). In all that time, she might just edit through a VPN and that's that. Yes, and ofc we still expect editor retention. --]</font> <sub><span style="color:orange;font-family:Trajan Pro, Optima">«] § ]»</span></sub> 15:01, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
::::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.
::::::::::{{ec}} Ankit Maity, your post above is indecipherable. "Put her on an admin's t-do". What does that even mean? There is no "Claudia". There is one de-facto banned sockmaster who is pretending to be "Claudia" in order to be unblocked. This is just one of many names/personas they have used to be unblocked over the years. It is the sockmaster who needs to have their block reviewed by BASC if they wish to legitimately edit here again, though the possibility won't be entertained until they stop evading their block. You are only giving them the attention they crave by continuing to discuss this particular case here. You can either take my word for it as a volunteer who has been thoroughly vetted and tasked to identify and block socks in order to protect the encyclopedia against abusive editors such as this, or you can continue to rail against the injustices levied against this "new" editor using only a fraction of the evidence publicly available.--]<sup>]</sup> 16:54, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
::::Thank you and please stop vandalizing pages on topics of music you do not understand. ] (]) 21:04, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::*Well, if she is very clearly related to the LTA master - and I'm inclined to believe two experienced checkusers on that front - then giving her a an IP block exemption would, to be blunt, be exceptionally stupid. It is very rare, after all, to see two checkusers be '''this''' certain about CU data, in my experience. IP block exemption is also only intended for highly trusted users who happen to edit from a LTA range, or something like that; a new account will not fall into that category. And you're absolutely not supposed to edit through a VPN, or any such cloaking device... although I've done so myself by accident a couple of times in the past, because some CyberGhost VPN addresses are not blocked. Look at the history of this IP; it's been CU blocked for block evasion on and off since 2013 - and if you don't believe that, the IP edited the same page in and and . It's ''clearly'' still the same person behind the IP itself. ] ] 16:38, 5 February 2015 (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)
::::::::::*Your argument (and diffs) ''supports'' Claudia's case. She claimed that "the IP address that my son usually edits from was blocked". That's entirely consistent with the diffs, which show someone editing an article about the PBS Kids series Cyberchase. Can anyone explain why Claudia would even touch these articles? Sorry, I'm having a difficult time believing the CU case against her. ] (]) 20:21, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
::::::Okay, I strike. ] (]) 21:17, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::*And I'm having a difficult time believing that someone with ] - an absolutely vicious cancer caused by asbestos exposure where the victims in many cases have life expectancies of mere months, and for which treatment is pallative care / pain-relief rather than curative - is faffing around on Misplaced Pages when not getting 6am flights around the place. Or have I missed something? ]] 20:32, 5 February 2015 (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)
::::::::::::*You are thinking of late stage mesothelioma. Early stage has little to no symptoms and can remain without symptoms for decades. ] (]) 20:39, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
::::::::<s> please stop vandalizing pages on topics of music you do not understand.</s> ] (]) 22:26, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::*And by the time someone develops symptoms, it's too late to do anything except make a will. I remain extremely sceptical that we are dealing with a "mother with '34 years of studying psychology and sociology'" (as Ponyo put it) who happens also to be an asbestos-exposure cancer victim and who happens to be one of the rare cases where death is not predicted within the year. Hey-ho. ]] 14:42, 6 February 2015 (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)
::::::::::::::*People with early stage mesothelioma can live for three or more years. ] (]) 20:43, 6 February 2015 (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...}} ===
:::::::::*Just to make it clear: all above references to the "IP" above are to do with 199.101.61.190. ] ] 16:40, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
::::::::::{{ec}} ???? If "Claudia" wants to be unblocked, they needs to make an appeal under their original account, whatever that is. (Alternatively they will need to convince a CU they aren't a sockpuppet.) From what I can tell in both cases, there would probably be no need for an IP block exemption, since the problem isn't that "Claudia" is editing from blocked IPs, but they are a LTA sockmaster. ] (]) 17:49, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
{{od}}
{{ping|Ponyo}}, first to decipher my argument.
"I don't get how are we giving attention to Claudia." means that this isn't a thread for giving someone attention.
"We've blocked the Tor network completely, not to mention random IP autoblocks here and there and ofc the most reputed proxies are blocked too." means that we've blocked most anonymizers of the internet. "Fine, but how about granting the IPBlockExempt right to Claudia and put her on some admin's to-do?" means that we give the IPBlockExempt explicitly to her and put her in some active admin's checklist, to verify that the edits are fine.
"Is it that hard?" means exactly what it means.
"Well, not possible? Need BASC approval? But then think of all that BASC drama (it clearly says ~6 weeks and we know it's never less that that)." means that even if BASC is the only way, it's also the last straw. Who would wait for 6 weeks to get unblocked?
"In all that time, she might just edit through a VPN and that's that." is the display of human nature, that's it. By hook or by crook.
"Yes, and ofc we still expect editor retention." means that this community expects its editors to stay after pasting 100s of boilerplates on their user talk pages and everyday is nothing but a new scene of a continuous drama. I have nothing more to say. I am placing my faith in {{user|Ponyo}} for now. --] ♠ ] ♥ ] 14:54, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
:Evidence-based decision making demands that we dispense with "faith" and place our confidence in the evidence itself, not the person. However, when the evidence is secret, this is impossible. ] (]) 20:44, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
:*Oh come on. You've been around here long enough to know how CheckUsers work/that they are not allowed to reveal the private information they have access to. If two experienced CheckUsers are certain that this account IS a sockpuppet of a long-term abuser, not just that they use the same IP, then I'm inclined to agree with them over the sock account, particularly when the evidence that the IP has been consistently used by the same person for two years is clear, and it's well established that "my brother did it"-type excuses don't hold any water (which this is essentially a variation of). ] ] 21:58, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
::*You're certainly welcome to close this thread. I'm not asking anyone to reveal any information and I'm not saying I believe that "Claudia" is who she says she is. I'm just making it clear that arguments based on secrecy aren't subject to greater scrutiny, and can be misused and abused without necessary community oversight. The wiki model lends itself well to decentralized administration, and there are other methods for dealing with socks that could be used that don't depend on any secrecy. One of these is ]. ] (]) 01:26, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
::: I don't exactly remember where I said it and nor do I remember what - must be some RfX or at ANI 3 years ago. As far as I remember, I said - Misplaced Pages's like a house of frosted glass. Opacity is the way but transparency remains a mystery. I would believe that Ponyo is more experienced than a on-and-off ANI reasoner like me, and I place my faith in him at the moment for that. --] ♠ ] ♥ ] 06:14, 7 February 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.
== Topic-ban proposal for Robert Walker (2) ==
Here's how the genre list has looked over a long period of time, without much controversy from editors not readers:
{{archive top|result=Unfortunately, there is not enough consensus of any kind for the drastic measures that are proposed. Indeed, a one-way interaction ban isn't even an instrument, just a recipe for disaster. An interaction ban has barely any support, and a a topic ban, which appears to have most support, needs more than what is presented here.<p>There does seem to be some evidence of harassment by Robert Walker, at least of inappropriate behavior. My suggestion to Robert Walker is to cut that out; my suggestion to other editors is to attempt and treat this, if it requires treatment, with the usual warnings, templated or not, and an appeal to an administrator for a block--if indeed this is required. I'm sorry: given the amount of words you all have invested I am sure you want more, but this is all I see a warrant for. ] (]) 21:57, 7 February 2015 (UTC)}}
https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=When_the_Pawn...&oldid=1178937091 from 2023
{{Not a ballot|1=someone asked you to, then please be unbiased towards the rest. The overwhelming amount of unjustified votes need to be disproved. This applies in general and is very much in effect. --]</font> <sub><span style="color:orange;font-family:Trajan Pro, Optima">«] § ]»</span></sub> 16:43, 4 February 2015 (UTC)}}
After a , which ended stale-mate, Robert has continued his disruptive behaviour.
* 4 january 2015 he followed me at the Dzogchen talkpage . I asked him to stop Wikihounding me , which he didn't . He even admitted "Yes I did find this article by looking through your recent edit history, but that's in preparation for posting about your edits to the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard" .
* 26 january he posted comments at the Anatta talkpage which I consider to be ] .
* I've warned him , which was supported by ] .
* Thereafter he posted a similar message at ] .
* I warned him again , where-after he popped-up at ].
* I warned him again .
* The thread at the fringe noticeboard was closed this morning, with a very clear conclusion.
* And now Robert opens a ''new'' disucssion (at the wrong page...) ], en passant attacking me again:
::''"Also am preparing a DRN Notice about the author who rewrote this article. In the case of the articles on Buddhism one of his main characteristics is that he chooses a single POV which he presents as "the facts" and does not mention any articles critical of it and does not mention any competing POVs in the article. And also includes unsourced material in his articles. He presents an impressive case for his views which convinces other editors - that is - until you do a literature search and read the citations. Robert Walker (talk) 11:45, 27 January 2015 (UTC)"''
:From ]:
::''"Notifications must be polite, neutrally worded with a neutral title, clear in presentation, and brief—the user can always find out more by clicking on the link to the discussion."''


https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=When_the_Pawn...&oldid=1049316366 from 2021
Enough is enough: I propose a topic-ban for Robert for Buddhism, Hinduism and India related articles. ] -] 13:10, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
:NB: RW also seems to be discussing this at Facebook . Or am I overreacting now? ] -] 11:36, 29 January 2015 (UTC)


Thank you. ] (]) 19:32, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
* '''Support''' - enough. ] -] 13:10, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
:Why do people have to argue about what genre music is rather than just listening to it, and hopefully enjoying it? ] (]) 19:58, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
* '''Support''' - Robert is now stalking Joshua Jonathan.]<sup>]</sup> 14:11, 27 January 2015 (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)
* <del>'''Neutral''' as presented and at this time.</del> '''Comment''' It isn't clear, at least without hearing from the subject, that a topic-ban is the right remedy, or that the scope of the topic-ban, as proposed, is appropriate. It is clear that at least one editor, ], has conduct issues in the area of Buddhist-related topics. That was obvious a month ago. It was also apparent that there were content issues concerning Buddhism. At the time, I advised Robert Walker to request ] concerning the Buddhist content issues. He continues to say that he plans to do that, but he has had plenty of time. At the time, I also recommended a restriction on his talk page privileges to restrict his use of walls of text; that was archived without resolution. It now appears, but I haven't researched in detail, that Robert Walker may be disruptively editing with regard to an India-related fringe theory about the origin of languages (that Indo-European languages originated in India rather than elsewhere). I don't see any connection to Hinduism. (The fringe theory is commonly supported by Hindu nationalists, but is not limited to Hindu nationalists.) I haven't researched the diffs by the filing parties in detail as to harassment. It does appear, based on first glance (without lengthy research), that Robert Walker is now stirring up trouble by campaigning for the involvement of new editors on his side of the controversy; and that raises the possibility that he has become a general trouble-maker for whom a block or a site-ban is more appropriate. ] (]) 16:34, 27 January 2015 (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.
* '''Comment''' - In view of the following thread about the ], it appears that this combination of content issues and conduct issues may have spread to the point where <del> the '''ArbCom''' should be asked to open a case.</del> ''']''' is needed under ] with respect to ]-related issues. ] (]) 16:34, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
:::Please, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, or my information is incomplete. ] (]) 22:28, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
* '''Support''' in order to prevent "silent interaction", that is, following JJ and opposing without making the interaction obvious. This stalking needs to be dealt with. The combination of a topic-ban and an interaction ban is less drastic than a site ban. ] (]) 16:28, 28 January 2015 (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)
* '''Send to arbcom.''' After seeing the explosion of anger at the FTN thread it seems clear to me that arbcomm could at least allow for discretionary sanctions so that administrators could act to stem the tide of aggravation that our good faith content contributors are experiencing. !Voting to ban this one editor is only a bandaid on a wound much too large for a bandaid. ] (]) 17:59, 27 January 2015 (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)
** Discretionary sanctions are already in force for everything India-related. ] ] 18:10, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
:::Buddhism isn't subject to discretionary sanctions except in the country of its origin, which is not primarily a Buddhist country. The issue about the origin of ] does have to do with whether they came from ] or went to ]. ] (]) 19:33, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
::::If discretionary sanctions are in place then we should send this over to ]. If they aren't, then we should ask arbcom to broaden them. ] (]) 22:07, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
:::::The basic problem is that I cleaned-up the ] article, and Robert didn't like that. He wants a roll-back to the version before my clean-up, and a discussion of my edits, ''without'' wanting to participate in that discussion (the talkpahe already contains extensive explanations of my edits, and they are supported by several competent editors). He's been filling several talkpages now with his demands, repeating over and over again that I'm a POV-pusher who's ruining articles. He's also stating for a couple of months now that he's going to file a DRN-request, without doing so. And now he's started to canvass other editors, and trying to re-open a debate about which he knows nothing at all, en passant attacking me again. So, I'm through with him. Let him use the normal dispute resolution, that his, file his DRN, or just stay away. But not attacking me over and over again, without even remotely trying to or engaging in a form of concencus-building. He's only making it worse and worse. ] -] 05:17, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
{{od}}
* '''Comment''' Joshua Jonathan has given three diffs as instance of Robert Walker harrassing him: , , ]. I am afraid I do not see any uncivil language or attack. --]<sup>]</sup> 09:39, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
**'''Comment''' Further comment on the third link provided by Joshua as proof of harrassment: well, a discussion getting closed in less than 24h with a clear verdict is a mockery of a discussion. I also think the appeal is fully justified and a patient hearing is due instead of attack on those who chose to question the closure. Or rather haunting those who questioned the closure is a clear case of attack as it has been done rightfully within due limits in a civil manner. --]<sup>]</sup> 09:49, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
:::'''Comment''' Amritasya, I'm talking about "harassment": following me around, stating at various talkpages that I'm a POV-pusher who's ruining articles, without substantiating those comments. What he also did when he requsted to reopen this debate, suggesting that I'm biased and a poor editor. As if I'm the only one thinking, no, ''recognising'', that the "Indigenist" position is fringe, or that I'm incompetent. I think it's quite clear from my edit-record that I'm a competent editor. So yes, when those kind of insuniations happen again and again, it feels like an attack. Robert keeps repeating "I'm working on a DRN", but we're still waiting. Instead of brandmarking me, he should actually try to ''resolve'' his "dispute". He's not doing so; he's only repeating his allegations. So yes, I've had enough of it.
:::Regarding reopening the debate: at third thought, I think it might be a good idea to re-open it, to settle this once and for all. ] -] 12:08, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
::::I can only follow the diffs that you provided. Provide more diff to substantiate the "harassment", those three diff are not harassment. --]<sup>]</sup> 15:46, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
* '''Support''' - I have only encountered Robert Walker at ], where I can say that his statements only muddled waters and didn't contribute to resolution. He didn't say a single word about the issue, the claim that the ] is a "fringe theory," and started quoting readers' reviews from Amazon while ignoring professional reviews. If he is doing this kind of thing ''everywhere'' to ], whose contributions are simply ''outstanding'', e.g., , then he is being simply '''disruptive'''. ] (]) 12:31, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
::'''Comment''' Instead of guessing, check edit history and come up with diffs. Speculating with assume-bad-faith is not done. --]<sup>]</sup> 15:46, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
::: I am satisfied with the samples provided by ] and have no reason to distrust his statement about the general pattern. ] (]) 18:22, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
:::: Neither do I. Those diff are not attack that anyone can see. It should be simple to provide diffs, since it is being requested. Thank you. --]<sup>]</sup> 05:40, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
:::Scroll trhough the following talkpages:
:::* ]
:::* ]
:::* ]
:::* ]
:::* ]
:::* ]
:::If you think that's too much, for the Dzogchen talkpage. , in which I already noted his Wiki-hounding. Also read . He even admitted "Yes I did find this article by looking through your recent edit history, but that's in preparation for posting about your edits to the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard" . Also have a look at to see ho he goes on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and ad infinitum.
:::] -] 06:07, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
:::: Thanks for detailed, clear response. Now it makes sense. Wikihounding. I have faced it too. I hope admins take appropriate action, I have withdrawn my oppose vote in-place. Thanks. --]<sup>]</sup> 06:14, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
* '''Oppose''' - This is Jonathan's ] to intimidate Robert and prevent him from submitting a ] related to Jonathan's edits. - ] (]) 03:50, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
::"Skip the "intimidate", and try to understand, for one time, what's going on. And if you want to help Robert post his DRN, you could have closed your RfC weeks ago already, as I've asked you before. ] -] 05:55, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
:::For the purpose of assessing consensus, let it be known that Dorje108 is Robert Walker's partner-in-crime, so to speak.]<sup>]</sup> 21:58, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
*'''Support''' although I'd rather see a one-way interaction ban. To me the problem is that Robert Walker is following Joshua Johnson to pages that the latter has edited, and this disruptive behaviour needs to be addressed. While a topic ban would prevent RW from following JJ to pages related to this topic, it doesn't prevent RW from following JJ to other topics should JJ choose to edit them. However, a topic ban will prevent some such disruption and it's better than no remedy at all. ] (]) 16:56, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
*'''Support''' General: If I filed a report, making false claims that Joshua Jonathan has stolen my self-grown carrots, I would be running the risk of facing ]. If I just roamed around different Talk Pages however, declaring that "in my opinion Joshua Jonathan has stolen my self-grown delicious carrots", and that "I'll file a report of that incident" but without ever doing so, I'd be using the article Talk Pages as a "Wall of Shame". Similarly, RW is roaming the article Talk Pages, voicing out claims on Joshua Jonathan's "behaviour". Technically ] is about harassment that takes place at user Talk Pages. Well, the substance is exactly the same but RW has just chosen a venue more public, the article Talk Pages.
:I see so many aspects to this. WP:BOOMERANG would require a filed case, but since RW hasn't filed any even though he has kept saying for months that "soon he will", he dodges the boomerang. Does this make it okay to roam around article Talk Pages and voice out such claims? Certainly not. It seems we are somewhere in the middle of boomerang and personal attacks, and some administrative judgement is needed (even ] comments on "''What is considered to be a personal attack?''" that "''These examples are not exhaustive.''"). IMHO, a topic-ban could make the case. ] (]) 19:47, 7 February 2015 (UTC)


== Multiple users breaking 3RR on Gilman School article ==
===Interaction ban===
I found Robert Walker's entry into the ] thread whose closure he has requested be reviewed, in the middle of the thread. I concur with ] and ] that he has been stalking Joshua Jonathan's edits, since ] is not a place he had previously edited. Recommend a one-way interaction ban on interactions of Robert Walker with Joshua Jonathan. That is, Robert Walker may not respond to any posts by Joshua Jonathan. This may seem harsh, but following another editor is harsh. ] (]) 16:24, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
* '''Support''' as proposer. ] (]) 16:24, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
* '''Support''' - Along with the topic ban proposed by Joshua Jonathan.]<sup>]</sup> 16:29, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
* '''Support''' - as well as the topic ban that I supported above. ] (]) 18:22, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
*'''Support''' as Robert Walker is clearly following Joshua Jonathan and disruptively inserting himself into conversatios where he has shown no previous interest and has a lack of expertise. I'm not convinced a topic ban is necessary because once he stops following the other editor around, his disruption in those areas should stop. ] (]) 18:28, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' But he still can posts at talkpages where I am active? I see a complication there... And if we interpret it strictly: what if he starts to engage a talkpage on a Buddhism or Hinduism related page, and I start editing there too? It would give me a strange kind of "privilege", as it means he would have to back-off. That's not fair, nor clear. So, I'm afraid a topic-ban is still more appropriate. Plus, indeed, also avoidance from my part of areas where Robert is active. Although, he's merely editing a very selective range of talkpages, so in practice this may work. Some admin-feedback would be welcome too, at least for me. Anyway, thanks for the efforts, Robert McC.! ] -] 19:43, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' - Joshua is correct that a one-way interaction ban does work like that. It does not require any avoidance by Joshua. It is true that this is a harsh remedy, but stalking another editor is harsh. ] (]) 19:48, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
*'''Oppose'''. One-way interaction bans are fundamentally unfair. We should ban both of them if they've both been behaving badly, or if Robert's been the only one causing problems, we should block him. If JJ wants to antagonise RW, he can annoy him with impunity (like ] with ]), and while if JJ acts in complete good faith, someone else could come in and cry "ban violation!" on a page where RW was still trying to obey the ban. See JJ's comment, too, "what if he starts to engage..." He's right. Too much room for wikilawyering and too much room for bad-faith participants to game the system. ] (]) 04:11, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' as per Nyttend. To reiterate, one-way interaction bans are unfair. Either make the ban run both ways, or come up with a different solution. ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 11:41, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
::Comment: why should I receive an interaction-ban, when Robert is following me around? I am already avoiding him. It might mean that the first one to edit on an article or talkpage "owns" the page. With due lack of humility from my side, it would be a loss for Buddhism and Hinduism-related pages if there is a possibility to stop me from editing on those pages in that way, because one editor objects to my edits. That would be basically unfair. So, if that option is to be ruled out, something else must be thought of. At least it should be clear to him that "dispute resolution" does not mean throwing around accusations at the pages where I am editing, and that he should actually ''post'' his DRN, instead of repeating he's going to do so. ] -] 16:20, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
:::I wasn't saying that you ought to be banned: I meant that he shouldn't be I-banned from you unless you deserved to be I-banned from him, and that he ought to be blocked outright if he's been causing problems and you're innocent. Not having investigated the situation carefully, I don't want to support any sanctions on him ''or'' to oppose the idea of sanctions in the first place; that's why I offered no opinion about your proposed topic ban. I just want to ensure that any sanctions be reasonable and workable, and a one-way interaction ban isn't either of them. ] (]) 02:23, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
::::Okay, thanks. ] -] 08:12, 2 February 2015 (UTC)


===Site ban===
Since some respected administrators think that a one-way interaction ban is inherently unfair or unworkable, and since there is evidence that ] has been stalking the edits of ], I have to offer a second-choice greater remedy, and that is a site ban.
*'''Support as second choice''' ] (]) 17:14, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
*'''Support as second choice to the above 2 proposals''' ]<sup>]</sup> 17:41, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
*'''Support as second choice to a topic ban''' Sorry ] -] 17:53, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
*'''Support''' as third choice to iban and topic ban. ] (]) 21:22, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
*!vote - Can someone do me a favor (since you voted) and summarize what happened? I believe stalking someone's edit history is perfectly fine. But an one-sided IBAN is not. --]</font> <sub><span style="color:orange;font-family:Trajan Pro, Optima">«] § ]»</span></sub> 16:37, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
::Stalking is fine when someone's edits are structurally problematic, not when you just don't like someone's edits. Here's my summary:
{{collapse top|Summary}}
* I cleaned up the ] and the ] articles, which had become ]
* The editor in question, Dorje108, has been critisised for three years (tags: )(talkpages: ), without a change of habit, but defending them with ] () ;
* My edits solved persistent problems with ], ] and ];
* I've explained my edits extensively at the talkpages:
:* Four Noble Truths:
::* ],
::* ]
::* ]
::* ]
::* ]
::* ]
::* ]
:* Karma in Buddhism - explanation of my clean-up:
::* ]
::* ]
::* ]
::* ]
* My edits were supported by several competent editors (Karma in Buddhism: ; Four Noble Truths: );
* Dorje posted a thread at ]; nobody responded, except for me and Robert, and one comment by Spasemunki. Dorje himself almost didn't participate in the "discussion";
* I've explained my changes extensively at the the talkpages. Nevertheless, Dorje has hardly, if not, responded there, just like he hasn't participated in the thread and the RfC which he has opened himself (] & ]);
* Four concrete concerns have been raised by Robert:
:* He objected to my clean-up, which I did in response to concerns which have been raised for three years now:
::* He likes the details and the quotes, and wants them to be re-inserted; other editors don't, following Wiki-policy; those details have been condensed, and the quotes have been removed or put in notes;
::* He disagreed with the statement "Intentions lead to further consequences" (or something like that); that sentence has been changed;
:* He also objects to some of the new information that I added:
::* He objects to Anderson; I've explained that she's been published by solid publishers, builds on the work of Norman, Schmithausen, Gombrich and Bronkhorst, who are the best scholars available of Buddhism;
::* He objects to the statement that "karma" was a minor concept in early Buddhism; this statement is voiced by multiple scholars, including Schmithausen.
:Of those four objections, only no.1 still stands. The detailed info is still available, but appropriately condensed; if he wants some more quotes included (preferably in the notes), he can point out which quotes, so we can discuss them;
* I've offered to Robert to go through those edits again several times . Nevertheless, Robert doesn't want to discuss these changes as listed at the talkpages , and he doesn't want to edit those articles ; he only wants a rollback, so ''other'' editors can discuss my edits one-by-one before I make them.
{{collapse bottom}}
::NB: Robert McClennon has been following Robert W. for a longer time yet, and adviced him to pursue a DRN; VictoriaGrayson is an active editor at Buddhism pages; AmritasyaPutra and Kautilya3 are active at India-related pages. Dorje108, on the other hand, was informed by Robert W. . Dorje voted , and two minutes later responded to Robert W. at his talkpage . ] -] 19:28, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
::: Thanks a lot for the detailed summary. Well, next time, just do me a favour and call editors by their usernames, it gets more difficult otherwise. I would oppose a site ban and go with an IBAN. But then, we'll have to wait till an admin comes. --]</font> <sub><span style="color:orange;font-family:Trajan Pro, Optima">«] § ]»</span></sub> 15:38, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
*'''Support''' as second choice. My first choice'd be topic ban as I explained here. ] (]) 19:52, 7 February 2015 (UTC)


===Reply to topic ban===


Two users are actively engaged in an ongoing edit war on ], with both {{user13|Counterfeit_Purses}} breaking 3RR , , , and {{user13|Statistical_Infighting}} being right at 3 Reverts
I want to keep this short as I have warned in the past about length of my post. Do I get a chance to reply? If you are interested in my POV on this proposal, please see ]. (Here I am using the third of my ] which I developed in response to the previous ANI action.<small><span class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 29 January 2015 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned -->
, , .


This seems to go back to December 9th, with the first editor (Counterfeit) removing it and , on the 17th, , and then being at the above today.
:I was posting this response but the topic was archived when I saved my edit; since this has been re-opened, I figure I'll post it now.
:*DRN is for content issues, not conduct issues, and it isn't necessary to look through an editor's contributions to file for dispute resolution.
:*Whether you went to a page because you found it by looking through his contributions or someone pointed you there, you went there because he was there and that's ], which isn't allowed.
:*To me it looks like ] Joshua Johnson's edits or approach to editing and so you're following him to pages and posting about his edits. That's ] and not allowed, and it's why I support the one-way interaction ban. If the iban isn't going to pass then I support a topic ban. ] (]) 16:50, 1 February 2015 (UTC)


] (])
::: Well - whether it is a user conduct issue is one thing that needs to be determined. Robert McClennon advised us to post it to the DRN first. This is explained in the DRN notice: See . He did do BRDR instead of BRD and it seems to us that he breaches POV and many core wikipedia guidelines with his edits - on all five of those articles. I'm not familiar with the intricacies of wikipedia policies and did all this in good faith. And I don't understand what makes what I just did such a big deal. Of course if it is prohibited then I have to go by wikipedia policy! But if it is, I didn't know that at the time. Note, that I am no longer interacting with JJ or posting to talk pages on India, Buddhism, or Hindusim until the notice. ] (]) 18:04, 3 February 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)


== Vandal encounter ==
::: Do please read my ] where I say that both things that were represented by JJ as edit stalking were in good faith. For the Anatta article, then I saw ScientificQuest's post to JJs talk page ] and so went to the article where I saw that JJ had reverted 47 of SQs edits with just a cryptic comment. And SQ is a newbie editor doing his first attempt at a major edit, on a topic he could consider himself to be expert on as he is doing a masters on it. And this was his third attempt to add material to the article, all of which was removed with cryptic comments a newbie would not understand . It was not in support of the DRN indeed makes things harder to rollback - it was just out of sympathy to support an editor I felt was being treated badly. For more, see ]


] 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.
::: And in the other debate - first note that when I posted the suggestion for a closure review, the response was overwhelmingly overturn and it was finally closed with ]. Also, I didn't join it in an article talk page, but in a forum where there was a reasonable expectation that a contribution from an editor not involved in the debate would be welcome. Of course since the objections to me taking part I have since left that discussion. For more on all this, see ]. ] (]) 18:22, 3 February 2015 (UTC)


diffs: </nowiki>] </nowiki>] </nowiki>] </nowiki>]
::: It seems wisest not to reply to JJ since he has proposed an interaction ban with me, and this is not the place to discuss the dispute itself. ] (]) 18:26, 3 February 2015 (UTC)


:::(Note, this discussion was auto archived by a bot. That was because of 36 hours of inactivity when nobody responded to my reply. It has just been restored from the archive)] (]) 07:25, 4 February 2015 (UTC) I would have put this at AIV, but I have no clue how to edit source. ] (]) 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, –]<sup>]</sup> 23:47, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::SQ and I worked out that dispute pretty fine, and pretty fast , and I'm looking forward to his contributions. ScientificQuest thanked me for my "very constructive feedback" . ] -] 18:27, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
::Ah, I see. Thank you! This has been noted for the future. Thank you, again! ] (]) 23:48, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' - Robert Walker, it is definitely a conduct thing. I actually agree with you on the Aryan Migration ''content'' and am opposed to Joshua Jonathan regarding the ''content''.]<sup>]</sup> 01:42, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
:::You're welcome, Happy editing, Thanks, –]<sup>]</sup> 23:51, 22 December 2024 (UTC)


== User:Glenn103 ==
::It was more than a month ago that I suggested to ] that he take his issue to ]. Since then he had repeatedly said that he is planning to go to DRN, but for whatever reasons, he doesn't do it; he only talks about doing it. Because one request was filed at about that time that was ''much'' too long, like his own talk page posts, he may have thought that requests for dispute resolution at DRN are supposed to be tediously long. That particular thread, by the way, was closed as failed. By this time, his statement that he is planning to go to DRN has become stale and implausible. I know that he doesn't like ] or his edits. He asked me whether making extensive rewrites to a "mature" article was a conduct issue for which he could report Joshua Jonathan. I said that it wasn't, and that it was only a content dispute. Robert Walker: Either file a DRN request, or don't file one. Stop using it as an excuse to stalk Joshua Jonathan's edits. ] (]) 21:28, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
{{userlinks|Glenn103}} has been mass creating unsourced stubs about Cyrillic letters, most of which have been draftified. They've also disruptively edited in the past, such as: <span style="white-space:nowrap"><span style="font-family:monospace">'''<nowiki>''']<nowiki>]]'''</nowiki>'''</span> (] • ])</span> 01:41, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
: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?
* '''Comment''' Robert, first of all, JJ warned me long ago that any attempt to deal with this through actions was likely to boomerang on me. See ]. As a result we have been extremely cautious and careful, to have the most accurate presentation we can. I have nothing at all perseonal against JJ, it is because of the content. As for whether it is a user conduct issue - we hope it is not, and our sincere hope is to be able to return to collaborative consensus based editing, as was the norm on these articles before about July 2014. But in the circumstances it did seem necessary to research it as a possible user conduct issue, and that's why I felt it necessary to search his edit history.
:I mean you might have a point, but wow. &ndash; ] (]) (]) 04:57, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
Similar behavior to {{checkuser|PickleMan500}} and other socks puppeted by {{checkuser|Abrown1019}}, which also made tons of drafts on Cyrillic characters that cited few sources (and none with in-depth coverage). Most drafts have been ]'d, of course, so only those with admin perms can verify the deleted contribs. <small>Since these socks have been banned (]), I haven't notified them of this discussion.</small> ] (] '''·''' ]) 17:08, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
:Good catch, and looking at the contribution histories it {{duck}}. Changing the block to indef as a sock accordingly. - ] <sub>]</sub> 07:22, 25 December 2024 (UTC)


== North Korean involvement in Russian-Ukraine war discussion ==
: Then, these ANI actions have delayed the DRN draft by about a month. It was nearly ready at the beginning of January. But JJ first took me to ANI for my overlong talk page posts, most of which I posted in December and earlier. After that I was quite shaken, and even though it was resolved as "no conclusion" and I was given a second chance, I felt necessary to log out of wikipedia completely and forget about it for nearly a week. During that time I decided I want to go ahead with the action, to preserve core wikipedia values as I see it, even if I get topic banned or site banned as a result. So we started drafting it again - and he takes us back to ANI again in response to what seems like us to be minor issues, as I had no intention at all of edit stalking him and didn't look at his edit history (that was research I did long ago now). But I understand how the synchronicity - that I was given the link to the fringe noticebaord discussion off-wiki soon after the discussion on the Anatta talk page can seem like edit stalking, and if I'd thought of that it would probably have been wise not to interact.


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.
: Then this ANI action was auto archived and we were getting ready to submit it again - when it is restored from the archive and the proposal for a site ban added. We have just continued with drafting the notice through all this, but I have posted here a few times. If I am site banned or get a topic or interaction ban, of course the DRN notice can't go ahead. But in case that doesn't happen we will have it ready, as good and accurate as we can make it.


'''Key Points:'''
: Note also that ] is an editor with less time for wikipedia than most of us. He has most time for wikipedia at weekends. As a result collaborative work between him and me on the DRN notice tends to happen at weekends - and during the week - slower pace of interaction. And as I want the DRN notice to be a collaboration - essentially I'm doing it for him because he hasn't got time to do it himself and because we both feel that there is an issue with these edits which needs to be addressed. But he is the editor of the articles most directly impacted of the two of us. I have never edited any article on Buddhism except for fixing one broken link, because in my view the articles were already excellent (before these edits) - and my concern there is as a reader. My own main interaction in the past, before this dispute, was just to suggest areas of wikipedia that might need attention of the editors of these articles. ] (]) 13:23, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
::You say Dorje108 is "the editor of the articles directly impacted." Right, you 2 have extreme ownership issues.]<sup>]</sup> 14:04, 5 February 2015 (UTC)


# '''Prolonged Discussions and RfC Closure:'''
:::Thanks for your explanation, Robert. It brings us back to where we started: Dorje108, who's been ignoring the issues with ], ] and ] for three years. This comment pretty nice summarizes it:
#* The RfC on North Korea's inclusion was conducted thoroughly, with a wide range of arguments presented by both sides.
::::''"The overuse of quotations (]) was described as the basic issue of this article by @] in . Since then about 50 additional quotes have been added.
#* 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.
::::''I have inserted an over-quotation tag because "using too many quotes is incompatible with the ] writing style" (]).
#* The close explicitly allowed for reevaluation if new battlefield events or sources emerged, but no substantial new evidence has invalidated the prior consensus.
::::''As a first step, I propose to remove the "Contemporary glosses" section ("Do not insert any number of quotations in a stand-alone quote section") and the quotes in note 2, 3, 11, 12, 24, 27 and 30 (but keep the refererences).
# '''Ongoing Disruption:'''
::::''JimRenge 10:13, 16 October 2014 (UTC)" ''
#* Despite the RfC's resolution, the same arguments are being repeated across multiple threads, often by the same editors.
:::We're all grown-ups here, who can take responsibility for our own actions and edits, so let Dorje108 take care of his own affairs. The talkpages are still waiting for ''his'' replies. ] -] 14:16, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
#* 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:'''
===Requesting an Admin to assess and close the above discussions===
Requesting an Admin to assess and close the above discussions.]<sup>]</sup> 23:57, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
: I concur. There is nothing new to be said here. Please close the discussion so that Robert Walker can submit his DRN (which I am supporting) and we can deal with some of the underlying content issues. Regards, ] (]) 02:43, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
::With "we", you mean you and Robert? About time. The rest has established concencus months ago already, and moved on with editing other articles. ] -] 07:26, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
:::Indeed an Admin should assess these discussions, so the appropriate ban is instated.]<sup>]</sup> 15:19, 6 February 2015 (UTC)


I respectfully request that administrators address the following issues:
===Background information===
For the sake of the admin who will need to evaluate this case, I would like to clarify the sequence of events leading up to these latest accusations:
* I have been a wiki editor for several years, focusing on articles on key concepts in Buddhism, such as ], ], ], etc. Until these latest circumstances developed a few months ago, I had managed to avoid disputes with other editors.
* This past fall, RobertInventor initiated a dialog on the ] talk page, suggesting improvements to the main ] page (concerning the presentation of karma in Buddhism on that page). I agreed with RobertInventors points and made some edits to the ] page as a result of RobertInventors suggestions.
* Soon afterwards, Joshua Jonathan did a massive rewrite of a different but related article: ]. As is the custom with Joshua Jonathan, he did his rewrite quickly and without prior discussion, calling it a “clean up”. In the process, he removed a lot of carefully researched content that I had added to the article.
** I strongly objected to Jonathan’s edits. I had developed the article over a couple of years based on extensive research and I felt his edits were unjustified.
** Joshua Jonathan paid cursory attention to my objections but he essentially ignored my concerns and his edits remain intact.
** Having little time to focus on the issue, and not wanting to get into an edit war with Joshua, I stepped back and disengaged.
* Soon afterwards, Joshua Jonathan did another massive rewrite to another article that I had carefully researched and developed: this time the article was ]. Again, Joshua did his rewrite quickly and without prior discussion, calling it a “clean up”. In the process, he removed a lot of carefully researched content that I had added to the article.
** This time, RobertInventor strongly objected to Jonathan’s edits. I also objected. (Another editor would later concur with our objections.)
** Joshua Jonathan objected to our objections and Joshua's rewrites remain largely intact. (VictoriaGrayson supported Joshua's edits.)
** At this time, I informed RobertInventor of Joshua Jonathan’s massive rewrite to the article on Four Noble Truths. RobertInventor also strongly objected to Joshua Jonathan's edits on that talk page.
* RobertInventor sought advice from Robert McClennon on how to respond to Joshua Jonathan’s aggressive rewrites. Robert McClennon advised it was not a conduct issue, but a content issue. Robert McClennon advised a DRN notice.
* After discussions with RobertWalker on my talk page, in which RobertWalker shared the advice from Robert McClennon and other research he had undertaken regarding Misplaced Pages guidelines, I initiated two threads on the Wikiproject Buddhism page:
** My POV on the re-writes: https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Buddhism#Recent_re-writes_of_key_concepts
** An RFC regarding the choice of sources: https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Buddhism#RfC:_Are_texts_written_by_Buddhist_writers_and_teachers_that_explain_basic_Buddhist_concepts_reliable_secondary_sources.3F
* RobertInventor, Joshua Jonathan, VictoriaGrayson, myself and other editors participated in long discussions on the WikiProject Buddhism page; side discussions continued on several of the affected talk pages (primarily between Joshua Jonatha, RobertInventor and VictoriaGrayson).
* Around this time, Joshua Jonathan made large rewrites to another article that I had carefully researched and developed over a period of months: this time the article was ]. Myself and RobertInventor objected to Jonathan’s edits on this page as well.
* RobertInventor then began developing a DRN regarding Joshua’s edits as advised by Robert McClennon
* Joshua Jonathan then submitted an ANI against Robert for disruptive talk page behavior: https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive869#Disruptive_talkpage_behaviour
* The first ANI ended with no outcome
* RobertInventor took a break and then resumed work on the DRN; as part of this process RobertInventor investigated Joshua Jonathan's edits on related articles (such as Annatta) and posted brief comments on the talk pages of these articles. (Note that anatta is also a key concept in Buddhism and directly related to the other articles that have been under discussion.)
* Jonathan submitted a second ANI accusing Robert of Wikihounding and Stalking


# Enforce the consensus reached in the closed RfC, as no new evidence significantly alters the previous conclusions.
IMO Joshua Jonathan’s accusations are without merit. IMO Jonathan and (to a lesser extent) Victoria are basically trying to assert ownership over all of the Buddhist-related articles and assert their own POV. What RobertInventor and I are seeking through the DRN is to have experienced neutral editors review Joshua Jonathan’s edits to the articles mentioned above to determine if Joshua Jonathan’s edits are justified per Misplaced Pages guidelines. Regards, ] (]) 21:25, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
# Discourage editors from rehashing resolved discussions, particularly when arguments have been repeatedly addressed and dismissed.
{{archive bottom}}
# 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.
== User <u>Is not a</u> ==
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
UPDATE: I just noticed that North Korea was removed as a belligerent and added to the 'supported by' section, completely violating the consensus.
] (]) 08:48, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
:Since this report isn't really about an incident and your request is directed towards admins, I think this complaint would be better placed at ] rather than ANI. It will also need more specifics, which articles, which edits, which editors. You'll need to provide that. I also question whether or not these are content standards that the community can't handle on their own. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 09:50, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
::I was going to post it at ] but it said: "'''This noticeboard is for issues affecting administrators generally – announcements, notifications, information, and other matters of''' ''general administrator interest.''
::If your post is about a '''specific problem you have''' (a '''dispute''', user, help request, or other narrow issue needing an administrator), you should post it at the ''']''' (ANI) instead. Thank you."
::I posted it on ANI beecause my specific problem was this dispute ] (]) 12:07, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
:::The original post in this thread appears to resemble LLM output. GPTzero confirms this impression, rating text as "99% probability AI generated". Using AI to generate ANI submissions is highly inappropriate. ] (]) 18:01, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
::::Even when a message appears to be AI-generated, I think it is worth considering whether or not it is pointing out an actual problem. I think editors might be ignoring the results of an RFC, I just don't think asking for administrators to monitor a subject area, without identifying specific articles, is a feasible solution. It does seem like, possibly, a point that could come up in a complaint at AE regarding the Ukraine CTOP area. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 19:55, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::I had a peek and it's a messy RfC and, as is generally the case with a messy RfC had a very involved closure message which seems to reflect that the closer felt constrained by the framing of the RfC. I didn't see any immediate indication in the edit history that anyone had tried to implement the RfC result and been rebuffed (although I might have missed it). So there's some smoke here but, I think, not a ton of fire. ] (]) 20:21, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::Liz, I don't disagree but I'm not at all convinced that use of AI is a positive contribution to CTOP areas. ] (]) 20:27, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::It was written with AI assistance. Not all AI. ai detectors aren’t considered reliable, because you can put the U.S. constitution through one and it says 100% AI generated. Regardless, whether it’s AI or not has nothing to do with the topic. It’s just that there’a been so many discussions and when I checked the info box it said ‘supported by”, violating the consensus of the RFC ] (]) 12:45, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::I think the underlying issue here is that if you use AI to generate text which looks like obvious AI output then readers will wonder "does the end user even have sufficient English to understand what the AI has generated for them?" and "did the end user understand the material prior to deciding to employ AI?". Thus if a user is fluent in English, as you obviously are, it will always be better to communicate in your own voice.
:::::::At the end of the day, a user making a valid point in their own voice is generally speaking going to be taken more seriously than a user employing LLM output.
:::::::There are plenty of other reasons for users not to employ AI (see the recent thread here for extensive coverage) but the argument above seems like a good practical reason for fluent English speakers to always prefer using their own voice.
:::::::You will see from the recent thread that many users here are vehemently against AI use. ] (]) 15:46, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::I understood the material very well, its not like I just used 100% AI out of nowhere. I know the context. I have been involved in this discussion since September. ] (]) 16:43, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::It's a respect thing. It's disrespectful of other editors to make them read chatbot output rather than ''your'' words. ] (]) 16:49, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::Rc2barrington's user page says {{tq|This user believes in the bright future AI and robotics will bring}}, so there's probably no point in arguing here. However, I simply observe that in any kind of discussion where you're trying to convince other people, don't use a method that aggravates a significant number of readers (probably a significant ''majority'' of readers). It really is that simple. ] (]) 19:11, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::<p>Putting the use of LLM aside, however you compose your message you should comply with the basics of ANI. This includes not making allegations without supplying evidence. This would normally be in the form of diffs but in this case just links might be fine. But ] has provided none. </p><p>Probably because this is because their initial complaint appears to be unsupported by what's actually happening. They claimed "{{tqi|Despite the RfC's resolution, the same arguments are being repeated across multiple threads, often by the same editor}}". But where is this? I visited the talk page, and what I see is here ] there was a request for clarification from the closer, something which is perfectly reasonably and which the closer followed up on. The OP then offered an interjection which frankly seemed unnecessary. There was then a very brief forumish discussion. To be clear, AFAICT no one in the follow up discussion was suggesting any changes to the article. So while it wasn't he most helpful thing as with any forumish discussion; it's hardly causing that much disruption especially since it seems to have quickly ended and also cannot be called "the same arguments" since there was no argument. No one in that discussion was actually suggesting changing the article. </p><p>Then there is ]. There was again some forumish discussion in this thread which again isn't helpful but wasn't that long. But there was also discussion about other things like the name of the article and whether to restructure it. To be clear, this isn't something which was resolve in the RfC. In fact, the closer specifically mention possible future issues in a non close comment. </p><p>Next we see ]. Again the main focus of the discussion is in how to handle stuff which wasn't dealt with in the RfC. There is a total of 2 short comments in that thread which were disputing the RfC which is unfortunate but hardly something to worry ANI about. </p><p>Next there is ]. DPRK was briefly mentioned there but only in relation to a suggestion to change the infobox for other countries. No part of that discussion can IMO be said to be disputing the DPRK RfC. Next we have ]. Again DPRK was briefly mention but only in relation to other countries. No part of that discussion can be said to be disputing the RfC. AFAICT, the only threads or comments removed from the talk page since the closure of the RfC was by automated archival. The only threads which seem to be post close are on ] and none of them seem to deal with North Korea. </p><p>So at least on the article talk page I don't see what the OP has said is happening. The tiny amount of challenging of the RfC is definitely not something ANI needs to worry about. Even the other forumish or otherwise unproductive comments aren't at a level that IMO warrants any action IMO. If this is happening somewhere else, this is even more reason why the OP needed to provide us some evidence rather than a long comment without anything concrete, however they composed it. </p><p>] (]) 10:15, 25 December 2024 (UTC)</p>


== Concern About a New Contributor ==
{{User|Is not a}}</br>
{{atop|Suspected editor was indeed a sock. Unnecessary drama created by all-too zealous reporting--let this be the end of it. ] (]) 21:19, 24 December 2024 (UTC)}}
] Attempts to obstruct and my participation and ] sourcing discussions at notice boards, doesn't address content issue at hand, asking me to stop looking for sources.</br>
{{userlinks|Kriji Sehamati}}


Dear Wikipedians,
Insinuates I’m associated with Larouche, making a personal attack and casting ].</br>


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.
Denies evidence of my association with Larouche, harps on about defamation, suggest blanking the page in his edit summary.
</br>


I believe your experience could help address this situation effectively.
<s>]User</s> <u>{{User|Is not a}}</u> appears to think that Misplaced Pages should <u>not</u> have BLPs in the first place<u>, because ]</u>.</br>
I have tried to ].</br>


Looking forward to your advice on how to proceed.
Fails to follow ], ] and ]</br>
Removes this tertiary source, which has been in the article continuously, it appears, since May, 2007, when it was first added as an External link , and then used as a reference in January 2008 .</br>
He failed to get consensus for the removal on Talk, claiming that it was an “attack site”. I decided it didn't need to go in the article anyway, as it was a tertiary source and other sources could be used in the main body, and added it back as an external link after he removed another external link, and I was reverted without discussion, with a threat of taking me to AN/I while repeating a BLP claim he has ]. I re-reverted, he didn't file the AN/I, but simply reverted again.</br>
Finally, he has made some spurious claims in an attempt to derail a topic ban appeal I have pending at .</br>
--]<sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub> 17:31, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
:I shall leave this to others to discuss, since I am busy. Administrators should read the talk pages of the associated articles and at ] and note that Ubikwit's SPI investigation request was closed with a suggestion that Ubikwit read the SPI description before filing another. Ubikwit received similar advice on at least one occasion here. ] ] 17:37, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
:: That must just be an action of poor judgement. Otherwise, can you give us the diffs. in a list, so that it's easier to review. I can understand your exasperation but if enough, admins will declare an IBAN. Till, then fix this thread, please. --]</font> <sub><span style="color:orange;font-family:Trajan Pro, Optima">«] § ]»</span></sub> 17:45, 2 February 2015 (UTC)


Thankyou! ]] 15:21, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
:::The user "is not a" arrived at Misplaced Pages with longstanding experience and knowledge of old Misplaced Pages matters. I got very suspicious when this supposedly new person mentioned the incorrigible sockmaster Herschelkrustofsky This is not a new user; usually such persons are evading a block or ban rather than simply abandoning an old registered account in good standing. ] (]) 18:01, 2 February 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.
::::::I would rather focus on content issues at appropriate talk pages, but here let me give an example of the biases I have been trying to clean up at the BLP ]:
: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.
::::::With this edit Binksternet truncated "the realist tradition of Hans Morgenthau and Reinhold Niebuhr rather than neoconservativism", omiting "rather than neoconservatism", changing the skeptical writer's point: .
:By the way is forum shopping. Stop that. ] (]) 16:06, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::] ] 23:48, 2 February 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.
::::OMG! Binksternet!! What '''''<u>are</u>''''' you doing!!!! Don't you know that ] requires you to throw away all your accumulated past experience and treat this editor like a long-lost friend, your best buddy from college or your cousin you haven't seen in years? Ask him in, serve him tea and crumpets, put him up for the night -- nevermind that your Spidey-sense is tingling away to beat the band, that he arrived at your door with a blackjack and brass knuckles, you '''''<u>must</u>''''' give him (or her) the benefit of the doubt. Not very cricket, sniffing him out like that. ] (]) 18:37, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
::She seems to lack understanding of basic Misplaced Pages guidelines, particularly those related ] and ]. ]] 16:40, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

:::You were asked to provide diffs. You did, almost, but then reverted yourself. Those diffs (well, the ones before those diffs) are just the other user nominating articles for deletion (which is allowed) or tagging them for what they believe to be conflict of interest edits (which is also allowed).
Ubikwit, alas, has had major problems in the past with edit war behaviour, and has been cited for such by ArbCom. On '']'' he has 4 reverts in just over two days, in ] he has 4 reverts in just over two days, and so on. Some of his edits on Kagan were clearly problematic in the past, was a revert to call Kagan "Jewish", etc. Cheers. ] (]) 21:19, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
:::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)
:Agree somewhat. Both editors have been problematic on this page. ''I am not'' made a removing any neocon reference and spamming templates. But they've correctly removed some EL and other BLP issues. Same with Ubikwit; some good edits, some not (like the one Collect linked above). ] ] <small>Please &#123;&#123;]&#125;&#125;</small> 22:43, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
::::Here are some diffs highlighting her problematic edits. However, I believe that many of her contributions may be in violation of Misplaced Pages’s guidelines. It appears she has specifically targeted me and added the COI tag multiple times to the same page. I would appreciate it if you could review her actions more thoroughly:
::{{ping|EvergreenFir}} Collect referred to an edit regarding a BLP issue I had encountered for the first time, with respect to which consensus was reached on this there is other relevant background here and {{user|Owen}} appears to have "recused" himself from the article due to the dispute over that issue.
:::: •
::Meanwhile, regarding this exchangebefore being hatted, the text on the page could only have been in English because there is not Japanese translation of the book, and no translation function. Is that ] (claiming he can't read the source)?
:::: •
::{{ping|EvergreenFir}} By the way, this link is to a Facebook page.--]<sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub> 23:12, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
:::: •
:::Thanks... copy-paste fail. ] ] <small>Please &#123;&#123;]&#125;&#125;</small> 00:08, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
:::: •
:::With these links, Ubikwit documents his discussion about "double loyalties" to Israel and the USA of American Jews, his linking to an antisemitic site, and his other soapboxing about American Jews and others adopting a "democracy" argument for supporting military aid to Israel and opposing aid e.g. to Egypt, the topic of ''The Israel Lobby''.
::::and many more
:::This is so distasteful, that I'm done here. Do what you want, here in public.
::::Thankyou! ]] 17:33, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
:::] ] 23:55, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
:::::We wouldn't generally treat an AfD as vandalism. ] (]) 17:39, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
::::{{ping|Is not a}} those are serious allegations. Please substantiate them or strike your comment. And by substantiate I do not mean refer to some unspecified link somewhere else in the discussion. ] <small>(])</small> 23:57, 2 February 2015 (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)
::::::] ] 00:15, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
:::::::Not from where anybody else is standing so far. I get that you're upset to have four articles of yours nominated for deletion, and if you have any evidence ''at all'' that you are being deliberately targeted by the other editor, then people will very much act on that. Please provide it. ] (]) 17:58, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::{{ping|Is not a}} So you linked to somewhere else where you made this accusation? And then I followed your link there and I was unimpressed. Let me try to make this simpler and take this one step at a time: Specify, here, by name, with your next edit, the anti-Semitic site allegedly linked to by Ubikwit, or strike your comments to that effect. ] <small>(])</small> 00:30, 3 February 2015 (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)
::::::::Well, this is quite enough of that. As one who tries to be a righteous gentile, I take accusations of antisemitism quite seriously. I also think it is not an accusation that should be thrown around the encyclopedia lightly. ] has responded to this matter on their userpage with a link to a news article on a particular publication whose name I will not repeat because the name of one of its founders is in the publication name, thus making the claim of antisemitism a BLP violation. According to the Misplaced Pages article on this publication, a publication with which I am completely unfamiliar, it has been accused of antisemitism in the past in the rough and tumble of political discourse, but I can find no evidence that this publication is actually antisemitic. Neither the ] nor the ] label it antisemitic. The ADL does call it "anti-Zionist", however, but the SPLC has used it in some of its articles as a reference regarding cases of actual bigotry. Most significantly, its founders are Jewish. Thus I conclude it is both a BLP violation and a violation of ] to repeatedly hurl that accusation against this publication and this editor. Given this, the gamesmanship on display here, and the dubious edit history, I am imposing a 24-hour block and an indefinite one-way interaction ban on ] preventing them from further interaction with ]. I also think it would be appropriate to consider evidence on the matter of stronger sanctions. ] <small>(])</small> 03:41, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
:::::::::Please provide evidence of this. ] (]) 18:06, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::You know, I have to say that Misplaced Pages it's sometimes hard on to tell the players without a scorecard, but if the link that "Is not a" (stupid name) posted on his talk page is supposed to be antisemitic, I just don't see it; and I say this as an unabashed liberal who is generally (but not knee-jerkingly) pro-Israel, but who has found value in the writing of both Robert Kagan and his father Donald Kagan. Some of this kind of crap comes about because people insist on things being either black or white, even though the geopolitical world is much too complex for that to be true.<p>In any event, it appears that Gamaliel has blocked "Is not a" (still a stupid name) for his personal attack on Ubikwit, and I support that block. Which camp that puts me in I have not the slightest idea. ] (]) 05:45, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
::::::::::Please check! ]] 18:07, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::{{Re|Gamaliel}} Those are grounds for immediate block. See no reason to humor this user. ] ] <small>Please &#123;&#123;]&#125;&#125;</small> 00:08, 3 February 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)

*{{Re|Gamaliel}} Note that "Is not a" has a personal attack against Ubikwit on his userpage at the bottom (and a similar one against Binksternet on his Talk page under the subheading "Clean hands"). ] (]) 06:21, 3 February 2015 (UTC) ::::::::::Honestly it looks like this user, rightly or wrongly, believes you have a conflict of interest and are acting on the basis of that assumption. I would suggest, if you don't have a CoI, talking to them about this and maybe asking why they've come to this conclusion. ] (]) 18:10, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::They have just started targeting my contributions, and I tried to inform her about the situation. However, she is acting as if she knows everything about Misplaced Pages and is dismissing my concerns. ]] 18:15, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

::::::::{{Re|Gamaliel}}Now that I see what source he is referring to, I think that a simple reference to the WP article's " is revealing.
::::::::It should not be permissible to attempt to impinge editor's integrity by launching a blatantly POV attack aimed at undermining the competitions sources, so to speak, especially where such serious allegations are being made. That is an offense beyond violating NPOV at the article's content level, and represents a sort of preemptive personal attack because one editor has a POV that is opposed to the POV of a reliable source (''note that the source itself was not even challenged in that thread'') that another editor has proposed.
::::::::I note that the subject of this report has retired, but he caused a lot of trouble in a very short time, and I agree with Binksternet that the editor is not a new editor, though the SPI I filed failed and it is not easy to connect such people to past accounts. They will resurface and again skew the editing environment off balance, trying to take out the competition through a smear campaign.
::::::::::All the more reason that en.wiki needs to drop the proscription against so-called "fishing expeditions" and allow CUs to be run when there's a reasonable probability that a "new" user is a returning one. Too many times these malefactors get away with their abuse of the system simpy because who they are is not immediately apparent. We should not be in the position of rewarding those who use the system to hide their connection to previous identities when '''''we have the tools to identify who they are''''', and block or ban them if appropriate. ] (]) 10:49, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
::::::::::::I agree with that, and don't understand the privacy issues that are claimed to prevent doing so.
::::::::::::The way things stand, hypothetically speaking, any individual of organization with resources to pay someone to sock for them on Misplaced Pages can wreak havoc, exercising far too much influence on the editing environment, at the expense of individuals that contribute their time and effort as individuals. There must be a better way to implement preventative measures.--]<sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub> 12:10, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
::::::::In regard to sourcing, it should be noted that I made it to the Kagan article via the Nuland article, to which the subject of this thread referred. I made it to the Nuland BLP via the Ukraine conflict in connection with a content dispute over the "F--- the EU" remark. A pro-US faction was negating all sources from Russia, including an official statement by Lavrov, the Russian Foreign Minister, published in the state owned media. There were numerous RS/N threads, and I opened a thread at IRS that was inconclusive. The Lavrov statement (and by extension, the Russian pov) was barred, and I withdrew from editing about the Ukraine crisis. --]<sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub> 08:54, 10:42, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

=== break ===
''As an individual that has been , it would seem that such categorization is merited, but two reverts have been made, with the reason given in edit summary, "request by article subject on talk page" and a link to . I don't know whether the assertion about the Talk page request is verified or not, or whether it matters, as it would seem that Kagan is a ].--User:Ubikwit (signing was on the original page) '' shows Ubikwit does regard the "Israel Lobby" as being important to Kagan. Note also that had been warned in the past about his positions and topic-banned from the Arab-Israeli conflict "broadly construed" primarly due to his battleground attitude. There is no doubt in my mind that labelling a person as "Jewish" in such a case while asserting they are part of the "Israel Lobby" ''might'' be deemed problematic. Cheers. ] (]) 12:23, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

:You appear to make insinuations impinging my character, ]. This is not a guessing games forum, so if you have something you ''might'' want to allege, then do so in a straightforward manner. Also, signing my signature in your post is incorrect practice.
:Have you read the article I cited on the talk page that you quote above. If you have, and, like <u>Is not a</u>, don't like the source, either, and would rather condemn the entire site, then just say so. You're entitled to your POV.
:HJ Mitchell stated that the diffs didn't show that I violated the topic ban.
:#Open Frederick Kagan thread at BLP/N at 11:15 on 1/31
:#After some discussion of first round of sources, Collect agrees that F. Kagan could be characterized as a neocon with proper attribution.
:#At the Neonservatives talk page, he reverses himself, and attempts to impede further discussion, claiming that the BLP/N thread opened only hours early had “was a “Fail”.
:#I state that his statement is a unilateral attempt to curtail discussion.
:#He then accuses me of “quote mining” and claims consensus.
:#I ask him for the second time to cease with the pointy disruptions, and not to falsely accuse me of misrepresenting sources.
:#Meanwhile, {{user|The Four Deuces }}, to whom <u>Is not a</u> referred, was also involved in impeding that discussion, claiming that he ] with the existence of the lists on Misplaced Pages in the first place, because he ] the criteria for inclusion.</br>
--]<sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub> 14:02, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

::I cited your precise post. That you find this to "impinge"(sic) your character is sad. I corrected the "signing" lest anyone think you somehow just posted here. And as I did not say you violated your clear topic ban, I am unsure why you need to iterate that bit - what is clear, sadly, is that you appear to be ''highly interested'' in Jews and the "Israel Lobby." You recently edited ], ], ], ], ], ], ] etc. all dealing with Judaism. And accusing TFD of "impeding" anything is a non-issue here - the fact is that you appear on the basis of your edits to be exceeding highly interested in Jewish issues, and have been topic banned in the past from Arab-Israeli articles broadly construed. And my advice that you consider that when you are the only person making a claim and others demur that you consider the very slim chance that you ''might'' be in error is standard Misplaced Pages advice. Cheers. ] (]) 14:25, 3 February 2015 (UTC) (impinging no one)
:: shows some AN/I discussions from six months ago. ] (]) 14:54, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

:::Do either of you have any sanctions you want imposed or actions you think should be taken? If not, this discussion should be hatted. ] <small>(])</small> 17:11, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

::::I'd like a 1-way interaction ban imposed against Collect. He has been responding to my posts in a somewhat erratic manner, sometimes changing his position abruptly, which generates friction and consumes time to clear up misunderstandings. I find that disruptive, and it impedes the overall discussion on Talk pages when it sidetracks the main focus.
::::Above I asked whether one interaction that was hatted as just such a was a form of ], and that is a case in point.
::::The above comment demonstrates that Collect read the currently open AE thread, but ] point or ] objection and the like that Collect makes to my edits. Obviously he objects to my editing topics related to "Jewish issues", because he ] my POV or sources, apparently. I have ] him, but he repeatedly shows up and causes me to spend time on things like responding to the baseless accusations he makes above. Occasionally I edit in areas related to American politics, and would like to avoid such distractions in the future. As I don't think I've demonstrated the above-described behavior against Collect, I would like the IBAN to be a 1-way IBAN.--]<sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub> 20:05, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
:::::{{ping|Collect}} Do you have a response on the specific issue of an IBAN? ] <small>(])</small> 20:47, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
:::::::I suggest Ubikwit be told not to accuse other editors of being socks or of editing based on a POV without very strong reasoning based on diffs, that he not continue to specialize in "Jewish" issues, that he be told that the use of edit war on multiple articles at the same time is unwise, and that he be told not to attack or interact with "Is Not A." I suggest "Is Not A" should also be told to avoid direct interaction with Ubikwit.
:::::::I point out that I made no "allegation" that Ubikwit violated his topic ban, and I do not appreciate his iterated claim that I did so. Thus a two way interaction ban between Ubikwit and "Is Not A" along with the suggestion that Ubikwit avoid his "Jewish article specialization" seems to make sense.
:::::::I further note that I have not sought any interaction with Ubikwit, that I was going to oppose his ban from AN/I were it not for his accusation that apparently almost everyone else is against him.
:::::::His use of AN/I is problematic vide , and then attacks me at , , all pretty much at the same time with a great many editors. I seek to ignore him, and have not sought here for any actions against him, and find this request that I be the one banned from mentioning him to be Kafkaesque. Cheers. ] (]) 22:58, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
:::::::Further evidence of his possible antagonistic attitude toward almost everyone is at ] for which he was blocked for two weeks for insulting ] by saying ''Listen, AGK, your actions have consequences in this world. Isaac Newton pointed that out to the physicists, and I'm pointing it out to an undergraduate wannabe attorney from Scotland. Capisce?'' I fear his accusations against me are of the same ilk. ] (]) 23:06, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
:::::::And to make it clear: Ubikwit: ''' ''I specifically and abjectly apologize for any instance here where I said you violated your topic ban.'' ''' I trust that apology is sincere and accepted as such. ] (]) 23:15, 3 February 2015 (UTC) (please try to avoid making edits within a continuing sequence by another editor - it amonts to refactoring his comments which he expected to be read as a sequence)
{{ec}} Collect, you post text stating<blockquote>''Note also that had been warned in the past about his positions and topic-banned from the Arab-Israeli conflict "broadly construed" primarly due to his battleground attitude. There is no doubt in my mind that labelling a person as "Jewish" in such a case while asserting they are part of the "Israel Lobby" might be deemed problematic.''</blockquote>Which is a basically indecipherable passage, seeming to imply either that you agree that the source <u>Is not a</u> smeared as anit-semitic, or you assert, like <u>Is not a</u>, that I violated my topic ban. I don't see a third reading of your statement, so consider that you intended the later, based on an oversight, rather than the former, a more serious ]. So I queried you about it, and your response was indeterminate. It seems that maybe you actually didn't read HJ Mitchell's comment, and upon recognizing that deny that you too asserted that I violated that topic. Otherwise, you have no grounds to comment on my editing what you refer to as "Jewish topics" on Misplaced Pages. Your POV in that regard is exceedingly narrow. You do not own those topics, and Jews do not own those topics.</br>
The other diffs I provided don't need further explanation.--]<sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub> 23:24, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
:Interesting since you had written on the Kagan talk page:
::''The blog by self-identified progressive Jews might not be an opinion piece, but it did mention the two points in the same article. I do see xxx's point about the possible implication of "divided loyality". On the other hand, '''there are plenty of politicians (Jews among them) that present themselves as being loyal to the USA and pro-Israel without worrying about that presenting a possible COI''', emphasizing that Israel is "the only democracy in the Middle East", etc.''
:Which some might ''accidentally read'' as an editor specifically connecting "Jew" with "divided loyalty" and the Israel lobby. Of course, I am sure, of course, you would not make such claims. ] (]) 23:41, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
::Here again, if you still haven't read the article, "". And I would suggest also reading the "Reception" section I linked to for that publications, because the subject of ] appears to be something that they often address.
::Moreover, such accusations in American politics are nothing new. It should be recalled that, before Kennedy was elected president, some Protestants and others used to say that a Catholic shouldn't be president because he would owe more loyalty to the pope than the Constitution, etc.
::My position at Kagan's BLP was, of course, if it is common knowledge that Kagan is Jewish and associated with the Israel Lobby in reliable sources, why would Misplaced Pages not disclose the fact that he is Jewish. Once I learned about the current thinking on BLP policy regarding religious affiliation, that was the end of my participation. On the other hand, as I noted in the article, "divided loyalty" based on religious affiliation is not a foregone conclusion, as many people do not try to hide their religious affiliation regardless of their political stances on Israel.
::The article, however, is unabashedly clear regarding the existence of various potential issues<blockquote>''"Middle East policymaking is now dominated by the Israel lobby and its affiliates. Advocacy of Israeli positions has replaced professional qualifications as the criteria for service.''</blockquote>That brings this discussion back around to your apparent insinuation that there '''might be''' something "problematic" with my edit, which only appears to exist in ''' mind'''.<u>"There is no doubt in my mind that labelling a person as "Jewish" in such a case while asserting they are part of the "Israel Lobby" might be deemed problematic."</u> I suggest that you cease and desist with what could easily be taken as making the exact same assertion here, albeit in a veiled manner, that <u>Is not a</u> made. Obviously, it doesn't matter if you ] the POV of ] about the neocons, Jewish and otherwise, and the ], with which I happen to agree. --]<sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub> 07:31, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
::Moreover, at the time, it seemed to me at the time, given my lack of knowledge about the <s>defacto (it is not dejure, apparently, according to {{ping|Owen}}</s> WP <u>blpcat</u> policy about religious affiliation on BLP's, that since Kagan is not only a ] but has served as a public official, the norm in American public discourse is not to hide information such as religious affiliation. So here’s one more passage from the article<blockquote>''Kagan pushed the Iraq war to George Bush as a battle to help Israel. He and his neocon friends wrote, “If we do not move against Saddam Hussein and his regime, the damage our Israeli friends and we have suffered until now may someday appear but a prelude to much greater horrors… Israel’s victory is an important part of our victory.”''</blockquote>
::Furthermore, a talk page discussion related to including religious affiliation, with reference to a public figure who may have a conflict of interest, is not the same thing as stating in the article that such is the case. The point of the Talk discussion was about including him in a Misplaced Pages category according to religion and ethnicity, which you have described as '''“labelling”'''. So your statement above regarding <u>an editor specifically connecting "Jew" with "divided loyalty" and the Israel lobby</u> exceeds the scope of the limited discussion about Robert Kagan. It should be noted that the issue at Kagan's article has been going on for years, I see, without any BLP policy statement being established.
::BLPs seem to have a special consideration that does not fall under ],
::because there are sources that describe Kagan as Jewish..</br>--]<sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub> 11:51, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

The edit war continues on ]... {{diff2|645518098|Ubikwit's edit here}} ] ] <small>Please &#123;&#123;]&#125;&#125;</small> 23:10, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
:{{ping|EvergreenFir}} Why do you characterize that as an edit war? Are calling that a violation of ]? The material (one link) removed from the article has been there with consensus since 2007, '''and there was no consensus on the Talk page for its removal'''. You introduce a new rational for your deletion with the edit summary "''These do not seem to meet WP:ELYES''", so I will study that when I get the chance, but we we'll have to take that discussion to the Talk page.
{{ping|EvergreenFir}} You should also take a look at this thread at RS/N. , and note that there has been absolutely no response to my post. --]<sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub> 23:44, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
:Your post was made in the last 24 hours. RSN isn't exactly the fastest moving place. Nevertheless, the issue I commented on is ], not ]. ] ] <small>Please &#123;&#123;]&#125;&#125;</small> 23:54, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
This whole thread turns out to be really about its original poster, ]. ] (]) 23:20, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
:What do you mean by that baseless assertion? Do you have a logical rational? If so, present it, so it can be addressed in terms of reason, not you jumps of faith accusations from out of the blue. Why have you not commented above? The subject of the thread has had two sanctions opposed against himself, so your assertion is so out of line I consider it to be a personal attack. You false accuse me of filing a report that has resulting in sanctions against the editor I filed it against. Do you see the logical fallacy in your assertion?--]<sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub> 23:44, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
====Gamaliel and Binksternet====
I requested that Gamaliel ask for a review of his administrative actions here, on my talk page ( 10:26, 4 February 2015 (UTC)), to which he has failed to respond.

Here, I request first that Gamaliel's '''unilateral IBAN''' be made a '''two-way ban or removed''', not only for fairness but to avoid violations of WP:BLP and other policies, which have been addressed in my '']'' (, ) (Regardless, I request an immediate suspensions of Gamaliel's unilateral IBAN for only this ANI discussion. 10:29, 4 February 2015 (UTC))

Second, I am also confused that others have been discussing problems with the treatment of Judaism or Israel in related WP space without having been cautioned, where I was '''blocked in the ''middle of the night''''' when I could not respond or alter any offending text. This does not seem to be consistent with blocking policy or fairness, particularly since I had indicated the lateness of the time (, responding to Gamaliel's ultimatum here, despite the time. 09:55, 4 February 2015 (UTC)) and there was no disruption being '''prevented''' by the Block, which seems to have been '''punitive'''.

Third, I would like a review of user:Binksternet's behavior particularly on my talk page. ( 09:51, 4 February 2015 (UTC)) ] ] 08:36, 4 February 2015 (UTC) 08:58, 4 February 2015 (UTC) 09:38, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

::In particular, Interaction Bans are supposed to be imposed by a community consensus. Gamaliel did not have the authority to impose a one-way interaction ban. ] ] 01:28, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

:Thought you'd retired? ] (]) 09:45, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
::Why don't you ] above and try to be ] here? ] ] 09:57, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

::] Considering that <u> Is not a</u> was blocked solely on the basis of his ], perhaps, as Gamaliel suggested above, a more serious sanction should be considered, like a topic ban from all "Neoconservatism, broadly construed".--]<sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub> 11:18, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
=====Unilateral IBAN imposed by one administrator=====
'''Motion''': Gamaliel's unilateral one-sided IBAN is void. Gamaliel or another editor is welcome to propose such a ban to be discussed by the community at ANI.

'''Support''': Gamaliel's ban was improper because individual administrators lack the authority to impose bans. Gamaliel's ban did not represent the consensus of a discussion at ANI (although one can claim it represented agreement of BMK and himself, at least for an hour or so); also, it has not been entered in the community sanctions list, which is where ANI-sanction bans are supposed to be listed. Gamaliel's ban was not claimed to be a WP:BLP Arbcom-authorized ban, and it has not been entered into any Arbcom list of bans. ] ] 09:14, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' ] (]) 22:18, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
*'''Strong oppose''' As the one at the receiving end of the personal attacks, etc.--]<sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub> 02:24, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

* Can you explain how lifting this ban will benefit the encyclopedia? ] <small>(])</small> 05:12, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
::Gamaliel lacked the authority to individually impose an IBAN. If Gamaliel wants to impose a ban, then Gamaliel need to have a discussion for example here, and then have it authorized as consensus. Such bans are logged as community actions.
::Presumably, complying with the policies on administrators and bans does not harm the encyclopedia.
::Gamaliel, please point to earlier discussions at ANI that advocated a one-sided IBAN, if you claim you had such authorization. ] ] 06:21, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' Whether or not an admin ticked the right box is not really the point. This discussion is taking place at ANI, and anyone wanting their interaction ban removed would need to show how its removal would benefit the encyclopedia. The discussion above shows that attacks on an editor were made, and when pressed for evidence, none was provided, so the IBAN is justified. ] (]) 06:31, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
::How am I supposed to answer Gamaliel's inappropriate question while I am allegedly topic banned? I prefer not to be indefinitely blocked. ] ] 06:34, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

===One-Way Interaction Ban by ] against ]===
This topic is listed here only to permit it to be ridiculed or dismissed. Unfortunately, this proposal appears to be an attempt at ] bullying by Ubikwit to silence Collect.

*'''Strong oppose''' as an apparent effort by Ubikwit to silence Collect. ] (]) 23:20, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' - on principle. ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 23:38, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
::{{ping|Baseball Bugs}} What does, "on principle" mean here?--]<sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub> 08:28, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' Per Robert McClenon. ] (]) 23:42, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' ]. ] ] 00:22, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

===Reinstate Proposal to Topic-Ban Ubikwit from AN and ANI===
*'''Support''' as a vexatious litigant with the sole obvious exception that he may defend himself. ] (]) 23:20, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
*'''Oppose'''. Good grief, this should boomerang on the proposer, ]. -- ] (]) 23:33, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
*'''Relucatant Support''' Noting how he wrote to {{u|AGK}} and the interesting phraseology therein, and a large number of editors seems to indicate the drama boards do not need this agita. ] (]) 23:31, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
*'''Oppose*''', for obvious reasons, and agree that RobertMcClenon deserves a ] of some sorts. And I would like {{user|Robert McClenon}} to remove the ] falsely accusing me of being a "vexatious litigant", or maybe to have him blocked for 24 hours if he refuses to do so. He did not participate, constructively or otherwise, in this thread at all until jumping in with these outrageous sanction proposals, and has been nothing but ].--]<sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub> 23:53, 3 February 2015 11:24, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
* '''Oppose''' and agree that RobertMcClenon needs some kind of BOOMERANG for these two suggestions. Maybe a nice {{tl|trout}} on his user page. ] ] 00:22, 4 February 2015; 11:23, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

===Extend Topic-Ban to All Jewish-Related Topics, broadly defined===
*'''Neutral''' at this time, but may change. ] (]) 23:20, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' An utterly groundless proposal, outside the scope of the thread and based on accusations that I posted source to an anti-semitic site, which I did not, etc., etc., etc. --]<sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub> 23:59, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
*What is the basis for even suggesting this? As far as I can tell this is a dispute over a rather boring external link... ] ] 00:24, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
:: I believe there's been a topic ban on the Arab-Israeli sphere so this would be an extension of that. I disagree with it though. -- ] (]) 09:14, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

===Propose full two-way interaction ban between Ubikwit and Collect===
*'''Support''' - as proposer ] (]) 01:36, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
*'''Second choice'''--]<sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub> 06:57, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
*'''Support''' only reasonable solution IMO. --] 12:15, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' As I never initiated all of this - and Ubikwit has repeatedly used AN/I to attack many others - and even attacked an Arb in the past. Sanctions made without any sound rationale are foolish at best. In fact, Ubikwit has had many problematic interactions with a great many editors, and singling me out makes zero sense here - truly. ] (]) 13:11, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' - Ubikwit hasn't shown that Collect is harassing him or that Collect's reports of Ubikwit and complaints about Ubikwit go too far. Oppose, although less strongly than one-way ban, for same reason, that Ubikwit is trying to silence a critic who is within Misplaced Pages policy. ] (]) 02:42, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

===Propose Topic Ban and Interaction Bans all round===
For everyone who has commented in this discussion, from anything unrelated to actual content writing.
*'''Support''' As proposer.] 03:11, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
*'''oh dear god yes please''' dump the excess ballast... ] (]) 13:55, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
*Actually let's extend this ban to all Misplaced Pages editors, and any future editors as well. ] ] 18:57, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

=== Enough ===
This has apparently been going on for a few days now, with the same few people talking in circles. I'm going to take some bold actions in the interest of putting this thread out of its misery. First of all, {{user|Is not a}} ''is an'' obvious alternate account, and is being used to engage in combative and contentious editing. This is an inappropriate use of an alternate account. Our ] is very clear: such accounts may not be used to segregate combative edits or conflict, per ] and ]. I've therefore blocked {{user|Is not a}} indefinitely; the owner of the account is free to use his or her main account if s/he wishes to contribute to contentious topics.<p>I will recuse from any action regarding Ubikwit and Collect and leave the proper handling of their behavior to other admins, noting that neither has exactly covered himself in glory: Ubikwit has edit-warred to restore extremely dubious external links, while Collect has repeated unsubstantiated and irresponsible accusations of anti-Semitism against Ubikwit. ''']'''&nbsp;<sup>]</sup> 06:52, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

:Kindly note '''I have in no place and at no time accused Ubikwit of "anti-Semitism"''', and I specifically apologized for any place I said he had violated his topic ban (so far, I can find no place where I made any such allegation), and I dislike being so maligned here by an admin who appears to be preternaturally involved with me regarding BLP interpretation., , , , , , , , , , , , , , etc. etc. etc. going back a long time to the Climate Change ArbCom case. shows, In My Opinion, a bit of edit following. shows an apparent disparity in out interpretations of ]. I would be exceedingly worried if our personal disparity in BLP interpretation is causing us friction, indeed, and apologize to MastCell for any such friction. Cheers. ] (]) 13:24, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
::Apology accepted. ''']'''&nbsp;<sup>]</sup> 18:03, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
:::{{reply|MastCell}} I would say that Collect flew under the radar of making overt accusations, so I've tried to ], but I do consider his insinuations of anti-Semitism, particularly with respect to the Monoweiss source related thread, to be a highly offensive and disruptive form of baiting, and requested the 1-way reaction ban partially on that basis.
:::The links are a content dispute, and an RfC has been opened. The user you blocked was continually removing sourced material without discussion or consensus, some of which was obviously unjustified. Both links have been in the article long term, with one since 2007 (and profiles from the site are used in other articles). I'm learning about the EL policy, but only restored after EvergreenFir agreed that one of the sources, at least, was OK (3-1 consensus at that point), while the other hadn't been discussed after a BOLD deletion constituting part of a series of tendentious disruptive edits. After I restored, Collect reverted, and the RfC was launched by EvergreenFir.--]<sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub> 21:09, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

== Conduct of Dan56 ==
{{user|Dan56}}

User repeatedly violates ], ], ], is stubbornly ], and repeatedly edit wars in the process as he willfully pushes his view without considering other editors' input.

*AGF: , , ,
*Recent edit warring, & ] in article editing (in the first diff, he disruptively removes reviews I'd added from the album ratings box) - chronologically: + my response: + ; + ; + + + ; + + + (←linked to Wikiproject discussion in which he said himself recently it was only a guide)

I'd addressed his behavior in article and talk page with a cordial , asking him to stop disrupting and start working collaboratively.

I know I have a disadvantage here as Dan56 has promoted many GAs or FAs (reading over ANI, that apparently tends to give you automatic pardon of Wiki guideline violations), but this user has a history of eschewing ], of disruptive and tendentious editing, pushing POV, OWN attitudes, ], disrupting editing to make a point, not assuming good faith, genre warring, accusing others of what he is exactly doing or has done, and many editors have called him out on his behavior and editing practices in the past, on various article talk pages (particularly RfCs). Dan56 evidently is not interested in changing his behavior as he feels his promotion of GAs absolves him of any responsibility for his actions and that he's potentially answerable to no one (as his unsanctioned acts would lead him to believe), evidenced, recently, and . Most of my encounters with him have been on the band Garbage's articles, at which he arrived about 7 months ago after being canvassed by another editor (who possibly didn't know about the policy then) in a content discussion, and where he willfully employed the same editing tactics and violations he's still willfully and freely employing.

Please see , which is the (recent) source of this dispute, and where much of the aforementioned is evident further.
Dan56 does not appear to want to contribute to a collaborative, disruption-free environment at this band's pages, where he has quarreled with me and engaged in all the aforementioned countless times. My request is a topic ban for this band's articles. What he's contributed (e.g., copy edit of reviews, date formats) (by essentially shutting out others, really) can just as easily be and have been contributed by myself or any of the other editors watching the article. And, as I pointed out in the RfC, If Dan56 had actually bothered to give me a minute or two to copy edit and fix issues and continue improving and augmenting the article, as opposed to just reverting and disrupting constructive edits none of that would occur. Of course, that appears to not be in his nature, particularly for these Garbage articles, for which he, going by all prior indication, has a bias against. --] (]) 18:25, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

: Lapadite77 is personalizing a dispute which stems from my involvement at ] and ] for those genres, which didn't go Lapadite's way exactly, partly because I was invited by {{u|Andrzejbanas}} to weigh in and sided with him. Last October (), I began cleaning up and expanding a section at ] and have been involved there since. My recent revisions to Lapadite's edits were justified by guidelines I don't feel he can fully grasp at the on-going RfC, where he canvassed two of his recent collaborators at other "Garbage" articles to weigh in. Lapadite argued for his version of the article by drawing comparisons to ] in the RfC, so I dont believe he had any intention to drastically trim and properly paraphrase the quote farm he added to the article in question. The section in question is essentially complete, considering the notability of the reviewers and the viewpoints researched, so this is appears to be another attempt at creative control. ] (]) 02:12, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Did I mention Dan56 had a history of accusing people of things, never admitting he has done anything wrong, and creating striking lies and misleading statements which are easily refuted by the actual, readable evidence? In that Garbage album RfC, which one can readily see, toward the end, editors called him out on his intentionally misleading tactics (for which he took 0 responsibility for and ignored the comments, and which he again similarly employed in this recent RfC, which I commented on). I created a new poll, because the other was corrupted by Dan56's tactics and lies and more useful content had also been included in the article, with an updated proposal based on recent article edits, and it went smooth and successfully. Exactly the opposite of what he claims here. This accusation - "this is appears to be another attempt at creative control" - and the hypocrisy is utterly laughable. As you can see, in accordance with my report, Dan56 does not believe he does anything wrong. All of the aforementioned, articles and diffs linked, speaks for itself, regardless of how Dan disregards and reinterprets his actions and assumes of others'. If one were to bring all the editors that have called out Dan56 on his disruptive behavior and editing practices throughout various articles they would all agree with this. I don't link to past talk discussions not directly pertaining to this dispute because it may be tacky and doing so might be interpreted negatively but I have no problem doing so if asked. This is far from a personal dispute or vendetta, which I don't care for. You can see my cordial message on his page, and after that Garbage album content dispute he linked, I had very amicably discussed with him on his page some content matters on another article; unlike him, I don't hold grudges and I'm not here for battlegrounds and disruptive practices, only to improve articles. Dan56's presence at this band's articles has been continually disruptive as his POINTy, POV-pushing, OWN, Wikilawyering, NPOV/Stick to sources-eschewal, genre warring (a significant issue during that album article discussion he linked) and lack of collaboration inhibits progress. For instance, If he hadn't disrupted improvement of that article's section (specifically the start of my constructive edits which, as I said in the RfC were far from finished) that section would've been completed right soon and without the need of all that came after it. Of course he credits the current version (which needs a checking of sources and copyediting for POV, cherry picking, sticking to source) to his mighty self, since, liked I stated above, he shut editors out and steamrolled his edits, and while RfC had just started. Again, this isn't the first time here Dan56 inhibits or significantly slows down progress here, takes ownership of an article and disregards collaboration, in the process perpetuating an environment of only disputes (as I remarked near the end of the current RfC I linked: "Is there an RfC that's not a battleground with you? To which he replied, "that's cute and all".). I strongly believe a topic ban is best. --] (]) 04:02, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

:You need to file a report ]. I recommend including only good evidence in the form of ]. This thread will likely be closed, by someone else, accordingly. Or do you expect an admin to jump in and block the user per this report? ] ] 08:10, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
::I expected admins to comment on ANI and consider the irrefutable content in all the links provided. Why do you think I should file a report there instead? That page says it is inactive, and the topic dispute isn't limited to RfC conduct, it also, and primarily, regards editor conduct on this band's articles, hence my request of a topic ban, and not another kind; ] →"The purpose of a topic ban is to forbid an editor from making edits related to a certain topic area where their contributions have been disruptive, but to allow them to edit the rest of Misplaced Pages.". --] (]) 09:15, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

*Another ] edit, which I . --] (]) 09:15, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

*Another ] edit and reversal of copyedit/improvements, demonstrating again ], POV, and Wikilawyering issues:
:I copyedited, as edit summary details:
:He wrote, ], at 10:08: and ''2'' minutes later, made the following revert (including restoring of his tendentious, NPOV, undue weight-violating ratings replacement ): . The pre-copyediting version (his) that he restored is in many respects cherry picking, giving undue weight, and not sticking to source.
:My response to his talk page post: )

:I sincerely hope what has been provided and continues to be provided (obviously, again Dan56 has no plans to change his habits here) is more than enough to see why I, with reason, request a topic ban for Dan56, due to his considerable, disruptive OWN issues on this band's article, his complete disregard for collaboration, his consistent tendentious editing, knee-jerk reverts of improvements he disagrees with, violations of WP:PRESERVE and all else aforementioned.
:Can any admins bother to tend to this thread? All that continues to happen is disruptive and more disruptive editing from Dan56. ] (]) 18:25, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

:Pinging a couple of editors, spotted while skimming ANI, that I believe are admins, to see if maybe this could start getting some attention (sorry if you're not one): {{u|Drmies}}, {{u|Stalwart111}}

::I understand what Lapadite is saying, as some of my debates with Dan56 were similar in the past, but unfortunately, I think he's one of those editors that treads the line carefully, where he can come off as rude or abrasive, not its not really bad enough to warrant a block. Unless it starts escalating to personal attacks or hounding, I think a better approach would be to just keep starting discussions or RFC's, to come to a consensus that combats the ] issues. ] ] 20:27, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
:::Yes, the disruptive editing guideline mentions some "tread the line" behaviors these kinds of editors may engage in such as: "Their edits often avoid gross breaches of civility, by refraining from personal attacks, while still interfering with civil and collaborative editing meant to improve the article". Dan56 doesn't do blunt personal attacks, although others may disagree, and this isn't a report on personal attacks nor a proposal to ban him from editing Misplaced Pages but a request for a topic ban, to rid of his considerable, still ongoing (after 7 months) '''pattern''' of disruption at this band's articles, his considerable OWN and WP:POINTy behavior, and considerable disregard for collaboration. He's ''still'' doing it, still reverting. And presumably this guy has many editors not wanting to speak against him, perhaps admins. Pretty much every other thread at ANI has several comments. This is just ridiculous. --] (]) 22:50, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

:More tendentious editing: --] (]) 01:29, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

:Part of Dan56's tendentious edits, is (first mentioned above) the constant replacing of a positive score with a negative score in the album ratings box (which already contains 10 review scores). It has been called out and explained multiple times on the talk page, noted how it's not only tendentious, but violates WP:UNDUE and WP:PRESERVE, but Dan56 keeps restoring it. There's also the persistent claim that reviews that agree on some element of an album are virtually incompatible in that regard in a reception section; summaries of reviews can't include similar opinions, unless of course for something that contradicts positive notions. Any admin's care about this pattern of disruption, OWN and tendentious editing? Seriously, this article would've been completely improved by now if Dan56 hadn't gone (and still continue) on a disruptive, tendentious crusade. --] (]) 16:05, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Is this thread still open? Dan56 does like to ram a point home when he thinks he's right, the problem with that of course is that sometimes he ''is'' right. He's been very helpfully sorting out the "critical response" sections to numerous album articles to the extent that when I start improving one for ] I look at that and think, "good stuff, Dan's done it". With that in mind I'm just reluctant to ] on him. As others have said, he's never crossed the line into personal attacks, so all I can really advise is to just stick to the article and forget about who's saying what. It's the only sane method. ] ] ] 12:45, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

I won't pretend I've read all of this thread, but I'm not at all surprised to see Dan56's behaviour become the subject of another discussion. Just over a year ago, I talked GabeMc out of on this user, when Gabe and several others were fed up with him, and, although I could be wrong, I believe this was the near-miss referred to in a subsequent , in August 2014. I chose not to have any input into that discussion either, but the references there to Dan56 being so obviously pro-Robert Christgau and overly controlling of article content were all too familiar. My direct contact with Dan56 has been limited mainly to tedious discussions about album genres at ] and ]; I've seen numerous, similar discussions going on over the last year or two – for instance, at ], ] (can't access the archive for that page), – but, quite honestly, just the sight of his username is enough to ward me off, unless I consider speaking up really important. Ritchie's correct when he says that "sometimes he ''is'' right", but at the same time, Dan56 behaves as if, by divine right, he must be so at all times – there's no element of compromise, nor any awareness that he might be making working on music articles a miserable experience for others. He drives editors away from the encyclopaedia, I'm convinced of it – and I can't help thinking that's fine by him, if he alone is left working on album articles here.

Doc commented above that Lapadite needed to supply specific diffs rather than launching an unsupported attack. I don't doubt that that's the correct way to proceed, but I sympathise with the frustration that Lapadite seems to be expressing. As Sergecross73 says about Dan 56: "unfortunately, I think he's one of those editors that treads the line carefully …" So, by and large, everything appears correct per the letter of the law but (I think) at the same time he's continually falling foul of the spirit of Misplaced Pages – ], as I understand them.

Dan56 is the only editor I've ever felt the need to watch, and for all the wrong reasons. I see him constantly laying down the law with new editors and regularly removing the protests that arrive on his talk page, when those editors are not time-wasters but have a case to present. He the removal of terms such as "favourable", "mixed", "unfavourable" from the album reviewer ratings template without (as far as I can see) posting any notice at all on relevant project pages such as or ; if those terms have to go in favour of recognised scores and ratings, then fine, but anyone proposing such far-reaching changes, you'd think, would want as broad a consensus as possible. A select few were similarly ''invited'' to a proposal on (after which Mudwater and I put the word out to a wider audience). To me, along with the other actions mentioned, these are examples of how this user wants to – and does, unfortunately – dominate album articles on the encyclopedia. I don't have bad feelings towards anyone on Misplaced Pages but I think admins need to address this behaviour. I said to John around the time of , it's not just about looking at diffs and specifics, it's about the entire way this user conducts himself on Misplaced Pages. ''That's'' the problem, that's why a thread like this gets opened, and it's why there'll be another one about him within six months. And as I've mentioned, there are other conflicts concerning Dan56 (the January 2014 episode) that don't even get the attention they deserve. ] (]) 16:59, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

== BLP with the whole nine yards (COI, Copyvio, NOT, MEAT, etc) ==
See {{la|Krista Tippett}} and {{la|On Being}}. <p>An editor with a self-identified COI (I won't give diffs here to avoid outing, but the editor uploaded an image as "own work", associated with his real life name, which is also given in the articles) added a large amount of ] text to both articles (sample .) {{user3|Bibliophile227}} reinstated the text, that was earlier added by {{user3|Ghz89med}} without discussion on talk. Neither of them has engaged talk: <p> I have also removed several instances of copyvio or too close paraphrasing, and correctly cited information that was previously uncited, which new accounts are reinstating or removing.<p>When I listed on talk the problems with the article, including sourcing, copyvio and others, and that Bibliophile227, SPA {{u|Ghz89med}} and a Minnesota IP, SPA {{ip|50.241.48.62}} had all edited ], Bibliophile227 blanked the sandbox. Within minutes of the sandbox blanking, four new accounts were registered and began editing the articles: {{user3|Gibsonten}}, {{user3|Stellapensac}}, {{user3|Convsa2}} and {{user3|Jacsman}}. Jacsman and Stellapensac, for example, have made the same edit. It is a curious deletion since her well-known divorce was mentioned in the article already, albeit uncited. <p>So, there's a lot going on (BLP issues, COI, NOT, possible MEAT, instances of COPYVIO/too close paraphrasing, etc), and I'm not sure to which individual noticeboard this might go, including possibly MEAT along with COI. ] (]) 23:02, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
: And I now see (by scrolling to the bottom of the diffs), that the deletions made by the accounts is POV, since the source includes criticism of Tippett. Perhaps that text-- not the well known divorce-- explains the appearance of these accounts. ] (]) 23:12, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
::I'm not sure I like that source myself -- it's listed as a commentary, and it does have some rather snarky comments in the footnotes. This definitely appears to be a case of sock or meat puppetry, though. And I don't know about the outing issue -- I'm (perhaps unreasonably) suspicious of "own work" that appears to be sourced from Flickr.--] 15:07, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
:::Just to clear up any confusion, my name is Mariah (a little targeted googling will find my full name), and I am {{u|Ghz89med}} and {{u|Bibliophile227}}. You are right I am a producer for this radio program. The concerns you expressed are very valid. I should not have created other accounts and I won't do that again. I understand that my language might and in some cases will be biased, however, this page was in dire need of an edit and a build out. I will keep contributing to that, and I invite your edits as well. I will not revert edits by other users, unless there is a clear and legitimate (non-POV) reason to do so. I'm doing this in line with the standard practice for radio shows, see ], and as such, I will be adding an episodic list. Please edit and contribute so this can be the most in line with Misplaced Pages's best practices. I do invite collaboration, I know that's what makes Misplaced Pages great. I will be using this account for all future edits, because I want to be transparent. I don't like anonymity, so feel free to message me for an email address. ] (]) 15:42, 4 February 2015 (UTC)Mariah
: Thanks {{u|SarekOfVulcan}}-- agree with your removal. Ghz/Mariah/Biblio, how many of the other accounts are you? ] (]) 15:53, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
::Yeah, I know. I'm sorry. I got freaked out when you posted my IP address and my location (which I know, open source, fair game, but I got spooked). These are all the user accounts I have ever opened with Misplaced Pages. Going forward, I'll be using {{u|Mariahism}} for work edits and {{u|Bibliophile227}} for personal. All other accounts that will going forward be unused: {{u|Ghz89med}}, {{u|Convsa2}}, {{u|Gibsonten}}, {{u|Artez28}}, {{u| Jacsman}}, and {{u|Stellapensac}}. Again, sorry about that. <small>(unsigned edit by ] 16:12, February 4, 2015)</small>
::: And now you're posting from the Bibliophile227 account, so which account are you going to use? Can admins please advise if the others should be blocked? I remain concerned because there is plagiarism everywhere in the ] article. I'm out of time for today, but it needs additional scrutiny. ] (]) 16:31, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
::::I accidentally posted from ] because I couldn't find this page without logging into that account. Again, thanks for your patience, I know you are quite a bit better at navigating this world. I am committed to resolving issues on the ] and ] pages. I'm sorry that I can't do it faster. I think {{u|SandyGeorgia}} is referring to the section "Digital Convener" moved to talk, this is not plagiarism but original research, just to be clear, which I understand now, is not permitted. It will stay off the page until there are secondary sources for it. Again, please feel free to reach out (yourself or other editors) with concerns, my email is on my user page. ] (]) 17:29, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
::::: No, I am referring not to that text (which was uncited original research that I moved to talk), but to extensive other text taken directly from sources without quotation marks or attribution. See my edit summaries at ] for those I've identified as I've had time. I am concerned there is more, but have limited time today to review. ] (]) 20:22, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

{{outdent}} I note also the account ] whose sole edits were to remove the speedy deletion tag from ] which you created. I assume that is also yours? How many more accounts have you forgotten? In my view, this editor should be restricted to '''one account only''' and make a full disclosure of their COI on that user page. The others should be blocked. There's no reason whatsoever why s/he should edit from "one account for work" and another as a "personal account", especially given the COI shenanigans and deliberate deception that have been going on since 2011 with every single one of these accounts. ] (]) 17:59, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

*'''Block all accounts except one'''. User has so many accounts they may have temporarily forgotten some. Preferably do it through SPI so that a CU can be run for other accounts to block, e.g. sleepers. --] (]) 18:23, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

* I would allow an "at home" account, provided the two accounts are clearly linked. It might be preferable to rename ] to ] or to make some similar arrangement. All&nbsp;the&nbsp;best: '']&nbsp;]'',&nbsp;<small>18:40,&nbsp;4&nbsp;February&nbsp;2015&nbsp;(UTC).</small><br />
::I'm fine with just having the {{u|mariahism}} account. This account already has a COI notice on the page. All other accounts can be deleted. If there's more I need to do to make the other account deletion happen, let me know.] (]) 19:07, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
::: But now there is another thing that is becoming less and less clear as you post. You have uploaded images as "own work", and now it is not clear those images are your work, according to the different names you have used and the name you attributed those images to. Someone who deals with OTRS or I'm not sure what needs to verify who you are, because some of those images are still in articles. I'm not sure how this gets cleared up-- above my payscale. ] (]) 20:25, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
::::That's fine by me. You know how to contact me. ] (]) 20:32, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

And now everything needs to be checked for copyvio and plagiarism. Here's the latest example, an edit just made (in spite of me raising plagiarism for several days): We've gone from uncited text everywhere, to now seeing that the wording is taken directly from the source, without quotation marks. ("The project resources have been used by ... Harvard Law School.") This is pervasive, I've found it on every source I've checked, and I don't have time to check it all. ] (]) 20:47, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
::::I've changed the language {{u|SandyGeorgia}} identified as offensive above. Many of the copyvio flags are for articles not available via web, and the others, referred to by SandyGeorge as the "Mook article" have been thoroughly checked against the source for wording similarities. If others want to verify, please do. For articles not available via web I have offered to share PDFs and full text for others to check against, but these should be flagged on the page as requests of quotes, not as copyright violations.] (]) 23:02, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
::::: This is becoming unpleasant. The instances of taking text directly from sources, without quotations, are quite different from the growing list of failed verification to offline sources, which are becoming apparent only as quotes are requested on talk. It is gradually getting cleaned up, but more eyes are needed, and I wonder if the necessary objectivity and competence are on board. I'd be most happy to unwatch if others indicate they are watching. ] (]) 23:16, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Where do things stand on blocking all of these socks? Should it be done via CU, or just done based on the admission above? I do have concern that there are more socks, since they were not all admitted, but am not sure a CU is needed. ] (]) 22:43, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
:They can be blocked by any passing admin, since M has said they are happy for that to happen. In the unlikely event that an account wasn't a sock they can be unblocked on request. All&nbsp;the&nbsp;best: '']&nbsp;]'',&nbsp;<small>02:54,&nbsp;7&nbsp;February&nbsp;2015&nbsp;(UTC).</small><br />

== User:73.11.72.255 ==

] has repeatedly changed sourced information on the pages of ] and ] despite reversions by myself, ] and ]. Upon being warned by BlackCab and myself on their talk page to discontinue their disruptive editing, User:73.11.72.255 deleted our warnings and put our names on a list of "Known Apostates" they created (since reverted by BlackCab with an additional warning by both myself and him). While I realize this is a quick request for a block, as they have only been editing for a few days, the reversions with no attempt at discussion and in particular the creation of the "Known Apostates" section I believe is warranted of an immediate block.

Diffs at User's talk page


Diffs at pages mentioned

Organizational Structure-

Governing Body-

] (]) 12:20, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
:I did a copyedit after the editor's initial edits on the two articles indicated above. I retained some parts of the editor's initial changes where the changes did not misrepresent the cited sources. Since then, the IP editor restored their other changes and falsely claimed those changes were according to "consensus", but the editor has not made any attempt to discuss any changes. The editor's subsequent personal attacks on BlackCab and Vyselink strongly suggests that the IP editor is unlikely to make any reasonable effort to work collaboratively on articles related to the religious denomination that is the subject of the articles above.--] (]) 12:54, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

A silly dispute about nothing. "] has repeatedly changed sourced information on the pages of ] and ] despite reversions by myself, ] and ]." It is called editing, and is in the nature of developing articles at Misplaced Pages. Is the HQ in New York HQ for JW, Governing Body or "the Society"? Could it be both, or even all three? I've followed this topic for several years, and Jeffro77's and BlackCab's oneminded critical view of all aspects of the religion is way undercommunicated. To state the views of former members well known for their highly critical view of the topic, like the IP has done, as "claims" rather than "states", is may very fair. Dr. Penton have clearly stated the prosecution of JW during WWII was their own mistake, or at least a result of Rutherford's critic of the Nazi regime, a classic technique used by historical revisionists and right wing extremists about Jews. Further dr. Penton have, in the sourced book, expressed strong sympathy and long time correspondence for/with a mentioned Swedish historical revisionist. JW had disassociated with the revisionist because of his extreme views, while dr. Penton failed to communicate that the Swedish historical revisionist being one, and forgotten to mention the Swede's past as a former convict in Sweden (a modern, democratic country) for his extreme right wing Holocaust denial expressions. To use dr. Penton as a source for statements about JW, represents same quality of source selections as using nazists as a source for statements about the Jews: It is may worth mentioning his view, but as a view rather than a statement. ] (]) 19:27, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

:The IP editor has made no attempt to discuss their changes despite being asked. They are edit warring against a consensus view, which can be dealt with at the appropriate notice board, but it is unacceptable behaviour to label two editors with whom one disagrees as "known apostates". This is mindless hate behaviour and pretty extreme. ] (]) 20:15, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
::Grrahnbahr's claim that I have a "one minded critical view" of the religion is demonstrated to be false by the many times I have also removed ''negative'' information about the religion. Additionally, far from being "undercommunicated", various editors&mdash;particularly Grrahnbahr himself&mdash;have ''frequently'' attempted to malign my motives (and those of BlackCab) when disputes arise about articles related to JWs. In fact, Grrahnbahr has previously reported ''me'' for supposed "edit warring" in regard to '''four words''' in '''one sentence''' that was the subject of discussion at Talk. (In that protracted ordeal, I actually restored the sentence '''to the same version''' that Grrahnbahr had restored ''five days prior'', which had been the stable version for ''many months''; yet Grrahnbahr still attempted to impugn me by claiming that I had ''introduced'' an 'unsourced claim'. Clearly Grrahnbahr has an axe to grind. The article Talk discussion is at ]; the discussion resulting from Grrahnbahr's frivolous accusation is at ].)
::Regarding Grrahnbahr's assessment of the ''content'' of the IP editor's changes, this can be ''discussed'' at the article's Talk page, and per ], the IP editor should have done exactly that after their edits were initially changed (though they were not completely ''reverted''). But the IP editor has made ''no attempt'' to discuss anything, despite the editor's false claim of restoring "consensus". Grrahnbahr's description of the IP editor's persistent reversions without any discussion as simply "editing" is quite dishonest. The IP editor's ''initial'' edit was "editing", but the subsequent repeated reversions without discussion is "edit-warring". Grrahnbahr is well aware that disputed changes should be ''discussed'' at the article Talk page.
::In an attempt to distract from various distortions introduced by the IP editor about what the cited sources actually say, Grrahnbahr has attempted to highlight some of the minor semantic changes instead, such as the IP editor's less accurate description of the headquarters. Additionally, Grrahnbahr's deviation into Penton's supposed views of the Holocaust has no relevance to any of the disputed changes. Most of the changes are to text that isn't even sourced to Penton, and none relate to the Holocaust.--] (]) 00:26, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
::: Several editors have been trying to straighten out articles in certain religious areas from pervasive bias. There are 2 or 3 editors who have userboxes proclaiming themselves to be formerly of a certain religion, and these same editors persist in re-adding negative information about that religion to certain lightly-viewed articles. There is a strong feeling of ownership over these articles by these few critics, and a reading of the talk page will show their continued attempts to overcome well-intentioned and clearly-sourced corrections. Jeffro, BlackCab, and to a lesser extent Vyselink have been editing these religious articles continuously for ''many years'', and their apparent negative personal experiences with the religious group affect their edits. Perhaps they should step back and let fresh eyes wash away any unintentional bias. ] (]) 05:24, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
::::The claim about "2 or 3 editors who have userboxes proclaiming themselves to be formerly of a certain religion" is a lie. Only BlackCab has such a Userbox. As I have previously stated when falsely accused by pro-JW editors on Misplaced Pages, I have never personally accepted JW beliefs, though I have relatives in the religion.
::::It is not clear what "negative information" has been added to the articles being discussed, and this is the first time the IP editor has made ''any'' attempt to discuss any of their changes. The editor is still yet to engage in any discussion about the specific content at the article's Talk page.
::::For several years, I have edited Misplaced Pages articles related to Jehovah's Witnesses. The pro-JW editors call me 'anti-JW' and the anti-JW editors call me 'pro-JW'. Overall, it's a pretty good sign that my edits on the subject are neutral.--] (]) 06:05, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
::::The IP editor has also added a bogus warning about supposedly 'biased content' at Vyselink's User Talk page, but Vyselink has only ''restored'' the stable version of the article that was already supported by existing sources.
::::When the IP editor initially made their changes, I removed only the parts of their changes that did not properly represent the cited sources, as well some mundane issues such as wordiness. Other elements of the IP editor's changes were retained. However, the IP editor has shown no desire to work collaboratively, or to discuss any element of article content.--] (]) 06:21, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
:::::I noticed that BlackCab has such a userbox, while Vyselink states the same in the text of his user page. It appears that your close coordination with them in attempting to override clear consensus caused me to lump you in with them unfairly. I thank you for your attempts to be unbiased, however after extensive discussion we have decided to move forward with the proposed changes. If you have any concerns, you are welcome to explain them in the usual manner. ] (]) 06:11, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
::::::I suppose that's as close to an apology as I will get from you in regard to the lie about the Userbox and religious affiliation.
::::::There has not been ''any'' discussion of the proposed changes. If you believe there are problems with bias in the articles, you should start a relevant section at the articles' Talk pages raising your ''specific'' concerns.--] (]) 06:21, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
:::::::Please stop saying I lied. You were working with two editors who had a disclosed bias against a certain religious group; I somehow got it in my head that you had the same bias. It was a mistake that was quickly uncovered. The repeated undesirable edits are more of a problem. ] (]) 06:54, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
::::::::I haven't been 'working with' the other editors any more than I've been 'working with' you. Except that you refuse to discuss your changes. You haven't indicated anything about ''what'' is supposedly 'undesirable'. As an example, you've claimed in your edit summary that referring to the Watch Tower Society's publications as "Watch Tower Society literature" and calling their headquarters their headquarters and saying the Governing Body don't call themselves "leaders" are all "inappropriate". You need to articulate why you believe those things to be "inappropriate", since they are plain statements of fact that are more accurate than the wording you keep asserting. You should do so at the articles' Talk pages.--] (]) 07:05, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

'''Comment''' - the editor ], who has been making the same edits in tandem with the other IP editor named above, is now playing tedious games. After I advised the editor that the changes they are seeking to introduce to the stable version of the article should be explained at Talk after they've been disputed, the editor is childishly claiming that it's actually me who introduced changes to the article. With this kind of behaviour, it seems unlikely that the editor will ever be able to meaningfully contribute to Misplaced Pages. See ] (only one Talk section).--] (]) 07:33, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
:'''Comment''' - Grrahnbahr has the correct view above. Jeffro and 1 or 2 others have been editing these articles for many years, and seem to strongly resist any changes not made by them. However, we have been working to resolve all the disputes, but Jeffro has not yet shown any willingness to work collaboratively. Instead, he and one of his associates have repeatedly made threats of blocking and banning rather than discussing using normal Misplaced Pages processes - processes I have used for over 5 years. He may need a preventative block for 24 hours to regain perspective if he does not stop the disruptive editing. ] (]) 07:38, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
::I have no 'associates' on Misplaced Pages.
::It remains contingent on you as the editor who is insisting on changes to the stable version of the article to indicate why you believe them to be improvements.--] (]) 07:45, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
:::This is the sort of "I didn't hear that" behavior that has become troubling and makes me feel Jeffro has developed ownership feelings toward the article. He insists on his preferred version as the "good version", and pretends not to understand that by "associates" I mean "the 1 or 2 other people who are making the same types of edits you are - edits against the consensus" ] (]) 07:50, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
::::I have not insisted on 'my' version of the article at all, but simply the stable version of the article from before you began making changes and then refusing to discuss them. No 'consensus' whatsoever has been established for your edits. Based on the principles at ], after your initial edits were challenged, it is contingent on you to discuss your changes.--] (]) 07:55, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

'''Comment''' The IP editor has finally begun 'discussing' at article Talk, in a highly combative manner and apparently under duress after repeated warnings of their inappropriate conduct. The editor is continuing to misrepresent their changes to the article as the stable version. It seems unlikely that it will be possible to work with the editor.--] (]) 07:55, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

'''Block of Jeffro77 possibly needed''' - Jeffro77 continues making personal attacks above despite repeated warnings. He is dismissive of any views other than his own, and is determined to force through his preferred versions over the versions supported by sources and the other IP editors. I remain very open to discussion once he stops making attacks and threats and is ready to move forward in a collaborative fashion. ] (]) 08:00, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
:Now he's just lying outright about alleged personal attacks. There have been no personal attacks. The editors continue to misrepresent their recent changes as the 'stable version', which is another lie. It is not possible to work with these two IP editors, who are clearly working in collusion. (Earlier in this thread, one of the editors said "extensive discussion we have decided", but no on-Wiki discussion exists, so they are collaborating off-site.) I'm going to leave the article for a while until admins have addressed the edit-warring and belligerent behaviour of the IP editors involved here.--] (]) 08:07, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

:'''Sock puppet alert:''' It is still unclear whether identical edits from the two IP addresses are being made by one person or two. , however, from an ] address, was signed as the IP editor 73.11.72.255. That same IPv6 address was later used to continue the edit war at ], using precisely the same edit as IP editor 73.11.72.255. (See and the whole edit-warring sequence at that article). In any case ] on his own is on the verge of breaching 3RR.
:It is also highly amusing that the declaration on my user page that I am ex-JW proves "bias", while the IP editor whose edits bear all the hallmarks of a JW member is just trying to, you know, ''"straighten out"'' the article. Let's not lose sight of the fact that this thread began with a complaint that the IP editor had decided on his user page to brand me and another editor as "known apostates". That sort of cranky religious hate language, a term widely used by JWs to denigrate former members, is a fairly good indicator of the motives of this editor in trying to "straighten out" the article and, indeed, have a long-standing editor blocked. ] (]) 12:14, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

]'s "warning" on my talk page is interesting, as I have (as has been stated by other editors above) not INSERTED any new information, but reverted to the original information which, at the time of my revert, had not been discussed. I see that they have now, belatedly, started discussions in a very contentious manner on those pages, while attempting to shift the blame to myself and other editors for "changing" information, which is categorically false and verifiable by anyone who looks at the pages edit history.
As for being in collusion with "1 or 2" other editors (I assume BlackCab and Jeffro77) this claim has been made in the past and it is false. I do not know BlackCab or Jeffro77, and my talk page clearly states that I was raised a JW, but have never believed, and that I rarely edit those articles except in the cases of obvious vandalism, such as the IP editors are currently engaged in. I have no bias against JW's, as (current IP editors aside) they have been nothing but great to me personally, and have changed my mother's life very much for the better, allowing her to stop smoking and drinking and generally be a much better and happier person because of it. I have made exactly to the "Governing Body" page, all in response to vandalism, and until the recent vandalism, the one I had made before that was in 2012, which was also in response to vandalsim. As for the "Organizational Structure" page, the only edits to that page have been to reverse the current IP editors vandalism. Both editors have mistakenly asserted that there is "consensus" for their changes, and I agree with BlackCab's '''sock puppet warning''' as being something that an admin should take a closer look into. ] (]) 14:54, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

:'''Time to close?''' - This complaint can probably be closed now. Jeffro has calmed down, and the other two editors on his side, BlackCab and Vyselink, are acting in a less militant fashion. The bit about sockpuppetry is a diversion. My IP address changes between IPv4 and IPv6, I don't know why as it is the same connection. There are some edits from an IP that are not me, so I think there are at least 2 IP editors, perhaps 3, editing under dynamic addresses. ] (]) 20:32, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

::Er, no. The suggestion that the complaint "can probably be closed now" comes from the subject of the complaint himself who, after removing from his talk page warnings for 3RR and sock-puppetry continues to edit-war under dual IP accounts. . The user admits he is behind both IP addresses but disingenuously suggests other editors are sharing his IP address, presumably to reinstate his own material. ] (]) 22:08, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
:::Um, what? You and I have both been the subject of recent "complaints" and I want to encourage you to stop personal attacks and focus on the articles. I have said for some time that my IP address sometimes shows up as IPv4 and sometimes as IPv6, I don't know why. However, there are other IP addresses editing these articles that I have nothing to do with. There is nothing odd or suspicious about any of this... ] (]) 23:08, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
::::I'm not aware of any other IP edits in other ranges that have been editing the articles recently, and certainly not in support of your edits. Of recent edits to the articles you've been editing, which IP edits are you claiming are not your edits? There has actually been only one other IP edit on only one of the articles you've edited. That editor introduced a copyright violation, which you persist in restoring when I've tried to remove it.--] (]) 02:22, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
::::There have been edits from seven separate IPv6 addresses on the relevant articles. All of the addresses begin with "2601:7:1980:5B5", confirming that they are all on the same network. If they are not the same person, they are different persons on the same network colluding together.--] (]) 03:29, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
:::::'''Jeffro77, BlackCab, and Vyselink conspiring to evil ends''' - I have tried at great length to deal with you in a gentle manner. However, harsher chastisement may be necessary to overcome the apparent wicked schemes that involve conspiring and colluding to produce lies. '''I will no longer be editing any of these articles.''' But you are put on warning that you will have to answer for your error. ] (]) 03:47, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
::::::Oh, now I'm "evil" for pointing out that you lied about IP addresses being unrelated. You've edit warred for several days and only attempted to superficially engage in discussion after you were reported to admins. You have lied about the stable version of the article. You have lied about consensus for your changes. You have lied about providing new sources. I'm not sure what is intended by "harsher chastisement", but I certainly hope its not intended as a ].--] (]) 03:57, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

== Potentially ] Userbox ==
{{archive top|Consensus is that the box needs to go. Yes, Bgwhite is thin-skinned, but how one transmits that opinion is highly relevant here. EEng, please let it go. Thanks. ] (]) 03:22, 6 February 2015 (UTC)}}
It appears that a user refuses to remove their ] userbox from their talk page. {{U|EEng}} has a userbox accusing administrator {{U|Bgwhite}} of being a "thin-skinned admin" who blocked them after allegedly being criticized by them. See ]. , and . , and . {{U|ChrisGualtieri}} thanked me for removing the POLEMIC template on EEng's page, so he may have an opinion. --] (]) 00:07, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

:It sounds like sour grapes, I would have it deleted as it causes more disruption than innocence. - ] (]) 00:26, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

:Which section of ] do you believe allows you to remove (as opposed to reporting and letting an admin handle) comments on a user's own user page that you believe violate ]? --] (]) 00:28, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

::{{U|Guy Macon}} "Removing harmful posts" as "personal attacks". And it was a userbox.--] (]) 00:32, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
::Remember, Under: ] Users do not own their pages and thus they are a part of Misplaced Pages. - ] (]) 00:35, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
:::I agree here. EEng has been blocked in the past for personal attacks and harassment (by Bgwhite) and it seems like he strongly dislikes this editor, enough to make a disruptive userbox. I suggest trading lightly for a while and removing the userbox. ] (]) 00:34, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

:Oh, and by the way, this is the first time I have taken someone to ANI before. --] (]) 00:38, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
::The userbox doesn't name any names, and if the admin were really thin-skinned, he would have done something about it already. ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 00:42, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

:::When you click on the link in the user-box it goes right to the block made by Bgwhite. - ] (]) 00:44, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
::::If you have to go searching for something, it ain't much of a polemic. Best to let the admin take care of it, if he cares to. ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 00:49, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
:::::True if it is just directed at bg, but because it is hidden another way to look at it is that it is devious. I also suspect that the infobox in question changes each time the user is blocked and would have a link leading to another block if and when the user is blocked again so while bg might take it as a joke the next admin who knows. - ] (]) 00:51, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
::::::I don't take it as a joke. EEng insults anybody disagreeing with him, so I just see it as yet another one. The box was added directed towards me and it still is direct towards me. The box directs to a section header that was written by me, but changed by EEng. I've , EEng , and again the "thin-skinned" header. ] (]) 01:24, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
:::::::Well then if you aren't laughing then I see no reason why the infobox needs to stay and ask that an uninvolved admin make the call here. - ] (]) 01:45, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
:You know, I'm not actually all that sure it's as clear cut as that. When I first saw the user box a couple of weeks ago I thought it was a more a general criticism of the subjective, and often personal, nature of a lot of admin blocks. That it linked out to a particular incident was acerbic play on "X number of days since a workplace accident" with the last accident report on the board. I didn't take it as a "fuck this guy" type of userbox. I thought it was pretty funny. Maybe this is less of a big deal when people just decline to make it one. Besides, don't we get enough hurt feelings reports without adding vicarious hurt feelings reports? Did anyone ask Bgwhite what he thought? ] (]) 00:46, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
::One way to read it is, "Hey, I've been block-free for 23 days! Yahoo!" ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 00:50, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
:::Since this userbox seems to be directed at Bgwhite, if he is okay with it, I don't see an issue of having it up since it only is directed at one person. ] (]) 00:58, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

:] seems to apply on ], on August 2014 he did nothing but attempt to harrass other users, and call Bgwhite a thin-skinned admin just because he was blocked. I know that's old news, but still... --] (]) 00:53, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

::I also notice that EEng has only edited topics related to ] in the last few months. Can't speak for all their edits, because I didn't look that far. ] (]) 00:57, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
::: EEng works at Harvard. ] (]) 01:24, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
{{Quote box
|quote = Brandon: 'Course, he ''was'' a Harvard undergraduate. That might make it justifiable homicide.
|source = {{mdash}} Hitchcock, '']''|salign=right
|align = right |width = 31em |border = 0px |bgcolor = LightSteelBlue |quoted = 1
}}
:::::::No, I don't. Honestly, so free you are to hold forth and proclaim on things about which you know nothing. But such a misapprehension on your part might explain a lot. ] (]) 01:54, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
{{clear}}

*EEng made it after Bgwhite blocked him, but the second instance was after the issue over personal attacks. ] is relevant. EEng decided to reset it and mock persons. I dislike EEng's attitude and his most recent edit to his user page was to add a section on "Museum of additional reasons that ((Dick Cheney|warmongers)) are going to hell" brackets swapped to quotes. in what is a petty and rude gesture in of itself. He tempts the patience of others with such edits. ] (]) 01:01, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
::I recently removed that section due to it being disruptive, along with the box at the beginning, also for being disruptve. --] (]) 01:53, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

* Can ] please explain and what part of ] or ] it falls under, such as to necessitate deleting parts of another user's user page? ] (]) 01:29, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

::{{U|Andy Dingley}} I'll revert it. I believed I caused it, and I didn't link to a category, so I had just removed this then irrelevant category from the talk page. I didn't think someone else was to blame. --] (]) 01:36, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

*'''Remove userbox''' per ] and ]. ] (]) 02:16, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
*'''Remove userbox''' Its not being taken as a joke and as I explained above is only going to cause more disruption than good. - ] (]) 02:18, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
*'''Remove userbox''' - Userbox is disruptive (per ]). I tried deleting it myself, but it appears that due to the massive amount of bytes, the edit never saves. --] (]) 02:36, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
* Ignore it ... raising this ANI thread counter productively will probably give it more views than it would have ever have gotten, anyway. <small>]</small> 02:38, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
*'''Let it ride''' Unless the current or future "honoree" feels the need to file a hurt feelings report. Let's not be that place. ] (]) 02:51, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
:*There is a reason why we have the ] guideline, can you think of a reason how this wouldn't violate it? - ] (]) 02:57, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
*'''Remove userbox''' Bgwhite's opinions on the userbox are not relevant—it is up to the community to decide whether it is helpful for a sanctioned user to poke the admin—of course it is not helpful. Regardless of whether the block was justified, collaboration is required, and ] needs to be supported to avoid people recording their thoughts on all the bad editors they have encountered. ] (]) 03:12, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
{{archive bottom}}
{{archive top|Drmies, if I could put some prosciutto on your pizza, I would. --] (]) 23:56, 6 February 2015 (UTC)}}
In my opinion, the above was prematurely closed without dealing with the two separate issues I discuss below, and I request that it be re-opened for further discussion.

There are two issues here.

First, there is the question of whether this violates ] and should be removed. Given the fact that it doesn't actually name a specific person and the fact that traditionally, admins have to be somewhat thick-skinned and tolerate some level of criticism about blocks they make, I would say no, but I can certainly see how a reasonable person might disagree with me and say yes.

Second, there is the issue of a non-admin editor removing something from the user page of another editor. ] is clear in this question. The removal was against our guidelines. You should only edit/delete the words of another editor on his own user page when doing so is specifically listed in ], and if there is any chance of ambiguity or controversy -- as there clearly is in this case -- you should ask an uninvolved administrator to decide whether to delete it, warn the user not to do it again, etc. When in doubt ]. --] (]) 03:33, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

:Have you read the discussion? The link in the infobox went directly to the block involved, that is how it connects. As for ] that goes with the ] issue. - ] (]) 03:37, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

::In general, users should not be nannying other users' talk pages. ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 03:39, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

:::Bugs, someone noticed it was wrong and took it here if we were to just say to everything "Its no big deal" where would the line be drawn? If you want to amend the policies and guidelines that say "In general, users should not be nannying other users'" feel free. - ] (]) 03:42, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
::::Calling someone "thin-skinned" is not only about as lame an insult as they come, but many editors (including on this page) have been advised to not be so thin-skinned about one thing or another. I don't see how it comes close to the bar in WP:TPOC. ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 03:47, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
:::::I'm as thick-skinned as Big Al, but I'm just doing what the people want, and the people seem to think the box to be disruptive. Guy, you are correct, the other editor probably shouldn't have been messing with EEng's talk page, and ''I am sure they won't make that mistake again''. ] (]) 03:50, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Bad close, backed by poor logic, and premature consensus, then in, what I have to say, is a rather obnoxious manner. Altogether, pretty lame. At least no user will be exposed to this transgressive horror of a userbox in the future. Well done team, feelings healed. ] (]) 03:55, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

:I want you to name one positive thing the userbox brought that had anything to do with Misplaced Pages. - ] (]) 03:58, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
:: Can you name a positive thing that removing it has achieved? —] (]) 19:51, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

*And we're done, again. Go improve an article, y'all. ] (]) 04:00, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

*Wow, closed in three hours? How were enough people supposed to have time to see and opine on it, and enough of a consensus arrived at in three hours? Some folks aren't even awake at this hour. I agree with GraniteSand , "It brought levity to my day, brought down the faux seriousness of this place by a notch, and acted as a signal of wiki-philosophy. Not unlike the multitude of religion and politic UBs floating around." If there's an actual consensus that it be removed after enough people have had time to weigh in, that's fine, but a close in three hours is precipitous, in my opinion. I have enormous respect for Drmies, however this is the second time he has removed material from that user's talk page without his express permission. ] (]) 04:11, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
**OK. Some people weren't awake, others were in school, others didn't have internet. Not the point: ANI is for incidents, not for audience participation, and if a user has objectionable material on their user pages, it is within policy to remove it--that they won't like it is a given. What do you want this board to be, a place for Administrators (note the initial A) to take action, or an endless discussion? Don't answer that here: this is closed. ] (]) 04:49, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
{{od}} {{od}}
:{{ping|Kriji Sehamati}} hasn't edited since their AfD spree earlier today, let's wait and see what their response here is when they return to editing. ]&nbsp;] 18:16, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
Drmies, I am asking you to please voluntarily remove the above premature close or at least to indicate that another admin may do so without you objecting. You have not established as a fact that what Mr. Guye removed actually was objectionable material, and you have not even presented an argument in support of ] allowing Mr. Guye to remove the allegedly objectionable material himself rather than bringing it to the attention of an uninvolved administrator. And if you really think that ANI is "not for audience participation", or that giving folks like me more that three hours to reply is "endless discussion", I suggest that you attempt to get a policy change/clarification saying that community input is not welcome here. --] (]) 08:19, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
*We need to stop focusing on the OP's calling this vandalism; it is not. I've changed the header to reflect that. That said, the new user's edits ''are'' problematic and merit scrutiny. As for the UPE stuff, I've removed that post from the OP's Talk page; it's nonsensical coming from a new user and does not merit a response.--] (]) 18:42, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
]
*It 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)
:Thanks, Guy, but I'm happy with things the way they are. For those who missed earlier installments of this saga, I was blocked in August by BGwhite after I referred to a group of editors (including BGwhite) as "self-satisfied roving enforcers" . That this infamous userbox, memorializing BGwhite's brave intervention to stifle criticism of himself, has now ''itself'' been removed by this same group is one of the most delicious pieces of unconscious self-parody I have seen in many years. I've even added a userbox to my talkpage celebrating it -- or must even this feeble light shone on what goes on here be extinguished? ] (]) 11:57, 6 February 2015 (UTC) <small>Thanks, Drmies, for recognizing how thin-skinned some people are. I hope you don't get blocked for it.</small>
*: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)
::Most people ], I am sorry you got blocked there are many here who have been unfairly blocked over things but making user-boxes to remind everyone of the fact just screams ]. If you want change then I encourage you to do so with discussion on the policies Misplaced Pages presently has in place. - ] (]) 14:18, 6 February 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)
:::I ''am'' over it, but that doesn't mean I can't leave a record of it for others to see. The userbox sat there for months until this recent nanny inspection. ] (]) 14:41, 6 February 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)
* {{Cue}} {{U|EEng}}, I only have one question for you: Do you intend on starting a section requesting some kind of intervention to prevent these editors from doing damage to the encyclopedia in any of the forums where such discussions are appropriate? — <code class="nowrap">&#123;&#123;U&#124;]&#125;&#125; <sup>(] • ] • ])</sup></code> 14:11, 6 February 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)
::Just so people understand, the problem is that certain editors mistake their personal vision of what articles should look like for WP policy and guidelines, and go around conforming articles to these preferences, often with automated scripts. They do this in direct violation of the injunction, at the top of each MOS page, that "Style and formatting should be consistent within an article, though not necessarily throughout Misplaced Pages. Where more than one style is acceptable, editors should not change an article from one of those styles to another without a good reason." As long as they don't bother me in articles I'm working on (as they haven't for six months) I'm content to let the community deal with them eventually, as I'm confident it will. Reminding people of what happened is, for now, the limit of my contribution to that. ] (]) 14:41, 6 February 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)
::* You didn't directly answer my question, so I'll have to assume that {{Tq|1=''I'm content to let the community deal with them eventually''}} means that you do not intend to pursue a new discussion about the behavior of these editors (which I consider a very good call and answer) and as such this section should be closed as I can't see anything else to discuss here. That particular userbox was childish if not inappropriate and your replacement is even more so which makes me hope you consider removing it for now. I'm not at a computer atm and won't be anytime soon, I'm hoping {{U|Drmies}} or someone can move the close bottom below this comment. EEng, I have a RL situation to deal with, but I would like to talk to you via IRC or email when I return about something. :) — <code class="nowrap">&#123;&#123;U&#124;]&#125;&#125; <sup>(] • ] • ])</sup></code> 15:10, 6 February 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)
:::::::<small>Naturally I'm intrigued. Drop a note on my talkpage if you email me, because my limited experience is that WP email goes into trash. ] (]) 16:03, 6 February 2015 (UTC)</small>
*:::::Dear @],
*I watch EEng's talk page, and I never liked that box. I agree with Drmies that this board should be about resolving incidents and not about endless discussion, and I think that the editors who speculate incorrectly about EEng's supposed employer should find better things to do. --] (]) 15:43, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
*:::::It means I have been proven wrong, and that user’s contributions have been more focused on me, which is quite insufficient to catch someone’s lie that she is pretending to be new, when in fact she is old.
**I don't like it either, and my advice to EEng is "please voluntarily remove or edit it". I am agnostic about an uninvolved admin removing it, and my advice to any such admin is "I personally would have allowed it, but use your best judgement and I will support your decision". That being said, '''Mr. Guye was wrong to remove it himelf, no admin appears to be interested in even talking about whether Mr. Guye violated ], Drmies was dead wrong to shut off discussion after three hours, falsely calling it "endless discussion" and implying that community input is not welcome on ANI''', and Tryptofish really shouldn't have repeated the "endless discussion" argument without at least explaining how three hours could possibly be considered "endless discussion". This was handled badly. I am not the only one who thinks so. Yes, EEng's user page is annoying and quite possibly against policy, but that does not justify giving Drmies a free pass on a spectacularly bad close or giving Mr. Guye a free pass on ignoring our policies that ''"]"'' or ''"]"'' --] (]) 19:20, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
*:::::Also, I am not against AfD; I am simply expressing my opinion. ]] 13:12, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
*The recent version of that box supposedly targeted Bgwhite, when it was actually Seicer who issued the most recent block. What's up with that? ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 17:30, 6 February 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)
::No idea ] (]) 17:34, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
*:::::::Dear @],

*:::::::I am not engaged in paid activities on Misplaced Pages, and she claimed that I am connected with the subject, who is a judge, lawyer, etc. You all should understand that this is not a trivial matter; justice is a very respected position. Making such allegations can escalate court cases. I would like to remind you of the Misplaced Pages vs. ANI case. ]] 13:24, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
:::The current userbox says:
*::::::::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)
::::{{Userbox |border-c = #B8860B |border-s = 1 |id-c = Black |info-c = #F0FFFF |info-p = 5
*::::::::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)
|id = ] |info = '''It has been {{Big|1='''{{age in days|2015|2|5}}'''}} days since based on a .''' |info-fc = #191970}}
*:::::::::Dear @],
{{clear}}
*:::::::::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)
:::I tend to agree. Having it removed citing "consensus" after my attempt to seek consensus was shut down is especially grating. --] (]) 19:31, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
*::::::::::Accusing another editor of potentially making legal threats is not much better, when there is no concrete evidence that they would do so. Being interested in articles about judges does not suffice. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>]</span> 13:32, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

*::::::::The page of Justice ], who had conducted over the Misplaced Pages vs. ANI court hearing, was also created by me. ]] 13:28, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
*EEng has put a disruptive userbox again {{Diff|User talk:EEng|645884101|645844782}}. It appears that he/she gets butthurt everytime he/she gets blocked or a "It has been x days since..." userbox is removed from his/her talk page and decides to put a userbox related to what he/she put, and he/she also calls "thin-skinned" admins just because he/she gets blocked. I suspect (again) a case of ]. --] (]) 19:23, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
*:::::::::<del>State plainly what the implication you are making here is, because what I'm hearing is "I'm familiar with people who have hit Misplaced Pages with a mallet in court before, and I can make sure it happens again".</del> <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>]</span> 13:30, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

*::::::::::This is becoming a rabbit hole. I urge you not to pursue the rabbit further. ] (]) 13:33, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
:: Disclaimer: I have not reviewed EEng's actions. He may be a real jerk; he may well not be here to build an encyclopedia. '''''But''''', that latest userbox is 100% true. It is (IMO) ''not'' disruptive -- unless ''you'' want it to be.
*:::::::::::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)
:: To me this is just another iteration of a very old issue. It is a power struggle, pure and simple. When users do something that administrators don't like, but when the users not only disagree but have the temerity to object to the sanctions levied against them by administrators, is this an unacceptable dissent against the powers-that-be that must, always, be quashed by any means necessary?
*::::::::::No, that is not what I am implying. ]] 13:33, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
:: I'm probably hyperbolizing here, but I think this ''is'' how the issue appears to the EEng's of the world. And some, at least, of the EEng's of the world ''are'' here to help build the encyclopedia. We say "The 💕 that anyone can edit", not "The benevolent dictatorship encyclopedia that docile and compliant rule-followers can edit as long as they remember their place and are always properly respectful towards ADMINISTRATORS." So, please, if that's not the message you want to send, just let these userboxes go. And if you want to boot a user off the project for not being here to help build the encyclopedia, please do it for a more substantive reason than that the user refuses to say "Uncle" when confronted by admins. —] (]) 19:46, 6 February 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)
::::::Just so. Let me just repeat something I said here recently :
*::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)
:::::::''And finally, to each admin who says, "Well, ''I'' wouldn't have blocked, but I don't feel like overturning it": what you're condoning is a situation in which every editor is at the mercy of the least restrained, most trigger-happy admin who happens to stumble into any given situation. Don't you see how corrosive that is? It's like all these recent US police shootings: no matter how blatantly revolting an officer's actions were, the monolithic reply is "It was by the book. Case closed." This character was ''way'' out of line from the beginning in deleting multiple editors' posts (as someone suggested, hatting would have made complete sense, and troubled me not at all) and when called on it above, he gives a middle-finger-raised LOL. No wonder so many see haughty arrogance in much of the admin corps around here. ] (]) 05:38, 16 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.
::::::And let me be clear: I have no problem with 97% of admins, who do noble work in return for (generally) either no recognition or shitloads of grief, only occasionally punctuated by thanks. But the other 3% -- whoa, boy, watch out! ] (]) 20:02, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
*:::In fact that might explain why some of the AfD filings were reasonable and some were, on their face, incorrectly filed. If you looked up the AfD ''process'' but not ''criteria'' that is the likely outcome. That's why I find the "new user files AfDs must be a sock" idea here somewhat uncompelling. ] (]) 13:04, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
: Now, I'm no fan of userboxes. And there may or may not be thin-skinned administrators on Misplaced Pages who exercise dictatorial control over mere editors and who can't tolerate criticism of their actions. But I can hardly think of a better way of proving that there ''are'' such administrators (and that their actions are condoned) than by banning userboxes suggesting such. —] (]) 19:11, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
*I believe we're entering boomerang territory at this point. Opinions? ] (]) 13:35, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
*This whole user-box thing is childish, removing the userbox in question prevents anyone else from having to click on it out of being curious. If you want your chuckles and giggles at another editor's expense then this isn't the place for you. - ] (]) 20:33, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
*:I think OP is upset that a cluster of their articles were put up at AfD. This in itself is understandable, but while there's reason to think there might be mischief by Kriji Sehamati, we don't have any real evidence of it. We either need the OP to make it clearer what misconduct, if any, has occurred, or they need to ]. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>]</span> 13:37, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
**Prior to this ANI complaint, no one would have known about it unless they frequented the user's page - in which case they would already know what's going on. Bringing it here only serves to advertise it. ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 20:42, 6 February 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)
***You don't know that as fact though, over time new editors who work with other editors visit their talk-pages or else we wouldn't have new editors commenting there. - ] (]) 20:45, 6 February 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)
****The main issue with the userbox originally complained about, is that it targeted a particular admin, as if that admin was the most recent admin to block the user - which was not the case. That's better grounds for having it zapped than complaining about such a lame "polemic". ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 20:59, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
*::I should have added that I largely hold with Remsense in their position. ] (]) 14:15, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
*****Under ]: "Users should generally not maintain in public view negative information related to others without very good reason. Negative evidence, laundry lists of wrongs, collations of diffs and criticisms related to problems, etc., should be removed, blanked, or kept privately (i.e., not on the wiki) if they will not be imminently used, and the same once no longer needed" I have already said that new users can and do access talk-pages, having info-boxes like these causes the issue to sit there and fester while over time have the potential for more editors to see the admin involved as a bad person without getting the whole story. The only so called positive thing I have heard so far is that it is satire and a laugh which in my opinion isn't helping things either. - ] (]) 21:28, 6 February 2015 (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)
*I think we should talk and talk and talk and talk some more. Guy, we definitely need more user input, and I propose you make us get that for each and every single administrative decision that's taken here. I mean, why close anything just because a decision has been reached? Y'all have fun--I got better things to do. (I know--cauliflower pizza isn't much better, but it whines less.) ] (]) 21:35, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
*::::You need to stop insisting this is definitely the case if you don't have any evidence for it, period. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>]</span> 14:28, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
{{archive bottom}}
*::::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 feel I was unjustly blocked ==
*:::::I have made a level-four user talk page warning for the personal attack. FYI. We've been very nice about this up 'til now, but we need to stop being so kind. Doing foolish things has real world consequences. ] (]) 15:17, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

* Both editors' apparent use of AI is certainly disruptive. If it continues, it should lead to blocks. <span style="padding:2px 5px;border-radius:5px;font-family:Arial black;white-space:nowrap;vertical-align:-1px">] <span style=color:red>F</span> ]</span> 15:10, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
*{{userlinks|Kelly}}
*:No personal hate intended, but I just found this and thought it would be worth checking. ]] 16:49, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

*::It would be nice if you could explain the significance for those who do not speak Hausa. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>]</span> 16:51, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
Earlier tonight, I was blocked by {{admin|HJ Mitchell}}. He also added me to the . Apparently, the reason they did so was because of an edit I made to ] - a woman who claims she was raped and has since been carrying a mattress around her university as an art project. The man she accuses of raping her, Paul Nungesser, has recently come forward and given an interview to to '']'' to clear his name. (He had previously been named against his will in other sources.) His family also came forward and named themselves in the interview.
*:::She had made contributions to pages in other languages a few months ago. I am attaching her contributions link. ]] 16:59, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

*::::How does this constitute evidence of sockpuppetry if we aren't to know what exactly happened? There's a reason we don't just automatically block anybody who is blocked on another language wiki, and I looked through the edits some and didn't find anything outrageous that made it past the language barrier. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>]</span> 17:01, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
I edited the article to add the name of the individual. It was reverted by {{user|SlimVirgin}} per ]. I did engage on the talk page, but I also reverted because I felt that this was a clear case of ] - the individual obviously wanted themselves to be named, and their name cleared, in reliable sources. However, shortly after, I was blocked without warning or discussion.
*:::::I agree that it’s important to ensure we have solid evidence before making conclusions. I appreciate your perspective on not automatically blocking users based on blocks from other language wikis. ]] 17:17, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

*::::::Please don't reply to me or others using ChatGPT. It is flat-out rude. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>]</span> 17:18, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
I'm a productive contributor of many years - I just ask to have a notation added to my block log that this was an incorrect block, Also, I'd ask to be removed from the ArbCom sanctions log, or for at least a note to be added. ] <sup>]</sup> 00:58, 6 February 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)

*This whole thread, but especially the 16:49, 24 December 2024 (UTC) comment, feels like the OP is just throwing literally everything at the wall to see what sticks. But, worse, what is being thrown at the wall lacks any significant body of evidence to support. I note that a personal attack warning has been given for the continued unfounded accusations being presented, which I think is a good move. I don't support a block at this point, although if I was the OP I would withdraw this complaint and/or drop the stick and walk away from this topic as a matter of urgency to avoid continuing to make the situation worse. ] (]) 17:41, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
:If the name of "the accused" is widely reported, there can't be a BLP issue. And quoting him and his family should be considered, in order to give some balance to the story. ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 01:07, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

*I believe that's a misrepresentation of the situation, and I do not believe the block as incorrect or unjust. The article in question is a BLP that has been the subject of problematic editing recently. An edit war broke out earlier tonight over a name which was added to the article and removed on BLP grounds. Twice. The edit war petered out and a discussion ensued on the talk page. Kelly, a third party, re-added the name. It was removed on BLP grounds, again. Kelly re-added it for a second time. I observed that Kelly had previously been notified of the ], so I imposed a short block to prevent a potential BLP violation from being restored again, and unblocked once Kelly agreed to stop. This is absolutely not a case of "crying BLP"—the objections have been explained and merit discussion, so the name should not be re-added until and unless there's a consensus for it. We should not allow editors to bat away good-faith BLP concerns just because they disagree with them—concern for the real people discussed in our articles comes before our theoretical policy discussions. ] &#124; ] 01:19, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
*:Could you explain the specific BLP concern involved, given that the individual concerned had gone public? Also, could you show some evidence of the previous warning for BLP sanctions? ] <sup>]</sup> 01:22, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
::*{{U|Kelly}}, FYI the DS alert was . --] (]) 01:28, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
*::(ec) The "specific concern" is that some people feel that naming him in the article could cause him harm; it's a reasonable enough objection that it needs to be discussed and a consensus found. I don't have an opinion on whether the name should or shouldn't be included. And the discretionary sanctions notification is (type "discretionary sanctions notification" into the 'tag filter' box in the page history). ] &#124; ] 01:31, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
*:::A BLP violation on ]? What specifically was it for? It has to be bogus and probably related to ]. What exactly was the nature of my BLP violation on that article? Or are we just giving people unjustified warnings and blocking them later for other unjustified reasons? ] <sup>]</sup> 01:39, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
*'''Good block'''. Kelly was simultaneously edit warring against consensus on ''multiple articles'' under arbcom sanctions, including ]. He says he's "productive", but he deliberately and consistently disrupts articles related to left-wing politics, liberals, and conservative causes. His idea of being "productive" involves misusing the file deletion process to delete images that go against his POV. I think we can do without that here. ] (]) 01:35, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
*:Evidence please. ] <sup>]</sup> 01:41, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
*'''Good block''' The specific concerns involved are nearly irrelevant; there was a reasonable discussion going on at the talk page, which you knew about; other editors had asked that there be a pause for consensus to develop before this information was re-added. Was it really so important that it be added again immediately and couldn't wait for a talk-page consensus? IMO probably a good block, if perhaps slightly - just the slightest bit, not more - hair-trigger.
:As for the notification, it doesn't matter what the notification was for; you were notified and should have been aware of DS for BLPs. ] (]) 01:46, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
So if someone throws a BLP warning against someone, no matter how flimsy or bogus, the receiving editor can henceforth be blocked for any disputed edit on a BLP? ] <sup>]</sup> 01:55, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
:Yes. It's a notification warning you that discretionary sanctions are authorized for a particular subject. The notice says clearly 'Please carefully read this information' and then outlines the scope of DS, 'for pages regarding living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles'. After that, you're expected to be aware that DS are authorized in that scope of subjects. It's not flimsy nor bogus; DS are authorized for that scope and you were formally notified of it. That you didn't read it, or didn't believe it, or thought it was idiotic, or didn't keep it in mind, or whatever justification you have, doesn't matter. That's the process. ] (]) 04:19, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
*'''Bad block''' Blocking has one purpose, and one purpose only - preventing disruption in a situation where no other effective remedy exists. Blocking a well-established user with a largely problem-free history of years of constructive contributions without talking to them first is a bad call. Sure, there was a technicality that allowed HJ Mitchell to carry out the block and get away with it, but is that really what we want? When an admin considers whether to block or not, what I'd expect him to think is "Is there really nothing else I can do?" rather than "Let's see, if I institute this block, will I be able to plausibly explain it thus getting away with my questionable conduct?"

:HJ Mitchell, do you honestly believe that simply TALKING to Kelly would've been ineffective in preventing him from doing whatever he was doing? If yes, what makes you think that? If no, why did you block him when there was another solution? Do you want to drive Kelly out of here perhaps? ] (]) 02:12, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
:::<small>'''The above is the IPs third edit ever. ] (]) 02:23, 6 February 2015 (UTC)'''</small>
::::Some of us have been editing from IPs for the better part of a decade. Personally, I keep ANI bookmarked for the delicious drama. ] (]) 14:40, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

*'''Comment''' - Of course a concern/feelings is not the same as a violation of policy. Could you (HJ Mitchell) please answer two questions:
*:1. Is there any reason why you couldn't have just asked Kelly to stop adding the sourced content, on his talk page?
*:2. What part of ] policy was violated given that the name of the accused party has been published in at least one reliable source, based on that source's interview of both him and Sulkowicz?- ]] 02:17, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Ridiculous block: . "BLP" is not supposed to be a magic wand someone can wave because they ] an edit. <small>]</small> 02:32, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
:.- ]] 02:34, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
::Google "Searches related to Emma Sulkowicz"... ... <small>]</small> 02:47, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
*'''Good block'''. Personally, I'd have warned Kelly first, but Kelly's subsequent behaviour has demonstrated a warning would have likely been ineffective. --] (] · ] · ]) 05:08, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

'''Kelly appears to have violated the conditions of her unblock by re-adding name''' shortly after agreeing to not do so as a condition of her unblock request. --] (]) 02:51, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
:The information was reported by the ]. Is there a better source? ] <sup>]</sup> 02:53, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
::I raised the issue at the BLP noticeboard. What is the rush to re-add it absent thorough discussion? This seems pretty concerning given you just assured an admin you would not re-add it as condition of unblock request and then turned right around and re-added it.--] (]) 02:58, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

*A legitimate BLP concern had been raised, the name had been removed twice, there were two objections on talk to inclusion, and a discussion was underway. Kelly then went ahead and restored the name, and when reverted restored it again. After the block and unblock Kelly added the name to this AN/I report, then restored it again to the article.<p>Whether anyone agrees that the name should be in or out is a separate issue. The point is that this isn't a frivolous objection. It's true that the student has given two interviews, but only after he was outed, and he's still trying to maintain some anonymity by being photographed in the shadows. Publishing a name on Misplaced Pages increases its visibility in terms of reach and perhaps endurance, so we should consider this carefully rather than racing ahead. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 03:00, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

*:Except that it seems part of the motivation for going public was to clear his name - interviews specifically cited that Internet search results were depicting him as a rapist. "And yet if you Google him, in half of the articles you´ll find, he is still labeled a serial rapist.” (a quote from his father) ] <sup>]</sup> 02:58, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
:So keeping his name out of the article is a BLP concern, because it keeps him from clearing his name. The university cleared him of rape, our article is doing him more harm than good. ] <sup>]</sup> 03:03, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

::@SlimVirgin: What was the "legitimate BLP" concern? Was it "I would appreciate it if the discussion could wait until tomorrow, because I would like to take part in it but don't have time today. This needs some careful thought before we do it, because names on WP become more widespread."? - ]] 03:05, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

*'''We are not here to litigate the merits of including the name''', that's what the talk page and BLPN are for. We are here to discuss the block and Kelly's conduct the precipitated it. The block was not for BLP violations in their own right, but for repeatedly restoring material that had been objected to on BLP grounds. A legitimate concern had been raised and was under discussion, so reigniting an edit war to restore it before the discussion has even fully got underway if grossly improper. Given the speed of the reverting, I did not feel that warnings or advice would have adequately prevented disruption. I feel this belief is vindicated by Kelly's continuing to revert, despite the sole condition of the unblock being that they stop. '''I suggest Kelly be re-blocked and/or topic-banned'''; note that this can be done under ]. Again, the issue of whether to name the accused is irrelevant to this discussion; the issue is that it was removed in good faith on BLP grounds and should not be restored (much less edit-warred over) until consensus is established. ] &#124; ] 03:08, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
*:Could you explain exactly why I was warned for BLP violations to begin with? I have an extensive history of protecting BLPs. Check the ] arbitration case that got {{admin|Jossi}} banned. ] <sup>]</sup> 03:11, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
*::You are not hearing the message, so here it is again: Stop pushing your view. Wait for the community to deliberate. There is no rush. Good-faith editors have said there is a BLP problem, and such issues are not resolved by determining who is willing to edit war the longest. The only question for ANI has been answered by HJ Mitchell above. ] (]) 03:19, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
*:::Check the edits. There was no view "pushed". It merely replaced "the accused" with "Paul Nungesser". That's it. ] <sup>]</sup> 03:27, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
*::::Kelly, you've pushed your view here in this discussion and on the BLP board. Your view is that adding his name helps him clear his name. That's your POV. ] (]) 04:29, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
*:::::Agreed. This case (like many involving similar allegations) is an absolute minefield. Anyone curious to know more should read the abovementioned . Maybe one person is guilty, maybe another person is innocent, maybe it's a complicated mixture. Columbia University and/or the judicial system will be hard-pressed to determine Truth here; Misplaced Pages (let alone AN/I) certainly won't, and must do its best to follow RS and BLP policy in deciding what and how to report. Whether or not to mention the guy's name, whether that helps or hurts his case, whether it is what he would or wouldn't want -- none of these questions is trivial, they're all difficult, and not at all to be decided in a moment by one user. —] (]) 19:04, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

:Since the "legitimate" BLP concern was bogus, maybe the one who claimed there was a concern is the one who should be blocked. ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 03:30, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

:Also, isn't the article title itself a BLP violation? ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 03:31, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
::So we're supposed to write biographies without using the name of person now? How is using someone's name as the title of an article about them a BLP violation? ] (]) 04:22, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
:::What makes this person notable per Misplaced Pages standards? ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 06:16, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
::::Multiple reliable sources covering her story over a pretty decent amount of time or, in other words, "per GNG". You can play coy all you like, Bugs, but it doesn't help anyone, least of all Kelly. And restoring information when legitimate (meaning "not crazy") BLP objections are brought up is always going to lead to a predictable outcome. Next, ] (]) 19:20, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
:::::Beware of putting Misplaced Pages in a position of advocacy. Next. ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 20:39, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

== {{u|73.166.187.154}} - League City, Texas IP ==

User has on at least four occasions added content knowing that it is unsourced, but attempting to justify the addition by adding citation needed templates. These edits have been opposed by two editors. The content added should be reliably sourced, and by now the IP is engaging in slow edit warring. User seems ambivalent and has been warned about this before via other IPs they've used. See also and . They rarely participate in civil discussion, preferring instead to make changes per their own preference. When the user is contacted on their talk page, they typically remove all discussions and warnings from their talk pages and issue an antagonistic summary in response. Their behavior is inconsistent with community editing and they have previously been brought to ANI: . Thanks. ] (]) 02:01, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

:Report edit warring ]. --] (]) 02:03, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

::Issue isn't only about edit warring, {{ping|ToonLucas22}}. As indicated, this is a problematic user who has a number of issues related to community editing. ] (]) 02:06, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
:::With all due respect I just can't take both Anguswoof and Cyphoid's bickering and being strict with their so called "rules" and on top of that I am not antagonistic I just don't like to be cyberbullied just like what happened in KHWIKI where the users were not being nice and fair. You want me to stop letting them mess with me then I'll stop already, besides I already found the sources were Yuri was in Skylanders thank you, I just feel I want to {{redacted}} because of this conflicts and feel I'm a cotton headed ninny muggins. :(] (]) 02:10, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

::::Suicide is never the answer, do not kill yourself over wikipedia. ] (]) 17:29, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

== Apparent suicide threat made by IP ==

'''<span style="color:red;">Erpert</span>''' <small><sup><span style="color:green;">]</span></sup></small> 02:31, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
:{{re|Erpert}} ]] 02:56, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
::I already did that, but I thought I was supposed to make a post here too (the message above states "please ''also'' email"...). '''<span style="color:red;">Erpert</span>''' <small><sup><span style="color:green;">]</span></sup></small> 03:03, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
::{{ec}} Should this really be posted immediately below the said IP's comment? I can see everything all in just the bottom half of my screen without scrolling at all. ]&nbsp;] 03:04, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
:::I thought about that, but I didn't want to waste any time with a threat of suicide. '''<span style="color:red;">Erpert</span>''' <small><sup><span style="color:green;">]</span></sup></small> 03:06, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
::::I've redacted it. emergency@wikimedia.org should've been emailed immediately, but... ] (]) 03:07, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
:::::I've emailed emergency as I'm sure others have. I'll hold off on commenting further on the ANI report above. ] (]) 03:12, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
{{od}}
Just for a refresh for all, ] gives the steps (including reaching an administrator immediately, which the OP correctly did by posting here). --] (]) 03:14, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
: ANI is quite slow, firstly. He preferably should've gone to IRC and used the emergency !admin tag to attract attention to this issue. But he e-mailed WMF, so it's fine. Erpert's posting at ANI is no problem at all, take this in good spirit, please. --] ♠ ] ♥ ] 14:35, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

== Edit request - removal of stub tags from hoax articles ==

There are currently a number of hoax articles that have been moved to Misplaced Pages namespace, but still have stub tags and are hence still categorized as stub articles. Normally we keep encyclopedia articles and Misplaced Pages administration (such as this) in separate categories. The stub tags should be removed (or placed in nowiki tags, or replaced by what looks like a stub tag but doesn't categorize the page). Note: I can't edit the talk pages to place an edit request there. The pages affected are:
{{cot|list of hoaxes categorized as stub articles}}
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
{{cob}}
Thanks in advance. ] (]) 07:32, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
:It looks as though ] has taken care of these. ] (]) 12:29, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
::Why are we keeping hoax articles in the first place? ] (]) 14:38, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
:::Presumably so people don't try stuff like that. ] (]) 15:22, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
::::I don't see the logic in creating a hall of fame for hoaxes as a means of preventing people from creating more. ]] 16:06, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
:Somebody needs to check those and make sure they're full-protected, as per the instructions. --] 15:37, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
:Some of these hoaxes are pranks on living people, must we keep these? ] (]) 15:59, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

== Redirect to redirect to redirect to ... ==

] recently made a string of redirect pointing to redirects. ]->]->]->]->]->]->]->]->]. Another step on this editors problematic editing. ] (]) 12:52, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
:Redirects deleted, I'll warn the user. ]] 13:10, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
:I've also notified them about this discussion. ]] 13:12, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
:::Already done . ] (]) 13:59, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
::Wait, are you sure it was a good idea to delete ]? ] (<small>]]</small>) 13:15, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
::Sorry, I didn't notice the final destination was also a redirect to a section on the band's main article. It still seems like the second-to-last would be a more useful redirect than the one that was spared, though. ] (<small>]]</small>) 13:18, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

== India Against Corruption again ==
{{archive top|IP blocked and article semi-protected for a year. ] (]) 13:18, 6 February 2015 (UTC)}}
There seems to be yet more block evasion from India Against Corruption by the account who did . Please can someone deal with it as appropriate before things spiral out of control again? Semi-protection of ] would seem to be a decent starting point. - ] (]) 13:10, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
{{archive bottom}}

== Ownership issues, undue weight, and soapboxing ==

I request some additional eyes on edits by {{user|Dahnshaulis}}.

I initially encountered the user at {{la|ITT Technical Institute}}, where they inserted a long list of sites that were called out by USA Today as having default rates higher than graduation rates. I trimmed the list, and I moved the text of the criticism to the section "Investigations, Lawsuits, and Controversies"{{diff2|645805155}} where the study results remained visible, just omitting the excessive site listing that overwhelmed the rest of the article.

The material was then restored by the original editor, where they posted {{diff2|645890048posted on my talk page}} arguing that the material should not be "whitewashed" and that if I have questions I should email the user. When I then looked at the edits by the user, I noticed that they are adding comparable content to multiple articles, frequently using an edit summary asking that they be contacted first before any changes are made to the content or its inclusion in the articles.{{diff2|645909677}}{{diff2|645891246}}{{diff2|645802855}}{{diff2|645746070}} I am concerned that this pattern needs additional attention to address. --- ] <small>(] • ])</small> - 16:26, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

:Barek, I welcome a peer review by people who are familiar with this field. At the same time, I would hope that I would know their names to assess their credibility and trustworthiness. If we could get Suzanne Mettler, for example, a Cornell professor who did six years of research in this area, that would be great.] (]) 16:33, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
::The fact that you want to only allow people whom you feel have appropriate credentials to edit the articles shows you have a misunderstanding of how Misplaced Pages works. The content and who can edit the articles is not determined by user credentials, but by what is stated in third-party ] and structured in a way that meets our content guidelines. One of those, re: ], was mentioned when I purged the bulky list of sites, but there are many others as well which you may want to review, such as ] and ]. --- ] <small>(] • ])</small> - 17:44, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
*{{U|Barek}}, the problem is bigger than that. is ] before Dahnshaulis really got to work; version. Note the POV phrasing in the lead, note the many unreliable (or really way too POV-y) references. It seems to me that Dahnshaulis is on a mission here, and while that mission is--in my opinion--a laudable one, Misplaced Pages should not be engaged in what are, for our intents and purposes, crusades. Those ITT edits are of course unacceptable, and there's too much naming and shaming in edits like and . The problem is the presentation and the tone, and, as you noted, in addition the editor has a somewhat skewed idea of how we are supposed to work here ("Please talk to me before removing this information", "Please review carefully and talk to me before editing"). I think a topic ban here is in order, unless this editor successfully undergoes reprogramming in our gulag in San Francisco. Seriously, Dahnshaulis, I'm with you, but ''not inside Misplaced Pages''. ] (]) 19:38, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
:I think a topic ban would be useful. If the editor wishes to draw attention to problems with these institutions, he has to learn how to make his point without absurd lists, poor sources, and unclear accusations. BTW, I have just been accused of "whitewashing" for removing this uninformative and space-hogging list. However it's nice to know that I "may be an intelligent person". ] (]) 20:24, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
*The more I look at the editor's work the more I am convinced that they are indeed on a crusade of sorts--for instance, on their talk page to another editor, "I'm not here to make friends, but to make entries that will be helpful in the democratization of education. As I have said in other places, your attempt at so-called 'neutrality is actually an act of complicity"--this displays the kind of us vs. them mentality that is counterproductive in a collaborative environment, and ] seems more relevant by the minute. I am also struck by the comments by {{U|Bahooka}} and {{U|ElKevbo}} (editors with cool heads, experience, and common sense) and Dahnshaulis's response to their comments. ] (]) 20:28, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
**Oh, yeah, El "Whitewasher" Kevbo, that's who I meant: ]. ] (]) 20:30, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
** Seeming like they have the best of intentions but are unwilling to listen or incapable of understanding, either way an attention getting block might be in order. ] (]) 20:37, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
***Sorry, I don't believe in those, and it would have to be phrased somewhat differently. An option is indefinite per ] with an attached offer of "change your ways and we'll unblock you". An hour ago I thought that was way too drastic a measure. ] (]) 20:39, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

I think the best thing to do would be to consult an expert in the field of discussion, such as Cornell Professor Suzanne Mettler, who spent more than six years doing research in this area. ] (]) 20:51, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Before you put me in the Misplaced Pages "gulag" as you call it, why not also consult ITT Educational Services (ESI) and ask them about the entries? ] (]) 21:00, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

:] we cannot be expected to "consult" experts on the whim of an editor. If you wish to draw attention to the shortcomings of commercial universities, do so by quoting scholars and other relevant commentators with due weight. Your current editing comprises listings of often irrelevant material, such as obscure law-suits the content of which is often not even identified. You would be better served looking at good quality articles and learning how to identify key content and arguments. Nor can you expect us to defer to your own alleged superior experitise. ] (]) 21:17, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Paul, for people doing research regarding higher education in the US, this information is not obscure. Nor is this information trivial for people interested in matriculating to ITT Tech. Please carefully check the ] article and see how many ITT campuses are "red flag" schools. ITT Tech dominates the list. If an organization dominates a list, does one just make a small footnote (e.g. years the Yankees won the World Series)?

That's why I am politely asking you to undo your edit.] (]) 21:54, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

:{{ec}} The best thing to do is to follow established Misplaced Pages policies as well as and content guidelines.
:As to contacting ESI directly - that would only provide non-verifiable commentary, which falls under the category of ] - so their comments would not be directly usable within an article. --- ] <small>(] • ])</small> - 21:22, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Does that mean someone else has to write about the information first, for it to be credible and trustworthy for Misplaced Pages?

Barek, what happens when the media and other organizations systematically censor information? For example, no major news outlet has written about Richard Blum's relationship with for-profit colleges in five years, even as for-profit schools have gained greater public scrutiny. Conservative as well as liberal media outlets haven't touched the subject. Yet Richard Blum is a California Regent and Senator Dianne Feinstein's husband. Does that mean that this story is insignificant? ] (]) 21:54, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
*You should read ], and if you can't figure out how your comments here are completely at odds with what Misplaced Pages is, then you cannot edit here. I feel like I'm flogging a long-dead horse: no original research, and neutrality at all time. ] (]) 22:23, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
*Extra extra, all you Twitterers: you've read by now that Dahnshaulis told the world that Well, Dahnshaulis, they are not: they are considering a ban for your lousy and non-neutral editing, for your abuse of Misplaced Pages as a soapbox from which to declaim the rights and wrongs of the world. Misplaced Pages was not invented for that--that's what you have Twitter, MySpace, Wikia, and WordPress for. Let me just add that I am highly sympathetic to your cause, but you are going about it totally wrong--if you had had a bit less zeal and more smarts, you could have ''improved'' these articles and thereby bring out what some might refer to as the truth of, basically, taxpayer-funded "education" that does no one any service but the CEOs and stockholders. I would never say that; it's not a neutral statement.<p>I am ''this'' close to blocking you per ], so you can ponder the problem with statements like "no major news outlet has written about Richard Blum's relationship with for-profit colleges in five years" (hint: if no reliable source has written about it, it can't be in an encyclopedia). ] (]) 22:37, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

: {{ping|Dahnshaulis}} You wrote, "Does that mean someone else has to write about the information first, for it to be credible and trustworthy for Misplaced Pages?" Yes, that's exactly what it means. You may have thought you were being ironic, but in fact you've quite accurately paraphrased the formal, written Misplaced Pages policy on this. Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia, a tertiary source. —] (]) 22:51, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

== User intentionally editing while logged out ==

I know issues like that should be reported at ], but I don't know who is the sockmaster, so I'll do the thing here.

The thing is that: An user was editing while logged out and has put an uncivil comment at ], so I removed it and gave the user a level 1 npa user warning. Then, I went to his contributions and reverted an edit that was supposely "vandalism revert", but it was just a "revert of vandalism revert", since it was just a re-add of nowiki tags on a template that screwed it up. He then sended me a message which harassed an administrator, so I replied to it and gave him a level 2 harass user warning, and left a Talkback template just in case. Then, he replied to me saying that I was a "budding administrator" and that I was ] only because I removed his comment, gave the level 2 warning and left him a Talkback template, then the user said that I was not able to really improve articles just because I didn't know to spell "harass". After that, I replied to him saying I was not an administrator (since I accidentally misinterpreted the thing) and that I fight vandalism which counts as ], and told him to take a look at ] and that ''he'' is the one that appears to be not here to build an encyclopedia. Then he told me to look at ], which I had already did, just because he said that he was expressing unpopular opinions in a "non-disruptive manner". Then I told him that he was expressing unpopular opinions '''in a disruptive manner''' because at least 85% of his contributions were uncivil comments which appears to meet ]. Then he told me I was not civil just because I didn't add "Thanks" or "Regards" at the end of my messages, so I told him that that applies only to level 1 and some level 2 user warning templates. Then he told me he had made about a thousand constructive edits to Misplaced Pages '''on various IP addresses and an user account''', and that he has edited while logged out just to not risk being blocked by expressing such unpopular opinions. --] (]) 19:47, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
:The learned administrators here can, as can anybody else, see what I told you and what you told me by looking at the discussion itself. Thanks, ] (]) 16:24, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
:The Ip address might be useful. Not sure what can be done without some more information but we might be able to do some detective work to figure something out (no promises mind you). ] (]) (]) 19:50, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
::Good luck to you! ] (]) 16:24, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
:Scratch that is ]. ] (])(]) 19:55, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
::I hardblocked the IP, let's see what happens. <span style="white-space:nowrap">— ] &#124; ] &#124; 20:14, 6 February 2015 (UTC)</span>

With this post here, ToonLucas22 has provided a public exhibition of his appalling writing skills. From writing "Then" repeatedly and without succeeding it with a comma, to the usage of incorrect English constructs like "an user" not one, but two times. His post should removed as soon as possible from here because if a normal reader chances upon this page, he would be left wondering whether this is the quality standard of those of who write for Misplaced Pages.

ToonLucas22 is unfit for editing Misplaced Pages because (i) he cannot spell simple English words, (ii) he easily misinterprets others' comments, and (iii) he forgets to sign his posts. All this happened in a single discussion (]). Besides, he is prone to needlessly replying to the snide comments of fun-seeking editors, showing his mental and emotional incapability to continue on Misplaced Pages. Thanks, ] (]) 16:00, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

:Did you even know English is not my main language? And it looks like you changed your IP in an attempt to evade a block and/or avoid scrutiny. Lets begin answering: (i) As I said, English is not my main language, but I have a lot of knowledge, though not full knowledge. (ii) I know humorous content is acceptable, but your uncivil comments are just not humorous. (iii) It is common to forget to sign a post for when someone is rushed dealing with other editors. Now stop attempting to avoid blocks. --] (]) 16:38, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
::Im hearing a ] form the direction of {{user|223.227.222.20}}.] (])(]) 16:42, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

== Continued personal attacks, despite warning and requests to stop, and apologies made ==

] has continued to throw ] ( ) as a user, despite being asked and told several times (by myself) that she should comment on edit content, and not editors themselves. This user has exhibiting ] and ]. While I acknowledge I might've been harsh in my actions, they were never in ] and I did apologize for them, stating that if they felt attacked by my actions it was not the intention (which was ignored); I've tried discussing my edits and reasons for editing, as requested by another editor at ], and upon explaining myself, I'm still given personal insults thrown at me. This user exhibits extreme anger (as evident in their editing and their where they claim their edits as "their work"). , so I am bringing this here to the ANI. Again, my edits have remained in the good-faith of Misplaced Pages, and while they might've been ] and that pages are always a ], I feel as if my attempt to further help pages grow are being over-looked and not accepted; instead, I'm being called names and talked about, as if I'm some evil-spirited human being, which I am not, even following an apology if I had made Princessruby feel attacked, as that would never be my intention at all. ''']''' ] 21:14, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

:Okay so it was wrong of me to call you stubborn and annoying and etc, and for that I' sorry. But what you have been doing lately isn't right either. You keep removing the citations and information added by me, its like it has become your hobby. It's like you're always after the articles that I create. This isn't the first time or second or third. ] has already done that so many times that I lost count of it. Editors are suppose to help other editors and not make them feel down. I'd also like to point out that this user left me a warning message on my talk page on January 16th 2015 - "You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Misplaced Pages, as you did at Max A. George". I found this message quite rude, because I did not disrupt Misplaced Pages. This person deletes every citation and information I add, and when I retype the information back and add the citation, he gets back at me by leaving me a warning message. I don't comprehend what his problem is. It's like he can never be wrong, he's always right, but it doesn't work that way. Nobody is perfect, when you're wrong you're wrong, no matter what. I've never had problems with other editors why just him? It's because he's at fault or maybe we both are. I've been a Misplaced Pages editor for a really long time now, and it's really frustrating when someone keeps removing the citations and information added by a user with the right sources. --] (]) 21:42, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

:: As stated on the talk page of ], I apologized for the removal of certain citations; the complete removal was not made intentionally, something I did acknowledge when inquired by another editor, and have apologized multiple times since then (which continue to be ignored). As explained, I merely moved selected pieces of information to the appropriate places within the article, or I removed certain statements that were not appropriately written or stated within a source; again, all in ]. And again, I've stated my apologies if the user felt attacked, and that my editing is very blunt and bold (as pointed above), however, I feel they were all valid and justified. I'm following guidelines lined up by Misplaced Pages, and have even cited them in my reasons behind my edits, which have been automatically undone. ''']''' ] 21:48, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

::: But can't you see that you keep doing that all the time and that it's starting to bother me. So you keep removing the citations added by me unintentionally all the time? The source which I added to support the information was correct because I checked it. I know which sources to add and which ones to not. Yes, I felt attacked, frankly speaking I've been feeling this way for a while now, I even thought of quitting Misplaced Pages once because of the way you made me feel. But I didn't not to, because of my love for Misplaced Pages and being an editor. And btw everything was appropriately written, but yes about the elocution classes that he took it was right of you to add it in the career part, but the rest was just wrong. Like removing the "After The Wanted split up, George moved to LA to pursue an acting career. " This information is true all the way. I has also added the source that supports it but u removed it along with the information. Anyway....I've made my point clear. I will just wait for the Admins reply now. Whatever he or she decides will be for the best. Thanks. --] (]) 22:55, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

:::: As I stated on Max's talk page, multiple times, information concerning his elocution classes or move to Hollywood does not belong in "early life" as it has zero to do with his early life. Everything was re-worded and moved to the appropriate place within the article (his acting career portion), nor does that excuse the personal attacks that were made, which are in clear violation of Misplaced Pages's policy, as pointed out both at the talk page and here. I've apologized (as I've stated) multiple times; I don't know how many more I'm expected to do such. I'm not going to bicker back and forth once, and to refrain from speaking in continued circles, I will await for an administration to request my comments further. ''']''' ] 23:03, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

*'''Comment''' I've come here as a result of ] asking me to take a look at what's been happening at the Max A. George article as well as that article's talk page. After having read what's been going on there, I noted this report had been filed. From looking at everything at the article and the article talk page, I can see why livelikemusic was, and is, so concerned. In addition to the numerous and egregious personal attacks aimed at livelikemusic, it does appear that there is article ownership occurring on the part of ]. The lack of edit summaries are also troubling -- over 2000 of Ruby's 3600+ edits have had no edit summary. I've always seen chronic lack of edit summaries as something that typically goes hand-in-hand with article ownership, but that's me. The article in question was originally created by Ruby, and on her own user page she states, "One thing I hate the most is when people mess my work up." Ruby is essentially saying livelikemusic is intruding on her "territory" and is an edit warrior. As far as the edit warring, it always takes two to perform that dance, but Ruby's EW behavior definitely has an intentionally disruptive (and not caring whether she's being disruptive) tone to it. Ruby has already established she dislikes anyone editing her work, hence, she's going to protect her "work" no matter what. There seems to be a severe lack of understanding on Ruby's part over what contributing here means, that it's a cooperative work, not something we do on our own with our "work" never being changed, altered, or improved upon. I do see good faith on the part of livelikemusic (he seems to be attempting to take the high road) and nothing in the way of good faith on the part of Princessruby. From my perspective, a come-to-jesus meeting regarding article ownership behavior and a subsequent attitude adjustment seems to be in order here. -- <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> 23:13, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

== Meters ==
{{archive top|OP blocked as a trolling sock. Someone (not me I'm lazy) probably ought to make a note at SPI to help keep track. --] (]) 01:47, 7 February 2015 (UTC)}}
Meters has kept removing my messages on His talk page: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Meters and is in a edit war its got soo annoying I also warned him but would not listen its gone way to far. Please get him blocked I wanted to have peace with him but he would not and say I am trolling my talk page even though i am not. I was just saying sorry about my mistake to him but made it an ego issue.
Thank you Admin
] (]) 22:33, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

I am not being obnoxious do not treat me that is rude.
] (]) 00:24, 7 February 2015 (UTC)



:He has the right to remove messages on his talk page. Removal of them implies he has read them. Edit warring would be another matter. ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 22:36, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
::Also, why are you removing comments from his talk page which are not directed at you? ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 22:40, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

:{{ping|Ranabhai}}, if you post to his talk page again, I will block you from editing. You're being obnoxious. -- ] (]) 22:39, 6 February 2015 (UTC)




He has been in an edit war and has no right to do that I was trying to cooperate and team up and was accusing me that I am trolling him for no reason. <small><span class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 22:41, 6 February 2015 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:An edit war on which article? ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 22:42, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

On his talk page g
He had an edit war <small><span class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 22:43, 6 February 2015 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:He has the right to delete messages on his talk page, and you do not have the right to delete messages he has posted there, especially when they aren't directed at you. It is YOU who is edit-warring on his talk page. And as the admin notes, you will stop it. ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 22:45, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
{{hat|No thanks}}
::One more instance of being a ] to my friend and you'll be in prison! ] (]) 23:39, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
:::Who are you talking to? ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 23:43, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
::::You you fucking idiot. ] (]) 23:44, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
::::: Brand new account, whose third edit is obvious vandalism (already repaired by ClueBot). Off to a great start, there, SG. —] (]) 23:45, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
::::::He lasted all of 8 minutes from creation to block, which isn't long, but I'm confident it's well short of the record. :) ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 23:53, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
:::::::Managing to piss someone off enough to want you in prison in less than an hour and a half is good going by anyones standards... ] (])(]) 23:56, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
::::::::The joke might be on him - how does he know I'm not ''already in'' prison? ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 23:58, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
{{hab}}
:People can remove comments from their user talk pages if they want to. See ]. --] (]) 00:01, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

::]. The only one in an edit war on Meters talk page is you. Look at ] #2. And you forgot to notify him about this section which I'll do for you. ], ], ] 00:06, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
Cambridgebayweather please block Meters he is in an edit war with me becuase he kept deletin my messages. <small><span class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) </span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned -->
:Im starting to see this might be a ] as the editor either hasnt understood or is ignoring the information being presented to them about ].] (])(]) 00:28, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

:Like I said, people can remove messages from their user talk pages when they want to. See ]. Also, please see ]. --] (]) 00:34, 7 February 2015 (UTC)


Admin, meters never lisened to me but kept deleting my messages even though I said sorry for my mistake and don't block him but tell him that please stop removing my messages and listen to me for once all he does is bad things to me and a note to all comments from other editors who said I am wrong HE Needs to stop this arrogance and learn to forgive people instead of ignoring and Plus YOU people worry about yourself and don't interfere when I am talking to an administrator do your own thing And one last Thing Let meters know that he has made this an ego issue and must stop it or else you may get blocked in The future. That is my side of the story whether you agree with me or not and to the editor who is calling me obnoxious is that you should mind your language cause what you think is wrong. If you agree with me or not I will not talk with this Meters or even mention him ever again I am done with this Issue.
] (]) 00:56, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

:How many times do I have to tell you? See ]. --] (]) 01:22, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
::If the complainant were pulling those shenanigans on my talk page, he'd have been blocked already. When an admin says a user is being "obnoxious", it is well to pay attention. ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 01:26, 7 February 2015 (UTC)


Stop arguing and get over with it you brat and how many times did I tell you to to mind your own business stop talking about it and shutup
] (]) 01:30, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
:Your stay here is going to be a short one. ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 01:32, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

::Let's see how many how many ways this is wrong. Ranabhai
::#took me to ANI without letting me know.
::#took me to ANI rather than 3RR to complain about edit warring.
::#took me to ANI for edit warring 10 minutes after leaving a warning, when I had made no edits.
::#is complaining about me removing his comments from my talk page.
::#was told in my last response to him I explicitly stated that I would delete rather than respond to any further edits from him on my talk page. I also left this message on his talk page .
::#agreed to stay off my talk page
::This is all after he was warned by another editor for edit warring on my page for deleting my comments (comments that were not directed to him). There seems to be a behavioral similarity between this user and the various socks of ] that I have recently reported (a new account with an interest in Indian topics shows up on my talk page very quickly after creation even without any interaction with me). See ]
::Could I ask for boomerang block for trolling and harassment please (unless someone sees enough for a sock block)? Thanks, ] (]) 01:33, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
::::I believe ] is also related to the sock family. - ] (]) 01:38, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
:::::I'd be shocked if it ''weren't''. Could be worth adding to the SPI, even though already blocked (and having named another sock in the process, Ian Doyle Capita). ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 01:42, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
{{archive bottom}}

==Gaming the outcome of a requested move==
I have just closed the requested move at ]. {{user|RGloucester}} was against the move, and is apparently trying to game the outcome of the RM by at the new title and turning it into a DAB page, presumably ending up with the other page being back at his preferred title.

I to restore the article, and asked him not to do so, but he back to his DAB page.

Some action is clearly needed here, so can some other admins please intervene. Locking the article might be a start. Cheers, ] ]] 23:49, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
::The scope of the article has changed. The move is fine, as the editors involved must've wanted an article on the other Odessa incidents of 2014. Therefore, I'm happy to oblige, as I said in the move discussion. This is now a summary article, and the individual incidents will get their own articles. There is no other way to move forward. The RM participants decided they wanted an increased scope, and I'm granting them that wish. If they did not want to broaden the scope of the article, they should not've have voiced support for this proposal. ] — ] 23:51, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
*Can I have administrator assistance please? I've just finished writing the new summary article on the ], in line with the RM result. I now need the old edit history transferred to ], so that article can be restored. I'll start working on the December clashes article shortly. ] — ] 01:04, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
** As I requested, the history logs were moved to ] from ]. --] (]) 12:30, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

{{ping|George Ho|Anthony Appleyard}} Can I ask why you have moved the pages? The ] article was moved to ] as the result of an RM now located at ]. The claim above that the summary article was written " in line with the RM result" is a blatant falsehood, and I'm not sure why anyone has fallen for it. This is a clear gaming of the system – an article which there was clear consensus to move has now ended up back at the title preferred by the sole opposer. ] ]] 21:12, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
::The scope of the article changed with the move to "2014 Odessa clashes", to encompass all 2014 clashes in Odessa. I've done this expansion, wrote a new article on the subject to match the RM result. The 2 May clashes have their own article, and a summary section in the 2014 clashes article. ] — ] 21:15, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
::: Back then, I probably would have been aware of the December bombings in Odessa. However, I was uncertain about its notability because no mainstream media have reported such event. Also, voters were not aware of it, and RGloucester neglected to notify us about the bombings. I requested that the mess be cleaned up, but I see that consensus must be adhered. Unfortunately, the discussion has become useless and void since the mess. ] (]) 22:59, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
*See (A) ] and (B) of the history-merge request page. In (B) I realize that I may have misunderstood what "the proposed article" and "that article" meant :: that is another reason for people writing instructions to repeat names and avoid ]. ] (]) 23:10, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

== Speedy deletion of new articles ==
{{atop|Nothing to see here. ] (])(]) 00:39, 7 February 2015 (UTC)}}
New articles should not be tagged with a {{tl|speedy}} '''43 seconds''' after their ], and spamming talk pages with a ] is utter dubious: If I'm a vandal or still working on the page, I'll simply remove the ] and end with a disfigured user talk page. &ndash;] (]) 00:31, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
:The user in question has been advised about this (in a much friendlier manner I might add) by anotehr user only a few minutes before your warning and has advised they will be more careful in future. ] (])(]) 00:39, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
{{abot}} {{abot}}


== Darkwarriorblake making aspersions ==
==Persistent harassment, sockpuppetry, and vandalism by long-term disruptive editor - Again==
{{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)}}
<!--Comment out: CANNOT 100% CONFIRM (although usernames are similar) * {{userlinks|K6kasockpuppet}}-->
Postscript: Ah, someone just close this, I don't care any more. &nbsp;— ] <span style="color:#900">•</span> ] 22:56, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
* {{userlinks|K6kaisme}}
* {{userlinks|K6katherollback}}
* {{userlinks|K6kaisbacktorollback}}
* {{userlinks|K6kaisasockpuppet}}
* {{userlinks|K6ka19}}
* {{userlinks|ChristmasHaterK6ka19}}
* {{userlinks|FredisK6ka}}
* {{userlinks|Ilovethesims5}}
* {{userlinks|50.82.40.187issorry}}
* {{userlinks|CoryMach}}
* {{userlinks|CoryMach2}}
* {{userlinks|CoryMach3}}
* {{userlinks|CoryMach4}}
* {{IPvandal|50.82.40.187}}
You guys have already had this brought up by ] of the Sims wiki community. I'm bringing this up again for the following reasons.

The issue originates at The Sims Wiki on Wikia, where IP 50.82.40.187 vandalized the wiki. I happen to be a roll-backer over there as well as an experienced editor, though not as experienced as ].

But anyway, that user has since then tracked me down to Misplaced Pages, where they began vandalizing. They often leave me talk page messages falsely accusing me of being homosexual and wanting me to have sex with them, even though we're not in the same country. They said that they were sorry for creating all these sock-puppets on wikia, yet they are showing no signs of improvement, or any evidence that they have improved their behaviour.

In addition to harrasing me here on the wikipedia, they continually send me private messages on ModtheSims on how they think I should seek revenge against those who haven't supported my Sims wiki request for administrator-ship. Surely they realise that if I ever want to become an administrator on the Sims wiki, there is no way that I'm going to threaten to become a troll instead, or purposely land myself in the bad books of my fellow Sims wiki editors, not after being a dedicated and featured editor of that wiki.

Their behaviour at this stage can easily be ignored, but nonetheless it would be nice if an administrator could resolve this situation and stop this user from harassing me.

Forgive me if my message isn't in good standing, but I don't recall ever reporting another user here on the wikipedia before. -- ] (] &#124; ]) 01:16, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

:It appears that it all started when ] threatened to make sockpuppets and vandalize Misplaced Pages and The Sims Wikia if he was not unblocked {{Diff|User talk:CoryMach|644614727|644612525}}. Clearly ]. BTW vandalism is reported ] and sockpuppetry is reported ]. --] (]) 01:43, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

::The username was taken from the username of a heavily disruptive from 2012. Apparently ] (or as he is known on the Sims wiki ) claims to be CoryMach7 (MachkovichMonster777)'s successor.
---- ----
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.
::P.S. Do I have to report it to both the WP:RVAN and the WP:SPI? This behaviour seems to fall under both types of unacceptable behaviour. -- ] (] &#124; ]) 02:05, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
:::Quick note: ] is the same page as ], but "AIV" is much better known; I've never seen "RVAN" before. Response to your question: AIV/RVAN is for stuff that's rather blatantly obvious, e.g. what ]. You should generally go there in an open-and-shut situation for a quick resolution. When you have a more complex situation, like this one, you're better off coming here or going to WP:SPI, since they're set up to allow investigations, but even if you come here for a blatant vandal, it's not wrong: you just might not get as fast of a response. ] (]) 07:01, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
:::], whom exactly should we investigate? I began to create a report at ] to request checkuser (looking for sleepers, related accounts that haven't done anything yet), but then I noticed that all of these accounts are already blocked. I'm just not clear about which accounts, or which IPs aside from 50.82.40.187, have been causing problems. ] (]) 07:11, 7 February 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.
== Harassment and attempted outing ==
{{archive top|NAC: ] indef blocked by Drmies. ] (]) 19:43, 7 February 2015 (UTC)}}
] registered on Feb. 5, and within two hours was on Jimbo Wales' talk page making untoward, non-AGF "promotional" allegations about me, on circumstantial evidence that ''three other editors'', none of whom I know, are also refuting. One of those disinterested third parties agrees that Nola Carveth appears to be attempting an ]. And despite having four editors, myself included, telling him to lay off this harassment, he is obsessively combing through ''10 years worth of edits'' to make accusations.


The article states that ] demurred being cast in the role upon finding that out. for this claim is a ] on ], which contains the sentence
Other editors have told him he's off-base, and I have told him to stop obsessing about me and stop harassing me on Jimbo Wales' talk page, at . When I finally, after one polite request, asked him to heed four editors and stop this remarkably personal harassment, he would not. When I said I would need to escalate this to ANI if he keep harassing me, he told me to go ahead.
: ''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'':
Have you ever seen anything like this, where someone registers with the apparent agenda to go after somebody? No matter what I or anyone else says, he simply continues on this obsessive path &mdash; "building a case" from some 45 edits out of nearly ''95,000'' in ''10 years''. This is obsessive, and I sincerely request help to end this harassment. With thanks, ] (]) 01:27, 7 February 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.}}
:I've seen that kind of thing many times, and typically it's a block-evading sock. ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 01:29, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
:Yeah it sounds like a blocked editor with a grudge. - ] (]) 01:31, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
*]. ] (]) 03:11, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
{{archive bottom}}


This was reverted () by {{u|Darkwarriorblake}} with the comment ''not what the source says''.
== Revert war at ] ==
{{archive top|See ].}}


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.()
One editor says is fodder because the "altercation" is only "possible". The other says it is an active police investigation and therefore is germane. Need eyes, please. &mdash;]<b>&#47;</b>] 02:39, 7 February 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;...}}
:Edit warring reports go ]. --] (]) 02:42, 7 February 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''
Procedural: If you're going to close something as moved, do you not have to actually move it first? &mdash;]<b>&#47;</b>] 02:50, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
:Happy? You won't get the needed response here warrior, head to edit war board, or better use twinkle for a nice neat report. ''']'''<sup><small>(])</small></sup> 02:53, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
::]? &mdash;]<b>&#47;</b>] 03:17, 7 February 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.''
{{ping|ATinySliver}} please read ]. Admins, we need page protection. ] (]) 03:10, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
:I am quite familiar with NOTNEWS, and I stand by my assessment that the data is germane. &mdash;]<b>&#47;</b>] 03:16, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
::In that case I recommend a topic ban based on the BLP sanctions already in place. You have been edit warring over a TMZ source, contrary to the stipulations of the sanctions. ] (]) 03:29, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
:::Unnecessary; I am fucking done with this article. If this is the response to ] efforts to improve the encyclopedia, I'll just revert to my own tiny sliver. &mdash;]<b>&#47;</b>] 05:04, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
{{archive bottom}}


This is where the reason for me to raise this at this board begins, because that's solidly an example of ]. It came on top of a revert which reintroduced a claim cited to a rumor in a blog post into a featured article, but that's really not my concern, because if the champions of the featured article process have decided that it's somehow acceptable for our "best" content then I'm just going to move on to something else rather than argue.
== Vandalism report of ] ==
{{archive top|Article deleted. Nothing to justify blocking here, but the user has been appropriately warned. ] <sup>(])</sup> 07:40, 7 February 2015 (UTC)}}
Hello, I am reporting a user named ]. I am reporting him for creating-vandalising an article called "]". I tagged the article with a deletion tag due to copy-paste material and a wrongly formatted article, with no sources whatsoever. I am requesting the article be deleted and this user be blocked, due to him , when clearly that article should be deleted. I would like somebody to look into it ASAP! '''] <small>]</small>''' 04:59, 7 February 2015 (UTC).
{{archive bottom}}


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''.
== Conduct unbecoming a sysop ==
{{collapsetop|ANI is not RSN ] <sup>'']''</sup> 11:04, 7 February 2015 (UTC)<br />
Endorse Spartaz. RSN is certainly a place more apt. All collapsed discussions are now archived. --] ♠ ] ♥ ] 13:33, 7 February 2015 (UTC)}}
{{archive top|Consensus is that TMZ is at the ] end of sources and its use should be avoided on BLPs where possible. Nobody has been blocked; further discussion should continue on the talk page or ]. ] ] ] 09:54, 7 February 2015 (UTC)}}
{{see also|Misplaced Pages:Edit warring#User:Winkelvi and User:ATinySliver self-reported by User:ATinySliver (Result: )}}


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 ]''
Sysop: {{u|Seicer}}


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 .
I have now been threatened twice with blocks by this sysop; for something that never happened and suggesting I would "persist" in an "edit war" that consists of one and one , the latter made more than two hours ago.


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


===Followup===
Finally, "" is dismissive if not outright disparaging.
I just want to say that, now that we've had an ANI thread on the subjeect of Gordon Liddy's feelings about portraying the romantic partner of a gorilla, I can die happy.


While we're on the subject, recites that {{tq|Prior to his departure from the FBI in 1962, Liddy sought admission to various bars.}} I'm curious to know whether this is meant to imply that Liddy had a , and whether this could have had any bearing on the whole gorilla romantic partner situation. ]]
This cannot possibly be conduct becoming a sysop. Can it? &mdash;]<b>&#47;</b>] 05:00, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
{{abot}}
:TMZ is a celebrity gossip site (it's their slogan!), not a reliable source. Anyone who unreliable content from a gossip site to an article, despite warnings to the contrary, needs to be blocked. Yes, it's reasonable to say "we're done here" when you're editwarring to force an article to include information from an unreliable source. ] (]) 05:25, 7 February 2015 (UTC)


== User Stationmanagerskidrow removing information on ] page ==
: Good grief. My initial involvement was where I commented on ]'s self reporting of edit warring at ]. That edit warring involved , with a citation deriving from TMZ. TMZ is not a reputable nor a credible source. That's pretty well been established for some time now.
: A Tiny Silver brought up the discussion again at ] (I surmise not being satisfied with the responses he received at EW), where another individual commented on TMZ's lack of credibility. I linked to the EW discussion and added my two cents.
: The content, as-was, was not blockable unless the user was edit warring and continued to do so past the self report. The BLP issue wasn't serious enough that a user had to be blocked or the content deleted from record. I gave a general warning that future offenses could be responded to with blocks/deletions (especially if there is any personal information included, such as who attacked Bobbi).
: I didn't even see ] until he went .
: So you've shopped this around to two noticeboards and a talk page. And you haven't gotten a satisfactory response to your problem and you are blaming it on me. Swell. <small>] &#x007C; ] &#x007C; ]</small> 05:28, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
:: And an does not supercede policy or guidelines. And what's ]? <small>] &#x007C; ] &#x007C; ]</small> 05:37, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
{{od}}
I am seeing comments above such as ''"TMZ is a celebrity gossip site (it's their slogan!), not a reliable source. Anyone who persists in adding unreliable content from a gossip site to an article, despite warnings to the contrary, needs to be blocked."'' and ''"TMZ is not a reputable nor a credible source. That's pretty well been established for some time now."''


While I would tend to agree in the case of BLPs (which have a higher standard ), in general, multiple discussions at RSN show that the reliability of TMZ it is not as open and shut as the above comments imply. See
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*As well as .
Note that I am '''not''' commenting on any behavior by Seicer or ATinySliver. I have not examined the edits in question. I am simply pointing out that the reliability of TMZ outside of BLPs is not as open and shut as the above comments imply. --] (]) 06:01, 7 February 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)
: I took this away from one of the posts (you cited above): "Material about living persons available solely in questionable sources or sources of dubious value should be handled with caution, and, if derogatory, should not be used at all in biographies of living people, either as sources or via external links." If the source is in doubt, it's best to not use it - it's always better to be accurate than to be quick. The article can always wait for a more reliable source, or a source to validate the original origin. <small>] &#x007C; ] &#x007C; ]</small> 06:07, 7 February 2015 (UTC)


:User is now editing using ] ] (]) 03:34, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
I did not start an edit war; ''I ended it''. I reported myself as part of the "war" in an effort to be equitable while requesting clarity from editors and/or sysops who might actually be willing to provide an answer. Instead, I am confronted by someone who, in essence, is saying "the opinion of ''this'' single editor supersedes the opinion of ''that'' single editor" (despite circular arguments presented by ''this'' editor and actual evidence presented by ''that'' editor). I am perfectly willing, able and happy to abide by a consensus, ''were one actually reached''; I am ] instead (and threatened with formal excoriation), for doing everything right, by a sysop who is saying, in so many words, "fuck consensus, I ''am'' consensus, and I'll block you if you go against me." The article in question is off my watchlist, and permanently. &mdash;]<b>&#47;</b>] 06:21, 7 February 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)
: {{ec|3}} Come on, newspapers and magazines deal on the most basic of human emotions - fear, remorse and excitement. The use of the second one is gradually lessening, so... Anyway, I endorse siecer in this matter for his correct judgment. TMZ is not under any condition, a reliable source. NYTimes might but the Wikipedian community shall not approve the use of any such "gossip" websites as a source. --] ♠ ] ♥ ] 06:25, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
{{archive bottom}}
{{archive top|{{NAO}} The community consensus is that TMZ be not used for BLP purposes. Unarchived but collapsed discussion is now archived. Guy Macon and ATinySliver can go to RSN to address their concerns. That is certainly a place more apt that ANI in this case. --] ♠ ] ♥ ] 13:31, 7 February 2015 (UTC)}}
{{od}}
{{ec}} There is no consensus that TMZ.com is not a reliable source. (Again, BLPs have a higher standard; I am talking about non-BLP uses.) The reliable sources noticeboard links I gave above contain the following quotes (which should be read in context -- the same threads contain plenty of comments expressing the opposite view):


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)
*"Based on reporting by the New York Times and the Washington Post], I'd have to say, yes. TMZ.com does have a reputation for reliability." --Dlabtot 16:20, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
:The page was longer, but sourced (all but?) soley to the station's site and it's been trimmed down to what it is now. Given the repeated edit-warring by IPs I've semi-protected the page for two days for now. - ] <sub>]</sub> 07:59, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
::] and ] message added . I'm just about to make myself thoroughly ] by seeing what I can do about the ] article. ] (]) 🦘 09:11, 24 December 2024 (UTC)


== Insults ==
*"I would place it as borderline... it is a "gossip" site... but they are better than most when it comes to checking their facts on that gossip. I think it needs to be evaluated on a 'case by case' basis... carefully examining how the statement we are using it for is worded, and what exactly the TMZ article being cited says. In other words... we can not say it is reliable 'by its nature' but neither can we call it unreliable 'by its nature'." --Blueboar 16:47, 15 May 2009 (UTC)


*"TMZ.com is owned by Time-Warner and run by a fully qualified lawyer who states that everything they publish is checked for accuracy. This is not a tiddlywink little personal gossip blog. The word 'tabloid' has no meaning in the context of a website. The site deals in news about celebs. So what, big deal. This does not mean ipso facto all its material is junk. TMZ is a BLP source in many places on WP, e.g. Mel Gibson, Britney Spears, and many more." --RATEL 15:03, 18 May 2009 (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)
*"Not sure why you think this stuff in some way disqualifies TMZ as a reliable source. Nothing you've posted indicates that their reporting is anything but accurate." --Dlabtot 17:23, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
:Hello, Psychloppos. What action are you seeking to happen here? <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 09:42, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
::I have no idea which actions are warranted here. Maybe an admin could leave a message to this IP and this registered user and remind them that they should ] ? It would also be nice to remind them about ] and ]. Saying that I am "fuelled by an unhealthy obsession" or questioning my sanity do not seem to respect those guidelines. ] (]) 09:52, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
==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)
*"I think it's fair comment to note that TMZ is being 'used' as reliable source in many Biographies on Misplaced Pages. From this article New York Times it is stated that ''' 'The site has become a reliable source for the mainstream media' '''. I think it clear it's celebrity gossip site, therefore there are concerns regarding WP:NPV including WP:Weight, so care and caution must be used when citing with regard to WP:BLP (and I think all BL should be revisited in this respect) but I don’t think it can be argued that it is an unreliable source per se." --Amicaveritas 17:42, 18 May 2009 (UTC)


:Hello @Ratnahastin,
*"I believe TMZ is a reliable source. It was controlled by Time-Warner, the outfit responsible for Time Magazine; it is still controlled by AOL News. My local newspaper, The San Jose Mercury News, often uses TMZ as source.... TMZ is not a blog, does not appear to be self-published in the sense of a single author, and claims to vet its stories. --Glrx 06:33, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
:To start with I should admit that I am sorry for all the inconvenience that I may have caused as a result of my actions. It was never my intention to take people’s time or skew the conversation in a certain way. I appreciate the core idea to contribute the thoughts to the Wiki and share it borne in mind the overall rules and policies of this program.
:I understand your fears about the AI utilities you have mentioned on your site. Even when I was using AI for the grammar check or, for instance, to elaborate on some point in the text, I saw to my mismanagement that over the process we probably confused the readers and repeated the same information and thoughts, which I would never wish to happen again. From now on I will ensure that in the future the input which I provide to wikipedia fits the Misplaced Pages standard and is more personal. I will also not write walls of text and will not make assertations that do not have substantiated evidence in sources.
:As for subjects that concern the Raj and the sources from this period and the discussions we have had it seems that I have gone too far in demanding clarification for the same thing. That being the case, with the understanding that the consensus will be acknowledged, I shall not be inclined to reopen this discussion unless new substantiated evidence is produced. I don’t want to prolong the conversation or bring any more stress.
:I will strive to learn from my experience to be more productive in my interactions going forward. If there are other limitations or additional rules to which I have to stick to, I will receive them with pleasure.
:In the same respect, let me specially apologize for the inconvenience and thank all of you for bearing with us. That was why I wanted to remind all of us that we can and should keep collectively improving Misplaced Pages as a resource. <span style="font-family:Georgia,serif; color:#FF4500; font-size:120%; font-weight:bold;">]</span> 13:31, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
::This comment also has a typical LLM feel and contains meaningless statements such as "I understand your fears about the AI utilities you have mentioned on your site" and differs substantially from , although GPTzero said this is human input. - ] (]) 13:38, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
:::It seems human in that it contains some composition and grammar errors that I don’t think an LLM would produce. <span style="position: relative; top: -0.5em;">꧁</span>]<span style="position: relative; top: -0.5em;">꧂</span> 13:56, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
::::Thanks for the reply sir, I can't explain how frustrated I'm feeling from this morning which this user made me experience <span style="font-family:Georgia,serif; color:#FF4500; font-size:120%; font-weight:bold;">]</span> 14:02, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
:::The time when I messaged Vikram banafar I was casual not formal and second of all your saying doesn't prove anything "and differs substantially from your usual (non-AI) writing style" that's a straight up false accusation and utter nonsensical point and 3rd point being that GPTzero stated that this is a human input then that's an human input end of the question. <span style="font-family:Georgia,serif; color:#FF4500; font-size:120%; font-weight:bold;">]</span> 14:01, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
::::No it's really not the end of the story if GPTZero says "likely human". In fact I'd actively discourage people depending on tools like GPTZero in favour of their human senses ] than yet another computer program. And, frankly, what you're hearing from people here is we'd rather your casual, human, flaws-and-all style of writing over ChatGPT output "formal" report templates. They are doing the opposite of what you're looking for and have become disruptive. ] (]) 14:05, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::Man you still wanna do this? @] also says this doesn't seems AI generated to him and he used his actual "Human senses" to lean that way <span style="font-family:Georgia,serif; color:#FF4500; font-size:120%; font-weight:bold;">]</span> 14:10, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::Admitting that you have used AI for writing your comments and then saying that you have not used AI is not going to help your case. - ] (]) 14:36, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::You know what I think this is getting to the ] point. Having to tell somebody to have the basic respect of other editors to not subject them to text-walls of chatGPT garbage over and over again is a disruptive distraction from what we should all be doing. ] (]) 14:38, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::This ain't getting anywhere <span style="font-family:Georgia,serif; color:#FF4500; font-size:120%; font-weight:bold;">]</span> 14:59, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::I really don't understand the problem. Cuz I literally also said many where that yes I used AI but for expanding and grammar correction <span style="font-family:Georgia,serif; color:#FF4500; font-size:120%; font-weight:bold;">]</span> 14:54, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
::::If this combative approach is your "casual" style, perhaps your use of AI and its over the top politeness was an attempt to mask it. In any case, I think you are ] but for caste glorification given your obsession with a certain sub-caste. - ] (]) 14:33, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::im not obsessed with a certain subcaste but am sure is obsessed with British Raj sources. <span style="font-family:Georgia,serif; color:#FF4500; font-size:120%; font-weight:bold;">]</span> 14:56, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::I don't think that's better. ] (]) 15:44, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
::If we just temporarily put aside the AI-generated comments, can Nlkyair012 accept the view of experienced editors on Raj era sources and not push any viewpoint on a particulary caste? Because, to be honest, editors who have done this in the past usually end up indefinitely blocked. There is a low tolderance here for "caste warriors". <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 19:27, 24 December 2024 (UTC)


== Potential vandal trying to start edit war on the page for Frisch's. ==
*"TMZ.com certainly seems to me to be a tabloid site, and yet (perhaps because its chief founder is an attorney) it's scrupulous in citing and even posting public documents and quoting name law-enforcement sources. And reputable mainstream publications cite information attributed to TMZ (as they do not, perhaps with one or two exceptions over several years, things like the National Enquirer)." Tenebrae 15:45, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
{{atop|1=Page protected, and now this admin is flashing back to his youth going to Frisch's Big Boy in ]. - ] <sub>]</sub> 22:37, 24 December 2024 (UTC)}}
This user keeps using IP addresses in order to revert creditable information about who makes their tartar sauce. Please look into this user. IP Addresses used were 67.80.16.30, 66.117.211.82, and 216.24.107.180. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 15:17, 24 December 2024 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->


:Courtesy link ]. ] (]) 17:02, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
Simply asserting again and again that TMZ is not a reliable source is not a very compelling argument given the rather obvious lack of consensus on the reliable sources noticeboard. --] (]) 09:58, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
:<del>This sounds a '''lot''' like the same edit warrer I dealt with on ], down to the false accusations of vandalism, removal of sourced information, and apparent use of proxies (all the IPs geolocate to different places). I wouldn't be surprised if this is the same person.</del> I've asked RFPP to intervene. ] &#124; ] 21:05, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
::NVM, checked MaxMind for geolocation and they all are in the same general area. ] &#124; ] 21:08, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
{{abot}}


== ] inaccurate edit summaries ==
:BTW, is this the new standard here on ANI, where someone makes a claim that is unsupported by the evidence, someone like me tries to discuss the fact that there is no evidence for the claim, then the thread is slammed shut? Why the hurry to shut down discussions and suppress good-faith disagreements? Someone was warned that he would be blocked if he used TMZ because it is unreliable (proof by assertion). Does no one see that the appropriateness of such a threat hinges on whether TMZ actually ''is'' unreliable? --] (]) 10:14, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
::I can think of various occasions when TMZ was on top of a story, such as a celebrity death, and posting it on Misplaced Pages was delayed because of its alleged "unreliability" - despite the fact that their news story was borne out. ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 10:37, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
{{archivebottom}}
{{collapsebottom}}


== How long must a given IP address stay suspected of being a so-called "sockpuppet"? ==


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)
When any given IP user gets accused of being a sockpuppet of a named user (which should only be done if the IP user was abusing the system at the time of their writing, but is unfortunately sometimes done even without abuse from that IP user), and then if, for some dumb reason, that IP user is given the suspected-sockpuppet label, how long must it stay there--even if that IP user was never blocked, and regardless of how long, if for any time, the named user the IP is accused of socking was blocked? Is it just like that for the remainder of the Misplaced Pages's existence, or... what, exactly? And whose decision is that supposed to be, anyway? <small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 07:18, 7 February 2015 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
: Remainder of Misplaced Pages's existence would be more like it. It's the decision of SPI clerks entirely. And they can only be over-ruled by ArbCom. --] ♠ ] ♥ ] 08:08, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
:: Thanks, QEDK. But why, if most IP addresses are shared, and so a new person using that address then has to hold onto that label, as well as the named user never being let go of that? <small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 08:31, 7 February 2015 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
::: Shared IP addresses are blocked for a short period of time (the maximum can be ~2 months) - keeping in mind that it's shared. However, if we find a LTA from such an IP for years, admins will indef block the IP. --] ♠ ] ♥ ] 08:34, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
::::I believe IPs are almost never indef blocked - static ones are blocked for long definite periods. By the way, I think the relevant term is ''dynamic'' (vs '' static'') rather than ''shared'' - dynamic ones are re-allocated at intervals, sometimes very short ones, and I don't think sock tags would be left on those for very long. ] (]) 11:03, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
:::::By shared, he does mean "shared" i.e. when one IP is used by a number of people. For example, intranets which have only one exit point to the internet have one external IP address only and a WHOIS will only point to that intranet and not be able to pinpoint a specific computer in it, since all have the same IP address. Since, institutions and work places have a lot of computers, shared IP addresses save resources (i.e. hardware load and money) because only one or a few addresses need to be allocated. --] ♠ ] ♥ ] 13:20, 7 February 2015 (UTC)


== Lil Dicky Semi-Protection ==
== Lowercase sigmabot III ==
{{atop|1=] is thataway →. - ] <sub>]</sub> 22:34, 24 December 2024 (UTC)}}
] was semi-protected back in 2019. Now that five years have passed, could the semi-protection be lifted? ] (]) 16:25, 24 December 2024 (UTC)


:Ask at ] ] ] 16:28, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
:''Moved from ]''.
{{abot}}
I notice that ] archives some of the open discussions here when they have gone quiet for a few days, but not other open discussions which have gone equally quiet. Is this a malfunction to be reported, or some subtlety I have missed? Either way, it's darned annoying. &mdash; Cheers, ] (]) 13:38, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
: Yes, that's how it functions. The date of the last reply in a thread is taken into consideration. Add to that the no. of days defined in the template and that's when it will be archived. One more consideration is the no. of bytes and no. of threads remaining. For example, archiving will occur only when pages exceeds a certain no. of bytes and a talk page will not archive if the no. of threads falls equal to the one defined in the template parameter. If you could point me to the page, I could make more deductions. If you are sure, you can contact {{user|Σ}} and if you're sure that it's malfunctioning, you can go to ] and change the text to "false" with a reason in the edit summary and talk page message to Σ. --] ♠ ] ♥ ] 13:47, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
::This right here is the page in question.
::Here is ANI moments before the bot ran:
::Note the last edit timestamps in two discussions:
::* - last edit 10:40, 31 January 2015 (UTC), although the diff betrays it as 10:42:
::* - last edit stamp 22:06, 31 January 2015 (UTC), and in fact edited again at 22:47:
::At 00:41, 4 February 2015, Lowercase sigmabot III archived the topic edited more recently at 22:47 but not the topic that had lain unedited since 10:42:
::&mdash; Cheers, ] (]) 20:50, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
:::If you look at the code for the Conduct of J Doug McLean at the time of the archiving there is a {{tlu|User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1423566256}} which prevents the thread from being archived until 10 Feb 2015 11:04:16 GMT which was removed {{Diff2|646104245|when Drmies closed the thread}}. --] (]) 01:03, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
I followed the link above regarding Tom Ruen, because I couldn't find the correct page where the discussion is taking place anywhere else, and I assumed that since there were no closing remarks or actions finalizing anything that the discussion was still taking place , and there I added a comment/note describing my view, which is what I believe you do when trying to come to some consensus. <br>So next I hear about this I'm getting a warning about being disruptive of the consensus process, which in the light of my goal seemed like ironic duplicity and bullying ; Not accusing here, just saying that's how it looks to me. <br>I don't mean to complicate anything and I'm not trying to be disruptive, I like what Tom Ruen does for Misplaced Pages and I think these two are bullying him for territorial reasons. I have already given my thoughts on that, and now it appears to be happening to me, so I thought I should mention it, and this seemed to be the most appropriate place given it's the only ''active'' mention of Tom Ruen and the slanderous petty accusations against him that I can find. Thanks. ] (]) 01:15, 8 February 2015 (UTC)


== Request for Review of Neutrality and Repeated Actions ==
== ] on a site-wide purge of any mention of "libertarian socialism" ==
{{Atop|This complaint has no merit and does not require administrative intervention.--] (]) 18:08, 24 December 2024 (UTC)}}


Dear admin,
{{Userlinks|Darkstar1st}} has declared on the ] talk page that libertarians should like capitalism and that ], ] and ] are (apparently) some kind of myth. The editor has chosen to expunge that myth from WP by starting up edit wars on just about any page describing libertarian socialist politics:
I hope this message finds you well. I am writing to express my concern regarding Psycholoppos, who has repeatedly applied the neutrality dispute tag to content related to Randa Kassis. Despite previous clarifications, these actions suggest a potential bias, which could undermine the objectivity and integrity of the platform.


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


Thank you for your attention to this issue. Please feel free to reach out if further clarification is needed.
None of these mentions of libsoc are the least bit controversial, to my knowledge, and the political groups in question all describe themselves as libertarian, as typically confirmed by native-language articles. Offering citations doesn't seem to make any difference at all, so I don't know how to proceed. ] (]) 00:54, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
Hazar ] (]) 17:45, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
:Looked at the ref for PPK and Darkstar1st appears to be correct. All references to liberarianism are in reference to Öcalan, not PPK. Can't comment on others, but the user does seem to be editing specifically on this issue. ] ] <small>Please &#123;&#123;]&#125;&#125;</small> 01:38, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
:@], whether the NPOV tag is needed or not should first be discussed on the article's talk page. Also, see the large notice at the top of this page: you are required to notify the editor you are reporting. ]&nbsp;] 17:53, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
::The reference on PKK describes it as ], which is a strain of libertartarian socialism, and aligns it with ], a prominent libertarian socialist. ] (]) 01:54, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
::The editor is also called Psychloppos, not Psycholoppos. I have notified them for the OP. &ndash; ] (]) (]) 17:59, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
:::We need an RS that says specifically that it's libertarian socialist. Otherwise it's OR. ] ] <small>Please &#123;&#123;]&#125;&#125;</small> 03:35, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
:I wouldn't give a chatbot-written thread the time of day. HS, ]. —] ] <sup><small>] ]</small></sup> 18:05, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
::::I don't understand. That document ''does'' specifically identify it as libertarian socialist unambiguously, in exactly the same way that a manifesto proclaiming Maoism would identify a group as Marxist-Leninist. Bookchin's communalism is a form of libertarian socialism, just like a lemon is a type citrus fruit. B ⊃ A ] (]) 03:50, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
{{Abot}}
:::::Actually, you're assuming the result you want. You say a lemon is a citrus fruit, but another editor objects, unless you have a citation from a reliable source that says that a lemon is a citrus fruit, you can't use that in an article. If someone disputes it, you need a citation from a reliable source that says Maoism is a form of Marxist-Leninism, or you can't use it. Does your source say '''''specifically''''' that "Bookchin's communalism is a form of libertarian socialism" (or words to that effect)? If it doesn't, then it's not the source you need. Your prior knowledge is not sufficient, you need a source. ] (]) 13:48, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
::::::It doesn't specifically say it. ] ] <small>Please &#123;&#123;]&#125;&#125;</small> 17:48, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
::::::No, that's just patently silly. Misplaced Pages (on the articles for ], ], ], for example) is absolutely plastered in references confirming that Bookchin's communalism is uncontroversially a type of libertarian socialism. What you're saying is like saying it's OR to call a "poet" a "writer" because a source explicitly called him a "poet" and there's no reference literally saying "writer." I'm not offering my personal knowledge as a reference; it's just documented all over Misplaced Pages that one is a superset of the other. A square is a rectangle, so we don't need a reference on something being a rectangle if we have a source saying it's a square. More importantly, the editor has not objected as you say and has brought no credible objection or dispute to the discussion. This is just a continuation of the abuse already on the editor's rap sheet. ] (]) 19:04, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
:::::::"Common sense", for want of a better word, tells us that a lemon is a citrus fruit, and a poet is a writer. It tells us no such thing about the relationship between Bookchin's communalism and libertarian socialism. It is way outside the bounds of common knowledge, and therefore needs a source. ] (]) 21:20, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
::::::::Then "common sense" tells us, in the exact same way, that a Maoist is a Marxist-Leninist, especially when there's dozens of citations, all over WP, saying B ⊃ A -- same as references describing Bookchin, communalism and (shockingly) libertarian municipalism as libertarian. You can pick your favorite reference, but you're the first person to challenge this, as ] did not. So, I don't even understand why we're talking about it. ] (]) 21:39, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
:::::::::How does common sense tell us that the ] is libertarian socialist? Contrary to your claim upthread, I'm not aware of them ever having described themselves as such. —] (]) 17:51, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
::::::::::WSPUS was the US contingent of the ], which was described as libertarian socialist, for example, in (can't link directly, so search for "World Socialist Movement" and "non-state libertarian socialists"), among numerous other sources. "Common sense" would just be transitive logic. If we know where a superset belongs, we know how to describe a subset. ] (]) 21:39, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
* ] may well be ''wrong'', that is a content issue for discussion. However, if, as they claim, ] is not discussing the disagreement, we have a behaviour issue. All&nbsp;the&nbsp;best: '']&nbsp;]'',&nbsp;<small>18:45,&nbsp;4&nbsp;February&nbsp;2015&nbsp;(UTC).</small><br />
** A quick look shows that, for example, edit by Darkstar1st does have an edit summary that points to the a discussion section on the talk page. I think, therefore, that it would be a better plan to engage on the article talk pages than pursue this AN/I. All&nbsp;the&nbsp;best: '']&nbsp;]'',&nbsp;<small>18:54,&nbsp;4&nbsp;February&nbsp;2015&nbsp;(UTC).</small><br />

*In one edit Darkstar reverts the addition of a Spanish language source (in an article on a Chilean political party) with the edit summary "Engligh language sources only please". That is unjustified. We have no requirement for sources to be in English. For writing about political parties in non-English speaking countries particularly it would seem a particularly silly requirement.] 21:48, 4 February 2015 (UTC)


:On the face of it, this certainly appears to be a behavioural issue - and if Darkstar1st thinks that it is appropriate to remove all mention of a significant trend in the historical development of socialist thought from Misplaced Pages, as appears to be his/her objective, we need to do something about it. ] (]) 22:25, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Note that, as of now, the user is still edit warring and Wikilawyering all over the place. I don't feel like getting into fifteen separate games of revert pong, so I'll just let this roll on until someone wants to do something about the continuing pattern of disruptive behavior. ] (]) 23:28, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

:'''Recommend admin action'''. Well there is some pretty obvious POV pushing. It's a systematic removal of references to left wing libertarianism, presumably to POV push that it does not exist, and only right-wing libertarianism exists. So in effect it is vandalism, as a clear pattern has emerged. If left unhindered he may remove all mentions of left-wing libertarianism. --]&nbsp;] 23:47, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

:'''Comment''': there's a larger problem involving libertarian editors and articles. For an example, look what's happened to our article on ]. This kind of assimiliation of a non-libertarian topic, takeover, and OR is going on everywhere. Darkstar1st is only one of many editors engaging in this kind of behavior. ] (]) 03:42, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

:'''Comment''': I think part of the problem is that User:Finx is a bit clueless about citations and original research. ] In the example, Citation A, did not support the statement, but Citation B did. User:Finx did not understand that Citation B needed to be by the statement, not Citation A. Regarding original research, User:Finx seems to think that if a party is socialist, and says it has liberal/libertarian values, that makes it a libertarian-socialist party. What Darkstar1st seems to be trying to do is to clean up this kind of thing.--<span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva;font-size:10pt;color:#000000">] ]</span> 09:20, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

::Okay, I don't stoop to personal attacks, but if you want to charge me with being "clueless" on ANI, let's review the absolutely ''mind-boggling'' level of incompetence you have displayed on the ] article. First of all, the citation already present before the titular POV warrior arrived used the word "özgürlükçü" which, beyond any reasonable doubt (as was explained), translates to "libertarian" in this context. So, ''no further citation was even needed''. Assuming good faith, however, (and way beyond what is reasonable) the very first thing I did was add an inline ''English''-language citation from a respected authority on the subject with a quote that just could not possibly be any clearer: "the ODP, or Freedom and Solidarity Party, is a Turkish socialist libertarian party founded in 1996." This was removed and ignored. When I pointed this out, it was ignored ''again'' by both yourself and the POV warrior, followed by complaints about the original reference using "özgürlükçü" instead of "liberter" -- which are synonyms, as can be seen . When that objection clearly fell apart, the Wikilawyering moved on to '''ridiculous''' claims of OR: it's OR to assume that political groups claiming to be libertarian are... libertarian. I mean, this is just ''comedy''. "Liberal" and "libertarian" are mutually exclusive groups: one is capitalist, the other, in this (and practically any) context, anticapitalist. That is also ''not'' original research. It's the most basic level of comprehension you can have on the topic. Libertarian, outside of its isolated use in the US as another word for advocacy of laissez faire "free market" capitalism, universally means socialist. The ''libertarian'' qualifier in libsoc qualifies '''the type of socialism''' (to distinguish from ''state''-socialism), not the other way around, i.e. the type of libertarianism. When a socialist political organization declares itself libertarian, that means one thing only: libertarian socialism. If you are this confused or just know absolutely nothing about these topics, why not ask for clarification instead of calling others "clueless"? And, speaking of clueless, I invite you to find me '''one''' article on Misplaced Pages -- or anywhere else for that matter -- where "özgürlükçü" translates to liberal, let alone where that's a reasonable translation in the context of describing far-left socialist groups. The only thing in your contributions so far that would have even ''vaguely'' resembled a rational thought -- had it been concerning a non-socialist party -- is based off a funny Google translation error which you couldn't be bothered to verify when it produced an obvious absurdity. ] (]) 10:48, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

:Normally I would recommend a topic ban from libertarianian-related articles, but the editor's history shows that he has not made a positive contribution anywhere, and has carried out this type of editing in other areas such as the Tea Party movement. He's had years to change, but seems more interested in conflict than improvement of articles. So probably best to ban the editor and avoid having to discuss him at ANI again and again. ] (]) 17:00, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

===Restored this section from archive: Request admin attention===

I've restored this section from the archive ] as he is back to his old tricks: removing references to libertarian socialism.

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Equality_Party_%28Chile%29&diff=prev&oldid=646028069

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Socialist_Party_%28Netherlands,_interbellum%29&diff=prev&oldid=646028553

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=World_Socialist_Party_of_the_United_States&diff=prev&oldid=646028899

He previously removed references to these ideologies, put on tags, and now he is removing the socialist libertariansim, pretending that he did not put on these tags.

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Equality_Party_%28Chile%29&diff=645713026&oldid=645692112

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Socialist_Party_%28Netherlands,_interbellum%29&diff=645669261&oldid=645538134

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=World_Socialist_Party_of_the_United_States&diff=645518380&oldid=645442331

I've reported him for edit warring, which is pending. ]

Also see the original diffs. Definite POV pattern to his editing, I request admin action.

--]&nbsp;] 13:33, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

== IP user is on a spree of unsourced additions ==
{{archive top|Now blocked for disruptive editing by {{U|PhilKnight}}. I'm sure no one minds if I close this--thank you, participants, and thank you, Phil. ] (]) 16:14, 7 February 2015 (UTC)}}
IP user {{u|24.44.232.114}} keeps adding unsourced content to music articles. Almost every edit is about the same list called ]. I think he is trying to promote the list rankings. Diffs , , , , . Furthermore he has made a joke edit as well,Diff: --] ] 13:47, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
:Best place to report this ]. Generally quicker response time. ] (])(]) 14:04, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
::I decided to report it here because at first I wasn't sure whether it is obvious vandalism. I thought it would be better if we discuss this first as this might be a newbie who doesn't understand Misplaced Pages's rules and warning system.--] ] 14:13, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
:::Fair enough, might be worth leaving a message on their talkpage explaing what they need to do rather than the templates? Are you able to throw something together? ] (])(]) 14:18, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
::::Aside from the abdomen thing, is there anything that's an outright problem? I mean, if we found a good source, there wouldn't be a problem with including the bit about the list; the problem with adding unsourced stuff like this is that it forces us to work to find the source, not that there's an inherent problem with the information. Definitely not obvious vandalism. ] (]) 14:18, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
:::::Agree. But the problem is half of his edits are about the same list rankings. I was getting suspicious whether he is trying to promote this list. And I've advised him couple of times not to to add unsourced content. But he keeps neglecting my notifications.--] ] 14:23, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
{{archive bottom}}

== Repeated censorship of politician Michael Portillo's page ==

Ex MP and cabinet member Michael Portillo appeared on a BBC television programme and said that he has dual Spanish and British nationality and that his Spanish name is Miguel Portillo Blyth. I add this fact. ] keeps removing the information claiming variously that the reference isn't valid - it is per ], or inferring that Portillo was joking - for which he provides no evidence. Smerus mentions on his biography page that he was involved in politics in the same political party and town as Portillo. Consequently I believe that Portillo's article is being censored. It's all been discussed on the talk page - ]. Thanks, -- John <span class="plainlinks" style="font-family: Verdana; font-variant: small-caps; font-size: 9px; text-align: center;">(]&nbsp;<b>&middot;</b>&#32; ]&nbsp;<b>&middot;</b>&#32; ])</span> 16:18, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

: Correction is not censorship; the discussion on the talkpage does indeed speak for itself, and the opinions of other editors there will I am sure be taken account of by administrators. They may also note that I made a polite suggestion to ] today on that talkpage, at 13.39, about how this information could be used in the article if he wished. Instead of responding to this he has proceeded to make the above complaint (at 16.18 today). I am seriously upset at his utterly unjustified and aggressive suggestion that I am attempting to 'censor' Misplaced Pages; however, as I am not of a vengeful nature, I will merely suggest that he tries to be little less bumptious, and that he tries to ] with editors whose opinions differ from his. I haven't a clue what he is seeking to imply by posting bits of my biography here. It is the case that nearly 20 years ago, Portillo was my MP; and it is also true that we were then (but are no longer) members of the same political party. I do not see why this should prevent me interesting myself in his article on Misplaced Pages, any more than my interest in classical music has been held against me in writing on ] and others.

:As ] has been going on about this since last September, I hope that the opinion of administrators can bring closure to his aggrievement.--] (]) 17:05, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

== Historical revisionism and use of an unreliable source ==

{{user|Alesgeriy}}, a newly registered user, to ]. He cites http://www.historyoftruth.com/, a clearly POV website which is devoted to the Turkish ]. Interestingly, he calls the genocide , which is a widely used phrase in denialist circles.

Furthermore, he uploaded an copyrighted ] to the Commons which bears the POV caption "Muslims Protests Armenian Aggression Against Women".

He twice (, ) re-added the section. First time he called its removal by me "Vandalism" and the second time his edit summary was "it is a source for the subjekt about the Commemoration in Akdamar island". --] ] 17:41, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

:nonsense and a ridiculous claim from the user {{user|Yerevantsi}}. the subjekt is clearyly about Commemorated in Akdamar Island. It does not matter if this user like it or not, this commemoration takes place in Akdamar Island, and this topic isn't about genocide etc. {{user|Yerevantsi}} should stop his Vandalism, because this entry is comply with the rules ] ]

::First, and most important, '''this is ]'''. Also, the image ''does not belong'' on wikipedia. It is already tagged with ]. As well, this source does not seem to be ]. Basically, ]. If you believe it does, then please link to why you think it belongs. <span style="color: blue">--</span> ] <sup><span style="font-size:80%">]</span></sup> 18:15, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
::The image was . <span style="color: blue">--</span> ] <sup><span style="font-size:80%">]</span></sup> 18:37, 7 February 2015 (UTC)


i have chose this source because is English written. This entry belong here because is strongly associated with Akdamar Island and its about Akdamar ısland's history. the source is reliable because this commemoration is held every year, denial about this fact would be a hypocritical policy which is don't belong to wikipedia terms. btw theire is many such informative entry in wikipedia. and yes, the removal act with his comment "nonsense" of user {{user|Yerevantsi}} is vandalism. ]
:I'm not at all concerned with the source, or the information right now. (I have marked the source as unreliable.) I am most concerned that you insist on calling the edits by {{u|Yerevantsi}} vandalism. That is ] on your part. <span style="color: blue">--</span> ] <sup><span style="font-size:80%">]</span></sup> 19:58, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

so you trying to ] of the act of this users as "editing" ? that is ] on your part, at the same time your behavior ] me with your ] claimes <small><span class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 20:26, 7 February 2015 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:{{yo|Alesgeriy}} whoever's right, it's not vandalism. I won't comment on what it is, but it isn't vandalism. &mdash;] / ] 20:34, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
::I view this as a content dispute, and was commenting on behavior. I am not saying the content is incorrect or correct, I am merely providing note that your behavior is not proper. <span style="color: blue">--</span> ] <sup><span style="font-size:80%">]</span></sup> 20:43, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
i indicate the fact which is pretty proper, but your behavior towards this issue is ] and ] which i do not recommend to you <small><span class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 21:15, 7 February 2015 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:]. This will get us nowhere. <span style="color: blue">--</span> ] <sup><span style="font-size:80%">]</span></sup> 21:32, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
:*'''Recommend a block''' of Alesgeriy for ] reasons (including very strange use of links). ] (]) 21:23, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

==Misuse of rollback by exeprienced editor==
{{archive top|Rollback is undo without an edit summary. Please focus on resolving the content dispute without escalating it needlessly. If you see a pattern of abuse of rollback, you can complain about it, but as you admit, you don't want to spend the time to investigate it, so this thread isn't useful. Let's stop it early and refocus energy on deciding whether 1980 or 1979 is the appropriate date. The method used to revert a contested change isn't worth an argument. ] <sup>]</sup> 19:19, 7 February 2015 (UTC)}}
I bring to the attention of admins ] who treated me like a common vandal at ] with this . My reason for disappointment here is that I have read all the rules of rollback and have twice been turned down this feature yet I would have never used it where AFG is indisputable such as in my case. My reason for the change from 1980 to 1979 is that, apart from it not supported by a source, the article states in second paragraph that the song's debut was in 1979. Obviosuly there is the question of the version that is known to people and whether this was some kind of re-recording of a demo but these are all talking points, they are not reasons for flagrant abuses of rollback.

Furthermore, please see the following:
*, evidently AGF since the reverted version contained summary.
*, another case of non-vandalism, just an unsourced change.
* - attention being drawn to minor artist, not notable but nor a call for rollback either.
*, again, removal of external link rightly or wrongly but not a case of spam or vandalism and clearly a case of good faith.

These are just a few I found by looking quickly at the past three/four weeks. I'm not about to investigate how long this editor has had rollback and what other abuses he has committed but it looks like he is using it any old time he doesn't like the look of something. There is no problem reverting but summary should be used every time in these cases. --] (]) 19:02, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

:Without commenting on the value of the report I want to point out that David Gerard has rollback by virtue of being an admin. I mention this because when it is a non-admin with rollback it can be taken away without much red tape. ] 19:11, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

:You changed it to something it couldn't be, without adding a reference. Did you have a reference? (That it debuted in 1979 does not mean it was recorded then.) Also, this is ridiculous - ] (]) 19:13, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

:I will also point out BSGT that it is often better to talk with the person before reporting them. ] 19:14, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
{{archive bottom}}

== User Binksternet deleting discussion of his deletions from his talk page ==

Diff

Diff

User Binksternet keeps deleting discussion of his deletions from his talk page, with claims of "vandalism"/ "trolling", in spite of admitting "the truth of what you were inserting". This is not constructive, only obstructive to well-meaning IP-editors editing.

Binksternet deletes WP-content he actually agrees with, according to himself, only to embroil IP-edits in edit warring where he then games the system to exclude the primary edits and their content. That seems unconstructive to WP. <small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 21:20, 7 February 2015 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

:He is free to delete whatever he wants from his own user talk page. You can discuss his edits on the talk page of the article. ] <small>(])</small> 21:22, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
:: :: Tnx - didn't know that. It still seems an unfactual way of handling attempted constructive criticism, even though acceptable. Sorry to've forgotten signing. ] (]) 21:33, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
:In the comment you posted on his page, you called him "Binky" and signed yourself "Kris", as if this was a name he would know. Do you have an account on Misplaced Pages, and, if so, why are you editing as an IP? ] (]) 21:25, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
::Last month, the IP 80.212.111.41 tried to post the to ], and left on Binksternet's talk page. I presume this was you. The material you posted this time has been removed from the article by multiple editors, but not by Binksternet, so your current comment seems like an egregious and unwarranted slap at him. On top of what would appear to be block evasion, I wonder if an admin might consider blocking both of these IPs? ] (]) 21:36, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
:::] is you as well, I presume. ] (]) 21:50, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
:::And ]. Your edits to ] and ] were deleted by a number of editors as being OR, unencyclopedic, unsourced, etc. Didn't stop you from repeatedly restoring, though. That behavior got one article protected, and got <s>one</s> two of your IPs temp blocked. ] (]) 21:55, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
::::That last IP also left disparaging notes to Binksternet on his talk page. There's a pattern here. ] (]) 21:59, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
:::] joins the group. Editors with accounts are not allowed to use multiple accounts to avoid scrutiny of their edits, but editors without accounts who have dynamic IPs avoid scrutiny just by the nature of the beast. Perhaps we shouldn't allow dynamic IPs to edit, only static ones. ] (]) 22:04, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
::::I don't think that would be fair. <span style="color: blue">--</span> ] <sup><span style="font-size:80%">]</span></sup> 22:09, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
::::::Actually, what's not fair is the situation right now. ] (]) 22:35, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
:::::::Sorry, these q's appear too fast to keep up. Tried re names and got an 'edit-clash', and lost the reply. The name, actual, was an attempt at being personal and constructive, acknowledging edits in spite of power-outage changed IP. As I'm not sufficiently familiar with the arcania of WP-rules, and not really interested in time-consuming learning to master it and the intricacies of wp-bickering, I'm outta here. No block evasion, though - rather the contrary by acknowledging by real name. Tnx for the discussion, it's been interesting. Now to real-world issues :-). Good luck to you all, and tnx for replies. * And 'edit-conflict' happened again (!). I'm deluged, sorry. ] (]) 22:12, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
::::::::No real need for an answer from you, those IPs are obviously all you. And calling a person you don't know by a diminutive version of their name is insulting, which I would guess (from the content of those "constructive" messages) was your intent. You were annoyed that your unsourced, OR, or poorly sourced BLP edits were being deleted, and you lashed out at one of the editors doing it -- but the very fact that multiple editors have removed your contributions from verious articles means that you're not getting it. ] (]) 22:43, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
:::::::::: 'Edit conflict' happened again, with entry below. * Your claims and accusations are entirely subjective. E.g. abbreviating a long name according to convention, with first syllable + "y", is no insult. In addition, disparaging my clarification as "no need for an answer" is in itself a condescending attempt at insult - so you're overreacting and being unfactual. I repeat, my edits were/are all about including correct info on WP. E.g. why is the statement "Bootlegs exist" re Fogerty's "Hoodoo" unacceptable to you, when they most certainly do, as amply demonstrated on Youtube? - That's a fact just silly to delete. In spite of whatever pretext of sourcing-faults applied. Let it rest. Or btr yet, improve the ref.s yrself, accomplished WP-editor that you appear to be. (Unless, of course, you have some ulterior motive for deleting verifiable facts - like not liking that smbd tried to keep those facts on WP. But that wouldn't be the case w you, would it? - Sure hope not). - Still trying to get out of here, w/o too many misconstructions left standing.] (]) 23:27, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

::::::::: I was trying to remember where I had heard an editor call ] "Binky" before and it was in the course of the hubbub prior to ] with one editor receiving an indefinite block and several others receiving topic blocks. I don't if there is any connection but since Binksternet has stated he doesn't like that nickname, I thought it was curious to see it again. <font face="Rage Italic" size="4" color="#800080">]</font> <sup><font face="Times New Roman" color="#006400">] ]</font></sup> 23:01, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Question to you all: Is there anywhere some kind of crash-course in WP-editing which doesn't lead to swamping in details and exceptions to rules?
Is there some way for sporadic IP-editors to make sure facts remain on WP without biased editors going hunting to keep those facts off WP?
Or is this last a currently unsolved problem on WP, where 'fair warning' needs to be presented all prospective IP-editors (or maybe such 'fair warning' is a good idea: a short txt telling of how a simple edit may lead to endless entanglement in disputes and accusations from up to 7.3 billion editors?). Or maybe simply a warning that there may be deep layers of incomprehensible attacks coming if one tries to contribute? Or is this smth one must risk wading into unwittingly, like an invisible quagmire? Maybe a simple, friendly warning that "there be monsters" off the map should be publicized? ] (]) 00:16, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
:Why do you need a crash course? You seem to have the mind of a steel trap.- ]] 00:36, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
:^^^^ Priceless. &#8213;]&nbsp;] 00:44, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
:: Haha - good one. Funny - tnx for inserting some much needed humor into this. :-) But not really helpful re issue.] (]) 01:22, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
::Hard to tell why the IP isn't blocked yet, but if he's targeting just a short list of articles, maybe those articles could be semi'd, hopefully precluding the need for a range block. ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 00:54, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
::: Targeting nothing, baseball-head - just contributing facts. Check it out. If you dare look at facts. - Gee, WP appears just chock full of people seeking fights not facts. 'Fair warning' should be served. :-)] (]) 01:22, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
::::Right. I always heed the advice of IP-hoppers. ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 01:24, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
::::: Found smth on it, how to edit WP: http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Plain_and_simple + http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Plain_and_simple_conflict_of_interest_guide.
:::::Tnx for nothing, Baseball-head et al. As for 'IP-hopper' - say that to the electricity provider, I'm sure they'll thank you for yr input (maybe they'll electrocute you as reward? ;-). ] (]) 01:34, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
::::::Guess you also think that calling someone "Baseball-head" is not insulting either.<p>'''''<u>Admin assistance requested, please</u>''''' This IP doesn't seem to be here to improve the encyclopedia. '''''If''''' the IP is dynamic, and he's not just IP-hopping to avoid scrutiny of his editing, is there nothing that can be done to put him on ice? ] (]) 01:52, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
::::::: Well, 'Baseball-head' at least seems no worse than 'Baseball-bugs" (as the editor calls hirself). But if you feel insulted on hir behalf for some humor here, apoplectologies to you. Unless humor is Beyond Yr Ken? Why so aggressive about excluding others from WP? - You sure "seem to be here" to quarrel rather contribute to WP yourself. And you still haven't replied to why you insist the factual info "Bootlegs exist" re Fogerty's "Hoodoo" should be excluded, instead preferring to attack the contributer to be "put on ice" (killed?) - is that constructive? ] (]) 02:08, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Blocked the IP. Let me do some cleanup. <small>] &#x007C; ] &#x007C; ]</small> 02:20, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
: Protected ] and ] for one year. <small>] &#x007C; ] &#x007C; ]</small> 02:25, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

== Username hard block ==
{{archive top|Not going to happen, no point in wasting time on this. --] 22:07, 7 February 2015 (UTC)}}
{{userlinks|Tedickey}}

Currently, that username is a blatant violation of our ]. First, it begins with the prefix "Te-", which is good, but the suffix "-dickey", is not. I suggest that this account be '''blocked indefinitely'''.

He was making constructive edits to Misplaced Pages. However, it says that, according to ] and ], users are not permitted to edit with bad usernames. I think we should not deal with that username. And of course, I should notify this user later on. ] (]) 21:58, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
:Or it could be ], you know. --<font face="Book Antiqua">]&nbsp;<sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub></font> 22:00, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

::Is it just me, or is it curious that this user has edited with no complaints about his username for over eight years, and this complaint is the IP's first edit? I think there's more than meets the eye here. Recommend no action against Tedickey. —''']''' (]) 22:03, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
{{archive bottom}}

Recommend reopening. Dicks are fine, but we don't need any teabaggers here. --] 01:34, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
: +1 <small>] &#x007C; ] &#x007C; ]</small> 01:38, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

== Obvious impersonator of ] ==
{{atop|Shown the door by the original.] (])(]) 23:47, 7 February 2015 (UTC)}}
] obviously trying to impersonate ]. Swift block might be useful. ] (])(]) 23:44, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
:Hey, don't deny me the joy of blocking my own impostors! ;) ] &#124; ] 23:45, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
::Noted, could you add a '''Here/Not here''' line on your userpage so i know if your about or not for future reference :). ] (])(]) 23:47, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
{{abot}}


== Disruptive behavior from IP ==
== Unnecessarily aggressive and uncivil behaviour by ] ==
For the past month, {{ip|24.206.65.142}} has been attempting to add misleading information to ], specifically trying to use the unofficial "777-200LRF" designation beyond first mention in the relevant section and passing it off as official (, , , , , , , , , , ). Their behavior died down for a few weeks, but restarted several days ago (, ), including that {{u|Fnlayson}} is "okay with it". They have been asked numerous times on ] to either stop or provide evidence of official use of the designation, but they have failed to do so and have continued their disruption. - ] <sub>]</sub><span style="color:#6B8E23">\</span><sup>]</sup> 19:51, 24 December 2024 (UTC)


I forgot to mention that this user has used at least two other IPs; {{ip|24.206.75.140}} and {{ip|24.206.65.150}}. 24.206.65.142 is the most recent to cause disruption. - ] <sub>]</sub><span style="color:#6B8E23">\</span><sup>]</sup> 20:10, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
Degen has entered into a revert war at ] with me and one other editor. When I tried to get him to take the issue to the talk page he ignored that invitation and reverted again . He has since reverted ] bringing his total revisions to that page to 4 in less than 24 hours. I tried to engage him in discussion at his talk page and he responded at mine by accusing me of not reading an article I largely wrote . When I tried to work out a compromise with him, he responded with a highly uncivil message about how he's the ] in all this.


:"777-200LRF" is not misleading, some cargo airlines do use that designation. Today I reverted to a previous version that ] was okay with . I feel that ] is going overboard with charges of misinformation and disruptive editing. ] (]) 19:59, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
All this from a seemingly seasoned editor and one who was only this morning granted pending changes reviewer privileges. I propose that Degen Earthiest is blocked on the grounds of disruptive editing/3RR violation in light of his revisions to the article in question against two different editors and in light of pushing unsourced claims into the article. I also think his last message to my talk page makes his competence to hold pending charges reviewer permissions highly questionable. ] ] 01:40, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
::It is misleading to remove any mentions of it being unofficial. Boeing has never made a "777-200LRF", no aftermarket conversion has ever been offered under that name, nor has the FAA or any other regulatory agency ever certified such an aircraft. To pass such a designation off as official is by definition misleading and misinformation. Likewise, to continuously do so after you have been told to stop by multiple people and falsely claiming that others support your arguments is by definition disruptive. - ] <sub>]</sub><span style="color:#6B8E23">\</span><sup>]</sup> 20:06, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
:This might be better sent ] as the place for reporting edit warring. I'll take a look and move it if appropriate. ] (])(]) 01:56, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
::Of note is the fact that this is not the first time the IP has claimed to have Fnlayson's support. ] not to assume support without a specific statement, yet it seems they've also ignored that. - ] <sub>]</sub><span style="color:#6B8E23">\</span><sup>]</sup> 20:23, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
::True, but the issues I raise go beyond just edit warring. Hence why I brought it to AN/I. ] ] 01:59, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
:::Its not misinformation as here are the sources which use "777-200LRF", including GE Capital Aviation (the engine supplier for most Boeing 777) and Leeham News (to avoid confusion with the upcoming 777-8F). ] (]) 21:06, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Looking at it it does look more like a ] issue, the comment on your talk apge although not nessecarily very civl doesnt appear actionable on its own. There doesnt appear to have been an abuse of anything related to ] so I've filed a report at ]. I wont close this without your agreement though. ] (])(]) 02:06, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
::::I have asked you for sources from either Boeing or the FAA, yet you still either refuse to do so or (more likely) cannot because they don't exist. Only Boeing and the FAA can designate factory-built Boeing aircraft. Airlines and misinformed news websites have no authority to do so, and any alternative names they use are purely unofficial and should not have anything more than a single brief mention in the appropriate article section. Your ] to get that after numerous people have told you is disruptive. - ] <sub>]</sub><span style="color:#6B8E23">\</span><sup>]</sup> 22:14, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
:Relevant range is {{rangevandal|24.206.64.0/20}}, in case somebody needs it. ] &#124; ] 21:02, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
*Semiprotected ] for two days. - ] <sub>]</sub> 22:33, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 15:24, 25 December 2024

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

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

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

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

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

    Disruptive editing and WP:TALKNO by User:AnonMoos

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    None of this matters

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

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

    Disruptive editing by User talk:185.146.112.192

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Request for closure

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

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

    Creating the need to make 400,000 unnecessary edits

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

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

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

    User:Augmented Seventh

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    User:ZanderAlbatraz1145 Civility and Content #2

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

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

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

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

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

    SPA User:Tikitorch2 back at it on Martin Kulldorff

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

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

    User talk:International Space Station0

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

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

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

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

    Disruptive editor on When the Pawn...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Multiple users breaking 3RR on Gilman School article

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

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

    Awshort (talk)

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

    Vandal encounter

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

    diffs:

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

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

    User:Glenn103

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

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

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

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

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

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

    North Korean involvement in Russian-Ukraine war discussion

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

    Key Points:

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

    Request for Administrative Action:

    I respectfully request that administrators address the following issues:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Concern About a New Contributor

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

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

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

    Dear Wikipedians,

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

    I believe your experience could help address this situation effectively.

    Looking forward to your advice on how to proceed.

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

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

    Darkwarriorblake making aspersions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Followup

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

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

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

    User Stationmanagerskidrow removing information on Radio Skid Row page

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

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

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

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

    Insults

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

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

    Nlkyair012 and LLM chatbots

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    User:Nadeem asghar khan inaccurate edit summaries

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

    Lil Dicky Semi-Protection

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

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

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

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

    Request for Review of Neutrality and Repeated Actions

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Disruptive behavior from IP

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

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

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